YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

A
PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY,
IN SEVERAL
UPON THE
PRINCIPAL HEADS OF CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN
PROTESTANTS AND PAPISTS:
BEING "WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED
Sg t^e most tmtnent JBibtnjiS of ti)« CI)urc]& of (lEnglanTJ,
CHIEFLY IN THE REIGN OP KING JAMES II.
COLLECTED BY
THE RIGHT REV. EDMUND GIBSON, D.D.
SUCCESSIVELY LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN AND LONDON,
[B. 1669, D. 1748.]
CAREFULLY REVISED AND EDITED
FOR THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES
OF THE REFORMATION, BY
THE REV. JOHN GUMMING, D.D.

VOL. XII.

LONDON:
PUBLISHED AT THE SOCIETY'S OFFICE,
8, EXBTEE HALL, STRAND,
lb4b.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XII.

A CONFUTATION OF THE CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY.

PAGE
A Sermon preached before the King at Whitehall, the 24th of
November, 1678. By Dr. Lloyd, late Bishop of Worcester 1

THE DOCTRINES IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME, TRULY
REPRESENTED.
I. — An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in
the several Articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late
Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the
Catholic Church. To which is prefixed a particular account
of Monsieur de Meaux's Book. By Dr. Wake, Archbishop
of Canterbury  47
II  A Defence of the Exposition ofthe Doctrine of the Church of
England, against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux,
late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. With an Ap
pendix. By Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury . 144

IV CONTENTS.
III. — A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the
Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de
Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. In Two
Parts. In which the account that has been given of the
Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, is fully vindicated ; the dis
tinction of Old and New Popery historically asserted ; and
the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in point of Image-
worship, more particularly considered. By Dr. Wake,
Archbishop of Canterbury ...... 280

A CONFUTATION

THE CHIEF DOCTRINES OE POPERY.

A SERMON

PREACHED

BEFORE THE KING,. AT WHITEHALL,
The 24th of November, 1678.

TO THE KING.
Sir,
I NOW most humbly present to your Majesty a Sermon,
which it was your gracious pleasure to command me, some
months since, to make public.
That I have not shewn my obedience sooner, I have nothing
to plead for my excuse, but my zeal for the cause, of which
your Majesty is the defender. I daily saw your Majesty give
great and eminent proofs of a firm resolution to maintain the
Church of England against her implacable enemies. And it
was, I thought, an honest ambition of mine, to have these
papers come forth, as serviceable as I could make so small a
thing, to that your Majesty's most wise and pious design.
To this purpose, having undertaken to compare our Church
with theirs, in all the substantial parts of religion, I thought
it necessary, that those truths, which could be little more than
proposed when they were preached, should here be confirmed
with particular testimonies.
This I have endeavoured to do, with such strength of
authorities, and faithMness of quotations, that, I have some
confidencej the work itself will be the more useful, for the
VOL. XII. B

2 A CONFUTATION OF THE
slowness of the performance. I hope it will be the less liable
to the cavils of our partial adversaries, and the fitter to con
vince those among them, who shall read it, without the blind
prejudices of their priests, and with the usual candour of
English gentlemen.
¦They are those, of whose conversion, I confess, I have never
despaired, and now I expect it more than ever ; since it has
pleased God to detect the wicked practices of those zealots,
who, to set up their bloody chair, would not spare to subvert
the most merciful throne in the world.
May it please your Majesty,
I am your Majesty's most loyal
And dutiful subject and servant,
William Lloyd.

Acts ii. 42.
And ihey continued stedfastly in the Apostles^ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer.
They of whom this is said, were that multitude of people
whom the Apostles first converted to the Christian faith. All
together in one word, they are called the Church in the last
verse of this chapter. Which being observed, it wiU soon
appear what we are to learn from these words.
They teach us. First, What the Church of Christ was in the
Apostles' days.
Secondly, What Church is now a true member or branch
of it.
Thirdly, That having such a Church, it is our duty to con
tinue in it.
Accordingly in my discourse on these words, I shall endea
vour to shew you.
First, A description of that original Church by all its tokens
and characters ; which are described in my text to have been.
First, the Apostles' doctrine.
Secondly, their fellowship.
Thirdly, their sacraments, breaking of bread.
Fourthly, their worship of God, and prayers.
Secondly, I shall consider what Church in our days hath

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 3
those characters of the original Church. I shall shew, they
are very confused in that Church which will own them in no
other : they are, through God's-blessing, in great purity and
perfection in our Church.
Lastly, I shall shew that it is the duty of every Christian to
continue stedfastly ; first, in the Church that hath these
characters ; and secondly, in these things that are the characters
of the Church, and thirdly, to live suitably to them in his whole
conversation. First, before I speak of the characters of a true Church,
I ought to shew in few words what it is that is to be known
by them.
The Church, Ecclesia, among Christians in the largest use
of the word, is the whole multitude of beUevers joined together
in one body or society, under one head, Jesus Christ.
In the Nicene Creed it is called, the " Catholic Apostolic
Church." Apostolic, because it was planted at first by the
Apostles, and still retains the characters of their original
Church. Catholic, that is universal (for that is the plainer
English word), because it is made up of all those particular
churches, of which every one hath these characters in my text,
and is therefore a true part of the catholic or universal.
For the word Catholic, as fond of it as they are now in the
Roman Church, if any Christian of Rome, for some ages after
Christ, had heard any one say " I am a Catholic," he would not
have been" able to have guessed what religion he had meant.
But when the Greeks had used the word KaSrokiKfj in their
language ; first, to distinguish the Christian Church as extend
ing to all nations, from the Jewish, which was confined to one
nation in particular ; afterwards, to distinguish the common
Christianity, which was in all parts of the world, from that of
a sect which sprang up in some particular country ; after this,
the word Catholic was taken up by them ofthe Roman Church.
And in process of time, they came to distinguish themselves by
it, from the Greeks, and from those of the other Eastern
Churches that first used it.
It could not but seem very strange to the Greeks, to see
them of the Roman Church, whose communion extended no
farther at that time, than only to the west part of Europe ; that
they should call the Roman Church the Cathohc, or Universal,
in opposition to the Greeks, and to all other Christians, that
then possessed, not only all the rest of this Europe, but all
that was Christian in Africa and Asia besides. But this is not
B 2

4 A CONFUTATION OF THE
strange to any one that considers, how natural it is for men of
any sect to make a great business about words. As they are
apt to bestow the worst words they can find upon their adver
saries, so with the same partiality they are ready to appro
priate the good ones to themselves. Thus the Jews will have
none but themselves to be the Children of Abraham. The
Turks will have none but themselves to be called Mussulmans,
believers. The Arian heretics, in their day, would allow none
but themselves to be Catholics.* If they of the Roman com
munion will be the only Catholics now, who can help it ? But
we shall not allow it them, till they can prove all other Chris^
tians to be schismatics, and us in particular : which will be
tried in the issue of this discourse.
The meanwhile, to give the word its original use, the
Catholic Church (as I have shewn) signifies the Universal.
And by the Universal Church,f we mean that which from this
head in my text came to disperse itself into all parts of the
inhabited world. The original of this Church universal, was
that Church which the Apostles planted first at Jerusalem ;
therein following the command of our Saviour who bade them,
" Go, preach to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."! Ih^
body of this universal Church consists of all those, whether
national or less, that are called particular Churches. Which
were either derived from that original Church in that age ;
such as were those seven Churches of Asia, and the rest which
are mentioned in Scripture ; or that have been derived from
them by any after conversion, in whatsoever country or age.
These particular Churches are many, as the parts of the
body are many. And as all those parts together are one bodvi
so all these particular Churches make up one universal. One,
I say, in both respects, both as being derived from one source,
that original Church at Jerusalem ; and also one, as being
united together in those common characters, by which that
original Church is described in this text.
Those characters are four, which I come now to consider
particularly ; the Apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and
sacraments, and prayers.
The first is the Apostle's doctrine, the doctrine of faith ; and
• Lucifer Caral. adv. Const. A. 1. 1. Edit. Paris. 8. 1568. p. 79. et328.
Prosper. Chr. Anno primo Marciani A. Victor Viteusis, 1. iv. beginning.
t Iren. adv. Ha3r. 1. 3. c. 3. calls it, the Church from which every Church
had its beginning.
t Luke xxiv. 47.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 5
not the inward belief, but the outward profession of it. The
inward belief is required to make us true Christians, but the
outward profession makes us members of a true Church. And
as it can be no true Church that has not a public profession of
the Apostles' doctrine ; so it can be no sound Church that
embraces any other for the doctrine of faith, than what was
received from the Apostles.
Now their doctrine, at this time referred to in my text, was
no other than what they preached as the faith of Jesus Christ.
But considering how long ago it was that they preached ; how
many ages have past since ; and especially what ages they have
been ; many ages together of darkness and gross ignorance, as
they cannot but know that are any thing acquainted with
history ;* I say, after so many extreme ignorant ages, it is
impossible we should have known what was preached by the
Apostles, unless it had been also delivered in writing, and
unless those writings had been brought down to our hands.
And, blessed be God ! there was such a delivery, in the books
of the New Testament. In which books, the Apostles bearing
witness, as they do, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
that they weref " written by Divine inspiration," and that they
arej "ableto make us wise to salvation through faith, which is
in Christ Jesus ;" and delivering the faith in Jesus Christ, as
they do in their own writings, to the end§ " that all men may
believe on him to eternal life ;" therefore in these books of the
Old and New Testament together, we have a standard of the
Apostles' doctrine, and we have not the like for any other than
what is written in these books.
Here is all that we can surely call " the doctrine of the
Apostles," unless we know more than the Fathers of the
Primitive Church. They, through whose hands this doctrine
must pass before it could come into ours, knew nothing but what
they had in the Scriptures. This was constantly their " standard
and rule of all things," in the words of St. Chrysostom, ||
who says again, ^ "All things that are necessary, are plain and
manifest in the Scriptures." So St. Austin says,** "All things

• V. Card. Baron. Annal. Eccl. Anno 900, &c.
t 2 Tim. iii. 16. 2 Pet. i. 21. t 2 Tim. iii. 15. § John xx. 31.
II Chi-ysost. in 2 Cor. Horn. 13. Edit. Savil. tom. 3. p. 624, 43.
If Idem in 2 Thess. Hom. 3. Ib. tom. 4. p. 234, 19.
** Aug. de Doctr. Christiana, 1. 2. c. 9. Edit. Basil. 1541. tom. 3.
col. 25. D. In iis enim, &c.

" A CONFUTATION OF THE
that belong to faith or hfe are to be found in plain places of
Scripture." St. Basil saith,* "Believe those things that are
written ; inquire not into things that are not written." St.
Jerome, f " Non credimus, quia non leginvus ; we believe no more
than we read." In like manner say many other of the
Fathers. And though they did sometimes quote the Apostles' tradi
tions, for ritual things ; yet in matters, of faith, if they prove
any thing from tradition, it is either the written tradition of
Scripture ; or if unwritten, it is no other than the Creed (as it
were easy to shew in many instances). J And withal, they
believed there was nothing in the Creed but what they could
prove from the Scriptures ; and they did prove it from the
Scriptures, upon occasion, in every particular.§
So that, in their judgment, it is not only a sufficient, but the
only measure of the doctrine of the Apostles. And by this we
may judge (as to matter of doctrine) who are, and who are
not members of the Apostolical Church.
The next character is this, that they " continued in the
Apostles' Koivbivla, or fellowship ;" a word that has diverse
senses in Scripture. In this place it seems to be the same as
society. They were in the Apostles' society or communion.
Now to continue in their society (considering what they
were, men deputed by Christ for the government of h&
Church), it could be no other than to continue as members of
that body which Christ put under their government.
But how can any be so now ? they being dead so many ages
since, and their government so long since expired with them.
No, their government has not expired, though they are. For
it was to continue II " till the end of the world." So that ac
cording to the common saying among the Jews, " Whosoever
one sends being as himself:" so our Saviour, having sent the
Apostles, saith,^ " He that receiveth you, receiveth me ;" in
* Basil. M. Hom. 29. Edit. Paris. 1618. tom. 1. p, 623. C.
t Hieron. adv. Helvid. Edit. Basil. 1524. tom. 2. p. 13. B.
i Iren. adv. Hfer. 1. 1. c. 2. et 3. et alii passim.
§ Cyprian. Testim. ad Quirinum, lib. 1. et 2, [p. 534, &c. 546, &c.
Venet. 1728.] proving all things of faith and life from the Scripture. Con
stantin. M. apud Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. 1. 1. c. 7. Edit. Vales, p. 25. D.
Offers the Scriptures for deciding aU controversies touching the faith. So
Athanasius and others prove every disputed article. And when the heretics
produced tradition on their side, the Fathers always held them to the
Scriptm-es. II Matth. xxviii. 20. If Matth. i. 40.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERX. 7
like manner, whosoever were sent by the Apostles, were as
themselves ; and whosoever continued in their fellowship, were
in the fellowship of the Apdstles.
Now their government is declared to have been 'EiriaKOTrij,
their bishopric* And in this office they were equal among
themselves ; as our Saviour describes them, sitting " on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."f
It is observable, that this was after his promise to St. Peter,
Matth. xVi. 16, &c. Which promise I consider by the way,
because it is so much pressed by the Romanists, to prove a
power which Christ had given St. Peter over the rest of the
Apostles. If Christ had truly given it, we must then have
considered, whether St. Peter left any successors in that power ?
And if so, why not St. John the Apostle by survivance ? Why
not the bishop of the undoubted mother Church at Jerusalem?
Why not the bishop of some other city, where the Scripture
has assured us that St. Peter preached ? rather than of Rome,
where, if he did preach, we have not a word of it in Scripture.
These, and sundry more such questions, would have risen
upon that hypothesis, of such a power given to St. Peter. But
it is out of question, that the Apostles never so understood
those words of Christ. They knew of no power that was pro
mised to St. Peter, more than to themselves, in that text. For
after this,J they were at strife among themselves, who should
be chief. After this,§ they disputed it again and again : and
Christ chid them every time, but never told them, " I have
promised it to Peter." Nay, it appears that Christ did not
intend it, by his open declarations to the contrary ; that " it
should not be among them,"|| as in secular kingdoms and mo
narchies. It appears more plainly in the fulfilling of his pro
mise. For he both ordained the rest with St. Peter,^ without
any difference ; and when they altogether had received the
Holy Ghost, in this chapter, "" St. Peter stood up with the
eleven," ver. 14. And upon him and them, Christ built his
Church ; even all these who continued, not only in his, but
" in the fellowship of all the Apostles."
Now if all the Apostles were equal in their 'ETrttrKOTr^, or
government, then it is certain, that their successors must be so
in like manner. Though one must have precedence before the
* Acts i. 20.
+ Matth. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. t M-atth. xviii. 1. xx. 24.
§ Luke xxii. 24. If Matth. xx. 25. xsiii. 8, 9, 10. Luke xxii. 26.
If John XX. 21,22, 23.

8 A CONFUTATION OF THE -
other, for order's sake ; as St. Peter had* usually among the
Apostles, when they were together : and though one may be
above others, in the same national Church, as all Primates are,
by human laws, yet none, by the law of God, hath authority
over others; I say none among their successors, any more
than among the Apostles themselves. So St. Cyprianf de
clares oftentimes in his writings. Not to mention the like, as
I might, from many other of the Fathers.
Now the bishops, in after times, in their several Churches,
were undoubtedly held to be the successors of the Apostles.J
We have as great a consent among the ancients for this, as we
have for the observation of the Lord's day. And it is evident
from the primitive writers, § that they looked upon communion
with their bishops, as communion with the very Apostles.
They held it the duty of every Christian, to obey them in
spiritual things ; they held it the duty of every bishop, to
govern and feed his own flock ; to attend to that only, and not
to usurp upon his brethren ; but all, as occasion served, to do
all good offices one for another, and to join their endeavours
* Usually, but not always ; for at Jerusalem, St. James being bishop
there, had the precedence. Acts xv. Gal. ii. 9.
+ Cyprian, de Unit. Eccl. c. 3. Edit. Paris. 1649. p. 208. The other
Apostles were also that which Peter was, they had an equal share both of
honour and of power.
Epist. 51. [Ibid.] p. 80. Every bishop orders his own affairs, and is
to give account to God.
Epist. 54. [Ibid.] p. 95. Every one has his own flock to govern, of
which he is to give account to God.
Cone. Carth. de Bapt. Hairet. p. 353. [Labbe, Cone. vol. 1. p. 786. Lut.
Par. 1671.] No bishop can be judged by another, or can judge another.
But we all wait for the judgment of Christ, who is the only one that
has power, both to put us into the office, and to judge of our discharge
of it.
+ Iren. contra Hsereses, 1. iii. c. 3. We can reckon up them, who by
the Apostles were made bishops iu the several Churches.
Ibid. Polycarpus, by the Apostles, made bishop of the Church of
Smyrna. TertuUian. de Prescript, c. 36. Edit. Paris. 1641. p. 245. Run over
the Apostolic Churches, in which are yet the very chairs of the Apostles.
Ye have Corinth. Ye have Ephesus. Ye have Philippi. Ye have Rome.
Cyprian. Epist. 26. [ut supra] p. 42. Christ said to Peter, " Thou art
Peter, and I will give thee the keys," &c. From thence, by course of
times and successions, is derived the ordination of bishops in the Church.
Epist. 74. [Ibid.] p. 163. The bishops have succeeded the Apostles,
being ordained in their stead.
% Epist. 68. [Ibid.] p. 136. The Church is a people united to their
own bishop, and a flock adhei'ing to their own pastor.

CHIEF DOCTKTNES OF POPERY. 9
for the common concernments of the Church.* And for them
so to govern the Church, and for the people to live under their
government, in spiritual things; this was to live "in the
fellowship of the Apostles," which is the second character in
my text.
The third is the participation of the same sacraments. One
only is mentioned in my text, that is the sacrament of the
Lord's supper. For being already baptized, they had no more
occasion for baptism ; but that being spoken of before, ver. 41,
I therefore mention both these sacraments.
The use of both these, in the Apostles' times, was a character
and token of the Christian Church. Thus St. Paul, 1 Cor.
xii. 13, mentions both these sacraments, as the instruments
and means by which we are united to Christ. "By one Spirit
we are all baptized into one body, and we have all been made
to drink into one Spirit."
Both these sacraments they received of Christ's own insti
tution, who required them to be used in all ages of the Church ;
to be administered to all its members by every Church. And
that in the same manner as they were instituted by Christ ; I
mean as to all the essential parts of the sacraments. However
ceremonies or rites may be varied ; yet in their essential parts
they are of perpetual obligation.
For baptism, when it was instituted by our Saviour for the
admission of members into his Church ; he said thus to his
Apostles,t " Go, make disciples (that is. Christians) of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And thus doing,J " Lo, I am
with you till the end of the world."
And for the Lord's supper, he administered it himself to
his disciples (who were then not in orders, for it was before
his death ; and he did not ordain them tih after his resurrec
tion). And administering the sacrament to them, who were
not in orders, " He took bread and blessed it, and brake it,
* Epist. 66. [Ibid.] p. 128. To Steven, bishop of Rome. Therefore,
my dear brother, there is a numerous body of bishops united together by
the bond of concord and unity ; that if any one of our college should
attempt to make a sect, and to tear and spoil the flock of Christ, the rest
may come in to help, and as good and compassionate shepherds may
gather the Lord's sheep into the flock.
t Matth. xxviii. 19. lAaOrjTivaare, make disciples, so Acts xiv. 21.
But M.a^nTai, disciples, is as much to say as Christians, Acts xi. 26.
% Matth. xxviii. 20.

10 A CONFUTATION OF THE
and gave it to them, saying, Take, eat, this is my body,"* and
what follows,t " he gave them the cup in like manner, say
ing, Drink ye all of it. This is my blood," or " This cup is
the new testament in my blood."
Accordingly it was done in the Church in the Apostles'
times. The Apostle calls it the "bread" and the " cup" which
they received in the sacrament, never otherwise ; though
spiritually and sacramentally the body and blood of Christ,
yet bread and wine in its natural and bodily substance. He
says,t " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com
munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" No doubt
we have the mind of Christ in these words. It is properly
the communion of his body and blood, which we receive in
this sacrament. And according to his law they are conveyed
to us, under the elements of bread and vrine. For so the
Apostle tells us, that even after consecration, it is " bread which
we break;" it is " bread which we partake ;" it is "bread that
we eat" in this sacrament. Which last thing he says three
times together, in three verses. § In like manner it was pro
perly wine which remained in the cup, even after consecration.
So it was called by our Saviour, || " the fruit of the vine," and
" this fruit ;" even the same of which he had said, " This is
my blood." And, as he said to his Apostles, being laymen,
" Drink ye all of it "^ and as St. Mark observes,** " They all
drank of it," so did all other in those times, as well laity as
clergy. 1 Cor. xii. 13, " We are all made to drink into one
Spirit." It is observable, the whole sacrament there is called drink
ing, as here the whole sacrament is called breaking of bread.
And the sacrament being thus instituted by Christ, being
thus administered by his Apostles, and being thus received in
his Church, was to continue till Christ's coming again. So the
Apostle saith expressly, 1 Cor. xi. 26. So that here is a third
character of an Apostolic Church; to continue the use of those
sacraments which they used, and that in all the essentials of
them, according to Christ's own institution.
A fourth character in this text is prayer, irpoaevxaiQ, in the
* Matth. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24.
t Matth. xxvi. 28. Mark xiv. 24. Luke xxii. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 25.
X 1 Cor. X. 16. § 1 Cor.x. 16, 17. and xi. 26, 27, 28.
II Matth. xxvi. 29. Mark xiv. 25. ^f Matth. xxvi. 27.
•* Mark xiv. 23.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPEKY. 11
plural number ; that is, not one or two, but many, and oft.
And it appears they were public prayers, by what follows,
ver. 46, "They continued daily with one accord in the tem
ple." There the Apostles used to meet, after Christ's ascen
sion into heaven. They " were continually in the temple,
praising and blessing God."* They were constantly there in
the times of devotion, as may appear from Acts iii. 1, and
other places. They continued this practice as long as the
Jews would suffer them ; till they drove them away from their
temple and synagogues. After which, these first Christians
had assemblies elsewhere, as we read Acts xviii. 1 7.
In which assemblies, what they prayed, and what they did
besides praying, we have no particular account in holy Scrip
ture. But we have in those writers that lived within the age of
the Apostles. That is, in an epistle of the younger Pliny to
Trajan,f and in St. Justin Martyr's second Apology.J
There we find in Pliny, § that they did Carmen Christo
quasi Deo dicere secum invicem. They spoke verses, answer
ing one another by turns ; as we speak the reading Psalms ; I
know not how he could better express it.
And, saith Justin Martyr, they read lessons out of the
Apostles, and out of the Prophets ;|| and when the reader had
done, the bishop preached, 6 Upotarioe, either the bishop or
the chief minister.
Then they rose up altogether and prayed. They had,
saith Justin Martyr, Eoivag eiixae, common prayers, (those
are his words). ^ In which they prayed for themselves, and
for their princes,** and for all others that were living with
them. ft They prayed only to 6od,JJ saith Justin Martyr
twice. §§
This, together with the administration of the sacraments,
and their gatherings for the poor, is all the account they give
us of their meetings. Which account being given much within
fifty years of the Apostles' times, we may reasonably con-
• Luke xxiv. 53. t Plin. Lib. x. Epist. 97.
t Justin M. Apol. ii. Edit. Paris. 1636. p. 97, &c.
§ Plin. ib. II Justin, ibid. p. 98. D. If [Ibid.] p. 97. C.
** [Ibid.] p. 64. D.
tt [ibid.] p. 97. C. and for all others every where, that we may learn
the truth, &c.
tl [Ibid.] p. 63. D. 'Qg Se Kai tov Qebv povov Sil TrpoaKvvciv, olirwg
eTTStuEV, EiTTiiiv, 'M.ayiffTjj kvroX-fj tan, 'Kvpiov tov Qsov irpotTKVVTjfTtig,
Kai avT(^ povip Xarptvatig, p. 64. D. '69ev Otbv uiv povov ¦KpoaKvvovuiv.
§§ [Ibid.] p. 97. D. & 98. D.

12 A CONFUTATION OF THE
elude it was the manner of their prayers, the use whereof
was the fourth character in our description of the Apostolic
Church. Besides these, you see my text hath given us no other : and
therefore whosoever would make sure of such a Church, he
may do well to judge of it by these characters, being all that
the Apostles hath given us.
But if these were the notes of a true Church in the Apos
tles' times, what mean they of the now Roman Church, to
require any other ? Or what would they have that cannot
content themselves with these ? Sure their hearts misgive
them that these are not for their turn. Either they have
them not, or others have them as well as they : and therefore
they choose rather to insist upon those, which they can hope
to appropriate to their own faction.
It is not worth the while, in this place to reckon up the fif
teen notes of a true Church, which Bellarmine gives us.*
All which, are either common to other societies, as well as a
true Church ; or if they are proper to such a Church, they
are elsewhere no less, nay, much more in some others, than in
theirs. As for the essential properties, here in my text they are but
four, and those are from an infallible authority, the like
whereof cannot be shewed for any other. Therefore our
Church desires nothing more than to be tried by these tokens.
If the same way of trial does not please them so well in the
Roman Church, we cannot wonder at it, for these make no
way for them, but against them in every particular. I shall
make a short proof of it, trying their Catholic Church (as
they call it), by these characters of the Primitive ApostoHc
Church. And first, for the doctrine of the Apostles. If the public
profession of that, without any other, be required of any true
Church ; and if the Scriptures contain all the doctrine of the
Apostles, as it was firmly believed by the Fathers in the
Primitive Church ; how come they of the Roman Church to
find out so many doctrines, of which there is no mention in
the Scripture, nor in any of the primitive Fathers ? In what
•place were they kept, to be made known in after times, that
were not known to them that lived in or near the Apostles'
times* Bellarmin. de Conciliis et Ecclesiaj lib. 4. [vol. 2. p. 95, &c. Prag. 1721.]

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPfiRY. 13
But they have I know not how many such doctrines, and
they are properly doctrines of their Church. They are declared
by their Councils, with most dreadful anathemas to all those
that shall presume to deny them. We see they unchurch us ;
we know what they have done more, and may guess what they
would do more to us, for denying them. But they have them
in their Creed, the Creed that is sworn by all their clergy.*
They swear first the old Nicene, and add to that the new
Roman Creed : they conclude in these terms, " Hanc esse
veram Catholicam fidem,, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, f
That this is the true catholic faith, without which no man can
be saved."
What a horrible thing is this, to couple together, " I believe
in God, and in our Lord Jesus Christ ;" with, I believe the
doctrines of transubstantiation, auricular confession, image-
worship, purgatory, indulgences, and what not ? Some of
which things, some of themselves do confess, J are not so much
as once mentioned in Scripture ; and none of them is men
tioned there in plain words, nor in any words that were under
stood so by the Fathers for many ages after Christ.
* In the form of profession, prescribed by Pius IV. according to the
decree of the Council of Trent. Sess. xxiv. Decret. de Reform, cap. 1. etl2.
t Concil. Edit. Labbe, tom. xiv. col. 946. B. [Lut. Par. 1672.]
i Of Transubstantiation, this is confessed by Bielin Can. Missae, Leet.
40. Beginning, that whether the bread be turned into Christ's body, or
remains with his body, it is not found expressed in Scriptures.
Bellarmin. de Eucharist, iii. 23. Tertio addit. mentions others of
their Church that had said the like, and he grants it not improbable, that
it could not be proved out of Scripture, till the Scripture was declared by
a General Council ; meaning (as he there shews) that of Lateran, above
1200 years after Christ.
Of Auricular Confession. Gloss, in Deer, de Pcenit. dist. 5. Begin
ning [Corp. Jur. Can. vol. 1. p. 1801. Lugd. 1671.] Semeca saith, it was
instituted by some tradition of the universal Church, rather than by the
authority of the New or Old Testament. Panormitan super Quinto, de
Poenit. et Remis. c. Omnis utriusque, saith, I am much pleased with that
opinion of Semeca : for there is not any plain authority, which shews that
God or Christ instituted plainly, that confession should be made to a priest.
Biel in Sent. iv. 17. G. saith, it was delivered, by word and deed with
out any Scripture.
For Image Worship. Bellarmine de Eccl. Triumph, ii. 12. [ut supra, p.
446. col. 1] can find only two texts ofthe New Testament. Matth. v. 33,
" Swear neither by heaven, for it is God's throne ; nor by earth, for it is his
footstool;" and 2 Tim. iii. 15, " From a child thou hast known the holy
Scriptures." In the Old Testament some find it enjoined in the second
commandment, as Jacob, de Graffiis Decis. aur. Cas. Consc. part. 1. C. 2.

14 A CONFUTATION OP THE
For the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Besides that we
find nothing for it, but many things against it in the ancients,*
so many that we are sure it could not be the tradition of
those times. We see at its first birth it was declared to be a
novelty, and a falsehood, by Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz,t
and by other of the learnedest men that lived eight or nine hun
dred years after Christ. J We find at that time, and for two
hundred years after, it was a rude lump,§ which asked much
c. 2. §. penult. But the Fathers in the second Nicene Council established
it, as being observed in the Church without Scripture. Concil. Edit. Labbe,
tom. vu. col. 838. E. 863. C. 886. C. 887, A. [Lut. Par. 1671.]
Of Purgatory. Baconthorp in Sent. 1. 4. dist. 49. q. 1. saith, Others
think it cannot be proved by the authority of Scriptures. Perion.
Topit. Theolog. saith, he knows not a passage in all the Scripture for
purgatory. Which being objected by Mornay, in his book of the Eucha
rist, Bulenger in his Response Catholique, p. 279. answers him. It is hard
indeed to faid any express and clear text for it.
For Indulgences. St. Antonin. Summ. Moral, part. i. tit. 10. c. 3.
Beginning. Of indulgences we have nothing expressly from Scripture, nor
from the sayings of the ancients, but of the late doctors. Cajetan. Opusc.
tom. i. tract. 15. c. 1. Ofthe rise of them, no authority of Scripture, or
ancient doctors, Greek or Latin, have brought this to our knowledge : only
within this 300 years it hath been written, &c. Bishop Fisher Assert.
Luther. Confutatio Art. 18. p. 135, grants there ia neither precept, nor
counsel for it in Scripture.
* As that what we receive in the sacrament is bread in its own nature
and essence, and that it nourisheth our body, &c. That wicked men re
ceive no other but bread, though to the faithful it is truly Christ's body,
and therefore it is called his body. That it is a sacrament, a sign, an
image, and a figure of his body. Which last words were in the Canon of
the Mass till it was altered in favour to this new opinion. V. Gratian
Deer, de Consecr. Dist. 2. c. 55.
t Rabanus in his Canonical Epistle published by Baluz, with his Re-
gino, p. 517, hath these words, Some of late, not holding aright of the
sacrament, have said that the body of Christ, which was born of fhe
Virgm Mary, &c. is (the same which is received at the altar.) Against
which error we have written to Egilus Abhas. But that book is lost ; and
in this, as Baluz shews, (those last words) were rased out of the manu
script. J Bertramus, or Ratrannus Corbeiensis, in his book written against it, by
order of Carolus Calvus, and transcribed in great part into our Saxon
Homily. Which book is mentioned as his, by the nameless writer in
defence of Paschasius, and by Sigebert, de Script. Eccl. c. 96.
Johannes Scotus, Professor at Oxford, in King Alfred's time, in his
book against it, that was burnt 200 years after, when this innovation had
prevailed. But none of these books were censured in that age when they
were vmtten.
§ Anno 1059- The Pope and his Roman Council put these words into
the mouth of Berengar, that not the sacrament, but the very body of

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 15
licking oyer to perfect it.* And then having both shape and
a name, it was defined to be of faith by Pope Innocent in his
Lateran Council, about twelve hundred years after Christ.
For Confession to a Priest, the necessity of it was unknown
to the Fathers of the Primitive Church.f Nay, above a thou
sand years after Christ, it was held disputable in the Roman
Church.J And though the practice of it was imposed by
Pope Innocent, in his Council of Lateran ;§ yet even then it
remained disputable, II as to the doctrine, till it was made to
be of faith by the Trent Council.^
For their doctrine of Image Worship, than which nothing
can be more contrary to the Scriptures, as they were under
stood by the primitive Fathers ;** we know it was established
Christ is broken and ground by the teeth of the faithful. Which, the
Gloss there saith, was a greater heresy than Berengar's, unless their
words be taken in a sound sense, that is, otherwise than they signify.
Deer, de Consecr. dist. 2. c. 42. [Corp. Jur. Can. vol. 1. p. 1932. Lugd.
1671. Ego Beren^arius.
* About the year 1150, the Master of the Sentences, lib. 4. dist. 11.
[fol. 347. p. 1. Colon. Agr. 1566.] saith. Whether the change be formal,
or substantial, or of some other kind, I am not able to define. Only I
know it is not formal. But anno 1215, Pope Innocent defined it to be of
no other kind but substantial, Cone. Lateran. IV. c. 1.
t Of secret sins no confession is necessary, but to God only. Chrysost.
Edit. Savil. tom. i. p. 708. 11. iv. p. 589. 40. V. p. 258. 6. et p. 262.
44. J Gratian. Decret. de Poenit. Dist. 1. c. 89. [ut supra, p. 1717.]
Quibus Autoritatibus, having brought arguments for and against it, thus
concludes : Which side is in the right, I leave the reader to judge, for on
both sides there are wise and religious men.
The Master of the Sentences, lib. 4. dist. 17. [ut supra, p. 364. col. 2.]
Though himself was for confession, yet saith, learned men differ about it ;
for so the doctors seem to vary and deliver things near contrary to one
another about it. So that yet it was disputable iu those times.
§ Cone. Lateran. IV. Can. 21. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, vol. 11. p. 172,
173. II Gloss, in Deer, de Poenit. Dist. 1. o. 37. [ut supra, 1679.] Alii e contr.
saith. Here follow allegations, to prove that one of age is not forgiven sin
without confession. Which is false.
IT Cone. Trident. Sess. 14. Can. 6, 7, 8. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, vol.
14. p. 824.] After which in the Roman edition of the Canon Law, there
were notes put upon those places above mentioned. Where Gratian doubted
whether confession were necessary, they say, it is most certain, and to be
held for most certain, that confession is necessary. And where Semeca
had said, it is false, they say, nay, it is most true.
** The Second Commandment, which forbids bowing down before any
image or likeness, though it does not appear in the Roman Decalogue,
was held by the Fathers to be a law of perpetual obligation. So Ireneeus

