A DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, Against the EXCEPTIONS OF Monsieur de MEAUX, Late Bishop of Condom, AND HIS VINDICATOR. The Contents are in the next Leaf.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVI.   

THE CONTENTS.  

I. THE Preface: containing a farther account of Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition, with an Answer to his Exceptions against my former Preface.  
II. The Defence of my Exposition; being a full Reply to whatsoever has been alleged against it by the Vindicator: particularly as to the false citations, he pretends, of Their Authors, and misrepresentation of their Tenets.  
III. Appendix: Being a Collection of some pieces relating to this controversy, viz.  


1. The account of Monsieur de Meauxes Pastoral Letter, taken out of the last Nouvelle, etc.  
2. A summary of Father Crassets' Doctrine, of the Worship of the B. Virgin.  
3. The Opposition between Card. Bona and Monsieur de Meaux in the same point.  
4. A Copy of Monsieur Imbert's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, giving him an account of his beiong persecuted by the A. B. of Bourdeaux, for maintaining the Doctrine of his Exposition.  
5. The Letter of S. Chrysostom to Caesarius, suppressed by some Doctors of the Sorbonne, for being contrary to their Canon of Transubstantiation; with an Account of that whole transaction.  
6. An account of Authors cited by me, with their Editions, to prevent any new Calumnies.      

THE PREFACE.  
MY former Treatise of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, has given so full an account of the Occasion and Design of Monsieur de Meaux 's Book, as might supersede the Necessity of adding any more upon that subject. But being called to a necessary justification of what I there advanced, not so much by the weak defence of his Vindicator, embarked with him in the same Cause; as by the flat denial of Monsieur de Meaux himself, of the principal foundation on which that Account was built; I hope I shall need no great Apology, if upon this Occasion I enter somewhat farther upon a new History than might otherwise seem absolutely necessary for my defence, and by comparing this method of Expounding with some others of a different Nature, which have of late been sent abroad by those of the Roman Communion, endeavour to show what the real intent of them all has been; and what the design of those who now pursue the same Method among us, may reasonably be supposed to be.  
It is I presume at this time not unknown to any, what great Endeavours have been used in our neighbour Nation, for the reducing of those of the Reformed Religion to the Roman Communion. And it must be confessed indeed, they have omitted nothing that Language and Sophistry could be made to do, for the Attainment of so great an End.  
The Jansenists were some of the first who began this work: and it is not to be doubted but that Persons of their avowed reputation in point of Learning, and who seemed to have had this means only left them to regain the favour of their King, whose design they pursued; would be sure to offer something worthy themselves, and proportionable at once both to the Work itself, and to their Engagements to it.  
The first Attempt they made was a little piece, that has since given Occasion to a very long Controversy between Monsieur Arnauld and Monsieur Claude; 
La perpetuité de la foy de l'Eglise Catholic, touchant l'Eucharistie. Ann. 1664.  of the Perpetuity of the Faith as to the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. A Tract which if we regard only the neatness and subtlety of the composure, it must be avowed scarce any thing ever appeared more worthy that Applause it met with in the World: And the design, though expressed in one particular only, yet so applicable to all the rest; that were the Argument good, the Church of Rome would have needed no other defence for all the corruptions that had, or could possibly creep into it.  
But the Sophistry of this method has been sufficiently exposed in the Volumes composed on this occasion. And indeed without entering on a particular Examination, any Mans own reason will tell him at first sight, that a Logical subtlety advanced against matter of Fact, may be worth the considering for the curiosity of the undertaking, but like the Philosopher's Argument against Motion, will never be able to convince any, but such as want Diogenes 's demonstration to expose its Sophistry.  
In effect, the design of this first Method amounted to thus much; That Transubstantiation (and the same might have been said of any other point in dispute) was visibly once the common Doctrine of the Church: And 'tis impossible it should have been so then, had it ever been otherwise before. And this to be believed upon the strength of a sophistical Argument, 
Albertinus de Eucharistiae Sacramento. Fol.  notwithstanding all the evident instances of matter of Fact, which Monsieur d'Aubertine and others have at large collected to the contrary.  
The next Attempt, and that as useful and universal as the former, was by another of the same party, and with no less applause, whether we regard the novelty of the invention, or the neatness of the performance: And his Method was, 
Prejugez tegitimes contre les Calvinists. An. 1671.  by advancing certain matters of fact, which he calls just prejudices against the Calvinists, to show that without entering into dispute about any of the points in debate, the bare external consideration of the Protestants in the manner of their Reformation, and some other particulars, was enough to show, that the truth could not possibly be on their side.  
But alas! this too proved an Argument too weak to stand the first examination that was made of it: and Monsieur Pajon, 
Examen du liure qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes, etc. An. 1673.  who undertook the defence of his Party against it, has shown that in his proof he has not only advanced an Argument that might indifferently be brought against all sides, but which a 
* Monsieur Jurieu Prejugez legitimes contre le Papism An. 1685.  late Author has since proved, to be ten times more strong against themselves, than it could ever be thought to be against us.  
I shall not undertake an exact account of all the other Methods that have succeeded these, with less Applause, and as little Effect. One, as is said by the same Author, 
Les Pretendus Reformez convaincûs de Schism. 1684.  was published not long since to prove us guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome, whether we had sufficient grounds or not for our so doing: And that for this reason, because however the learned Men of our party might have been convinced of the reasonableness of it, yet the generality being uncapable of forming such a judgement, must have separated without reason, and so have been Schismatics. And if their Separation was at first unlawful, their Return will now by consequence be necessary to them.  
How far this method might heretofore have concluded with those whom it principally concerns, the vulgar and ignorant, I cannot tell; but God be thanked there are few now so ill instructed in their Religion, but what will have enough to free them from the sin of Schism, if the knowledge of a sufficient reason of their Separation may be allowed to do it.  
Thus much only I will beg leave to observe on occasion of these several methods that have been proposed for our Conviction, That the great design of them all has been to prevent the entering on particular Disputes, which had hithexto been the way, but such as experience had taught them to be the least favourable of any to them.  
And the same is the design of the late peaceable method set forth by Monsieur Maimbourg; in which from the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith, confessed, as he says, by us, he proves, That the Church, in which both parties once were, must then have had this Authority over us all; and to whose decision in the Council of Trent, we all by consequence ought to submit.  
It is not necessary that I should here say any thing to show the Weakness and Sophistry of these several Methods: That has been the business of those particular Examinations, that have with success enough been made of them. This I suppose may at first sight appear upon the bare proposal of them, That they have more of Ingenuity than of Solidity. in them; and were, no doubt, designed by their Inventors, to catch the unwary with a plausi le show of that Reason, which the Wise and Judicious know them to be defective in.  
How far we may conclude from hence, as to the Nature and Design of Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition, I shall leave it to others to consider. This is undeniable, That as it came out at a time when these kind of Methods were all in repute, and with a design to help forward the same great business of Conversion then in agitation; so has it been cried up by those of that Communion as exceeding all others in order to that End; and if we may believe their reports, been above all others the most happy and successful in it.  
It is not easy to conceive that a Person of Monsieur de Meaux 's Learning, should seriously believe, That a bare Exposition of their Doctrine should be sufficient to convince us of the truth of it. He could not but know that our first Reformers were Persons abundantly qualified to understand the real profession of a Church in which they had been born and bred; and in which many of them were admitted to holy Orders, Priests and professors of Divinity. Nor is the Council of Trent so rare or so obscure, that a mere Exposition of its Doctrine should work such effects, as neither the Council nor its Catechism were able to do. In a word Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses, His design was to represent his Church as favourably as he could; to take off that hideous and terrible form in which the Ministers, 
Advertisement Pag. 2, 4.  he says, were wont to represent Popery in their Pulpits, and expose it in its natural dress, free from those frightful Ideas, in which it had so long been disguised by them.  
One would imagine by this discourse that the whole business of the Ministers of the Reformed Religion, was to do nothing but invent new Monsters every day, and lay them to the Church of Rome: And that after all our pretences to Peace and Union, we were really such Enemies to it, that we did all we could, even by Lies and Calumnies, to keep both ourselves and the people from it. But indeed these hideous Ideas Monsieur de Meaux speaks of, if they are such false representations as he pretends, they are not the Ministers that invent them; but their own greatest Zealots, their Schoolmen, their Bishops, their Cardinals; nay their very Popes themselves that have been the Authors of them.  
How far Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition differs from what they have delivered us as the Doctrine of their pretended Catholic Church, has been in some measure shown already, and shall in the following Discourse be more fully evidenced. And whosoever shall please to consider the Eulogies and Approbations, which these Men have received, no less than Monsieur de Meaux, will be forced to confess it to be at least a disputable point, Whether the Ministers, from these Authors, have represented their Church in a hideous and terrible form; or whether Monsieur de Meaux rather has not, instead of removing the Visor to show her in her natural dress, a little varnished over her Face to hid her defects, and make her appear more charming and attractive than her own natural deformity would otherwise permit her to do.  
Now of this a more convincing proof cannot, I think, be desired, than what I before advanced, and see no reason yet to retract; viz. 
Exposit. Pag. 3.  That out of an extraordinary desire of palliating, he had proceeded so far, as in several points wholly to pervert the Doctrine of his Church. Insomuch that when his Book was sent to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation, they corrected so many places in it, that Monsieur de Meaux was forced to suppress the whole Edition, and change those places that had been marked by them, and put out a new and more correct Impression, as the first that had ever been made of it.  
This Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to deny as an utter falsity; 
Vindicat. Pag. 8, 9  For that he never sent his Book to the Sorbonne; that their custom is not to Licence Books in Body; and that 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. In a word, that it is a manifest falsity to say that a first Edition of his Book was suppressed, because the Doctors of the Sorbonne had something to say against it. That he never did publish, not cause to be printed, any other Edition than that which is in the hands of every one, to which he never added nor diminished one syllable; nor ever feared that any Catholic Doctor could find any thing in it worthy of reprehension.  
This is indeed a severe charge against me, and such, as, if true, it cannot be doubted, but that I have been as great a Calumniator as his Vindicator has thought Fit to represent me; or, as for aught I know, Monsieur de Meaux himself will be in danger of being reputed if it should be false. And therefore to satisfy the World in this main, fundamental point between us, I do hereby solemnly declare, That there was an Impression of the Exposition, such as I spoke of; That out of it I transcribed with my own hand, the several Changes and Alterations that are placed at the end of my Preface; That this Book, with these differences is at this time in the hands of the Reverend Editor of my former Treatise, and that whosoever of either Communion is pleased to Examine them, may when ever he will have free liberty so to do.  
This I the rather declare, because Monsieur de Meaux is so positive in it, as to charge me with no less than the pure Invention of those passages I have cited from it. 
Vindicat. Pag. 12, 13.  As for those passages, says he, which they pretend I have corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbonne, 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. For answer to which I must beg leave once more to repeat it too; That these passages are for the most part Chimerical Inventions indeed, but yet such as He once hoped to have put off as the Doctrine of his Church, and as such sent them into the World, in that first Edition we are speaking of; out of which I have transcribed them in as just and proper terms as I was able to put them in; and I appeal to any one, that shall please to examine them, for the truth and sincerity that I have used in it.  
But here Monsieur de Meaux has got an Evasion, which, if not prevented, may in some men's Opinion take off this seeming contradiction betwixt us, and leave us both at last for the main in the right! 'Tis true, says he, 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 contained 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. So that now than it is at last confessed that an Edition there was, such as I charged them with, different very much from what we now have. But that it was an Edition printed without Monsieur de Meaux' s Knowledge; and the changes which he made afterwards were only as to the Order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Style.  
As to this last particular, the Reader will best judge of what kind the differences were, by that short Specimen I have given of them. If to say in One, 
Collect. n. ●.  That the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is Religious, nay that it ought to be blamed if it were not Religious; In the Other, to doubt whether it may even in some sense be called Religious: If to tell us in the One, 
Ibid. n. 12.  That the Mass may very reasonably be called a Sacrifice; In the Other, that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice. If to strike out totally in several places, Positions that were absolutely of Doctrine, or otherwise very material to the Points that were so; as in several instances it appears he has done; If this were indeed only for the advantage of the Order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Style, I am contented. I accuse not Monsieur de Meaux of any other alterations than such as these.  
And thus far we can go certainly in Reply to his Allegations, beyond a possibility of denial: For what remains, though I do not pretend to the like Evidence of Fact, yet I will offer some Reasons why I cannot assent to his pretences even there neither.  
That the Impression was made with Monsieur de Meaux' s Knowledge, if not by his express Order, whoever shall consider the circumstances of Monsieur Cramoisy who printed it, either as a Person of his Reputation and Estate; or as Director of the King's Imprimerie; or finally as Monsieur de Meaux' s own Bookseller; will hardly believe that he would so far affront a Bishop of his Church, and one especially of Monsieur de Meaux' s interest and authority at that time at Court; as to make a surreptitious Edition of a Book, which he might have had the Author's leave to publish only for the ask.  
But further: This pretended surreptitious Edition had the King's Permission to it, which could hardly have been obtained without Monsieur de Meaux' s knowledge. It was approved by the Bishops of France in the very same terms that the other Editions have been since; which seems more natural to have been procured by Monsieur de Meaux himself, than by a Printer, underhand, and without his knowledge and connivance. In a word, so far was Monsieur de Meaux from resenting this injury, of setting out his Book so uncorrectly, and without his leave; that the very same Cramoisy, the same Year, Printed the Exposition with his leave, and has continued to Print all his other Books ever since; and was never that I could hear of, censured, for such fraudulent dealing, till this time, by the Bishop or any other. All which put together, I must beg leave still to believe as I did before; that there was not only a first impression, which is at length allowed; but that this first impression was not made without Monsieur de Meaux's Order or Knowledge.  
As for the other Point, and I think the only remaining in this matter, concerning the occasion I mentioned for the suppressing that first Edition; the Reader may please to know, That a Person by many relations very intimate with one of the Mareshal de Turenne ' s Family, upon the publishing of the pretended first Edition of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, first discovered to him the mystery of the former, and showed him out of the Mareshal's Library the very Book which, as he then assured him, had been marked by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, and lent it him for some time as a great Curiosity. The knowledge of this raised the desire of endeavouring, if it were possible, to retrieve a Copy of it: But the Edition was so carefully dispatched, that the most that could be done was to get so many scattered Sheets of it, as to make at last a perfect Book, except in some few places in which it was transcribed from the Original of the Mareshal, word for word, page for page, and examined by the Person himself, who was so kind as to bestow it on me.  
This is the Book to which I refer the Reader; and for this I have the Attestation of the same Person under his hand, at the beginning of the Book; that it is in every part a perfect Copy of Monsieur de Turenne ' s marked by the Sorbonne Doctors; and I have been besides so just to Monsieur de Meaux, as to cite scarce any thing out of those places that were in the Manuscript part, but have chosen such rather where the printed Copy gave me full Assurance and Authority to do it.  
But to argue the improbability of all this, Monsieur de Meaux observes," That the Sorbonne is never used to Licence Books in Body. And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell us, 
Vindicat. Pag. 8.  who ever said or thought they did? That that venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops, who are naturally and by their Character Doctors of the Church, than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors. I doubt not but the Sorbonne very well knows the respect that is due to Bishops: but that it should be any argument of disrespect to approve a Bishop's Book, when it was sent to them for that purpose, I cannot conceive. In short, we understand the Reputation and Authority of that venerable Company too well, to believe it at all improbable that Monsieur de Meaux should desire their Approbation; nor are we so little acquainted with their Books, as not to know, That it is no unheard of thing to see Doctors of the Sorbonne setting their approbation to a Book, approved and authorized by Bishops before.  
The next Exception Monsieur de Meaux makes, is, 
Vindicat. Pag. 9  That I should confirm what had before been urged against him, of a Papist's answering his Book; in the truth of which I am as little concerned as himself can be. Only the assurance I have had of it from a Person of undoubted sincerity, makes me still believe that it was so: and Monsieur de Meaux may remember that Monsisieur Conrart often professed that he had seen it in Manuscript; who was not only his old Friend, but as himself characteriseth him, 
M. de M's Advert. p. 3.  One endowed with all that the Catholics themselves could desire in a Man, excepting a better Religion.  
For what relates to Father Crasset, it is not for me to contradict Monsieur de Meaux' s Declaration, 
Vindicat. pag. 10.  that he never read his Book; But that he never heard it mentioned that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition: this I must confess is admirable, whether we consider the notoriety of the thing, as it related to the Salutary Advertisements and the Bishop of Tournay's Pastoral Letter, which made so great a noise in France; or that it was particularly proved, in the Answer to his own Advertisement dedicated to Monsieur de Ruvigny, above five Years since, 
Seconde Reponse. p. 79, etc.  to be directly opposite to his Exposition. And for the rest, 
For all this, see the Appendix. num. 2.  I must beg leave to believe, whatever Monsieur de Meaux flatters himself with; that that Father would be so far from being troubled that any Body should think his Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux' s, that I dare say he would rather think his pains but ill spent in Writing of so large a Book, did he not believe he had convinced the World that he looks upon them, nay and has proved them too, to be little less than Heretical.  
As for Cardinal Capisucchi, 
Vindicat. pag. 10.  Monsieur de Meaux tells us, he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine of the Exposition, that his express Approbation has been prefixed to it. This indeed were a good presumption that he should not have any Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux; 
See Appendix num. 3. where I have showed Cardinal Bona another of his approvers, to be nevertheless in his own Writings contrary to Monsieur de M's Exposition.  but if what I have alleged out of his Controversies be really repugnant to what he approved in the Exposition, it may indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be, but the contradiction will be never the less a contradiction for his so doing.  
The next thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is, The relation of Monsieur Imbert and Monsieur de Witte. The Stories are matters of Fact, and the Papers from whence they were collected published by themselves. 
Vindicat. p. 10, 11.  If they alleged Monsieur de Meaux' s Authority for Principles that he maintained not, 
For what concerns Mr. Inbert, see his own Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, Appendix, num. 4. For Monsieur de Witte's case it has been already printed, and I have nothing new to add to it.  this concerns not us; nor, whatever the little Comment on the Bishop ' s Letter pretends, was it at all needful to be shown by me that they did not, in the recital of the propositions held by them. 'Tis sufficient that they both declared themselves to stand to Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition; and were both condemned, without any regard had to Monsieur de Meaux's Authority; or being at all convinced, or so much as told, that they were mistaken in their pretences to it.  
The last thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is, 
Vindicat. p. 14.  That I reflect upon him for being fertile enough in producing new Labours, but sterile in answering what is brought against his Works. I do not at all envy Monsieur de Meaux's fertility; his productions have not been many, and those so short, and with such an ingenuous Character of temper and moderation as aught to be acknowledged even in an Enemy. But I must confess I do admire, as many others do, that no Reply has been made by him to those Answers that have been sent abroad not only against his Exposition, but even against the Advertisement itself, which he says can bear no Reply. 
See de la B's. Answer to the Advertisement p. 5.  This we so much the rather wonder at, for that an Answer was openly promised by Monsieur de Turenne, and not without some kind of boasting too; And that several of his own Communion were so well satisfied with the pieces that had been published against Him, as to expect, no less than We, some such Vindication.  
And here I shall take my leave of Monsieur de Meaux, for whom I must yet again profess, that I still retain all that respect that is due to a Person whose Character I honour, and whom I hope I have treated with all the caution and civility that the necessary defence of myself and of the truth would permit me to do. For what remains, my business now must be wholly with his Vindicator, who has been pleased to fix such an odious Character upon me, as I hope to make it appear I have as little deserved, as I shall desire to return it upon him.  
Had he charged me with Ignorance, had he loaded me with mistakes arising from thence; or had he imputed to me the faults only of Carelessness and Incogitancy: All this might have passed without my Censure; and I should have been so far from vindicating myself, that I should have been ready, in great measure, to have acknowledged the Charge, and to have submitted to his reproof. I know how little fit I am for controversies of this kind; That neither my Age, nor Learning, nor Opportunities have qualified me for such undertake, as the defence of my Religion and my duty to my Superiors have, without any design of mine, engaged me in. And I doubt not but a Censor less severe, than he who has thought fit to make himself my Adversary, might have found out more real faults in my Book, than he has noted pretended Errors.  
But for the Calumnies and Misrepresentations, 
Vindicat. pag. 22.  for the unsincere deal and falsifications, he accuses me of, and that in almost every Article; here I must beg leave to justify myself; and assure the Vindicator, whoever he be, that my Religion, I thank God, needs not such defences, nor would I ever have used these means to assert it, if it did.  
We have indeed heard of some that have looked upon these things as not only lawful, but even pious on such Occasions; that have esteemed the interest of the Church so sacred, as to be able to sanctify the worst means that can be made use of to promote it: Had I been bred in their Schools, there might have been some more plausible grounds for such a suspicion; and what wonder if I did no more, than what I had been taught was lawful for me to do? But I have not so learned Christ. 
Ephes. 4.20. Rom. 3.8.  I have been taught, and am persuaded, that no Evil may be done that good may come: I am assured by S. Paul that they who say it may, their damnation is just: And did I now know of any one instance of those crimes, whereof I am represented to the World as guilty in almost every Chapter, I should think myself indispensably obliged to made a public acknowledgement of it, and thank the Vindicator that has called me to so necessary a duty.  
But now that I am not conscious to myself of any thing of all this, all that I have to reply to this uncharitable way of proceeding is, to entreat him by the common name of Christian, and those hopes of Eternity, after which I believe we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend, to consider how dangerous this way he has taken is; what mischief it will bring, in the opinion of all good Men, of whatsoever persuasion they be, to the very cause that is maintained by such means: in a word, what a sad purchase it will prove in the end, if to lessen the reputation of an unknown, obscure Adversary, he should do that which shall lose him his own Soul.  
But it is time now to clear myself of those Calumnies that are laid to my charge. And the first is, 
Vindicat. pag. 2.  That I endeavour to represent Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition as a Book that palliates, and prevaricates the Doctrine of his Church; and the very Approbations of it, as mere artifices to deceive the World, not sincere, much less authoritative Approbations, either of the nature or principles of Monsieur de Meauxes Book.  
I do not remember I have any where in express terms charged Monsieur de Meaux with prevaricating the Doctrine of his Church in the latter Editions of his Book; though others I know have done it. But however, if this be the greatest of those Calumnies I am guilty of, I am sure all that have ever lived among them, and seen their practices, and compared them with what he writes, will easily absolve me: and I shall hereafter show that either Monsieur de Meaux has palliated, or else the greatest of their Authors have strangely perverted the Doctrine of the Church.  
As to the other part of the Accusation, that I should say that the Approbations were mere Artifices to deceive the World, it is not my Calumny, but the Vindicator's mistake. 
Expos. of the C. E. pag. 15.  I never thought those Letters Monsieur de Meaux has published any authoritative Approbations of his Book at all; Indeed in the place which he citys, I have said somewhat like it of the 
* Of which see more in the Appendix. n. 3. p. 120.  Pope's Brief, and am still of the same mind; and till he shall think fit to answer the reasons that induced me to believe so, he will hardly persuade me that this is a Calumny.  
But if I am so little satisfied with the Approbations of Monsieur de Meaux 's Book, 
Vindicat. pag. 3.  I should at least have had some more authentic testimonies of what I myself publish. And he thinks it wonderful, that my Book should have found such a reception as it did, only from my assuring the World that I had not palliated, nor prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England; but submitted it to her Censure; and the sight of an Imprimatur; when the Approbations of so many Learned Men, and even of the Pope himself, are not thought sufficient to secure Monsieur de Meauxes Treatise.  
This indeed were somewhat, if the truth of the Exposition were on either side to be taken from the number of the Approvers, and not the nature of the Doctrine. If Monsieur de Meaux has really palliated the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, 'tis not any number of Approbations that will be able to render him a faithful Expositor. If my Exposition be conformable to the Doctrine of the Church of England; (and if not, let him show us the prevarications;) the want of a few Letters can at most argue only my interest not to have been so great as his, or my Vanity less; but will not render the Exposition ever the more unfaithful. And though an Imprimatur be all the Authority that is usual with us on such Occasions, yet the Vindicator may believe, by the reception he acknowledges the Book to have had, that it would have been no difficult matter to have obtained other Subscriptions than that of the Reverend Person who Licenced it; and if that will be any satisfaction to him, I do assure him, it has been approved by several other Persons but little inferior, whether in Authority or Reputation, to any Monsieur de Meaux has prefixed to his Exposition.  
For what remains of my Preface, two things there are which he supposes worthy his Animadversion: One, that whereas I accuse Cardinal Capisucchi to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition, 
Vindicat. Pag. 17.  we must take notice, that the Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets, but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church, which was 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.  
It is the Catholic distinction of this Author throughout his whole Vindication, if any thing be alleged contrary to his liking, that it is presently a Scholastic Tenet, and not the necessary and universally to be received Doctrine of the Church. But that we may, if possible, discern what is the Doctrine, and what the Scholastic Tenet in the present case, we will take only what at first sight offers itself, viz. That Cardinal Capisucchi does positively affirm, 
† To satisfy the Vindicator what the Cardinal's words are, I will give them at length. Ex his constat & in concilio Nicaeno Secundo, & in Tridentino, aliisque, Latriam duntaxat Idololatricam Sacris imaginibus denegari, qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seipsis & propter ipsas exhibeatur, quaque Imagines 〈◊〉 Numina aut Divinitatem continentia more Gentilium celantur; de hujusmodi enim Latriâ controversia erat cum Judaeis & Haereticis, qui haec ratione nos Imagines colere ass●ebant. Caeterum de Latriâ illa quae Imaginibus S. Trinitatis, Christi D. aut Sacratissimae Crucis exhibetur, ratione rei per eas repraesenratae, & quatenus cum re repraesentat● unum sunt in esse repraesentativo, nullamque divinitatem Imaginibus ●●ibuit●aut supponit, nulla unquamfuit antesse potuit Controversia. Art. 8. p. 647.  That a Divine worship may be paid to Images, upon the account of the thing which they represent; and that this Doctrine was never doubted of in the Church, nor denied by the Council of Trent.  
Does Monsieur de Meaux allow of this? Does he tells us that a Divine Worship may upon any account be paid to an Image? Or rather does he not plainly insinuate that he can hardly allow the Image any honour at all; 
Monsieur de Meauxes Expos. pag 8.  We do not, says he, so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image. Let us then lay aside the barbarous distinctions by which he would excuse a foul Idolatry; Be it a School nicety, or whatever you will else, 
Vindicat. pag. 19  Whether the representative Image as representative, be representatively one and the same with the thing represented: Our Question without this Gibberish is plain and intelligible; Whether, upon any account whatsoever, the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross be to be worshipped with Divine Worship? This the Cardinal affirms; and this if Monsieur de Meaux does allow, let him speak it out without mincing; If not, 'tis plain for all the pretences of a Scholastic nicety, that they differ in the Exposition of a very material point of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.  
The other thing which the Vindicator thinks fit to take notice of in my Preface, 
Mindicat. p. 16, 17, 19  is the Consequence which I draw from this, and some other instances of the like kind, viz. That the Papists think it lawful to set their hands to, and approve those Books, whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike.  
In Answer to which, he again distinguishes between Scholastic Tenets, and matters of Faith: and then tells us, 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; but as for Scholastic Opinions, we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught, and another the quite contrary; but even one University against another in the same Country, etc.  
But if I mistake not, this is not to answer my Conclusion, but to start a new Question. The Point proposed was, not whether in matters that are not of Faith, Men may not hold different Opinions, and yet live still in the same common Church, whereof there can be no doubt, but it was a Conclusion drawn from plain matter of fact, viz. That those of the Church of Rome think it lawful to set their hands to, and approve those Books whose principles they dislike. This the Instances I have brought show plainly they do; If they know it to be a sin, and yet do it, they condemn themselves; If they think otherwise, than they believe it to be lawful; which is all I affirmed, and to which the Vindicator has answered never a word.  
There is yet one thing more remaining before I close this; and that is the remark the Vindicator has made upon the passages collected by me out of Monsieur de Meaux 's first Edition, 
Vindicat. pag. 20.  which have either been altered or omitted in the following Impressions: viz. That the Bishop in that Edition had been so far from proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, loosely and favourably, as I pretend; that on the contrary he rather proposed it with too much strictness: In a word, that he had been so far from perverting the Doctrine of the Church, that I was not able to propose one Doctrine so perverted, without a forced interpretation of my own, according to my wont way of turning all things to a wrong intention.  
As to the first of which, no one ever charged the Bishop with proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome loosely and favourably in every point. We know well enough that in some, he has kept to the plain Doctrine of his Church, as in that of the Eucharist: in others proposed it rather with too much strictness, as in the case of Infants dying unbaptised: All we say is, that in some other Articles, such as the Invocation of Saints, Worshipping of Images, Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. he had expounded it more loosely and favourably than he ought to have done, and that without any gloss or interpretation of mine to turn things to a wrong intention.  
Does not the Church of Rome lay any Obligation on particular persons to join with her in the Invocation of Saints? 
Collect. n. 5.  Does she condemn those only who refuse it out of Contempt, and with a spirit of dissension and revolt? This Monsieur de Meaux once affirmed, and I think there needs no comment to show, that this is to palliate the Doctrine of their Church.  
Has the Church of Rome ascribed not other virtue to Images, 
Ibid. n 6.  than to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent? Is that all the use they make of them? Do they not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image? Or rather, did not Monsieur de Meaux here also mollify the known Doctrine and practice of his Church?  
In a word: 
Ibid. n. 12.  Is the Church of Rome contented to teach only that the Mass may very reasonably be called a Sacrifice? Is that Exposition reconcileable to what we now read in him, That there is nothing wanting to make it a true Sacrifice. May I not here at least, without my wont way of turning all things to a wrong intention, beg leave to say, that either Monsieur de Meaux palliated the Doctrine of his Church in that, or he has otherwise perverted it in this?  
Had Monsieur de Meaux only retrenched or altered some things in his Book, for the greater exactness of the Method or neatness of Style; he must have been a very peevish Adversary indeed, that would have pretended to censure him for that. But to change not only the words but Doctrine too; to give us one Exposition of it in one Edition, and a quite contrary in another, this I think may, if not be represented as a heinous crime, 
Vindicat. pag. 21.22.  yet at least deserve a remark; and let the Vindicator do what he can, will I doubt make the Author pass with all indifferent persons, for such as yet I had never represented him, had not he himself first made the dilemma, viz. 
M. de M's Advert. p. 2.  One that either did not sufficiently understand the Doctrine of his Church, or that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright.  
I should now pass to the consideration of those Exceptions that have been made against what I have advanced in my Book itself; but before I do this, it will be requisite that I take notice of those directions, the Vindicator has thought fit to give me in his Postscript, in order thereunto.  
And here, not to deceive either his, 
Vindicat. pag. 12●, 12●.  or the Reader's expectation; I must beg leave to excuse myself from entering any farther into dispute with the Bishop of Condom, than I have already done. I never designed a direct answer to his Book; and the reflections I have made upon it in my former Treatise, were more to clear the Doctrine of the Church of England, than to argue against what he offered in behalf of the Romish Faith. This has been the undertaking of another Pen, from whom the Vindicator I suppose may expect, what is reasonably enough refused by me.  
But for the other part of his desire, that I would take the pains to peruse myself the Authors cited by me, 
Vindicat. pag. 121.  and not transcribe Quotations, nor take up things by halves; I have been so scrupulous in observing it, that I doubt I shall receive but little thanks from himself for it. It cannot be denied but that there have been faults enough committed on both sides for want of this care, and I do not desire to add to the number. I have done my best to take nothing of them without a serious Examination of their sense, 
Ibid.  and a sincere application of it to the point in Question. How far I have attained this I must leave it to others to judge; but for the rest, the truth of my Citations, I have been so cautious in them, that allowing only for the Erratas of the Press, I desire no favour if I am found faulty in that.  
I should indeed stand in need of a large Apology to those, into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall, that I have in many places run them out into so great a length: But the Accusation that has been brought against me for want of doing this before, how unjust soever it be, has obliged me to this Caution now; and they are so ordered as to be no hindrance to those that are minded to pass them by.  
This benefit at least I shall attain by them, with those who please to compare them with what the Vindicator alleges; that they will find he might have spared himself the troublesome, 
Vindicat. pag. 122.  and ungentile Office indeed of undertaking what he could not effect, to demonstrate to the World the unsincerity which I have shown in my Quotations, and the falsifications of them; His endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccessful, that I know not whether himself or his Religion will suffer more by the weakness of his attempt.   