16 A CONFUTATION OF THE
by the second Nicene Council,* and we know what a Council
that was. But it was condemned in the same age by two as
numerous Councils ; that of Constantinople, a little before it,-|-
and that of Frankfort, immediately after it.|
And the matter was held in debate all that age, in both the
Eastem§ and Western|| Church : till at last it was settled in
the East according to the Nicene Council ; which they have
so much outdone in the Roman Church, that even the Greeks
charge them with idolatry ;^ and they are not wholly excused
from it by many of their own communion.**
For their doctrine of Purgatory, it doth not appear that any
one of the ancients hit upon it, among all the different
adv. Haeres. 1. ii. c. 6. and 1. iv. c. 31. Clemens Alex. Admon. ad
Gentes, Edit. Leyd. 1616. p. 31. 12. Strom. V. Ib. p. 408. 22. Tertull.
de Idololatria, c. 4. p. 105. D. [Par. 1641.] Idem. adv. Marcion. 1. ii.
c. 22. p. 470. A. B. Idem, in Scorpiac. c. 2. p. 617. C. D. Cyprian, de
Exhort. Mart. p. 283. [Par. 1649.] Idem, in Testim. ad Quirinum 1. iii.
c. 59. p. 345. Augustin. Epist. 119. c. 11. tom. ii. col. 569. A. [Basil.
1541.] * The English, and French, and Germans of that age, called it Pseudo-
synodum, the Mock-synod of Nice ; or rather of Constantinople, because
it began and ended in that city. Concil. Edit. Labbe, [ut supra] tom.
vii. p. 37. D. and 592. B. Hincmar. Opusc. 33. c. 20. Edit. Sirmondi,
tom. ii. p. 457. Ado Vienn. set. VL Edit. Paris. 1512. foL 181. Annal,
Fuld. et V. opera Alcuini in fine.
t Of which there is nothing left, but what is repeated out of it in the
second Nicene Council, Act. 6. Edit. Labbe, [ut supra,] tom. vii. col.
392. E.
} Ib. col. 1057. E.
§ Baron. Anno 842. num. 16. [vol. 14. p. 264. Luc. 1743.] saith,
TiU that year the Nicene Council had not prevailed in the Eastern
Church. 11 Witness the book of Charles the Great, and that of the Synod of
Paris under Ludovicus Pius, and that of Agobard, bishop of Lyons, against
the worship of images, as it was then in the Roman Church.
If For their carved images of saints ; Gear in Eucholog. p. 28. [Lut.
Par. 1647.] saith, the Greeks abhor carved images, as idols, of which they
do not stick to sing in David's words, " They have mouths and speak
not." And for picturing God, the second Nicene Council condemns it,
by approving the Epistle of St. German, which calleth the image of God
an idol. Concil. Edit. Labb. [ut supra,] tom. vii. col. 301. E. and
304. A.
** Lud. Vives in his Notes on Aug. de Civitate Dei, 1. viii. c. 27. [ut
supra,] tom. v. col. 494. B. saith. In many Catholics, I do not see
what difference there is between their opinions of the saints, aud the
heathens' opinion of their gods. Polydor. Virg. de Invent. 1. vi. c. 13.
saith, Men are come to that pitch of madness, that this part of piety dif-
fereth little from impiety. For very many — trust more in their images.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPERY. 17
opinions* that they had concerning separated souls, till St-
Austin's time ; and yet then, we are as sure it was no catholic
tradition,f as we can be of any thing of that age. After near
two hundred years more, it was believed by one of great name ; J
than in Christ or the saints, to whom they are dedicated. The like com
plaints have many other of their writers. Bellarmine de Cvdtu Imag. II.
22. Edit. Venet. 1599. tom. ii. col. 836. E. saith. That they who hold
that some images are to be worshipped with latria, axe forced to use most
subtle distinctions, which they themselves scarce understand, much less the
ignorant people. And yet this, which he so censures, is the constant
judgment of divines, and seems to be the meaning of the Council of Trent,
saith Azorius, Institut. Moral. 1. 9. c 6.
* Some held, that all go immediately after death to heaven or hell.
Others, that none go to either, but that all are kept in secret receptacles
tiU the general resurrection. Some, that martyrs go to heaven, and the
damned souls to hell ; but all the rest are kept there in expectation and
suspense till the day of judgment. Some held, that there shall be a first
resurrection of the righteous ; of whom some shall rise sooner, some later,
in the thousand years of Christ's reign upon earth. And that the delay
of that resurrection shall be the punishment of their sius. Others held,
that their sins shall be purged away by that fire that shall bum the world
at the last day. And that they should burn a longer or less while, and
with more or less pain, according to the degrees of their sins. All the
Fathers were of some or other of these opinions, which are all inconsistent
with the Roman doctrine of purgatory.
t Aug. de Fide et Operibus, c. 15. [ut supra,] tom. iv. p. 69. E.
saith. Some think men that die in sin, may be purged with fire, and then
be saved, holding the foundation. For so they understand that text
1 Cor. iii. 13, They shall be saved as by fire. So Enchirid. ad Laurent.
c. 67. tom. iii. p. 175. C. Ibid, de Fide et Operibus, p. 71. B. He saith,
that this is one of those places which St. Peter saith are hai-d to be under
stood, which men ought not to wrest to their own destruction. Ibid. c. 16.
p. 73. B. He saith, for his own part, he uuderstandeth that text to be
meant of the fire of tribulation in this life. So Enchirid. ad Laur. Ib. c,
68. But for the doctrine, he saith, that some such thing may be, is not
incredible : and whether it be so, it may be inquired ; and it may be found,
or it may not. So Euchir. ad Laur. c. 69. p. 176. D. All these texts
he repeats again, in his answer to the first of the eight questions of Dul-
citius. De Civitate Dei, 1. xxi. c. 26. tom. v. p. 1315. B. He again de-
livereth the same meaning of that text. And as to the doctrine, he saith, I
do not find fault with it, for perhaps it is true. Ibid. p. 1316. B. I suppose
St. Austin vyould not have said this of the doctrine of Christ's incarnation.
{ Pope Gregory I. in his Dialogues, where, among many idle tales, he
hath some that are palpably false, and such as betray both his ignorance
and credulity together. For example, that of St. Paulin being a slave in
Africa till the death of the king of the Vandals, who could be no other
than Genseric, that outlived St. Paulin five and forty years. And yet Gre
gory saith, I heard this from our elders, and this I do as firmly believe, as
if I had seen it with my own eyes. Lib. 1. Prsef. et c. 1. [vol. 2. p. 149,
&c. Par. 1705.]
VOL. XII. C

18 A CONFUTATION OF THE
from whose fabulous writings* it got credit ; and so crept by
degreesf into the faith of the Roman Church. But it is re
ceived by no other Christians.
For their doctrine of Indulgences, it is so confessedly new,J
it was at first so ill grounded, § and so wickedly designed, that
• Bishop Fisher against Luther's Assert. Art. 18. p. 132. saith, it was a
good while unknown, and then it was believed by some, pedetentim, by little
and little, and so at last it came to be generally received by the Church.
t Platina (who then lived) in the life of Eugenius IV. Edit. Colon. 1593.
p. 310, saith, after many meetings, and much contention about it,
the Greeks at last being overcome with reasons, did believe there was a
place of purgatory. But he adds, that not long after, they returned to what
they held before. And in the Life of Nicholas V. p. 323, 324, he saith,
that he would fain have reduced them to the Catholic faith, but he could
not. Bishop Fisher, ubi supra, saith. There is none, or very seldom, men-
tion of it among the ancients ; and it is not beheved by the Greeks to this
day. Alphonsus de Castro adv. Hseres. 1. 8. Tit. Indulg. hath the same
words. And 1. 12. Tit. Purgatorium, saith, That this is one of the most
known errors of the Greeks and the Armenians. Bzov. contin. Baron.
Anno 1514. u. 19. saith, The Muscovites and Russians believe no purga
tory. Most of these believe a middle state, as those ancients did ; but that
will not stand with this doctrine.
X For the age of it, scarce any go higher than the Stations of Pope Gre
gory I. who lived about the year 600. And to fetch it from those times,
they have no ancienter author than Thomas Aquinas (for neither Gratian,
nor Peter Lombard, have so much as one word of this matter). So Car
dinal Cajetan, Opusc. tom. i. tract. 15. c. 1. saith. This only has been
written within these 300 years, as concerning the ancient Fathers, that
Pope Gregory instituted the indulgences of stations, as Aquinas hath it.
So likevrise Bishop Fisher, and Alphonsus a Castro, both ubi supra. Car
dinal Bellarmin. de Indulg. 1. 3. offers some kind of proof from elder times,
in such a manner, as if he would not oblige us to believe it. But for the
instance of Pope Gregory I., he saith, we are impudent if we deny it. But
with Bellarmine's leave, a French Oratoire, Morinus de Poenit. 1. 10. c. 20.
[p. 770. col. 2. Antv. 1682.] does deny it; and convicts this, and all his
other proofs of indulgences before Gregory VII. to be nothing but forgery
and imposture.
It seems probable, indeed, that Gregory VII. (commonly known by his
former name, Hildebrand) was the first that granted any indulgences ; and
that was above a thousand years after Christ. Cardinal Tolet. casuum 1. vii.
c. 21. 1. saith, that Paschal II. was the first that granted indulgences for the
dead. That must be about the year 1100. And Ibid. lib. vi. c. 24. 3. he
saith, that the first that granted plenary indulgences, was Pope Boniface
VIII. who lived about the year 1300. So ancient is this new Catholic faith !
% The ground of this faith, according to Bellarmin. de Indulg. 1. 2, 3, is
made up of a number of school opinions put together ; about which opinions
(as he there saith), the schoolmen have differed among themselves. But
all his comfort is, that they that did not hold his way, were ready to acqui
esce m the judgment of the Church, if she held otherwise. He might as

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 19
God seemed to have suffered them to run on into this, to shew
the world (as afterwards he did), by this example, what stuff
the lusts of men, left to themselves, would bring into the Chris
tian religion.*
It were easy to shew the like in all their new articles of
faith. Most of them I shall consider as they come under the
other heads of my discourse. The mean while these may pass
for a sample of the rest. They all sprung up in late corrupt
times, and went at first as private opinions only ; but being
found to make well for the interests of the clergy, -j- they were
concerned to bring them in credit with the people. And they
took a way for it that could not fail in such an age, by forging
new revelations and miracles.J When, by these means, worthy
well have said, that the Church, when they lived, was so far from having
declared her judgment of this doctrine ; that she had not yet declared her
sense of those opinions, which were to be the ground of it in aftertimes.
* The design of Hildebrand's indulgences, was to engage men to fight
in his quarrel, and to do other services to the Papacy. Greg. VII. Epist.
ii. 54. and vi. 10, 15. and vii. 13. and viii. 6. The design of Pope
Boniface, in his farther improvement of this invention, was to get money.
Chron. Citiz. Anno 1289. He was greedy of money, and to gather it, he
sent his legates into divers parts of the world, to trade with indulgences.
And with these, he raised very great sums, enough to have maintained a
holy war. But what became of it, we shall know at doomsday.
t Transubstantiation, for the honour of the clergy ; Confession for their
power and authority ; Image Worship, to bring in oblations to the Church ;
Purgatory, for the profit of masses to the lower clergy ; Indulgences, for
the profit of the superior ; Plenary Indulgences, for the Pope's own coffers.
X For Transubstantiation, the first that wrote was Paschas. Ratbertus,
about the year 820. And he tells us of sundry persons, that had seen in
stead of the host, one a lamb, another a child, another flesh and blood.
Paschas. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. c. 14. And after the year 1200, when it
was defined to be of faith ; Csesarius of Heisterbach wrote a whole volume
of miracles that were wrought in that age to confirm the truth of it, more
in number than are recorded in Scripture to confirm the whole Divine
revelation. For Auricular Confession, Bellarmine produces sundry revelations and
miracles, by which he saith, God witnessed that the Church's faith com.
cerning it was true, de Poenit. 1. iii. c. 12. Quarta. [vol. 3. p. 603.
Prag. 1721.] Among the rest, he hath that of St. Fi-ancis, who raised one
from the dead to be confessed, which I take to be no less than the fetch- -
ing of Trajan's soul from hell, according to their doctrine.
For Image Wors)up, the Fathers in that second Nicene Council set it up
in contemplation of the miracles that were wrought by the images, ConciL
Edit. Labb. [ut supra] tom. vii. p. 252. C. So Bellarmin. de Imagin.
Sanct. 1. ii. c. 12. Miracula ; [ut. supra, vol. 2. p. 448. col. 1.] saith,
the miracles which were done by the images, were therefore done, thatthej
might prove and establish the, doctrine of images.
C 2

20 A CONFUTATION OF THE
of their doctrines, they had brought them into the Christian
faith ; then, beside the interest that first brought them in, there
was another reason to continue them. It was necessary for the
credit ofthe infallibihty of the Roman Church. Touch that,
and you shake the whole building of Popery, even to the
foundation, that is, the Papacy itself.* To secure that, they
are brought under this miserable necessity, of holding all for
catholic faith that is once received in the Roman Church.
Whatsoever she bringeth forth, must be fathered on the Apos
tles, though there is not the least colour for it in their writings.
But to shew how little trust they have in the Apostles'
writings, there needs no other instance than this, that their
Church hath forbid her laity to read them.f and hath taken a
course that if they read, they cannot well understand them.
The Scripture was writ by the Apostles in the most vulgar
language of their times ; the Greek, which was the mother
tongue of most, and well known in all countries J where the
Scripture was written. And they writ it for every one to
read, as it appears in plain words in their writings. § And the
For Purgatory, Pope Gregory, in his beforementioned Dialogues, 1. iv.
c. 55, &c. declares upon what ground it was that he believed it ; namely,
firom the relation of the poor souls themselves, that were confined to the
hot baths, and kept there at hard work, sweltered as tenders used to be :
from wliich miserable bondage they were redeemed by prayers and masses,
as he tells us. So Bishop Fisher, ubi supra, p. 132, saith, Purgatory was
found out, partly by revelations, and partly by Scriptures ; but Scriptures,
he confesseth, so understood as they never were in former times.
Aud for Indulgences, he tells us, that they came not in use till after men
had quaked a while at the fiames of purgatory. The belief of that doctrine
fitted men for this. And yet this had miracles to support it. So Lintur.
App. ad Fascic. temp. Anno 1489, tells, how at Friburg the devil in the
shape of a dog, helped one to rob the Pope of all the money that his factors
had taken in that city, for which the thief, having confessed it, was put to
a most direful death.
* Bellarmin. de Romano Pontifice, Prsef. saith. When we speak of the
Pope's power, we speak of the sum of Christianity.
+ Rule 4th, of the Index made by order of the Council of Trent, that
whosoever shall presume to read, or have a Bible, though of a Cathohc
translation, without a faculty in writing from his bishop ; such a one cannot
receive absolution, till he has dehvered up his Bible to the ordinary. For
fear this should not be enough, Pope Clement VIII. has added this note,
that by command and practice of the holy Inquisition, no bishop has power
to grant any such faculty to read or keep a Bible in any vulgar tongue.
X Cicero pro Archia, Edit. Grut. 1. 292. 17.
5 St. John saith at the end of the Gospel ; These things are written, that
ye might believe, and that behoving ye might have life. St. Paul directa
his Epistles to all in general ; Rom. i. 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 21
ancient Fathers required* all men to read it, all the laity, even
the meanest of the laity ;f they condemned the neglect of it ;
they commended them that read it day and night.J There
is nothing more frequent in the writings of the ancient Fathers.
Yet now it is found out that the laity may hurt themselves
with reading it. How so? It will make them heretics.
of God, &c. 1 Cor. i. 2. To the Church of God at Corinth, with aU that
in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. i. 1. To the
Church at Corinth with all the saints which are in all Achaia. So in other
Epistles. * Chrysost. in Gen. Serm. 29. [ut supra,] tom. i. p. 225. 10. I be
seech you to attend with diligence to the reading of the Scriptures : and
that not only while you are here, but also at home ; to take the Bible in
your hands, and receive the profit of it with care.
Lin. 22. Let us not, I beseech you, neglect so great a profit ; but also
in our houses, let us diligently attend the reading of Scriptures.
Lin. 36. That we may not only have enough for ourselves ; but be able
to help others, and instruct wife and children, and neighbours, &c.
Id. in Joh. Serm. 53. tom. ii. p. 776. 27. I beseech you, get Bibles.
Id. in his Sermon of the profit of reading Scripture. Tom. viii. p. 112.
43. Let us apply ourselves to reading, not only these two hours, for this
bare hearing is not enough to secure us ; but continually let every one,
when he is come home, take his Bible, and go over the sense of those things
that have been said. For the tree that was planted by the waters, was by
the waters not two or three hours, but all day and all night ; therefore it
bringeth forth leaves and fruit, &c. So he that is continually reading the
Scriptures, though he have none to interpret, yet by continual reading, he
draws much profit.
Id. de Lazaro Serm. 3. tom. v. p. 242. 30. This I alway beseech, and
will never leave beseeching you ; that you would not only attend to what is
said in this place, but also that when you are at home, you would conti
nually be reading the Scriptures. This also, at all times, I have not ceased
to beg of them with whom I speak in private.
t Chrys. in Coloss. Serm. 9. tom. iv. p. 136. 18. On these words of
the Apostle, Let the word of God dwell in you richly ; hear you people
of the world, you that have charge of wife and children, how he exhorts
you more than others to read the Scriptures ; and that not slightly, or any
how, but with mucji diligence.
Again, p. 137. 2. Hear, I beseech you, all you that work for your'
living, and get yourselves Bibles for the cure of your souls.
Lin. 7. This is the cause of all evils, that men do not know the Scrip
tures. Lin. 9. Do not throw all upon us (of the clergy), you are sheep ; but
not brutes, but rational creatures.
X Id. de Lazai-o, Serm. 3. tom. v. p. 244. 43. Take the Bible in your
hands, read all the history ; hold fast the known things. For the dark
and unknown, go often over them ; and if thou canst not by continual ¦
reading find out what is said, go to thy teacher: if he shall not teach thee,
God will, seeing thy diligence, &c.

22 A CONFUTATION OF THE
One would little expect it, that had read what the Fathers*
say of this matter. But now it is heresy to disbelieve the
Roman Church. And, no doubt, to read the Scripturef will
bring men to this. But whose fault is it ? Surely theirs,
that instead of reforming their Church, have rather chosen to
silence the Scriptures. Which being done in favour of their
doctrines, it appears that they themselves (I mean the gover
nors of their Church) have been sensible that some at least of
their doctrines are not the doctrines of the Apostles.
In the next place for the Apostles' fellowship, which I have
interpreted to be union under lawful pastors and governors ;
they can by no means allow this character to our Church, or
to any that submits not to their universal pastor. Which title
they appropriate to the Bishop of Rome ; and him they swear,
in their forementioned profession of faith, to be the vicar of
Christ, and the successor of St. Peter the Apostle. And to
shew how far they dare go against evidence, J they swear also,
that his Roman Church is not only mistress, but also the
mother of all Churches.
Not to say in how many things, he that will be supreme
pastor, invades the just rights of other pastors, who are all,
in the judgment of primitive times, the successors of the
Apostles of Christ ; or how little he hath to shew for his claim
to a succession in that power from St. Peter, either in Scrip
ture story, or in the writings of the Primitive Church :§ I shall
only desire you to consider these beginnings of Christianity in
my text. When the whole Church was comprehended in three
or four thousand believers, and they were altogether with the
* Chrysost. de Lazaro. S. 3. tom. </. p. 245. 18. The reading of
Scripture is a great security against sin. The ignorance of Scripture is a
great precipice, and a deep pit. It is a great betraying of our salvation to
know nothing of the laws of God. It is this that hath brought forth
heresies ; this that has brought in corrupt life ; this hath turned things
upside down. For it is impossible, I say it is impossible for any one to
depart without fruit, that enjoys reading continuadly with observation.
f Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, ii. 15. Quid quod, [ut supra, vol. 1. p. 66.
col. 2.] The people would not only receive no benefit, but would also
receive hurt by the Scripturesi, &c.
Peter Sutor tralat. Biblise, c. 22. fol. 96. Will not the people be
drawn away easily from observing the Church's institutions, when they
shall find that they are not contained in the law of Chi-ist ?
X Luke xxiv. 47. Gal. iv. 26. The second General Council caUed the
Church of Jerusalem the mother of all Churches. Theodorit. Eccl. Hist.
v. 9. Edit. Vales, p. 211. D.
§ Considerations against Popery, p. 81, 82, &c.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPEEY. 23
Apostles at this time in Jerusalem j it is certain that then
there was no bishop, nor no Christian at Rome. So that then
for the bishop or Church of Rome to be any thing, which they
swear they are, in those articles of their faith, was surely no
part of the Apostles' doctrine.
Nor did the fellowship of the Apostles consist in subjection
to St. Peter. Though he was the first in order,* yet that he
had authority over the rest, there is no ground to assert :
there is much evidence against it, as I have shewn from sundry
places of Scripture.
Nor granting this to St. Peter (which they can never prove),
can they bring down a title from him to the Roman bishop.
He hath a better pretence to succeed the Roman emperors,f
in monarchy, then he hath to succeed any of the Apostles.
And, indeed, that was the design, as they know that are skilled
in the writers of ancient times. Rome seemed a place designed
for empire ; and when the emperors failed, then the bishops
set up in their stead. J What the emperors could not hcJld by
arms, the bishops would fetch in by religion. And so they
obtrude upon all Christians, in truth, a secular monarchy,
instead of that which my text calls the fellowship of the Apostles .
Thirdly, for the two sacraments ofthe Apostles, they tell us
of seven, which were instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. In this
chapter we read of baptism, ver. 41, and we read of " breaking
of bread" in my text. Here are two ; but where are the other
five ? They were not thought of at that time, for aught that
» Matth. X. 2.
+ Dom. a Soto in Sent. IV. dist. 46. q. 1. art. 1. Though (Daniel's
fourth monarchy, that is,) the civil empire of the Romans hath now
ceased ; yet the world is not at an end, because that temporal empire hath
been changed into a spiritual, as Pope Leo saith in his sermon of the
Apostles. X What the Popes would have had, it may appear by their forging a
donation from Constantine ; in which they make him give them his crown
and sceptre, together with the city of Rome, and all the Western pro
vinces, places and cities. And that he might leave the Pope in possession,
they make him remove into the East, and there build a new seat for his
empire ; reserving only the honour to put on the Pope's crown, and hold
his stirrup, to himself and his successors. Concil. edit. Merlini, 1530. fol.
58. A. B. This donation was a part of the Acts of St. Sylvester, which
were forged in the eighth century ; and that probably by Pope Adrian I.,
for he first quoted them. And he may justly be suspected to be the
author of that body of law, which, under the name of St. Isidore's collection,
was generally received within a hundred years after ; and which obtains to
this day in the Roman Church, though the learned men among them are
convinced, and own that it is an arrant heap of corruption and forgery.

24 A CONFUTATION OF THE
appears to us in Scripture.* Nay, it doth not appear in a
thousand years after. It was eleven hundred years after,
when Peter Lombard wrote his book of the Sentences, before
which, they cannot find the least mention of that number of
sacraments.f But to speak of no more than that mentioned in my text.
Where is the " breaking of bread ?" As they receive it in the
Roman Church, there is neither breaking nor bread in their
sacrament.J Where is the communion of Christ's body and
blood ?§ Their daily worship is the mass. But their mass is
no communion. II The priest only consecrates and eats, while
all the people stand hy and adore. Was there ever such a
thing heard of in the primitive times ?^ In those times, none
were suffered to be present, but only such as received.** And
* 1 Cor. X. 2, 3, 4, and xii. 13. St. Paul mentions only Baptism and
the Lord's supper.
t Bellarm. de Sacram. ii. cap. 24, endeavours to shew that each of the
five has been called a sacrament by one or other of the Fathers ; (and the
like he might have shewn of twenty things more.) But he could not
produce one Father, that either said there were seven sacraments of
Christ's instituting ; or that spoke of aU these as being such, or of so
many as would make up that number. Only he says, cap. 25, the
Master of the Sentences, and all divines since his time, have delivered, that
there are seven sacraments ; and adds, if this be false, the whole Church
for four hundred years must have erred most perniciously. He might
have said the whole Roman Church, and we should not much have differed
about it.
t The invention of the wafer came in after the doctrine of transubstan
tiation . Cassandri Liturgic. c. 27. It was then of use. For the senses
have less to do about a wafer than about bread.
^ 1 Cor. X. 16.
II Verse 17. For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we
are all partakers, &c. If that be a good reason, then they which are not
partakers, have not that communion. So it is inferred by the twelfth
Council of Toledo, can 5 ; That they who do not eat, are not partakers of
the altar. Concil. Ed. Lab. [ut supra,] tom. vi. 1230. B.
If Justin M. Apol. 2. p. 97. E. [Par. 1636.] They give to every one
that is present to receive of that which is consecrated. So p. 98. E. the
giving and receiving of the consecrated things is to every one.
Apost. Constit. VIII. 13. Concil. ed. Labb. [Ibid.] tom. 1. 483. E.
The bishop receives, and then the priests, &c. and then all the people in
order. Again, 485. A. Let the thirty-third Psalm be said while all the
rest are receiving, and when all the men, and all the women have received,
let the deacons take what is left, &c. The same may be observed in all
the ancient Liturgies.
** Chrysost. in Ephes. Serm. 3. tom. iii. 778, 26. Ye hear procla
mation made, as many as are in penance be gone. As many as do not
receive are in penance.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 25
if any were present, they were punishable* if they did not
receive. What could they have thought of such a sacrament
as is now the daily worshipf of the Roman Church ?
Sure enough in the Apostles' Church, as oft as they met to
worship God, they " all did eat of that one bread." 1 Cor. x.
17. And they all were "made to drink into one Spirit."
1 Cor. xii. 13.
And whereas of this last, our Saviour having said to his
disciples, who were then laymen, "Drink ye all of it;" J St.
Mark takes particular notice,§ that " they all drank of it ;"
which practice (we see) was followed in the Apostohc Church : ||
Ib. p. 779. 3. How is it that you tarry, and do not partake of the table ?
You are unworthy, you say ; then you are so of communion in prayer.
Your eyes are unworthy of these sights, and your ears are unworthy, &c.
Ib. line 13. It is no more lawful for you to be here, than for one that
is not christened.
* Apostol. can. 9. Repeated and explained by the Council of Antioch,
can. 2. Concil. Edit. Labb. [Ibid.] tom. ii. p. 561. D. That aU that
come to Church, and hear the holy Scriptures ; but do not join in prayer
with the people, or decline the receiving of the eucharist, therein doing
disorderly, these must be cast out of the Church by excommunisation.
Greg. I. Dialog. II. c. 23. At mass, according to custom, the deacon
cried. If any one do not receive, let him give place.
Gratian. Decret. de Consecr. dist. 1. c. 59. [Corp. Jur. Can. vol. 1. p.
1907. Lugd. 1671.] And more at large, dist. 2. o. 10. Peracta. [Ibid. p.
1917.] -After the consecration, let all receive that will not be put out of
the Church. For so it was ordained by the Apostles, and is held by the
holy Roman Church. On which words the Gloss tells us. Thus it was
anciently, but now every one is left to do sis he pleases.
t Bellarm. de Missa II. c. 9. Tertio. [ut supra, vol. 3. p. 474. col. 2.]
saith. We read nowhere expressly that the ancients offered the sacrifice
without the communion of some one or more beside the priest. Yet we
may easily gather it by conjectures. His first conjecture is from a canon
of the Council of Nantes, which is not to be found but in Ivo after the
year 1100. His second is from the canon which teaches plainly the
contrary, and which therefore I quoted in note ||. p. 24. The rest are
such weak colours for the justifying of this practice, that he might better
have only gone about to excuse it, as he does, cap. 10. Septima, by saying,
that now oftentimes the priest alone eats the sacrifice, it is no fault of the
priests, or the nature of the sacrifice, but the negligence of the people.
But he seems to have forgot that at some masses the Church does not
require the presence of the people.
X Matth. xxvi. 27. § Mark xiv. 23.
II 1 Cor. X. 21. Ye drink the cup of the Lord ; and xi. 26, 27, 28.
Ye eat this bread and drink this cup, and 12, 13, we have been all made
to drink. So Justin M. Apol. 2. [ut supra,] p. 97. E. and 98. E. declares
the manner of those times, that every one of the people that were present
at the sacrament, did receive it in both kinds.

26 A CONFUTATION OF THE

^

The Roman Church* will let her laity drink none of it. None
of the " cup of blessing which we bless ;" but the cup of un-
Iilessed wine, the absolution as they call it : a trick which they
brought up in those corrupt ignorant times, I know not why,
if not on purpose to deceive the people, that they may not
miss the wine, though they have none of the blessing. So
far are they removed from the original Church in her sacra
ments. Lastly, for the worship of God, here called " the Apostles'
prayers," there are many things in the Roman Church, whereof
some were forbidden by the Apostles, and others cannot consist
with their doctrine.
The chief part of her worship is the sacrifice of the mass ;
and that is declared, in the Creed before-mentioned, to be "a
true proper propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead."
This horrible afiront of Christ's sacrifice, f aud abuse of his
* It appears that this manner was continued in following ages ; it does
not appear that it was changed in any Church, tiU that doctrine came in
which requires men to disbelieve their senses. This being hard to do in
that part of the sacrament, the cup was taken away by degrees in these
Western Churches.
The first that writ for this use (as far as I can find), was Gislebertus,
that lived about the year 1100. Aquinas, that livedabout 150 years after,
says, that then this new manner was providently observed in some
Churches. Summ. Part III. q. 80. art. 12. in Corp. [vol. 24. p. 439. col,
2. Venet. 1787.] After 150 years more was the Council of Constance,
which enjoined it to aU ; and that vrith a bold non obstante to all that
Christ had said or done to the contrary. For thus the decree, Sess. 13,
Concil. Ed. Labb. [ut supra,] torn. xii. 100. B. C. Though Christ
administered this sacrament to his disciples in both kinds, of bread
and wine ; yet notwithstanding this, — the approved custom of the
Church is otherwise. — And though in the Primitive Church this
sacrament was then received by the faithful in both kinds ; yet this custom
was brought up with good reason ; for the avoiding of some perils and
scandals, &c. It seems they were such as Christ did not foresee, or the
ancient Church did not find, for otherwise this had not been then to do.
t It makes the sacrifice of Christ as much lower in value, as it is
oftener offered than the Levitical sacrifices. For the reason of their being
often offered was, because of their insufficiency to take away sin. Heb. x. 11.
Had Christ's sacrifice been hke theirs, he must often have suffered, Heb.
ix. 25, 26. He must have oftentimes offered the same sacrifice, Heb. x. 11.
As they say he doth at every mass in the Roman Church. But this he
needed not; Christ's once was enough. Heb. vii. 27. andix. 12, 26, 28,
and X. 10. He offered one sacrifice for sin for ever. Heb. x. 12, andhy
that one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, ver. 14.
So that there is no more offering for sin, ver. 18. No more true proper
propitiatory sacrifice.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 27
sacrament* together, was brought in upon the back of that
doctrine of the corporal presence. When, according to that
doctrine, the priest hath made Christ ; next he is to kill him,
or do something as bad; for they pretend tof sacrifice him to
God. How this is done, the divines of that ChurchJ are not yet
agreed. It were well if at least they could tell why they do it.
For they had need, for such a sacrifice, to have a clear institu
tion from God. But they cannot pretend to that. There is
nothing clearly for it in all the texts that they bring out of
Scripture. This they were told aloud at the Council of Trent :§
* The sacrament of the Lord's supper was ordained for the remembrance
and representation of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, to be offered or
made by every believer. He takes, eats, drinks ; he does this in remem
brance of Christ. Luke xxii. 19. aud so doing, he sheweth forth the death
of Christ, 1 Cor. xi. 26. and appheth to himself Christ's body broken and
his blood shed for us. There goes with it an eucharistical sacrifice, that is,
before the sacrament an oblation solemnly presented to God : in, and after
it, a spiritual sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, an offering of ourselves,
souls and bodies. For this, every Christian is a priest. 1 Pet. ii. 5. The
manner of it is thus described in the old Roman Missal set forth by Pame-
Uus. After the reading of the Gospel, the offertory is sung, and the obla
tions are offered by the people : out of which, bread and wine are set upon
the altar to be consecrated ; and the prayer is said over the oblations.
After this, the priest began the Canon of the Mass, and said the comme
moration in these words. Remember, Lord, all here present, who offer
to thee this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, and aU theirs. Menardi
Sacr. Gregor. p. 2. In those times, men saw the oblations to which those
words did refer. But afterward, whep there was no more suoh offering,
and no more breaking of bread, but a wafer to be offered by the priest for
the people, then the ancient form was improper, and therefore they altered
it thus : Remember, Lord, all here present, for whom we offer to thee,
&c. So it stands now in the Roman Missal. Where all the other prayers
which were designed for the eucharist, are misapplied to the new propitia
tory sacrifice. And yet still they continue these following words of the
prayer, after the Diptychs ; Through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
thou, O Lord, Greatest all these things always good, &c. and givest them
to us. This they say over the wafer and wine after consecration. Of
the creatures of bread and wine, see the end of page 47.
^+ BeU. de Missa, lib. 1. cap. 2. [ut supra, p. 414. col. 2.] Secundo,
saith. All things whatsoever that are called sacrifices in Scripture, were
of necessity to be destroyed : and that by killing them, if they were living
thhigs ; if without life, by burning them. &o.
X Bell, de Missa, lib. 1. cap. 27. [Ibid. p. 457, &c.] the whole chapter.
Whether by oblation, or consecration, or manducation, &c.
§ 1562. Jul. 24. Padre Paolo saith Ataide, Cardinal Pallavicino saith
Forero, shewed, that the sacrifice of the mass cannot be proved from
Scripture alone, without tradition ; particularly, that it cannot be proved

28 A CONFUTATION OF THE
and others since have acknowledged it.* They pretend indeed
that it is clear in the tradition of the Fathers. But for the
Fathers that received the Scripture from the Apostles, it is
evident that they could not find any suoh thing in it.f Nor
could any of them that lived in the first 600 years.J Nay,
from Christ's words at the last supper, but by the uniform exposition of
the Fathers. He adds, that they did not so understand it, as if theh
sense were of faith.
The truth is, the ancient Fathers did not so understand our Saviour's
words, nor perhaps did many of the Trent Fathers themselves. For when
the question was put. Whether Christ at the last supper offered himself
for a propitiatory sacrifice ; it held both the divines and bishops in long
dispute, saith Cardinal Pallavicino, xvii. 13. 11, &c. It was alleged on
the one hand, that if that at the last supper was a true propitiatory sacrifice,
then that upon the cross could be only in remembrance of this : and on
the other hand, if it was not such a sacrifice, then there was no such sacri
fice instituted by Christ ; for the words of institution, Hocfacite, could
refer to nothing else but to what was done then and there. (I have shewed
that they refer to those words. Take, eat, drink ; and were spoken to the
disciples, as communicants, and no otherwise.) After much time and heat,
at last the doctrine was set down in these words. That at the last supper
Christ offered himself for a sacrifice, without saying whether propitiatory,
or eucharistical. But neither did this satisfy, saith Cardinal Pallavicino,
xviii. 9. 3.
* Suarez in tertiam Aquin. disp. 41. art. 1. Secundo potest, saith, in
the New Testament there are no convincing testimonies to prove that there
is a true proper sacrifice under the Gospel.
t None before Justin Martyr spe^s of sacrifice among Christians;
unless Clemens Romanus, in his Epist. ad Cor. sect. 36. Where he calls
Christ the High-Priest of our offerings. But he speaks only of the sacri
fice of praise, and contrite hearts. Sbid. and sect. 52.
But for Justin, in his Book against Tryphon, [ut supra,] p. 344. c. He
proves that we are all a holy priesthood, because God accepts none but
priests : and yet all that offer the sacrifices which Christ delivered in the
eucharist, or blessing of bread and wine, are accepted of God. And
whereas the Jews say that, since they have no temple, now theu- prayers
are their sacrifice ; so, saith he, I say ; that prayers and thanksgivings,
offered by them that are worthy, are the only perfect sacrifices and accep
table to God. For Christians have learned to offer these things only ; and
that even in commemoration of that food, in which there is a remembrance
of the passion of Christ.
The next Father was Irenaeus, who writing adversus Hsereses, lib. 4.
cap. 32, and 34. sheweth, that in the oblation at the eucharist, those things
which were offered to God according to the custom of those times, were no
other than his own creatures of bread and wine. See the end of page 45.
and concludes, that our altar is in heaven ; for thither it is that we send
up om- prayers and oblations ; which last words being taken into the Canon
of the Roman Mass, remain there for a testimony against their new
doctrine. t Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Edit. Paris. 1628. p. 38. C-

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 29
they were to seek for it that lived above a thousand years after
the Apostles' times.*
Some indeed of the ancients have spoke of an unbloody
sacrifice,! aid that offered by every Christian ;| as well with
out the sacrament as with it. But as they alway denied any
more bloody sacrifice ; so little did they think of an unbloody
to take away sin ; and that such as none could offer but the
priest. How much less, that Christ himself must be that
sacrifice ; nay, must come from heaven, both to offer, and to
be offered ; and that upon such pitiful small, or needless occa
sions ! The most common pretence, not to mention any
worse, § is to fetch a soul out of purgatory ; which the priest is
to do for a small piece of silver. But they have other devices
to do the same thing. Therefore, why must Christ come from
Christ offered to God that eminent sacrifice for the salvation of us all, and
delivered to us a memorial to offer to God continually, instead of a
sacrifice. Again, p. 39. A. We are taught to celebrate the memorial of
that sacrifice (of Christ) on a table by the symbols of his body and blood.
He goes on thus to the end of that chapter.
Austin Epist. 23. [ut supra,] tom. ii. p. 93. B. Towards Easter, we
say. To-morrow is the Lord's passion ; though it was many years ago that
he suffered, and that passion was but once. So on Easter-day,' we say, To
day the Lord arose ; though so many years are passed since his resurrec
tion. Why is no man such a fool, to say we lie when we speak thus ?
But because we name these days upon the account of their likeness to
those days in which these things were done. Was not Christ but once
offered in himself ? and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed by the people,
not every Easter, but every communion day ; and it is no lie, if being
asked, one should answer that Christ is sacrificed.
Chrysost in Hebr. S. 17. [ut supra, tom. iv.] p. 523. 15. We offer
not another sacrifice, as the high-priest did (among the Jews), but we
offer always the same. Nay rather we make a remembrance of the
sacrifice. * Pet. Lombard Sent. lib. iv. dist. 12, puts the question whether that
which the priest doth, is called properly a sacrifice ? He answers, that
which is offered and consecrated by the priest, is called a sacrifice and ob
lation ; because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacri
fice on the cross.
Gratian de Consecr. ii. dist. 2. e. 48, 51, 53, 54, [Corp. Jur. Can;
vol. 1. p. 1936 to 1940. Lugd. 1671.] is plain for the sacrifice, but seems
to be against the true proper propitiatory.
+ See Euseb. Demonst. Evang. lib. 1. c. 10. p. 39, 40. [Par. 1628.]
Where he explains it also, of a contrite heart, and of praises and prayers.
So in his Eccles. Hist. 1. 10. u. 4. p. 386. D. and Life of Constantine,
Ub. 4. c. 45.
X Chrysost. in 2 Corin. v. 18. [ut supra, tom. iu.] p. 647. 2. In
these things there is no difference between the priest and the layman.
5 To allay a storm, to cure cattle, &c. see the Roman Missal,

30 A CONFUTATION OF THE
heaven to earn this money ? And be sent on these errands ten
thousand times a day ? And every time suffer as much* as it
cost him to redeem all mankind ? This horrible mystery, un
known to former ages, was kept for times worthy of such a
discovery ; those dark dismal times that brought in the
grossest errors of Popery.
Other things in their worship are new and bad enough,
though they do not come up to the monstrousness of this:
namely, their prayer to angels, and to saints departed this life,
and their prayer for souls in purgatory ; which things together
make up a great part of their offices in the Roman Church.
For the first of these. Prayer to Angels ; we cannot say that
there was no such thing in the Apostles' times. For an Apostle,
by mistake, was like to have used it,f but was forbid by the
angel to whom he offered worship. And another Apostle writj
* Cone. Triden. Sess. xxii. cap. 2. [Labbe, Cone. vol. 14. p. 853.
Lut. Par. 1672.] It is one aud the same sacrifice with that which Christ
offered on the cross, and differs only in the way of offering it.
t Rev. xix. 10. St. John saith of the angel with whom he spoke, I fell
at his feet to worship him : and he said to me. See thou do it not : I am
thy fellow-servant, &c. worship God. Again, Rev. xxii. 8, 9. The
Apostle was like to have committed the same error, taking the angel for
Christ whom he represented, and in whose name he spoke ; ver. 13, and
16, tin he was better informed by the angel himself. For, saith Athana
sius, cont. Arianos, Orat. 3. p. 394. B. angels know that they are not of
them that are to be worshipped, but of them that are to worship the
Lord. The like is said by St. Austin de Vera Relig. c. 55. [ut supra,]
tom. i. p. 717. C.
X Coloss. ii. 18. " Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a
voluntary humUity, — ^worshipping of angels, intruding into those things
he hath not seen." Whether it was that superstition of the Essenes men
tioned by Josephus de Bell. Jud. xi. 7. Or whether that of Simon Magus,
serving angels, which was accounted a sort of idolatry, and condemned by
St. Peter the Apostle, as Tertullian saith, de Praescr. Hseret. c. 33. p. 245.
B. [Par. 1641.]
Chrysost. in Coloss. S. 1. [ut supra, tom. iv.] p. 90. 9. saith, it was
the chief design of that Epistle, to beat down the error of them that made
addresses to God by the angels.
Ibid. S. 5. p. 114. 14. He saith, it was the devil that put it in their
heads. Ibid. S. 6. p. 123. 27. They said. We must come to God by his angels ;
and not (immediately) by Christ, for that is a thing too high for us.
This error, saith Theodoret in his comment on that text, continued long
among the people of Colossse, and of the adjacent coimtries. And for this
cause, a Council met at Laodicea, a city about twenty miles from CoIosssb,
made a law against praying to angels. It is the 35th canon of that Council,
that no Christian shall leave the Church, and go and name angels ; that is.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPERY. 31
purposely against it, as being a superstition that some would
then have brought into the Church. But these instances
sufficiently shew that it could be no part of the Apostles'
prayers. For Prayer to Saints, as the Apostles have left no example,
so they could have none before them, according to the
doctrine of the now Roman Church.* Nor is there any colour
for it in Scripture, f nor in the tradition J of the Apostles' age.
There are many things in both to the contrary. §
But after some hundreds of years, when Christianity was
the established religion, and heathens came by droves into the
Church ; it is no wonder that they who in their Gentilism
prayed to deified men more than to God, were apt to run into
call upon them in prayer, as all the scholiasts understand it, with Theodoret
above-mentioned. To do which thing, the Council saith, is secret idolatry :
a charge that so nearly touches them in the Roman Church, that, to avoid
it, they have made no conscience of turning the word angelos into angulos,
and the sense of the canon into nonsense, in their Latin editions of that
Council. * They hold, that all that died before Christ, were in limbus patrum
till his resurrection ; and therefore could not hear the prayers of the living.
This is observed by Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat. i. 19. ItemExod. [ut. supra,
vol. 2. p. 412. col. 1.] Who therefore, as he pretends not to bring any
text out of the New Testament, so might have spared those which he
brings out of the Old Testament, to prove the invocation of saints in
heaven, which is the thing in question.
t Card. Perron Beplique, v. 12. granteth, that for prayer to saints,
there is no precept, nor any formal example in Scripture.
X Ibid. V. 19. p. 871. He also granteth, that in the authors who lived
next the times of the Apostles, — there is not to be found any footstep of
this. But he comforts himself, that in them there is nothing repugnant,
but all favourable to it. Of which, see more in the next note.
$ For Scripture. 1 Kings viii. 39. Thou only knowest the hearts of all
men. Psal. Ixv. 2. O thou that hearest prayer, to thee shall all flesh come.
Matth. iv. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve. Christ also sheweth us this in his perfect pattei-n of prayer.
, ¦ For the Fathers of the Apostles' times, see Justin Martyr before, in p. 20.
note h, i. The Church of Smyrna in their epistle concerning Polycarp's
death, says, it was a calumny of the Jews, who said that we should worship
him after his death. For we cannot leave Christ, nor can we worship any
other. For we worship him, as being the Son of God : but for the martyi-s,
as being the disciples and followers of the Lord, we love them accordingly.
Uss. edit. p. 27. Theophilus Antioch. ad Autol. i. p. 77. A. The king
will not allow any that bear office under him, to be called kings. — So
neither is it lawful for any to be worshipped but God only. TertuUian.
Scorp. c. 4. [ut supra,] p. 620. I am prescribed not to call any other,
God; — nor to adore, nor to worship any other, in any manner what
soever.

32 A CONFUTATION OF THE
this superstition. They were still for a religion that would
affect the sense. And they found matter for it at the memo
ries of the martyrs; where from the miracles that were wrought
for the testimony of their faith, they took occasion to treat the
saints as before they had done their heathen gods,* and to
address themselves to them for those temporal benefitsf which
they took to be conferred by their means.
It may seem strange that some ofthe Fathers of the Church
should give countenancej to this popular error. But however
they complied with the weakness of the people, in hope to
promote their zeal to religion ; and perhaps they might have
some other hypotheses^ of their own ; yet they writ things||
which could not consist with this worship. And some of the
Fathers^ writ directly against it. They asserted to God** the
whole duty of worship. They owned no other mediator but
• Austin Confess, lib 6. u. 2. [ut supra,] tom. i. p. 108. B. saith, it
was the custom in Africa to bring potages, and bread and wine, to the
monuments of the saints. And thus his mother Monica did, till St. Am
brose rebuked her for it. The like was done in other countries. It was
a custom brought in out of heathenism.
+ Austin Serm. de Sanctis 47. We expect by their intercession, to re
ceive of the Lord temporal benefits. It is in the Roman Breviary, the
fourth lesson in Commune Plurim. Mart, extra temp. Pasch.
X Some of the Fathers, as Nazianzen, &c. used those rhetorical or poe
tical strains, which sounded like formal prayers. But they were not so
intended ; as appears by his calling upon saints with these additions. If
you have any sense, or if you have any care of our matters : which plainly
sheweth that he spoke in imitation of the heathen orators and the poets,
or of the academic philosophers, who held nothing certain concerning the
state of departed souls. Greg. Naz. in Gorgoniam et Stelit. ] .
§ Basil and Austin have some taste of that Platonic opinion ; that souls
hover about those places where their bodies or any part of them is laid.
And hence they thought that the souls of the martyrs might be present to
hear, and to despatch those suits that were made at their memories. Basil
of St. Mamas, tom. i. p. 595. [Par. 1618.] D. Aug. de Cura pro Mort.
c. 16. [ut supra,] tom. iv. p. 892. B.
II St. Austin de Vera Religione. c. 55. [Ibid.] tom. i. p. 716. C. says,
the worship of dead men should be no part of our rehgion. If they have
lived piously, — they are to be honoured for imitation, not to be worshipped
for religion.
If Epiphan. Hser. 70. cap. 5. Neither is EUas to be worshipped, though
he is among the living ; nor is John to be worshipped ; — nor is Tecla, nor
any ofthe saints worshipped : and cap. 7. Though Mary was a most ex
cellent person, and holy, and honoured ; yet not so as to be worshipped.
•* Greg. Nyssen. cont. Eunom. or 4. Edit. Paris. 1635. tom. ii. p. 146.
B. We ai-e taught to consider every creature as being without the Divine
nature, and to worship and adore that nature only, which is not created.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 33
Christ.* This they all acknowledged to be the sense of the
Catholic Church.f
But the darker times grew the more that error prevailed.
The people led their guides, and tolled them on with worldly
advantage ; who repaid them with lying wonders and visionsj
to confirm them in their error. At last, by poetry,^ it got
into the offices of the Church. And yet then they had no
doctrine sufficient to bear it. A thousand years|| after Christ,
they were not sure that the saints heard their prayers, or that
the saints are in heaven,^ which is the foundation of their wor
ship. Their very prayers** taught them the contrary. And
Aug. de Quant. Animse, c. 34. [ut supra,] tom. i. p. 598. C. It is
divinely and singularly delivered in the Catholic Church, that the soul is to
worship no creature, but him only who is the Creator of all things.
* Aug. in Psal. Ixvi. [Ibid.] tom. viii. p. 661. B. He alone of them
that have worn flesh, there within the veU makes intercession for us.
Id. cont. Parmen. 1. 2. c. 8. [Ibid.] tom. vii. p. 32. B. He who inter
cedes for all, and none for him, is the only and true Mediator.
t That this is not the sense of the now Roman Church, appears by the
Index Expurgatorius, Ed. Madrit. 1667. Which on those words of Nyssen,
Note (**, p. 32.) bids, strike out the word only, p. 146. col. 1. from the
Index of Epiphanius, bids strike out those words, that no creature is to be
worshipped ; and also those, that saints are not to be worshipped. P. 547-
col. 1. and 2. and from the Index of St. Austin, strike out those words,
that only God is to be worshipped ; and also those, that saints are to be
honoured, and not worshipped. P. 56. col. 2. and p. 57. col. 2. We
may be sure that what they dislike, is not their own doctrine.
X Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat. 1. 19. Probatur quinto, shews how it was
proved by visions and miracles.
§ By hymns and antiphones.
II Gratian deer. ii. caus. 13. q. 2. c. 29. [Corp. Jur. Can. vol. ]. p.
1043. Lugd. 1671.] The case has his sense in these words. Gratianmoves
the question, whether they that are departed this hfe know what is done
here by the living .' And he answereth, that they do not.
Lombard Sent. 1. 4. c. 45. Sed forte, puts the question, whether saints
hear the prayers of their petitioners ? And he answereth, that it is not in
credible that they do. This was far enough from a certainty.
If Cone. Trent. Sess. ult. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, vol. 14. p. 895.]
founds this worship on this doctrine, that the saints are in heaven and
reign with Christ. This is the foundation of all, saith Bellarmin. de Sanct.
Beat, in Prsef. For therefore the souls of the prophets and patriarchs
were not so worshipped and called upon, as we now worship and call upon
the apostles and martyrs ; because they were yet kept shut up in the
infernal prisons.
** Now that aU deceased Christians are shut up in hke manner (the
Saints not excepted), was the doctrine of the old Roman Church. For thus
she prayed ; Lord, remember all thy servants, and all thy handmaids, who
have gone beforfeus with the sign of faith, and who sleep the sleep of
VOL. XII. D

34 A CONFUTATION OF THE
therefore they that came after altered them in some places.
But yet still there is enough left in the Mass Book* to
shew them how far they are removed from the old Roman
Church. The prayers for souls in purgatory could be no ancienter
than the doctrine of purgatory was. And therefore having
shewnf that the Apostles had no such doctrine, I need not
prove that these were none of their prayers. But if they
prayed for the dead on any other account, J it doth not con
cern the now Roman Church : for she pretends§ not to pray
for any dead, but for them that are in purgatory.
peace. Grant to all that rest in Christ a place of refreshing, and of hght
and peace, we humbly beseech thee. Liturg. Gregor. in Bibl. Patr. Gr.
Lat. tom. ii. p. 129. C.
* Therefore also, in their masses for any bishop that died, they prayed
thus : Grant, O Lord, that this oblation may profit the soul of thy servant
and bishop such a one. Gregor. Sacram. super Oblata, Edit. Menardi.
p. 227, and Edit. Pamehi, p. 386. And thus they prayed yearly for Pope
Leo I. on his day, June 28, as appears in Edit. Menardi, p. 112. and thus
for Pope Gregory I. on his day, March 12, as appears in Edit. PameUi,
p. 209.
But in the now Roman Missal, all these prayers are changed. And
great reason they should be so, when the Church has changed her doctrme.
For as the Gloss saith of Leo, anciently the Church prayed for him, but
now he prayeth for us, and so the Church-office was changed. ; Gregor.
Deer. iii. 41. 6. Tertio Loco. [Corp. Jur. Can. vol. 2. p. 1372., Lugd.
1671.] Therefore now the prayer on those saints' days is thus: Grant,
Lord, that this oblation may profit us by the intercession of thy servant
Leo, or Gregory, And yet in the office pro defunctis; and that as well
for any other, as for a bishop ; the words are still (what they used for
those saints in former times). Grant, O Lord, that this oblation may pro
fit the soul of thy servant such a one.
And for that prayer above-mentioned, in Canon Missse Commem. pro
defunctis, they first left out those words. All thy servants, and all thy
handmaids ; and prayed thus : Lord, remember them who have gone be
fore us, as it standeth in Ed. Pamelii, p. 182. But the word them ex
tending to saints as well as others, they altered it again. Remember, Lord,
thy servants and handmaids N. and N. who are gone before us. But still
the end of that prayer remains as it was. Grant all that rest in Christ a
place of refreshing, and of light and peace, we humbly beseech thee. They
that made this prayer, did not believe that the saints were already in
heaven ; and therefore they knew not the foundation of those prayers to
saints that are now used in the Roman Church.
t P. 24, 29, 30.
X 2 Tim. i. 18. St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus ; the Lord grant unto
him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day : that is, at the day
of judgment. He might weU be living when St. Paul made that prayer.
\ Cone. Trent. Sess. 25. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, p. 894.] That th?

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPEKY. 35
And yet to do her right, she hath not one prayer expressly
for them in all her offices for the dead.* The reason is, because
those offices were made before that fiction was generally be
lieved. The offices were fitted to those doctrinesf which
were then in the Roman Church ; which (as I have shewn) J
were much different from what she hath now. So where their
doctrines were doubtful, there the prayers are in ambiguous
terms. § But they are plain enough in that which is of faith ;
that is, where they pray|| (as we do) for a blessed resurrec
tion.
souls which are kept there in purgatory, are profited by the prayers of the
faithful. BeUarm. de Purg. Ub. 2. c. 38. [c. 18.] [vol. 2. p. 375. col. 2. Prag,
1721.] It is certain that the prayers of the Church do not profit the
blessed, nor the damned, but only them that live in purgatory.
Azor. Instit. Moral, tom. i. lib. 8. c. 20. Neque vero : saith, the Greeks
pray for the dead ; but certainly neither for the blessed, nor for the
damned, which were pUunly absurd and impious.
The truth is, the Greeks prayed for the blessed ; even for the Virgin
Mary, and the Apostles. And so did the ancient Roman Church ; in
those offices which the present Roman Church hath both corrupted and
misappUed. * In the mass for the dead, there is not the name of purgatory ; nor
doth it appear that the Church thought of any such thing. The hymn
is wholly of the day of judgment. The prayers are for deUverance at that
day : and if they are for anything else, it is nothing but what is asked for
aU the faithful as much as for any person. The lessons and sequences are
all concerning the resurrection. There is not among them one text of
those many that are brought for the proof of purgatory : except only
2 Mac. xii. 43. which, according to the Roman doctrine, should be rather
for limbus than for purgatory ; but it indeed relates to neither, but (as
the office intends it) to the resurrection.
t They are agreeable enough to several of those opinions concerning
the state of souls, which are mentioned before, p. 29. note (a).
X See p. 55, 56.
§ Miss, pro defunct. Offertorium ; Lord Jesus — deUver the souls of all
faithful deceased from the pains of heU — that they may not fall into dark
ness ; but that the standard-bearer, St. Michael, may carry them into
eternal light.
Ibid. The prayer in the Obits ; we pray thee for the soul of thy servant
N. that thou wouldest not deUver it into the hands of the enemy, nor for
get it for ever ; but command it to be received by the holy angels, and be
led to the land of the living ; that he may come to rejoice in the society of
thy saints : so Miss. Sarum. That he may not suffer eternal pains, but
possess eternal joys : so the old Roman. But the new has changed eter
nal into infernal, as being more for the sense of the present Church.
II Ib. Tractus. Absolve, O Lord, the souls of all the faithful deceased,
from every bond of their sins ; and by the aid of thy grace, let them obtain
D 2

36 A CONFUTATION OF THE
But because that is assured to all that die in Christ, whether
in a perfect or imperfect estate ; and men will not buy prayers
for that which will come without asking : therefore, to get
their money, there was no better way, than to persuade them
that their friends might be fetched out of purgatory, or might
be eased in it, by such prayers as were then used in the
Church. There might have been new prayers made for the
purpose. But as bad as times were in that darkness of Popery,
some would have declared against such a gross innovation.
Therefore it was thought enough to keep the old prayers, and
get the Church to interpret them, as she hath done* sufficiently
to shew her own novelty in this matter.
For the other parts of their worship, we read, that the pri
mitive Christians that lived next the Apostles' times, had their
lessons from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.f
So they have some likewise in the Roman Church. But for
every such lesson, they have two lessons out of other books.
And no small part of them (I say no more than I can prove)
are as arrant fables as any that are in heathen poets.J
For the language of their prayers and offices in their
Church ; it is all in Latin, and that is an unknown tongue.
It is a chance if any there understands it. And their Church
to escape the judgment of vengeance, and to enjoy the blessedness of eter
nal Ught.
Ib. Post-Communion among the divers prayers ; Absolve, O Lord, the
soul of this thy servant from every bond of his sins ; that in the glory of
the resurrection, he being raised again, may have refreshment among thy
saints and chosen ones.
* Cone. Trent. Sess. 25 deer, of Purgatory, [Labbe, Cone, ut supra.]
Let the bishops take care that the suffrjiges of the living faithful, »jz. the
sacrifices of masses and prayers, &c. which have been usuaUy made for the
faithful deceased, be made according to the ordinance of the Church.
t Seep. 20. note (d).
X For their saints, whom they make sharers with Christ in their prayers,
and pray to God to be heard for their merits and intercession, not a few of
the persons themselves are mere fictions ; as St. Christopher, St. Pamel,
St. Catharine, St. Winifrid, St. Ursula and her 11000 companions.
Most of the others are of doubtful authority; and some, for aught
they can know, and as they have reason to fear, are damned souls, as Pope
Steven, Pope MarcelUnus, Pope Felix II. St. Thomas Becket, St. Do.
minic. But of the true saints, not a few of their stories are fables, as those
of the immaculate Conception, Presentation, and Assumption of the Virgin
Mary; of the apparition of St. Michael, May 8. Of the martyrdoms of
some Apostles ; of almost all the ancient Popes ; of St. Denis and his fel
lows, &c. Add the tales of St. Peter's chains, August 1 ; ofthe dedication
of the Lateran, and the Vatican churches, November 9 and 18.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OF POPE-RY. 37
is not concerned* that they should understand it : but St,
Paul was, as we read, 1 Cor. xiv. 14, "If I pray," saith hcj
"in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding
is unfruitful. But I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the understanding also." Again, ver. 16, " How shall
he that stands in the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy
giving of thanks, seeing he understands not what thou
sayest ?" Again, ver. 19, " In the church I had rather speak
five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might
teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown
tongue." These are plain texts of Scripture, which the
Roman Church evidently transgressing, does vrisely, no doubt,
to keep the Scriptures from the reading or understanding of
her people. For otherwise, it could be no great comfort to
them, to find how directly she goes against, as well the
precepts as the practice of the Apostles.
I have shewn that she doth it, not only in one, or a
few instances ; but in many, and those of the greatest note ;
in all the notes that the Apostles have given us of a true
Christian Church.
Having given this account of her that calls herself the
Catholic Church ; having shewn how far she is removed from
this Church in my text ; I shaU not pass any judgment upon
her, as she peremptorily doth upon others, damning all that
are not of her communion : better leave that to God, and they
will find so at the last day. Only, being as she is, I think we
have all reason to beware of her ; to thank God that we are at
this distance from her ; to bless her for her cursesf that have
* Cone. Trent. Sess. 22. cap. 8. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, p. 854.] It
hath seemed to the Fathers not to be expedient that every where mass
should be said in the viJgar tongue. There is an order indeed, that often
times between the masses, somebody should expound something to the
people of what is read to them in the mass. Suppose some part of the
Gospel, or the like. But that will not make them able to join with him
that reads it. And Bellarmine saith, in those mysteries there are many
things which ought to be secret : meaning, I suppose, that the people
ought not to understand them. BeUar. de Verbo Dei, 1. ii. c. 15.
Septimo. t Gunpowder Treason, Edit. 1679. p. 109. For from the year EUz. I.
unto XI. all Papists came to our church and service without scruple. —
But when once the Bull of Pope Pius Quintus was come and pubUshed,
wherein the Queen was accursed and deposed, and her subjects discharged
of their obedience and oath, yea, cursed if they did obey her; then did
they aU forthwith refrain the church, then would they have no more
society with us in prayer.

38 A CONFUTATION OP THE
caused that distance ; to pray for her and her children, that
they may be purged from their errors ; and till then, to watch
and pray for ourselves ; and to put it, at least, in our private
Litany (it shall always be in mine), " from Popery, good
Lord, deliver us."
Let us next consider our own Church ; and when I say our
own, I know you all understand me, that I speak of the
Church of England in the first place ; and proportionably of
all other Reformed Churches. And this I say, if any Church
which holds the same doctrine, which retains the same govern
ment, which partakes the same sacraments, and the same
worship of God, as they did in the Apostles' times, be a true
Apostohcal Church : we are bound to bless God, who hath
placed us where we are ; who hath made us members of such
a Church, which hath all those characters so entire, and so
visible in it.
First for doctrine, we profess to beheve the holy Scrip
tures,* which (I have shewn)-|- have been anciently thought
to contain the whole doctrine of the Apostles. We acknow
ledge for canonical Scriptures, neither less nor more, than all
those booksj whose authority is undoubted in the Church.
We profess the same faith, and no more, than all Christians
have professed in all ages; namely, § that which is briefly
comprised in the Apostles' Creed :|| explained in the Creeds
called the Nicene,^ and that of Athanasius; and proved in
every article or point** by the holy Scriptures taken in that
sense, which is both most evident in the words, and which hath
been approved by the consent of the universal Church.
Secondly for the govemmentff of our Church ; as to the
• 39 Art. Art. 6. f See p. 10. Note (a), &c.
J Ib. Art. 6. And this is proved in Bishop Cousin's Book of the
Canon of the Scripture.
§ Art. 8.
II Office of Baptism. WUt thou be baptized in this faith? fwiU.
If This alone was enough to make one a catholic in the times of the
Christian Emperors. Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. Edicta de Fide Cathohca.
** Canon Anno 1571, of Preachers. We are obUged, under pain of
excommunication, to teach nothing but what is agreeable to the Old and
New Testament, and what the cathoUc Fathers and ancient Bishops have
gathered out of that very Doctrin. Statut. I. EUz. I. We judge aU those
things to be heresy, which were declared so by the four General Councils ;
therein foUowing the judgment of the ancient Church. See Alfric's
Saxon Canon 33. There were four Councils for defence of the faith
against heretics. — There were many Councils since that time, but these
four were the most firm.
tt Art. 8.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPERY. 39
constitution of it, it is according to the Scripture rules and
primitive patterns.
And for the exercise of it, it goes as far as the looseness of I
the age will bear. If this hath weakened the disciphne of]
our Church,* we know the same looseness hath the same effect/
elsewhere, even in those Churches of the Roman communion :
and it had no less in the Church of Corinthf in the Apostles'
times. For the persons that are employed in the ministry ; J they
are such as are lawfully called to it : they are consecrated and
ordained for that purpose ; and that§ according to the Scrip
ture and canons of the universal Church. They are such as
" wholly attend on this very thing," in the Apostle's words. ||
And for our Church of England, I may add, without prejudice
to any other, we can derive the succession*j[ of our bishops
from the Apostles, as high as most Churches can, even of
them in the Roman communion.
Thirdly, for our Sacraments ;** we use the same, and no
other than those, which Christ expressly left to his Church :
I mean, which he both instituted, and commanded us to use ;
which can be said of no other than only baptism, and the
Lord's supper.
Lastly, for our public worship, we have cause to bless God
that has given us such a Liturgy ; in which, according to all
the measures we have of the Apostles, we can see nothing but
what, as to the substance, is theirs ; and our most malicious
enemies can tell us of no other ill they see in it ; but only
' this, that the words of it are ours.
The ministration of this worship and of these sacraments,
is in a languagef f understood by all those that are concerned
in them. They can all say AmenJ J to their prayers. It is
performed with such rites, §§ as are not against the word of
God, but are agreeable to it; being only|| || for order and decency.
And we use them,^^ not as necessary in themselves, but in
• See the Comminatiou.
t 1 Cor. i. 11, 12, and ver. 2, &c. and see Clement's Epistle to the
Corinthians. X Art. 23. and Offices of Ordination.
^ Proved by Mason in his Book de Minist. Angl.
>|| Rom. xiii. 6. If Mason Ibid, and Bramhal of Succession.
*• Art. 25. tt Art. 24. Xt 1 Cor. xiv. 16.
§S Art. 20. nil 1 Cor. xiv. 40.
ft Art. 34. and Prefaces before the Liturgy.

40 A CONFUTATION OP THE
obedience to the authority which every Church hath over its
own members.
We do, according to St. Cyprian's* rule, condemn or judge
no other Church. We separate from none, any otherwise,
than by purging ourselvesf from those things, which we
believe to be corruptions and errors : to which end several of
those articles were framed, to be subscribed by our own,
clergy, without imposing them on any other.
In all these respects, our Church holds a communion, or
hath done nothing to break it, with any other national
Church; no, not with those of the Roman communion : and
is, not only what they deny, a true member ; but what they
are not, a sound member of that one holy catholic Church,
which was from the beginning, and which will be to the
end of the world.
The last thing is, having proved we have a true Church,
to persuade you, first, to continue in it stedfastly. And
secondly, in the belief and practice of those things by which
it appears to be a true Church. And lastly, to profit by them,
and so to adorn our holy rehgion with a holy and good con
versation. First, to persuade you to continue stedfastly in this Church;
it is enough, if you are convinced that you cannot mend
yourselves by any change.
Who would not desire to continue where he is well? Who
would not stick to that which is the best he can choose ?
Who would needlessly run the danger of any loss ? Especially
of losing himself, which is the greatest loss that is possible?
And yet that we have reason to expect from the just indig
nation of God, if we shall reject the great benefit that he hath
given us, to be born in the womb, and bred up in the bosom of
such a Church.
No doubt you hear (for who does not ?) on every side the
voices of them that would allure you, or would threaten you
out of it. But whatsoever they say, remember what the
* Cyprian Epist. 72. p. 151. [Par. 1649.] and Cone. Carthag. de Haret.
Bapt. p. 353. [Labbe, Cone, ut supra, vol. 1. p. 786, &c.]
+ Anno 1603. Can. 30. the Church of England declares, that she was so
far from being wiUing to depart from the Churches of Italy, France, Spain,
Germany, &c. in aU things that she knew they held and observed ; that
she dissented from those Churches in those articles only, in which they
first fell away, both from their own former integrity, and also from the
Apostolical Churches from which they had their original.

CHIEF- DOCTRINES OF POPERY. 41
philosopher made the first part of wisdom, pipvrjoo airwre'iv
" do not believe all that is said." Remember how our Saviour
forewarned,* " if any tell you Christ is here, or Christ is there,
believe him not." If antiquity be pretended on the one hand,
if large boasts of purity on the' other, many fine things are
said, believe them not. And if many have been seduced by
these means, let them answer for themselves : you had best to
look before you follow them. If many have fallen off from
our Church, so did many from Christ. But some were
wiser, and considered what they should get by it. They said,f
" Whither should we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal
life." If our Church has but that, whatever she wants else,
it will be our wisest way to continue in it.
But then, secondly, you are to continue in those characters
by which it appears to be a true Church : and to exercise your
communion in all the acts that belong to these characters ;
namely, in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in the
sacraments, and in prayers.
First, for doctrine ; " Hold fast the form of sound words
which you have received. "J " Contend earnestly for the faith
that was once delivered to the saints." § Seek it not in muddy
streams, but in the living fountains of Scripture. "All Scrip
ture is given by inspiration from , God ; and is enough to
make the man of God perfect, and throughly furnished to
every good work." || It is sufficient to make us " wise to
salvation :"^ so that if we mind only that, we have no need of
any other; and yet we would refuse no other that could be
made out as this is, to be the doctrine pf the Apostles of
Christ. Secondly, As to the Apostle's fellowship, we have heard it is
continued in the bishops their successors. Therefore we ough<;
to take heed how we break communion with them. We are
both to acknowledge, and make use of their ministry ; to obey
them** in spiritual things, as being those that must give account
for our souls.
Thirdly, For the sacraments and worship of God, " forsake
not the assembling of yourselves together,"f f nor run into
separate meetings, " as the manner of some is." Some wiU
always be straggling : we cannot help what they do ; and what
* Matth. xxiv. 23. Mark. xiu. 21. t John vi. 68.
X 2 Tim. i. 13. ^ Jude ver. 3. || 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.
If Ver. 15. *' Heb. xiii. 17. ft Heb. x. 25."

42 A CONFUTATION OF THE
they-do among themselves, we do not inquire. They that are
ofthe cathohc and apostohc Church, will be only for the
catholic and apostolic sacraments ; namely, for those which
Christ himself instituted in his Church : baptism, by which we
are planted into Christ's death ;* and the Lord's supper, in
which we keep up the remembrance of it tiU he comes.f We
have also the same worship of God which was in the Apostles'
times, and which hath been ever since in the Church. They
who are now saints in heaven, while they were upon earth,
prayed to no other but God only. If we pray not to them,
they will excuse us, we do as they did. And we do it in
assurance that the same worship which they used, will bring
us (as it did them) to be saints in heaven too, if we continue
in it. Lastly, continuing in the Church, and in all the characters
of it, our business is to profit by all these ; " to grow in grace, J
and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."
It concerns us, not only to be in a true Church, but to see
that we ourselves are true Christians ; and that can no other
wise appear, than in the likeness of Christ, in righteousness
and holiness of life. Without this, though you be of a true
Church, you will not be so long, or you will be so to no pur
pose./ A wicked hfe will, in time, eat out all the sense of
reU^on ; or the more sense one hath, he will find the less
comfort in ours. Our religion hath no comfort for him that
is, and will be wicked. Our religion hath no purgatory to
keep him from hell. Our rehgion can make him no penny
worths of heaven. Our rehgion hath no pardon for sin, but
on repentance ; no repentance, but on real amendment of
life. He that cannot come to that, alas ! what does he in our
rehgion ? As it cannot, if he knows it, but be uneasy to him ;
so he will make himself tmworthy of it. He will provoke God
to deprive him of the benefit. And it is all one which way
he deprives him ; whether by letting him now run out of the
Church, or whether by shutting him out of heaven at the last.
For that it will come to, when all is done ; without holiness,
there is no coming thither. " Without hohness no man
shall see the Lord."§ None shall ; if you want that, not ym
in particular ; and then what will your rehgion signify ?
Though your Church hath all that the Apostles' Church had,
• Rom. vi. 5. t 1 Cor. xi. 26.
X 2 Pet. iii. 18. § Heb. xii. 14.

CHIEF DOCTRINES OP POPERY. 43
what good will this do you, if you perish in it? Though
your ship will go its voyage, what is that to you, if you die of
a surfeit by the way ? Though you have the true doctrine,
communion, sacraments, and prayers, what comfort will all
this give you in that terrible day ? Yea, what horror will it
be, that being placed well by God, you are fallen from it ? You
have lost, you have thrown away that great blessing that he
had given you.
" Beloved,* we are persuaded better things of you, and
things that acconipany salvation, though we thus speak."
I hope, and therefore pray, that all that hear me this day,
may be the better for being of such a Church. God intended
we should. He has dealt exceeding graciously with us. But
yet he expects that we should do something for ourselves :
that considering the opportunity that is put in our hands ;
seeing how near God has brought us to the kingdom of heaven ;
seeing nothing but our own sins between us and it (should that
sight make us fly out, and seek other ways ; ways that God
never made, nor will bless? Nay rather) we should break
through our sins, and go the way that he calls us in his word ;
there can be no better ; there is no other than this.
So performing his design, pursuing the ends of our calling,
living suitably to our excellent rehgion : we are indeed the
followers of the Apostles m this life, and shall be with them
hereafter in the blessedness of hfe everlasting.
» Heb. vi. 9.