A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in the following TREATISE.  

PART I.  
I. INtroduction. Page 1  
II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God. Page 6  
III. Invocation of Saints. ibid.  
IV. Images and Relics. Page 14  
V Justification. Page 25  
VI Merits. Page 28  
VII.  


1. Satisfactions. Page 32  
2. Indulgences. Page 35  
3. Purgatory. Page 36     

PART II.  
VIII. Sacraments in General. Page 37  
IX. Baptism. ibid.  
X. Confirmation. Page 39  
XI. Penance. Page 41  
XII. Extreme Unction. Page 42  
XIII. Marriage. Page 52  
XIV. Holy Orders. Page 53  
XV. etc. Eucharist. Page 54  
XIX. Sacrifice of the Mass. Page 67  
XX. Epistle to the Hebrews. Page 69  
XXI. Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine. Page 70  
XXII. Communion under both kinds. Page 71   

PART III.  
XXIII. Of the written and unwritten Word. 75  
XXIV. etc. Authority of the Church. 77  
XXVI. Authority of the Holy See. 82  
XXVII. The Close. 83    


THE EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England, Vindicated, etc.  

ARTICLE I. Introduction.  
HE that accuses another of great and heinous crimes, aught to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those faults which he condemns in others. Had the Author of the Vindication thought fit to govern himself by this rule, he would have spared a great part of that odious Character he has been pleased to draw of me, in the beginning of this Article. But it is not my business to recriminate, nor need I fly to such arts for my justification. Only as to the advantage he proposes to himself from these endeavours, 
Vindicat. pag. 22.  viz. to show that all those Books to which an Imprimatur is prefixed, will not hereafter be concluded free from Error; He needed not sure have taken such pains for that: For I believe no one before him ever imagined that a permission to print a Book, was a mark of its Infallibility; Nor that every nameless Author, 
Vindicat. pag. 22.  who professes to be sincere, should pass for an Oracle. It is not to be doubted but that faults there might have been in my Book, for all that privilege; though the Vindicator has had the ill fortune to miss the most of them. And for aught he has proved to the contrary, I believe it will in the end appear, that an Imprimatur Car. Alston, is at least as good a mark of Infallibility as a Permissu Superiorum; and a Church of England Expositor, as fit to pass for an Oracle, as a Popish Vindicator.  
But Calumny and unsincerity are now the Catholic cry: And to make it good against me, I am charged in this one Article to have been guilty of both. 
Vindicat. pag. 23.  My Introduction is Calumny in a high degree, and my state of the Question, drawn from thence, as unsincere.  
I tell them, he says, of adoring Men and Women, Crosses, Images, and Relics; of setting up their own Merits, and making other propitiatory sacrifices for sin than that of the Cross: And that these are all contrary to their pretended principles, that Religious worship is due to God only; That we are to be saved only by Christ's Merits, and that the death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice. The Logic of which he is content to own, that the Consequence is good, but the Accusation, he says, is false, and the charge, Calumniatory.  
But if in the following Articles it be made appear, that their own Authors do allow of all this: If they do give a divine Worship to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed; If their very Missab and Pontifical do command them to adore the Cross; If it appear that their Council of Trent damns all those who deny the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the Dead and Living, and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the Cross: If, finally, their greatest Writers do allow a Merit of Condignity, and that not as a Scholastic Tenet, but as the Doctrine of their Church, and agreeable to the intention of their Council they so much talk of; Then I hope the premises may be as clear of the Calumny they are charged with, as my inference is allowed to be just, for the consequence I would establish.  
In the mean time, 
Expos. p. 5.  pass we on to the state of the Question, which I propose in these terms; That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion, are at last by their own confession allowed to hold the ancient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith; And that the Question therefore between us is not, Whether what we hold, be true? But whether those things which the Roman Church has added as superstructures to it and which as such we reject, be not so far from being necessary Articles of Religion, as they pretend, that they do indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine, and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them?  
This the Vindicator says, 
Vindicat. pag. 24.  is to state the Question after a new Mode, and represent them as consenting to it. Let us see therefore what the Old way of stating it is, and wherein the insincerity he charges me with, consists.  
The true state of the Question betwixt us, 
Ibid. p. 25.  he says, is, Whether the Protestants or Papists do innovate? The Protestants in refusing to believe those Doctrines which the Church of Rome professes to have received with the grounds of Christianity, or the Papists in maintaining their possession: And the dispute is, Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their possession, for which, he says, 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, 
Ibid. p. 26.  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.  
In all which the only difference that I can find is this; That He presumes for his Church in the state of the Question, I for mine: I suppose the points in Controversy to be Superstructures which they have added to the Faith; He, that they are Doctrines received with the grounds of Christianity. In short, the point we both put upon the issue is precisely the same; viz. Whether the Roman Catholics ought to maintain their possessions of these Doctrines, or to quit them as Erroneous? Whether Protestants to embrace the belief and practice of them as true and lawful, or to continue, as they are, separate from the Roman Communion upon the account of them?  
But where then is my unsincerity? In this I suppose, that I seem to insinuate as if the Roman Church granted that we held the ancient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith. What others of that Communion will grant, I cannot tell; but whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meauxes arguing from Monsieur Daillè's concessions as to this Point, 
See his Expos. §. 2. p. 2.  will find it clear enough that he did; if the Foundation consists of Fundamental Articles, and that we are on both sides agreed in these, as his discourse manifestly implies. But the Vindicator, jealous for the Authority of his Church, and to have whatever she proposes pass for Fundamental, confesses that we do indeed hold a part, but not all those Articles that are Fundamental. This therefore we must put upon the issue, in which we shall not doubt to show them, that those Articles their Church has added, are so far from being Fundamental Truths, that indeed they are no Truths at all; but do by evident and undoubted consequence, as I before said, and as the Vindicator himself confesses, 
Vindicat. Pag. 23.  destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental.  
But if I have not mistaken the Question between the Papists and Protestants, 
Vindicat. pag. 26.  I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me. He tells us our present Question, which we are to examine in the following Articles, is, Whether Monsieur de Meaux has faithfully proposed the sense of the Church declared in the Council of Trent? And thereupon asks me, What it does avail me to tell them, That I will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what we can approve, and what we dislike in their Doctrine? To which I reply, That it avails very much to the end I propounded in my Book, viz. To give a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Points proposed by Monsieur de Meaux. So that in reality the Question between us is this, Not whether Monsieur de Meaux has given a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which it has been the business of others to examine; but whether I have given a just account of the Doctrine of the Church of England. This was what I undertook to do, and what this Author ought, if he could, to have shown I had not done.   

ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God.  
IN this Article I am but little concerned. The Vindicator states the Case, what 'tis they mean by Religious honour being terminated only in God. He distinguishes between what they pay Him, and what they give to the Saints; how truly, or to what purpose, it is not my business to examine. Those who desire to be satisfied in it, may find a sufficient Account in several late Treatises written purposely against this part of Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition; and I shall not repeat what is so fully and clearly established there.   

ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints.  
I Might well have passed over this Point altogether, which has been so learnedly and fully managed, but very lately, in a particular 
† Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin and the Saints, in Answer to Monsieur de Meauxes Appeal to the fourth Age.  Discourse on this Subject. Yet since the Vindicator desires to know what Authority I have for my Assertion, That the Addresses which Monsieur Daillé allows to have been used by the Fathers of the fourth Century, were rather innocent wishes and rhetorical flights, than direct Prayers; but especially for that Accusation which he says I bring against them, viz. That they did herein begin to departed from the Practice and Tradition of those before them, I am content to give him that satisfaction.  
For the First then: That Monsieur Daillé himself looked upon them as no other than such Addresses as I have characterized, because 
* Expos. Monsieur de Meaux, pag. 4. §. 3. It will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the P. Reformation begin to acknowledge, that the custom of Praying to Saints was established even in the fourth Age of the Church. Monsieur Daillé grants thus much in that Book he published against the Tradition of the Latin Church, about the Object of Religious Worship.  Monsieur de Meaux has represented him as if he allowed that the custom of praying to Saints was established in the Church in the fourth Century; I than cited his Opinion to the contrary, and have now subjoined it in his own words 
† Monsieur Daille's words are these: Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum pato, qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad Sanctos invocandos gradum, cum calefacti atque inardescentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione, praedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos denique Invocandos prorumperent. Certè quae de 4ᵒ Seculo prima hujus Invocationis afferuntur Exempla, ea ferè sunt hujus generis. Ex Encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum & Erudition Seculari florentissimorum hominum in Sanctos Orationibus desumpta, Gregorii Nazianzeni in Cyprianum; in Athanasium, in Basilium; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum, qui ambo 4ᵒ sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, etc. Adu. Lat. Tradit. de cultas relig. Objecto, l. 3. c. 18. pag. 454. .  
Secondly: That these Addresses were really of this kind, the several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers, plainly show: And both the 
* The Examples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these: 1. Invectiv. in Julian. pag. 2. He thus bespeaks Constantius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2dly. Orat. 11. in Gorgon. p. 189. l D. He thus addresses to his Sister. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Examples I gave, and the differences I assigned, do abundantly prove it.  
That they could not have allowed of such an Invocation as is now practised in the Church of Rome, I proved from this plain Argument, 
* The opinion that the souls of just men do not go staright to Heaven, seems to owe its rise to the Verses of the Sibylls; which being very ancient (within 140 years after Christ) and by the most primitive Fathers taken for A thentick, drew the whole stream of the Writers of those times into the same mistake. Blondel in his Book of the Sibylline Oracles affirms l. 2. c. 9 p. 103. That all the Authors we have left us of the Second, and as far as the middle of the Third Age, were of that Opinion: And adds that even in the following Ages many of those very men Monsieur de Meaux has alleged for the Invocation of Saints, were involved very far in the same Error; viz. S. Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and S. Augustine. This is yet more fully shown by Monsieur Daillè in his Book the Cult. rel. Obj. l. 3. c. 22. p. 474. & seq. and in another of his Rooks de Poenis & Satisfact. where to the Father's last mentioned He adds S. Jerom l. 5 cap. 4, 5, 6. All which Sixtus Senensis himself confirms, Bib. l. 6. annot. 345. p. 569. and particularly as to the Fathers in question, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine. p. 571, 572.  That they believed that the Saints departed, were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease; and therefore, by the Papists own 
† Bellarm de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19 p. 2044. l. D. Not. est; quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moricbantur non intrabant in Coelum, nec Deum videbant, vec cognoscere poterant ordinary preces supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in T. V ut diceretur S. Abraham Ora pro me. See again c. 20. p. 2060. l. B. Sect. atque ex his duabus, collat. cum pag. 2059. l. D. Sect. alii dicunt. The same is Suarez's Opinion T. 2. in 3. D. Th. disp. 42. Sect. 1. p. 435. col. 1. l. E. Quod autem aliquis direct● oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quo sancti videntes Deum possant etiam in Eo videre Orationes quae ad ipsos funduntur. And this the common Doctrine of their Writers.  Confession, aught to have believed that they could not be prayed to. To all which the Vindicator is pleased to return never a word.  
In short, That the Fathers of the fourth Century did herein begin to departed from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them, I proved from this, 
† This I before challenged the Answerer to do, and he has not attempted it. Bellarmin has but two within the first 300 Years. One of Irenaeus misinterpreted, and one of Hilary, as little to the purpose. De Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19 p. 2047, 2043.  That they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first Centuries of any such Invocation; but rather have 
* So Cardinal Perron himself Repl. à la rep. du Roy de la grande Eretagre, liv. 5. cap 11, 19 Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meauxes shift of concluding from the following Ages what he could not prove from the preceding; and at last to confess freely, p. 1009. Quant aux Autheurs plus proches du siecle Apostolic, des quels la persecution neusra ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme _____ ill ●●ffit _____ qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repugnant a l'Eglise de 4. premiers Conciles, pour ce regard. Which is no more than Monsieur de Meaux himself insinuates, where to this very Assertion of Monsieur Daillé's I have made use of, he has only this to say, That 'tis not likely that Monsieur Daillé should at this distance understand the sentiments of the Fathers of the first three Centuries better than those of the next Age did, Expos. Sect. 3. p. 4. All which he allowed in express terms in his suppressed Edition. See my Collect. n. 3 p. xxiii.  been forced to confess that nothing of that kind was to be found among them. Besides that the Maxims of those Fathers concerning 
† I shall mention but two; 1st, That they constantly defined Prayer, as due to God only: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Greg. Nyssen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chrysostom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Damascen etc. And, 2dly, That it was the great Argument used by S. Athanasius, and the other Fathers of these Times, to prove our Saviour to be God, that he was prayed to.  Prayer were such, as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation.  
These were the Arguments I then offered; to which the Vindicator would have done more justly to have tried if he could have made some Reply, than after all this to cry out, as if nothing had been said, What Authority does he bring for his Assertion? 
Vindicat. p. 29.  By what Authority does he condemn these Prayers, these innocent Wishes and holy Raptures, as he calls them, as fond things, vainly invented? etc.  
And now that I have satisfied his demand, may I in my turn ask him, Where it is that I condemn those innocent Wishes, and holy Raptures, of these Fathers, as fond things, vainly invented? That I do, with our Church, censure their Invocation of Saints as such, is confessed; but that I pretend to pass any judgement at all upon these holy Men, is false; nor was it any way necessary that I should do it.  
As for the Authority he requires for our refusal of this Invocation, it were very easy to show it, 
Vindicat. p. 30.  had I nothing to do but to repeat things, that have been so often said already, that the World grows weary of them; and is abundantly satisfied that they have nothing to reply to them. Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a demonstration against them; and that one Passage of St. Paul, Rom. 10.14. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? were not Men willing to be contentious, might end the Controversy. And for the Antiquity which he speaks of, What can be more ridiculous, than to pretend prescription for that which has not the least foundation, neither in Holy Writ, nor Primitive Christianity; of which not one Instance appears for the first three hundred Years after Christ, but much to the contrary.  
He that desires a fuller satisfaction in these Points, may please to recur to that excellent Treatise I before mentioned, and which may well excuse me that I say no more about it. Only because this was one of the Points, in which I promised to show, that they do adore Men and Women by such an Invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but God only; and that they make the Merits of their Saints to run parallel with the Merits of Christ, insomuch as for their Merits, to desire that their very Sacrifices may be accepted, and their Sacraments be available to them; I will subjoin a short Specimen of every one of these out of their Public Rituals, to show that there was neither Falsehood nor Calumny in my Accusation of them.  

Appendix to ARTIC. III. A Specimen of the Church of Rome 's Service to Saints, taken out of their Public Liturgies.  
AS to the Prayers they make to them; we find them thus addressing to the Blessed Virgin: 
1 Sub tum praesidium confugimus S. Dei Genetrix; nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa & benedicta.  We fly to thy Protection, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our Prayers which we make to thee in our Necessities, but deliver us from all Dangers, O Ever-glorious and Blessed Virgin. Offic. B. V p. 84. And in one of their Antiphona's; 
2 Dignare me laudare Te Virgo Sacrata; Da mihi Virtutem contra hostes tuos.  Vouchsafe me that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin; Grant me strength and Power against thine Enemies. Ibid. p. 103. 
3 Nos cum prole pia, benedicat Virgo Maria.  They desire her conjunctly with our Saviour, to bless them. Ibid. p. 105. And in their 
4 Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia Coeli Porta manes, & stella maris, succurre cadenti Surgere qui curat populo; tu quae genuisti Naturâ mirante ruum Sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab Ore Sumens illud Ave, Peccatorum miserere. Offic. B. V p. 122.  Hymns, they address to her in the most formal manner; that she would help them that fall; that she would have pity upon Sinners; 
5 Maria Mater gratiae, Mater miserecordiae, Tu nos ab host besiege, & horâ mortis suscipe. Ib. p. 123.  that she would protect them against the Enemy, and receive them at the Hour of Death. I shall add only one Prayer more, part of which I before mentioned, and will now repeat it, because 
‖ Bellarm. I. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words. Quinto ibidem dicit, nos rogare Virginem ut filium Jubeat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? I before observed that Cassander owns the Prayer, Consult. Art. 21. And Monsieur Daillé assures us, that in the Missal printed at Paris but in the Year 1634. in libr. Extreme. p. 81. It is still extant in these words;  Cardinal Bellarmine, and some others are so ashamed of it, as totally to deny they have any such Prayer, 
6 
O foelix Puerpera, nostra pians scelera, Jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI. Da fidei foedera, Da salutis Opera, Da in vitae vesperâ Benè mori. And indeed however scrupulous Bellarmine is of this Matter, yet others among them make no doubt to say, that she does not only entreat her Son as a Suppliant, but COMMAND him as a Mother. So Peter Damien, Serm. 1. de Nat. Mariae, speaking to the Virgin, tells her, Accedis ante aureum illud humanae reconciliationis Altar, non solùm rogans sed IMPERANS. For so Father Crasset, who both citys and approves it, translates the Passage; Thou comest before the Golden Altar of our Reconciliation, not only as a Servant that Prays, but as a Mother that COMMANDS. And Albertus Magnus, Serm. 2. de laud. Virg. Pro salute famulantium sibi, non solùm petest filio supplicare, sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ cidem IMPERARE. That for the Salvation of those that serve Her, the Virgin cannot only Entreat Her Son, but by the Authority of a Mother can COMMAND Him. This Father Crasset proves from more of the like stuff, in his 1. Part. Trait. 1. Qu. 8. p. 60, 61. concluding the whole with this admirable Sentence; Eadem potestas est Matris & Filii, quae ab omni potente Filio omnipotens facta est: The Power of the Mother and the Son is the same, who by her OMNIPOTENT Son, is made herself OMNIPOTENT.  
This is the last French Divinity, approved by the Society of the Jesuits, published with the King's Permission; and espoused at a venture by Monsieur de Meaux in his Epistle.   O Happy Mother, expiating our Sins, By the right of a Mother COMMAND our Redeemer. Grant us the— of Faith, Grant us the good Works of Salvation; Grant us in the End of Lives that we may die well.;  
Nor is it the Blessed Virgin only to whom they thus address: The Prayer to St. John is in the same strain: 
7 Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, Mira gestorum famuli tuorum, Solve pollati labii reatwn, Sancte Johannes.  That he would lose the Gild of their polluted Lips, that the Tongues of his Servants might sound out his Praise. And in general, thus they address to the Apostles and Evangelists: 
8 Vos saecli justi Judices & vera Mundi lumina, votis precamur cordium, audite preces supplicum. Qui Coelum verbo clauditis, serasque ejus solvitis, Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite Jussu quaesumus. Quorum praecepto subditur salus & languor omnium, Sanate Aegros moribus, Nos reddentes Virtutibus. Ut cum judex advenerit Christus in fine saeculi, Nos sempiterni gaudii, Faciat esse compotes. ibid. p. 497.  O ye just Judges, and true Lights of the World, we pray unto you with the Requests of our Hearts; That you would hear the Prayers of your Suppliants. Ye, that by your Word shut and open Heaven, We beseech you deliver us, by your Command, from all our Sins. You, to whose Command is subjected the Health and Sickness of all Men, Heal us who are sick in our Manners, and restore us to Virtue; that so when in the end of the World Christ the Judge shall come, He may make us partakers of Everlasting Joy.  
For the next Point, the Merits of their Saints, 'twere infinite to repeat the Prayers they make of this kind. I will subjoin two or three. In the Feast of St. Nicholas, Dec. 6th: 
9 Deus qui B. Nicolaum Pontificem innumeris decorasti miraculis, tribue quaesumus ut ejus Meritis & Precibus à Gehennae incendiis liberemur.  O God who hast adorned thy Bishop, St. Nicholas, with innumerable Miracles, grant we beseech thee, that by his Merits and Prayers, we may be delivered from the Fire of Hell. Offic. B. Virg. p. 561. And many there are of this nature all along their Office.  
But since the main question is about their recommending to God their Offerings, and Sacraments, by the Merits of their Saints; we will see that too. And for an instance of these we need go no farther than their very first Saint, 
10 Sacrificium nostrum tibi Domine quaesumus B. Andraei Apostoli precatio sancta conciliet, ut in cujus honore solemniter exhibetur Ejus Meritis efficiatur acceptum. Per. Missale Rom. Fest. Nou. p. 513.  St. Andrew, to whom in their Secretum they thus address. We beseech thee, O Lord, that the Holy Prayer of the Blessed Apostle, St. Andrew, may procure thy Favour to our Sacrifice; that as it is solemnly offered in his Honour, so it may be rendered acceptable by his Merits, through our Lord. He that shall survey the following Festivals, will find either the Secretum, or Postcommunio, to run in the same strain: I shall instance only in the Saints I formerly mentioned. 
11 Ut haec Munera tibi Domine accepta sint S. Bathildis obtineant Merita; quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam, sanctam & beneplacentem exhibuit.  Let the Merits of St. Bathildis, O Lord, prevail, that our Gifts may be accepted by thee: 
12 Praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta Sacramenta praesidium salutare, & intervenientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui atque Pontificis Meritis ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis. See Missale in usum Sarum fol. 9 & 68 in Fest. Nou.  Let the Sacraments which we have received, we beseech thee, be our saving Defence, and through the Merits of thy Blessed Martyr, St. Martin interposing, absolve us from all Sin.  
Such is their Service of the Saints; How agreeable to that Duty we own to God, or to the very pretences of Monsieur de Meaux, and the Vindicator, let the World judge.    

ARTICLE IV. Images and Relics.  
IN this Article the Vindicator takes notice, 
Vindicat. p. 31.  and that truly, of my complaining that the approved Doctrine of their most reputed Writers, should so much contradict what Monsieur de Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service. He tells us that properly speaking, according to the Bishop of Meauxes sense, and that of the Council; The Image of the Cross is to be looked upon only as a representative, 
Ibid. p. 32.  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 Ecclesiastical Style, is not properly to the Cross, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Cross.  
To this I opposed the Doctrine of St. Thomas, and the Authority of their own Rituals, to show that they expressly adored the Cross of Christ, and not only Jesus Christ represented by that Cross.  
In answer to the former of which, 
Vindicat. p. 38.  the Doctrine of St. Thomas, he tells me, that he is not to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools: That had I been sincere, I ought to have taken notice of the reason brought by St. Thomas, and his Followers; which shows, that it is purely upon the account of Jesus Christ represented, and not upon the account of the Cross itself, that he allows Adoration to it. In short, He concludes the Doctrine of St. Thomas to be in effect the same with Monsieur de Meaux 's Exposition, That it is an Adoration of Jesus Christ represented by the Crucifix, but not an Adoration of the Crucifix itself. And the same is the account he gives of the Pontifical, which he confesses admits of an Adoration in the same sense.  
For the business of the Pontifical, we shall see more particularly hereafter: In the mean time this short instance may serve to show that his Distinction is purely arbitrary. 
‖ Pontific. Ord. ad recip. processionaliter Imperat. p. 205. col. 2 si verò Legatus Apostolicus Imperatorem reciperet, aut cum eo Urbem intraret, vel alias secum iret vel equitaret, ille qui Gladium Imperatori praefert, & alius Crucem Legati portans simul ire debent. Crux Legati, Quia debetur ei Laerla, erit à dextris, & Gladius Imperatoris à sinistris.  In the Order of receiving an Emperor, it is appointed, that if there be a Legate present, his Cross shall take the upper hand of the Emperor's Sword, because a Divine Worship is due to it.  

† Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. Utrum Crux Christi sit adoranda adorationi LATRLAE? Conclus. Crux Christi in quà Christus crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum propter membrorum Christi contactum, LATRIA ADORANDA EST: Crucis verò Effigies in aliâ quâvis materià, priori tantùm ratione LATRIA ADORANDA EST. And in the body, Unde utroque modo adoratur eâdem adoratione cum Christo, scil. ADORATIONE LATRIA.  As to St. Thomas, he tells us only this, That the Cross is not to be adored upon its own account, but either as it is the figure of Christ crucified, or because it touched his Members when he was crucified upon it: That the Wood of the true Cross is to be worshipped with Divine Adoration upon both these accounts, but any other Crucifix only upon the former. What does all this avail to the pretences of the Vindicator? It shows indeed St. Thomas' grounds for his Conclusion, but we are little concerned in them; nor was it any unsincerity in me not to transcribe all his Reveries. The Conclusion he makes is plain and positive, and neither to be reconciled with the Vindicator's Fancy, nor to be eluded by his Sophistry; That the CROSS of Christ is to be ADORED with DIVINE ADORATION. What his reason is, we matter not; sure we are, that no good one can be brought by him, or any body else, for it.  
The next Argument I made use of was, That in the Office of the Benediction of a new Cross, there are several Passages which clearly show, that they attribute such things to the Cross, 
Vindicat. p. 39  as are directly contrary to Monsieur de Meauxes Pretences, As that they who bow down before it, may find health both of Soul and Body by it.  
This he cannot deny, but charges me with leaving out two words, that he says would have explained all, viz. 
Page 39  Propter Deum, for the sake of God. It is very certain that I did leave out these words, as I did several others, I believe, as much to the purpose as these. But that I may show how little reason there was for my expressing them, and to convince the World how clearly this passage charges them with Adoring the Cross, I will now propose it in its full length.  
In the form of consecrating a new Cross; 
Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis. pag. 161. col. 2.  First the Bishop makes several prayers; 
† Rogamus Te Domine pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae, ut fit remedium salutare generi humano; sit soliditas fidei, bonorum Operum profectus, & redemptio Animarum; sit solamen & protectio, & tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum. Per.  That God would bless this Wood of the Cross, that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind; An Establishemnt of the Faith; for the Increase of good Works, and the Redemption of Souls; a Comfort and Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy.  
After some other Prayers to the same purpose; the Bishop blesses the Incense, sprinkles the Cross with Holy Water, and incenses it; and then Consecrates it in these words:  

* Ibid. p. 162. col. 1. Sancti † ficetur istud lignum in Nomine Pa † tris, & Fi † lii, & Spiritus † Sancti: Et benedictio illius ligni in quo sancta membra salvatoris suspensa sunt, sit in isto ligno, ut orantes inclinantesque se [propter Deum] ant istam Crucem, inveniant Corporis & Animae fanitatem: Per.  Let this Wood be sanc † tified in the Name of the Fa † ther, and of the S † on, and of the Holy † Ghost. Let the blessing of that Wood on which the members of our Saviour were hanged, be in this present Wood; that as many as pray and bow down themselves [for God] before this Cross, may find health both of Soul and Body, through the same Jesus Christ.  

‖ Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM, genibus ipsam devotè ADORAT & osculatur.  Then the Bishop Knelt down before the CROSS, and devoutly ADORES it, and kisses it.  
But if the Cross be of any Metal, or of precious Stone, instead of the former Prayer, the Bishop is to say another: I shall transcribe only some part of it.  
After a long preamble, they beseech God, 
* Ut Sancti●fices tibi hoc signum Crucis atque cons. † cres:— Illis ergo manibus hanc Crucem accipe, quibus illam amplexus es; & de sanctitate illius, hanc sancti † sica: & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu, ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae, hujus CRUCIS merito, omní careant perpetrato peccato. P. 162.  That he would sanc † tify to himself this Cross, and bless it; That our Saviour Christ would embrace this Cross, [which they consecrate] as he did that [on which he suffered;] and by the holiness of that, sanc † tify This: That as by that the World was redeemed from guilt, so the devout Souls who offer it, may by the Merits of this Cross be freed from all the Sins they have committed.  

* Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM genibus EAM devotè ADORAT & osculatur: Idem faciunt quicunque alii voluerint.  Then the Bishop as before, Kneeling down before the CROSS, devoutly ADORES it, and kisses it.  
I hope this length will not seem tedious to any who desire a true information of the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church in this Matter. And I shall leave it to any one to judge what benefit those two words I omitted, could have brought to excuse such foul and notorious Idolatry. For the rest of my Citations, he passes them over so triflingly, as plainly shows he had nothing to say to them; 
Vindicat. p. 39  All the rest of his Expressions, says he, 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.  
For Monsieur de Meaux, I shall only beg leave to remark this One thing; that if the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign; to what End is all this Consecration; so many Prayers shall I say, or rather magical Incantations? And how comes it to pass that a Cross, without all this ado, is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross, as after all this superstition, not to say any worse, in the dedication of it?  
My third Argument to prove that they Adored the Cross, was from their Good Fryday's Service: 
Vindicat. p. 40.  And here I am again accused for not giving All the words of the Church, and of adding somewhat that was not there, to make it speak my own sense. The words I cited are these, Behold the Wood of the Cross, Come, let us Adore it. Whereas their Church intends not that we should Adore it, i.e. The Cross; but come, Let us Adore, i.e. The Saviour of the World thathung upon it.  
To judge aright of this Cavil, and yet more expose their Idolatry, I shall here give a just account from the Missal, of the whole Service of that Day as to this Point. 
‖ Note first, That in the Office of the Holy Week, printed in Latin & English at Paris, 1670, The Title of this Ceremony is, THE ADORATION OF THE CROSS. pag. 342.   