THE PREFACE
[to THE THIRD POLIO VOLUME.]

In the preface to the two former volumes, it is said as
follows : —
" Though the present collection contains the Discourses
which were found most material ; and though these, as di
gested under their proper heads, will appear to be an excellent,
confutation of the Popish doctrines, and in the same degree a
vindication of our own ; it is to be wished, that the under
takers may find sufficient encouragement to proceed to a third
volume, to consist of some other discourses which might be
of good use, and of such of the controversial writings as are
not barely answers to adversaries, but have also in them a con
siderable mixture of discourses upon particular points, which,
occasionally fell in the writer's way."
What was then designed, in case the intended collection
could have been brought into two volumes, or in case the
booksellers would have ventured upon a third, has been since
made practicable by the kind reception which the two first
have met with, together with the wishes and desires of many
persons to see the work completed, by the addition of a third
volume. The chief subject of the two former volumes, is, an Exami
nation of Doctrines ; to shew, that those which the Church
of Rome espouses against Protestants, have no foundation in
Scripture and the primitive writers of the Christian Church.
But to this, it was very necessary to add an examination of
facts ; to shew that the doctrines which we charge upon the
Church of Rome, are really held and maintained bv them.
For, in making proselytes, it is none of the least artifices of
that Church, and, it may be, more successful than many
others, to tell our people that the doctrines which we charge
upon them, are not the doctrines of their Church, but falsely

THE PREFACE. 45
imputed to it ; and that there is, by no means, such a distance'
between the two Churches, as is pretended by us.
This, when credited, leads, of course, to more favourable
thoughts of Popery ; and that paves the way to new conver
sions, and, upon the whole, greatly facilitates the work of their
priests. And therefore, the writers of our Church, in the
reign of King James II. found it necessary to make full and
clear proof, that the several doctrines charged upon the
Papists, were no other than what the Councils and writers of
their Church had openly and avowedly maintained.
In this part of the controversy, none of our writers pursued
the point with greater success, than the reverend and learned
Dr. Wake, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. Concerning
whom. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times,
having mentioned the chief writers who managed the Popish
controversy on the part of the Church of England, adds ;
" and, above all these. Wake, who having been long in France,
chaplain to the Lord Preston, brought over with him many
curious discoveries, that were both useful and surprising."
He it was, who undertook to answer the Bishop of Condom,
and to take off the colours by which that writer had endea
voured to gloss over and mollify the doctrines of Popery, in
order to make them less offensive to Protestant ears. All that
Dr. Wake published upon that subject, is printed at large in
this volume ; and not only so, but likewise many additions
and alterations, which he had made in his own book, and
which are here inserted in their proper places ; some in the
body of the discourses, and others at the bottom of the page,
by way of note ; as they appeared to belong to the one or the!
other. Nothing need be said, in particular, of the rest ofthe Dis
courses contained in this volume : they are printed at large,
without any addition or alteration, and will speak for them
selves. Nor is it needful to add anything here concerning
the general usefulness of the whole work, and the seasonable-
ness of it at this time ; since both these are sufficiently set
forth and enlarged upon, in the preface to the two former
volumes.

BOOK IX.
THE DOCTRINES IN DISPUTE,
BETWEEN THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME,
TRULY REPRESENTED.

THE CONTENTS.
An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in
the several Articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late
Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the
Catholic Church.
¦^— — — A Defence of the foregoing Exposition.
 ¦ A second Defence of the foregoing Exposition.
The Difference between the Church of England and the Church
of Rome. In opposition to a book, entitled. An Agreement
between the Church of England and Church of Rome.
The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, truly
represented.
A View of the whole Controversy between the Representer and
the Answerer, &c.
An Answer to the Representer' s Refiections upon the state and
view of the Controversy, &c.
A Vindication of the Protestant Principles of Church Unity,
&c., from the charge of agreeing with the Church of Rome.
The difference ofthe case, between the separation of Protestants
from the Church of Rome, and the separation of Dissenters
from the Church of England.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,

SEVERAL ARTICLES PROPOSED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX, LATE
BISHOP OP CONDOM, IN HIS EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A
PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF MONSIEUR DE MEAUX's BOOK.

THE PREFACE.
The smallness of this treatise would hardly justify the
solemnity of a preface, but that it might be thought too great
a rudeness to pass without some ceremony upon a book, which
both the merit and character of the author, and the quahty of
those approbations he has prefixed to it, may justly seem to
have fenced from all vulgar attempts, as sacred and inviolable.
It may perhaps be some satisfaction to the reader too to know,
how it is come to pass, that a mere exposition of the doctrine
ofthe Church of Rome, pretending to contain nothing but
what they have always professed, and in their Council of
Trent plainly declared to be their doctrine ; should neverthe
less have become so considerable, as not only to be approved
by many persons of the greatest eminency in that Church, but
even to be recommended by the whole body of the clergy of
France, in their Assembly 1682 ; and wherever it, has come,
done so many miracles, as not only common report speaks,
but even the advertisement itself prefixed to it takes care to
tell us that it ha,s.
The first design of Monsieur de Meaux's book was either to
satisfy or to seduce the late Mareschal de Turenne. How far it
contributed thereunto I am not able to say ; but am willing to
believe that the change that honourable person made of his
religion, was upon some better grounds than the bare exposi-

48 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
tion of a few articles ofthe Roman faith ; and that the author
supplied, either in his personal conferences with him, or by
some other papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the
first draft which we have seen of this.
The manuscript copy which then appeared, and for about
four years together passed up and down in private hands with
great applause, wanted all those chapters of the eucharist,
tradition, the authority of the Church and Pope, which now
make up the most considerable part of it ; and in the other
points which it handled, seemed so loosely and favourably to
propose the opinions of the Church of Rome, that not only
many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at
it, but the Protestants who saw it, generally believed that
Monsieur de Meaux durst not publicly own, what in his Ex
position he privately pretended to be their doctrine.
And the event shewed that they were not altogether
mistaken. For in the beginning of the year 1671, the Expo
sition being with great care, and after the consideration of
many years, reduced into the form in which we now see it ;
and to secure all, fortified with the approbation of the Arch
bishop of Rheims and nine other bishops, who profess that
" having examined it with all the care which the importance of
the matter required, they found it conformable to the doctrine
ofthe Church, and as such recommended it to the people
which God had committed to their conduct," it was sent to the
press. The impression being finished and just ready to come
abroad ; the author, who desired to appear with all the ad
vantage to himself and his cause that was possible, sent it to
some of the doctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation to he
joined to that of the bishops, that so no authority, ordinary or
extraordinary, might be wanting to assert the doctrine con
tained in it, to be so far from the suspicion the Protestants had
conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholic,
Apostolic, and Roman.
But to the great surprise of Monsieur de Meaux, and those
who had so much cried up his treatise before, the doctors of
the Sorbonne to whom it was communicated, instead of the
approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants
had said of it : and, as became their faculty, marked several of
the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by
the too great desire of palliating, had absolutely perverted the
doctrine of their Church.
To prevent the open scandal which such a censure might

THE PREFACE. 49
have caused, with great industry, and all the secrecy possible,
the whole edition was suppressed, and the several places which
the doctors had marked, changed ; and the copy so speedilv
sent back to the press again, that in the end of the same year,
another much altered was publicly exposed, as the first im
pression that had at all been made of it.
Yet this could not be so privately carried, but that it soon
came to a public knowledge ; insomuch that one of the first
answers that was made to it, charged Monsieur de Meaux
with this change. I do not hear that he has ever yet thought
fit to deny the relation, either in the advertisement prefixed to
the later editions of his book, wherein yet he replies to some
other passages of the same treatise, or in any other vindication :
whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable
enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be
denied, let the reader judge. But certainly it appears to us
not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of
the whole book ; but to be a plain demonstration, how im
probable soever Monsieur de Meaux would represent it, " that
it is not impossible for a bishop ofthe Church of Rome, either
not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what
is the doctrine of it ; or not sufficiently sincere, as without
disguise to represent it." And since a copy of that very book
so marked, as has been said, by the doctors of the Sorbonne,
is fallen into my hands, I shall gratify the reader's curiosity
with a particular view of some of the changes that have been
made, that so he may judge whether of the two were the cause
of those great advances, which the author in that first edition
had thought fit to make towards us.
It might perhaps appear a very pardonable curiosity in us,
after the knowledge we have had of the first miscarriage of
this book at the Sorbonne, to inquire how it comes to pass,
that among so many other approbations as have with great in
dustry been procured to the later editions of it, we do not yet see
any subscription of theirs toit, even now. Monsieur de Meaux
could not certainly be ignorant of what weight the censure of
that learned faculty is with us ; and that such an approbation
might not only have been more easily obtained, but would
also more effectually have wiped away the blot cast upon his
book by their former refusal, than all the letters and compli
ments that could come from the other side the mountains, and
which France itself hath taught us, in matters more consider
able than this, not to have too high a value for : nor can we
VOL, XII. E

50 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND.
suppose anything else, than that the fear of a further correction
kept it from being any more submitted to their censure ; and
that the author would rather pass without the honour of their
approbation, than run the hazard ofa second refusal.
But for this, because we cannot speak anything certain, we
will not pursue our conjectures. Certain it is that whatever
the judgment of the Sorbonne would now have been of it,
many of the Church of Rome were still dissatisfied with it.
And how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would have us
think what one of his answerers affirms, that a Papist should
have written against him ; yet not only the confessed sincerity
of Monsieur Conrart, who often declared that he had seen it,
but the undoubted integrity of some others, by whom I have
been assured that they had it in their hands, obliges me to join
in the assertion, that Monsieur M  , one of the Roman com-
monion, had finished an answer to it, before any ofthe Protes
tants' were published, however upon some certain considerations
it was thought fit to suppress it.
It will perhaps be looked upon, that this confirmation of
that manuscript Answer deserves as little assent, as Monsieur de
Meaux has thought fit to give to Monsieur de la B  's first
assertion of it. And therefore to shew that it is not impossi
ble, nor indeed very improbable, that Papists should write one
against another ; and that the method of the Exposition, how
plausible soever to deceive Protestants, has nevertheless
offended the sincere and undesigning ofthe other communion;
I will beg leave to produce two or three undeniable witnesses
upon some of the first and chiefest points of it ; and which,
though not written purposely against it, yet I am persuaded.
Monsieur de Meaux himself will be so just as to confess, that
he cannot be altogether unconcerned in them.
For his first point, the Invocation of Saints ; the great
moderation of the Exposition tells us only,* " That it is useful
* The Church in teaching us, that it is profitable to pray to saints,
teaches us to pray to them in the same spirit of charity, and according
to the same order of fraternal society, which moves us to demand assis
tance of our brethren Uving upon earth, &c. Expos. §. IV. Invocation of
Saints. From whence it comes to pass, that we use two very different forms of
prayer : for to God the proper manner of speaking is to say, " Have pity
on us, hear our prayer ;" whereas we only desire the saints to pray for us.
From whence we ought to understand, that in what terms soever those
prayers, which we address to saints, are couched ; the mtention of the
Church and of her faithful, reduces them always to this form', as the
Catechism presently after confirms. Ibid, and Preface, p. 13.

THE PREFACE. 51
to pray to them, and that we ought to 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 : that all
the prayers of the Church, howsoever they may be worded, yet
must still be understood to be reduced to this form, pray for
us." Now what Monsieur de Meaux here says in general con
cerning the invocation of saints, another tract, printed about
the same time at Cologne, and entitled, " Salutary Advertise
ments of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet adorers ;" par
ticularly appUed to that service, which with so much super
stition is paid in the Church of Rome to the mother of Christ.
The book is every where full of expressions of honour and
respect for her ; and only speaks against that worship which
Monsieur de Meaux here declares in the name of the Council
of Trent to be none of theirs. It was sent abroad into the
world with all the advantage imaginable ; it had the approba
tion of the Bishop of Mysia, suffragan to the Archbishop of
Cologne ; of the Vicar-General of the place; of the censure of
Gant ; of the canons and divines of Malines ; of the University
of Louvain ; and lastly of Monsieur the bishop of Toumay, who
recommended it as a treatise* " full of sohd piety, and very
fit and necessary to draw people out of those errors and abuses
into which their superstition had led them."
Yet notwithstanding all this applause, if we inquire what
success this book had with others, Father Crasset the Jesuit,
who wrote purposely against it, in his book printed at Paris
1679, licensed by the Provincial, approved by the three
fathers of the society appointed to examine it, and lastly,
authorised by the king's permission, tells us,t "That for fear
of giving scandal to heretics, he had given a very great one to
(those he calls) Catholics : that the learned men of all nations
had written against him ; that the holy See had condemned
* See his Pastoral Letter. " Comme le jujeant plein d'une piete soUde,
tres bon et tres propre pour retirer les peuples des erreurs et des abus ou
la superstition les a jettez." See Monsieur la B  's 2nd Answer, p. 247.
t His own words are. Pour ne pas donner sujet de scandale aux here-
tiques, en donne un tres grand aux CathoUques. Les SQavans de toutes
les nations ont ecrit contreluy. Le saint Siege I'a condamne, I'Espagne
r a proscrit de tons ses etats, et a defendu d'en imprimer le livre comme
contenant des propositions suspectes d'erreur, des impietes, et des abus
de I'Ecriture, comme aussi parce qu'il impose aux CathoUques, qu'il
eloigne les fideUes de la pietl et de la devotion a la Mere de Dieu, de
son invocation, de la veneration des Saints et du culte des images.
E 2

52 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
him ; Spain had banished him out of its dommions, and forbid
to read or print his book, as containing propositions suspected
of error and impiety, that abused the holy Scripture, and
imposed upon Catholics, by taking them off from the piety and
devotion due to the mother of God ; in a word, from the
general invocation of saints and worship of images."
I shall not need to say how far the father's zeal carries him
in the Answer itself: it is evident that what Monsieur de
Meaux tells us is only useful,* the Jesuit declares to be " abso
lutely necessary : that we are indispensably obliged to pray to
her : that it is the intention of God, that we should obtain
both grace and glory by her : that all men should be saved hy
the merits of the Son, and the intercession of the mother, and
that forasmuch therefore as God has resolved not to give any
grace but what passes through the hands of Mary ; as we
cannot be saved without grace, so it must be confessed that we
cannot be saved without her." This is, I presume, somewhat
more than what Monsieur de Meaux expounds to us ; and I
shall leave it to any one to judge whether this father, who
hath shewed himself so zealous against the author of the
Blessed Virgin's Salutary Advertisements, could have been very
well pleased with Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition.
The next point which the Exposition advances, is concern
ing the Worship of Images ; Monsieur de Meaux, in the edition
suppressed, affirmed, " that the Church of Rome does not so
much honour the image of the apostle or martyr, as the
apostle or martyr in presence of the image." And though the
censure passed upon this new fancy obhged him to speak a
little more plainly, yet is it only thus, even now,f " That 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 presence ofthe image."
* Speaking of Samt Bernard, p. 30. [Par. 1679.] He concludes, p. 31.
[Ibid.J C'est de cette grande verity qu'U conclut que nous sommes
obligez indispensablement de I'honorer et de la prier, "Quia sic est
voluntas ejus, qui totum nos habere voluit per Mariam. Qui dit tout,
u'excepte rien ; U vent que nous aytons par Marie la grace et la gloire ; il
vent que tons les hommes rejoieven tout de son abondance et de sa pleni
tude, p. 33. II veut que tons les hommes soient sauvez par les merites du
fils et par I'intercession de la mere ; d'autant que dieu a resolu de ne nous
faire aucune grace qui ne passe par les mains de Marie. Comme on ne
pent estre sauv6 sans grace, il faut dire qu'on ne le pent estre que par
Marie qui est le canal de toutes les graces qui descendent du ciel en
**'"'"^-" t Expos, p. 8.

THE PREIACE. 53
Concerning which the reader may please to observe, that
Cardinal Capisucchi, one of the approvers of Monsieur de
Meaux's Exposition, has lately set forth a volume of controver
sies at Rome, with all the most solemn permissions and appro
bations that can be desired, in which he formally contradicts
the doctrine of the same Exposition in this point ; and con
cludes,* " that the Church, in the Councils of Nice and Trent,
forbids only such a divine honour to images as is idolatrous,
i. e. says he, which is paid to images in and for themselves ;
and by which the image is worshipped, as if some god of
divinity were contained in it. But for that divine worship
which is paid to the images of the Holy Trinity, of our Saviour
Christ, and the holy cross, upon the account of the things
represented by them, and as they are in that respect one and
the same with the thing which they represent, and ascribes
not any divinity to the images, there never was, nor can be
any dispute of it."
Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider, whether this be
not sufficiently contrary to the doctrine expounded by him ;
and how we are to reconcile the controversies of the Cardinal
Capisucchi, with the letter and approbation of the Master of
the Sacred Palace. In the mean time I will beg leave to add
one instance more, that is nigher homjc, and I think still at
this time depending; and which the particular interest
Monsieur de Meaux has, more ways than one, had in it, will I
suppose undoubtedly satisfy him, that notwithstanding the
assembly of the clergy have recommended so much both his
book and his method, all nevertheless, at this day, are not very
well satisfied, even in France itself, either with the one or other.
"Monsieur Imbert, priest and doctor of divinity in the
province of Bordeaux, was not long since accused, that upon
Good-Friday, before he proceeded to the solemn service of that
day, which consists chiefly in the adoration of the cross ; he
* Ex his constat et in concUio Niceno 2do, et Tridentino aliisque con-
cUiis latriam duntaxat idololatricam sacris imaginibus denegari, qualem
Gentiles imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde latriam iUam interdici qu« imagi
nibus in seipsis, et propter ipsas exhibeatur ; quaque imagines sen numina
aut divinitatem continentia more GentiUum colantur : De hujusmodi enim
latria controversia erat cum Judfeis et Hsereticis, qui hac ratione nos
imagines colore asserebant. Ceeterum de latria iU^ quae imaginibus SS.
Trinitatis, Christi D. aut sacratissimse crucis exhibetur ratione rei per eas
reprsesentatEe, et quatenus cum re reprsesentat^ unum sunt in esse reprae-
sentativo, nuUamque divinitatem imaginibus tribuit aut supponit, nuUa
unquam fuit aut esse potuit controversia.

54 DOCTRINE OP THE 'CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
turned to the people, and taking occasion from the rashness
of some of the fathers of the mission, whom he had with
grief heard mamtain, that the cross was to be adored after
the very same manner as Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the
eucharist ; professed to them that he could not enter on the
service of that day, without declaring truly to them what the
real doctrine of the Church as to this point was. That the
Church designed not that we should adore the cross which we
see, but that we should adore Jesus Christ whom we do not
see. That there was a great difference between the cross and
the holy sacrament ; that in this our Saviour Christ was really
present, whereas that was only a simple figure or representa
tion of him.
" This was his accusation, and he confessed that his opinion
was, that the Church adored not the cross, and that the con
trary opinion was not only false but idolatrous. That not
only the Protestants made their advantage of those who main
tained such errors, but that he himself was scandalized to
converse every day with the missionaries and others, whom he
had openly heard preach a hundred times, that we ought to
adore the cross with Jesus Christ, as the human nature of
our Saviour with the Divine.
" Being accused for this, he defended himself with all the
strength of argument that he was able ; yet being still
accounted a heretic for it, be finally alleged in his defence,
' That the Exposition of Monsieur de Meaux defended the
very same ; that he went upon his principles, whose book was
approved by the Pope and several cardinals in Italy, by the
bishops and clergy of France, and others ofthe greatest note in
the Church of Rome.'
" Nevertheless he was suspended in a manner grievous and
extraordinary : he wrote to Monsieur de Meaux himself about
it, who presently sent to the Archbishop of Bordeaux in his
behalf : he addressed himself besides to many other the most
considerable persons of the kingdom ; to Monsieur the Chan
cellor ; to Monsieur de Chatteau-neuf ; to the Intendant of the
province, only that he might have justice in a cause, which,
according to Monsieur de Meaux's principles, was certainly very
favourable." But I do not hear, that he has yet had any
other effect of all his supplications, and the interest of those
honourable persons in his behalf, than that they still draw
more and severer menaces from his judges, and threats either
of perpetual imprisonment, or even death itself for his offence.

THE PREFACE. 55
After this clear conviction, I may reasonably hope it will
appear no improbable matter to Monsieur de Meaux himself,
either that one Papist should have written against his book, or
that many others should have expressed themselves to be of a
mind very different from the principles and opinions of it.
Had it pleased him to have gratified the world with the sight
of Cardinal BuiUon's and Monsieur I'Abbe de Dangeau's letters
to Cardinal Bona and Cardinal Chigi, as well as of their answers
to them, they would perhaps have shewn, that not only the
Protestants pretended such oppositions of his own party to his
book, but that Monsieur de Meaux himself was not altogether
insensible of it.
No sooner was the first impression of the Exposition, which
was permitted to pass abroad, finished, but presently a copy
was despatched to Rome, with letters and recommendations to
prepare the way for its reception in that Court ; and provide
against those faults, which some it seems accused it of, if the
contradictors, which opposed it at home, should think fit to
pursue it thither.
It is not to be supposed that either the dignity of the Car
dinal who sent the book, or of him to whom it was addressed,
would have permitted them in such a manner to take notice of
the faults and the contradictors, which their letters speak of,
had they not been both things and persons worthy their con
sideration. But much less would Monsieur I'Abbe de
Dangeau have used his interest with Cardinal Chigi to gain
the favour of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and of the
congregation del Indice, if any one had or should speak
against it, had there been no cause to apprehend that any one
would attempt either.
What other particular persons were employed upon the like
offices, is a secret too close for us to be able to penetrate.*
Only the advertisement itself gives us cause to believe that
great interest was made even by the French Ambassador him
self to his Holiness about it, and that the few letters we see
set out with so much industry, both in the originals and their
translation, and the long history of them in the advertisement,
were the effects of a labour and interest, great as the long
term of eight years that were spent in the procurmg of them.
The second answer to Monsieur de Meaux has so fully ex
amined every one of these approbations, and so plainly shewed
* See Advertisement, &c.

56 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND.
how small account is to be made of them, that we do not find
that in four years that it has been pubhshed, any one has
undertaken to reply to it. I will therefore only add m
general a remark or two that may serve to inform those of
our own country, who are unacquainted with such intrigues,
what the method of the approbations of the Church of Rome
is, and how little stress is to be laid upon them.
It is a long time since it has been resolved by many of their
Casuists, that it is lawful to disguise the sentiments of their
rehgion, not only in private conferences, but in the very pulpit
itself, when there is a sufficient reason for the doing of it.
But I cannot tell whether it be yet so generally known that it
is lawful for them to set their hands to, and approve those
books, whose principles and doctrine they dislike, by an art
peculiar to themselves, and which Protestants, who are used
to sincere dealing, will find it a little difficult to believe.
The instance of Cardinal Capisucchi, before mentioned, is
an undeniable proof of this for Italy ; who about the same
time that he sent his letter and approbation to Monsieur de
Meaux of his Exposition, 'wrote, as we have seen, directly
contrary to the doctrine of it, and had his book approved with
uo less solemnity at Rome, than Monsieur de Meaux can
pretend his to have been. And for France, a person very
justly esteemed both for his great quality and his own worth,
Monsieur the Procureur General of the Parliament of Paris,
having clearly revealed the mystery of it, I shall beg leave to
represent it to the world, under the advantage of so great and
unquestionable an authority.
Father Thomassin, about twenty years since, printed a book
which he called Notse in Concilia ; the design whereof was
to set up the authority of the Pope above all Councils, which
he renders in a manner useless to the decision of ecclesiastical
matters. The copies of this book were all seized, and locked
up in a chamber of the Fathers Oratorians at Paris. Ten or
twelve years after, with some changes to fill up the leaves that
had been censured, and the approbation of the doctors of
Sorbonne, he again attempted to have it pubhshed. But
Monsieur the Procureur General opposed it, and told him,
that but in consideration of Father Harlay, his near relation,
who interposed for him, he would have had his book burnt by
the hand of the common hangman.
The father justified himself that his book contained no
other principles than what were found in Cardinal Bellarmine's

THE PREFACE. 57
Controversies, which had been printed with authority, and
were permitted to be every day publicly sold in France. The
Procureur General replied, "that they suffered in France,
that an Italian should write according to the principles of his
country, and that this ought not to hinder but that a book,
otherwise good, might be publicly printed and sold with
privilege ; but that for a Frenchman to do the same, was
another matter, and would have different consequences : and
that in short, the Italians used the same method towards
them." And indeed the late change of the Jesuits in their appro
bations plainlv shews, that it is permitted to those of the
Church of Rome to write and approve, not so much according
to their own opinions, as to the principles and genius of the
country in which they live. For which reason the fathers of
the society do no longer now, as formerly they were wont, take
out their licence from the General of their order, but from
their respective Provincials ; who accommodate themselves to
the current doctrine of the place in which the book is
pubUshed ; without which it would be almost impossible for
them to write in France, but they should be subject to the
danger of a censure at Rome.
After this general account of the nature of the approba
tions of the Church of Rome, I shall spare both myself and
the reader the trouble of examining the several letters before
the Exposition, though otherwise they lie open to many excep
tions ; only concerning his Holiness's brief, which Monsieur de
Meaux so much triumphs in, it may not be amiss to observe,
that the last Pope, in whose time the Exposition came first to
Rome with great recommendation, yet never gave any appro
bation to it ; aud that the present Pope did it ' upon occasion
of a submissive letter of the author's to him, and after the
reports he had heard of the great conversions that were every
where made by it,' to which such an approbation would be
likely to add a new force. So plain is the intrigue and design
of this, that were the Pope's briefs otherwise of as great
consideration, as the Papists themselves shew them to be of
little value, yet this could not be regarded by us as any other
than a mere artifice to deceive us, not a sincere, much less
authoritative approbation either of the nature or the principles
of Monsieur de Meaux's book.
But whatever the opinion either of the Pope or Papists has
been of this Exposition, certain it is the Protestants have

58 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
openly enough declared their thoughts concerning it ; and the
Exposition, according to the fate of all other great and extra
ordinary things, has found enough on this side to oppose it.
It was but a very httle time after the first edition of it, that
Monsieur Noguier, and another author well known, yet whose
name I spare, because he has not thought fit himself to dis
cover it, wrote against it ; and with so much success, that the
Papists themselves confessed, " that it was an ill cause defended
extremely well."
Monsieur de Turenne, not long before that last campaign
in which he lost his life, made great boasts of a reply that
was speedily to be published to them; but after the long expec
tation of above eight years, only an advertisement was prefixed
to a new edition of the book, which neither touches at all the
greatest part of the exceptions that had been made against it,
nor gives any satisfaction to those it does take notice of.
It has been the constant method of Monsieur de Meaux,
having once written, to leave his tracts to the world, and take
no care to defend them against those assaults, that seem with
success enough to have been sometimes made upon them. We
should think the great employments, in which he has had the
honour to be engaged, might have been the cause of this, did
not he, who takes no care to defend his old books, find still
time enough to write new. Perhaps he looks upon his pieces
to be of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever at
tempts can be made upon them ; but sure he cannot be
ignorant, that Protestants make another and far different
conclusion, and look upon those opinions to be certainly inde
fensible, which so able and eminent an author is content so
openly, and, if I may be permitted to add it, so shamefully to
forsake. What other answers, besides those I have now mentioned,
have been made to it, I cannot undertake to say ; two others
only that I know of, have been published ; the author of the
latter of which. Monsieur de Brueys, having in a veiy httle
time after his writing, _ left his religion, might have made a
new instance of Monsieiir de Meaux's conquests, did not his
inabihty to answer his own arguments against the Exposition,
give us cause to believe, that some other motives than those of
that book induced him so lightly to forsake a cause which he
had so soundly and generously defended.
And now, after so many answers yet unreplied to, if any one
desires to know what the design of the present undertaking is.

THE PREFACE. 59
they may please to understand, that having by a long con
verse among the Papists of our own and other countries,
perceived that either by the ignorance or malice of their
instructors, they have generally very false and imperfect
notions of our opinions in the matters in controversy between
us, I have suffered myself to be persuaded to pursue the
method of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition as to the doctrine
of the Church of England ; and oppose sincerely to what he
pretends is the opinion of the Roman Church, that form of
faith that is openly professed and taught without any disguise
or dissimulation among us.
I was not unwilling to take the method of Monsieur de
Meaux for my direction, as well upon the account of the
great reputation both of the book and of the author, as
because it is now some years that it has passed in our language
without any answer that I know of made to it. Besides, that
the late new impression made of it, with all the advantages
of the advertisement and approbations, which the later French
editions have added to it, seemed naturally to require some
such consideration.
I do not pretend by anything of this to treat Monsieur de
Meaux as an enemy, but rather as both his great learning, and
that character which I have ever learnt very highly to
reverence, oblige me, to follow him as my guide. To render
an account to him and to the world what our differences are,
and point out in passing some of those reasons that are the
most usually given amongst us, wherefore we cannot totally
assent to what he proposes.
I am persuaded the whole is done with that charity and
moderation, that there is nothing in it that can justly
offend the most zealous enemy of our Church. If I knew of
anything in it that without dissembling the truth might have
been omitted, I sincerely profess I would most willingly have
done it, being desirous to please all, that so, if it be the will
of God, I may by any means gain some.
For this cause chiefly have. I forborne to set my name to it,
lest perhaps any prejudice against my person, might chance to
injure the excellence of the cause which I maintain.
This effect at least, if no other, I would willingly hope
such a treatise may have upon those of our country, that
have been taught to believe very differently concerning us j
that they would please no longer to form such horrible ideas
of our profession as they have heretofore been wont to do ; at

60 A COLLECTION OP PASSAGES
least till it can be shewn, that I have either palUated or pre
varicated the doctrine of the Church of England in this
Exposition. Which I am yet so assured I have not done, that
I here entirely submit both myself and it to her censure ;
of whose communion I esteem it my greatest happiness that I
am, and for whose preservation and enlargement 1 shall never
cease, as I ought, to pray.

A Collection of some of those Passages that were corrected in
the first edition of the ^^ Exposition" suppressed by Mon
sieur de Meaux : to which is added, the Censure of the
Faculty of Louvain, upon some part of the doctrine still
remaining in it. §. I.
Monsieur de Meaux, in the very beginning of his book,
speaking of the design of it, had these words :
\st Edit.
" So that it seems then to be very proper to propose to them
(the Protestants) the doctrine of the Cathohc Church, sepa
rating those questions which the Church has decided, from
those which do not belong to faith," p. I.
It is evident, the meaning of Monsieur de Meaux in that
passage must have been this ; that whatsoever was either not
at all contained in his Exposition, or was otherwise maintained
by any particular authors, beyond the exposition he gives us
of those points which are here mentioned, was not to be
looked upon hy us as any of the Church's decision, nor neces
sary to be received by us as matter of faith.
I shall not need to say how many doctrines and decisions,
not only of private writers, but of the very Council of Trent
itself, this would have at once cut off. It would perhaps have
been one of the fairest advances towards an union, that ever the
Church of Rome yet offered. But it seems, whatever Monsieur
de Meaux supposed, this was thought too great a condescension
by others ; and he was therefore obliged, without changing any
thing in his book, to give us a quite other account of the de
sign of it.

ALTERED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX. 61
Later Editions.
" So that it seems then we can do nothing better, than sim
ply to propose to them (the Protestants) the sentiments of
the Catholic Church, and distinguish them from those opinions
that have been falsely imputed to her." Which is but little to
the purpose. II.
\st Edit. p. 7, 8. " The same Church teaches, that all
religious worship ought to terminate upon God, as its necessary
end. So that the honour which the Church gives to the
blessed Virgin and to the saints is rehgious, only because it
gives them that honour with relation to God, and for the love
of him."" So that then, so far ought one to be from blammg the
honour which we give to the saints, as our adversaries do,
because it is religious, that on the contrary it ought to be
blamed if it were not religious."
There can be nothing more plain than that Monsieur de
Meaux's opinion, when he wrote this, was, that the honour
which the Church of Rome pays to the blessed Virgin and
saints departed, is a rehgious honour ; nay, would deserve
to be blamed if it were not rehgious.
This was by others thought a little too ingenuous, and
what would give too great an advantage to our objections
against it. And therefore instead of that free, honest con
fession, that the Church of Rome gives religious honour to
the blessed Virgin and saints departed, he now puts a doubt
that insinuates the direct contrary.
" The same Church teaches us, that all religious worship
ought to terminate in God as its necessary end ; and if the
honour which she rendereth to the blessed Virgin and to the
saints may in some sense be called religious, it is for its neces
sary relation to God."
So that really then the honour they give their saints, in
Monsieur de Meaux's opinion, is rehgious, but it is not fit that
we should know it. III.
Monsieur Daille some years since wrote a volume of the
Tradition of the Primitive Church, concerning the object of
rehgious worship ; m which he clearly shews that the first 300

62 A COLLECTION OF PASSAGES
years knew nothing of the invocation of saints, the worship of
images, crosses, and rehcs ; of the adoration of the host, &c.
Monsieur de Meaux, iu his first Exposition, granted the whole,
in these words since struck out,
"For Monsieur Daille (says he), he thinks fit to confine
himself to the first three centuries, in which he is certain that
the Church, more exercised in suffering than in writing, has
left many things to be cleared afterwards both in its doctrme
and its practice." l.s^ Edit. p. 9.
Now it being evident, notwithstanding this new thought,
that the sufferings of the first 300 years have not hindered,
but that we have very large accounts of its doctrine and prac
tice from the writings of those Fathers who lived in them ; to
confess that it is certain, that the tradition of the Church of
Rome fails in many things, both in doctrine and practice, for
the first 300 years, is doubtless as fair a yielding up of the
cause, as to the matter of tradition, as we could desire ;
and therefore however known by Monsieur de Meaux to be
most certainly true, was yet thought too much by others to be
confessed to the world, by a person of so great learning and
eminence in their Church. IV.
As to the point of the Invocation of Saints, Monsieur de
Meaux still shews us, that he knows not what account to give
of the grounds of it. He proposes several ways how the
saints may possibly know our prayers, but cannot well tell us
by which it is they do so.
But in the first edition he shewed yet more doubt : not
only which way the saints hear them, but whether they hear
them at all or no : not only, whether they join with them in
their prayers, as they desire them to do, but whether it is not
rather by some other means, yet more unknown to them, and
not by their intercession, that they receive the benefit of them.
" The Church (says he), contents herself to teach, with all
antiquity, these prayers to be very profitable to such who
make them: whether it be the saints know them by the
ministry and communication of angels, who, according to the
testimony of Scripture, know what passes amongst us ; being
established by God's order, as administering spirits to co
operate vrith us in the work of our salvation : whether it be
that God makes known to them our desires by a particular

ALTERED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX. 63
revelation : or whether it be that he discovers the secret to
them in his divine essence, in which all truth is comprised.
" And that in the manner, and according to the measure
which he pleases ; or whether lastly by some other way yet
more impenetrable and more unknown, he causes us to receive
the fruit of those prayers which we address to those blessed
souls." 1st Edit. p. 23.
So that in effect, whether the saints hear us or no, whether
they join with us in our requests or no, according to Monsieur
de Meaux's Exposition, their Church knows not ; which is
sure a sufficient prejudice against their invocation ; and was,
it seems, thought so by those who therefore caused all the
latter part of this paragraph to be struck out, for fear of the
advantage we might reasonably make of it.
V.
But if Monsieur de Meaux in his first Exposition freely
confessed how uncertain the grounds of this invocation were,
he no less freely left it to our choice whether we would prac
tise it or not. He assured us there was no manner of obliga
tion at all upon us so to do : and that the Church would not
condemn us if we did it not, provided we refused it not out of
contempt, or with a spirit of dissension and revolt.
" Furthermore (says he), there is nothing so mijust as to
accuse the Church of placing all her piety in these devotions
to the saints, since, on the contrary, she lays no obligation at
aU on particular persons to join in this practice.
" By which it appears clearly that the Church condemns
only those who refuse it out of contempt, and by a spirit of
dissension and revolt." 1st Edit. p. 33, 34.
This was Monsieur de Meaux's first Exposition of the Doc
trine of the Catholic Church in this point : but such as his
correctors it seems would not admit of : who therefore obhged
him wholly to strike out that passage,
" That the Church imposes no obligation at all upon par
ticular persons to practise this invocation."
And instead of condemning only those that refuse it out of
contempt, or a spirit of dissension and revolt, which had freed
us wholly from their anathema, to expound it now more
severely :
" That she condemns those who refuse this practice, whether
out of disrespect or error." Which will be sure to bring us
under it.

64 A COLLECTION OP PASSAGES
VI.
In the article of Images, Monsieur de Meaux having first
laid down this foundation,
" That the Church of Rome does not attribute to them any
other virtue than that of exciting in us the remembrance of
those whom they represent ;" added in his '"first Exposition
which was suppressed, " It is in this consists the use and ad
vantage of images." 1st Edit. Tp. 25.
And to assure us yet further how little honour they had for
them, concluded thus,
*" So that to speak properly, and according to the ecclesi
astical style, we do not so much honour the image of an
apostle or martyr, as we do honour the apostle or martyr in
presence ofthe image." 1st Edit. p. 26.
Now though we do not doubt but that this is the real
opinion of Monsieur de Meaux and all which he himself does,
yet to say that the Church of Rome does neither require, nor
practise, nor intend any more, was to presume too much upon
our ignorance ; and indeed to give too great a scandal to many
of her own communion, more zealous than himself for this
service : and therefore we find it now expounded in a manner
more conformable to the truth, though stUl exceedingly
mollified. " It is upon this is founded the honour which we give to
images :" and again,
" When we honour the image of an apostle or martyr, our
intention is not so much to honour the image, as the apostle or
martyr in presence of the image." VII.
In the section of Justification, Monsieur de Meaux has
omitted this whole paragraph since his first edition :
"The Catholic Church (says he), is nowhere more invuicible
than in this point, and perhaps it would need no long discourse
to shew, that the more one searches by the Scriptures into the
design of the redemption of mankind, which was to make us
holy, the more one shall approach to our doctrine, and the
* BeUarm. 1. 2.de Imag. ss.cap. 20. pag. 2146. [Ingolst. 1586.] To
state this Quest. Quo genere cultfls imagines sint honorandse ; puts three
opinions : 1 Quod imago non sit uUo modo in se colenda, sed solum coram
imagine colendum exemplar. " Ita quidam (says he) quos refert et refeUit
Catharinus." And he himself rejects it in Uke manner in the next chapter,
in the very position of it.

ALTERED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX. 65
more depart from the opinions of Calvin, which are not main
tainable, nay, are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid
piety." 1st Edit. p. 36, 37.
Monsieur de Meaux may please some other time to expound
to us, what those opinions of Calvin in this matter are, which
the Church of Rome is so invincible in, and which all parties
among them will agree to be so contradictory and ruinous to all
true and solid piety, as he then said.
In the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on
occasion of this correction, that perhaps there are some in the
Church of Rome of Mr. Calvin's mind, in the worst of those
principles Monsieur de Meaux refers to, and to assure him that
there are several Protestants in the world that are not ; though
they dare not therefore so severely censure the opinions of
those that are. VIII.
Monsieur de Meaux having, in a very few words, explained
the doctrine of Justification, upon which the Council of Trent
is so long and perplexed, assured us in his first Exposition, that
that was enough for any man to know to make him a thorough
Christian. " Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the doctrine
of justification ; and our adversaries would be extraordinary
contentious not to confess, that there is no need to know any
more, to be a solid Christian." 1st Edit. p. 47.
This would have been of great advantage to us, and have
freed us from the anathemas of many other particulars, of
which we more doubt, than of any thing Monsieur de Meaux
has expounded of it ; but this others thought too great a con
cession ; and the Bishop therefore, without changing any thing
in his premises, was forced to draw a very different conclusion
from them. '
" Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the doctrine
of justification, and our adversaries would be very unreasonable,
if they should not confess, that this doctrine suffices to teach
Christians, that they ought to refer all the glory of their salva
tion to God through Jesus Christ." IX.
In the article of Satisfaction, Monsieur de Meaux speaking
of the temporal and eternal punishment of sin, and how the
VOL. XII. r

66 A COLLECTION OF PASSAGES
one may be retained when the other is forgiven, had this
paragraph in the first edition, since struck out.
" The Church has always acknowledged these two different
manners of applying the remission of sins, which we have pro
posed ; because she saw that in the Scriptures, besides the first
pardon, and which ought to be the only, if men were not
ungrateful, and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure
remission, there is another absolution, and another grace, that
is proposed in form of a judgment, where the Church ought
not only to loose and remit, but also to bind and retain."
1st Edit. p. 54, 55.
The censure passed upon this were enough to make one sus
pect, that either Monsieur de Meaux, or his correctors, were
sensible, upon further consideration, that they could not so
easily find out these two forms, so distinguished in holy
Scripture, or prove that the Church had always acknowledged
them ; and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it.

In the article of Confirmation, speaking of the imposition of
hands. Monsieur de Meaux insinuated in his first Exposition,
that it had always been accompanied with the use of chrism
ever since the Apostles.
"Thus (says he), all Christian Churches, since the Apostles'
times, have religiously retained this practice, accompanying it
(the imposition of hands) with holy chrism." 1st Edit. p. 65.
This was too clearly false to be suffered to pass, and there
fore it is now more loose, so as to admit of an equivocation, and
yet seem to say still the same thing.
" Thus all Christian Churches, since the Apostles' times,
have rehgiously retained it, making use also of holy chrism."
XI.
In the article of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Monsieur de
Meaux having expounded it according to our principles, in his
first edition,' concluded with us too :
" So that it (the mass) may (says he), be very reasonably be
called a sacrifice." Is^ Edit. p. 115.
But since the correction, the conclusion is much strengthened,
though the premises remain the same.
" So that there is nothing wanting to it, to make it a true
sacrifice."

ALTERED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX. 67
XII.
As to the point of the Pope's authority, the first Exposition
ran much higher than it seems the spirit of the Galhcan
Church could bear.
" So that our profession of faith obliges us, as to this point,
to believe the Roman Church to be the mother and mistress of
all Churches, and to render a true obedience to the Pope, the
successor of St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ." 1st
Edit. p. 166.
It is now more loose, and in general thus :
" We acknowledge a primacy in the successors of the prince
ofthe Apostles, to whom, for that cause, we owe that obedience
and submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have
always taught the faithful."
But it may be, what was struck out of the Exposition to
please the correctors. Monsieur de Meaux recompensed in his
letter to satisfy his Hohness. XIII.
In the conclusion. Monsieur de Meaux, telling us that none
of those articles he had expounded according to our own prin
ciples destroyed the foundation of our salvation, added in his
first Exposition what that foundation was, vis.
" The adoration of one only God, Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and the trust in one only Saviour." 1st Edit. p. 160.
It is hard to say why this was not let pass, for we are un
willing to beheve that the Church of Rome has any other
foundation for salvation than this. But it may be, to have put
down this as the foundation of salvation, would have been too
plainly to shew, that then we certainly have this, and that
without mixture of anything destructive thereunto.
XIV.
Monsieur de Meaux goes on in a very candid manner, since
struck out :
" In effect (says he) in all these explications, which contain
the very bottom of our belief, there is not one word repugnant
to these two principles, either directly or by consequence.
" So that acknowledging then this,that the Church of Rome
does believe and profess all that is essential to preserve the
substance of the Christian rehgion, so that they cannot reason
ably impute to us any doctrine contrary thereunto ; they must
F 2

68 A COLLECTION OF PASSAGES
at the same time acknowledge, by their own principles, that
the Church of Rome is a true part of the Church of Christ,
to which every Christian is obliged to unite himself in his
heart, and in effect as far as in him hes." 1st Edit.
Monsieur de Meaux may please to know, that we do confess
the Church of Rome to be a part of the true Church, though,
indeed, we think one of the worst : and that we do with all our
hearts desire a union with her ; and in effect do shew it as far
as we are able, by retaining whatever we can of the same doc
trine and practices with her.
And if this were all they desired of us, as, indeed, it is all
they ought, and all we can do ; however, an absolute union
would not thereby be obtained, yet might we hve at least like
Christians aud brethren, in a common charity with one an
other, and so dispose our minds, as by God's grace to come,
in a little time, to some better agreement in the rest, too, than
ever we are like to do without it.
These are some of those passages that gave occasion to the
correction we have spoken of at the Sorbonne, and to the sup
pression of the whole first edition, however authorised by the
bishops of France in the same words it now is. I might have
added many more ; but instead of it, will beg leave to offer the
reader one correction made very lately by another faculty, that
of Louvain ; if not immediately of Monsieur de Meaux's Expo
sition, yet at least of a doctrine which, they were beforehand
given to understand, was so explained in it.
Monsieur de Witte, pastor and dean of St. Mary's, in the
city of Mechlin, having, in a discourse with some persons of
that city, on the Sth of July last, maintained the authority of
the Church and Pope, according to the manner of Monsieur
de Meaux's Exposition, complaint was made of him, first to the
Inter-nonce ; then to his Hohness himself, and four proposi
tions drawn up against him, as the heads of his heresy.
Monsieur de Witte maintained his opinion in several papers
printed to that end ; in the fourth of which, after several other
authorities of persons of their Church defending the same
doctrine, he tells them,
" That the golden Exposition of faith of Monsieur the bishop
of Condom, required nothing more to the sound, catholic, and
orthodox faith in this matter ; which Exposition, besides the
eulogies of many other eminent persons, was also approved by
our holy father Innocent XI. himself, in his kind letter to him."
But all this could not prevail with them to respect his doc-

ALTERED BY MONSIEUR DE MEAUX. 69
trine ever the more for Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition or his
Holiness's brief. The Faculty of Divinity, at the command of
the Nonce, and with the knowledge, no doubt, and assent of
the Pope, to whom the whole affair had been communicated,
censured his propositions, November 3, 1685, and especially
the second, in which Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition ofthe
Catholic Faith was principally concerned, as scandalous and
pernicious. " Judicamus earn censurari posse uti scandalosam et pemi-
ciosam." May those who insist so much on the fidelity and authority
of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, please calmly to consider
these things, and tell us how we can rely on such an Exposition
of their doctrine, as, notwithstanding so many formal appro
bations, first, of the bishops of France, was yet corrected in so
many places by the Sorbonne ; and, secondly, of the Pope, car
dinals, and others in Italy, and ofthe whole body of the clergy
of France in their assembly ; has yet so lately been censured,
at the command of the Nonce, and with the consent of his
Holiness, hy the faculty of one of their most eminent univer
sities, to be scandalous aud pernicious.

I. The Introduction.

It has always been esteemed more reasonable to doubt of
principles first, and then to deny the conclusions that are
drawn from them, than, having granted the foundation, after
wards to cavil at the clear and necessary deductions from it.
To profess " that religious worship is due to God only," and
at the same to say that we ought to adore men and women,
crosses and images, and all that infinite variety of foUies, which
these latter ages have set forth imder the pious name of rehcs.
To declare, "that we are saved only by Christ's merits," and
yet still continue to teach us that we ought to set up our own.
In a word, to say, " that the death of Christ was a perfect sa
crifice, and one drop of his blood more than sufficient for the
redemption of mankind," and nevertheless go on to require our
satisfactions as necessary too, and obhge us to believe, that
other propitiatory sacrifices, besides that of the cross, ought to
be offered up continually to God, in his Church, for the sins
both of the dead and the hving. This must certainly be the
part of a disputant, either too ignorant to understand, or too
obstipate to submit. to any conviction.

70 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
Monsieur de Meaux, the design of whose Exposition seems
rather to be an apology for the Popish religion, than a free
assertion and vindication of its errors, is above all things sen
sible of the justice of this reflection, and therefore endeavours,
by all means possible, in the very entry of this treatise, to pre
pare his reader against it, by shewing "the injustice of charg
ing consequences upon men which they do not allow, and that
therefore, though their superstructure should chance to over
throw their foundation, yet since they profess not to know
that it does so, they ought not to be taxed with what they do
not believe."
It is not denied but that consequences may be either so ob
scure, or so far distant, that a person, prcjudicate for the prin
ciple, may well be excused the charge of a collection, which his
actions shew he neither beheves nor approves. But when the
conclusions as well as principles are plain and confessed, that the
dispute is only about the name, not the thing, we must beg
leave to profess, that we cannot choose but say, that he believes
not as he ought the infinite merit of Christ's sacrifice, who re
quires any other offering for sin, and that no subtlety of argument
will ever persuade us, that those destroy not their principle of
worshipping God only, whom we see, contrary to his express
command, prostrate every day before an image, with prayers
and hymns to creatures that have been subject to hke infirmities
with ourselves, and that are, perhaps, at this very time, in a
worse estate than the most miserable of those that call upon
them for their assistance.
Be it therefore allowed to be as great a calumny as Monsieur
de Meaux can suppose it, to accuse men of consequences ob
scure and disavowed ; the opinions we charge the Church of
Rome with are plain and confessed, the practice and prescrip
tion of the chiefest authority in it. And to refuse our charge
of them is, in good earnest, nothing else than to protest
against a matter of fact ; a plea, which even justice itself has
told us may without calumny be rejected as invalid.
However, thus much at least we have got by this reflection,
that it directs us to the true state of the controversy between
us ; and shews, 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 un
doubted foundation of the Christian faith ; and that the ques
tion between us therefore is not, whether what we hold be
true ? which is on all hands agreed, but, whether those things

UPON WORSHIP. 71
which the Roman Church has added as superstructures to it,
and which, as such, we reject, be not so far from being neces
sary articles of religion, as they pretend, that they indeed over
throw that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine,
and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them ?
The declaration of this, not so much by any new proof, as by
clearing rather the true state of those points which are the sub
ject of our difference, is the design of the following articles ;
in which I shall endeavour to give a clear and free account of
what we can approve, and what it is that we disUke in their
doctrine, and, as far as the shortness of this discourse will
allow, touch also upon some of those reasons that are the most
usually given by us for both. Article II.
That Religious Worship is to he paid to God only.
That religious worship is due to God only, * how necessary
soever those practices of the Roman Church, which we are
hereafter to consider, may have rendered it to Monsieur de
Meaux to declare, yet is it, we suppose, but little necessary for
us to say.
We firmly believe, that "the inward acknowledgment of his
divine excellencies, as the Creator and Lord of all things, is a
part of the supreme worship that is due to him. We beheve
that all the powers of our soul ought to be tied to him by
faith, hope, and charity, as to that God, who alone can estab
lish and make us happy." And though we do not think
that there is now any sensible, or material sacrifice to be offered
to him under the Gospel, as there was heretofore under the
law ; yet do we, with all antiquity, suppose the sacrifice of
prayer and thanksgiving to be so peculiarly his due, that it
cannot, vrithout derogation to his honour, be apphed to any
other. What our opinion is of that worship, which the Roman
Church pays to the blessed Virgin and saints departed, we
shall hereafter fully shew : but certainly, great was the dif-
* Impius et imperitus Lutheranorum et Calvinistarum error est, nul
lum nisi Deo religionis honorem tribuentium. Maldonat. in Matth. v. 34.
p. 126. B. [Mogunt. 1611.] Index Expurg. in Athanasium. Adorari
solius Dei est ; dele. And again, Creatura nuUa adoranda est. dele. [p.
52. col. 1. Madr. 1667.]

72 doctrine of the church of ENGLAND,
ference of these holy men, whom Monsieur de Meaux men
tions as their fore-runners in this practice, from the present
manner of the Popish invocation. Gregory Nazianzen,* in a
rhetorical apostrophe, called to Constantius in one, to his
sister Gorgonia in another oration,t but he prayed to neither.
St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. J. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St.
Augustine ; they desired sometimes that the martyr or saint
would join with them in their requests, but they were rather
raptures and wishes, than direct prayers ;J and their formal
petitions, but especially those of the Church, were only to God
Almighty. They " doubted whether the saints could hear them
or no ;"§ and were rather inchned to believe that they could not.
* Gregor. Naz. invectiv. in JuUanum, p. 2. [Eton. 1610.] "Akoue leai
Ti TOV peyaXov KtJVOTavTiov Tpv^v (*i ng atff^rjiriQ) 'ouai re irpb avrov
fiaaiXkiav (ptKo^piaroi. Upon which the Greek SchoUast observes,
^IffoKpaTtKbv dvrl tov, lav rig aia^ij<Ttg eari riov TTJSe aKovetv.
+ Id. Orat. 11. in Gorgon. [Ibid.] p. 189. lit. D. [Par. 1609.] Ei JI
rtg (Tol Kai rSiv ripeTepinv eart Xoyoc, Kai roiiro raig btriatg rjivxaig ^k
Oeov yspag tuiv tolovtwv k-Kaia^avta^ai. Skxoio Kai rbv rjpeTepov
\6yov avrl iroWwv i:at Trpb TroWixiv kvrafitjjv.
X There cannot a more evident proof be desired of this, than to observe,
that in the century to which Monsieur de Meaux refers, it was the great
argument brought by St. Athanasius and the other Fathers -agamst the
Arians to prove Christ to be God, from the Church's invocation of him.
§ Augustinus, in Ps. 108. enarrat. 1. p. 1565. Ut. A. speaking about
what knowledge the souls departed have of what is done here, respondeo,
magnam quidem esse queestionem, nee in prsesentia diiferendam, quod sit
operis proUxioris, utrum, vel quatenus, vel quomodo, ea quae circa nos
aguntur, noverint spiritus mortuorum. Nor was this only the doubt of
those times, Lombard. Sent. 1. 4. dist. 45, has the same ; sed forte quasris,
numquid preces supplicantium sancti audiunt, et vota postulantium in
eorum notitiam perveniunt ? Non est incredibile. And Scotus on the
place, qu. 4. p. 148. sect. De secundo. Dico quod non est necesseex
ratione beatitudinis — tamen probabile est quod Deus beatis revelat. de
orationibus sibi vel Deo in nomine ejus oblatis. Yet in another place he
seems to explain himself, libr. de agend. cur. pro mortuis. cap. 15.
Fatendum est nescire quidem mortuos quid hie agatur, sed dum hie agitur :
postea vero audire ab eis qui hine ad eos moriendo pergunt, non quidem
omnia, sed quae sinuntur indicare, qui sinuntur etiam ista meminisse, et
quae iUos quibus hsec indicant, oportet audire. Possunt et ab Angelis, qui
rebus quae aguntur hie prsesto sunt, audire aliquid mortui, quod unum-
quemque eorum audire debere judicat, cui cuncta subjecta sunt. Vid. apud
Gratian. caus. 13. qu. 2. cap. 29. p. 1306. [Par. 1585.] How httle satis
factory this is to warrant their invocation, I shall leave it to BeUarmine to
declare, de Sanct. Beat. lib. 1. c. 20. [ut supra,] p. 2060. 1. B. Where,
citing two opinions of the manner how the saints know what is here done,
the first, that they see all things in God, the other, that they are revealed
to them by God, ex his sententiis, says he, prior videtur simpUciter pro-

UPON WORSHIP. 73
The addresses of the mind,* which the Church of Rome allows
no less than the others to them,-|- they looked upon to be so
pecuharly God's due, that they were not communicated to the
very angels that are in heaven. They declared against all
thoughts of being assisted by the merits of their saints, or that
God would ever the more readily, or indeed so soon, accept
their prayers, coming by the intercession of another, as if they
had gone themselves directly to the throne of grace. In a
word, they never imagined that this was an honour due to
them ; but, on the contrary, constantly taught that it was a
service belonging only to God Almighty.
WeU therefore might Monsieur Daille refer the beginnings
of this invocotion to these men,J whose innocent wishes, and
rhetorical flights, being still increased by the superstition of
after ages, first gave birth to the worship. But certainly the
Romanists cannot, with any reason, allege them in favour of
their error, till it be shewn, either that we are mistaken in those
differences we have here declared to be between what they did
and what the Church of Rome now practises, or that they are
otherwise proved to be so inconsiderable, as not to make any
notable alteration in it. And yet that the ages before knew
babiUor, quia si indigerent sancti nova revelatione, ecclesia non diceret ita
audacter omnibus Sanctis, orate pro nobis, sed peteret aliquando a Deo ut
eis revelaret preces nostras. But for St. Augustine's opinion mentioned,
he plainly declares, non est sufBciens, [Ibid.] p. 2059. D. Nam neque
angeU, neque animae beatae, etiamsi praesentes sint, possunt cognoscere
naturaUter preces nostras, quando sola cogitatione oramus.
So that St. Augustine then could not with any reason have invocated
the saints, by their own confession.
* The Council of Trent commands the bishops, &c. to teach, eos impie
sentire, qui dicunt stijltum esse sanctos in caelo regnantes, voce vel mente
suppUcare, sess. 25. c. de Invocat. [Labbe, Concil. vol. 14. p. 895. Lut.
Par. 1672.]
f TIpoyvtiKTTijg Kai KapSioyvdjtTTTjg povog 6 Qebg VTrdpx^i, tTTft ovSk
oi "AyyeXot rd iv Kapbiq. j) rd pk'KKovra siriffravrat. Quaest. 99.
ad Antioch. op. Athanas. tom. 2. p. 270. lit. B.
} And that it is the most he does ; see adv. Lat. tradit. de cultus religiosi
objecto, lib. 3. cap. 18. p. 454. [Genev. 1664.] Monsieur DaiU^'s words
are these : Neque eum a vero longe aberraturum puto, qui dixerit, hunc
fuisse apud Christianos primum ad sanctos invocandos gradum, cum cale-
facti atque inardescentes rerum praeclare ab iis gestarum meditatione,
praedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos denique invocandos pro-
rumperent. Certe quae de quarto saeculo prima hujus invocationis afFeruntur
exempla, ea fere sunt hujus generis, ex encomiasticis quorundam disertissi-
morum et eruditione saeculari florentissimorum hominum in sanctos
orationibus desumpta, Gregorii Nazianzeni inCyprianum, in Athanasium,

74 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
nothing even of this, not only their confessed* inability to pro
duce any proofs from them of this superstition, t but the
contrary testimonies of the undoubted writings of Ignatius,
Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Novatian, and
others, so plainly shew, that it ought not to be esteemed at all
rash, at this distance, to assert, that in this very small change,
the Fathers of the fourth century did certainly begin to depart
from the practice and tradition of those before them. And if
that reason of the Church of Rome be of any strength, J why
they prayed not to the holy men imder the Old Testament,
vis. because they were not then admitted to the sight of God,
and therefore ought not to be prayed to ; it seems to us, that
not only the greater part of the primitive Fathers, § but even
in BasUium ; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum ; qui ambo quarto, sed jam
prsecipiti saeculo celebres habebantur. Eos et Ambrosius et Hieronymus,
et Paulinus Nolanus Usdem temporibus imitati sunt, secuti TheodoretiM, Sus.
* For which see Card. Perron Replique h. la reponse du Roy de la
Grande Bretagne, Uv. 5. cap. 11, 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de
Meaux's shift, to conclude from the following ages, what he could not
prove fi'om the preceding : and at last to confess ingenuously, p. 1009.
[Par. 1620.] Et quant aux autheurs plus proches du siecle apostolique,
desquels la persecution nous a ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu'il ne
s'y trouve pas des vestiges de cette coutume — U suffit — qu'il ne se trouve
rien eu leurs ecrits, de repugnant a I'usage de I'egUse de quatre premiers
conciles pour ce regard, mais au contraire — tout y est conforme et favour
able. t Which whoso desires to read, may find them at large coUected by
Archbishop Usher, Answer to a Challenge, ch. of the Invocation of Saints,
and by Monsieur DaiUe, Ubr. ad Lat. tradit. 1. 3. cap. 35, 36. [ut supra,]
p. 548, &c.
X Bellarmin. de.SS. beat. 1. 1. cap. 19. [ut supra,] p. 2044. D. Notan-
dum est, quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moriebantur non intrahant
in Coelum, nee Deum videbant, nee cognoscere poterant ordinarie preces
supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in Testamento Veteri ut dicere-
tur, Sancte Abraham ora pro me, etc. sed solum orabant homines ejus
temporis Deum, et allegabant merita sanctorum, qui jam obierant, ut iUis
ipsorum orationes juvarentur. And again, c. 20. p. 2060. B. sect. Atque ex
his duabus. CoUat. cum p. 2059. D. sect. AUi dicunt. The same is
the resolution of Suarez, tom. 2. in 3 part. D. Thom. disp. 42. sect.
1. p. 435. col. 1. Ut. E. [Mogunt. 1610.] Quod autem aUquis directs
oraverit sanctos defiinctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam
legimus. Hie enim modus orandi est proprius legis gratiae, in quo sancti
videntes Deum, possunt etiam in eo videre orationes quae ad ipsos tunduntor.
§ The opinion, or rather ei-ror, that the souls of just men do not go
straight to heaven, seems to owe its rise to the verses of the Sibyls, which
being very ancient (within 140 years after Christ), and by the most primi
tive Fathers taken for authentic, drew the whole stream of the writers of
those times into the same mistake. Blondel affirms in his tract ofthe

UPON SAINTS. 75
those very men Monsieur de Meaux mentions, could not cer
tainly have allowed such an invocation as is now used in their
Church ; the most of them being notoriously known, and even
by their own writers freely confessed, to have believed the
same, " that neither do the saints and confessors of the Chris
tian Church any more enjoy the presence of God even now."
Thus much was thought fit to be said to remove that pre
judice Monsieur de Meaux had thrown in the way. We go
on now with him to consider the doctrine itself, and what our
Church's opinion is of it. Article III.
Of the Invocation of Saints.
The Invocation of Saints, as it is stated by Monsieur de
Meaux, we look upon to be one of those practices which our
Church styles, " fond things vainly invented, and grounded
upon no warrant of holy Scripture, but indeed repugnant to
God's word."* Monsieur de Meaux himself dares not say,"!-
that they do, or can ordinarily, by any ability in themselves,
hear, see, or know, the wants, state, or prayers of men upon
earth, to be mindful of them unto God in heaven. Nor can it
ever be. proved, J that by any of those ways which he proposes.
Sibylline Oracles, Ub. 2. c. 9. p. 103. [Lond. 1661.] "That aU the
authors we have left us of the second, and as far as the middle of the
third age, were aU of that opinion :" and adds, that for the following ages
many of those very men Monsieur de Meaux has aUeged for the invoca
tion of saints, were involved very far in the same error, viz. Basil, Ambrose,
Chrysostom, Augustine, see 1. c. This is more fully shewn by Monsieur
DaiUe in his Book de Rel. cult. obj. lib. 3. c. 22. {ut supra,] p. 474, et
seq. And in another Book de poenis et satisfactionibus, where, to the Fathers
last mentioned, he adds St. Jerome, Ub. 5. cap. 4, 5, 6. [Amst. 1649.]
All which Sixtus Senensis himsehf confirms, Bibl. Ubr. 6. annot. 345.
p. 569. [Colon. 1586.] And as to the Fathers in question, brings parti
cular proofs for St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, p.
571,572. * Article XXII.
t Moreover, never any CathoUc yet thought the saints knew our neces
sities by their own power, no not the desires which move us to address our
secret prayers to them. Monsieur de Meaux, Expos, p. 7. [Lond. 1685.]
X The Church contents herself to teach these prayers to be very profit
able to such who make them ; whether it be the saints know them by the
ministry and communication of angels, who, according to the testimony of
Scripture know what passes amongst us, being estabhshed by God's order
as administering spirits to co-operate with us in the work of our salvation ;

76 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
but seems himself not to lay any great stress upon, they are
certainly and particularly communicated to them.
We think, therefore, that till this be cleared, it is too great
a hazard to leave a Mediator, who both certainly knows our
wants, and hath promised to hear us ; that has invited us, nay
commanded us to come to him in all our needs, to go to inter
cessors which God has nowhere appointed, and which we can
never be sure our prayers shall come up to. It sufficeth not
that they may know some thiogs, in some places, at some
times, and of some men extraordinarily, unless we could tell
what saints, and what things, and in what places, and at what
times, they do know them. When this is cleared, it may
then be more reasonable to desire us to join with them in this
service. In the mean time, though we should not charge
them with idolatry merely for this, yet we must needs confess,
we cannot but think these addresses to be too full of hazard
and uncertainty, to venture any requests at all, much less so
many as they do every day upon them.
In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to
defend the innocence of this invocation, whilst he forgets to
shew us the reasonableness of it. We should be pleased indeed
to be assured of that ; but we cannot be convinced that we
ought to join in the practice, till we are satisfied of the other
too. And yet we cannot but regret, that if their design be
truly no more than this, to entreat the saints to pray for them,
we should find the greatest part of their service addressing to
them after so contrary a manner ; and that they would inter
pose not only their intercessions, but their merits too,* for
whether it be that God himself makes known to them our desires by a par
ticular revelation ; or lastly, whether it be that he discovers the secret to
them in his divine essence, in which aU truth is comprised. Expos, ibid. See
more of this as it was in the edition suppressed, in the collection of those
passages. N. iv. p. xxv.
* It were infinite to recount all the prayers of this nature in their Litur
gies ; a few I will observe, as I find them put together in the office of the
blessed Virgin. Dec. 6th in Festo S. Nicolai. Deus qui beatum Nico-
laum pontificem innumeris decorasti miracuUs, tribue qusesumus ut ejus
meritis et precibus a Gehennae incendiis Uberemur. P. 561. [Antv. 1631.]
Jan. 16. in Festo. S. MarceUi. Preces popuU tui quaesumus Domine
clementer exaudi, ut B. MarcelU martyris tui atque pontificis meritis
adjuvemur, cujus passione laetamur, [Ibid.] p. 566. June 14. in Festo S.
Basilii, Exaudi quaesumus Domine preces nostras, quas in S. Basilii con-
fessoris tui atque pontificia solemnitafe deferimus ; et qui tibi digne meruit
famulari, ejus intercedentibus mentis ab omnibus nos absolve peccatis,
[Ibid.] p. 587.

UPON SAINTS.

n

their forgiveness ; not only that they would pray to God for
them, but that they would themselves bless them.* " That the
angels and saints would give them strength, grace, health and
power. That St. Peter would have mercy upon them, and
open to them the gate of heaven. That the blessed Virgin
would protect them from their enemies, and receive them at
their death :f in a word, that she would command her Son to
forgive them by that right, which as a mother she hath over

• Such as these following : Sub tuum praesidium confugimus sancta Dei
genetrix ; nostras deprecationes ue despicias in necessitatibus, sed a peri-
ulis cunctis Ubera nos semper virgo gloriosa et benedicta. Offic. B. V.
clbid.] p. 84. Antiph. Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata ; da mihi
Virtutem contra hostes tuos. [Ibid.] p. 103. And this blessing, ib. p.
105. [Ibid.J Nos cum prole pia benedicat virgo Maria. And these
Hymns : —

Alma Redemptoris mater, quae
pervia caeU
Porta manes, et stella maris ; suc-
curre cadenti
Sm-gere qui curat populo : tu quae
genuisti
Natura mirante suum sanctum
Genitorem,
Virgo prius ac posterius, GabrieUs
ab ore
Sumens illud ave Peccaforum mise
rere. [Ibid.] p. 122.
Maria mater gratiae.
Mater misericordise,
Thl nos ab hoste protege,
Et hora mortis suscipe.
[Ibid.] p. 127, and p. 145.
Solve vincla reis.
Prefer lumen CcBcis.
Mala nostra pelle.
Bona cuncta posce.
Monstra te esse matrem.
Sumat per te preces,
Qui pro nobis natus
TuUt esse tuns.
Nor are these prayers to the

blessed Virgin only, the other
saints have the like too. So St.
John Baptist :
Ut queant laxis resonare fibris
Mira gestorum famuli tuorum.
Solve polluti labii realum
Sancte Johannes.
And in general to the Apostles
and Evangelists .-
Vos saecU justi judices
Et vera mundi lumina ;
Votis precamur cordium
Audite preces suppUcum.
Qui ccelum verbo clauditis,
Serasque ejus solvitis,
Nos a peccatis omnibus
Solvite jussu, quaesumus.
Quorum praecepto subditur
Salus et languor omnium,
Sanate aegros moribus
Nos reddentes virtutibus.
Ut cum judex advenerit
Christus in fine saeculi,
Nos sempitemi gaudu
Faciat esse compotes. [Ibid.] p. 497.

f BeUarmine denies this, de Sanctorum Beatitud. 1. I.e. 16. [ut supra,]
p. 2036. A. Quinto ibidem dicit nos rogare virginem, ut fiUum jubeat
facere quod petimus : at quis nostrum hoc dicit ? Cur non probat uUo
e.\emplo .' Those who are of the same mind, may please not only to

78 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
him." -411 which their pubhc rituals so far allow, that the
service, which is paid to God in his Church, by the mediation
of Christ, is infinitely exceeded by the addresses of this
nature, through the merits of the Vhgin Mary, and of the
saints. Now if these prayers signify no more than, as Monsieur de
Meaux expounds them, to entreat the saints to pray for them,
why have we such scandal given us in the practice ? If they
intend really what we suppose, and what their words do
certainly signify ; what ingenuity can it be to impose upon us
in the declaration ? However, at least they will please to
excuse us, that we have fallen at so just a stumbhng-block ;
and charged them as derogating from the merits of Christ,
whilst they 'have thus cried up the merits of their saints, and of
a presumption unwarrantable, if not wholly idolatrous, ia
desiring any but God alone to help, and succour, and give
them those blessings, which God only has power to dispense.
1 . When therefore we shall be certainly assured, that all
that infinite number, which the Church of Rome has canonized,
are truly and infalUbly saints.
2. When we shall be assured that these saints do "already
enjoy the presence of God Almighty :" a circumstance which.
the Papists themselves confess necessary to warrant their
invocation. 3. When it shall be made undoubtedly appear, that either
by their own knowledge, or by some other " revelation, they do
ordinarily and particularly understand all the requests that are
made to them ;" so that we can be as secure of their hearing us,
as when we desire our brethren upon earth to pray for us.
4. When the Liturgies of their Church shall be reformed,
and all those dangerous insinuations of the merit and personal
assistance of their saints be removed.
5. When those desperate doctrines, and yet more desperate
addresses of their schoolmen and controvertists, which scan-

consult Cassander Consult, in Art. 21. But the Missal of Paris set out
ann. 1634. in Ubr. exti-em. p. 81, where they will find something very like
what Calvin, whom the Cardinal charges with falseness for his assertion,
imputed to them :

O felix puerpera
Nostra plans scelera
Jure Matris impera redempfori.

Da fidei foedera.
Da salutis opera.
Da in vitiE vespera bene mori.