* Missale Rom. feria VI in Parasceve. p. 247. Completis Orationibus Sacerdos depositâ Casulâ accedit ad cornu Epistolae, & ibi in posteriori parte Anguli altaris, accipit à Diacono Crucem jam in altari praeparatam; quam versâ facie ad populum à summitate parùm disco-operit, incipiens solus Antiphonam, Ecce lignum Crucis, ac deinceps in reliquis juvatur in Cantu à Ministris usque ad Venite Adoremus. Choro autem cantante, Venite Adoremus, omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante. Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu Epistolae, & disco-operiens brachium dextrum Crucis, elevansque eam paulisper, altiùs quàm primò incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis; aliis cantantibus & adorantibus, ut supra.  The Morning Prayers being finished, the Priest receives from the Deacon a Cross, standing ready on the Altar for that purpose; which he uncovers a little at the top, turning his face to the people, and gins this Antiphona, Behold the Wood of the Cross; the People following the rest to Come, let us Adore; at which all but the Priest that officiates fall upon the ground.  
Then the Priest uncovers the right Arm of the Crucifix, and holding it up, gins louder than before, Behold the Wood of the Cross, the rest singing and adoring as before.  
Then finally the Priest goes to the middle of the Altar, 
Deinde Sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris, & disco-operiens Crucem totaliter, ac elevans eam, tertiò altiùs incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo salus mundi pependit, Venite Adoremus: aliis cantantibus & adorantibus ut supra. Postea Sacerdos solus portat Crucem ad locum ante Altare praeparatum, & genu flexus ibidem eam locat: Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRUCEM; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur. Hoc facto revertitur, & accipit calceamenta & casulam. Postmodum ministri Altaris, deinde alii Clerici & Laici, bini & bini, ter genibus flexis, ut dictum est, CRUCEM ADORANT. Interim dumb fit ADOEATIO CRUCIS cantantur, etc.— Deinde cantatur com muniter Annan: CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine. P. 209.  and wholly uncovering the Cross, and lifting it up, gins yet higher, Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung, come, let us adore: the rest singing and adoring as before.  
This done, the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place prepared for it before the Altar, and kneeling down, leaves it there. Then he puts off his Shoes, and draws near to ADORE the CROSS, bowing his Knees three times before he kisses it: which done, he retires and puts on his Shoes. After him the Ministers of the Altar, than the other Clergy and Laity, two and two, after the same manner, ADORE the CROSS.  
In the mean time while the Cross is Adoring, the Choir sings several Hymns; one of which gins with these words, We adore thy Cross, O Lord.  
This is the Service of that Day. And now whether I had reason or not to apply, as I did, the Adoration to the Cross, let any reasonable Man consider; and whether I had not some cause to say then, what I cannot but here repeat again, That the whole Solemnity of that days Service plainly shows, that the Roman Church does adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase.  
As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Church, he acknowledges the Fact, but tells us, 
Vindicat. p. 40.  That these are Poetical Expressions; and that the word CROSS, by a Figure, sufficiently known to Poets, signifies JESUS CHRIST, to whom they pray in those Hymns. I shall not ask the Vindicator by what Authority he sends us to the Poets for interpreting the Church's Hymns: But if he pleases to inform us what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ, in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross; and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known, he will oblige us. For that this is the case in very many of those Hymns, is apparent: I shall instance only in One, and that so noted, that St. 
* 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. p. 53. thus argues: Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo ponimus spem salutis, sed in Cruse Christi ponimus spem salutis, Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave, etc.  Thomas, unacquainted it seems, as well as we, with this Figure, concluded the Adoration of the Cross, to be the sense of their Church from it. 
‖ 

Vexilla Regis prodeunt,  
Fulget Crucis mysterium,  
Quo carne carnis Conditor  
Suspensus est patibulo.   

Arbour decora & fulgida,  
Ornata Regis purpurâ,  
Electa digno stipite,  
Tam Sancta membra tangere.   

Beata cujus brachiis  
Soecli pependit pretium.  
Statera facta Corporis,  
Praedamque tulit Tartari.   

O Crux Ave spes unica!  
Hoc passionis tempore,  
Auge piis Justitiam,  
Reisque dona Veniam.   Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis. p. 295, 296.  The Banner of our King appears, The Mystery of the Cross shines, Upon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh. Beautiful and bright Tree! Adorned with the Purple of a King, Chosen of a Stock worthy to touch such Holy Members: Blessed, upon whose Arms, The Price of the World hung. Hail, O Cross, our only Hope! In this time of the Passion, Increase the Righteousness of the Just, and give Pardon to the Guilty. Now by what Figure to make the Banner and the King the same; the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung, not different from that Flesh that hung upon it; the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch Christ's Sacred Members, the same with his Sacred Members; What noted Figure this is which is so well known to the Poets, and yet has been so long concealed from us, that we are amazed at the very report of such a Figure, 
The English Translation in the Office of the Holy Week, is this: O lovely and refulgent Tree, Adorned with purpled Majesty; Culled from a worthy Stock, to bear Those Limbs which sanctified were. Blessed Tree, whose happy Branches bore The Wealth that did the World restore: Hail Cross of Hopes the most sublime, Now in this mourning Passion Time, Improve Religious Souls in Grace, The Sins of Criminals efface. Pag. 355, 356.  and believe it next a kin to Transubstantiation, the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us.  
In the Point of Relics, 
OF RELIQVES.  the Council of Trent proceeded so equivocally, that the Vindicator ought not to think it at all strange, if I endeavoured more plainly to distinguish, what the ambiguity of their Expressions had so much confounded. 
‖ Con. Tr. Sess. 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi, damnandos esse.  They, says the Council, are to be condemned, who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints. To this I replied, that honour them we do; but that the Council of Trent requires more, not only to honour, but worship them too: so I render their Venerari, whether well or ill is now the question.  
And first I observe, that in the very Point before us, 
Thom. 3. p. q. 25. art. 6. pag. 54.  their own St. Thomas gives the very same interpretation to the same word. For having proposed the Question in these terms, Whether the Relics of Saints are to be ADORED? 
Utrum Reliquiae Sanctorum sint ADORANDAE?  He concludes it in the terms of the Council, Seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God, we must also VENERATE their Bodies and Relics.  
And again, In his second Objection against this Conclusion, 
Conclus: Cum Sanctos Dei Veneremur, corum quoque corpora & Reliquias Venerari oporter. Sec. Obj. Stultum videtur rem insensibilem VENERARI. Resp. Ad secund. dicend. Quod Corpus illud insensibile non ADORAMUS propter scipsum; sed, etc.  he argues against the Adoration of Relics thus; It seems very foolish to VENERATE an insensible Thing. To which he replies thus; We do not ADORE the insensible Thing for itself, etc. From all which it is beyond dispute evident, that by the VENERATION, Thomas understood ADORATION of Relics.  
Secondly, That it is the Doctrine of their Church, that RELIQVES are to be ADORED, their greatest Authors render it beyond denial evident. 
* Vasquez in 3. p. D. Th. disp. 112. p. 808. proposes this Question: An Corpora & aliae Sanctorum Reliquiae VENERANDAE sint? To this he answers, c. 2. p. 809. Apud Catholicos veritas indubitata est, Reliquias Sanctorum, sive fuerint partes ipsorum, ut Ossa, Carnes, & Cineres; five res aliae quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ipsos pertineant, ADORANDAS & in honort Sacro habendas esse. And again, Disp. 113. c. 1. p. 816. Cum ergo jam contra Haereticos constitutum sit, Reliquias esse ADORANDAS, superest explicare quo genere cultûs & honoris eas VENERARI debeanius.  Vasquez in his Disputations upon Thomas, tell us, It is, says he, among the [pretended] Catholics, a Truth not to be doubted of, that the RELIQVES of Saints, whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, or Ashes; or any other Things that have touched them, or belonged to them, aught to be ADORED. And in conclusion says, That he has proved against Heretics, that Relics are to be ADORED: And this too in Answer to the Question proposed in the very terms of the Council, Whether the Bodies, and other RELIQVES of Saints ought to be VENERATED?  
Nor is this a Scholastic Tenet, or to be put off with an impropriety of Speech. The Messieurs du Port Royal, are by all allowed to have been some of the most learned Men of their Church, that this last Age has produced; and too great Critics in the French Tongue, to use any Expressions subject to ambiguity, which, that Language so particularly avoids. The word ADORE in French is much more rarely used to signify in general any Honour or Veneration, than in the Latin; Yet these very Men, in one of their Treatises published by them, 
‖ Response à un ecrit publié sur les Miracles de la saint Espine. Pag. 15, 18,— 22, etc. Cited by Monsieur Daillé.  Of the Miracles of the Holy Thorn, use this word to express the Veneration they thought due to them. Thus speaking of one of the Religious that was troubled with the Palsy, She was carried, say they, to the Port Royal to ADORE the Holy Thorn. Of another, that having ADORED the Holy Thorn, she was relieved of her Infirmity. They boast of the great multitudes that frequented their Church to ADORE the Holy Thorn. And in one of their Prayers which they teach their Votaries to say before it, We ADORE thy Crown, O Lord.  
And now I suppose it is from all these Instances sufficiently evident, 
Vindicat. p. 42.  that I had reason to interpret Venerari in the Council, by Worship in my Exposition. As for the other thing he charges me with; That referring to the words of the Council I should make it say, That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance: whereas indeed the Council's meaning is, to obtain the Help and assistance of the Saints, not the Relics: This is not my Invention, but his own Cavil; And his citation of the words of the Council a Trick to deceive those who understand it only in his Translation. For whereas he renders it, 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 to be condemned. He has indeed transposed the Latin, on purpose to raise a Dust, and deceive his Reader; the true Order being plainly as I before rendered it; 
* Ita ut Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliáque sacra Monumenta inutiliter honorari, atque Eorum opis impetrandae Causâ memorias Sanctorum frustra frequentari, omnino damnandos esse.  So that they who shall Affirm, that no Worship or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints; or that these and the like Sacred Monuments, are unprofitably honoured; and that for the obtaining of their help (the help of these Sacred Monuments, Eorum) the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented, are to be condemned. This is the true sense of the Council; and for the Instances I added for the Explication of it, they are the same by which their own Catechism excites them to this Worship, and every Day's Experience shows how zealously the People follow these Relics, in order to these Ends.   

ARTICLE V Of Justification.  
HOW far the true Doctrine of Justification was overrun with such Abuses, as I mentioned, 
Vindicat. p. 46.  at the beginning of the Reformation, he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those Times that needs to be informed. I do not at all wonder that the Vindicator denies these things, who knows very well how far the Interest of his Church is concerned in it. But sure I am, a confident denial, which is all the proof he brings, will satisfy none but those, who think themselves obliged to receive the Tradition of their Church, with the same blindness in Matters of Fact, that they are required to do it in Points of Faith.  
As to the present Article before us, two things there are that he doubts I shall be hardly put to prove. 
Vindicat. p. 47.  One, That it is the Doctrine of our Church to distinguish between Justification and Sanctification; though the 11th and 12th Articles of our Church do clearly imply it; and our 
* Pag. 12. The very beginning of the Homily: Because all Men be Sinners and Offenders against God, etc. no Man can by his own Acts, etc. be justified or made righteous before God: but every Man is constrained to seek for another Righteousness or Justification to be received at God's Hands, i. e. the Forgiveness of his Sins and Trespasses in such Things as he hath offended. Edit. Oxon. 1683.  Homily of Salvation, in express words interpret Justification, to be the Forgiveness of Sins. The Other, That I impose upon them, as if they made their inward Righteousness a part of Justification, and so by consequence said, that their Justification itself was wrought by their own Good Works.  
As to the former part of which Imposition, as he calls it, 'tis the very definition of the Council of Trent; 
† Justificatio, non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio & renovatio interioris hominis. C. Tr. Sess. vi. c. 7. p. 31.  By Justification is to be understood, not only remission of Sins, but Sanctification, and the renewing of the inward Man: Insomuch that in their 11th Canon they damn all such as dare to deny it: 
‖ Siquis dixerit, homines Just ficari vel solâ imputatione justitiae Christi, vel solâ peecatorum remissione exclusâ gratiâ & charitate quae in cordibus Eorum per Spiritum S. diffundatur, atque illis inhaereat; aut etiam gratiam qui justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei, Anathema sit. Can. 11. Sess. vi.  If any one shall say that Men are justified, either by the alone Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, or only by the remission of Sins, excluding Grace and Charity, which is diffused in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inheres in them, or that the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God; let him be Anathema.  
And for the other Point, that they esteem their Justification to be wrought, not only by Christ's Merits, but also by their own good Works; The 32 Can. of the same Session, is a sufficient proof, where an Anathema is denounced against him who shall assert, 
* Siquis dixerit hominis justificati bona Opera ita esse Dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati Merita; aut ipsum Justificatum bonis Operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam, & Jesus Christi Meritum, cujus vivum Membrum est, fuerit, non verè mereri augmentum gratiae, Vitam aeternam, & ipsius Vitae Aeternae, si tamen in gratiâ decesserit, consecutionem, atque etiam gloriae Augmentum, Anathema sit.  the good Works of a justified Person to be so the Gift of God, that they are not also the Merits of the same justified Person; or that He being justified by the good Works which are performed by him through the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, does not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life.  
Now if those words truly merit, do signify that our good Works do in their own nature merit a Reward, than it must be confessed, that our Justification is wrought by them. If they say that they are therefore only meritorious, because accompanied with the infinite Merits of Christ; What can be more improper than to affirm, that that which in its own nature has nothing of Merit, should truly merit only because something which has infinite Merit goes along with it.  
It would certainly be more reasonable in the Church of Rome, if they do indeed believe what these Men seem to grant, that Good Works are not in themselves meritorious, instead of affirming that they do truly merit Eternal Life, to confess with us that they have no Merit at all in them; but yet through the infinite Merits of our Blessed Redeemer, shall, according to God's Promises, have a most ample Reward bestowed on them.   

ARTICLE VI Of Merits.  
IT ought not to be wondered at, 
Vindicat. p. 48.  if to show the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to the Point of Merits, I recurred, not to the Niceties of the Schools, but the Exposition of their greatest Men; and whose Names were neither less, nor less deservedly celebrated in their Generations, than Monsieur de Meauxes, or the Vindicators can be now. The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this Point, as plainly shows they either did not know themselves what they would Establish, or were unwilling that others should. Let the Vindicator think what he pleases of these Men, and their Opinions, we shall still believe them as able Expositors of the Council of Trent, as any that have ever undertaken it: And whoso shall compare what they say, with what the Council has defined, will find it at least as agreeable to it, as any of those new Inventions that have been started since.  
The Doctrine of Merits, established by the Council, in the Canon I but now cited, is clearly this; That the Good Works of a justified Person are not so the Gift of God, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. Can. 32.  that they are not also the Merits of the same Justified Person; That being justified by the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, he does then truly merit both increase of Grace, and Eternal Life: In a word, the Point of Merit, as we now consider it, amounts to this, Whether we do truly and properly merit by our own Good Works? or, Whether whatsoever we receive, be not a Reward that is given us only through God's Acceptance, and promise in Christ Jesus?  
This We affirm, they the Other; and whether the Testimonies I produced for the further clearing of their Doctrine do prove it or no, is now to be enquired by us.  
1st, 
‖ Maldon. in Ezek. 18.20. p. 425. Ex hoc loco perspicuum est aliquam esse nostram, ut vocant, inherentem propriámque justitiam, quamvis ex Dei gratiâ, & largitate profectam: & nos tam proprie & verè, cum gratiâ Dei benè agentes praemia mereri, quàm sine illâ malè Agentes supplicia mereamur.  Maldonate is Express, and the Vindicator's Exception utterly impertinent to us, who dispute not the Principle, but Merit of Good Works: It is very clear, says he, that there is in us an inherent, as they call it, and proper justice of our own, though proceeding from the Grace and Bounty of God; and that we do as truly and properly when we do well, through God's Grace, merit Rewards, as we do deserve Punishment when, without this Grace, we do iii.  
2dly, for Bellarmine: 
† De Justif. l. 5. c. 17. Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno, non solùm ratione pacti, sed etiam ratione Operum.  The title of his Chapter, cited by me, the Vindicator says is something towards the sense I give it: He would more honestly have said, is word for word the translation of it: viz. That our Good Works do Merit [Eternal Life] condignly, not only by reason of God's Covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the Work itself.  

* Meritum ex Condigno tribus modis variari potest. Nam si fortè opus aliquod sit multò inferius mercede ex conventione promissâ, ut si dominus Vineae conduceret Operarios, & non denarium diurnum, sed centum aureos promercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi. meritum ex condigne ratione pacti, non Operis. P. 1299. l. B.  This is his Position: For the explication of it, he tells us, that a Merit of Condignity may be varied three ways. For, 1st, if the work to be performed should be very much less than the hire promised by the Agreement; as if the Lord of the Vineyard instead of a Penny, should have promised the Labourers a hundred pound a day for their work: this would be a merit of condignity upon the Account of the Agreement, or Covenant. And this he thinks too little for our Good Works, and condemns Scotus for holding, 
* Opera justorum esse Bona utrè & propriè, sed non tam excellentia ut proportionem habeant cum vitâ aeternâ. Et ideò acceptari quidem à Deo ad justam & dignam mercedē vitae aeterflae, sed ex pacto & promissione non ex Operis dignitate. p. 1300. l. A  That the Works of Just Men are truly and properly good, but not so excellent as to bear a proportion to Eternal Life: and therefore that they are indeed accepted of God to a just and worthy Reward of Eternal Life, but only by the Covenant and Promise of God, not for the dignity of the Work itself.  

‖ Si Opus fit revera aequale merctdi, vel etiam majus, sed conventio nulla intervenerit.  Another sort of Condignity is, When the Work is equal, or perhaps greater than the Reward, but there is no Covenant that the Reward shall be given to it; This is Condignity upon the account of the Work, not the Covenant. And such Cajetan, and Soto, esteemed our Good Works; 
* Opera Bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno ratione Operis, etiarusi nulla extaret divina conventio. p. 1299. D.  Meritorius of Eternal Life upon the account of the Work itself, though there were no Covenant that they should be accepted. This also he rejects.  

† Si & Pactum intercedat, & Opus sit verè par Mercedi; ut cum operarii ad vineam conducuntur pro denario diurno, id meritum erit ex Condigno ratione Operis & ratione pacti: And he explains it thus, p. 1300. l. B. Non quidem quòd sine pacto, vel Acceptatione non habeat Opus bonum proportionem ad Vitam aeternam; sed quia non tenetur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem Opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale Mercedi nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam Conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino, etc.  A third sort of Condignity is, If there be both a Covenant, and that the Work be truly equal to the Reward: as when the Labourers were hired for the Vineyard at a Penny a day. And thus it is with our Good Works; not that, without any Covenant, the Good Work does not bear a proportion to the Reward of Eternal Life; but because, without the Covenant, God would not be bound to accept the Good Work, in order to that Reward, though otherwise even or equal to it.  
This is so plain an account of their Doctrine of Merits, and so clearly given us as the sense of the Council of Trent, that I hope the length of it will be excused by every one but the Vindicator; who possibly does not desire that the Council should be so freely expounded, as Bellarmine here has done it.  
But Vasquez goes yet further: 
‖ Vasquez in 1, 2dae. q. 114. d. 214. c. 3. p. 802. Jam verò hâc nostrâ Aetate non pauci Theologiae Professores mediam quandam Viam elegerunt, inter Scoti Opinionem quam primo Cap. memoravimus, & aliorum sententiam quam nos ut Veram inferius probabimus. Dicuntergo rationem Meriti perfecti & condigni, quod simpliciter Meritum dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe & dignitate Operis, & promissione mercedis: which was Bellarmine's Opinion.  1st, He rejects the Opinion of Bellarmine, as too little for their Good Works: and then proposes his own in the 
* 
Pag. 803. The first is that of c. 5. p. 804. Bona Opera Justorum, absque ullà Acceptatione & pacto, ex se habere dignitatem Vitae Aeternae. This is against Scotus and the Heretics, whose Doctrine he thus represents: Opera bona necessaria esse ad Vitam Aeternam; ita tamen ut Ipsa Justorum Opera non sint digna remuneratione Vitae Aeternae, nisi Deus benignitate suâ dignaretur illa remunerare. Scotus' Opinion he puts down thus, c. 1. p. 800. Opera Justorum ex se spectata, quatenus procedunt ex auxilio gratiae Dei, & positâ Sanctitate Animae, per quam Spiritus S. in justis habitat, non habere condignitatem & rationem meriti Vitae Aeternae, sed totam dignitatem, & totam rationem meriti habere petitam ex promissione & pacto Dei. The second Conclusion, c. 7. p. 809. is this: Operibus justorum nullum dignitatis Accrementum provenire ex Meritis aut Personâ Christi, quod alias eadem non haberent, si fierent ex eâdem gratiâ à solo Deo liberaliter sine Christo collata. The third; which the Vindicator pretends he could not find, though the Title and Subject of the very next, c. 8. p. 811. is; Operibus justorum aecessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem Meriti, sed potius advenire Operibus, non tantum sam dignis, sed etiam jam meritoriis.  
As for the Conclusion, wherein the Vindicator endeavours to excuse him, it is this: First he supposes the Merits of Christ to have obtained Grace for us, whereby we may be enabled to work out our Salvation; and then this supposed, he affirms, That we have no more need of Christ's Merits to supply our Defects, but that our own good Works are of themselves sufficient, without any more imputation of his Righteousness. See this at large, q. 114. art. 8. d. 222. c. 3. n. 30, 31. p. 917.   three Conclusions mentioned by me; to which I must refer the Reader, and leave him to judge, Whether the little Exceptions the Vindicator has made, be sufficient to excuse the Doctrine of them. All I have now to observe is, that the third Conclusion, which the Vindicator complains he could not find, is the very Subject of the Chapter to which I refer him; and which he could not well overlook, having found the Second but in the foregoing: And for the rest, that Vasquez to take away all doubt of his Opinion, does largely show that it is no way contrary to the Council of 
† See disp. 214. c. 11, 12. p. 819, etc.  Trent, but rather a true and natural Exposition of it.   


ARTICLE VII. §. 1. Of Satisfactions.  
IF the 
† Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 8. Can. 73.  Council of Trent has expressed itself in such terms, 
Vindicat. pag. 54, 55.  as do plainly ascribe to our Endeavours a true and proper Satisfaction, whatever Monsieur de Meaux or his Vindicator expound to the contrary, we are not to be blamed for charging them with it.  
'Tis not enough to say, that they believe Christ to have made an entire satisfaction for Sin, and that the necessity of that payment which they require us to make for ourselves, does not arise from any defect in that, but from a certain Order which God has established for a salutary Discipline, and to keep us from offending. If Christ has made an entire satisfaction for us; I am sure it must be very improper, if not altogether untrue, to say, that We can make any for ourselves. If God indeed has established any such Order as they pretend, let them show it to us in Scripture: Otherwise we shall never believe that God's Justice does at all require it, since for the infinite Merits of a crucified Saviour, that has made an infinite Satisfaction to his Justice, he may as well forgive Temporal as Eternal Punishment.  
That 
* Lib. 1. de purge. c. 10. to this Objection, Si applicatur nobis per nostra Opera Christi satisfactio, vel sunt duae satisfactiones simul junctae, una Christi, altera nostra, vel una tantùm. Resp. p. 1899. After two other manners of Explication, he adds; Tertius tamen modus videtur probabilior, quòd una tantùm sit actualis satisfactio, eáque nostra. Neque hinc excluditur Christus, vel satisfactio ejus; nam per ejus satisfactionem habemus gratiam unde satisfactiamus; & hoc modo dicitur applicari nobis Christi satisfactio; non quòd Immediatè ipsa ejus satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam, sed quòd Mediatè eam tollat, quatenus, viz. ab eâ gratiam habemus sine quâ nibil Valeret nostra satisfactio.  Bellarmine has taught, That it is we who properly satisfy for our own Sins, and that Christ's Satisfaction serves only to make ours valid. Had the Vindicator been ingenuous, he would not have thought it sufficient to answer with the Error of the Press, but have looked into the place where it indeed was, C. 10. of that Book.  
That both 
* As to the Point of Satisfaction, Belarmine distinguishes between a Satisfaction to Justice, and a Satisfaction to Friendship: And then concludes; Cum homines peccant in Deum, Amicitiam simul & Justitiam Violant. As to the former, Non potest homo Deo satisfacere, etc. p. 1675. the Question is, De satisfactione quâ Justitiae restauretur Aequalitas. And because he supposes that the Gild being remitted, and we received into Friendship with God, the Eternity is thereby taken from the Pain, the Question amounts to thus much; An satisfacere possint homines pro expiando reatu illius Poenae qui interdum remanet post remissionem culpae? And whether those Works by which it is done; Sint dicenda propriè satisfactoria ita ut nos dicamur Verè ac propriè domino satisfacere. Now both these he affirms, and explicates the latter from the Council thus, C. 7. de poenit. lib. 4. p. 1694. l. C. Per opera illa poenalia de quibus hàctenus locuti sumus verè ac propriè Domino satisfieri pro reatu poenae, qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus.  He and 
† I shall instance only in Vasquez, in 3 p. d. 2. c. 1. p. 11. First he lays down the Opinion of several of the Schoolmen, Alex. d'Ales, Ricardus, Ruardus Tapperus, etc. who held, That a mere Man might condignly satisfy for his own Sins. This he rejects, because he supposes it cannot be done without God's assisting Grace, to which we forfeited all right by Sin: And so it will follow; Nostram satisfactionem pro peccato proprio perfectam non esse, ex eo quòd fiat non ex propriis sed ex Acceptis, p. 21. c. 5. n. 53. But now, Secondly, God's Grace being supposed, he concludes as to Mortal Sins, c. 6. p. 22. n. 58. Nos reipsa nunc satisfacere Deo pro nostro Peccato & Offensâ. He tells us, that some indeed allow that our Contrition may be called a Satisfaction, though not a sufficient One, n. 59 Nam qui pro compensatione exhiber id quod potest; licet minus sufficiens illud sit, dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere. This Reason Vasquez dislikes; he is content this Satisfaction should be called Minus sufficiens; but then only upon the account before mentioned, o its proceeding from the Grace of God: So that, Si Contritio praecederet infusionem Gratia habitualis ex parte Efficientis, non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè, sed etian condignè mereretur Gratiae habitualis infusionem. And this he Expounds as the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, N. 62, 63, p. 23. As for Venial Sins, Disp. 3. c. 3. p. 27. Ita concedi mus (says he) homini justo pro suo peccato Veniali condignam & perfectam satisfactionem, u ea non indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel aliquid illius, aut acceptantis satisfactionem, sed talis sit ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam & poenam peccati Venialis.  Others of their Communion, have taught it as the Doctrine of their Church, That we can make a true and proper Satisfaction for Sin, is beyond denial evident; and it has before been said, that the Council of Trent approves their Doctrine.  
But that Protestants ever assigned this, 
Vindicat. p. 57  or any other single Point as the cause of our separating from their Communion; That we ever taught that any thing at all should be given to a Sinner, for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon me; much less more than they pretend to give by all the Plenary Indulgences of their Church; this is so shameful a Calumny, that I am confident the Vindicator himself never believed it.  
For his last Remark, if it deserves any Answer, That I reflect upon the Bishop of Meaux, for bringing only, we suppose, to establish this Doctrine, when yet very often I do no more myself; I have only this to say, that I believe he can hardly find any one Instance wherein that is the only Argument I bring for our Doctrine: Not to add, that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient, not to receive their Innovations, till they can bring us some better Arguments to prove that we ought to quit our Supposition. They who pretend to impose such things as these, are the Persons on whom the Proof will lie; 'tis enough for us to reject them, that we cannot find any footsteps of them, either in Scripture or Antiquity; and have good reason to believe, by the weakness of their Attempts, that there are not any.   

ARTICLE VII. §. 2. Of Indulgences.  
FOR Indulgences, 
Vindicat. p. 58.  the Vindicator thinks it sufficient to answer all the Difficulties I proposed, to confess that some Abuses have crept in; that there are indeed many Practices in the Church of Rome, different from that of the Primitive Church; but these being neither necessary, nor universally received, he will not quarrel with us about them.  
But are not these Abuses still cherished in his Church? Does not the Pope still dispatch them abroad, and his Missionaries preach them now as shamefully almost, as when Luther first risen against them? Is it not necessary, nor universally received, to believe that these Indulgences satisfy for the temporal Pain of Sin? Do they not put up Bills over their Church Doors and Altars, almost every Sunday, to vend them on this Account? Is not his Holiness still esteemed the Church's Treasurer? And has he not but very lately sent a 

† This Bull is dated August 11. 1683. and it runs thus: We give and grant, by virtue of the Presents, a Plenary Indulgence, and entire remission of all Sins. And that the Confessors absolve them in the Court of Conscience of all Sins, Excesses, Crimes and Faults, how grievous or enormous soever they have been, and in what fashion soever they were reserved. And for all this,  
The Condition proposed is, To visit some one of the Churches appointed by the Ordinary, to fast the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; to confess their Sins, and receive the Sacrament, and give somewhat to the Poor. And this the A. B. of Paris promises the People, in his Instructions for the Jubilee, shall restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism. Instructions pour Gagner le Jubilé, pag. 11. Paris, 1683. par Ordre de Monseigneur l'Archeveque.   Universal Indulgence throughout their whole Church?  
When these things are considered, I doubt it will little avail the Vindicator to put me in mind of my Promise, That whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their Primitive Practice, we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as those first Ages of the Church allowed of.   

Purgatory. §. 3.  
WHat I have said as to the Design of the Primitive Christians in praying for the Dead, 
Vindicat. p. 59  would have deserved either an ingenuous acknowledgement of the truth of it, or some reasonable proof of its falseness or impertinence. We cannot but suspect that he was hard put to it for Arguments, when all the reason he brings us for the belief of Purgatory, is built upon the Authority of two Councils, neither of which are very much esteemed by Us; and the eldest of them 1400 Years after Christ.  
If the Vindicator has any thing of moment to offer for it, he shall not fail of a just Consideration. Otherwise 'twill be as foolish as it is false, to pretend to tell the World, That we 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; and which has no other Proof than our own Presumption.     

PART II.  

ARTICLE VIII. Of the Sacraments in General.  
AS to the number of the Sacraments, 
Vindicat. p. 59  the Vindicator confesses that it is not to be found, either in Scripture or Antiquity. He thinks it sufficient that the Scripture mentions an Exterior Ceremony, and an Interior Grace annexed thereunto. He should then have shown us that all those seven which they receive, have at least such an outward Sign as he Pretends, and an inward Grace, by Christ's Institution, annexed to it. And this so much the rather, for that no One of his Church has yet been able to do it, though the Council of Trent damns all those that dare to deny it.   

ARTICLE IX. Of Baptism.  
WE do not complain of the Church of Rome, 
Vindicat. p. 61.  for not believing that Infants dying unbaptised are certainly Saved: But we must, and do complain of Monsiur de Meaux, for declaring so positively, what we judge to be at least as uncertain as it is uncharitable, that they have not any part in Christ.  
If I argued for the more favourable side, I confessed at least that the Church of England had determined nothing concerning it; But that I went about to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome on this Account, is a Calumny as great, as the little reflection of Huguenot or Puritan, before was ridiculous.  
That he should be astonished to hear a Church of England Man argue for this Point, shows how little acquainted he ever was with the Writers of it: I shall mention only two, who I believe were never suspected as Puritanically inclined, and yet have argued much more strongly than ever I could have done for it: One the venerable and judicious 
‖ Pag. 275, etc.  Mr. Hooker in his Eccles. Polity. Lib. 5. Sect. 60. The Other the learned Archbishop Bramhall in a set Discourse, which he thus concludes, 
A. Bp Bramhall 's Works, Tom. 4. Disc. 5. p. 983.  This I take to be the Doctrine of the foundest English Divines, and which I believe to be the Truth: Saving always my Canonical Obedience to my Spiritual Mother the Church of England, and in a higher degree to the Catholic Church, when it shall declare itself in a true and free Oecomenical Council. But neither I, nor any Protestants, do believe that the Church of Rome, including all Other Churches of that Patriarchate, or of its Communion, is that Catholic Church.  
For the rest, whether his Arguments or mine on this Point are the better, I am but little concerned, though he be very much. That which seemed the most to deserve an Answer, he has thought fit wholly to pass by, viz. that several of his own Authors had" maintained the same with me; and I presume he will not say were Puritans or Huguenots for their so doing.  
But that the World may see with what rashness these Men talk, I will now be yet more Express; That whereas Mr. de Meaux, 
M. de Meaux 's Exp. p. 16.  affirms that this denial of Salvation to Infants dying unbaptised, was a Truth which never any one before Calvin durst openly call in question, it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the Faithful. This is so notoriously false, that not only the most Learned of their own 
‖ First we have Cassander, libr. de Baptismo Infant. p. 762. and he there citys of his side Jo. Gerson, Serm. in Nat. B. Mariae, par. 3. preached before the Council of Constance, and all the Fathers there assembled, p. 769. Gabriel Biel in 4. dist. 4. q. 2. Cajetan in 3. p. D. Th. q. 68 art. 1, 2, 3. Tilmannus Segebergensis de 7 Sacram. c. 1. art. 3.  Church as I proved before, but the very 
* Grot. Via ad pacem, p. 290. in art. 9 Consult. Cassandr. adds to these, Inter Veteres, Scriptorem quaestionum ad Antiochum quae Athanasio tribuuntur; Nazianzenum de S. Baptismate, duobus locis; & Scholiastem ejus Nicetam:  Fathers themselves, have many of them declared for this Doctrine; even St. 
* sed & ipsum Augustinum antequam in certamine cum Pelagio incalesceret, l. 3. de lib. arb. c. 23. locum Joan. 3. intelligendum de iis qui possunt & contemnunt baptizari, asserit Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4.  Augustine himself not excepted, till his Dispute with Pelagius provoked him to deny that, which in his cooler thoughts, he had more reasonably allowed before.   

ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation.  
IN the Article of Confirmation, 
Vindicat. p. 63.  I affirmed that several of their own Party had denied the Divine Institution of this pretended Sacrament; and that neither the Council of Trent, or their Catechism, had offered any thing to prove it.  
The Vindicator replies, That my Confession that the Apostles used Imposition of Hands, and that when our Bishops after their Examples do the like, and pray for the Blessing of the Holy Spirit upon us, we piously hope that their Prayers are heard; is a sufficient proof of an outward Visible Sign, of an inward and Spiritul Grace.  
Had I indeed affirmed that the Apostles had instituted this Imposition of Hands, to be continued in the Church, and promised that the Grace of the Holy Ghost should certainly descend at their doing of it, for all those great Ends our Prayers design; this might have made Confirmation look somewhat like a Sacrament to Us. But to argue from a mere indifferent Ceremony, continued only in imitation of the Apostles, and to which no blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allowed to any Other the like Prayer; and then cry out that this must needs argue the Divine Institution of it, because none but God can promise Grace to an outward Sign, this is in effect to confess that there is nothing at all to be said for it.  
It is wonderful to see with what confidence those of the Church of Rome, urge the Apostles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation, as it is now practised amongst them; in which there is not any the least resemblance. Our Bishops lay on Hands after their Example: But for theirs, they anoint, make Crosses in the Forehead, tie a Fillet about their Heads, give them a box on the Ear, etc. for which there is neither Promise, Precept, nor Example of the Apostles: but for Imposition of Hands, the only thing they did, this they have resolved to be but an 
‖ So Estius in 4. Sent. dist. 7. §. 7. p. 81.  Accidental Ceremony, and accordingly have in their 
* So the same Estius proves from the Council of Florence; In quo, says he, legitur quòd loco illius manùs impositionis per quam Apostoli dabant Spiritum S. in Ecclefiâ datur Confirmatio, cujus materia est Chrisma. Ex quibus verbis utrumque colligitur, & initio necessariam fuisse manuum impositionem Sacramenti necessitate, & eandem ejus necessitatem, signaculo Chrismatis introducto, cessâsse.  practice wholly laid it by.   

ARTICLE XI. Of Penance.  
THat Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament, 
Vindicat. p. 64.  nor was ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church, I at large proved in my Exposition of it: and the Vindicator has not in his Reply advanced any one thing to answer the Objections that were brought against it.  
He allows Public Confession to have been a part of Discipline only, and alterable at pleasure; 
Ibid. p. 65.  but then affirms that either Public or Private was always necessary; and this we are to take of him upon his own word.  
In short, he repeats the Sum of their Doctrine to us; 
Ibid. p. 67.  and then, as if he had done his Business, This, says he, we have always held and practised, and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Ancient and Orthodox Churches; and adds, that He is astonished at our rejection of it. All which Stuff is easily said, and may with the same ease and reasonableness be denied.  
And therefore to conclude this in a word; If ever he gets so well out of his Astonishment, as to come to his Reason again, and will then undertake to prove Penance to be truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and necessary to Salvation, either in Act or Desire, he shall not fail of an ingenuous Reply to his Arguments. In the mean time, I have before shown, that we do practise it, as far as is either necessary or convenient; and farther than this we shall not think ourselves bound to go, till we are somewhat better convinced of our Obligations to it, than the Vindicator has hitherto been willing or able to do.   

ARTICLE XII. Of Extreme Unction.  
IN explaining the words of St. 
Vindicat. p. 68  James brought for this pretended Sacrament, I followed the Interpretation which both the practice of the Primitive Church naturally leads to; and which Cardinal Cajetan confesses, and their own public Liturgies show, was for above 800 Years esteemed the undoubted meaning of them.  
The Vindicator, from Bellarmine, advances many Things, as he supposes, contrary to this Exposition; but the greatest part of which are utterly false, the rest impertinent.  
The Grace of curing the Sick, he says, was not given to all Priests and Elders alike, but only to some select Persons. If this be true, it was then best like St. James' Intention, that they should send for those Priests to whom it was given. And however some Others might have this Grace, yet certainly it was principally at least given to the Priests and Elders, for the honour and benefit of their Ministry.  
These did not only cure the Sick, but the Lame and the Blind. And therefore he would, I suppose, have had St. James taken notice of these two. He might have added the Dead likewise; for those who healed the Lame and the Blind, raised the Dead also. But what if St. James' word be 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies all sorts of Infirmity: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no unheard of phrase for being Lame.  general, and may very well be extended to all these? Yet since these Gifts were but rare in the Church, in respect of that the Apostle here speaks of, and did evidently belong to a greater Power, We deny his Supposition, that those who ordinarily cured the Sick by anointing, had also the Power to heal the Lame and the Blind.  
Their Power of Miracles was not tied to Unction only: 
Mark 6.13.  But yet since we find in St. Mark that this was the ordinary Sign, what wonder if St. James describe it by that which was the most common and frequent amongst them?  
All those that were anointed, were not cured. This is false, 
Vindicat. p. 69.  and cannot be maintained without dishonour to that Spirit by which they acted: Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing, any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins. This again is false: The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent, if it was sent for any: Now St. James expressly promise, that in this case, whenever the Health of the Body was restored, this Sin should be forgiven too; and therefore it must be false to say it was not.  
He adds, lastly, That St. James promises, that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: Which if it had been meant of bodily Health, those only would have died in the Apostle's Time, who either neglected this Advice, or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremony. And if it must be understood of the Soul's Health, than it will follow that none were damned, either then or now, but what neglect this Advice, or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Ceremony; concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion.  
But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts. They who had the greatest measure of them, could not yet exercise them when they would. The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Miracle, instructed them also when they should do it. So that they never attempted it, but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed, and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it. St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing; and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Stomach, 
1 Tim. 5.22.  and his other frequent Infirmities; and left Trophimus at Miletum sick. 
2 Tim. 4.20.  That this Gift of Healing was in the Church at this time, is not to be doubted, though this place should not belong to it. Will the Vindicator argue against this, that then none died till it went out of the Church, but such as refused the benefit of it, or died suddenly before they had time to do it?  
It may appear by this, 
Vindicat. p. 69,— 70.  how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage: 
Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba haec loquuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Extremae Unctionis: sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus, à Discipulis exercendam in aegrotis. Cajet. Annot. in Loc.  For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority, the Vindicator tells us, That had I said only, that he thought it could not be proved, neither from the Words, nor the Effect, that St. James speaks 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, I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense: But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to impose upon him and the Readers. As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal, absolutely to exclude the one, and apply it to the other, were not in effect (for I designed not to translate his words) to confess, that it could belong only to that.  
But that which is most considerable is, that the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, and the public practice of it, for above 800 Years, show, that they esteemed this Unction to belong primarily to bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul. And because these Rituals are not in every body's hands, to argue at once the truth of my Assertion, and show how little conversant the Vindicator has been in them, I will here insert some particular proofs of it.  
Upon the Thursday in the Holy Week, when this Oil was wont to be consecrated, they did it with this Prayer:  

Ex S. Gregorii Libr. Sacram. p. 66.  

Fer. 5. post Palm. Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedidem Olivae, quem de Viridi ligno producere dignatus es; ad refectionem Corporis; ut tuâ sanctâ benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen Mentis & Corporis, ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores, omnesque infirmitates, omnem aegritudinem corporis.   

That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body; 
The same is in effect the Prayer of the Greek Church: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euch. p. 863. Nor is it much different in that published by Thomasius, as P. Gelasius' Ritual, before P. Gregory's, upon the same day, p. 69. only that he generally joins Mentis & Corporis.  to cure all Pains and Infirmities, and sickness of the Body: nothing else mentioned.    

In the Office of Visiting the Sick, several Introductory Prayers, all for the Body's Recovery, are first said: such as this, pag. 251, etc.  

Ad visitand. infirm. p. 251. Deus qui famulo tuo Hezekiae ter quinos Annos ad vitam donâsti, ita & famulum tuum N. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem. Per.   

O God, who didst add to the 〈…〉 thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years, let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness. Through etc.    

Some of these being said, the Priest goes on thus:  

Domine Deus, qui per Apostolum locutus es, Infirmatur quis in Vobis, 
S. James 5.14, 15.  inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae & orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini, etc. Cura quaesumus Redemptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi: & sua sana vulnera, ejusque dimitte peccata, atque dolores cunctos cordis & corporis expelle, plenamque & interius exteriusque sanitatem miserecorditer redde: ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus & Sanatus, ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia; Per etc.   

O Lord God, who by thy Apostle hast said, If any Man be sick, let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, &c: Cure we beseech thee, O our Redeemer, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the sickness of this infirm Person: Heal his Wounds, and forgive his Sins, and expel all the Pains, both of his Heart, and of his Body; and restore him mercifully to full health, both inward and outward: that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed, he may be strengthened to the former Duties of thy Service; Through etc.    

Then the sick Person knelt down upon the right Hand of the Priest, and this Antiphona is sung:  

Dominus locutus est Discipulis suis, In Nomine meo Daemonia ejicite, & super Infirmos manus vestras imponite & bene habebunt. Psalm. Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est: Et repetit, In Nomine meo etc.   

The Lord said unto his Disciples, In my Name cast out Devils; and lay your hands upon the Sick and they shall Recover. Then the 49 Psalms, The Lord, the Mighty God, hath spoken, etc. After which they repeat again: In my Name etc. as before.    

Then follows this Prayer.  

Oremus Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, & cum omni supplicatione rogemus, ut hunc famulum suum N. per Angelum Sanctum suum visitare, laetificare, & confortare dignetur.   

Let us pray unto our Lord Jesus Christ, and beseech him with all supplication, that he would vouchsafe, by his Holy Angel, to visit, make glad, and comfort this his Servant.    

Afterwards this Antiphona.  

Succurre Domine Infirmo isti N. & Medica eum spirituali Medicamine, ut in pristinâ sanitate restitutus, gratiarum tibi sanus referat Actiones.   

Succour, O Lord, this Infirm Person N. and heal Him with a spiritual Medicine, that being restored to his former Health, when he is Well, he may return thanks unto thee.    

Then follows another Psalm, and after it this Antiphona:  

Sana Domine infirmum istum cujus Ossa turbata sunt, & cujus Anima turbata est Valdè: sed tu Domine convertere, & sana eum, & eripe animam ejus.   

Heal, O Lord, this sick Person whose Bones are troubled, and whose Soul is very much afflicted: but turn thou, O Lord, and heal him, and deliver his Soul.    

After this is said the 6th Psalm, from whence the Antiphona was taken; which being ended, they anoint the sick Person in several parts, but especially in that where the pain lies; saying this Prayer:  

Inungo te de Oleo sancto in Nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritûs Sancti: ut non lateat in Te Spiritus immundus, neque in membris, neque in medullis, neque in nullâ compagine membrorum; sed in te habitet virtus Christi Altissimi & Spiritûs Sancti; quatenus per hujus Operationem Mysterii, atque per hanc Sacrati Olei Vnctionem, atque nostram deprecationem, virtute Sanctae Trinitatis medicatus sive fotus, pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem: Per eundem.   

I anoint thee with this Holy Oil, 
Instead of this, Arcudius gives us this Form out of a very ancient Manuscript in the Greek Church: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And in another Office; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arcudius' de Sac. Ext. Vnct. p. 394. And the Prayers in the Office of the Euchelaion are all exactly conformable, to what I have here observed.  in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that no unclean Spirit my remain in thee, but that the virtue of the most highest of Christ, and the Holy Ghost may dwell in thee: to the End that by the Operation of this Mystery, and through the Unction of this holy Oil, and our Prayers, thou may'st be healed and restored by the Virtue of the Holy Trinity, and receive thy former and better health, Through the same.    

Then follows this Prayer.  

Domine Deus Salvator noster, qui es vera salus & Medicina, à quo omnis Sanitas & Medicamentum venit, quique nos Apostoli documento instruis ut languentes Olei liquore Orantes tangeremus, respice propitius super hunc famulum tuum N. & quem languor curvat ad exitum, & virium defectus trahit ad Occasum, medela tuae gratiae restituat in Salutem. Sana quoque quaesumus omnium medicator ejus febrium, & cunctorum languorum Cruciatus, aegritudinemque, & dolorum omnium dissolve tormenta, viscerumque ac cordium interna Medica: Medullorum quoque & Cogitationum: Sana discrimina ulcerum, vanitatumque putredines evacua, Conscientiarumque atque plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres, immensasque remove passiones: Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma, delictorumque cunctorum veniam tribue; sicque illum tua pietas jugiter custodiat, ut nec ad Correptionem aliquando Sanitas, nec ad perditionem nunc, Te auxiliante, perducat Infirmitas; sed fiat illi haec Olei Sacri perunctio, morbi & languoris praesentis expulsio, atque peccatorum omnium optata remissio: Per Dominum nostrum.   

O Lord God our Saviour, who art the true Health and Medicine, and from whom all Health and Medicine doth proceed: who also, by the Instruction of thy Holy Apostle hast taught us, that we should anoint the Sick with Oil, look down we beseech thee in mercy upon this thy Servant N: and whom his weakness has brought down to Death, and the decay of his strength draws towards his End, Let the power of thy Grace restore to Health: Heal, we beseech thee, his Fevers, etc.— And let the Holy Unction of this Oil be the Expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity, and the remission of all his Sins: Through.    

Then let the Priest give him the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ: and if occasion be, let them repeat this seven days; And the Lord shall raise him up; and IF he be in Sins, they shall be remitted.  
The Priest ought also to say the Morning and Evening Service every day to the Sick Person, adding the Hymn; 
‖ See the Hymn, Cassaadr Oper. p. 287.  Christ Coelestis Medicina Patris; which is a Prayer entirely for the recovery of the Bodily Health.  
This was the method of their Unction in Pope Gregory's Missal; and which I suppose shows that it had somewhat more than a bare respect to bodily Cures; indeed was, as I before affirmed, especially designed for them. It were an easy matter to show the very same to be the practice of the Greek Church at this Day; insomuch that 
* Arcud. de Sacram. Extr. Unct. l. 5. c. 5. de formâ hujus Sacramenti.  Arcudius himself could not dissemble it: But I shall close this with one Observation more which 
† Cassander. Oper. p. 289. where he also citys Cusanus for the same Remark.  Cassander has given us, that it was anciently the custom to anoint, not only the Elder Persons, but even Infants, after the same manner; not sure for the forgiveness of those remains of Sin which the former Sacraments had not sufficiently cleared, but for the same End for which they then did all others, the Recovery of their bodily Health.    

ARTICLE XIII. Of Marriage.  
THat Marriage is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called, 
Vindicat. p. 70.  as the Council of Trent has defined it, their own Authors sufficiently show. 
‖ Cassaud. Consult. Art. 13. de num. Sacram. in fine. De Matrimonio verò non modò P. Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri, sed longè post eum Durandus disertè inquit, non esse Matrimonium univocè Sacramentum sicut alia Sacramenta novae legis, nam nec conferre gratiam non habenti, nec augere habenti; non esse itaque Sacramentum propriè ac strictè dictum.  Lombard denies that there is any Grace conferred in it, and affirms it as a 
† Lib. 4. d. 2. l. C. p. 696. Fuit tamen Conjugium ante Peccatum institutum, non utique propter Remedium, sed ad Sacramentum. Et d. 26. l. A. Cum alia Sacramenta post peccatum & propter peccatum exordium sumpserint, Matrimonii Sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à Domino.  Sacrament, to have been instituted not only before Christ, but even before the Fall; and therefore was not cited, either for Ostentation, or for the silly Reason mentioned by the Vindicator.  

* 4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3.  Durandus in express terms declares, that forasmuch as it neither confers Grace where it is not, nor increases it where it is, it cannot be a Sacrament truly and properly so called.  
It is therefore evidently false to say, that Lombard is against me in this Matter; and for the torrent of Fathers and 
† For his torrent of Fathers, Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven, of which not one to the purpose, nor any very ancient: And for the Scriptures, Estius one of the wisest of their own Party, is forced to confess; Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio, saltem aperta & evidens; consequens est articulum hunc, Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri, unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis, & ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere. 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61.  Scriptures which he talks of, it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities, than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform.   

ARTICLE XIV. Of Holy Orders.  
IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article, 
Vindicat. p. 71.  He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments. I denied that there was any Sign instituted by Christ, to which his Grace is annexed: All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture, being only the Example of three or four places, where it was practised indeed, but no where commanded. I affirmed that several of his own Church had declared it not to be Essential to Holy Orders, nor by consequence the outward Sign of a Sacrament in them. In a word, I said, that the Grace conferred was no Justifying Grace, nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament: To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer.   

ARTICLE 15, 16, 17, 18. Of the Eucharist.  
AS to the Business of the Eucharist, 
Vindicat. p. 72.  I had not entered on any Argument about it, had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor, to assume that of a Disputant.  
For the words of Institution, which are the principal part of this Controversy, I proposed two Arguments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them: One from the the natural import of the words themselves; the Other from the intention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament. To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat; but for the latter, it has been urged chief since Bellarmine's time, and so our Author had nothing to say to it.  
For the former than he tells us, 
Ibid.  first, Of the insincerity of my Attacque; 
Pag. 73, 74.  That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING them to take them in a figurative sense; to which I oppose only, That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation, as NATURALLY lead to it. 'Tis true, I have not here used the very word OBLIGED, but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQVIRE a figurative 
Expos. Ch. of Eng. p. 47.  Interpretation; which is much the same thing. And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true, i. e. figurative sense; yet if I have proved, That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally, indeed necessarily lead to it; any reasonable Man would think, that joined with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing itself, might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it.  
But we will examine his Process, which whether it argues more my unsincerity, or the falseness of their Interpretation, I shall leave it to the Reader to judge.  
First; He confesses, as to my first Position, 
Vindicat. p. 73.  that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation. Nobody, says he, 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 be 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; 
‖ This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld, and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him; whose Works being in English, I shall refer the Reader, who desires to see the vanity of this Argument exposed, to what he has there said.  So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine, that if the Disciples and 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 that the Visible Church in all Nations, should agree to teach their Children the literal, etc.  
The meaning of which Discourse, if I understand it aright, is this Concession, that the words of Institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation, as those other Expressions, I am a Vine, I am a Door: And the only thing which makes the difference is, that the Church, as he supposes, has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter, the Other in a figurative Acceptation.  
Secondly, As to my Argument, That if the Relative This, in that Proposition, this is my Body, referred to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand, the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another, Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY REQVIRE the figurative Interpretation. This 
* De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carolstrad's Opinion of the Eucharist; Scripsit, says he, Verba Evangelistae, Hoc est Corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hic Panis est Corpus meum, quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicè, ut Panis sit Corpus Christi significatiuè, aut est planè absurda & Impossibilis, nec enim fieri potest, ut Panis sit Corpus Christi. Et l. 3. c. 19 p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane, praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi, etc.  Bellarmine, 
† Hoc est impossibile quod Panis fit Corpus Christi: de Consecrat. d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss  Gratian,.: and others do confess, and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it: Only he believes, That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to (Panis) 
* In the Aethiopian Church they give the Holy Eucharist with this Explication, Hic Panis est Corpus meum. Ludolphi Hist. l. 3. c. 5. n. 56.  Bread, and not to (Corpus) Body. How far my Logic has been able to do this, I must leave it to others to determine; but for the Vindicator's satisfaction, I do assure him, that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to, and which he has almost entirely transcribed, excepting only the part I am now speaking of, I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission, but I must needs say 'twas indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed: 
† Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19 p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus accepit in manibus panom, eumque benedixit, & dedit discipulis & de eo ait, Hoc est Corpus meum. Itaque panem accepit, panem benedixit, panem dedit, & de Pane dixit, Hoc est corpus meum.  The Lord, says he, took Bread in his hands, and blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said of it, This is my Body: Therefore he took BREAD, and blessed BREAD, and gave BREAD to his Disciples, and said of BREAD, This is my Body. And in 
⸪ Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aliquid ostendat, dum Pronomen effert, valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit Panem, & Illum porrigens ait, Hoc est Corpus meum; videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem. Neque obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis. Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Oratio quaedam, tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces. Et sanè in illis verbis, Bibite ex hoc omnes, valdè durum est non demonstrari, I D. quod Erat, sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat.  another place, arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator, That THIS in that proposition belongs to BODY, not the BREAD which he held in his hand; says, That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative, 'twere absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to, but that thing. Our Lord took Bread, and reaching it out to them, said, Take, Eat, THIS is my Body; He seems to have pointed to the BREAD; and therefore must have shown some certain thing, even before the other words were pronounced.  
From which put together, I think we may frame this Argument:  
If the Relative THIS, in that Proposition, This is my Body, belong to the Bread, so that the meaning is, This Bread is my Body, than it must be understood Figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible:  
But the relative This in that proposition, This is my Body, does belong to the Bread, forasmuch as Christ took Bread, and blessed Bread, and gave Bread to his Disciples, and therefore said of Bread, This is my Body: Therefore  
That proposition, This is my Body, must be understood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible.  
How far the Vindicator will approve this Logic, I cannot tell; but the first proposition is their common concession, and he himself seems contented with it. The second is Bellarmine's own grant, nay what he contends for, and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require: And then for the conclusion, I believe a very little Logic will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it.  
But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this, 
Vind. p. 75.  and tells us, That it will all argue nothing against them, unless I beg the Question, and suppose that no real change was made by those words. I presume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was, as for me that there was not. We do not now inquire how to expound the Proposition, supposing there were such a change made as they imagine; but the Question is, Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change, nay, rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to show that there is none?  
However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first, and then prove it, tho' I must not. We will suppose, says he, and that not incongruously, That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine, might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE, or LET THIS BE WINE. I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same. But in short, If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine, the meaning must have been, Let this which is now Water become Wine. If he had said, This is Wine, and the conversion not yet made, it would have been false: If after the conversion, no more than this, This that is contained in these Pots is Wine; or, This which before was Water, now is Wine.  
And so in the point before us; Had our Blessed Saviour said, LET THIS BE MY BODY, and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made, as of the Water into Wine, we should have made no doubt, but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to become his Body. If we take the Words as they are, THIS IS MY BODY, and no conversion made before they were pronounced, the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false. If a real conversion had first been made, as when the Water was turned into Wine, then would it signify no more than this, This which before was Bread, is now my Body. So that all this will as little avail him, as he says the other did us, unless he also beg the Question, and suppose a real change made by these words, which he knows is the very thing which we deny; as we shall have reason to do, till they can prove that what, we are sure, was Bread, is converted into the Body of Christ.  
And thus much for his disputing; 
Vindicat. p. 77, 78, 79, 80.  Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to show the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantiation, he is willing to state the Case, and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say, that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament: Or how that which is not the thing itself, is yet more than a mere figure of it. In answer to which, I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alleged out of the public Acts of our Church to satisfy him. 
See the Church Catechism.  Our Catechism affirms, That the inward part, or thing signified in this Holy Supper, is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper: And the meaning of it our 28th 
‖ Article 28.  Article expounds thus; The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper, ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER; and the means by which this is done, is FAITH. So that to such as rightly, and worthily, and with Faith receive the same, The Bread which we break, is, as St. Paul declares it, The Communion of the Body of Christ, and the Cup of Blessing which we bless, The Communion of the Blood of Christ. In a word; We say, that the faithful do really partake of Christ's Body after such a manner, as those who are void of Faith cannot, tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike; Whom therefore our Church declares, 
* Article 29.  To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but to be no way partakers of Christ; but rather as St. Paul again says, to Eat and Drink their own Damnation, not discerning the Lords Body.  

*† See the Appendix. N. V in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it.  These are the Words of our Church; and the meaning is clearly this: Christ is really present in this Sacrament, inasmuch as they who worthily receive it, have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ, and all the benefits of that Body and Blood, whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs. This great effect, plainly shows it to be more than a mere Figure; yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine, 
† Rubric at the end of the Communion Office.  Christ's Body being in Heaven, and not on the holy Table; and it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.  
The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance; nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar. The Presence we allow, is Spiritual, and that not only as to the manner of the Existence 
‖ Vindicat. p. 77, 78. , which the Vindicator seems to insinuate (for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction, that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body, 
That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England, the Authorities already cited, show. See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament, part 1. p. 283. etc. and the same is the Explication, which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it; as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins, in his History of Transubstantiation, cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large, p. 6. etc.  i. e. Corporal) but as to the nature of the thing itself; and yet it is Real too: The Bread which we receive, being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body, in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of, and in which the Faithful, by their Faith are made partakers of it.  
Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence, and yet 
† Vindic. p. 80. , neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense 
* Ibid. p. 79. , and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with: As to the Authorities of their own Writers, which I alleged to show that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds, neither in Scripture nor Antiquity: He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter, but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it. 
Vind. p. 80, 81.  And for Antiquity, he desires us to observe, 1st, That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon, 
Ibid. p. 82.  defined the. true, real, and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament, brings this Transubstantiation, 
Sess. 13. Can. 2.  or Conversion of one Substance into another, as the natural Consequence of it. Can. 2. If any one shall say, 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 the 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.  
The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this, To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, against the Sacramentaries, which before was done 
‖ Can. 1. ; but also the manner or mode of his Presence, against the Lutherans, in two Particulars; 1st, Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine. 2ly, Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species only remaining. But this the Vindicator will not allow, but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council, and Doctrine of his Church, that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself, or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion.  
It is manifest, 
Vindic. p. 83.  says he, that the Church does not here intent 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. Now this is so evidently false, that Suarez doubts not to say 'tis HEAREST to affirm it, Forasmuch, says he, 
See Suarez cited below.  as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, but also the true Conversion of the one into the other; thus establishing, not only the two former, but this last also as an Article of Faith.  
Our dispute therefore, is not only, as this Author pretends, about the real Presence of Christ's Body, 
Vindic. p. 83.  and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, which he calls the thing itself; but also about the Manner, how Jesus Christ is Present; viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION? Now this being that we are to inquire into, let us see whether the Authorities I have brought, have not the force I pretend against their Tenets.  
And 1. LOMBARD writing about this Conversion, plainly shows it to have been undetermined in his time. For having first asserted the real Presence in this Sacrament, and the change which he supposed was made upon that account: He goes on to that which the 
† Vind. p. 92.  Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastic Nicety; and it was indeed at that time no other, though since become a matter of Faith, 
Lombard. l. 4. d. 11. lit. A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis. Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa Conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, desinire non sustineo: Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is, etc.  viz. What kind of Conversion is there made? Whether formal or substantial, or what else? And for this, he tells us freely, He is not able to define it: That some have thought it to be a SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE; but for his part, he will not undertake to determine it.  
But 2dly, SCOTUS is yet more free 
‖ Dicendum, says Scotus, quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei. Si quaeras, quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli, cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem, & vericrem secundum apparentiam; Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo conditae. See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63. . He declares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation, to be the more easy, and to all appearance the more true: Insomuch, that the Church's Authority is the 
* 
And before, in Sect. Quantum ergo, He professed, Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia.  
In a Word, Bellarmine himself citys Scotus for this Opinion: Non extare locum ullum Scripturae, tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere, Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D.   Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine. 
† And again, p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus, quod minime probandum est, Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem.  He tells us that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not very Ancient, nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran; all which the Vindicator himself does in effect confess.  
The same is, 
Vind. p. 88  3ly, affirmed by 
* Suarez in 3 part. D. Th. vol. 3 disp. 50. § 1. p. 593. Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem Panis & Vini in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi. Haec assertio est de fide: Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scriptura, ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta; docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae, & in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri. And then p. 594. col. 2. adds, 1mo, Ex hac Fidei Doctrina, colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac, seu de Transubstantiatione, non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt, inter quos sunt Scotus & Gabriel Biel, lect. 41. in Can. etc. And then, 2do infero, Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi, & absentiam Panis, neget tamen veram Conversionem unius in aliud, in HAERESIN labi, quia Ecclesia Catholica, non solum duo priera, sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet.  SVAREZ of GABRIEL, and confessed by the Vindicator; who also, contrary to his pretences, calls this manner of Conversion, an Assertion, that is, of Faith; though he confesses, it is not expressly to be found in Scripture, but deduced thence by the Interpretation of the Church. Nay, so opposite is he to the Opinion and Pretences of this Man, that he declares in this very place, which our good Author examined; but amidst all his sincerity, overlooked this passage, as not much for his purpose; That if any one should confess the real Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Bread, and yet deny the true CONVERSION of the one into the other, he would fall into HEAREST; forasmuch as the Church has defined, not only the two former, but also the third likewise. But,  
4thly, The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable. I affirmed, That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged, that had not the Church declared herself for the proper Sense of the Words, the other might with as good reason have been received. This he says, is false; 
Vind. p. 86.  for that Cajetan says no such thing; nay, rather the contrary, as will appear to any one who reads that Article: And then with wonderful assurance, gins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose, in the very next Words to those in which mine end.  
For the better clearing of this Doctrine, 
Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In comment. circa praesentis & sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam, pro claritate & ampliori intellectu difficultatum, sciendum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eucharistiae, nihil aliud haberi express, nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis, Hoc est Corpus meum: Oportet enim Verba haec vera esse. Et quoniam verba sacrae Scripturae, exponuntur dupliciter, vel Proprie vel Metapherice; Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretantium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice; quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui & hoc Articulo reprobatur. Et consistit VISUS Reprobationis in HOC, Quod verba Domini intellecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie, & PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio, etc. Cited by the Vindicator.  says Cajetan, we must know, That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, there is nothing to be had expressly from the Authority of the holy Scripture, but the words of our Saviour, saying, This is my Body. For it must needs be that these words are true; and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways, either Properly, or Metaphorically; the first Error was of those who interpret these words Metaphorically, which is rejected in this Article. And the force of the Rejection consists in this, That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sense by the Church, and therefore must be properly true.  
This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by, tho' the very next words to those he citys: Nay, to say, That Cajetan had no such thing in that Article; and appeal to any that should read it, for the truth of it. Should a Protestant have done this, he would, I believe, have found out a great many hard Names for him, to testify his Zeal against Falsehood and Unsincerity, and show what a kind of Religion that must be, 
Vind. p. 222.  that is not maintainable without such sinister do: But I shall remit him wholly to the Reader's Censure, and his own Conscience for Correction.  
As for my last Assertion, 
Vindic. p. 88  That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith, till the Council of Lateran, 1200 years after Christ: They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine, 
See p. 64.  and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose.  
Thus, notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator, to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in favour of our Doctrine, my Argument still stands good against them; and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages, unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years. 
Vind. p. 92, 93.  For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host, since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force; I shall not need say any thing in defence of that, which he has not so much as attempted to destroy.   