UPON SAINTS. 79
dalize the more moderate, even of their own party, shall be
censured. 6. And men taught to practise this invocation with such
sobriety, as neither to make it so freely and publicly their
worship as they do, nor with any opinion of being either sooner
heard, or more effectually answered by this way of address,
than by going directly to God by our Saviour and only Medi
ator Jesus Christ.
7. In a word, when even an invocation, so moderated, shall
be shewn either to have been commanded by God Almighty,
or to have been advised by his Apostles, or to have been
practised ordinarily and directly by the most primitive
Christians : or lastly, but to be no way injurious to the
excellent goodness of that Intercessor, who has so kindly
invited, and even conjured us to come to him in all our needs ;
then will we not fail to join our Ora pro nobis with them :
but till then we must beg leave to conclude, vi'ith a charity and
moderation, which we suppose, they themselves cannot but
approve in us, " that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warrant of holy Scripture, but rather indeed
contrary thereunto."
And what we have now said of their prayers, we must in the
next place apply to their sacrifices too. To mention the
names of the holy saints departed in the communion ; this we
look upon to be a practice as innocent as it is ancient. So far
are we from condemning it in them, that we practise it our
selves. " We name them at our altars, we give God thanks
for their excellencies, and pray to him for grace to follow their
examples." But as we allow thus much to their memories, so
we cannot but condemn that practice which Monsieur de
Meaux seems to have omitted ; though yet the chief thing
that offends us, that they recommend the offerings which they
make to God, through the merits of their saints which they
commemorate, and desire that by their merits they may
become available to the Church's needs. As if Christ himself,
whom they suppose to be the sacrifice, needed the assistance
of St. Bathildis* or Potentiana,-f to recommend him to his
* Missale in usum Sarum. Edit. 1527. fol. 9. Ut haec munera tibi
Domine accepta sint, sanctae Bathildis obtineant merita, quae seipsam tibi
hostiam vivam, sanctam, et beneplacentem exhibuit.
f [Ibid.] Fol. 168. Holocausta haec Domine tua benedictione sanctifica,
ut sanct Potentiaute virginis tuae tib j meritis accepta sint, in cujus sunt
veneratione oblata.

80 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
Father : or that the merits of an offering,* which they tell us
is the very same with that ofthe cross, should desire the joint
deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our forgiveness.
They who shall consider these things as they ought, will, we
doubt not, confess that we have some reason to complain, both
that they derogate herein from Christ's merits, and attribute
to their saints more than they ought to do. If this practice
be reformed, our complaint, as to this point, ceaseth. If it
be not, in vain does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to persuade
us, that they " only name their saints to give God thanks for
their excellencies," whilst their pubhc practice avows, that they
desire both the pardon of their sins, and even the acceptance
of their very sacrifices themselves, by their mediation.
Article IV.
Of Images and Relics.
What the opinion of the Church of England is concerning
the worship of images and relics will need no long declara
tion to shew, they being joined by her in the same f Article
with that of the invocation of saints before-mentioned, and hy
consequence, submitted by her to the same censure.
But then, as we before complained, that both the practice of
their Church in the public Liturgies of it, and the approved
doctrine of their most reputed writers, should so far contradict
what Monsiem' de Meaux would have us think is their only '
design in that service ; so we cannot but repeat the same com
plaints in this : that if all the use their Church would have
made of images and relics, be only to excite the more hvely
in their minds the remembrance of the originals, not only the
people should be suffered to fall into such gross mistakes, as
it is undeniably evident they do, in their worship of them, but
even their teachers be permitted, without any reproof, to con
firm them in their errors.
Has St. Thomas J and his followers, nay, even their Pon-
* [Ibid.] Fol. 68. Praestent nobis quEESumus sumpta sacramenta
praesidium salutare, et intervenientibus B. Martini confessoris tui atque
pontificis meritis, ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis. In Fest. Novembr.
See more of this nature collected by Forbesius, Instructiones historico-
Theologicae, Ub. 7. cap. 2. p. 308. col. 2. [Amst. 1645.]
t Article XXII.
X Thom. 3. Part. qu. 25. Art. 4. [p. 53. Colon. 1662.] QuSBst.
Utrum crux Christi sit adoranda adoratione Latrise. conclus. Crux Christi
in qua Christus crucifixus est, tum propter repriesentationem, tum etiam

UPON IMAGES AND RELICS. 81
tifical itself,* ever yet been censured by them, for maintaining
in plain terms, that " the image of the cross ought to be wor
shipped as that Saviour who suffered on it ?" Have the Jesuits
been condemned for teaching men to swear by it ?f Does not
their whole Church, upon Good-Friday, yet address herself to
it in these very dangerous words, " Behold the wood of the
cross! Come, let us adore it." And do not their actions
agree with their expressions, and the whole solemnity of that
day's service plainly shew, that they do adore it, in the utmost
propriety of the phrase ?J Does she not pray to it, that " in
this time of the passion, it would strengthen the righteous, and
give pardon to the guilty ?"§ Is the hymn for the day of the
propter membrorum Christi contactum, latria adoranda est: Crucis vero
effigies in aUa quavis materia, priori tantum ratione latria adoranda est.
And in the answer, Unde utroque modo adoratur eadem adoratione cum
Christo, soil, adoratione latriae.
• Pontific. ord. ad recip. processionaUter Imperator. p. 205. col. 2.
[Venet. 1561.] Si vero legatus Apostolicus imperatorem reciperet, aut
cum eo urbem intraret, vel alias secum iret vel equitaret, Ule qui gladium
imperatori praefert et alius crucem legati portans simul ire debent : Crux
legati quia debetur ei latria erit a dextris, et gladius imperatoris a sinistris.
+ The other prayers being finished, the priest takes a cross prepared for
that use, " Quam versa facie ad populum a summitate parum discooperit,
incipiens solus antiphonam Ecce Ugnum crucis, choro autem cantante
Venite adoremus, omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante." After this he
opens the right arm of the crucifix, and then the whole, with the same
ceremonies : only that now this third time, " Altius incipit Ecce lignum
crucis, aUis cantantibus, et adorantibus ut supra."
"Postea sacerdos solus portat crucem ad locum ante altare praeparatum,
et genufiexus ibidem eam locat : Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad
adorandam crucem, ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculatur. Post-
modum ministri altaris, postea aUi clerici et laici, bini et bini, ter genibus
flexis ut dictum est, crucem adorant. Interim dum fit adoratio Crucis
cantantur," etc. Missale Rom. p. 247, 248. [Par. 1616.] Feria 6. in
Parasceue. Delude cantatur communiter, Crucem tuam adoramus Do
mine : [Ibid.] p. 249. This I suppose may be enough to shew, that it was
not so great an injury I did them in translating their Antiphona, " Behold
the wood of the Cross, come, let us adore it." Which they have also in
their missa votiva de sancta cruce. Ib. p. 62. tuam crucem adoramus
Domine. t Breviar. Roman, dominica passionis.
O crux ave spes unica.
Hoc passionis tempore
Auge piis justitiam,
Reisque dona veniam. P. 296. [Antv. 1572.]
% In festo inventionis S. Crucis, P. 666. Breviar. Rom. [Ibid.] O
crux splendidior cunctis astris, mundo Celebris, hominibus multum ama-
biUs, sanctior universis, quae sola fuisti digna portare talentum mundi,
VOL. XII. G

82 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OP EI^GLAND,
Invention corrected, wherein they profess, that "the cross
heals their sicknesses, ries up the devil, and gives them new
ness of life ;" and thereupon desire it " to save its assembly,
gathered together in its honour ? '* Is the manner of conse
crating them changed, in which they entreat God to bless the
dulce lignum, dulces clavos, dulcia ferens pondera, salva prsesentem cater-
vam, in tuis bodie laudibus congregatam. Nor can this be put ofi' with an
apostrophe, for Thomas makes use of the appUcation of this to the cross
(not Christ) to prove that the cross may, in the Church's opinion, be
adored cultu latria. Tei-tia pars. qu. 25. Art. 4. p. 53. [Colon. 1662.]
" IIU exhibemus latriai cultiim in quo ponimus spem salutis ; sed in cruce
Christi ponimus spem salutis, cantat enim ecclesia, O crux ave spes unica,"
* Pontificale de benedictione novae crucis. [ut supra,] p. 161. col 2.
This is the entire Prayer, " Rogamus te Domine pater omnipotens, sem-
piterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc Ugnum crucis tuoe, ut sit reme-
dium salutare generi humane, sit soUditas fidei, bonorum operum pro-
fectus, et redemptio animarum ; sit solamen et protectio, et tutela contra
sffivajacula inimicorum, per Dominum nostrum," etc. And again, in
another place, [Ibid.] col. 3. " Te suppUces exoramus ut. Hoc singulare
signum quod ad exemplum primi illius sacratissimique vexiUi quo pretioso
sanguine filii tui triumphasti, fidelium tuorum devotione compactum erec-
tumque est, caelesti benedictione sanctificare digneris : Ut omnibus hie
genuflectentibus ac tuae majestati suppUcantibus, largior et cordis com-
punctio et admissorum concedatur remissio." And again, [Ibid.]_col. 4.
foUows this Prayer, " Deus qui beatae crucis patibulum, quod prius erat
sceleratis ad poenam, convertisti redemptis ad vitam, concede plebi tuie
ejus vallari praesidio : Sit ei crux iidei fundamentum, spei suffragium, in
adversis defensio, in prosperis adjuvamen ; sit ei in hostes victoria, in civi
tate custodia, in campis protectio, in domo fultura, ut per eam pastor in
future gregem conservet incolumem, qua; nobis agno vincente conversa est
in salutem, per," etc. And lastly, [Ibid.] p. 162. col. 2. " Quaesumus
exorabilem misericordiae tuae pietatem, ut sanctifices tibi hoc signum crucis,
atque consecres, quod tota mentis devotione famulorum tuorum rehgiosa
fides construxit," And [Ibid.] col. 3. speaking ofthe cross on which Christ
suffered, goes on, " lUis ergo manibus hanc crucem accipe," which they
now consecrate, " quibus illam amplexus es," on which he died. " Et de
sanctitate UUus, hanc sanctifica ; et sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est a
reatu, ita offerentium famulorum taorum animae devotissimae hujus.' crucis
merito omni careant perpetrate peccato. Illius successibus assiduis trium-
phorum gloria radiet, hie unigeniti filu tui Domini nostri splendor divini-
tatis fulgeat in auro, eniteat gloria passionis ejus in signo ; in cruore
rutilet nostrae mortis redemptio ; in splendore cristalU vitas nostras purifi-
catio ; sit suorum protectio, spei certa fiducia, eos simul cum gente et
plebe fide confirmet, spe et pace consociet, augeat triumphis, amplificet in
secundis," etc.
And then this being done, [Ibid.] col. 4. " Tum Pontifex flexis ante
crucem genibus eam devote adorat et osculatur : Idem faciunt quicunque
alii voluerint."

UPON IMAGES AND RELICS. 83
image of the cross which they there sanctify, that it may be
for " the establishment of their faith, an increase of their good
works, the redemption of their souls, and their protection
against the cruel darts of the enemy : that Christ would
embrace this cross," over which they pray, " as he did that
upon which he suffered : that as by that, he delivered the
whole world from its guilt ; so by the merits of this, they who
dedicate it may receive remission of their sins." In a word,
" that as many as bow down before it, may find health both of
their souls and bodies by it."
And is all this in good earnest no more than to excite more
lively in our minds the remembrance of him that loved us, and
dehvered himself to the death for' us, and to testify, by some
outward marks, our acknowledgment of that favour, by hum-
bUng ourselves in presence of the cross, to declare thereby our
submission to him that was crucified ?
Is not this rather if not absolutely to fall into, yet certainly
too nearly to approach to that which Monsieur de Meaux
himself confesses to be idolatry, viz. " to trust in the images,
as if there were some divinity or virtue joined to them," and
for which they not only shew all imaginable marks of outward
worship, by kissings, prostrations, and the Uke ceremonies, but
make as formal addresses to them, and that in the pubhc ser
vice of the Church, as to God himself?
How this allowed practice can be reconciled with the prohi
bition of the Council of Trent, " not to beheve any divinity or
virtue ried to their images for which they ought to be adored ;
nor to demand any grace of them, nor place any trust or con
fidence in them ;" Monsieur de Meaux may please to expound
to us. In the meantime, as we are so far from condemning
the making of all sorts of images, that we think it not any
crime to have the histories of the Gospel carved or painted
in our very churches, which the walls and windows of several
of them do declare : as we publicly use the sign of the cross
in one of our very sacraments, and censure no man for prac
tising it, only without superstition, on any other occasion, so
we cannot but avow the scandal that is given us by those doc
trines and practices before mentioned ; and that we think that
worship justly ¦ to be abolished which the Primitive Church
abhorred, and which at this day scandahzes, not only so great
a number of Christians, but even our common enemies the Jew
and Turk : in a word, which is so far from being commanded
by God, that it needs many nice distinctions to render it not
G 2

84 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
directly opposite to an express prohibition, and is therefore, if
not downright idolatry to those who know how to direct their
intention aright, yet to the simple and ignorant, that is, to the
much greater number, and the most zealous practitioners of
this service, so very near it, that the generality of the wisest
Papists, no less than we, complain of it.
For the honour that is due to rehcs, no Protestant wUl ever
refuse whatever the " Primitive Church paid them ; or may
be fit to express the honour we ought to retain for those bodies
that by martyrdom have been made sacrifices to God Almighty."
If this be all Monsieur de Meaux desires of us, we are ready
to profess our opinion, that we judge it to be neither offensive
to God, nor fit to be scrupled by any good men.
We believe that according to the circumstances of the times,
the Church may " testify this honour by more or less outward
signs and marks of respect. And we do with satisfaction read
that declaration of Monsieur de Meaux, that we ought not to
be servilely subjected to these outward ceremonies, but to be
invited by them to offer up to God that reasonable service, in
spirit and in truth, which he requires of us." And if this be
the state of the question, we confess the exphcation of it has
taken away a great part of the difficulty.
But what then means the Council of Trent to tell us, that
we are not only to honour them, but worship them too?*
That by doing so we shall obtain many benefits and graces of
God. That these sacred monuments " are not unprofitahly
revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtaining their help
and assistance ; to cure the sick, to give eyes to the bUnd, feet
to the lame, and even life to the dead." How comes it to pass
that their Church not only honours them, which we could
allow, but carries them in processions, makes offerings to them,
gives indulgences to such as shall go to visit them ; prescribeis
pilgrimages to them, swears by them, touches their beads or
handkerchiefs with them to sanctify them ; thinks to obtain
one blessing by virtue of this relic, another from that ; and
* Thewords of the CouncU Trent are "Venerate:'' but the Papists
themselves confound venerari et adorare in Latin, in this very dispute, as
we do worship and venerate in English. So Thom. tert. Part. qu. 25.
Art. 6. [Ibid.] p. 54. proposes the question, "Utrum reliquiae sancto
rum sint adorandae." And concludes, " cum sanctos Dei veneremur,
eorum quoqne corpora et reliquias venerari nos oportet." And to shew
yet clearer the promiscuous use, his second objection is, " Stultum videtur
rem insensibilem venerari." His answer to it, " Ad secundum dicendum,
quod corpus illud insensibile non adoramus propter seipsum, sed," etc.

UPON IMAGES AND RELICS. 85
the like superstitious usages, which we suppose we have good
reason, with our Church, to conclude to be "fond things,
vainly invented, and grounded upon no authority of holy Scrip
ture, but indeed repugnant thereunto."*
When therefore all these abuses which we have named, and
which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to allow with us to
be such, shall be corrected : when in the matter of images,
1 . The hymns and addresses that teach us, so contrary to the
spirit of Christianity, to demand graces of them, and to put
our trust in them, shall be reformed ; St. Thomas and his
abettors censured ; and all other marks of an unwarrantable
worship be forbidden. 2. When the pictures of God the
Father and of the Holy Trinity, so directly contrary both to
the second commandment and to St. Paul's doctrine, shall be
taken away, and those of our Saviour, and the blessed saints,
by all necessary cautions, rendered truly the books, not snares
of the ignorant. When in points of relics, 3. They shall
be declared to have no sanctifying virtue in them. 4. Nor that
they ought to be sought to for any assistance spiritual or tem
poral to be expected from them. 5. When it shall be resolved
to be no matter of merit to go to visit them. 6. Nor any
more extravagant indulgences be set forth for pilgrimages unto
them. When all these things, which Monsieur de Meaux passes
over, and which yet are undeniably their practice, and our
scandal, shall be corrected ; then will we both believe and sub
mit to the rest which he desires of us : we will honour the
relics of the saints as the Primitive Church did : we wUl respect
the images of our Saviour and the blessed Virgin: and as
some of us now bow towards the altar, and all of us are en
joined to do so at the name of the Lord Jesus ; so will we not
fail to testify all due respect to his representation. In the
meantime, if the outcries of their own Church at these abuses
cannot prevail vrith them to redress them, yet at least they
will confirm us in the reformation we have made of them ; and
whilst we find Hezekiah commended in the holy Scripture for
destroying the brazen serpent, though made by God's express
command, and in some sort deservedly honourable for that
great deliverance it brought to the Jews,t "because the children
of Israel offered incense unto it." We shall conclude ourselves
to be by so much the more justifiable, in that the images we
have removed were due only to the folly and superstition of
* Art. 21. t 2 Kings xviu. 4.

86 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
men, and have been more scandalously abused, to a worser and
greater dishonour of God. Article V.
Of Justification.
The doctrine of justification is one of those points that de
serves our careful consideration ; as being not only one of the
chiefest of those points wherein we suppose the Church of
Rome to have prevaricated the faith, but as Monsieur de Meaux
remarks, " one of the first that gave occasion to that Reforma
tion" that was made from it.
It is not necessary to say, to what an extravagance the
business of pardons, indulgences, and other means of satisfy
ing the Divine justice was arrived ; and how much more con
fidence the people generally put in the inventions of men, than
in the merits and satisfaction of Christ. If they have been
somewhat better instructed since, they may thank the Refor
mation for it ; though we fear all the difference is, that they
are somewhat more reserved in exposiag these folhes now, but
still retain the foundation of that doctrine upon which they
are built.
We willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux this honour, that he
has reduced the long decrees of the Council of Trent to a
short and easy debate ; and proposed the things which contain
our difference with such tenderness as might invite us to close
with a great part of it, did not the decrees of the Council
seem too plainly to refuse Monsieur de Meaux's exposition of
them. We believe with him, " that our sins are freely forgiven by
God's mercy through Christ ; and that none of those things
which precede our justification, whether our faith, or our good
works, could merit this grace."
" We are persuaded that our sins are not only covered, but
are entirely done away by the blood of Jesus Christ."
" We confess that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is not
only imputed, but actually communicated to the faithful,
through the operation of the Holy Spirit, insomuch thai they
are not only reputed, but made just by his grace."
" We deny not that this righteousness is a true righteous
ness, even in the sight of God ; because that it is God who by
charity works it in us ; only we think it withal such as is too

UPON justification. a?
weak to obtain for us the pardon of our sins, which Monsieur
de Meaux seems content to confess with us."
"We willingly acknowledge that our righteousness is not
perfect in this life. Whilst we are in the body, the flesh will lust
against the spirit, and in many things we shall offend all." The
life of a Christian is a continued state of repentance : and he must
be too much opinionated of himself, that refuses to conclude
with St. Augustine, " that our righteousness in this life con-
sisteth rather in the remission of our sins, than in the perfec
tion of our virtue."
In a word, the sum of our difference, as to this point, seems
to be this. Our Church, by justification, understands only the
remission of our sins : we distinguish it from sanctification,
which consists in the production of the habit of righteousness
in us. We believe our sins are pardoned only through the
merits of Christ imputed to us. And for the rest, we say, that
this remission of sins is given only to those that repent ; that
is, in whom the Holy Spirit produces the grace of sanctification,
for a true righteousness and hohness of life.
The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of jus
tification, not only the remission of sins but also the produc
tion of that inherent righteousness, which we call sanctification.
They suppose with us, that our sins are forgiven only by the
satisfaction of Jesus Christ. But then as they make that in
ward righteousness a part of justification too ; so by conse
quence, they say our justification itself is wrought also by our
own good works.
It appears by this, that were these things clearly stated and
distinguished, the one from the other, the difference between
us, considered only in the idea, would not be very great, and
that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux
has advanced upon this point, provided it be but well and
rightly explained ; though in some things he has expressed
himself after a manner unusual among us ; and which we sup
pose not so entirely conformable to the expressions of holy
Scripture. The sum of all is this. Christ died, and by that death
satisfied the justice of God for us. God, therefore, through
the merits of his Son, freely forgives us all our sins, and offers
us a covenant of mercy and grace. By this covenant, founded
only upon the death and merits of Christ, he sends us his
Holy Spirit, and calls us powerfully to repentance. If we
awake and answer this call, then God, by his free goodness.

88 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
justifies us ; that is, he pardons our sins past, gives us grace
more and more to fulfil his commands for the time to come ;
and if we persevere in this covenant, crowns us finally with
eternal life. And all this he is pleased to do, not for any thing
which we have, or can perform, but only through the merits
and satisfaction of his Son, by faith apphed to us.
This is the foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems
content to agree with us. We go on to see how the following
doctrine will stand upon this foundation.
Article VI.
Of Merits.
For what concerns the merits of good works, we are content
to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's exposition : " That eternal
life ought to be proposed to man as the grace of God merci
fully bestowed upon us through Jesus Christ, and as a recom
pense that is faithfully rendered to their good works, and to
the merits of them, by virtue of God's promise."
The word merit we acknowledge to have been very ancient
in the Church ; and though to prevent those mistakes which
many in these latter ages have made on occasion of that ex
pression, we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the
merit, and press more strongly the necessity of good works ;
yet, if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it,
that all our merit derives its force only from the merits of
Jesus Christ, who works in us both to will and to do ; and
when we have done, renders by the same merits, our good
works acceptable to God, and available to eternal life, we shall
not be difficult to allow of it.
If this be all the Church of Rome ascribes to good works,
that our justification proceeds absolutely from God's bounty
and mercy, and but accidentally only (inasmuch as God has
tied himself by his word and promise to reward them) from
our own performances ; we need no long exhortations to re
ceive a doctrine which we have always defended against such of
the Church of Rome as have opposed it, and are not yet, that
we know of, censured for their so doing.
That which we reject is, " that we do as truly and properly
merit rewards when we do well, as we do merit punishment
when we do ill:"* so says the Jesuit Maldonate. "That our
• Maldonate in Ezech. c. 18, 20. p. 425. [Mogunt. 1611.] Ex hoc
loco perspicuum est, et in nobis aliquam esse nostram, ut vocant, inhse-

UPON MERITS. 89
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:"* so says Cardinal Bellarmine. All which Vas-
rentem propriamque justitiam, quamvis ex Dei gratia et largitate profectam ;
et nos tam proprie et vere cum gratia Dei bene agentes proemia mereri,
quam sine ilia male agentes suppUcia mereamur.
"" The title of the chapter is, " Opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex
condigno, non solum ratione pacti, sed etiam ratione operum." In the chap
ter he tells us, "Meritumex condigno tribus modis variari potest : Nam si
forte opus aUquod sit multo inferius mercede ex conventione promissa, ut si
Dominus vineae conduceret operarios, et non denarium diurnum sed 100
nummos aureos pro mercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi meritum ex con
digno ratione pacti." And this he thinks too Uttle for good works ; and
condemns Scotus for holding, p. 1300. 1. A. [Ingolst. 1586.] "Opera
justorum esse bona vere et proprie, sed non tam excellentia, ut propor-
tionem habeant cum vita aeterna ; et ideo acceptari quidem a Deo ad justam
et dignam mercedem vitae aeternae, sed ex pacto et promissione, non ex
operis dignitate." This he condemns.
Another sort of condignity is, " Si opus sit revera aequale mercedi, vel
forte etiam majus, sed conveutio nuUa intervenerit," and then it is " con-
dignum ex ratione operis, non ex ratione pacti." And this he teUs us
Cajetan and Soto held, " Opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae,
ex condigno ratione operis, etiamsi nulla extaret divina conventio." And
this too he rejects.
A third sort of condignity is, " Si et pactum intercedat, et opus sit vere
par mercedi, ut cum operarii ad Vineam conducuntur pro denario diumo ;
id meritum erit ex condigno ratione operis et ratione pacti •" And this
beholds, and explains thus, [Ibid.] p. 1300. 1. B. "Non quidem quod
sine pacto vel acceptatione non habeat opus bonum proportionem ad vitam
setemam ; sed quia non tenetur Deus acceptare ad iUam mercedem opus
bonum, quamvis par et aequale mercedi, nisi conventio interveniat." And
this he tells us is conformable to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, ibid.
And by consequence, no scholastic nicety, but real exposition, as contrary
to Monsieur de Meaux, as we must still profess it to be odious to us.
The doctrine of Vasquez concerning merits, is this, 12a3 qu. 114. Disp.
224. c. 3. p. 802. [Ingolst. 1606.] First he rejects the opinion of Bel
larmine before mentioned, c. 3. "Jam vero hac nostra aetate non panel
theologice professores mediam quandam viam elegerunt inter Scoti opini-
onem quam primo capite memoravimus, et aliorum sententiam quam nos
ut veram inferius probabimus. Dicunt ergo rationem meriti perfecti et
condigni, quod simpUciter meritum dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe et
dignitate operis et promissione mercedis," etc. which was Bellarmine's
doctrine. In the foUowing chapter he proposes his own opinion in three
conclusions, [Ibid.] p. 803. The first is that of c. 5. [Ibid.] p. 804.
" Bona opera justorum absque uUa acceptatione et pacto ex se habere dig
nitatem vitse aeternae ;" against Scotus and the heretics, whom he repre
sents affirming " Opera bona necessaria esse ad vitam teternam, ita tamen
ut ipsa justorum opera non sint digna remuneratione vitae aeternae, nisi
Deus benignitate sua dignaretur Ula remunerare." Ibid. Scotus' opinion he
thus piits down, c. 1. [Ibid.] p. 800. " Opera justorum ex se spectata

90 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND,
quez sums up in the three following conclusions : "I. That
the good works of just persons are of themselves, without any
covenant and acceptation, worthy of the reward of eternal hfe,
and have an equal value of condignity to the obtaining of
eternal glory. 2. That there comes no accession of dignity to
the works of just persons by the merits or person of Christ,
which the same would not otherwise have, if they had been
done by the same grace bestowed freely by God alone, without
Christ. 3. That God's promise is indeed annexed to the
works of just men, but yet belongs no way to the merit of
quatenus procedunt ex auxiUo gratiae Dei, et posita sanctitate animae, per
quam spiritus sanctus in justis habitat, non habere condignitatem et rati
onem meriti vitae a;ternae, sed totam dignitatem, et totam rationem meriti
habere petitam ex promissione et pacto Dei."
The second conclusion, [Ibid.] p. 809. c. 7, is this, " Operibus justorum
nullum dignitatis accrementum provenire ex meritis aut persona Christi,
quod alias eadem non haberent, si fierent ex eadem Gratia a solo Deo libe-
raUter sine Christo coUata :" which is, I think, a plain position, and nota
dispute about a possibility.
¦The third conclusion, which the author could not find, though it be the
title of the very next c. 8. [Ibid.] p. 811. is this, " Operibus justonim
accessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nuUo modo pertinere
ad rationem meriti, sed potius advenire operibus non tantum jam dignis,
sed etiam jam meritoriis."
This is his doctrine : for the conclusion I mentioned, Vasquez supposes
the merits of Christ to have obtained for us grace, whereby to be enabled
to work out our salvation ; and that this grace being given us, we need
nothing more the assistance of Christ's merits to supply our defects, hut
our own good works are sufficient without any imputation of his righteous
ness. The coroUary was so long, that I omitted a great part of it, and,
indeed, deserve to be blamed for not exposing more fully the arrogance of
this man's doctrine; I wiU now transcribe it at large: " At vero cum
opera justi condigne mereantur vitam setemam, tanquam aequalem merce
dem et praemium, non opus est interventu alterius meriti condigni, quale
est meritum Christi, ut eis reddatur vita aeterna ; quinimo aUquid habet
peculiare meritum cujuscunque justi respectu ipsius hominis justi, quod
non habet meritum Christi, nempe reddere ipsum hominem justum et dig
nam vita aeterna, ut eam digne consequatur ; meritum autem Christi licet
dignissimum sit quod obtineat a Deo gloriam pro nobis, tamen non habet
hanc efficaciam et virtutem ut reddat nos formaUter justos et dignos
ietema vita, sed per virtutem ab ipso derivatam hunc consequuntur etfec-
tum homines in seipsis, et ita nunquam petimus a Deo per merita Christi,
ut nostris dignis operibus ; et meritoriis reddatur merces aeternae vitas, sed
ut per Christum detur nobis gratia qua possimus digne hanc mercedem
promereri (quod etiam manifestum signum est, non expectare nos novam
imputationem meritorum Christi, praeter eam qua initio recepimus gratiam
et virtutem ad recte operandum et condigne promerendum. See more,
[Ibid.] p. 917. qu. 114. art. 8. disp. 222. cap. 3. N. 30.)

UPON MERITS. 91
them, but cometh rather to the works themselves, which are
already not only worthy, but meritorious also." From all
which he draws this remarkable corollary : " Seeing the works
of just men do merit eternal hfe, as an equal recompense and
reward, there is no need that any other condign merit, such as
that of Christ, should interpose, to the end that eternal life
might be rendered to them. — Wherefore we never pray to
God, that by the merits of Christ, the reward of eternal life
may be given to our worthy and meritorious works ; but that
Christ's grace may be given to us, whereby we may be enabled
worthily to merit this reward."
This is that doctrine of good works which we most justly
do detest : and if the opinion of the Church of Rome be so
directly opposite to it, as Monsieur de Meaux professes, we are
a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius, no authentic
censure, has ever taken notice of so dangerous a prevarication.
But contrariwise, these are the great authors of their party,
approved, embraced, [and almost adored, by the greatest and
most learned of that communion.
These are the principles, which we suppose to have been an
unwarrantable derogation to the grace of God, and directly
opposite to the nature of justification by faith in Christ, before
established. And though this point was far from being the
only cause of our separation from their communion, yet let
Monsieur de Meaux himself please to say, whether such a doc
trine of merits as this, were not sufficient, if not to engage us
wholly to leave a Church that taught such things, yet at least
to dissent from her in these particulars.
Article VII.
Of Satisfactions.
The whole of this point* we think to be the advance
ment of a doctrine "grounded upon no authority of holy
Scripture," but on the contrary, derogatory to God's mercy in
* To understand the doctrine of satisfaction as it now stands in the
Church of Rome, I will propose only a short extract of two of their prin
cipal men, Vasquez and Cardinal Bellarmine ; and which I think wiU
comprehend the chief of what has been held concerning it.
1. VAsauEz. — In tertia part. disp. 2. c. 1. p. 11. [Venet. 1610.]
1. He lays down the opinion of several of their schoolmen, Alex.
d' Ales, Ricardus, Ruardus, T'apperus, &c. who held " that a mere man might
condignly satisfy for his own sins:' this he rejects, because he supposes

92

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAKD,

Jesus Christ, and, as the doctrine of merits before considered,
inconsistent with the nature of that justification we before
established.
it cannot be done vrithoutj God's assisting grace, to which we forfeited all
right by sin ; and therefore it will follow, as he himself expresses it,
[Ibid.] p. 21. c. 5. N. 53. "nostram satisfactionem pro peccato proprio
perfectam non esse, ex eo quod fiat non ex propriis sed ex acceptis."
2. But now God's grace being supposed, in the next place he affirms
as to mortal sins, cap. 6. [Ibid.] p. 22. N. 58. " Nos reipsa nnncsatis-
facere Deo, pro nostro peccato et ofi'ensa." And that we may not mis
take his meaning, he tells us, that some hold indeed, that our contrition
may be called a satisfaction, though not a sufficient one : " Nam qui pro
compensatione exhibet id quod potest, Ucet minus sufficiens Ulud sit, dicitur
aliquo modo satisfacere," N. 59. But this reason Vasquez dislikes. He
is content it should be looked upon as minus sufficiens, but then all the
reason is what he insinuated in the former conclusion, upon the accoimt of
its proceeding from the grace of God ; so that " si contritio praecederet in-
iusionem gratise habitualis ex parte efficientis, non solum satisfaceret pro
macula peccati condigne, sed etiam condigne mereretur gratiae habitualis
infnsionem." And this he expounds as the doctrine of the Council of Trent,
N. 62, 63. [Ibid.] p. 23.
3. For venial sins, Disp 3. c. 3. [Ibid.] p. 27. "Ita concedimus,"
says he, " homini justo pro suo peccato veniaU condignam et perfectam
satisfactionem, ut ea non indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel
aUquid Ulius, aut acceptantis satisfactionem, sed talis sit ut ex natura sua
deleat maculam et poenam peccati venialis."
2. Bellarmine. — He proceeds on another foundation, not as to the
fault, but punishment of sin.
1. He defines satisfaction to be "actio qua is qui alteram laesit, tantum
facit quantum satis est ad injuriam compensandam." De pcenit. 1. 4. u. 1.
[Ingolst. 1586.] p. 1672. 1. A.
2. This satisfaction is two-fold. " Aliquando sit ad absolutam et per
fectam aequaUtatem ; aUquando ad cequalitatem imperfectam, ut cum is qui
pertuUt jacturam 10,000 aureorum, satisfieri sibi patitur, cessione omnium
bonorum, Ucet ea bona ad summam tot miUium non perveniunt.' ' And this
latter is here meant.
3. He observes further, that by this satisfaction is to be compensated
that inequality which is not only contrary to justice, but also to friendship,
[Ibid.] p. 1674. B. A man may make a satisfaction to justice, and yet
not to friendship ; as when a malefactor is forced by the judge, to satisfy
an injury done his enemy ; he satisfies justice, but is stiU far from friend
ship : aud so, on the other side, if a man has not wherewithal to make a
satisfaction to justice, yet he may to friendship, by begging pardon, and
returning into favour with the party injured.
These things premised, he affirms, " Cum homines peccant in Deum,
amicitiam simul et justitiam violant."
1. As to the point'of friendship, "Non potest homo Deo satisfacere,
quia satisfactio hominis erga Deum acceptatione ipsius Dei necessarie in-
diget : acceptatio autem amicitiam praesupponit." [Ibid.] p. 1675.
2. The question therefore is, " De satisfactione qua justitiae restauretur

UPON SATISFACTIONSi 93
Monsieur de Meaux was pleased there to tell us, " of God's
justifying us freely for Christ's merits : that our sins are not
only covered, but entirely done away by his mercy ; and the
sinner not only reputed, but made just by his grace." We
cannot but be troubled to see ourselves so soon deprived of
this excellent hope ; and required ourselves to satisfy God's
justice here, which he assured us was entirely done for us by
Christ before.
" When Christ," says Monsieur de Meaux, " who alone was
able to make a sufficient satisfaction for our sins, died for us ;
having by his death abundantly satisfied for them, he became
capable of applying that satisfaction to us after two very dif
ferent manners ; either by giving us an entire forgiveness of
our sins, without reserving any pains for us to undergo for them ;
or in changing only a greater pain for a lesser, the eternal tor
ments of hell into a temporal punishment."
" The former of these being the more entire, and the more
agreeable to the Divine goodness, he accordingly makes use of
it at our baptism: but we suppose he gives the second only to
them, who after baptism fall again into sin ; being in a manner
forced to it, through the ingratitude whereby they have abused
his former gifts, so that they are to suffer some temporal pain,
though the eternal be remitted to them."
This is a very great doctrine, and ought certainly to have
some better proof of it, than barely " we suppose." However it
be, our Church has declared itself of an opinion directly con
trary : that since the absolute forgiving of sin is confessed to
be the more perfect way, and more becoming the Divine good
ness ; and that God has never, that we know of, revealed any
other ; but rather has constantly encouraged us to expect his
pardon after the largest and most ample manner that is possi
ble for words to set forth ; we are persuaded that accordingly
whenever God does pardon, it is in that way which is most

sequaUtas :" and because he farther supposes that the guilt being remitted,
the eternity is thereby taken away from the pain, it amounts only to thus
much, " An satisfacere possint homines pro expiando reatu iUius poense,
qui interdum remanet post remissionem culpae :" and whether those works
by which it is done, " sint dicenda proprie satisfactoria, ita ut nos dicamur
vere ac proprie Domino satfefacere." Now both these he affirms, and
expUcates the latter from the Council thus, c. 7. [Ibid.] p. 1694. C. " per
opera iUa poenaUa, de quibus hactenus locuti sumus, vere ac proprie Domino
satisfieri pro reatu poense, qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus."
* See above.

94 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
suitable to his Divine goodness, and which alone he hath
declared to us, that he does it entirely for Christ's merits, not
for any works or sufferings of our own.
In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux labour to recon
cile this doctrine with Christ's absolute satisfaction. " We
confess that we ought not to dispute with God the manner of
his dispensations ; nor think it at all strange, if he who shews
himself so easy at our baptism, is afterwards more difficult for
those sins which we commit, being baptized." There is
nothing in all this but what we could most readily allow of,
were there but any tolerable arguments to establish the
doctrine that requires it.
But whilst this is so destitute of all proof, that it is acknow
ledged to introduce a manner of forgiveness, neither so entire,
nor so befitting God's mercy, as a total remission of the punish
ment, together with the guilt ; whilst we have the sufferings
of Christ to rely upon, which are so far from needing any
addition of our own, that they are confessed to have been super
abundant to whatever the Divine justice could require of us';
though we can and do practise the same discipline for the
other benefits of it, viz. to shew our indignation against our
selves that we have offended, and to keep us from sinning for
the future ; yet we cannot be so forgetful of our dear Master,
as to pretend to any part in that redemption, but only to
enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness, which by his alone
merits he has entirely purchased for us ; nor do we see any
reason to believe that God's justice will require any more than
what has been superabundantly paid upon the cross for the
iniquities of mankind.
"It is true," Monsieur de Meaux tells us, "that the
necessity of this payment does not arise from any defect in
Christ's satisfaction, but from a certain order which God has
established for a salutary disciphne, and to keep us from
offending." This indeed were something, would either Monsieur de
Meaux have been pleased to shew us this estabhshment, or had
not the Council of Trent declared more, viz.* " that the
justice of God requires it; and that therefore the confessors
should be charged to proportion the satisfaction to the crime."
From whence Cardinal Bellarmine concludes, " that it is we
* Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 8. [Labbe, Cone. vol. 14. p. 821. Lut.
Par. 1672.]

UPON SATISFACTIONS. 95
who properly satisfy for our own sins, and that Christ's satis
faction serves only to make ours vahd." *
This is an exposition somewhat different from Monsieur de
Meaux's, who will have the Church of Rome believe, " that
we do not ourselves satisfy in the least for our sins, but only
apply the infinite satisfaction of Christ to them."
Upon the whole it appears, 1 . That these penances are not
only a salutary discipline, but a satisfaction too. 2. They
change the mercy of God into a forgiveness, that is confessed
neither to be in itself perfect, nor so becoming the Divine
goodness as an entire remission of sin, the punishment as well
as guilt, would be. 3. Their establishment depends only upon
a human supposition of its fitness ; and derogates from the
very foundation of that covenant God has entered into with us
by Christ,f "that he will be merciful to our unrighteousness,
and our sins and our iniquities he will remember no more."
Upon all which accounts, though we practise this discipline
for many other benefits of it, and wish it were universally
established, not only in a more perfect manner than either in
ours or their Church it is, but even in a strictness equal to
what they tell us it is fallen from ; yet we cannot believe, that
by any of these things we are able to make a true and proper
satisfaction to God for sin; which he only could do, J "who
himself bore our sins in his own body upon the cross, and by
that one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified." Article VIII.
Of Indulgences.
' The doctrine of indulgences the Council of Trent has
asserted only, not explained. Monsieur de Meaux has stated
* BeUarm. 1. 1. de Purg. c. 10. To this objection : "Si applicatur nobis
per nostra opera Christi satisfactio, vel sunt duae satisfactiones simul
junctS!, una Christi, altera nostra, vel una tantum," etc. R. [ut supra,]
p. 1899. After two other manners of explication, adds, " tertius tamen
modus videtur probabiUor, quod una tantum sit actualis satisfactio, eaque
nostra ; neque hine excluditur Christus vel satisfactio ejus ; nam per ejus
satisfactionem habemus gratiam unde satisfaciamus, et hoc modo dicitur
applicari nobis Christi satisfactio, non quod immediate ipsa ejus satisfactio
toUat poenam temporalem nobis debitam, sed quod mediate eam toUat,
quatenus videUcet ab ea gratiam habemus, sine qua nihil valeret nostra
satisfactio." t Heb. via. 12. X Heb. x. 14.

96 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND,
it after a manner so favourable to us, that I am persuaded he
will find more in his own Church than in ours to oppose his
doctrine. It was the discipline of the Primitive Church, when the
bishops imposed severe penances on the offenders, and that
they were almost quite performed, if some great cause of pity
chanced to arrive, or an excellent repentance, or danger of
death, or that some martyr pleaded in behalf of the penitent,
the bishop did sometimes indulge him, that is, " did relax the
remaining part of his penance, and give him absolution."
Monsieur de Meaux having this pattern before his eyes,
frames the indulgences now used in the Church of Rome
exactly according to it. "When the Church," says he,
" imposes upon sinners hard and laborious penances, and that
with humility they undergo them, this we call satisfaction ;
and when, having regard either to the fervour of the penitents,
or to some other good works which she prescribes, she relaxes
some part of the punishment yet remaining : this is called
indulgence." But to pass by for the present those abuses that are every
day made of these indulgences, and which both the Council
and Monsieur de Meaux seem willing to have redressed ; such
essential differences we conceive there are between the indul
gences of the Primitive, and those of the Roman Church, that
though we readily enough embrace the one, yet we cannot
but renounce and condemn the other.
In the Primitive Church these indulgences were matters of
mere discipline, as the penances also were ; the one to correct
the sinner, and to give others caution that they might not
easily offend ; the other to encourage the penitent to honour
the martyr that interposed for his forgiveness, or to prevent
his dying without absolution. In the Church of Rome they
are founded upon an error in doctrine ; that as their penance
is not matter of discipline, only to correct the sinner, but to be
undergone as a satisfaction to be made to God for the sin ; so
their indulgence is not given, as Monsieur de Meaux expounds
it, upon any consideration had "of the fervour ofthe penitent,"
to admit him to absolution, which he has already received, but
by the application of the merits of their saints, who they
suppose have undergone more temporal punishments than
their sins have deserved, to take off that pain, which, notwith
standing their absolution, the sinner should otherwise have
remained liable to.

UPON INDULGENCES. g^
In the Primitive Church the bishop received the penitent to
absolution, and the exemplariness of his repentance, or the
intercession of the martyr that supplicated for him, was the
only consideration they had for the indulgence. In the Church
of Rome the indulgence is to be had from the Pope only, in
whose hands the merits of their saints lie, the overplus of
which are, they say, the treasure of the Church, to be dispensed
upon all occasions to such as want, and upon such terms as
his Holiness shall think fit to propose.
In the Primitive Church these indulgences were very rare,
given only upon some special occasions, and the bishop never
relaxed the remainder of the penance he had imposed, till the
penitent had performed a, considerable part of it, and shewed
by his contrition, that it had obtained the effect of bringing
him to a sense of his sin, and a hearty repentance for it, which
was the end they designed by all. In the Roman Church they
are cried about the streets, hung up in tables over every
Church door, prostituted for money, offered to all customers
for themselves or for their friends ; for the dead as well as the
living ; and to visit three churches, say a prayer before this
altar, at the other saint's monument, in a third chapel, is
without more ado, through the extraordinary charity that
Church has for sinners, declared sufficient to take off what
ever such punishment is due for all the sins of a whole life.
And here then let Monsieur de Meaux in conscience tell us,
" is all this no more than to release some part of the remain
ing penance, in consideration of the fervour of the penitent in
performing the rest ?" Such pardons as these we do certainly
with reason conclude,* " to be fond things, vainly invented,
and grounded upon no authority of holy Scripture, but indeed
repugnant to God's word." But for the rest, we profess our
selves so far from being enemies to the ancient discipline of
the Church, that we heartily wish to see it revived : and when
ever the penances shall be reduced to their former practice, we
shall be ready to give or receive such an indulgence as
Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as the primitive ages
of the Church allowed of.
* See our 22nd Article.

VOL. XII.*

98 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
Article IX.
Of Purgatory .
But the temporal pains which they suppose due to sin, has
yet another error consequent upon it. That since every man
must undergo them according to the proportion of his sins,
if any one chance to die before he has so done, he cannot pass
directly into heaven, but must undergo these punishments
first in the other life, and the place where these punishments
are undergone, they call Purgatory.
So that the doctrine then of purgatory relies upon that
satisfaction which we ourselves are to make for our sins,
besides what Christ has done for uj : and according to the
measure that that is, either true or false, certain or uncertain,
this must be so too : since therefore Monsieur de Meaux
tells us only, that the Church of Rome supposes the former to
be true, they can only suppose the latter in like manner ; and
therefore till they are able certainly to assure us of that, we
shall still have reason to doubt of this.
That the Primitive Church, from the very second century,
made prayers for the dead, we do not deny ; but that these
prayers were to deliver them out of purgatory, this we suppose
Monsieur de Meaux himself will not avow ; it being certain that
they were made for the best men, for the holy Apostles, the
martyrs and confessors of the Church, nay, for the blessed
Virgin herself, all which at the same time they thought in
happiness, and who the Papists themselves tell us never
touched at purgatory.
Many were the private opinions which the particular Chris
tians of old had concerning the reason and benefit of praying
for the dead. Some then, as we do at this day, only gave
thanks to God for their faith and their examples. Others
prayed for them, either for the body's resurrection, or for their
acquitting at the final judgment, as supposing it to be no way
unfit to pray to God for those very blessings which he has
absolutely promised and resolved to give. Some thought an
increase of glory might be obtained to the righteous by their
prayers. All believed this, that it testified their hope of them,
and manifested their faith of that future resurrection which
they waited for ; and in the mean time maintained a kind of
fellowship and communion between the members of Christ
yet alive, and those that were departed only, not lost by
death.

UPON PURGATORY.

But then it is to be observed, that when they most ordi
narily prayed for the dead, yet was there nothing determined
as to this point ; all was left to the piety and opinion of
particular men, nor durst they absolutely resolve whether the
dead received any benefit by them ; as both the learned of
the Church of Rome themselves confess, and the writings
of primitive antiquity, even to St. Augustine himself, un
doubtedly shew.
Now as there is none of us that will condemn the charity
of any man, to pray, or fast, or afflict himself for the pardon
and forgiveness of his friends, his country or his Church, so
it be done without any fond opinion of merit or satisfaction,
and to hope too by such prayers to obtain God's mercy for
them : so if any one will put up his particular requests for
the dead too, for any of those ends for which the primitive
Christians did, we shall not condemn him. Only let not that
be made an article of our faith, which we can never be assured
of, and which, when it was most practised, was received only
as a private opinion, and in a sense far different from what is
now asserted ; and for the rest, we shall not refuse to consent to
any hberty whereby peace may be obtained, and our free jus
tification by faith in Christ not injured.

PART IL— OF THE SACRAMENTS.
Article X.
Of the Sacraments in general.
The doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed
one of the most considerable obstacles to our union with the
Church of Rome. We cannot imagine why Monsieur de
Meaux should insinuate as if our disputes about these, except
it be in the point of the eucharist, " were not so great as about
other matters," unless it be to serve for an excuse for his own
passing so lightly over them, or to make us less careful in ex
amining their doctrine.
The sacraments of the New Testament, in that proper sense
in which we now take the word, we have always looked upon
H 2

100 doctrine of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
to be not only " holy signs to represent and confirm to us
the grace of God, but also effectual tokens of his good will to
us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and strengthen
and confirm our faith in him."
To obtain the benefit of the holy sacraments, we cannot
believe it to be enough that we have no ill disposition,* but do
suppose that it is a sufficient obstacle, if we have not a good
one. We confess that the faith of the Church, and those
who present them to baptism, is all that is required to prepare
infants to receive the spiritual regeneration which that sacra
ment confers. But for those who by age are capable of it,
we suppose both in baptism and in the holy eucharist, an
actual faith of God's promise annexed to the outward signs
which we receive, to be indispensably necessary for the par
taking of their effects.
And though, if the rest be agreed, we shall not desire to
determine any man's belief, as to the manner how the sacra
ments confer that grace which God has promised by them ;
yet we judge it more agreeable to the analogy of our faith to
say, that upon the performance of the outward ceremony God
bestows the inward blessing, than that the blessing is conferred
" by virtue of the words which are pronounced, and the action
which is done to us," as Monsieur de Meaux has expounded it.
We do not by this at all take off from the necessity of the
outward signs. We confess, " that besides the inward pre
paration, there is required for our sanctification a special
operation of the Holy Spirit, and an apphcation of Christ's
merits by the means of the holy sacraments." This we are
so persuaded of, that we profess them to be " necessaryf to sal
vation," insomuch that whosoever either carelessly neglects, or
presumptuously despises the use of them, will in vain expect it
by any other means.
For the number of the sacraments, we acknowledge only
two as " generally necessary to salvation ;" and are surprised to
see the Council of Trent damning all such as will not receive
a number, which neither has the Scripture anywhere declared ;
nor was it, that we know of, till the very twelfth century, ever
heard of in the Church. Hugo de St. Victor is the first that
we can find it in, 1 1 30 years after Christ ; Lombard and the
Schoolmen followed him. Pope Eugenius, in his instructions
* Article 25. of the Church of England.
t So our Church Catechism.

UPON BAPTISM. 101
to the Armenians, gave yet more countenance to it ; but that
all those ceremonies which the Church of Rome now receives,
are truly and properly sacraments, and that there be neither
more or less than seven, never any one absolutely determined,
till the Council of Trent first canonically decreed it, and com
manded the Church under an anathema to receive it.
The special consideration of their five pretended sacraments,
will give us an opportunity more particularly to estabhsh that
number we ourselves propose.
This presumption of the truth we must not omit here, that
not only the ancient Fathers of the Church, when they speak
of the sacraments properly, as we do now, mention only
baptism and the Lord's supper ; but even the Papists
themselves, who establish more, yet confess these to be so
far the principal, that our own Article* says but little
more than what their greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily
confessed. Article XI.
Of Baptism.
How strict our Church is in maintaining the necessity of
Baptism, the very office by which we do administer it, suffi
ciently shews. We declare that " all men are conceived and
born in sin, and that none can enter into the kingdom of God,
except he be regenerate and born anew of water, and of the
Spirit."t This is the law of Christ which the eternal truth
has estabhshed ; and whosoever shall presume to oppose it, let
him be anathema.
* Article 25, speaking ofthe "quinque iUa vulgo nominata sacramenta"
— says, " sacramentorum eandem cum baptismo et coena Domini rationem
non habent, ut quae signum aUquod visibile sen ceremoniam aDeoinsti.
tutam non habeant." Now Th. 3. Part. q. 62. Art. 5. proves the sacra
ments to derive their virtues from the passion of Christ, from that of the
Gloss in Roman. 5. "Ex latere Christi dormientis in cruce fluxerunt
sacramenta," whichhe explains thus, "de latere Christi pendentis in cruce
fluxerunt aqua et sanguis, quorum unum pertinet ad baptismum, aUud ad
eucharistiam, quae sunt potissima sacramenta."
t As to the point of the salvation of infants dying unbaptized, we have
in Cassander an advocate for it, " Libr. de Baptism. Infant, p. 762.
[Par. 1616.] And he there cites of his side, Johan. Gerson. Serm. in

102 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
But now as all other laws, so this of Christ must, we think,
be interpreted according to the rules of natural equity. The
ancient Church constantly professed her belief, that martyrdom
excused the defect of baptism. Many ofthe Papists themselves
suppose, that the desire of it, when by some unavoidable neces
sity the sacrament itself cannot be obtained, shall be reputed
for it. Monsieur de Meaux insinuates, that the acts of faith,
hope, and charity, may supply the want of it. St. Bernard*
plainly concludes the same : " If," says he, " a man desirous
of baptism be suddenly cut off by death, in whom there wanted
neither sound faith, nor devout hope, nor sincere charity, God
be merciful unto me, and pardon me if I err, but verily of such
a one's salvation, in whom there is no other defect than his
faultless lack of baptism, despair I cannot, nor induce my
mind to think his faith void, his hope confounded, and his
charity fallen to nothing, only because he hath not that which
not contempt, but impossibility withholdeth."
When, therefore, so many ways have been allowed to excuse
the defect of baptism, though our Church has rather taken all
imaginable care that infants shall not die without it, than pre
sume rashly to determine what shall become of them if they do;
yet we cannot but condemn the uncharitableness of the Church
of Rome, in " excluding them from aU part in Jesus Christ,"
and denying that mercy to a tender and impotent age which
they so liberally extend to those of riper years.
If not the want but the contempt of this sacrament be the
only thing that is damnable, to be sure no contempt of baptism
can be in them. If the desire of baptism in those that are
Nativit. B. Mariae, Par. 3. Gabriel Biel in 4. dist. 4. qu. 2. Cajetan m 3
part. D. Th. qu. 68. Art. 1, 2, 3. Tilmannus Segebergensis de 7. Sacra-
mentis, c. 1 . Art. 2. Who also teUs us, that Gerson preached that sermon
" inconciUo Constantiensi coram omnibus patribus ibi existentibus." Cas
sander. [Ibid.] p. 769.
Grotius in Art. 9. Cassandri (via ad pacem, p. 290. [1642.]) adds. Inter
veteres scriptorem qusestionum ad Antiochum quae Afiianasio tribuuntur ;
Nazianzenum de sancto baptismate, duobus locis, et scholiastem ejus
Nicetam : sed et ipsum Augustinum antequam in certamine cum Pelagio
incalesceret, 1. 3. de libero arbitr. c. 23. locum Joan. 3. intelUgendum de
iis qui possutit et contemnunt baptizari vult Lombardus, 1. 4. dist. 4.
And now how does Monsieur de Meaux dare to say, that the damnation
of infants dying unbaptized, was a truth, which never any one before
Calvin durst openly caU in question.
" Ep. 70. if it be indeed his.

UPON BAPTISM. 103
capable of it, is by many of the Church confessed to be
reputed for baptism, why shall we not hope that God, who is
all merciful, will accept the desire of the Church and of their
parents in their behalf, who by their age are not capable to
have any of their own ? If faith, hope, and charity, as Mon
sieur de Meaux himself implies, may excuse them who actually
have these graces, though they want this sacrament, why may
not that faith, that hope, that charity, of the Church, which,
being imputed to them, renders them capable of baptism, be as
effectual to stand instead of it to them, as their own proper
faith for others, if a necessity which could not be avoided pre
vents it ?
In a word, since such is the mercy of God, that to things
altogether impossible he bindeth no man ; but where what he
commands cannot be performed, accepteth of our will to do it
instead of the deed : 2. Seeing God's grace is not so absolutely
tied to the sacraments, but that many exceptions have been,
and are still confessed to be sufficient to obtaiu it, without the
external application of them : seeing, 3. St. Paul hath told
us,* that the seed of faithful parentage is holy from the very
birth, as being born within the covenant of grace ; though we de-
terminej nothing, yet we thmk it the part of charity, not only to
take all the care we can to present our infants to baptism whilst
they hve, but if by any unavoidable necessity they should die
vrithout it, to hope well of them : remembering that judgment
of God, Exod. iv, who, when Moses neglected to circumcise his
son, spared the child in that he was innocent, but sought to
kill Moses for his carelessness in the omission.
A necessity, therefore, of baptism we constantly maintain ;
but absolutely to determine that all those who die without it
are excluded from the grace of Christ, neither will Monsieur
de Meaux presume to do of men, nor dare we much less to
affirm it of infants. The Lutherans condemn the Anabaptists
for refusing baptism altogether to children, which we also con
demn in them. But that therefore they make no allowance
for extraordinary cases, where both the Church and the parents
desired to have baptized them, only that some unavoidable ac
cident prevented it ; neither did Cassander believe, nor do the
terms of their confession at all require. For the Calvinists, so
far were they from being the authors of this charitable opinion
* 1 Cor. vii. 14.

104 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
of infants dying unbaptized, that many of the most eminent
men ofthe Church of Rome have long before them maintained
the same.
To conclude, if Monsieur de Meaux himself does in good
earnest believe the danger so great as he pretends ; may he
then please to consider, what we are to judge of those who in
so many places have not left any ministers at all to confer this
sacrament. For our parts, we freely declare their hazard to
be infinitely greater than either the children's or their parents';
who are so far from that indifference Monsieur de Meaux
most injuriously charges them with, that in places where pubhc
ministers reside, that they have the opportunity to do it, they
fail not, with all imaginable care, to present them in the am
bassador's' chapels to baptism, if they have but the least appre
hension that they are not in a condition to be carried to their
own temples. Article XII.
Of Confirmation.
To clear our way to that particular examination we are to
make of the following prfstended sacraments of the Roman
Church, it will be necessary to observe, that, by their own con
fession, these three things are absolutely required to the essence
of a true sacrament. 1. Christ's institution. 2. An outward
and visible sign. 3. An inward and spiritual grace by Christ's
promise annexed to that sign.
We cannot but admire, that neither in the Council of Trent,
or in the Catechism made by its order, is there any attempt to
prove either of these from the holy Scripture, as to the point
of confirmation. It was the more necessary to have done this,
in that many of the greatest note in the Roman Church * had
denied the Divine institution of it ; and some of them were ap
proved by the holy See itself that did it. The outward signf
has been none of the least controversies that have exercised
their own pens ; and indeed since they have laid aside that of
imposition of hands, which they confess the Apostles used, it
was but reasonable to have shewn us some authority for that
* For this see what Monsieur Daille has said, de Confirmatione, Ub. 1 .
pap. 4. p. 24, &c. [Amst. 1649.]
t See DaUle, ib. p. 14, ««;, et ib. 1. 1. u. 6.

UPON PENANCE AND CONFESSION. 105
other they have established in its stead. What Monsieur de
Meaux expounds, is a clear vindication of our practice, but de
fends nothing of their own doctrine.
That we think it to have been an ancient custom of the
Church, and which the very Apostles themselves practised, to
lay hands on those that had been baptized ; and in imitation
whereof we ourselves at this day do the like, the practice of our
Church sufficiently declares.
We confess that the use of chrism in confirmation was very
ancient, yet such as we deny to have been Apostolical. We do
not ourselves use it, yet, were that all the difference between
us, we should be far from judging those that did.
The discipline of our Church allows none that is not of the
episcopal order to confirm. And for the benefit of it, as the
bishop prays to God for his Holy Spirit to assist us m the way
of virtue and religion, to arm us against temptation, and to en
able us to keep our baptismal covenant which we then (our
selves repeat, and) in the presence of the Church openly
ratify and confirm : so we piouslyhope that the blessing of the
Holy Spirit descends upon us, through his prayer, for all these
great ends, both to strengthen the grace we already have, and
to increase it in us to a more plentiful degree.
Article XIII.
Of Penance and Confession.
For penance and confession we wish our discipline were both
more strictly required and more duly observed than it is. The
canons of our Church do perhaps require as much as the pri
mitive Christians themselves did : and it is more the decay of
piety in the people, than any want of care in her, that they are
not as well and regularly practised.
We do not believe penance to be a sacrament, after the
manner that baptism and the holy eucharist are ; because
neither do we find any divine command for it, nor is there any
sign in it established by Christ, to which his grace is annexed.
We suppose that if the ancient Church had esteemed it any
thing more than a part of Christian discipline, they would not
have presumed to make such changes in it, as in the several
ages it is evident they did.
The primitive Christians interpreting those places of St.

106 doctrine of the church of ENGLAND,
Matthew * and St. John,t which Monsieur de Meaux men
tions, of public discipline, and to which we suppose with them
they principally at least, if not only refer, at first practised no
other. For private faults, they exhorted their penitents to
confess them to God, and unless some particular circum
stances required the communication of them to the priest,
plainly signified that that confession was not only in itself suf
ficient, but in effect was more agreeable to holy Scripture than
any other.
If the conscience indeed were too much burdened by some
great fault, or that the crime committed was notoriously scan
dalous, then they advised a confession to the priest too. But
this was not to every priest, nor for him just to hear the confes
sion, and then without more ado to say "I absolve thee ;" they
prescribed in every Church some wise physician of the soul, on
purpose for this great charge, that they might pray with the
penitent ; might direct him what to do to obtain God's favour;
might assist him in it ; and finally, after a long experience,
and a severe judgment, give him absolution.
This was the practice of the Eastern Church, till upon occar
sion of a certain scandal, Nectarius first began to weaken it in
his Church at Constantinople ; and St. J. Chrysostom, his
successor, seconded him in it. They reduced the practice to
what it had been in the banning ; that open and scandalous
sins should be openly punished by the public disciphne of the
Church, and the private be confessed only to God Almighty.
Yet still the public confession remained in the practice of
the Western Church. Pope Leo I., to take away the occa
sions of fear and shame, that kept many from the exercise of
it, first ordered, that it should be sufficient to confess to God
and the priest only; which is the first plausible pretence offered
by them for auricular confession.
Thus this practice, now set up for a sacrament instituted by
our Saviour, and absolutely necessary to obtain God's pardon,
first began. But the performance of it was yet left to every
man's liberty. About 1215 years after Christ, the Council of
Lateran first commanded it to be of necessary obsei-vance ; but
we do not find that, till the Council of Trent in the last age, it
was ever required to be received absolutely as a sacrament of
Divine institution, and necessary to salvation.
* Matth. xviu. 18. t John xx. 23.

UPON PENANCE AND CONFESSION. 107
This short view of the practice of antiquity in this point,
may be sufficient to shew, that unless it were the public power
of the Church to censure open and scandalous offenders, which
was the key of discipline our blessed Saviour left to it ; for the
rest, several churches and ages had their several practices.
They advised private confession upon many accounts, which
Monsieur de Meaux remarks, and which we vrillinglv allow
very useful to the penitent ; but it was not for above a
thousand years ever looked upon as absolutely necessary, nor,
by consequence, as sacramental.
The Church of England refuses no sort of confession, either
public or private, which may be any way necessary to the
quieting of men's consciences ; or to the exercising of that
power of binding and loosing, which our Saviour Christ has
left to his Church.
We have our penitential canons for pubUc offenders ; we
exhort men, if they have any, the least doubt or scruple, nay,
sometimes though they have none, but especially before they
receive the holy sacrament, to confess their sins. We propose
to them the benefit not only of ghostly advice how to manage
their repentance, but the great comfort of absolution too, as
soon as they shall have completed it.
Our form of absolution, after the manner of the Eastern
Church at this day, and of the universal Church for above
twelve hundred years, is declarative, rather than absolute.
Whilst we are unable to search the hearts of men, and thereby
infalUbly to discern the sincerely contrite from those that are
not, we think it rashness to pronounce a definitive sentence in
God's name, which we cannot be sure that God will always
confirm. When we visit our sict, we never fail to exhort them to
make a special confession of their sins to him that ministers to
them ; and when they have done it, the absolution is so full,
that the Church of Rome itself could not desire to add any
thing to it.
For the rest, we think it an unnecessary rack to men's con
sciences, to oblige them, where there is no scruple, to reveal to
their confessor every the most secret fault, even of wish or
desire, which the Church of Rome exacts. Nor dare we pro
nounce this discipline sacramental, and necessary to salvation ;
so that a contrite sinner, who has made his confession to God
Almighty, shall not receive a pardon, unless he repeat it to
the priest too.

108 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
This we must beg leave, with assurance, to say, is directly
contrary to the tradition of the Church, and to many plain and
undoubted places of holy Scripture. And if this be all our
Reformation be guilty of, that we advise not that which may
torment and distract, but is no way apt to settle men's con
sciences ; nor require that as indispensably necessary to salva
tion which we find no where commanded by God as such, we
assure Monsieur de Meaux we see no cause at all, either to
regret the loss, or to be ashamed of the change.
Article XIV.
Of Extreme Unction.
Of all those pretended sacraments of the Roman Church that
have no foundation in holy Scripture, this seems to stand the
fairest for it. Here is both an outward and visible sign, and
an inward and spiritual grace tied to it. Insomuch that Mon
sieur de Meaux himself, who never attempted to say any thing
of it in the two foregoing instances, yet fails not to put us in
mind of it in this.
To interpret rightly that place of St. James* which is
alleged to prove it, we must remark, that anointing with oil
was one of those ceremonies used by the Apostles in working
their miraculous cures,f Mark vi. 13, "They cast out devils,"
says the Evangelist, " and anointed many sick persons with oil,
and cured them." Sometimes they used only imposition of
hands, and sometimes they did it without either.
Together with these outward signs, they usually added prayer
too, some invocation, at least, in the name of Jesus Christ, as
the more substantial and more effectual assistance.
So that St. James's direction there, "If any man be sick, let
him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oU, in the name of the Lord, and the
prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him
up ;" referring, as is evident, to those miraculous cures which
the Apostles and their successors in the Primitive Church
wrought by such anointing : we look upon it, that the adrice,
inasmuch as it belonged to that, could neither have been the
* James v. 14, 15.
t This BeUarmme, and the generaUty of the Church of Rome, confess to
have been no institution of a sacrament.

UPON EXTREME UNCTION. 109
institution of a sacrament at all ; and that, together with the
miraculous power of healing, it is now long since ceased in the
Church. Monsieur de Meaux ought not to refuse this interpretation.*
The ancient rituals of the Roman Church, for above eight
hundred years after Christ, shew that they esteemed this to be
the meaning of it ; they understand it plainly of bodily cures,
and Cardinal Cajetanf himself freely confesses that it can belong
to no other.
Our Saviour and his Apostles, when they thus miraculously
healed the infirmity of the body, at the same time forgave the
sin of the soul too ; for this cause St. James adds, " and if he
have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
Though this extraordinary power be now ceased, both in
the one and the other kind, yet we still endeavour to perform
whatever we are capable of on these occasions ; we send for the
elders of the Church when we are sick, they pray over us ; if
we stand charged with any private sins, or public censures, we
confess them to them, and they fail not by their absolution, as
far as in them lies, to forgive us.
This is all, we think, is now remaining for us to fulfil of
what this text requires. We anoint not our sick for the reco
very of their bodily health, as St. James here prescribed,
because the miraculous power of healing, to which that cere
mony ministered, is ceased in the Church. We pray over
them, if it please God, for the recovery of their present health,
but especially for their eternal salvation ; we exercise the power
of the keys to the forgiveness of their sins, because the benefit
of this is the same now that ever it was; Christ's promise
remains, and whilst we piously make use of the same means,
we doubt not but it shall be to the like effect.
* For all this see the coUection made by Monsieur Daill6, 1. de Extrema
Unetione, p. 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, too long to be tran
scribed. The sum is, that it referred to the cure of the body chiefly and
primarily ; the main design was the recovery of the patient, not the forti
fying him for another world. Compare the Council of Trent with it.
t Cajet. annot. in loe. Nee ex verbis, nee ex effectu verba haec loquun-
tur de sacramentaU unetione extremae unctionis. Sed magis de unetione
quam instituit Dominus Jesus, a disoipuUs exercendam in aegrotis.

110 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
Article XV.
Of Marriage.
For the point of marriage. Monsieur de Meaux says nothing
but what we willmgly allow of. We deny that it is a sacra
ment,* after the same manner that baptism and the holy
eucharist are, because it both wants an outward sign, to which,
by Christ's promise, a blessing is annexed, and is so far from
being generally necessary to salvation, as they are, and as we
suppose all true and proper sacraments ought to be, that the
Church of Rome has thought fit to deny one of the most con
siderable parts of their communion altogether the use of it.
Article XVI.
Of Holy Orders.
The imposition of hands in holy orders, being accompanied
with a blessing of the Holy Spirit, may perhaps, upon that
account, be called a kind of particular sacrament. Yet since
that grace which is thereby conferred, whatever it be, is not
common to all Christians, nor by consequence any part of that
federal blessing which our blessed Saviour has purchased for
us, but only a separation of him who receives it to a special
employ, we think it ought not to be esteemed a common sacra
ment of the whole Church, as baptism and the Lord's supper
are. The outward sign of it we confess to have been usually
imposition of hands, and as such we ourselves observe it ; yet
as we do not read that Christ himself instituted that sign,
much less tied the promise of any certain grace to it ; so
Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider, that there are
many of his own communion that do not think it to be
essential to holy orders, nor by consequence the outward sign
of a sacrament in them.
* Cassander Consult. Art. 13. De numero sacramentorum in fine. De
matrimonio vero non modo P. Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri,
sed longe post eum Durandus diserte inquit, non esse matrimonium univoce
sacramentum, sicut aUa sacramenta novae legis, nam nee conferre gratiam
non habenti, nee augere habenti ; non esse itaque sacramentum proprie ac
stricte dictum. 4 Sent. d. 26. qu. 3.

UPON HOLY ORDERS. HI
We confess that no man ought to exercise the ministerial
office till he he first consecrated to it. We beheve that it is
the bishop's part only to ordain. We maintain the distinction
of the several orders in the Church ; and though we have
none of those below a deacon, because we do not read that the
Apostles had any, yet we acknowledge the rest to have been
anciently received in the Church, and shall not therefore raise
any controversy about theffl .
Article XVII.
Of the Eucharist.
And first of the explication of those words, " This is my body."
In our entry upon this point, we cannot but testify our just
regret, that this holy sacrament, which was designed by our
blessed Saviour not only to be the greatest assurance of his
love to us, but the strongest engagement of our charity to one
another, should have become the chiefest subject of our con
tentions, and widened that breach which it ought to have
closed. Monsieur de Meaux, who grounds his opinion of the cor
poreal presence of Christ in this holy eucharist, upon the words
of institution, which he contends ought to be literally under
stood, yet proposes two cases wherein he seems to allow it
might have been lawful to forsake the letter. We will join
issue vrith him upon his own terms, and shew, " 1 . That there
are such grounds in those words for a figurative interpretation,
as naturally lead to it. 2. That when we come to consider the
intention of our Sa\iour in this holy sacrament, we are yet
more strongly confirmed in it."
It is confessed by the greatest authors of the Church of
Rome, that if the relative this in that proposition, " This is
my body," refers to that bread which our Saviour Christ held
in his hand at the time when he spoke those words ; the
natural repugnancy there is of the two things affirmed of one
another, bread and Christ's body, will necessarily require the
figurative interpretation. For " this is impossible," says
Gratian,* " that bread should be the body of Christ." " It
cannot be," says Cardinal Bellarmine, "that that proposition
* Hoc. tamen est impossibile, quod panis sit corpus Christi. P. 2393.
in Gloss. [Par. 1585.]