ARTICLE XIX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
IF I affirmed, 
Vindic. p. 94.  The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us; I said no more than what the Church of England has always thought of it: And had the Vindicator pleased to have examined my Arguments, instead of admiring them, he would perhaps have found I had reason to do so.  

* Canon. 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum & proprium Sacrificium, aut quod offerri non fit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari, Anathema fit.  
* Canon. 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis & gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruse peracti, non autem Propitiatorium, vel soliprodesse sumenti, neque pro Vivis & Defunctis, pro peccatis, paenis, satisfactionibus, & aliis necessitatibus offerri debere, Anathema sit.  The Council of Trent affirms, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. p. 196. de Missa.  That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God, a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving, nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living, and for the Sins, Punishments, Satisfactions, and other Necessities of both of them. 
† Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia, idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruse obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa.  A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood, that once offered himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, the same Sacrifice, the same Offerer; Christ by his Priests now, who then did it by himself, offering himself, only differing in the manner of Oblation.  
This is in short, what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice, and what we think we have good reason to be offended at. That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice, truly and properly Propitiatory, after that of the Cross; that Christ who once offered up himself upon the Tree for us, should again be brought down every day from Heaven, to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars: And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord, as most evidently there is, and our Writers have unanswerably proved, in the whole design, Practice, and Pretences of it.  
How little the Doctrine of the real Presence, 
Vindicat. ib.  as understood by the Church of England, will serve to support this Innovation, is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it. That those who are ordained Priests, aught to have power given them to Consecrate the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, and make them present in that holy Eucharist, after such a manner as our Saviour appointed, and as at the first Institution of this Sacred Mystery they certainly were, this we have always confessed; and our 
† In the ordering of Priests, when the Bishop imposes his hands, he bids him be a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments: And again, when he delivers him the Bible, Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments, etc. Sparrow Collect. p. 158.  Rituals show that our Priests accordingly have such a Power, by Imposition of Hands, conferred on them. But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood, that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly, as the Council of Trent defines, this we deny; and shall have reason to do so, till it can be proved to us, that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend, and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it.  
For the rest, 
Vindic. p. 95.  If with the Council of Trent, he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice, he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sense in which they themselves understand it: For certainly, it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more strictly and properly, than the Council of Trent has defined this.   

ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
TO elude the authority of this Epistle, 
Vindicat. p. 96, 97.  the Vindicator, after Monsieur de Meaux, thinks it sufficient to tell us, That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass, 
Mr. de M's Expos. p 31.  in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it; as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him: And that 'tis thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESUS to his Father in the Mass, 
Vind. p. 96.  in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him.  
That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase, the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly shows. If Christ be in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice, as was there said, it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed: 
‖ Sacrificium verum & real, veram & realem Occisionem exigit, quando in Occisione ponitur Essentia Sacrificii. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A.  And one essential Propriety, and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering, being the true and real destruction of what is offered; insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction, neither can there be, as they themselves acknowledge, a true and proper Sacrifice: It must be evidently false in these men to pretend, that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ before God, and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them.  
If in this Exposition of their Doctrine we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it, we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilful mistake, that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us: And indeed it still seems most reasonable to us, that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice, as they say it is; or it is truly and properly offered, as we affirm they understand it to be.   

ARTICLE XXI. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine.  
IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good, 
Vindicat. p. 97.  as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just, against their Doctrine; what the Vindicator has said to these here, will I believe be found as little to the purpose, as what he endeavoured to reply to those before.  
Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eucharist, yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host, which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine, from being what our Church censures it, 
Rubric about kneeling at the end of the Communion.  Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father, to render him propitious to us, make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical, not a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice.  
If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said, and which alone our Church allows of; we are neither concerned in the Doctrine, nor shall we think ourselves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it.   

ARTICLE XXII. Communion under both Species.  
TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity, 
Vindicat. p 98.  the Vindicator advances three Arguments from the public Acts of our own Church: The 1st. false; The 2d. both false and unreasonable: The 3d. nothing to the purpose.  
1st. He says, the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Necessity: Art. 30. This is FALSE: The Article establishes both Kind's; and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity, or what may, or may not be done on that account. 
See Art. 30. Sparrow 's Collect. pag. 102, and 219.  The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be administered to all Christian men alike.  
2dly. Edward the sixth, he says, 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 Realms of England and Ireland, and other our Dominions, under both kinds, That is to say of Bread and Wine, except necessity otherwise require.  
This, as it is thus alleged by the Vindicator, is both False and Unreasonable: FALSE, for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, 
See Sparrow 's Collect. p. 17.  but only says, That Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was ordained, viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, should from thenceforth be commonly Administered to all persons under both kinds, etc. He for the greater Decency, and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist, now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it.  

‖ Note, That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation; The Mass was yet left remaining; and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books, in which were considerable Alterations, and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind.  It is in the next place UNREASONABLE, to argue as to the present state of the Church of England, from what was allowed only, and that in case of necessity too, in the very first beginning of the Reformation.  
It was indeed the singular Providence of God, That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince, things were so far Reform from those long and inveterate Errors, in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church, That they had allowed, nay, commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds, when for so many years it had been received only under one. But that labouring still under their former prejudices, they should in case of Necessity permit that, which had been the universal practice of the Church, without any necessity at all before; this is neither to be admired in them then, nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now.  
His 3d Argument is not only Unreasonable upon the account we have now said; but were it never so proper, is absolutely nothing to the purpose. In the Rubric, at the end of the same Order of the Communion, there is this Remark: Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated, 
Sparrow 's Collect. p. 24.  shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed; and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the 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 our Saviour Jesus Christ. The meaning of which Rubric is very plain; That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire, were now to have but a part of it given to them; to prevent any misconceits upon that account, as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do, they did not receive the whole Body, i. e. the Flesh of Christ, (for as to the Blood, that they received afterwards in the Cup:) It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple, to tell them, That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ; which what it makes for their denial of the Cup to the Laity, I cannot very well apprehend.  
And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, to dispense with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist, in case of necessity, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge. Tho' after all, did we indeed, as some others do, believe that the Church had power to do this; How will this excuse them, who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether; 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1, 2.  and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power, but just cause and reason so to do? And why will it not as well follow, that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them, and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too; since even that in Case of Necessity may be dispensed with; and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it, prove neither damnable nor dangerous?    

PART III.  

ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Written and Unwritten Word.  
AS to this Article, 
Vindic. p. 100  there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me, so far as We handle the Question, and keep to those general terms, Of the Traditions being universally received by all Churches, and in all Ages; for in this Case We of the Church of England are perfectly of the same Opinion with them, and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles, with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word itself. But, after all this, there is, as the Vindicator observes, a very material difference betwixt us, viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Universal?  
He tells us, 
Vind, ibid.  they rely upon the judgement of the present Church of every Age, declaring her sense, whether by the most General Council of that Age, or by the constant practice, and uniform voice of her Pastors and People. And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit, without presuming to examine how ancient that Tradition does appear to be, or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God.  
Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions, for these two reasons:  
1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church; is a matter of fact, and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church. Now where the case is thus, the Accounts that are given by these Writers, are certainly to those who are able to search into them, a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition, than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age, or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People. For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive, yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men, if the authentic Histories and Records of those times show it to have been otherwise. And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils, and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church; we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity, or Universality of Church-Traditions. But  
2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method, which is, that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures, and to give this Unwritten Word the upper hand of the Written.  
For, according to this Method, if the Church in any Age, does but decree in Council, or does generally Teach and Practise any thing as an ancient Tradition, than this must obtain and be of force with all its Members, tho' many of them should be persuaded that they cannot find it in, nay, that it is contrary to the Written Word of God.  
Now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the Holy Scriptures: And let them attribute as much as they please to the Decrees and Practices of their Church, We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person, should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine, which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in, nay, to be contrary to the written Word of God. In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void; and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God.   

ARTICLE XXIV, XXV. Of the Authority of the Church.  
IN the two next Articles, 
Vind. p. 101.  concerning the Authority of the Church, I was willing to allow as much, and come up as near to Mons. de Meaux, as Truth and Reason would permit. This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions. But these his hopes are soon dashed, when he finds me putting in some Exceptions, and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine, as it is laid down in the Exposition.  
Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him, are these,  
1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular, and not the Catholic Church.  
2. That She should be supposed as such, either by Error to have lost, or by other means to have prevaricated the Faith, even in the necessary points of it.  
3. That any other Church should be allowed to examine and judge of the Decisions of that Church.  
4. That it should be left to private or individual Persons to examine and oppose the Decisions of the whole Church, if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Holy Word.  
These are the Exceptions, at which he is the most offended: 
Vind. p. 103.  The 1. of these, he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome; and to show the Fallacy of it, he thinks it sufficient to say, That they 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. Now if this, in truth, be that which they mean, when they style the Church of Rome the Catholic Church, then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion, has as good a title to the name of Catholic, as that of Rome itself. For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith, which is the bond of this Communion, this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith, equally Catholic with the rest; and reduces the Church of Rome, as well as others, within its own Suburbican Diocese, and so makes it only a particular, not the Universal Church.  
But now, should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of, and that it were proper to understand by that name, all those other Churches which are in Communion with her; yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholic Church, unless it could be proved, that there was no other Christian Church in the World besides those in Communion with her; and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages professed just the same Faith, and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done. And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Grecian, Armenian, Abassine Churches; all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome, and those in her Communion, in points relating both to Faith and Worship: So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches, which were not of her Communion, She could not be looked upon as a Universal, but only as a Particular Church.  
Now if this be so, than the Vindicator himself allows, 
Vind. p. 102.  2dly, That a Particular Church, may either by Error lose, or by other means prevaricate the Faith, even in the necessary points of it. Indeed that promise of our Saviour, 
Matt. 16.18.  That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church; seems on all hands acknowledged, to refer to his whole Church, not to any one particular Branch or Portion. And therefore, tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice; yet the Catholic Church of Christ may still, as to other of its members, retain so much Truth and Purity, as to keep it from falling away, or being guilty of an entire Infidelity. And then for the  
3d. Exception, The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judge of the Decisions of this Church of Rome: If She herself be but a particular Church, and has no more Command or Jurisdiction over the Faith of other Churches, than they have over hers; then every other National Church is as much empowered to judge for herself, as She is, and has an equal right to examine her Decisions, as those of other Churches; and may either receive, or reject what by God's Grace directing her, She Judges to agree or disagree with his Holy Word. Nor does one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another; since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule, in trying all things, and holding fast that which is good.  
But the 4th Exception, he says, 
Vind. p. 102.  is yet more intolerable than all the rest: That it should be left to every individual Person, not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church, but also to glory in opposing them, if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word. 
Ibid. p. 103.  This, he says, is a Doctrine, which if admitted, will maintain all Dissenters that are, or can be from a Church, and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World.  
These indeed, are very ill Consequences, but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition. For 1st, I allow of this Dissent or Opposition, only in necessary Articles of Faith, where it is every Man's concern and duty, both to judge for himself, and to make as sound and sincere a Judgement as he is able: And 2dly, As I take the Holy Scriptures for the Rule, according to which this Judgement is to be made, so do I suppose these Scriptures to be so clearly written, as to what concerns those necessary Articles, that it can hardly happen that any one man, any serious and impartial Enquirer," should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion.  
Now these two things being supposed, that in matters of Faith, a man is to judge for himself, and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by; it will plainly follow, That if a man be evidently convinced, upon the best Enquiry he can make, that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God, and that of the Church is not; he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church. And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own, not the Church, but the Scriptures, to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith. For if this be so, then individual Persons, as well as Churches, must judge of their Faith, according to what they find in Scripture. And though it be highly useful to them, to be assisted in the making of this Judgement by that Church, of which they are Members; yet, if after this Instruction, they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith, between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture, they must stick to the latter rather than the former, they must follow the superior, not inferior Guide.  
And however this method may through the Ignorance or Malice of some men, be liable to some Abuse; yet certainly, in the main, it is most Just and Reasonable, and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England, which does not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members, 
See Article 20.  but allows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture, than to that of her own Decisions.  
As to the Authority, by which I backed this Assertion, viz. that of St. Athanasius, tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression, of his being against the whole World, and the whole World against him, did refer chief to the Eastern Bishops; and was not so literally true as to those of the West; yet, if we consider what compliances there were even of the Western Bishops, at Ariminum and Sirmium, and how Pope Liberius himself, tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith, sent to him from Ariminum, and was for that reason deposed from his Bishopric, and banished out of Italy; yet afterwards, when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium, and required his assent to a form of Faith, in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was purposely omitted, 
Sozomen Eccl. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 15.  he yielded thus far, and was thereupon restored to his Bishopric; I say, if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians, we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops, or even the Pope himself, did throughly adhere to the Faith of St. Athanasius; and therefore, that neither was He or I much in the wrong, in affirming, That he stood up in defence of Christ's Divinity, when the Pope, the Councils, and almost the whole Church fell away.   

ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy.  
IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England; 
Vindic. p. 106.  only he thinks fit to advise me to inquire, What that Authority is which the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged, and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give the Pope. Indeed, a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see, that their Pope does at this day, lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him. And we should be glad he would direct us to those places, either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers, where the Pope is styled the Universal Bishop, or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church; where it is said, That he is Christ's immediate Vicar; and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him. These are things which he does now pretend to, but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fathers of the Church. On the contrary, we find innumerable passages which plainly show, that no such Title or Authority was anciently claimed by, or allowed to the Bishop of Rome: And therefore we say, That these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside, before we can be content to yield him that Honour, which has been sometimes given to his Predecessors.  
As to that new Question he has hooked in at the end of this Article, 
Vindic. p. 106.  Whether the first four General Councils might not be termed neither General nor Free, with as much reason as the Council of Trent; I suppose it may easily be answered in the Negative.  
1st, It was not so General, because it was not called by so great and just an Authority as those were: That was an Authority to which Christians of all Places, and all Ranks, acknowledged themselves bound to submit, and attend where they were summoned by it; whereas this was a mere Usurpation, and being so, was not regarded by a great part of the Christian World, who were sensible that they owed no Subjection to it.  
2dly, It was not so Free, because those who had most to say in defence of the Truth, durst not appear at Trent, being sufficiently forewarned by what others had lately suffered in a like case at Constance: Add to this, That those who being present, did set themselves most to oppose Error and Corruption, were perpetually run down, and outvoted by Shoals of new made Bishops, sent out of Italy for that purpose. So that such a Council as this, could not with any show of Reason be termed, either Free or General, much less ought it to be compared with those first four Councils, which were in all these Respects most opposite to it.   

CLOSE XXVII.  
AND now, 
Vindic. p. 106.  that I have gone through the several Articles of the Vindication, and found the Pretensions of this Author against me as false, as I think I have shown his Arguments to have been frivolous; what shall I say more? Shall I complain of his Injuries, or rather shall I yet again beseech him to consider the little grounds he had for them; and see whether he has been able in any one Instance, to make good that infamous Character, which he has told the World, I have deserved in almost every Article of my Expoposition.  
Have I Calumniated them in any thing? Have I Misrepresented their Doctrines? I have already said, I do not know that I have; I think I may now add, I have made it appear that I have not.  
Where are the Vnsincere deal, the Falsifications, the Authors Miscited, or Misapplied? Excepting only an Error or two, that's the most, of the Press; has he given any one Example of this? Some words now and then I omitted, because I thought them impertinent, and was unwilling to burden a short Treatise with tedious Citations. And I am still persuaded that they were not material, and that he might as well have found fault with me for not Transcribing the whole Books, from whence they were produced, as for leaving out those Passages which he pretends aught to have been inserted. And for this, I appeal to the foregoing Articles to be my Vindication.  
But our Author has well observed That nothing can be so clearly expressed, 
Vind. p. 120.  or so firmly established, let me add, or so kindly and charitably performed, but that a person who intends to cavil, may either form a seeming Objection against it, or wrest it into a different sense.  
I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be Infiallible, or that the sight of an Imprimatur should make me pass for an Oracle. But yet I was willing to hope, that amidst the late pretences to Moderation, such a peaceable Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England might at least have been received with the same civility by them, as that of the Church of Rome was by us; and that our new Methodists had not so wholly studied the palliating part of their Master, as not to have learned something of his fairness and civility also.  
This I had so much the greater reason to expect, for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of Monsieur de Meaux, not only to mollify the Errors of his Church; but to moderate that passion and heat that for the most part occurs in the defenders of it: And by the temper and candidness of his Style, insinuate into his Reader a good Opinion of his Doctrine.  
But this is an Artifice that our late Controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to apprehend. Who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the Modenation of this Prelate; but have in some of their last Pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility, as if their Zeal for their Church had made them forget that Religion is the Subject, and Christians and Scholars, to say no more of them, their Antagonists.  
I am ashamed to say, what mean Reflections, and trivial Jesting make up almost the sum of their latest attempts. The Papist Represented, which seemed to promise something of seriousness and moderation, expiring in a FANATIC Sermon; done indeed so naturally, as if the once Protestant Author had dropped not out of the Church of England; but a Conventicle into Popery. His late Majesty's Papers Answered with Reason, and (whatever is pretended) with respect too by Us; instead of being Vindicated, ridiculed in the Reply: In which it is hard to say, whether the Author has least shown his charity to us, or his respect to the Persons and Church that he defends. These are the new Methods that are now taken up; but sure such as neither Church I suppose will be very well satisfied with: And which seem more accommodated to the Genius of those Sceptics who divert themselves at the expense of All Religion on both sides, than designed to satisfy the sober and conscientious of either.  
It is not improbable but that some such ingenious Piece may in a little time come forth against what I have now published; to call me a few ill names, pass a droll or two upon the Cause, tell the World how many Sheets there were in my Defence, and put the curious to another Shilling expense, 
Amicab'e Accommodation.  as a late Author has very gravely observed. If this be the Case, I hope I shall need no Apology to men of sense and sobriety, if I here end both their trouble and my own together. Let those who have been always used to it, rally on still with Holy things if they think good; for my part I esteem the Salvation of men's Souls, and the Truth of Religion, to be a more serious Subject than to be exposed to the levity of a Jest, and made the subject of a Controversial Lampoon. And if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak, I profess I cannot but tremble to think what shall be the judgement of those men, who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the Church now labours under; whilst our common Mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her Children, and her dutiful Sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their industry to close them; like an unnatural offspring, divert themselves in the quarrel, find a harmony in her groans, and make a droll of that, which had they indeed any true zeal for Religion, they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest Blood be so happy as to redress.  
For what remains of the Vindication, 
Vindicat. p. 106, 107.  I shall say but very little to it. He enters upon his Conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffered, both by, and ever since our Reformation; and how well we deserve their Excommunication upon that account. And 'tis no hard matter when men so well disposed, as this Author seems to be, to speak evil of us, are to draw our Character, to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire.  
Were I minded to recriminate, I need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true History of these things, what a fair field I should have for a requital. The corruptions of the Church when this Reformation begun; the unchristian lives of those Religious Inhabitants that, he says, were turned by us into the wide world; the Cheats and Ignorance of the Clergy; the Tricks and Artifices of their Popes to prevent that Reformation, which many of their own Party, no less than the Protestants, desired both in the Head and the Members; And since he mentions Cruelties, the barbarous Butcheries executed on the Reformed in Savoy, Bohemia, Germany, Ireland; and to say no more, the proceed at this day in one of our Neighbour Countries, whereof we have been ourselves Eye-witnesses, and of which, the noble Charity of our Royal Sovereign towards these poor distressed Christians, 
See the words of His Majesty's Brief.  notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hid it, suffers no honest Englishman now to doubt; All these would furnish out matter enough for a Reply, and satisfy the World, that were the Reformed as bad as Hell itself could represent them, the Romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to complain of them.  
But I desire not to heighten those Animosities, which I so hearty wish were closed; and would rather such things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion, than brought forth to prevent that Union, we had never more cause to hope for than at this time. And for our Laws which, he says, have been made against them, he knows well enough what occasion was given to Queen Elizabeth and King James the 1st to establish them; and I shall rather refer him to the 
‖ See that and a Vindication of it by the Secular Priests An. 1601. published with some other pieces in a Collection, called, The Jesuits Loyalty. 4to.  Answer which my Lord Burleigh made above 100 years since to this complaint, than take the opportunity, he has so fairly given me, to revive the Reasons.  
As for those injuries he tells us that Perjury and Faction loaded them with; 
Vindicat. p. 111.  we are not concerned in them. It is well known that the Church of England was no less, if not more, struck at in those times than themselves: If their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries, nor desire to revenge them, it shows only that the favour of Providence has not made them forgetful of their duty; nor their present prosperity unmindful of their future Interest. This is not our concern, who have never that we know of injured them, unless to take all fair and lawful ways to defend our Religion as by Law established, may possibly, in some men's apprehensions, be esteemed an injury.  
The peace and liberty which we enjoy, we do not ascribe to their Civility; it is God's Providence and our Sovereign's bounty, whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served; whose Rights She asserted in the worst of times, when to use our Authors own words, Perjury and Faction for this very cause, loaded her with all the injuries Hell itself could invent. But we gloried to suffer for our duty to Him then, and shall not fail, should there ever be occasion, to do it again. And we have this testimony from our King, which no time or malice shall be able to obliterate, That the Church of England is by principle a Friend to Monarchy, and I think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it.  
For what remains with reference to the Points in Controversy, the foregoing Articles are but one continued confutation of his vain pretences: And I shall only add this more to them, that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us, either in his Book or Conclusion; I will not fail to prove what I now affirm, That there is not a word of truth in either of them.  
In the mean time, before I close this, I cannot but take notice, how much the state of our controversy with these men has of late been changed; and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence, as to the sober part of their Communion, that those Errors shall in time be reform, which they already seem not only to have discovered, but to be ashamed of.  
When our Fathers disputed against Popery, the Question than was, Whether it were lawful to Worship Images; to Invocate Saints; to Adore Relics; to depend upon our own Merits for Salvation; and satisfy for the pain of our own Sins. This was their task; and they abundantly discharged it, in proving these things to be unlawful, contrary to our duty towards God, and to the Authority of Holy Scripture.  
But now in these our days, there is started up a new Generation of men, too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions, that in blind and barbarous Ages had led the Church into so much Error and Superstition. These see too clearly, that such things as these must, if possible, be denied, for that they cannot be maintained. And they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task, by subtle distinctions, and palliating expressions, to wrest the definitions of their Councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these Errors; rather than to go on in vain with their Predecessors, to draw the Scripture and Fathers into the Party to defend them.  
And that it may not be said I speak this at all adventures, I will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing Articles, to offer a general view of it.    


Of Religious Worship.  Old Popery. New Popery. 'TIS a wicked and foolish Error of the Lutherans and Calvinists, to attribute 
* Impius & Imperitus Lutheranorum & Calvinistarum Error est, nullum nisi Deo Religionis honorem tribuentium. Maldonat in Matt. 5.34. pag. 126. B. Index Expurgat. in Athanas. Adorari solius Dei est; Creatura nulla Adoranda est. Dele. pag. 52.  Religious honour ONLY to God. And therefore such Sentences as these, That God only is to be adored: That no creature is to be adored, must be put into the Index Expurgatorius, to be blotted out of S. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occur. REligious honour or worship if taken strictly and properly is due only to God: Soli Deo honour & gloria. We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone; neither honour, nor worship, nor prayer, nor thanksgiving, nor sacrifice. We may honour those whom God has honoured; but so as not to elevate them above the state of creatures. And this may be called a Religious love or honour, 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. Vind. p. 27, 28.  

Invocation of Saints.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
* Speaking of S. Bernard, he concludes, C'est de cettegrande Verité qu'il conclut que nous sommes obligez indispensablement de l'honorer & de la prier; Quia sic est Voluntas dei, qui Totum nos habere voluit per Mariam. Il veut que Nous ayons par Marie la Grace & la Gloire: And p. 33. Il veut que tous les hommes soient savuéz par les merites du fils & par l'intercession de la Mere; d'autant que Dieu a resolu de ne nous faire aucune Grace qui ne passe par les maines de Marie. Comme on ne peut estre savué sans Grace, il faut dire qu'on ne le peut estre que par Marie, qui est le canal de toutes les Graces qui descendent du Ciel en Terre.  IT is necessary to pray to the Blessed Virgin. It is the intention of God that we should obtain both Grace and Glory by her: That all men might be saved by the Merits of the Son, and the Intercession of the Mother. 
* Crasset. p. 30, 31.  

† Mandate S Synodus omnibus Episcopis, & caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus, ut— de Sanctorum— Invocatione fideles diligenter instruant; Docentes eos, Sanctos una cum Christo Regnantes Orationes suas pro Hominibus Deo offer; Bonum atq, Vtile esse suppliciter eos invocare; & ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per filium ejus Jesum Christum, ad eorum Orationes, Opem, Auxiliumque confugere. p. 291, 292.  The Curates therefore shall diligently instruct the people, That the Saints who reign togegether with Christ, do offer to God their Prayers for Men: That it is good and profitable in a suppliant manner to invocate them; and recur to their Prayers, Help, and Assistance, for the obtaining Blessing of God by his Son.  
Concil. Trid. Sess 25. c. the Invocatione, etc. ss.  
Upon this account in all their public service of the Church they address their Prayers to them, after the same manner that they do to Christ, together with whom, the Council says, They Reign in Heaven: So that if 'tis necessary to go to Church, 'tis necessary to pray to them. They confess their Sins to them; 
* Ord. Commend. Animae. p. 120.  they dismiss departing Souls out of this World in their Names; they make direct Addresses to them as the Council speaks, not only for their Prayers, but also for their Help and Assistance; they desire for their Merits to be heard by God; and that he would accept their Sacrifices themselves for the sake of the Saints they Commemorate; as in the 3d Article of this Treatise is fully to be seen.  
FOr Invocation of Saints, we only tell you it is lawful to pray to them; Vind. p. 30. That we do it in the same spirit of Charity, and in the same order of brotherly society with which we entreat our Friends on Earth to Pray for us.  
Monsieur de Meaux, p. 5.  
If we mention their Merits, 'tis only those Victories they had obtained by his favours, which we beseech him to look upon, and not regard our unworthiness. Vind. ib.  
As to the recommending our Sacrifices to God by their Prayers, as if Christ who is the Sacrifice, needed any other to recommend him to his Father, we detest such Thoughts, we abominate such Doctrines.  
Vinicat. p. 30.   

Worship of Images.  Old Popery. New Popery. 

⸫ Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solùm per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se & proprie; Ita ut ipsae terminent Venerationem ut in se consider antur, & non solum ut vicem gerunt Exemplaris.  THE Images of Christ and the Saints, are to be venerated, not only by accident and improperly, but properly and by themselves, so as to terminate the Worship upon them, and that as considered in themselves, and upon their own account, not only as they are the Representatives of the Original, Bellarin. de Imag. l. 2. p. 2148.  

* Pont. Rom. p. 205. See above, p. 15, 16, 17.  The Wood of the Cross is to be Adored with Divine Adoration; and upon this account, if the Pope's Legate at any time conduct the Emperor into any City, his Cross must take place of the Emperor's Sword; Because a Divine Worship is due to it, Pontific. See above, art 4. p. 15.  

‖ Missal. Rom. feria VI in Parascev. p. 247.  This Adoration is properly to the Cross, as is evident, in that the Church invites the People on Good Friday to Adore it; and in its Hymns distinguishes the Cross from Christ, and addresses to the Cross, as such. See Article 4. above, ib.  

* Pontificale de Benedictione no●● 〈…〉  The Church of Rome in praying to God, that several Virtues may proceed from the Cross, show it to be their Opinion, that it has other Virtues, than barely to excite the remembrance of those they represent.  
See above in the Consecration of a new Cross. Art. 4. p. 16, 17.  
THe use we make of Pictures or Images, is purely as representatives, or memorative Signs, which call the Originals to our Remembrance.  
Vindicat. p. 35.  
When the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, her Intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image. Expos. M. de M. p. 8.  
Nor do we attribute to them any other Virtue, but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent. Id. p. 8. Vind. p. 31.  
The Honour we render them, is grounded upon this, that the very seeing of Jesus Christ crucified, cannot but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him, who died upon the Cross for our Redemption: Now 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. Vindicat. ib. p. 31.  
Mons. de Meaux Expos. p. 8, 9   

Of Relics.  Old Popery. New Popery. 

† Thom. 3. par. qu. 25. Art. 6. p. 54. See above p. 22, 23.  SEeing we Adore the Saints of God, we must also Adore their Relics. Thomas.  
This is an undoubted truth amongst Catholics, That the Relics of the Saints, 
Vasquez in 3 part. D. Tho. disp. 112. p. 808.  whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, Ashes, or some other things that have touched them, or belonged to them, are to be adored.  
Vasques, See above, Art. 4. p. 50.  

‖ Ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra Monumenta à fidelibus inutilitier honorari, atque eorum opis impetrandae causa, Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari, omnino damnandi sunt, p. 292, 293.  Those are to be condemned, who affirm that no Worship or Honour is due to the Relics of Saints; or that those sacred Monuments are unprofitably revered by the Faithful; or that for obtaining their Help, men ought not to frequent the Memories of the Saints. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. c. de Invocat. etc.  
WE honour Relics as we do Images, for those whom they belonged to. Vind. p. 40.  
We will not quarrel how we ought to call this Respect and Honour, p. 43. Vind. but it is not Worship, Ib. p. 42.  
We seek not to them for any Aid and Assistance, to cure the Blind, etc. and are therefore falsely charged with so doing, Vind. p. 41.   

Of Justification.  Old Popery. New Popery. 

* Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. p. 31.  BY Justification is to be understood, not only Remission of Sins, but Sanctification, and renewing of the inward Man.  
Concil. Trid.  
If any one shall say that men are Justified, either by the alone Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, or only by the Remission of Sins, excluding Grace and Charity, which is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inheres in them; or that the Grace by which we are Justified is only the Favour of God, Let him be Anathema.  
Concil. Trid. ib. See above, Art. 5. p. 53.  

* See above, Art. 5. p. 27.  If any one shall affirm the works of a justified man to be so the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself; or that he being justified by the good Works which are performed by him, through the Grace of God, and Merit of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, does not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life; let him be Anathema. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32.  
THey impose upon us who say that we make our inward righteousness a part of Justification; and by Consequence hold that our Justification itself is also wrought by our good Works.  
Vind. p. 47.   

Of Merits.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
WE do as truly and properly, 
Maldonat. in Ezek. 18, 20. p. 425.  when we do well by God's Grace merit Rewards, as we do deserve Punishment, when without his Grace, we do ill. Maldonat.  
The Works of just Persons, 
Bellarmin. de Justificatione lib. 5. cap. 17.  are truly equal to the Reward of Eternal Life; as the Work of those who laboured in the Vineyard to the penny which they earned: And God by his Covenant is bound to accept it for the reward of Eternal Life. This is the Doctrine of the Council of Trent. Bellarmin. see art. 6. above.  
They, 
Vasquez in D. Th. 12ae. q. 114. disp. 214. p. 800.  therefore, are to be condemned who think our Works of themselves, not to be worthy of Eternal Life, but to have the whole nature of Merit that is in them, from the Covenant and Promise of God. This was the Opinion of Scotus, condemned above Art. 7. p. 31, 31.  
Christ indeed, 
Vasquez ibid. p. 917. etc.  first obtained Grace for us, whereby we might be enabled to work out our own Salvation; but this being done, we have no more need of Christ's Merits to supply our defects: But our own good Works are of themselves sufficient to Salvation, without any Imputation of his righteousness.  
Vasquez, See above l. c.  
ETernal Life ought to be proposed to the Children of God, as a Grace that is mercifully promised to them, by the Medition of our Lord Jesus Christ; and a recompense that is faithfully rendered to their good Works, and Merits, in Virtue of this Promise.  
Expos. M. de M. p. 11.  
We ask all things, we hope all things, we render thanks for all things, through our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess that we are not acceptable to God., but in and by him. Ib. p. 12.   

Of Satisfactions.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
TO this Question whether our Works are to be called truly and properly Satisfactory? 
‖ Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 4. cap. 7.  Bellarmin replies, That they are; so that we may be said truly and properly to satisfy the Lord.  
See above, Art. 7.  

‖ Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purgat. cap. 10.  It is immediately our Satisfaction, and Christ's only, in as much as we receive Grace from him, whereby we ourselves may be able to satisfy.  
Id. ib. Art. 7.  
As to mortal Sins, 
Vasquez in 3 part disp. 2. See above, Art. 7.  God's Grace being supposed to be given to us in Christ, Vasquez declares, We do truly satisfy God for our Sins and Offences. As for venial Sins, we do so satisfy, as not to need any Grace or Favour of God to forgive our Sins, or accept our Satisfaction; but our Satisfaction is such, as doth in its own nature blot out both the stain and punishment of Sin. Vasquez above, l.c.  

‖ Quidam asserunt, Nos proprie non satisfacere, sed solum facere aliquid cujus intuitu Deus applicat nobis Christi Satisfactionem: Quae sententia erronea mihi videtur. Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 1899. A. B.  There are some who say, That we do not properly satisfy, but do somewhat for the sake of which God applies to us Christ's Satisfaction; This Opinion seems to me to be Erroneous. Bellarm.  
THey impose upon us, who say that we believe that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for Sin.  
Vindicat. p. 54, 55.  
That which we call Satisfaction, following the Example of the Primitive Church, is nothing but the Application of the infinite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.  
M. de M. Expos. p. 15.   

Of Indulgences.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
THere being in all Sins a temporal Punishment to be undergone after the Eternal, 
Bellarm. de Indulgentiis lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 3.  by the Sacrament of Penance, is remitted; We call Indulgence the Remission of those Punishments that remain to be undergone after the forgiveness of the Fault, and Reconciliation obtained by the Sacrament of Penance.  
The Foundation of these Indulgences, 
Ibid. cap. 2.  is the Treasure of the Church, consisting partly of the Merits of Christ, and partly of the superabundant Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, who have suffered more than their Sins required.  
The Pastors of the Church have obtained from God the power of granting Indulgences, 
Ibid. c. 3. p. 19, 27.  and dispensing of the Merits of Christ, and the Saints, for this end, out of the Sacraments.  
The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences, 
Ibid. c. 7. p. 47.  are all those which are, or might have been enjoined for Sins; and that whether the Persons be alive or dead.  
WE believe there is a Power in the Church of granting Indulgences; which concern not at all the Remission of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted. So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation, or Relaxation, upon just Causes of Canonical Penances, which are, or may be enjoined by the Pastors of the Church, on Penitent Sinners, according to their several degrees of demerit.  
Papist Represent, n. viij. p. 10. M. de M. Expos. § 8. p. 14.   

Of the Mass.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
THe 
* Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 1. & 3. p. 196. & ibid. c. 2. p. 191.  Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice: A Sacrifice not only Commemoratory of that of the Cross, but also truly and properly propitiatory for the dead and the living. Conc. Trent. Art. 16.  

† Verum & real Sacrificium. veram & realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat. Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. p. 1062. C. Vel in Missa fit vera & realis Christi mactatio, & occisio, vel non fit: Si non fit, non est verum & real Sacrificum Missa: Sacrificium enim verum & real, veram & realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrificii. 1063. A. And again, Per consecrationem res quae offertur, ad veram, realem, & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur, quod erat necessarium ad rationem Sacrificii. ib. l. D. Sect. Tertio.  Every true and real Sacrifice requires a true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed: So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destruction, on, there is not a true and real Sacrifice.  
Bellarmin.  
To offer up Christ then in the Eucharist, is not only to present him before God on the Altar, but really and truly to Sacrifice, i. e. destroy him.  
Bellarmin.  
THe Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplished on the Cross, to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World, and apply to us the saving Virtue of it, for those Sins which we commit every day.  
Vindicat. pag. 95.  
When we say, That Christ is offered in the Mass, we do not understand the word Offer in the strictest Sense, but as we are said to Offer to God what we present before him. And thus the Church does not doubt to say, That She offers up our Blessed Jesus to his Father in the Eucharist, in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him.  
Vindicat. ibid. p. 96.   

Of the Pope's Authority.  Old Popery. New Popery. 
WE acknowledge the Holy Catholic, and Roman Church, to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and we Promise and Swear to the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, a true Obedience.  
Concil. Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv. in fine.  
The Pope has Power to depose Princes, 
Si dominus temporatis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit, ab Haeretica foeditate. Excommunicationis Vinculo innodetur Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc, Ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam.— Salvo jure Domini Principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat: Eadem nihil ominous lege servata circa EOS qui NON HABENT DOMINOS PRINCIPALES.  and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance: So the Council of Lateran: If the Temporal Lord shall neglect to purge his Land of Heresy, let him be Excommunicated; and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the Church, let it be signified to the Pope, that from thenceforth, He may declare his Vassals absolved from their Allegiance; and expose his Land to be seized by Catholics— yet so as not to injure the right of the Principal Lord. Provided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this: And the same Law is to be observed with reference to those who have no Principal Lords.  
Concil. Later. 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147.  
This is no Scholastic Tenet, but the Canon of a Council received by the Church of Rome as General.  
WE acknowledge that Primacy which Christ gave to St. Peter, in his Successors; to whom, for this cause, we own that Obedience and Submission, which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the faithful.  
As for those things which we know are disputed of in the Schools, it is not necessary we speak of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Catholic Faith.  
It is sufficient we acknowledge a Head Established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, which those who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Unanimity, will most willingly acknowledge.  
Expos. Monsieur de Meaux. p. 40.   
Such is the difference of the present Controversies between us from what they were, when it pleased God to discover to our Fathers the Errors they had so long been involved in. Were I minded to show the division yet greater, there want not Authors among them, and those approved ones too, from whence to collect more desperate Conclusions in most of these Points, than any I have now remarked. And the Practice and Opinion of the people, in those Countries where these Errors still prevail, is yet more Extravagant than any thing that either the One or Other have written.  
What now remains, but that I earnestly beseech all sober and unprejudiced Persons of that Communion, seriously to weigh these things; And consider what just reason we had to quit those Errors, which even their own Teachers are ashamed to confess, and yet cannot honestly disavow.  
It has been the great business of these new Methodists for some years past, to draw over ignorant men to the Church of Rome, by pretending to them that their Doctrines are by no means such as they are commonly misapprehended to be. This is popular, and may I believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction; tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be Monsieur de Meauxes Proselytes were not so upon the conviction of his Book, but for the advantages of the Change, and the Patronage of his Person and Authority.  
But surely would men seriously weigh this Method, there could be nothing more strong for our Reformation than this one thing, That the wisest and best men of the Roman Church esteem it the greatest honour and advantage they can do to their Religion, to represent it as like ours as is possible; and that their strongest argument to make Proselytes is this, That were things but rightly understood, there is but very little or no difference at all betwixt us.  
And would to God indeed this were truly so! that these differences were not only as small as they pretend, but wholly taken away: With what joy should we embrace the happy return of so many of our lost Brethren into the Arms of their Mother? How should we go forth with the highest transports to welcome them into our Communion? And celebrate the joyful festival on Earth, which would create an Exultation even among the blessed Angels and Saints in Heaven.  
And why shall we not hope that this in time shall be the issue? The good work is already begun; The Errors are many of them discovered, and, what is more, disavowed: And wherefore should we then distrust the Mercy of Heaven to hear our Prayers, which we never make with more real zeal and fervour than in their behalf; to show them the Truth, and open their Eyes to a perfect Conviction?  
Till this be accomplished, Let us, who by God's Grace are already Members of the Church of England, that is, of the best reformed, and best established Church in the Christian World, so seriously weigh these things, as not only to stand steadfast in that Faith which has been delivered to us, but to use our utmost endeavours to convince others also of the Excellence of it.  
Let not any fond pretences of Antiquity or Possession amuse us. 
Vindic. p. 112, etc.  Against God and Truth there lies no prescription; nor ought we to be at all concerned to forsake Errors, tho' never so Ancient, for more Ancient Truths.  
Let no prospect or temptation, whether of worldly evils on the one hand, or worldly advantages on the other, draw us from our steadfastness. 
1 Cor. 10.13.  God is faithful who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able: 
Matt. 10.33.  And he who for any of these things denies Christ or his Religion on Earth, shall be denied by Christ before his Father which is in Heaven.  
But let us be firm and sincere to God and our own Souls; careful to search out, and ready to embrace the Truth wherever we find it. So shall our lives be Orthodox, tho' perhaps our faith should not; and if in any thing we do err, for we pretend not to Infallibility, nor is it therefore impossible for us to be mistaken, yet at least we shall not be HERETICS.   
FINIS.   

APPENDIX Containing a COLLECTION Of the following PIECES.  

I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning Monsieur de Meauxes Pastoral Letter.  
II. An Extract of Father Crasset 's Doctrine concerning the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin.  
III. Cardinal Bona 's Exposition, and Practice of the same.  
iv Monsieur Imbert 's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, proving that his Persecution was truly for maintaining the Doctrine of that Bishop's Exposition.  
V The Epistle of St. chrysostom to Caesarius, suppressed by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, for being contrary to the Roman Canon of Transubstantiation.  
VI A Catalogue of the Editions made use of by me in my Quotations, to prevent, if it may be, all future Calumnies.   
LONDON, Printed MDCLXXXVI.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE following Pieces have so near a relation to the present Controversy, and are in themselves of so great a Moment, that if their length denied them a place in the Work itself, their Importance hath made it necessary not to omit them here. I have prefixed to every one of them such particular Accounts as may serve to satisfy the Reader's Curiosity concerning them; and shall, I hope, be a sufficient Apology for me, that I have so largely insisted upon them.   

APPENDIX.  

NUM. I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning Monsieur de Meaux 's Pastoral Letter.  
TO show that Monsieur de Meaux does not always so write at first, as not to stand in need of any Correction afterwards, I will beg leave to subjoin the Extract of a Letter dated from Paris, concerning his late Pastoral Letter; which, 'tis there said, he is about to change somewhat in; whether only for the better advantage of the Method, and greater neatness of Style (as in his Exposition) we shall be better able hereafter to judge.  
It is in the last Nouvelle Juin 1686. Pag. 736, 737.  
ON ecrit de Paris, que M. de Meaux retranchera de la 2 Edition de sa Lettre Pastorale l'endroit où il dit aux nouveaux Catholics de son Dioceze, Qu' ils n'ont point souffert de Violence en leurs Biens, ni en leurs Personnes, & qu'il a ovi dire la même chose aux autres Eveques.  
Je ne sçaurois dire precisement si ce sont ces propres mots, car je n'ay point veû cette Lettre Pastorale, je sçai seulement que c'est ce qu'on ecrit de Paris.  
Ce Prelat a eu en uûe dans sa Lettre, de preparer à la Communion Paschale ces nouveaux Diocezains. Je ne sçai pas ce qu'ils ont fait, mais ailleurs quand on a presenti les Convertis, on leur a trovué si peu de disposition à communier à Pâques, qu'on n'a pas jugé à propos de pousser l'affair.  
Dans la dernier Fête-Dieu plusieurs ont mieux aimé payer une Amende, que de tendre devant leurs Maisons.  
Apres cela, il est apparent que M. de Meaux retranchera l'endroit ci-dessus marqué, & que les Gens d'honneur se plaindront in petto de ce qu'on se tue de leur soutenir, que les Huguenots ont signé le Formulaire le plus volontairement du monde. Bien entendu, que ces gens d'honneur n'auront pas le tour d'Esprit & de Conscience, du quel nous avons parlé ci-dessus, pag. 471.  
They writ from Paris, that Monsieur de Meaux will retrench in the second Edition of his Pastoral Letter the place where he tells the new Converts of his Diocese, That they have not suffered any Violence either in their Goods, or in their Persons, and that he heard the other Bishops say the same.  
I cannot say precisely whether these were his very words, having neber seen his Pastoral Letter, I only know this, that thus they writ from Paris.  
The design of this Prelate in his Letter, was to prepare his new Diocesans to communicate at Easter. What they did, I cannot tell, but in other parts when they presented the Converts in order to receive it, they found them so little disposed to communicate at Easter, that they have not thought fit to force them to it.  
Upon Corpus Christi day last, many of them chose rather to pay a Fine, than put up Hang before their houses for the Procession.  
After this, 'tis more than probable that M. de Meaux will strike out the passage abovementioned, and that men of sense will complain in their minds to be thus eternally wearied with their pretences, that the Hugonots have signed the Formulary with all the readiness in the world. Always provided, that these men of sense be not endowed with that turn of Wit and Conscience, of which we have spoken heretofore, pag. 471. above.   

NUM. II. An Extract of Father Crasset 's Doctrine concerning the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin.  
MOnsieur de Meaux is very much of opinion, that Father Crasset has nothing in his Book contrary to the Principles of his Exposition. I must transcribe his whole Book, would I insist upon every thing in it opposite to this Pretence: But I shall content myself for the present to propose only to Monsieur de Meaux some of this Father's Questions; that he may please to tell us whether he be indeed of the same Opinion with the Father in them. 'Twill be an admirable Vindication of his Exposition, and we shall not doubt, after that, of its being a true Representation of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.  
Question 1. Whether the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin to God for us, 
Page 31.  be not only profitable, but necessary to our Salvation?  
Resp. 
1 Pt. trait. 1. q. 4.  I do not find the Father positive in his assertion here, but at least he recounts abundance of their Saints that are so: St. , St. Anselme, St. Bernard, the Abbè de Cells, St. Antonine, and St. Bernardine; whose horrid Blasphemies see at large repeated and approved.  
Qu. 2. Whether a tender and constant Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin, 
Page 39  be not a mark of Predestination?  
ANSWER. This is what we read in all Books; hear from all Pulpits: There are but few Catholics but what are of this Opinion, and that this Devotion towards the Mother of God, is a mark of Salvation, the good Father undertakes to prove by the Authority of the Scripture, 
Page 39, 40.  explained by the Fathers, and confirmed by Reason.  
Qu. 3. Whether a Christian that is devout towards the Blessed Virgin can be damned? 
Page 54.   
ANSWER 1. 
Page 57  The Servants of the Blessed Virgin have an Assurance, morally infallible, that they shall be saved.  
Qu. 4. Whether God ever refuses any thing to the Blessed Virgin? 
Ibid.   
ANSWER 1. 
Page 60, 61.  The Prayers of a Mother so humble and respectful, are esteemed a Command by a Son so sweet and so obedient. 2. Being truly our Saviour's Mother as well in Heaven as she was on Earth, she still retains a kind of natural Authority over his PERSON, over his GOODS, and over his OMNIPOTENCE: So that as Albertus Magnus says, she cannot only entreat him for the Salvation of her Servants, but by her MOTHERLY AUTHORITY can COMMAND him; and as another expresses it, The Power of the Mother and of the Son is all one, she being by her Omnipotent Son, made HERSELF OMNIPOTENT.  
Qu. 5. What Blessings the Virgin procures for her Servants. 
Page 91.   
ANSWER 1. 
Page 92.  She preserves them from Error and Heresy, if they are in danger to fall into it; and recovers them out of it, if they are fallen. 2. 
Page 98.  She defends and protects them in their Temptations against their Enemy; and this not only Men, but other Creatures; insomuch that a Bird which a young Lady had taught to say his Ave Maria, being one day seized by a Hawk, whilst he was in his Claws, said only his Ave Maria, and the Hawk terrified with the Salutation, let him go, and so he returned to his Mistress. 
Page 94.  3. She comforts them in their Distresses, assists them in their Dangers, counsels them in their Doubts, 
Ib. 95.  eases them in their Pains, animates them in their Combats, and finally, procures them a good Death. To this end, 4. She gives them a timely foreknowledge of their Death, 
Ib. 96.  that they be not surprised. She sends the Angels to assist them in it, and sometimes comes her own self in Person. 
Ib. 97.  5. She obtains them the Grace of Repentance if they are in Sin, and of Perseverance, 
Page 98.  if they be in a State of Grace.  
Qu. 6. Whether the Blessed Virgin has ever fetched any out of Hell. 
Page 99   
ANSWER 1. As to Purgatory, 'tis certain that the Virgin has brought several Souls from thence, as well as refreshed them whilst they were there. 2. 
Page 100  'Tis certain she has fetched many out of Hell, i. e. from a State of Damnation before they were dead. 3. The Virgin can, and has fetched men that were dead in mortal Sin out of Hell, by restoring them to Life again, that they might repent; 
Page 102.  which the Father proves at large, for the Establishment of our FAITH and of our HOPE.  
Qu. 7. What Honour ought we to render to the Blessed Virgin? 
2 Part. Pag. 73.   
ANSWER. 
Pag. 79.  We ought to render to her a Religious Honour. 2. To honour her Images also with a Religious Honour, as sacred things; and this the many Miracles done by them do require. 3. To build Temples to her, 
Pag. 92.  which many grave Authors do assure us was done, before her Birth, 
Pag. 99  during her Life, and since her Death and Coronation in Heaven.  
Qu. 8. Whether it be good to make Vows and Pilgrimages to the Honour of the Virgin? 
Pag. 138.   
ANSWER. It is good to make Vows, and undertake Pilgrimages to the places where she is specially honoured. 
Ibid.   
The Practice of Devotion towards Her.  
1. To wear her Scapulary: which whoso does, 
Pag. 315.  shall not be damned, but this Habit shall be for them a Mark of Salvation, a Safeguard in Dangers, and a Sign of Peace and eternal Alliance.  
They that wear this Habit, 
Pag. 316.  shall be moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their death.  
2. To enter into her Congregations. 
Pag. 321.   
And if any man be minded to save himself, 'tis impossible for him to find out any more advantageous means, than to enrol himself into these Companies. 
Pag. 322.   
3. To devote one's self more immediately to Her Service: 
Pag. 339.  For which the Father gives several very grave Forms. Ib. & seq.  
These are some of the Heads of Father Crasset's Book. It were infinite to recount his particular Follies, with which every Page and Sentence is crowded. And however Monsieur de Meaux is pleased at a Venture to espouse all this, yet I must still beg leave to believe, that he neither approves this Practice, nor will receive these Principles. And these things, not only Monsieur de la B— in his Answer, but the Author of the Preservative at large alleged against him; which being a Book so well known in France, and mentioned to Monsieur de Meaux in a particular manner by 
In his Letter below N. 4.  Monsieur Imbert in his Letter to him, and having caused such Contests between 
Reflections sur le Preservatif, etc.  Monsieur Arnauld and the 
Le Janseniste convaincu de vairie Sophistiquerie. Artiele 7. pag 72. etc.  Vindicator of the Preservative, upon this very account, still increases my Wonder, that for all this, Monsieur de Meaux should never hear there was any thing in this Book of Father Crasset's, contrary to his Exposition, nor believe the Father to be of any Opinion repugnant to his Principles therein established.  
The Reader may please to remember, that this Book of Father Crasset's was licenced by the Provincial, approved by the Fathers of the Society, permitted, and privileged by the King, and printed by the Archbishop of Paris' Printer, 1679.   

NUM. III. Cardinal BONA's Doctrine and Practice of this Worship.  
IN my Preface to my former Treatise, to show with how little Sincerity many times those of the Church of Rome will approve Books, whose Principles they dislike; I observed that Cardinal Capisucchi had in his Controversies plainly contradicted, in the point of worshipping Images, what he approved in Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition. This, Monsieur de Meaux says, cannot be, for this admirable Reason, qu'on trouvera son approbation express parmi celles que j'ai rapportées; that his express Approbation has been given to his Book.  
I have already said what I thought sufficient to the Consequence of this Answer: But now to satisfy the Reader that Cardinal Capisucchi is not the only Person that has thus complemented Monsieur de Meaux contrary to his own Principles and Conscience, I will here offer another plain Instance in M. de Meauxes learned and holy Cardinal BONA, 
Avertissement de l'5 Edit. Françoise, 12mo. Paris 1681. pag. 21.  whose memory, he says, shall be for ever blessed in the Church. This learned Cardinal was desired by Card. Buillon to examine the Exposition with all rigour, because that some persons accused it of certain Defects; 
See Card. Bona's Answer to Card. Buillen.  and he assures him that he did particolarment osservare in che potesse esser ripreso; particularly observe whether there were any Fault in it. The effect of this particular Observation was very favourable to Monsieur de Meaux: The Cardinal found nothing but matter of great Satisfaction to himself, and Praise to the Author; and yet has this man as flatly opposed Monsieur de Meauxes Principles in the Point of Invocation of Saints, beforementioned, both in his Doctrine and Practice, as 'tis well possible for words to do it.  
For Monsieur de Meauxes Doctrine, I shall not need say any thing here, after what I have so fully accounted above: The Reader may please to compare it with the Extract I shall now offer him out of Cardinal Bona's Works.  
In his Dedication which he makes of his Book of DIVINE PSALMODY to the Blessed Virgin, 
Oper. Tom. 2.  thus he concludes to her:  
Possess me as your own, O Sovereign QUEEN of Heaven! and seeing it has pleased you in this Oratory dedicated to your Service, to bestow so many Favours upon distressed Mortals, suffer not me to go hence without some mark of it. Renew your Tokens, change your Miracles. As you are wont to open the Eyes of the blind, that they might behold the light, now open the Eyes of my Mind, and fill them with your brightest light, that I may with a pure Contemplation, behold the Light of God's Countenance that is impressed upon us. If ever you have cleared the stopped Ears of the Deaf; Give Joy and Gladness to my inward Hearing, that I may hear the Voice of the Bridegroom speaking in silence to the Heart of Jerusalem. If you have here broken the Chains of dumb Tongues, Give to my Mouth a right and well-sounding Speech, that when I sing the Praises of God, my Words may be pleasing in the presence of the eternal King. If you have restored Health to the diseased, heal me who labour under an inveterate Sickness, that my Mind may in the last day be found entire, without the Sickness of any evil Affection. This I most humbly beg, here prostrate upon my Knees, before this wonderworking Image of yours, and upon that solemn day which your Nativity has rendered venerable to us.  
Such is the Entrance he makes upon this Book, and indeed the work that follows is all of a piece. In his 16. Chapter, Page 551. He gives this account, 
Tom. 2. Pag. 551.  why in all their OFFICES they conclude with a Prayer, or some Compliment at least, to the Blessed Virgin. It is to this end, that if by humane frailty they have committed any Error in the dreadful Service of God, our Lord being appeased by her Mediation, may not impute it to them for sin: For She preserves all those that trust in Her. She reaches out her saving Hand to those, who in this damnable World are in danger. She restrains the malicious Endeavours of our Enemies. No Day, no Hour, not a Moment passes, without some Favour of Dear. Her the Heavenly Host Worship, Hell itself Observes, the World Adores. Her Majesty the chiefest of the Blessed Spirits tremble at. By Her Order the World is Governed; the Stars give Light, the Sun shines, the Winds blow, the Gardens spring, the Woods grow, the Seasons keep their constant revolutions, the Elements serve our needs. The Ornament of our Manners, the brightness of our Works, all this we receive from Her Favour, when we Worship and Uenerate Der. The Church knows of how great danger it is to have her exiled Children divorced from the Care of their most indulgent Mother, and therefore by a most wise Counsel has decreed, that they should by a frequent Observance fly to Der Protection; not only by instituting a special Office to Der, but by addressing to Her in the end of all her Offices, according as the reason of the times should require.  
This is a short Specimen of what is scattered up and down in all the Parts of his Book; I need not say how extravagant his Verses are, 
See especially c. 12. p. 304. 〈◊〉  when the Prose is thus high flown: I will give but one Instance more, which one would think should contain, if any, a certain account of his Persuasion, taken out of his Last Will; in which, having commended himself to our Blessed Saviour, he comes in the next place, as is most fit, to the Virgin, and so on to the rest of his Friends and Patrons above. Page 37. Tom. 3.  
And to the also, 
See his Will in the beginning of the 3. Tom.  O Blessed Virgin MARY, Mother of Mercy, Queen of the World, Comforter of the Afflicted, Refuge of Sinners, Salvation of those that perish, to thee, O Fountain of Piety, in this dreadful Hour, I commend my Soul. Help me now that am afraid; Lift me up that am falling; Direct me that am in Error, Comfort my Soul that is desolate, and Obtain of thy beloved Son for me, the Mercy which I have desired. You have always mercifully Assisted me in all my Dangers; O Forsake me not in this last, on which Eternity depends.—  
Holy Michaël! Archangel! who camest to help the People of God, Prince of the Heavenly Host— Deliver me from the Snare of unclean Spirits, and bring my Soul into a Place of comfort and refreshment.  
And thou, Holy Angel, to whose Safeguard and Protection I unworthy Sinner have been committed, Assist me in this moment, Drive far from me all the Power of Satan; Save me from the Mouth of the Lion.— Draw me out of the Snare which they have laid for me, and Preserve my soul from their evil designs.  
Assist me you also, O my Patrons, and turelary Saints! Thou first of all, O St. JOHN, forerunner of Christ,— Make my Paths strait, and Direct my way in the sight of the Lord. Blessed PETER! Key-Bearer of the Heavenly Kingdom! Prince of the Apostles! by the Power that is committed to thee, Lose thou the Bonds of my Sins, and Open unto me the Gate of Paradise.  
And thou, O Glorious Father of the Monks of St. Benedict! impute not thou unto me to my Damnation, the innumerable transgressions that I have made of thy Rule.— O ye Captains and Heads of the Holy Order of the Cistercians, St. ROBERT, St. ALBERIC, St. STEPHEN, and St. BERNARD; who have so long patiently endured me an unfruitful Tree in this your Vineyard.— O Forsake me not in this Hour! But Remember that I am your Son, tho' unworthy the Name.—  
The Cardinal goes still further on with the rest of his Patrons; (for he had taken care to provide enough of them) but I fear I have tired the Reader with these I have already transcribed. Monsieur de Meaux, I know, will tell us, that all this is no more than if he had desired as many of the good Company that were about him at this time, to have done the same; and for his Expressions, though they are some of them a little Extraordinary, yet the Cardinal's intention, no doubt, like that of the Church, was to have them all reduced to this one and the same Catholic meaning, PRAY FOR ME.  
And for those who are resolved to believe this fond Pretence, there is no hopes of conviction.  
But for unprejudiced Persons, who see the Vanity, indeed the unreasonableness and absurdity of this Evasion, I doubt not but they will find a plain Opposition between Monsieur de Meauxes Principles and the Cardinal's, and that this good Man needed a very great Apology to his Patrons, for having approved a Doctrine so derogatory to their Power and Honour, as that of the Exposition in his Opinion undoubtedly was.  
But I shall say no more to show the unsincerity of Cardinal BONA in this matter: I might have added a yet greater instance, than either of these Cardinals, of the same pious Fraud, in the Approbation of the POPE himself; 
See the Procez verbal de l'Assembleé eatraordinaire des Messeigneurs l'Archeveques & Eveques en Mars & May 1681. Mr. de Meaux himself was one of this Assembly, and signed with the rest the Report of the A. B. of Reims, in which there is abundantly sufficient to show how repugnant his Holiness' Proceed were to the Doctrine of the Exposition, approved by him at the very same time that he was engaged in these attempts so contrary to it. I know not whether it be worth the observing, that the very same day the Pope sent his complementing Brief to Monsieur de Meaux, in approbation of his Exposition; he sent another to the Bishop of Pamiéz, to approve his defending the Rights of his Church, against the King: which was judged in the Assembly, of which Mr. de Meaux was one, to be an interposing in an Affair, which neither the Holy Councils nor Fathers had given him any Authority to meddle with.  whose Briefs, with reference to the Affairs of France, and which this Bishop, who has had so great a part in them, could not be ignorant of, however published at the same time that he sent his Compliment to Mr. de Meaux, do but ill agree with his Exposition. Indeed, they run in such a strain, as plainly shows, that were but his Power equal to his Will, he would soon convince the World, that not this Man's Pretences, but the Dictates of Pope GREGORY VII. the UNAM SANCTAM Bull, and the Canon of LATERAN, were the true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  
And of this I am ready to make an ample proof, from the several pieces set out by public Authority in France, when ever Mr. de Meaux or his Vindicator shall think fit to question the truth of what I now say.   


NUM. IV. Copie d'une Lettre ecrite à Monsieur l'Evêque de Meaux, cy devant Euêque de Condom.  
Au Port de St. Marie ce 13. Juin 1683. Monseigneur,  
VOtre Grandeur rapellera, sans doute, mieux l'Ideé de mon nom, lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle a eu la bonté de parler il y a environ 16 ans à Madame de Chaune pour avoir son consentement d'une Chapelle, comme tutrice de Monsieur de— & j' eûs l'Honneur de la voir plusieurs fois à St. Thomas du Lovure, avec Messeigneurs de Perigueux & de Xainte.  
Depuis ce tems la, j'ai souffert la Persecution, & particulierement depuis l'Exposition de la Foi, que uôtre grandeur a publiée. Sesse Enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer contre Elle, se declarent contre ceux qui disent la même chose. Et aujourdui Monseigneur l' Archevêque de Bourdeaux me fait faire le Proces, pour avoir expliqué à l' Epargne le jour de Vendredi Saint, Que nous adorions Jesus Christ crucifié en presence de la Croix, & que nous n'adorions rien de ce que nous voyons. Et parce que le Curé dit sur le champ assez haut Le Bois, Le Bois; j' ajoutai, Non, non, C'est Jesus Christ, & non pas le Bois. Et comme il ajouta, Ecce Lignum, Venite, Adoremus; je le relevai en luy disant, Auquel le Salut du Monde a eté ataché. Venez, adorons ce Salut de Monde.  
J' ajoutai que le sentiment de l'Eglise etoit, que si par impossible nous pouvions separer la Divinité da Fils de Dieu d'avec son humanité, nous n' adorerions pas l'humanité, puis qu'il est certain qu'il n' y a rien d'adorable que Dieu; & qu' ainsi nous devions nous persuader que nous allions au Calvaire adorer Jesus Christ, sans nous arreter au Crucifix. Que l'Eglise, comme une bonne Mere, nous l'avoit donné par une sainte Invention pour aider à nôtre Foi, & pour fraper plus vivement nôtre imagination, & non pour etre l'Objet de nôtre Culte, 〈◊〉 se termine à Jesus Christ.  
Voila, Monseigneur, tout mon crime, & ce que l'on me reproche. J'ai ecrit au Promoteur & au Vicaire General, & à Monseigneur l'Archevêque. Je leur expose, que j' ofre à me dedire, si j'ai mal parlé; j' ofre à me justifier. Au prejudice de cela il persiste dans l'interdiction qu' il lacha verbalement sur le champ. Je me suis pouruû par apel comme d'abus au Parlement de Guienne; j'ai fait assigner le Promoteur, & bien que j'ay fait toutes les honetetes possibles à la Justice Ecclesiastique, & rendu toutes les deferences, le dit Seigneur Archevêque me menace, comme ceux qui luy ont rendu ma Lettre me le mandent, de Prison perpetuelle, & de Fers aux Pieds.  
Vôtre Grandeur peut connoitre par ce procedé combien il y a de Personnes qui detournent nos Freres separéz de rentrer dans l'Eglise. L'on m'objecte, ce que l'on dit contre uôtre liure, que j'adoucis, mais que le sentiment de l'Eglise est contraire. On le verra mieux dans le Proces que me sera fait, car je defie mes Enemis de pouvoir faire des reproches contre ma vie & moeurs, & de me reprocher d'autre Doctrine que celle de uôtre Grandeur, que je tache d'exprimer dans les mêmes termes, la trouvant tres conforme aux sentimens de l' Eglise Romaine, & ainsi si je suis convaincu d'Heresie, j'ose dire à uôtre Grandeur qu' elle doit etre à ma Garentie. Jose pourtant l'assurer, que j'ay assez de lumiere pour bien defendre cette Doctrine, & pour detruire le Preservatif, si l'on ne me fait point de Violence. Je defie tous les Docteurs du Monde de toutes les Religions.  
La Grace que je demande à V. G. est que si l' Archevêque se servoit de toute son Authorité pour m' opprimer, qu' Elle daigne interposer la sienne pour m' obtenir la liberté de me defendre. Elle voit combien l'honneur de Dieu yest interessé, dans un tems ou toute la Province est remplie de Missionaires, de Capucins, & de Jesuits ignorans, qui prechent l' Adoration de la Croix, & la font faire dans une Province ou tout est remplie de Religionaires, & ou j'ose promettre 10000 Conversions, si la Religion etoit pratiquée conformément à uôtre Exposition. Les Messieurs de la Religion P. R. n'ont autre Objection à me faire si ce n'est que l'Eglise Romaine Vous traite & Me traite d'Heretique. Je demande Pardon à Vôtre Grandeur, Monseigneur, si j'ai crû etre obligé de luy faire connoitre mon Procedé, apres quoi je l'assureray de la Soumission,  
De son tres humble & tres obeissant Serviteur, IMBERT, Prieur.   

The Copy of a Letter sent to Monsieur the Bishop of Meaux, formerly Bishop of Condom.  
Port St. Marry, June 13th. 1683. My Lord,  
YOur Lordship, without doubt, will better call to mind my Name, when I shall have told you, that I am the Person for whom you had the goodness, about 16 years since, to speak to Madam de Chaune, to obtain her consent, as Tutoress to Monsieur de— for a certain Chapel; since which I have had the honour to see you several times at St. Thomas in the Lovure, with my Lords of Perigueux and Xainte.  
Since that I have suffered Persecution, and especially since the time that your Lordship has published your Exposition of the Faith. Your Enemies, who dare not declare themselves against your Lordship, declare themselves against those who say the same things. And at this instant, the Archbishop of Bourdeaux has caused a Process to be made against me for having explained upon Good-Friday, That we adore JESUS CHRIST crucified in presence of the Cross, and that we do not adore any thing of what we see. And forasmuch as the Curé replied upon the place aloud," The WOOD, the WOOD; I added, No, no, 'tis JESUS CHRIST, and not the WOOD And when he added, Ecce Lignum, venite, adoremus; I took him up, saying, On which the Saviour of the World hung, come let us adore this Saviour of the World.  
I said further, that the Doctrine of the Church was, That if by an impossible Supposition we could separate the Divinity of the Son of God from his Humanity, we should not adore his Humanity; forasmuch as 'tis certain, that there is nothing adorable but God; and that therefore we ought to think, that we are now going out of Mount Calvary to adore JESUS CHRIST, without stopping at the Crucifix. That the Church, like a good Mother, had given that to us by a holy Invention, to assist our Faith, and make the livelier Impression upon our Imagination, but not to be the Object of our Worship, which must terminate upon JESUS CHRIST.  
Behold, my Lord, all my Crime, and what I am reproached with, I have writ to the Promoter, and to the Vicar General, and to the Archbishop himself. I have offered, if I have spoken any thing amiss, that I will recant it: I have offered to justify myself: Notwithstanding all this, his Grace still persists in the verbal Interdict, which he immediately pronounced against me. I have transferred my Cause by Appeal, as of Abuse, to the Parliament of Guienne: I have caused the Proctor to be summoned; and though I have used all imaginable fairness, with reference to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, paid them all possible deference, nevertheless the said Archbishop threatens me, as I am informed by those who gave him my Letter, with perpetual Imprisonment and Chains, for my Offence.  
Your Lordship may see by this Proceeding, how many there are that hinder our separating Brethren from returning to our Communion. They object to me, that which is also said against your Lordship's Book, That I do mollify, but that the Doctrine of the Church is quite the contrary. This will more plainly appear by the Process against me; for I defy my Enemies to reproach me for my Life and Manners, or for any other Doctrine than that of your Lordship, which I endeavour to express in the self same Terms, as finding them most agreeable to the Sentiments of the Roman Church: so that if I am convicted of Heresy, I am bold to say, your Lordship must be my Surety. But I dare assure you, my Lord, that I have Knowledge enough to defend this Doctrine, and destroy the 
An Answer to Monsieur de Mauxes Exposition, entitled, Preservatif contre le changement de Religion.  Preservative, might I be but secure from Violence: I defy all the Doctors of the World, of whatsoever Religion they be.  
The Favour which I have to beg of your Lordship, is, That if the Archbishop should make use of his Authority to oppress me, you will please to interpose yours so far, as to procure me only the Liberty to defend myself. You see how far the Honour of God is concerned in it, and especially at a time when the whole Province is filled with Missionaries, Capuchins, ignorant Jesuits, and others, who preach up the Adoration of the Cross, and cause it to be done in a Country full of Protestants, and among whom I durst promise 10000 Converts, were the Practice of our Religion conformable to your Exposition. The Protestants have hardly any other Objection to make to me, than this, That the Church of Rome treats both your Lordship and me as Heretics.  
I beg your Lordship's Pardon for this; I thought myself obliged to acquaint you with my Case; after which, I have only remaining to assure you of the Submission of,  
My LORD, Your Lordship's most humble and obedient Servant, IMBERT.  
Such was the Account which Monsieur Imbert gave of his Case to M. de Meaux; I was the more willing to publish it, 
42 pages in 4to.  that those who have never seen the Factum which he printed of it, and which is too long to be inserted here, may at least by this perceive that his Crime was truly his adhering to M. the Meauxes Exposition; and that he had reason to say, as he does in this Letter to him, That if he was convicted of Heresy, M. de Meaux ought to be his warrant for it.  
And because the Bishop has been pleased to endeavour to take off the force of this great Allegation, 
Vindicat. p. 116. Cet Imbert est un homme sans sçavoir, qui crût justifier ses extravagances. en nommant mon Exposition, etc.  by lessening the Character of the Person, I shall leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge, whether this Letter carries any thing of the Style of an extravagant, a man of no learning, as well as of no Renown, such as M. de Meaux in his Answer pretends him to be.    

NUM. V The Epistle of St. chrysostom to Caesarius, cut by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, out of the Greek Edition of Palladius, published by Monsieur Bigot, 1680. with a Dissertation premised, containing an Historical Account of the whole Affair.  
IT will perhaps be looked upon by some, as a little unseasonable, to join a piece of Antiquity so considerable as this Epistle, to a Treatise of so little Importance as the foregoing Defence may justly be esteemed to be. But since the main thing I charge M. de Meaux with, is, That a first Edition of his Book was suppressed for containing some Assertions not so suitable to the Sentiments of the Sorbonne Doctors, to whom it was sent for their Approbation, to show the undistinguishing Justice of their Proceed, and that M. de Meaux is not the only Bishop they have dealt thus rudely with on these Occasions; I was willing to communicate to the World one Instance more of the like nature, especially since the Original Leaves, razed out, and suppressed by them, have here also fallen into my Hands, and may at any time be seen with the suppressed Edition of M. de Meauxes Exposition.  
It may be some Satisfaction to M. de Meaux to consider, that in this Case, he has run no other fortune than what is common to him with the great St. chrysostom: And possibly the Reader too will from hence begin to find it no difficult matter to believe, that those who made no scruple to suppress a whole Epistle of St. chrysostom, a Patriarch and a Saint, for contradicting their Doctrine in one only Point, may indeed have made as little of correcting M. de Meauxes Exposition, tho' a Bishop's, that had prevaricated their Faith in so many.  
Nor was I less engaged on the Vindicator's account to this Publication; 'tis one of his greatest difficulties, and which he seems the most desirous to be resolved in, how there can be such a thing as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, without Transubstantiation? I have before told him what I suppose sufficient to explain this matter. But because I cannot expect that either my Church or Book should pass pass with him for an Oracle, it may be some confirmation of the Idea to show him one of their pretended Patrons concurring with me in the Exposition, and manifestly supposing a Union betwixt the Bread and Christ's Body in the holy Eucharist, and yet stiffly contending at the same time, that the Nature of the Bread is not changed in it.  
All the danger is, that this holy Father, who, as Monsieur 
See Mr Bigot's Preface below.  Bigot observes, has hitherto passed for the great Doctor of the Eucharist, as St. Austin of Grace, may possibly by this run the hazard of losing his Credit amongst them; and as it has fared but very lately with Theodoret upon the same account, that they will henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation, since they cannot any longer suppress his Doctrine.  
But before I offer the Epistle itself, it is fit that I premise something for the better understanding of it. It was written to Caesarius, a Monk, that had a little before fallen into the Apollinarian Heresy, to reduce him to the Catholic Faith. I shall therefore beg leave to begin my Reflections with a short account of that, as far as may serve to open the way to what we are to read of it in this.  

REFLECTION I. Of APOLLINARIUS and his HERESY.  
APOLLINARIUS the younger, from whom this Heresy derives its name, was Son to the elder Apollinarius, 
Godefry vie de S. Athanase, liure II. cap. 13. Ex Basil. Ep 74.  a very learned Man, and never, that we read of, charged with any Heresy. He was of Alexandria, where he was ordained a Priest, and became deservedly eminent for this, That when Julian forbade the Christians the reading of human Writers, being envious of that Reputation which many of the Fathers of the Church had so justly acquired in that sort of Learning; he with his Son, 
Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap 16. Calvisii Chronol. pag. 525. an. 362.  repaired in great measure this Disadvantage, by opening of two Schools: The Father turning the Writings of the Old Testament into Heroic Verse, and composing several Tragedies of the Historical Parts of them: The Son explaining the New in Dialogues, after the Platonic manner; and by this means preserving the Church from that Ignorance, which the Apostate Emperor thought to have reduced it to.  
II. As for the younger Apollinarius, he is on all hands acknowledged to have been a very extraordinary Man; 
Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. lib. 6. c. 25. See Epiphan. Haer. 77. Theophilus l. 1. paschal. Vincen. Lirin. lib. adv. prof. novationes. Quid illo praestantius acumine, exercitatione, doctrinâ? Quam multas ille Haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit, quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores, indicio est opus illud 30 non minus librorum, nobilissimum & maximum, quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias, magnâ probationum mole confudit. Longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare, quibus profectò summis Aedificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset, nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curiositatis libidine, novum nescio quod adinvenisset, quo & cunctos labores suos, velut cujusdam leprae admixtione, foedaret, & committeret, ut doctrina ejus non tam aedificatio, quam tentatio potiùs ecclesiastica di●eretur.  eminent for his Learning, and particularly cherished by St. Athanasius, as one of the most zealous Defenders of the Nicene Faith, whilst he was yet but Reader in the Church of Laodicea. He wrote against Porphyry in 30 Books; against the Arrians, Eunomians, Origen, and the other Heretics of those times. In a word, both his Zeal and his Learning were such, that, if we may take the account which Vincentius Lirinensis has left of him, had he not fallen into Heresy, he might justly have been equalled to the chiefest Builders of the Church.  
III. The Occasion of his Heresy is diversely reported by Ecclesiastical Writers. 
Russin. lib. 2. cap. 20.  Ruffinus tells us, that his extraordinary Facility to write upon all sorts of Subjects, and his great Understanding in all kinds of Learning, raised in him a love of Disputation; and that the desire of refuting whatever others said, made him at last himself become a Heretic. 
Sozomen lib. 6. c. 25.  Sozomen relates, that St. Athanasius in his Passage through Laodicea, where Apollinarius then was, contracted so intimate a Friendship with him, that George, Bishop of that place, and who detested the Communion of St. Athanasius, as the other Arrians did, excommunicated 
Petavius says it was for keeping too much company with the Heathen Epiphanius. See dogm. Theol. T. 4. l. 1. p. 25. c. 6.  Apollinarius upon this account, and would never be persuaded to receive him, whatever Instances he could make to that purpose; and that upon this he conceived so great a discontent, that it carried him in the end to form himself a new Heresy. And lastly, 
Theodoret: Eccles. Hist. l. 5 c. 4.  Theodoret differing from both these, tells us, That being rejected from the Government of the Church, to which in the Contest between Meletius and Paulinus, he also, as Head of a third Party, aspired; he thereupon began to spread openly that Heresy he had before invented, and to set himself up for chief of it.  
iv Whether any, or all these Causes concurred to ruin one of the greatest Ornaments of the Church, and who had till then been the Admiration of the best Men, not only St. Athanasius, Basil, etc. who were his Friends, but all the others, as many as have left us any account of the History of those times, having constantly represented him in the most advantageous manner that could be expected: 
Epiphan. Haer. 77.  Certain it is, that his loss was a very sensible Blow to the Church, and is as such, exceedingly lamented by Epiphanius in the account of his Heresy.  
V He had now been some time made 
Godefry places it An. 361. See Balls. Zon come. in Can 1. Concil. O●c. secundi.  Bishop of Laodicea; whether of the great Laodicea in Syria, or of the other in Phoenicia of Libanus, is not certainly known. It was not long after this Promotion that he became a Heretic. Athanasius, who died within 10 years after, having written a long Letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, against his Errors; tho' either his respect to a Person he had so much esteemed, 
See this Letter in Epiphan. Haeres. 77.  or being unwilling to exasperate One, whom he so earnestly desired to reduce to the Catholic Faith, made him that he did not once name him in his whole Epistle.  
VI But we will come yet nearer; for in the year 362. Athanasius being the third time returned from Banishment, held a Council at Alexandria; in which, 
See this Council in Labbe's Collection, T. 2 p. 816.  among other things, we find the Heresy of Apollinarius expressly condemned, tho' no mention made of his Name; whether it were that he was not yet known as chief of those Heretics, 
Vid. Binnii not. loc. cit.  or that, as some think, he sent a Renuntiation of his Heresy to the Council by the Monks that went thither. About ten years after, Anno 373. the same Heresy was again condemned in another Council at Rome, under Pope Damasus; and lastly, in the second General Council at Constantinople, Anno 381. He is by name anathematised among the other Heretics, Can. 1. of that Synod.  
VII. As to the Heresy itself, I shall not enter any farther into the search of it, than may serve for the Explication of that Capital Error, which gave Occasion to this Epistle of St. chrysostom. Now this, 
Photii bibl. in Eulogio p 850.  to take it in his own words as they are reported by Photius from Eulogius was, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That God and flesh make up but one Nature, 
Comment. in Conc. 2. Occumen. can. 1.  which Balsamon and Zonaras thus explain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That he said, that the Son of God took indeed an animate Body of the blessed Virgin, but without the Rational Soul, the Divinity serving instead of that.  
VIII. And the same is the account which the other Ecclesiastical Writers have left of him; Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, Epiphanius, Theorianus, etc. all which unanimously agree in this point of his asserting, 
Theodoret. Haeres. Fabul. l 5. c. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Body of our Saviour was animated, but that he had not the Rational Soul; for that that Soul was superfluous, where the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was present.  
IX. But tho' this were the last Resolution of his Heresy as to this point, yet was it not his first Error. It was a part of the Doctrine maintained by Arrius and Eunomius, That Christ took a Body destitute not only of the Rational Soul, but altogether inanimate; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say; Theodoret, 
Theodoret. Haeres. Fab. l. 4. c. 1. & Epist. 124. de Arrio. & Eunomio.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That God the Word took a mere Body, and that himself supplied the want of the Soul. And the same was the beginning of Apollinarius' Heresy too. 
Socrates Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 46.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Socrates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They first asserted, That God at his Incarnation took upon him Man without any Soul. Afterwards, as if they repent, and meant to correct their Error, they held, That he took indeed the animal Soul, but was destitute of the Rational, God the Word being instead of that. Both which Vincentius Lirinensis tells us, 
Vincent. Lirinens. adv. Haeres. c. 17.  they sometimes joined together, saying, In ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne, aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse, aut certe talem fuisse cui mens & ratio non esset; That in the Body of our Saviour there was either no Human Soul at all, or at least such as was not rational.  
X. I shall not now enter on any other Points of their Heresy, such as their making this Flesh not to have been assumed by Christ at his Conception, 
Epiphan. Haeres. 77. Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. cap. 3. Greg. Naz. Orat. 46. p. 722. etc.  but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Divinity; which Divinity therefore by consequence suffered, and was mortal; which Epiphanius, Theodoret, but especially Gregor. Nazianzen has at large related. Only since, some, for the more distinct conception of the Apollinarian Heresy, have thus distinguished it from that of Eutyches afterwards; that the Eutychian affirmed, That our blessed Saviour took nothing from the blessed Virgin, 
Theodoret. Heretic. Fab. l. 4. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eutyches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but that the very Logos, the Word itself being, as Theodoret expresses it, immutably converted, and made Flesh, only passed through the Virgin; whereas Apollinarius supposed the Flesh of Christ, which he took of the Virgin, to be converted into the Divine Nature: It appears by Gregory Nazianzen, that this was no certain distinction, forasmuch as the Apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing; that, as the Father expresses it in the place I before cited, 
Naz. orat. 46. supr. dict. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apollinarius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 722.  our Saviour was even before he descended, the Son of Man, and descending, brought his Flesh along with him, which he had whilst he was in Heaven, before all Ages, and consubstantial with his Essence. Which is what Theodoret long since observed, when in his 3. Dialogue, speaking with relation to them both, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They who have patched together this various and many-formed Heresy, sometimes say, that the Word is become Flesh, sometimes that the Flesh is changed into the Word.  
Wherefore laying aside these subtleties, this we may undoubtedly conclude, That whatever their other differences were, whether as to his Body, which we see is uncertain, or to his Soul, in which the variety was more constant and more discernible, the Eutychian affirming the Union of the two entire Natures, the Humane and Divine; whereas the Apollinarian denied that our Saviour ever assumed the reasonable Soul at all: certain it is, for what concerns our present purpose, 
See Petav, Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3.  that they both agreed in this, That after the Union of the Word and Flesh, there was but one only Nature common to both, the Substance of the two, that were before, being now confused and permixt; from whence they were both of them afterwards called by 
Apollinarius by St. Chrysostom, Eutyches by others.  St. Chrysostom and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from their confusion of the two Natures into one, and making not only one Person, as the Catholic Church did, but one Nature too alone in Christ.   

REFLECTION II. St. Chrysostme's Argument from the Eucharist against the Apollinarians, considered and explained.  
SUch is the Account which the ancient Fathers have left us of the Apollinarian Heresy, and the same we find to have been the Notion which St. J. Chrysostom in this Epistle had of it. He proves the divine and humane Natures to be distinct in Christ; that the Properties of the one, ought not otherwise to be confounded with the other, than as they are united in the same Person. He charges the Apollinarians with saying that our Saviour's Body is converted into the Divinity, and upon that account attributing Passion to the Deity: and finally, he concludes all with this Exhortation to Caesarius, whom he designed by this Epistle to recover from their Errors. Wherefore, dearly beloved, says he, laying aside the novel Phrases, and vain Speeches of these men, let us return to what we have before said; that it is pious, most pious indeed, that we should confess our Saviour Christ, who died for us, to be perfect in the Godhead, perfect in the Manhood; one only begotten Son, not divided into two, but bearing in himself together the unmixed proprieties of two distinct Natures. Not two different Persons, God forbidden! But one and the same Lord Jesus, God, Word; clothed with our Flesh, and that not inanimate, without the rational Soul, as the wicked Apollinarius pretends. Let us then assent to these things, let us fly those who would divide him; for though the Natures be distinct, yet is there but one undivided and indivisible Union to be acknowledged in the same one Person and Substance of the Son.  
II. And now if this be the Catholic Doctrine which this Holy Father here designs to bring Caesarius to; such the Errors, which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was involved in: It will be very easy to conceive the Allusion he here makes between the two Natures united in Christ, and the two Parts, which the Catholic Church has ever acknowledged in the Holy Eucharist; to the destruction of the Romanists Pretences of Transubstantiation, and to the solid Establishment of the real Presence of Christ in this sacred Mystery, such as the Church of England believes, and has been established by me in the foregoing Discourse.  
III. The Words of St. 
See below. ☜  chrysostom in this Epistle are these: Christ is both GOD and MAN; GOD, in that he is impassable; MAN, for that he suffered. yet but one SON, one LORD; He the same without doubt, having one Dominion, one Power of two united Natures. Not that these Natures are consubstantial, forasmuch as either of them, does without confusion retain its own Properties, and being two, are yet inconfused in him.  
For as [in the Eucharist] before the BREAD is Consecrated, we call it BREAD, but when the Grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it, it is no longer called BREAD, but is esseemed worthy to be called the LORD's BODY, although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it; and we do not say there be TWO BODIES, but ONE BODY of the; Son: So here, the DIVINE NATURE being joined with the [Humane] BODY, they both together make up but one Son, one Person. But yet they must be confessed to remain without confusion, after an indivisible manner, not in ONE NATURE, but in TWO PERFECT NATURES.  
iv In which Passage, whether we consider the Expressions themselves, or the Application of them, they are utterly destructive of Transubstantiation.  
First, as to the Expressions themselves.  
They tell us plainly, That the Nature of BREAD remains in the Eucharist after the Consecration: That our not calling it BREAD, but CHRIST's BODY, does not therefore intent to signify that the Nature of BREAD is at all changed; for that the BREAD by Consecration becomes indeed worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY, but yet still retains its own Nature of BREAD.  
V These are such plain expressions of the Bread's continuing in its own Nature after Consecration, that the Papists themselves have not been able to deny it. So that their only Refuge is, that by the BREAD'S retaining still its own Nature, we are, they say, to understand only this, that its Accidents remain, but for its Substance, that is changed into the BODY OF CHRIST. 
See most of these cited by Albertinus, de Eucharist. l. 2. pag. 533. in chrysostom, c. 1.  Thus Gardiner, Turrian, Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suares, Perron, Gamachaeus, and last of all, Father 
Novet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrament, liv. 4. c. 5. art. 3 p. 285.  Novet, in his Controversy against Monsieur Claude.  
VI This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied; and makes St. chrysostom in effect to say thus much, That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration, still remains, though indeed the Nature be changed, and only the Accidents continue. And would it not have been an admirable Similitude, to show that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine, as the Appollinarian pretended, to allege the Example of the Eucharist, in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body, as the Papists believe.  
VII. But S. chrysostom was not so absurd, as these men would represent him; and his other Expressions utterly overthrow this Evasion. 1. He tells us plainly, that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration, was in the Name, 
See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude, Rep. à Pere Novet. Party 5. c. 6. p. 488.  not the Substance: That whereas before it was called BREAD, by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY. 2. Had St. chrysostom believed the BREAD to have been truly changed, and become the very Body of Christ, would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ? and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ? Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven? The Sun, worthy to be called the Sun? And why shall we think St. chrysostom the only ridiculous man, to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did, or would have done besides? But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt: When St. chrysostom here speaks of the Nature of BREAD, in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST; if we will have him consistent with himself, we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both, in the same sense. As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after, by Nature, with reference to CHRIST, he does not mean the Properties only, but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity; so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD, he must still mean the same, the Substance of the BREAD, and not barely the Properties, or Accidents of it; and of this I am persuaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt.  
Secondly, As to the design of this Allusion,  
VIII. The Apollinarians, as we have seen, affirmed the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other; That however, before the Union, they were two distinct things, yet by being united, the humane Nature became converted, or if you will, transubstantiated into the Divine.  
IX. Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom, shows by the Example of the Eucharist. That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY, yet does not lose its own Nature, but continues the same BREAD, as to its Substance, that it was before: So here, the Humane Nature of Christ, being by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Divine, did not cease to be a Humane Nature, but still continued what it was before, however united with the other in one Person.  
X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Nature of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature, notwithstanding that Incarnation; so certainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist continue BREAD after this Consecration. As certainly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead; so certainly is the Papist deceived in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallowed up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY, in this Holy Sacrament.  
XI. Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine, became worthy thereby to be called, together with it, by the same common Name of Christ, Lord, Jesus, the Word, the Son of God; the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY, becomes worthy to be called, together with it, THE LORD's BODY; but that is all, the Humane Nature still continues what it was before; in the one, the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other, and there is no Transubstantiation made in either.  
XII. In a word, in the Hypostatick Union, though there be two distinct Natures, God and Man, yet there is but one Person, one Son made up of both. So in the Holy Eucharist, though there be two different things united, the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY, yet we do not say there be two Bodies, but one mystical Body of Christ, made up of both; as the King and his Image, to use the Similitude of the Ancient Fathers, are not two, but one King: Or in the Example of St. chrysostom himself, Christ and the Church, are not two, but one Body.   

REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle itself, and the Attempts that have been made against it.  
I. ANd now when such is the force of this Epistle, that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery: It is not at all to be wondered at, if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves, have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not.  
II. 
Ann. 1548.  It is now above 100 years, since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr, in his Dispute with Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, concerning the Eucharist. He then professed that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Archbishop Cranmers Library. 
Lovanii Confutatio Cavillationum, &c ad Obj. 201.  This Gardener could not deny, who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endeavoured first to ascribe it to another John of Constantinople, who lived about the beginning of the 6th Century. Secondly, to elude the force of this Passage, by that strange interpretation of the Word Nature, I have before mentioned, and in which all the others have since followed him.  
III. 
Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18.  Turrian, who by his writing seems to show that he had somewhere or other seen this Epistle, contends in like manner, and if we may believe Vasquez, 
Vasquez dis. 180. c. 9 n. 102. Valentia de Transub. cap. 7. §. Similiter.  and de Valentia, proves it too, that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's, but the other John's, to whom the Bishop of Winchester had before ascribed it. But yet still the Argument recurred upon them, forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the 6th Age, and Transubstantiation by consequence was not the Doctrine of the Church then.  
IU. And indeed Gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this: for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John, he tells us, 
Excusari posse, quod nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita & explicata fuerat, sicut bodiè. See Albertinus de Euch. p. 533. l. 2. supr. cit.  he is to be excused, for that Transubstantiation was not so plainly delivered and explained in those days as it is now.  
V But this 
Perron the l'Eucharistie. p. 381, 382, 383.  Cardinal Perron could not bear, he neither thought fit to rely upon an Evasion, which he saw would not do their business, nor could he endure to allow so ancient an Author as either of the two john's, to have been so directly opposite to their Sentiments in this matter. And therefore flatly accuses Peter Martyr of Forgery, and uses abundance of Arguments to persuade the World, that there was never any such Epistle as had been pretended.  
VI Thus stood this Passage, and the whole Epistle for its sake; till about six years since the learned Bigotius, who had twelve years before brought a Copy of it from Florence, resolved to ruin all the Endeavours of these Men, by publishing the very Epistle, which the Cardinal had so loudly proclaimed to be a Forgery, and proving it to be indeed the Genuine Offspring of St. chrysostom, contrary to what the rest had in vain pretended.  
VII. And this he accordingly, with great sincerity performed, Ann. 1680. For in his Edition of Palladius that year, among the other Pieces which he added to it, this Epistle of St. chrysostom had one of the first places, and was strengthened by him with such Attestations, as show it to be beyond all doubt authentic. In his Preface he declared how he came by it, and made a short Apology for that passage of it that had caused so great a Contest; but such as it seems, he was either conscious to himself, not to have been very strong, or feared at least that his Censors would not esteem it to be so.  
VIII. 
Expostulatio. pag. iii.  And in this I speak no more than what he himself declared to his Friends, insomuch that he resolved to reserve privately some few Copies, for fear the rest should run that risk, which indeed they accordingly did. For being now quite finished, and just ready to come abroad, some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, whereof Monsieur Grandin and Mr. Faure have been charged as the Principal, caused it to be suppressed, and the printed Leaves cut out of the Book, without any thing to supply the place of them.  
IX. And of this the Edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing Monument, both in the Preface, 
S. Anastasii in Hexaëmeron lib. 12. Cui praemissia est expostulatio etc. Lond. 1682. 4 to.  and in the Book; and it was publicly complained of by a very learned Man, in an Expostulation prefixed to a piece of Anastasius, published by him about two years after.  
X. But what that Reverend Person could not then obtain, being since fallen into my hands, I mean the very Leaves cut out by these Doctors, of Mr. Bigot's Preface, and the Epistle razed out of the Book; I was unwilling to come into a Part of their Fraud, by detaining any longer that, which both so well deserved, and had so long since been prepared for a public view.  
XI. I hope the learned World, whom I principally design to gratify in this matter, will accept this never the worse, for that Mr. le Moyne the last year published this Epistle among his Varia Sacra: 
Tom. 1.  That learned Man having neither given the Greek Fragments, which I now publish from Monsieur Bigots' own Impression; nor Monsieur Bigots' account of it, in the part of the Preface which was suppressed. Not to add, that the Latin Copy of Mr. le Moyne is so very false, that it renders the Epistle utterly unintelligible. I do not pretend to anticipate his design, which he appears so jealous of: that is too vast to be injured by any thing I can offer; and I shall be glad if what I now publish may be any way serviceable to it.  
XII. As to the Authority of this Piece, I shall need say no more than what Monsieur Bigot has already done to prove it to be Genuine. So many ancient Authors have cited it, as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius; such Fragments of it remain in the most ancient Writers as Authentic, that he who after all these shall call this Piece in question, may with the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works, which, perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and undoubted.  
But it is time now to see what account Monsieur Bigot himself gives of it.  

Suppressa in Praefatione Emerici Bigotii, de Epistolâ Chrysostomi ad Caesarium, Monachum.  
HAnc Orationem sequitur Epistola ad Caesarium, 
Praefat. lit i, ij. pag. prior. inter lin. 22, & 23.  Monachum, quae licet nitore suo nativo, id est, Graeco eloquio, destituta, nihilominus sub velo veteris Latinae Interpretationis mirificos eloquentiae disertissimi doctoris radios exhibet. Primus qui ultimis temporibus hujus meminit Epistolae, fuit Petrus Martyr, Florentinus, qui ex eâ locum quendam protulit in locis communibus. Insolitus loquendi de EUCHARISTIA modus, qui ex eâ referebatur, à Johannis Chrysostomi phrasi 
* Lit. i, two. pag. altera.  ac genio prorsus alienus lectores in diversas traxit sententias. Aliis supposititiam esse affirmantibus, aliis pro virili contendentibus, veram esse ac genuinam; omnes integram videre summe concupiuêre; dolueruntque Petrum Martyrem, qui primus de eâ mentionem injecerat, minime indicâsse qua in Bibliotheca extaret codex MS. Florentiae delitescere omnium erat suspicio, quia Florentinus fuit Petrus Martyr, sed ubi, ab omnibus nesciebatur. Mihi quae fortuna faverat in reperiendo contextu Graeco vitae St. Johannis Chrysostomi, hic etiam non defuit. Ejus exemplar reperi apud R.R. P.P. Dominicanos, in monasterio S. Marci. Cujus te in partem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 venire libens patior; nec expecto ut mihi succlames in commune, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, si modo exorari te sinas, ut benignâ interpretatione emollias, quae duriuscule sonant de Eucharistiae Sacramento, & in memoriam revoces tot & tam insignes locos, in quibus adeo luculenter de hoc sacro-sancto Mysterio loquitur Joannes noster, ut Doctor Eucharistiae vocari meruerit, sicut S. Augustinus Doctor Gratiae vulgò praedicatur. Dixi Petrum Martyrem primum postremis temporibus hujus Epistolae meminisse, quae antea Graecis Patribus notissima fuerat, utpote qui multa testimonia ex ea adversus Monophysitas & Acephalos adduxerunt, ut observare licet in Notis, quas margini apposui, indicando codices ex quibus Textum Graecum apud illos patres à me inventum descripsi. Caeterum ubi deficiebant verba Graeca, vacua Columnarum spatia reliqui, nec passus sum ea punctis, aut lineolis, sicut librariorum mos est, repleri, ut possint inibi viri eruditi verba Graeca adscribere 
* Lit. i iij.  siquando ea invenerint. Cum enim experimento noverim, quo casu, quâve fortunâ in ea quae attexui testimonia, inciderim, non despero ab aliis alia posse inveniri. Quisque experiatur cui fortuna erit faventior; & si cui ea obsecundaverit, is ne publico invideat, neque apud se inventa privatim detineat. Qui veteres libros tractant, norunt nullam veteris cujuscunque libri editionem, quae ex unico exemplari fuerit eruta, hucusque prodiisse, omni ex parte perfectam. Manu exarati codices mutuas aliorum exposcunt operas, ut quod in uno corruptum est, ab alio sanetur; quod in uno vetustas obliteraverit, ab alio lucem accipiat. Hoc verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae fateri cogor, qui licet annorum sit 500, parum tamen emendatè scriptus est, & opem à Graeco praecipuè codice, aut ab alio saltem Latino, postulat. In eo quem vidi, aliquando voces continuae sunt, aliquando simplex vocalis E pro diphthongo A scripta fuit; T pro D, & vice versa D pro T; verbis aliquando ita corruptis, ut ad sanitatem reduci minimè possint absque subsidio aliorum codicum. Quae scribarum incuria deterruit, opinor, Petrum Martyrem ab eâ edendâ. Taceo interpretationem, quae minus accurata, imo planè barbara videtur. Ego his omnibus naevis Lectores benevolos nequaquam offensum iri arbitratus sum; imo eam libenter excepturos puto quam damus Epistolam, Latinè quoquo modo versam, cujus fragmentum à Petro Martyre editum, eruditorum animos pridem sollicitavit. Quis enim illud cum legerit, Joannis Chrysostomi mentem percipere possit, ex eoque animadvertere, quâ occasione, quo animo ejus verba 
* Lit. i iij. pag. altera.  scripta sunt? In eâ porro Epistolà mirari licet summam & insolitam Dei amantissimi viri charitatem, qui licet innumeris aerumnis oppressus esset, atque continuis terroribus ob Isaurorum Incursiones, ut ipse scribit in Epistolis ad Olympiadem, paenè exanimaretur; nihilominus cum audisset Caesarium, Monachum, amicum suum in Apollinaris & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeresim incidisse, eum pro incredibili suâ bonitate ab Haeresi avertere, atque in sincerae pietatis viam revocare hâc Epistolà molitus est. Quantum vero Apollinaris Haeresis tunc grassaretur, & quàm multos invasisset, ex eo colligere licet, quod contra Apollinaristas & Synusiastas scripserunt Diodorus, Tarsensis Episcopus, quem supramemoravi, Gregorius Nyssenus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Theophilus Antiochensis, ut alios plures omittam. Atque ut ab eo errore Caesarium revocaret Joannes, eumque ad catholicam fidem, quae duas in Christo naturas inconfusas sub unâ personà confitetur, Epistolà reduceret, comparationem ab Eucharistiae Sacramento mutuatur, in quo PANIS post consecrationem, non jam PANIS, sed CORPUS CHRISTI APPELLARE DIGNUS EFFICITUR; Etiamsi natura panis, inquit, in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicatur. Quibus verbis sanctus Doctor veram ac realem, ut vocant, corporis Christi in Eucharistia presentiam supponit, & agnoscit; alias certe nulla esset cum humanâ ac divinâ in Christo naturâ Eucharistiae comparatio. Ipse Chrysostomus Homil. 2. ad Populum Antiochensem: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Elias enim pallium reliquit discipulo suo; Dei autem Filius ascendens in coelum, nobis carnem suam reliquit: sed Elias se exuit, Christus vero & carnem suam nobis reliquit, ipsamque habens, ascendit. Et Hom. 83. in Matthaeum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sic etiam in mysteriis faciamus, non illa quae ante nos jacent, solummodo aspicientes, sed verba quoque ejus tenentes. Nam verbis ejus defraudari non possumus, sensus vero noster deceptu facillimus est: illa falsa esse non possunt, hic saepius atque saepius fallitur. Quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, obediamus, & credamus, & oculis intellectûs id perspiciamus. Integrum librum conficerem, si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem, in quibus de sacratissima Eucharistia similiter loquitur; sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit, eos in fonte legisse.  
Thus far Bigotius' Preface: As to the Epistle itself, I have published it exactly as it was in the Paris Edition, whose Pages I have retained, that those who please, may see the Defect in that part of Palladius, out of which it was razed. For the little Notes which I have added, they contain a Collation, 1. Of the Latin of Bigotius, with the Latin of Mr. le Moyne's Copy, in which I do not know that I have omitted the least variation, even of a single Letter. 2. Of the Greek Fragments collected by Bigotius, with some other MSS. that have been communicated to me. In which, A denotes the Arundel MS. cited by Dr. Cave in his Chartophylax Eccles. C. one of Monsieur Colbert's Library, examined by the learned Monsieur Allix. M. the Latin Copy published by Monsieur le Moyne.   

EPISTOLA S. JOHAN. CHRYS. 
Pag. 236. lit. Gg. part. alt. folii ed. Paris.   

* Praeter Authores à Bigotio laudatos, unde fragmenta Graeca hujus Epistolae collegit vir eruditissimus; extat alius Nicephori liber MS. in Biblioth. Colbert. continens quinque diversos tractatus. Ex secundo eorum contra Mamonas quaedam collegit, & mecum communicavit reverendus D. P. Alix. Titulus autem in illo MS. ita se habet, pag. 222. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paulò aliter legitur hic titulus in antiquo codice Bibliothecae Arundelianae à R. D. D. Cave in Chartoph. Eccles. nuper edito, p. 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. uti in MS. Colbert.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Alludit ad hunc locum vetus Author contra Severianos & Acephalos, à Turriano editus, Bibl. Patr. Edit. 4. Tom. 4. ad fin. ubi post laudatum quendam Ambrosii locum, subdit, Chrysostomus ad Caesarium Monachum. Haec est haeresis ipsissima introducentium Mixtionem & Compositionem. Vid. Expostulationem p. X.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
† Locus hic corruptus videtur: Quid si legamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut sensus sit, istud admiraberis, vel potius, istud admirari debuisses insani Apollinaris absurdum; haec quippe est Haeresis ipsissima, etc. ...  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
* f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest in MS. A.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, MS. C.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS A.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib. deest.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest in A.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

INCIPIT Epistola B Johannis Episcopi Constantinopolitaniss, ad Caesarium, Monachum, tempore secundi exilii sui.  
INSPEXIMUS literas tuae Reverentiae: inspeximus autem 
b Var. lect. MS. M. N.  non 
a Var. lect. MS. M. pter.  praeter 
c Var. lect. MS. M. lachrymas: lachrymabimur.  lachrymas. Quomodo enim 
b Var. lect. MS. M. N.  non 
c Var. lect. MS. M. lachrymas: lachrymabimur.  lachrymabimur, & animam ipsam dolore conficimus, videntes fratrem singularem vitam à pueritiâ eligentem, & 
d Var. lect. MS. M. α 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, consummatè circa pietatem se habentem, subitò autem 
e Var. lect. MS. M. Haeredicorum.  haereticorum jactibus pulsum. 
Anastas. in MS. Colleg. Clarom. Nicephor. C. P. in Antirrhet. MS. Bibl. Colbert.  Et dicas forsitan ab errore ad id quod melius est venisse Te, & gratiam confiteri his, qui 
f Var. lect. MS. M. Ammirabilem.  admirabilem illum 
g Var. lect. MS. M. Protulerit.  protulerint librum, quem magnum esse 
h Var. lect. MS. M. Optime.  optima tua nominant scripta, qui splendidè praedicat 
i Var. lect. MS. M. [Concursum essentialem sacrum facta ex Divinitate & Carnis unam autem ex hoc perfici naturam.]  concursum essentialem & commixtionem sacram factam ex Divinitate & Carne, unam autem ex hâc perfici naturam.] Istud mirabitur insipientis Apollinarii inconsideratio, 
Pag. 237. edir. Paris. G g. iij.  ista eorum qui introducunt 
a MS. M. Contemplationem.  contemperationem & 
b MS. M. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, commixtionem impiissima [
c MS. M. [Intentioque.]  intentio, quae] procedens immutat quidem Arrii, Apollinarii, 
d MS. M. Et deest.  & Sabellii, 
d MS. M. Et deest.  & Manetis nihil. Passionem autem excogitari & adponi secundum illos Unigeniti 
e MS. M. emaginatur.  imaginatur Deitati, quod à 
f MS. M. X●●anis.  Christianis alienum est.  
Posside igitur Temetipsum iterum, Dilectissime, & ad priorem regredere ordinem ab abominabili illâ abstinens 
g MS. M. [Opinionem & qua Apollinaris & eorum qui Synusiaste dicuntur ipsa cogitatio assiduae puris, etc.]  opinione, quae est Apollinaris, & eorum qui Synusiastae dicuntur. Impia cogitatio assidua è puris] influens nocere novit, qui secundum nos sunt simplicitati conviventes. 
a MS. M. Doctoris.  Ductoris enim eorum est liber, Apollinarii 
b Dico, abest.  dico; 
c Et fi.  etsi hunc sibi tua Reverentia non rectè faciens negotiata est. Verum tamen nos recordantes tuae nobiscum conversationis, sentientes autem ex his quae scripsistis, errorem subsistere erga tuam dilectionem ex illorum insipientiâ non solum erga dispensationis 
d Misterium.  mysterium, magis autem & erga Nominum conjunctionem, excogitavimus Deo cooperante nostrae infirmitati de omnibus manifestam ostentationem facere, ad redargutionem quidem 
e Male.  malae opinionis eorum qui 
f Ereticum.  haereticum Tibi protulerunt librum, 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 238.  correctionem autem tuae venerationis.  

g Dominum.  Deum ergo quando dicis, Dilectissime, agnovisti id quod simplex est 
a MS. M. Nature.  naturae, quod incompositum, quod inconvertibile, quod invisibile, quod immortale, quod incircumscriptibile, quod incomprehensibile, & istis similia. Hominem autem dicens, significâsti id quod naturae est 
b MS. M. In firmum.  infirmum, esuritionem, sitim, super Lazarum lachrymas, 
c MS. M. Meum.  metum, 
Anastas. in MS. Clarom.  sudoris ejectionem, & his similia, quibus id quod divinum est extra [est. 
d MS. M. [ē Xūm dn]  Christum autem] quando dicis conjunxisti utrumque, unde & passibilis dicatur idem ipse & 
e MS. M. Im-passibilis, deficit im, spatio tamen relicto ubi olim fuerit,  impassibilis, passibilis quidem carne, impassibilis autem Deitate. Eadem ipsa & de Filio, & 
f MS. M. XPO. & Inū. & dnō.  Christo, & Jesus, & Domino praedicantur. Communia enim ista, 
Edit. Paris. 239. lit. Gg. 4.  & [
g MS. M. [Susceptibili avarum]  susceptibilia duarum] Essentiarum nomina sunt; quarum conjunctio in haereticis quidem errorem facit, proprio pro communi utentes nomine [
a MS. M. [XPt unos autem.]  Christi uno. His autem] communibus istis 
b MS. M. Uti oportet, deest.  uti oportet Nominibus quando dispensationis confitendum est mysterium. Si enim 
c MS. M. dm.  Deum dixeris pertulisse, qualicunque 
d MS. M. Cogitationem.  cogitatione quod 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 239.  impossibile est, dixisti, id quod Blasphemum est, 
e MS. M. [Et immane sed.]  & in 
* Sic videtur legendum; & in Manetis, & in aliorum Haeresum declinâsti impietatem. Si iterum, etc.  Manetis, &] in aliorum 
f MS. M. Haeresum.  haeresim declinâsti. Impietatem, si iterum hominem dixeris qui pertulit, inveniris purum aedificans templum. Templum 
† Forte melius carnis.  Crucis extra inhabitantem nunquam dicitur, quia jam non est Templum. 
Joan. 8.40.  Et forsitan dicunt, & quomodo 
g MS. D. le Moyne. Dns.  Dominus dixit,  quid me vultis occidere hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum quam audivi à 
h MS. M. le Moyne. dō.  Deo? Benè & omninò sapienter hoc dicendum est. [
a MS M [Neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitate]  Neque enim ex hoc ab Inhabitanti defraudabatur:] sed significare volens patientem naturam hominis memoriam fecit, propter quod & 
b MS M ds.  Deus & Homo 
c MS M Est Christus, Martyr l. c. in tract. de Euchar. Oxon. MS. M.  Christus: 
c MS M XPS.  Deus propter impassibilitatem, Homo propter Passionem. Unus filius, unus 
d MS M dns.  Dominus, idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum, unam dominationem, unam potestatem possidens, 
e MS M Etiam si.  etiamsi non 
f MS M Consubstantialiter Martyr.  consubstantiales existunt, [
g MS M [MS. M. Et unaquaeque in quo mixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo.]  & unaquaeque 
h MS M Incommixta. Martyr. ib.  incommixtam Proprietatis conservat agnitionem, propter hoc quod 
i MS M Inconfusa sint duo. Id.  inconfusa sunt, 
☞  dico.] Sicut enim antequam 
k MS M MS. M. Scīsicetur,  sanctificetur PANIS PANEM nominamus, divinâ autem illum 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 240.  
l MS M Scīficante grā. Id.  Sanctificante Gratiâ, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem 
m MS M Ab Appellatīōne. Ibid.  APPELLATIONE PANIS, dignus autem habitus est 
a MS. M. Dominicae.  DOMINICI CORPORIS APPELLATIONE, etiamsi NATURA PANIS in ipso permansit, & non duo Corpora sed 
b MS. M. Unus,  unum Corpus filii 
c MS. M. Praedicamus.  praedicatur: sic & 
* Hic Martyr loc. cit. Haec. Totum hunc locum post Turrianum in Edit. Damasceni, sic citat Albertinus de Euch. l. 2. p. 532. Sic & hic divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insidente corpori natura, etc.  hic Divinâ 
d MS. M. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Nicephor. Anastas. Joan. Damascen. To. IU. Var. lect. Canibi. p. 211.  id est inundante corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam personam, utraque haec fecerunt. Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solùm naturâ, 
Theorianus in legatione ad Armenios. p. 74.  sed in duabus perfectis. Si enim unius, quomodo idquod inconfusum est, quomodo quod indivisibile, quomodo unitio dicitur aliquando? [
e MS. M. [Sibimet ipsi unirique.]  Sibimet ipsi enim uniri quae] una est, aut confundi, aut dividi impossibile est. Quod ergo infernum evomuit, unam in 
a XPO.  Christo naturam dicere putamus 
* Quae sequuntur extant apud Jo. Damascenum.  divinam solam nominantes, non omni modo unam negant, 
b Nam.  nostram, dico, salutem aut humanan retinentes, non divinae abnegationem faciunt, 
c Dicunt que.  dicuntque perdidit quod proprium erat. Si enim unus est, salva nobis est unitio 
d Omni modo.  omnimodo, & ea quae unitioni sunt propria, salvari necesse est: Si 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 241. lit. Hh.  enim non, nec unitio, sed confusio & abolitio. Mox autem ad Interrogationis fluctuantes resposionem, ad aliquid aliud exiliunt, quod non sit proprium ad Interrogationem: & inconstantes emittunt Voces; Pertulit 
e Ds.  Deus & non pertulit, & si petantur modum dicere, ad ignorantiam recedunt, proserentes; Quomodo 
f Volunt XPI.  voluit Christi apud ipsos memoria fugiente posthaec 
a MS. D. le Moyne. Vituperati.  vituperari in hoc? Mox dicunt, & 
b MS. D. le Moyne. XPS.  Christus non est 
c MS. D. le Moyne. Ds.  Deus sed & Homo. Et iterum dicunt, Post 
d MS. D. le Moyne. Unitatem.  Unitionem non oportet dicere duas naturas. Attende significationem dicti. Unitionem dixisti: unius unitionem non invenis fieri, quomodo 
e MS. D. le Moyne. Prenientes.  praevenientes diximus, 
Joan. 1.24.  sed Verbum Caro factum est & 
f MS. D. le Moyne. Speculaneorum.  speculare eorum querentur subtilitatem. Intulit enim, & inhabitavit in nobis. Nunquid non ibi videtur, 
g MS. D. le Moyne. Qui.  quia aliud est quod inhabitat praeter habitationem. Si cognovissent, 
1 Cor. 11.8.  nunquam 
h MS. D. le Moyne. D nm.  Dominum gloria crucifixissent. Dominum iterum quando dixeris, non proprium sed Commune 
i MS. D. le Moyne. Significat.  significatur nomen, Passionis & Impassibilitatis susceptibile. Consueverant autem & istud 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 242.  praetendere putamus: Non Corpus 
k MS. D. le Moyne. Di.  dei & sanguinem accipimus, fideliter ac 
a MS. M. Piae.  piè suscipiendum, non quia Corpus & sanguinem possidet id quod divinum est naturâ, sed quià 
b MS. M. Ea deest.  ea quae Carnis sunt, propria facit. O inconsideratio! O impia Cogitatio! periclitatur enim apud ipsos dispensationis Mysterium, & iterum Dominicum corpus, sicut 
c MS. M. Unum corpus.  verum corpus confiteri non patiuntur: per cogitationem enim dici conversum 
d MS. M. Eti.  esse hoc in deitatem imaginantur, unam hinc construentes naturam, & ipsam cujus sit non 
e MS. M. Invenientes.  juvantes dicere, ut passionem divinitati; undique secundum Apollinarium excogitantes, decidant à 
f MS. M. Pmissis.  praemissis bonis putamus non 
g MS. M. contremescent.  contremiscent ista dicere audientes. Non cogitant aeternum judicium, & 
h MS. M. dni.  Domini vocem dicentis, Ego sum & non 
i MS. M. Inmutor.  immutor. 
Malac. 3.6. Mat. xxvi. 41.  Caro infirma 
k MS. M. Sps.  Spiritus autem promptus 
* Ibid. 39  Pater si possibile est transeat à me calix iste. 
†— Ibid. 38.  Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. 
‖ Luk. 24.39.  Palpate & videte, quia 
a Sps.  Spiritus ●arnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere. Putamus Deitati ista apta sunt. Audiant & Petrum dicentem 
* Edit. Paris. pag. 243. Lit. Hh. ij. Mat. 16.16.  
b XPO.  Christo pro nobis passo carne, & non dixit Deitate. Et iterum, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi: Viventis dixit, non morientis. Et quaecunque his similia divina nos edocet Scriptura, cui violenti esse Haeretici non desistunt. 
Anast. Nicephorus.  Horum istas novitates 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest in MS. A.  vocum declinantes, 
d Charissimae.  Charissime, ad id quod praejacet, revertamur; pium & valde pium, 
e XPm.  Christum qui morte circumdatus est, confiteri in divinitate perfectum, & in humanitate perfectum, unum filium unigenitum, non dividendum in filiorum dualitatem, 
c XPS.  portantem tamen in semetipso indivisarum duarum naturarum inconvertibiliter proprietates, non alterum & alterum, absit, sed unum & eundem 
e MS. M. Dnm.  Dominum, 
f MS. M. Ihm.  Jesum, 
g MS. M. dm.  Deum, Verbum, carne nostrâ amictum, 
In MS collect. Biblioth. reg. Gall. n. 1026. p. 247.  & ipsâ non inanimatâ, aut irrationabili, sicut impius 
h MS. M. Apollinarius.  Apollinaris dixit. Istis mentem intendamus, fugiamus eos qui dividunt. 
i MS. M. Nam etsi enim.  Nam etsi duplex natura, veruntamen indivisibilis & indissipabilis unitio, 
Edit. Paris. p. 244.  in unâ filiationis conftenda personâ, & una 
k MS. M. Subsistantia.  substantia. Fugiamus qui unam naturam post unitionem prodigaliter dicunt; unius enim cogitatione impassibili Deo passionem adjungere impelluntur, dispensationem abnegantes, & Diaboli Gehennam arripientes. Ista propter mensuram Epistolae sufficere arbitror, ad confirmationem tuae dilectionis, ô magnifice.  
Explicit 
a Epistula.  Epistola B. Joannis Episcopi Constantinopolitani ad Caesarium, Monachum, tempore secundi exilii sui. Amen.     

NUM. VI Having, to satisfy the Vindicator, used such exactness in my Quotations, as to refer, for the most part, to the very Pages where they are; it was thought fit, if it may be, to prevent all future Cavil, that I should here subjoin this following Account of the Editions made use of by me.  

A.  
AQuinatis summa Theologiae, Fol. Colon. 1662.  
Articles of the Church of England. See Sparrow.  
Arcudius' de concordiâ Ecclesiae Occidentalis & Orientalis, Fol. Paris 1626.  
Albertinus de Eucharistia, Fol. Daventriae 1654.  
Arnauld Perpetuité de la Foy de l'Eglise Catholic touchant l'Eucharistie, 5 Edit. 8vo. Paris 1672.  
Amicable Accommodation, etc.   

B.  
Bellarmini Controversiae 3 Vol. Ingolstadii 1586.  
Idem de Indulgentiis, 8vo. Coloniae 1599  
Blondel of the Sybilline Oracles, Engl. Fol. Lond. 1661.  
Breviarium Romanum, 8vo. Antverpiae 1572.  
Bramhal's Works, Fol. Dublin 1677.  
Bigotius vita Chrysostomi per Palladium, G. L. 4to. Paris 1680.  
Balsamon in Concilia in Synodico, Oxonii 1672.  
Bonae Card. opera 3 Vol. 8vo. Paris 1676, 1677.  
Nouvelles dela repub. de Lettres Mr. B— Juin 1686.   

C.  
Crasset, veritable Devotion, etc. 4to. Paris 1679.  
Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. selec.  
Concilia Labei 18 Vol. Paris.  
Common Prayer of the Church of England.  
Claude Reponse au pere Novet, 8vo. Amsterdam 1668.  
Cousin's History of Popish Transubstantiation, 8vo. Lond. 1679.  
Cassandris opera, Paris 1616.  
Ejusd. Consultatio, 8vo. Vid. Grotii via ad pacem.  
Cajetanus Card. in D. Thomam, Venetiis 1612.  
Ejusd. Comment. in S. Scr. Lugduni.  
Canon's, etc. Concil. Trident. 12mo. Coloniae 1679.  
Calvisii Chronologia, Fol. Francofurti 1650.  
Cave, Chartophylax Ecclesiasticus, 8vo. Lond. 1685.   

D.  
Dallaeus adversus Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto Traditionem. 4to. Genevae. 1664.  
Idem de Poenis & Satisfactionibus Amstael. 1649.  
Durandus in sententias, Lugduni 1569.   

E.  
Estius in Sententias, Paris 1672.  
Euchologium cum Notis Goar. Paris 1647.  
Expostulatio de Joan. Chrysost. Epist. suppressa, Lond. 1682. 4to.  
Epiphanii opera Gr. Lat. Coloniae 1682.  
L' Esprit de Mr. Arnauld 2 Vol. 8vo. Deventer. 1684.   

F.  
Forbesii instructiones Historico-Theologicae, Amst. 1645.   

G.  
Grotius via ad pacem, cum consult. Cassandris, 8vo. 1642.  
Gregorii Nazianzeni opera, Gr. Lat. Paris 1609.  
— Invectiva in Julianum, 4to. Etonae 1610.  
Gregorii Papae liber Sacrament. Menardi, 4to. Edit. Paris 1642.  
Gratiani decretum, Fol. Paris 1585.  
Gamachaeus:  
Godefry vie de S. Athanase 2 Vol. 4. Paris 1679.  
Idem vie de S. Basile 2 Vol. 4. Paris 1679.   

H.  
hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Fol. Lond. 1676.  
Book of Homilies, Oxford 1683.   

I.  
Index ex purgatorius, Fol. Madriti 1667.  
Jesuits Loyalty collect. of several Treatises, 4to. Lond. 1677  
Instruction pour gagner le Jubilé, 12mo. Paris 1683.  
Jurieux Preservatif contre le Changement de Religion. 8vo.  
— Le Janseniste convaincu de vain Sophstiquerie, Amst. 1683.  
— Prejuger legitimes contre le Papism, 4to. 1685.  
Innocent the XI. Bull for an universal Jubilee upon the relief of Vienna, August 11th. 1683.   

L.  
Ludolphi Historia Aethiopica Lat. Fol. Francofurti. 1681.  
Lombardi sententiarum libri 4. 8vo. Moguntiae 1632.   

M.  
Maldonate in Prophetas majores, 4to. Moguntiae 1611.  
— In Evangelia, Fol. Moguntiae 1611.  
Missale Romanum, 8vo. Paris 1616.  
Missale in usum Sarum, Fol. 1527.  
Stephani le Moyne varia sacra, 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1685.  
Petri Martyris de Eucharistiâ.  
Monsieur Maimbourg peaceable Method, Engl. 4to.  
Monsieur de Meauxes Exposition, Engl. 4to. 1685.  
— French 5 Edition, 12mo. à Paris 1681.  
Traité de la Communion sous les deux Especes, 12mo. Paris 1682.  
— Pastoral Letter, Engl. 4to. 1686.   

N.  
Noüet de la presence de J. C. dans le tres saint Sacrament, 4to. Paris 1666.  
Nicole, Prejuges legitimes contre les Calvinistes. Paris 1679  
— Les P. R. convaincus de schism, 8vo. Paris 1684   

O.  
Officium B. Virgins, 8vo. Antverpiae 1631.  
Office of the holy Week, Lat. English, 8vo. Paris 1670.   

P.  
Pontificale Romanum, Fol. Venetiis 1561.  
La Politique du Clergé de France, 12mo. Amst. 1682.  
Du Perron Replique à la reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretagne, Fol. Paris 1620.  
Du Perron de l'Eucharistie, Fol. Paris 1629.  
Petavius Dogmata Theologica, Fol. Paris 1650.  
Papist represented and misrepresented, 1st. Edition. 1685  
Pajon Examen du liure qui portepourtitre Prejugez legitimes contre les Calvinistes, 2 Vol. 12mo. à Bionne 1673.   

R.  
Reponse à un ecrit publie contre les Miracles de la saint Espine.  
Seconde Reponse à Monsieur de Condom, 8vo. 1680.  
Ruffinus.  
Rituale Romanum, 4to. Antverpiae 1620.  
Reflections Generales sur l'Exposition de Monsieur de Meaux, 8vo. à Cologne de Brandebourg 1685.   

S.  
Sparrow's Collection of Canons, etc. 4to. Lond. 1684.  
Sexti Senensis Bibliotheca, Fol. Coloniae 1586.  
Suarez opera, Fol. Moguntiae 1604. in 3 p. D. Th. 1610.  
Scotus in sententias, primitive Letter, Fol.  
Socrates, Sozomen, Fol. Paris Edit. Valesii.   

T.  
Thomasi codex Sacramentorum, 4to. Romae 1680.  
Theodoret. opera 5 Vol. G. L. Fol. Paris 1642.  
Theophilus, Turrianus, citati ab Albertino.   

V  
Vasquez in D. Thomam, Ingolstadii 1606. in 3 part. Venetiis 1610.  
Vindication of the B. of Condom's Exposition.  
Vincentius Lirinensis. Gregorius de Valentia, apud Albertinum.   

Z.  
Zonara's in Concilia: In synodico Oxoniensi. 1672.     

ERRATA.  
PAg. xvii. lin 26. of the read of their. pag. 1. l. 4. these r. those. pag. 8. l. 26. marg. and this is. pag. 20. l. ult. p. 209. r. 249. pag. 26. r. hard put to prove. p. 94. l. 23. p. 50. r. p. 23 pag. 95. l. 19 Art. 5.27. pag. 125. l. 8. of r. to. l. 18. I have. pag. 151. not. lachrimas, lachrimabimur. Some literal Faults there are besides these, which the Reader may please to correct.  

Add to pag. 114. lin. 24.  
But why do I thus long insist upon Probabilities? Monsieur de Meaux himself owns that he hath both seen and read the Preservative; and in his Treatise of Communion, does particularly encounter what Monsieur Jurieu had therein advanced against his Exposition: And yet has this man, after all, the Confidence to tell the World not only that he never read Father Crasset's Book, 
Vindicat. p. 10.  which is very improbable, but that he never so much as heard it mentioned, that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition; tho' that Author, in that very Book, has spent no less than 
Pag. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103.  six or seven Pages on purpose to prove it; not to say any thing of the 
Such are among others. M. lafoy B. answer to his Advertisement p 79. Reflections Generales sur l' Exposition de M de Meaux, p 121, 144. M. Arnaud reponse au Preservatif. M. Jurieu's Vindication: le Janseniste convaincu de vain Sophistiquerie, p 72, etc. L' Esprit de M. Arnauld, Vol 2. p. 174. Politic du Clergé de France, p. 67.  many other Treatises, and some of them Answers to his Exposition too, but all of them well known in France, that have done the same.  
He that can believe this, let him also believe, that M. de Meaux had no hand in the first Edition of his Exposition; That the Sorbonne Doctors never corrected it, nor he suppressed it upon that account; That that whole Edition was condemned only to make some little Alterations for the benefit of the Method, and the greater neatness of the Discourse and Style. In a word, That what he has so shamefully asserted in his late 
Pastoral Letter, p. 3, 4.  Pastoral Letter, as to a certain Point, which I shall beg leave not to name, but which we can at any time bring him thousands to contradict, he either ever believed himself, or ever heard any other Bishops say; all which, as they have been shown to be equally credible, so no doubt are they equally true too.  
FINIS.