1 12 doctrine of THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
should be true, the former part whereof designeth bread, the
latter the body of Christ. So that if the sense be. This bread
is the body of Christ, either it must be taken figuratively thus.
This bread signifies the body of Christ, or it is plainly absurd
and impossible."* The whole difficulty therefore as to our
first point consists in this, whether our Saviour Christ when
he said, " This is my body," meant any thing else to be his
body than that bread which was before him.
Now for this, the connexion of his discourse seems to us an
evident demonstration.f " Our Saviour Christ took bread, and
gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying.
This is my body which is given for you ; this do in remem
brance of me."J
For what did he demonstrate here, and say was his body,
* Lib. 1. c. 1. p. 462. [Ingolst. 1586.] Ut. D. BeUarmine, speaking of
Carolstad's opinion ofthe Eucharist, "scripsit (says he), verba evangehstse,
hoc est corpus menm, hunc facere sensum, hie panis est corpus menm ;
quae sententia aut accipi debet tropice, ut panis sit corpus Christi signifi
cative, aut est plane absurda et impossibUis ; nee enim fieri potest ut
panis sit corpus Christi." And in the other place, 1. 3. de Euch. c. 19.
[Ibid.] p. 746. 1. D. proving the manner of change against the Lutherans
to the transubstantiation, he uses this argument, " Dominus accepit in
manibus panem, eumque benedixit et dedit discipulis, et de eo ait, hoc est
corpus menm : Vel igitur benedicendo mutavit in corpus, reipsa vere ac
proprie, vel mutavit improprie et figurate, addendo significationem quam
non habebat, vel nuUo modo mutavit. Si mutavit reipsa vere et proprie,
ergo panem mutatum dedit, et de pane mutato verissime dixit hoc est
corpus menm, i. e. quod sub specie panis continetur, non est ampUus
panis sed corpus, et hoc est quod dicunt CathoUci. Si vero quis dicat
panem mutatum esse figurate, tamen datus erit apostoUs panis, qui figurate
erit corpus Domini, et ilia verba, hoc est corpus meum, hunc sensum habe-
buut, hie panis est figura corporis mei. Haec autem est sententia sacra-
mentariorum, quam et nos et Lutherani communi consensu rejicimus.
Siquis denique dicat nuUam fieri mutationem, is cogetur dicere, panem
non mutatum datum esse apostoUs, et de Ulo esse dictum hoc est corpus
meum, i. e. hie panis verus et triticeus, vere ac proprie est corpus meum:
Atqui hoc nullo modo fieri potest, sive agamus de re ipsa sive de proposi-
tione : nee enim ullo modo fieri potest, ut una res non mutetur ; et tamen
fiat aha ; esset enim ipsa et non esset ipsa : in propositione autem aifinna-
tiva, necesse est ut pro eodem supponant subjectum et praedicatum,
alioqui esset falsa praedicatio ; Non igitur potest fieri ut vera sit propositio,
in qua subjectum supponit pro pane, proedicatum autem pro corpore
Christi : Panis enim et corpus Christi res diversissimse sunt."
t Dominus accepit in manibus panem, eumque benedixit, et dedit dis
cipulis, et de eo ait, hoc est corpus meum ; itaque panem accepit, panem
benedixit, panem dedit, et de pane dixit, hoc est corpus meum. BeUarm. de
Euoh. 1. 3. c. 19. [Ibid.] p. 446. lit. D.
X Luke xxii. 19.

UPON THE EUCHARIST 113
but that which he gave to his disciples ? What did he give
to his disciples, but that which he brake? What brake he,
but that which he took ? And St. Luke says expressly, " he
took bread."
What Jesus took in his hands, that he blessed : what he
blessed, the same he brake and gave to his disciples : what he
gave to his disciples, of that he said, " this is my body:" but
Jesus, says the text, "took bread ;" ofthe bread therefore he
said, " this is my body."
In a word ; forasmuch as the Papists themselves beheve
the bread to be turned into the substance of Christ's body,*
because Christ said " this is my body :" either those words
refer to the bread, and then by their own confession they will
require our interpretation ; or if they do not, it is evident that
then from these words they can have no grounds to conclude
their own pretended change.
So necessarily do both the words themselves and their own
confession, lead us to the exposition which we make of them.
And what these prepare us to receive, the same, 2ndly, " the
intention of our Saviour in this holy sacrament does yet more
strongly confirm to us."
When God dehvered the children of Israel out of Egypt,f he
instituted the passover to be a continual remembrance of that
great deUverance. In Uke manner our blessed Saviour being
now about to work out a much greater deliverance for us, by
offering up himself upon the cross for our redemption, he
designed by this sacrament to continue the memory of this
blessing : that " as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this
cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come."t
That this sacrament, instituted for the like end which the
passover had been, and now for ever to succeed in its place,
might be both the better understood, and the easier received
by them, it pleased our blessed Lord to accommodate himself as
near as was possible to the ceremonies and phrases they had
before been used to. He retained the symbols and even the
expressions they had so long been acquainted with ; only he
changed the apphcation of them to a new and more excellent
remembrance. In the Jewish passover, the master of the house took bread,
* Obs. The Ethiopian Church at this day says, " Hie psftiis est corpus
Christi." Job Ludolphus. Hist. jEthiop.
+ Exod. xii. t 1 Cor. xi. 26.
VOL. XII. I

114 DOCTRINE OF THE PHURCH OP ENGLAND,
and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is the bread
of affliction, which our fathers eat in Egypt." In this holy
sacrament, our Saviour after the very same manner, "took
bread, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying. This is my
body which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of
me." Now, as it is evident that that bread which the Jews every
year took, and brake, and said, " This is the bread of affliction
which our fathers eat in Egypt," was not that very bread
which their ancestors so many generations before had eaten
there ; but was designed only to be the type or figure of it ; so
neither could our Saviour's disciples to whom he spake, and
who, as being Jews, had so long been acquainted with that
phrase, ever beheve, that the bread which he held in his hand,
which he brake and gave them, saying, " This is my body
which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of me," was
the very, actual, real body of Christ which they saw before
them at the table. They understood it, no doubt, to be the
type and figure of that body which was now about to be
broken for them ; as that bread which the master of the feast,
after the very same manner, was wont to break to them, was
the type of that bread of affliction which their fathers had
eaten in Egypt.
Nor does the phrase, my body, at all weaken, but rather
confirm this idea, as being the ordinary expression among the
Jews, whereby they called the passover, " the body of the pass-
over, the body of the paschal lamb." It was therefore used
here by our Saviour with that allusion, the more expressly to
signify, that he was the "true passover"* now to be sacrificed
for us, by whose blood we were to be delivered from the
destroying angel, and for the remembrance whereof we were
therefore to keep this ceremony, as the Jews had done their
passover for the other.
This we suppose to be the undoubted interpretation of this
place. Monsieur de Meaux ought the less to except against it,
in that it was the original remark, not of any Protestant, or of
any other party of Christians differing from the Church of
Rome in this matter, but was objected to them by the Jews
themselves long before the Reformation, upon the same account.
They shewed by it, that in the doctrine of this pretended
change, the Church of Rome had evidently opposed the design
* 1 Cor. V. 7.

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 115
of our Saviour's institution, and advanced an interpretation,
which no one accustomed to the Jewish notions, as the Apostles
were, could ever have understood to be his meaning.
The design of this discourse permits me not to proceed to
any more particular • vindication of this exposition, nor to
mention many other arguments more usually proposed ; and
wherein it has clearly been shewn, that they have not only the
holy Scripture, and the design of our blessed Saviour in this
sacrament, but sense, reason, antiquity, whatsoever is able to
furnish an argument, all unanimously against them : it remains
only to examine whether what Monsieur de Meaux has pro
posed, be any thing more reasonable, that so we may go on to
the consequences established upon this foundation.
Where first we cannot conceive why Monsieur de Meaux,
designing to establish the exposition of the holy eucharist
upon the analogy which it has to the Jewish sacrifices, should
fly off to the nature of their sacrifices in general, where the
parallel is neither so clear nor so uncontroverted, as to pro
duce any necessary consequence from the allusion. It would
certainly have been more reasonable to compare it, as we have
done, with that particular sacrifice of the passover to which it
succeeded, and from which therefore, if any, must be shewed
the design of it. But we will clear the whole difficulty in a
reflection or two, and prove that what has been offered to us
as a convincing argument, is, upon a nearer view, a mere
fallacy. And, 1 . We desire it may be observed, that the peace-offer
ings under the law were designed as an acknowledgment on
the people's part for those temporal blessings which it pleased
God to bestow upon them. And because, after the sacrifice of
Isaac, God first entered into the covenant with Abraham,*
and promised him his blessing, and to be his God, and the
God of his seed after him ; it seems to have been further their
intention in all these sacrifices, to call to remembrance that
offering of Isaac, as a foundation of all those blessings for
which these sacrifices were appointed, as a testimony of their
gratitude. 2. That though the passover, hke the sacrifice of the cross,
was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-
bom in the land of Egypt, yet, that yearly remembrance of it
which God afterwards established, was always esteemed a
* Gen. xxii. 16, &c. l2

116 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
peace-offering ; and, indeed, the perpetual order of their sacri
fices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other.
So that the parallel, therefore, for the explaining the nature
of the holy eucharist, must be this :
1 . That as the Jews ate of their peace-offerings in general to
call to mind the sacrifice of Isaac, and give God thanks for
those blessings they received by it, and of that of the passover
in particular, in memory of God's delivering them out of
Egypt, so the Christians partake of this blessed sacrament in
memory of that deliverance which the sacrifice of the cross of
Christ, whom both Isaac and the paschal lamb slain in Egypt
typified, has purchased for them.
2. That as the peace-offering which the Jews eat was not
changed into the substance of that first sacrifice whereof it was
the remembrance, but was eaten as a figure or commemoration
of it, so the Christians in their sacrament are not to think the
bread and wine, which Christ has appointed to be our peace-
offering, should be changed into the very substance of that
body which was offered for us upon the cross, but to be re
ceived only as types of it. For thus was the peace-offering in
general a type of Isaac, and the passover in particular, the type
of that first lamb which was slain for their deUverance in the
land of Egypt.
When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us, that the Jews
ate the proper fiesh of their peace-offering, we answer, that so
do we the proper substance of ours ; we eat the bread which
Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that dehverance
which he has purchased for us, as the body of the lamb was
commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs.
Monsieur de Meaux adds, " that the Jews were forbidden
to partake of the proper flesh of their sin-offering, and of the
blood, because that a perfect remission was not then obtained,
and that therefore, by the rule of contraries, we ought now to
eat of ours, because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ."
For reply to which, it might suffice to say, that this rule of
contraries, should we follow it according to the letter, would
lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities, that he
would be forced himself to abjure his own principle. Accord
ing to this rule, the Apostles cojild not have eaten the flesh of
Christ before his resurrection ; the priests under the law being
commanded not to eat of the sin-offering after the third day,
and therefore, by the rule of contraries, they could not partake
of it before.

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 117
Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will
approve of this conclusion. In the meantime, as to his objec
tion, we have before said, that the remembrance we make in
the holy eucharist, like that of the paschal feast among the
Jews, shews it to be a peace-offering ; and for the rest, if, as
Monsieur de Meaux pretends, the blood was mystically forbid
under the law, to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not
then obtained, it will follow, that for the contrary reason, Christ
appointed the cup to be received in this holy sacrament, to
testify that full remission which his blood has purchased for
us. The Church of Rome, therefore, in refusing the cup to
the people, not only violates the express command of our
Saviour, but, according to Monsieur de Meaux's principles,
teaches them by it that a full remission of sins is not yet ob
tained, even by the precious blood of Christ himself.
It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de
Meaux can get to justify their doctruie of the corporeal pre
sence of Christ in the eucharist, from the analogy of the ancient
sacrifices, which do clearly and necessarily establish the con
trary. For what remains of this discourse we are but little
concerned in it.
We confess this sacrament to be somewhat more than a mere
figure ; but we deny that therefore it must be his very body.
We acknowledge the power of God to do whatever he pleases ;
yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider, that contra
dictions, such as to be and not to be at the same time, are even
in their own schools usually excepted. Monsieur de Meaux
supposes, that because Christ did not explain his words in the
figurative sense, the Apostles must needs have understood them
in the literal. But we have before shewed, that the Jews, who
are certainly the best judges, are of a quite contrary opinion,
viz. that his Apostles knowing his allusion, as they did, could
never have understood them otherwise than in a figure. In a
word, for his last remark, " that the laws of discourse, which
permit, that where there is a just proportion between the sign
and the thing signified, the one may be put for the other ; yet
suffer it not to be so, when a morsel of bread, for instance, is
set to represent the body of a man." We must beg leave to
say, that neither is the proportion so small betwixt the bread
broken, and Christ's body broken, as Monsieur de Meaux
would suggest ; or, that if there were, yet since our Saviour's
institution has set the one to represent to us the other ; we
think that designation ought to be of more authority with us.

118 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
than all their new laws of discourse, invented purposely only to
set the fairer gloss upon so great and apparent an error.
Article XVIII.
" Do this in remembrance of me."
The explication of the preceding Article having engaged us
to a length extraordinary, we will endeavour to recompense it
by our shortness iu this.
We are entirely agreed that the intention of the Son of God
was, to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death
which he underwent for our salvation. We confess, that that
real presence which we suppose in the communion, does not at
all contradict the nature of this commemoration. We are per
suaded, that as the Jews eating of their peace-offering, which
was the remembrance of God's covenant, and particularly of
the passover, the type of that paschal lamb that was offered
for them in Egypt, called to mind the sacrifice of Isaac, and
that great deUverance God had wrought for them, in bringing
them up out of the land of bondage : so, whilst we eat of those
holy elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted, Uke the
peace-offering among the Jews, to perpetuate the memory of
his death, we call to mind the more lively that great dehver
ance which he has wrought for us, and render thanks for it,
and by faith and repentance apply to ourselves the merits
of it.
Thus whilst we receive these holy signs which he has insti
tuted for our memorial, we need no real descent of the Son of
God from heaven ; no new crucifying of the Lord of glory to
raise in our souls those just resentments we ought to have of
so excellent a blessing. But as a child cannot but recollect
the kindness and affection of a dear father, as often as he be
holds the monument where his dead body lies interred : so we
much more cannot choose but excite our love to our blessed
Redeemer, as often as we see before our eyes these sacred ele
ments under which he is veiled. Nor is it necessary for this
that this mystic tomb, as Monsieur de Meaux phrases it, should
any more be changed into the very real body of our Saviour to
raise this remembrance, than that natural one into the dead
corpse of the father, to recall the tender affections of his child
at the sight of it.
In a word, as we will not now move any argument from the
nature of this remembrance to oppose that substantial change,

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 119
which we have before combated on more soUd grounds, so we
suppose much less ought Monsieur de Meaux, from the sole
opinion of that more lively remembrance, which he imagines
the actual eating of the very flesh of Christ would raise in us
than only to do it in a figure, to conclude him to be substan
tially there. It is evident that they who believe this change,
and they who believe it not, receive him entirely alike. They
see, and taste, and feel the same thing : it is faith alone which
works in both, and makes the one believing him spiritually
present, to remember him with the same love, to honour him
with the same reverence, and embrace him with the same hope,
as the other, who thinks him corporeally, but yet after a man
ner altogether unperceivable, contained under the sacred ele
ments that are presented to him.
Article XIX.
The Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning this holy
Sacrament.
The sum of our behef, as to the nature of this holy sacra
ment, is this :
We esteem it designed by Christ to be a perpetual memorial
of his sufferings for us :* " For as often as ye eat this bread,
and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
We believe that in this communion, we do not only remem
ber, but effectually partake of our blessed Saviour, and all the
benefits of his passion ; insomuch that tot " such as rightly,
worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we
break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the
cup of the blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ."
For the manner of this participation, "We believe that the
body and blood of Christ are given, taken, and eaten in this
supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner ; and that
the means whereby this is done, is faith."J
§ " We beUeve that the wicked and such as are void of
faith, though they may visibly and camaUy press with their
teeth, as St. Augustine saith, the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, yet are no way partakers of Christ, but rather
as St. Paul tells us,l| eat and drink their own damnation, not
discerning the Lord's body."
In a word,^ " We beUeve that transubstantiation, or the
* 1 Cor. xi. 26. + See our 28th Article.
X See the same Article. $ The same Article.
II 1 Cor. xi. 29. IF The same Article.

120 doctrine op the church of ENGLAND.
change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance
of Christ's body and blood, can never be proved by holy
Scripture, but is repugnant thereunto ; contrary to the intention
of our blessed Saviour, and to the nature of this holy sacrament,
and has given cause to many great abuses," as in the following
Article we shall have occasion more particularly to shew.
This is our faith of this holy eucharist : and in this faith we
are confirmed not only by those unanswerable proofs which
our writers have given, and some of which we have before
touched upon ; but also from those irreconcilable differences,
which this error has thrown the writers of the Church of
Rome into. In effect, we find every party exposing the false
ness and impossibility of every one's hypothesis but his own.
Their greatest men confess the uncertainty of their own proofs.
"That there is not in Scripture any formal proof of transubstan
tiation." So Lombard, Scotus,* and many others, " that there
is not any, that without the declaration of the Church, would
be able to evince it." So Cardinal Bellarminef himself con-
* Scotus's words from which BeUarmine deduces his conclusions are
these, 4. sent. dist. 11. qu. 3. To this objection, Fol. 62. Nihil est
tenendum tanquam de substantia fidei, nisi quod potest expresse haberi de
scriptura, vel expresse declaratum est per ecclesiam, vel evidenter sequitur
ex aUquo plane contento in scriptura, vel plane determinate ab ecclesia :
R. [Ibid.] p. 63. Dicendum, quod ecclesia declaravit istum inteUectum
esse de veritate fidei, iu illo symbolo edito sub Innocentio tertio in conciho
Lateranensi, Firmiter credimus, &c. — Et breviter quicquid ibi dicitur esse
credendum, tenendum est esse de substantia fidei — Et si quaeras, quare
voluit ecclesia eligere istum inteUectum ita diflScilem hujus articuli, cum
verba scripturae possint salvari secundum inteUectum facUem et veriorem
secundum apparentiam de hoc Articulo, dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt
scripturae quo conditae, &c.
And before in Sect. Quantum ergo, &c. He professed Principaliter
autem videtur me movere, quod sic tenet Romana ecclesia.
t Bellarmine de Euch. 1. 3. c. 23. [ut supra,] p. 767. 1. D. cites Scotus
for this opinion. Secundo dicit, non extare locum ullum scripturte tam
expressum, ut sine ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantia-
tionem admittere. Atque id non est omnino improbabUe. Nam etiamsi
scriptura videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem non pro-
tervum, tamen an ita sit merito dubitari potest, cum homines doctissimi
et acutissimi, qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. He cites
Scotus 4. Dist. 11. qu. 3.
Suarez in 3 part. Th. vol. 3. disp. 50. §. 1. p. 593. [Mogunt. 1610.]
Sacramentum eucharistiae conficitur, per veram conversionem panis et
vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi : Hiec assertio est de fide. Nam Ucet
sub his verbis non habeatur in scriptura, ea tamen docet ecclesia ab
apostoUs edocta, docens simul ita esse intelUgenda verba formae, et in
vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri.
And then [Ibid.] p. 594. col. 2. adds, Ex hac fidei doctrina coUigitur,

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 121
fesses, " that had not the Church declared herself for the
proper sense of the words, the other might with as good
warrant have been received." So says Cardinal Cajetan,*
" that if the words of consecration refer to the bread,
which is changed by them, then they must be taken in our
sense :" so the generality of that communion confess. In a
word,f " That this doctrine was no matter of faith till the
Council of Lateran, 1200 years after Christ, and that had not
that and the Council of Trent since interposed, it would not
have been so to this very day."
And here who can choose but admire the power of truth ?
That after so many outcries against us, for opposing a doctrine
which they would make the world believe is as clear as if it
were written with a ray of the sun ; after so many anathemas
against us for heretics and schismatics, and ten thousand

corrigendos esse scholasticos qui hanc doctrinam de conversione hac, seu
de transubstantiatione, non admodum antiquam esse dixeruut, inter quos
sanctus Thomas, Scotus, et Gabriel Biel. sect. 41. in canone, &c.
* Cajetanus in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. p. 130. col. 1. [Venet. 1612.]
in comment. Circa praesentis et sequentium articulorum doctrinam, pro
claritate et ampUori intellectu difBcultatum, sciendum est ex autoritate
sacrae scripturiE de existentia corporis Christi in sacramento Eucharistiae,
nihU aUud haberi expresse, nisi verbum Salvatoris dicentis Hoc est corpus
meum ; Oportet enim verba haec vera esse. Et quoniam verba sacrae
scripturae exponuntur dupliciter, vel proprie vel metaphorice. Primus
error circa hoc fuit interpretantium haec Domini verba metaphorice,
quern Magister sent. 1. 4. dist. 10. tractat ; qui etjhoc articulo reprobatur.
Et consistit vis reprobationis in hoc, quod verba Domini inteUecta sunt ab
ecclesia proprie, et propterea oportet Ula verificari proprie.
1[ Habemus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio, corpus
Christi veraciter esse in eucharistia ; et hoc est primum quod ex evangeUo
habemus circa hoc sacramentum. Alteram autem quod evangelium non
explicavit expresse, ab ecclesia accepimus, sc. conversionem panis in
corpus Christi, &c.
N.B. AU before this last paragraph marked H the Vindicator has passed
by ; and begun his citation just where mine ended.
t BeUarm. de Euch. 1. 3. c. 23. [ut supra,] p. 768. 1. A. Unum
tamen addit Scotus, quod minime probandum est, ante Lateranense con-
ciUum non fuisse dogma fidei transubstantiationem, &c. Lombard. 1. 4.
dist. 11. lit. A. Si autem quaeritur quaUs sit ilia conversio — definire non
sufficio. — Quibusdam esse videtur substantialis, &c. All along shewing
an uncertainty ; no matter of faith necessary to be received.
I have before cited Gabriel out of Suarez : now to prevent an exception,
observe how he goes on in the very place above cited. Secundo infero,
siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi et absentiam panis, neget
tamen veram conversionem unius in aliud, in hairesin labi ; quia ecclesia
cathohca non solum duo priora, sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet.

122 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
repetitions of their great scriptum est, " This is my body,"
they should at last be forced to confess, " that they are not,
cannot, nor are ever like to be agreed in the explication of
them. That they contain nothing in them necessary to prove
this change. That had not the Church declared itself for the
literal meaning ; the figurative interpretation might with as
good reason have been received. That for 1200 years this
doctrine was no matter of faith, and but for the Council of
Lateran had not been then. In short, that if the words of
institution refer to the bread, then we are doubtless in the
right ;" and if they do not, how will they ever prove the
change which they pretend is made of the bread into the body
of Christ by them ?
Certainly confessions, such as these, ought to awake every
Papist careful of his own salvation, into an unprejudiced
examination at least of these things. To consider what foun
dation there really is for this doctrine, and what desperate
consequences, unknown to antiquity, contrary to the formal
words of holy Scripture, and, without God's infinite mercy,
absolutely destructive of their eternal salvation, have been built
upon it.
As we hope that these declarations have been permitted by
God to fall from the greatest and most esteemed of their
Church, not only to confirm us in our faith, but also to pre
pare the way for their return to that catholic truth, from which
they have so long erred ; so we doubt not, by God's blessing,
but that they will in time attain to it, when being sensible of
that tyrannical usurpation that has been made over their
consciences, and resolved to use that knowledge God has given
them, to search the Scriptures, and examine,; their faith, and
not servilely follow every guide that will but pretend to lead
them : they shall seriously and indifferently weigh all these
things, and find that therefore only they have thought us in
darkness, beeause their own eyes were shut that they might
not discern the light.
Article XX.
Of Transubstantiation, and of the Adoration ofthe Host.
What remains of this subject of the holy eucharist, being
wholly consequent upon the foregoing mistaken interpretation
of the words of our blessed Saviour before considered; we
should have passed them over, as things we have in effect

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 123
already declared that the Church of England receives not ; but
that we are persuaded the particular consideration of them vriU
yet more fully shew the falseness of that foundation upon which
they are built.
Monsieur de Meaux, in proving the corporeal presence of
Christ in the holy eucharist from the words of. institution,
" This is my body ;" had something that at least seemed to
favour his mistake ; but to produce them here for transub
stantiation, that is, not only to argue the presence of Christ's
substance, but also the change of the substance of the bread
and wine into it, he has not the least appearance of the text for
him. Indeed were there no other way for Christ to be present in
the eucharist, but only by this change ; it might then be
allowed that having, as he imagines, proved the one, he had in
effect estabhshed the other. But the number of those who
interpret the words in like manner according to the letter, yet
are as great enemies as ourselves to this change ; and suppose
Christ's body to be present by a union of it to the bread,
rather than by a conversion of the bread into it ; not only
shews that there is no necessary consequence at all between the
real presence and transubstantiation, but that there is another
manner of Christ's presence, both more agreeable to holy
Scripture than that which they advance, and that takes off
infinite diffixjulties which their transubstantiation involves
them in.
That the substance of the sacred figures remains in this
sacrament after the consecration, those clear expressions of
St. Paul, wherein he so often calls them " bread and wine"*
after it, seem to us plainly to shew. " To break bread,"f the
holy Scripture tells us was the usual phrase all the time of
the Apostles, for receiving the holy communion ; and which
the blessed Spirit himself dictated. These passages Monsieur
de Meaux certainly ought not to put off with a figurative
meaning, unless he can give us some good reason why he
follows the high road of the hteral interpretation of the one, to
establish the substance of Christ's body in the sacrament ; and
forsakes it in the other, to take away the presence of the
bread from it.
For the adoration ofthe host, the Church of England, con
sequently to her principles of the bread and wine's remaining
• 1 Cor. X. 16, &c. xi. 24. t Acts ii. 46, Sec.

124 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
in their natural substances, professes that she thinks it " to be
idolatry, and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians."*
Monsieur de Meaux, in conformity to theirs, tells us, " that
the presence of Christ's body in the eucharist, ought to
carry all such as believe it without all scruple to the adoration
of it." This therefore being taken as a principle acknowledged
by them, it may not be amiss to observe, that since it is cer
tain, that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or prac
tised, nor the Church for above a thousand years required or
taught any adoration of this holy sacrament ; neither could
they, according to Monsieur de Meaux's principles, have be
lieved the corporeal presence of our blessed Saviour in it.
Is there any of the Evangehsts that mentions it ? They all
tell us, " Take, eat ; do this in remembrance of me." But
does any one add, " this is my body, fall down and worship
it?" When St. Paulf reproved the Corinthians for violating this
holy sacrament ; is it possible he could have omitted so ob
vious a remark, and so much to his purpose ; that in profaning
this holy sacrament, they were not only guilty of the body
and blood of Christ, which it was instituted to represent to us ;
but even directly affronted their blessed Master corporally
present there ; and whom, instead of profaning, they ought,
as they had been taught, to adore in it.
With what simplicity do the ancient Fathers speak of this
communion in all their writings ! The elevation of the sacred
symbols was not heard of till the seventh century ; and then
used only to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the cross,
not to expose it to the people to adore it. The bell,J the
feast of the St. Sacrament, § the pomp of carrying it through
the streets, 11 all the other circumstances of this worship,
are inventions of yesterday. The exposing of it upon the
altar to make their prayers before it ; their addresses to it
in times and cases of necessity ; their performing the chiefest
acts of religion in its presence, never mentioned in antiquity.
Nay, instead of this worship, they did many things utterly
inconsistent with it. They disputed with the heathens for
worshipping gods their own hands had made. Was it ever
objected to them, that they themselves did the same : worship
* See her Rubric at the end ofthe Communion-Office.
t 1 Cor. xi. 20, &c. tA. D. 1240.
§ A. D. 1264. II 13th Century.

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 125
a deity whose substance they first formed, and then spoke it
into a god ? They burnt in some churches what remained of
the holy sacrament. They permitted the people to carry it
home, that had communicated : they sent it abroad by
sea, by land, without the least regard to be had of its wor
ship ; they buried it with their dead ; they made plasters
of the bread ; they mixed the wine with their ink. These
certainly were no instances of adoration : nor can we ever
suppose that they who did such things as these, ever be
lieved that it was the very body and blood of their dear
Master, whom they so much loved ; and whom doubtless they
would have been as ready to have worshipped, had they so
believed, as both Monsieur de Meaux supposes they ought to
have been, and as we see others, for the rest no more pious
than those primitive Christians were, now to do it.
Article XXI.
Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
A third consequence of the corporeal presence of Christ in
the holy eucharist, is the sacrifice of the mass : in which we
ought to proceed with all the caution such a point requires, as
both make up the chiefest part of the Popish worship, and is
justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous errors
that offend us.
Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with so much
tenderness, that except perhaps it be his foundation of the
corporeal presence, on which he builds, and his consequence
that this service is a true and real propitiatory sacrifice, which
his manner of expounding it we are persuaded will never bear ;
there is little in it besides but what we could readily assent to.
We distinguish the two acts which he mentions from one
another. By the consecration we apply the elements, before
common, to a sacred use ; by the manducation, we fulfil our
Saviour's command ; " we take, and eat, and do this in re
membrance of him."
This consecration being separately made of his body broken,
his blood spilt for our redemption, we suppose represents to
us our blessed Lord in the figure of his death, which these
holy symbols were instituted to continue the memory of. And
while thus with faith we represent to God the death of his
Son, for the pardon of our sins ; we are persuaded, that we
incline his mercy the more readily to forgive them.

126 DOCTRINE OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
We do not therefore doubt, but that this presenting to God
Almighty the sacrifice of our blessed Lord, is a most effectual
manner of applying his merits to us. Were this aU the Church
of Rome meant by her propitiatory sacrifice, there is not cer
tainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it.
Where is that Christian, that does not by faith unite him
self to his Saviour in this holy communion ? That does not
present him to God as his only sacrifice and propitiation?
That does not protest that he has nothing to offer him but
Jesus Christ, and the merits of his death ? That consecrates
not all his prayers by this divine offering ; and whilst he thus
presents to God the sacrifice of his Son, does not learn thereby
to present also himself a lively sacrifice, holy and acceptable
in his sight.
This is, no doubt, a sacrifice worthy a Christian, infinitely
exceeding all the sacrifices of the law. Where the knife is the
word, the blood not shed but in a figure, nor is there any
death but in representation. A sacrifice so far from takmg us
off from that of the cross, that it imites us the more closely to
it ; represents it to us, and derives all its virtue and efficacy
from it.
This is, if any other, truly the doctrine of the cathoKc
Church, and such as the Church of England has never refused :
and except it be our doubt of the corporeal presence. Monsieur
de Meaux had certainly reason to expect, that there was
nothing in this we could justly except against.
But now that all this is sufficient to prove the mass to be
a " true and proper sacrifice,* truly and properly propitia
tory for the sms and punishments, the satisfactions and neces
sities of the dead and the living ; and that to offer this true
and proper sacrifice, our Saviour Christ instituted a true and
proper priesthood, when he said. Do this in remembrance of
me :" this is what we cannot yet understand, and what we
think we ought not ever to allow of.
We know indeed, that the Primitive Church called the holy
eucharist a sacrifice, in that large extent of the expression,
whereby the holy Scripture styles every rehgious performance,
our prayers, our thanksgivings, our virtues, our very selves,
sacrifices to God : and accordingly in our own Liturgy, we do,
without all scruple, do the same. But when it comes to be
* ConcU. Trident, sess. 22. [Labbe, ConcU. vol. 14. p. 853. Lut. Par.
1672]

UPON THE EUCHARIST. 127
set in opposition to a sacrament, and to be considered in the
true and proper signification of the word ; we must with all
antiquity, needs profess, that we neither have, nor can we after
that of Christ admit of any.
Hence it is, that our Church, following the doctrine of the
holy Apostles and primitive Christians, teaches,* "that the
offering of Christ once made, is that proper redemption, propi
tiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world ; and
that there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone."
That the application of Christ's death by faith in the holy
eucharist is made to all such as with true repentance receive
the same, we undoubtedly believe. We are persuaded, that by
our prayers, which in this holy solemnity we never fail to offer
for the wants and necessities, the pardon and forgiveness not
of ourselves only, but of all mankind. ; of those who have not
yet known the faith of Christ : or that knowing it, have pre
varicated from the right way, we incline God's mercy to
become propitious unto them. Only we deny, that by this
holy eucharist, as by a true and proper propitiatory sacrifice,
we can appease God's wrath for the sins of the whole world ;
can fulfil the satisfactions, aud supply the necessities of other
men ; of the dead and the living ; of them that are absent, and
partake not of it. This we attribute to the sacrifice of the
cross only ; and are persuaded that it cannot, without deroga
tion to the merits of that most absolute redemption, which was
there purchased for us, be apphed to any other.
When we examine the first institution of this holy commu
nion, we cannot perceive either in the words or action of our
blessed Saviour, any sacrificial act or expression. " He took
bread and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying. Take,
eat ; this is my body, which is given for you : Do this in re
membrance of me."
Monsieur de Meaux seems to imply, that the consecration
made it a sacrifice. But this Vasquez tells us,f that others
think to be only a preparation to it, because till after the con
secration Christ is not there, and by consequence cannot be
offered. The Council of Trent seems to refer it to the oblation : J
* See Article 31.
+ For this see Vasquez, 1. c. N. 3, 4. p. 526. Edit. Antverp. 1614. et
in 3. D. Th. Disp. 222. c. 1.
t BeUarm. 1. c. [ut supra,] p. 1060. sect, quinta propositio, Ut. B.

128 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
this BeUarmine opposes,* because neither Christ nor his Apos
tles used any.
Bellarmine is positive,t that either Christ sacrificed in eat
ing, J or there is no other action in which he can be said to have
done it. Yet even this the greatest part of that communion
reject ; because eating is not offering : and in the ordination
where the priest receives the power of sacrificing, not any men
tion is made of it. In effect reason will tell us, that this is to
partake of the offering, not to offer it ; and Monsieur de Meaux
himself accordingly distinguishes the two acts of consecration
and manducation from one another, and refers the sacrifice
only to the former.
If we consider the nature of a true and proper sacrifice,
they universally agree that these four things are necessarily
required to it : 1 . That what is offered be something that is
visible : 2. That of profane, which it was before, it be now
made sacred : 3. That it be offered to God : and, 4. by that
offering suffer an essential destruction.
Now we suppose, that the greatest part of these conditions
are evidently wanting to this pretended sacrifice of Christ's
body in the mass. 1. It is invisible : they confess it. 2. It
was never profane, that it should be made sacred : they will
not presume to say that it was. 3. It suffers no essential
destruction : " the blood is not spilt, but in a mystery," says
Monsieur de Meaux, " nor is there any death but in represen
tation." As therefore none of these things truly and properly agree
with this holy eucharist, so we suppose, that neither can it
be truly and properly a sacrifice. We are persuaded, that the
offering itself, like the necessary and essential properties of it,
must be only in figure and representation. This is what we
willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux, and what their own prin
ciples do undoubtedly prove.
For what our Saviour adds, " Do this in remembrance of
me," however the Council of Trent has canonically resolved it
to be the institution of the true and proper priesthood, § to
offer this sacrifice : yet that it has no such proof, the pre
ceding discourse evidently shews. Our Saviour Christ com-
* L. 1, de Miss. c. 27.
t Or rather in both : et consecrando et manducando. Ibid. p. 1064.
l.B. X Ibid. §See Sess. 22. cap. 1. [Labbe, ConcU. ut supra.]

OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 129
manding his apostles to do this, commanded them to do no
more than what himself had done : so that if he therefore did
not sacrifice himself, neither did he give any authority to them,
or to their successors to sacrifice.
Article XXII.
Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The Epistle to the Hebrews so clearly establishes our doc
trine, in opposition to the pretended sacrifice of the mass, that
Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to enter on a parti
cular consideration of it. We will, after his example, follow
the same method, and shew the whole design of that sacred
book to be directly contrary to the principles of the Roman
Church. Monsieur de Meaux observes, that the author of this Epistle
concludes, that there ought not only no other victim to be
offered for sin after that of Christ, but that even Christ him
self ought not to be any more offered. Now the reason which
the Apostle gives is this ; because that otherwise, says he,*
" Christ must often have suffered:" plainly implying, that there
can be no true offering without suffering. So that in the mass,
then, either Christ must suffer, which Monsieur de Meaux
denis, or he is not offered, which we affirm.
This is so evidently the meaning of that place, and so often
repeated, " that without shedding of blood there is no remis
sion," f that Monsieur de Meaux is forced freely to declare,
that if we take the word offer as it is used in that Epistle, they
must profess to the whole world, that Christ is no more
offered, either in the mass, or any other way. Now, how these
things can stand together, that the Epistle to the Hebrews con
tradicts not the offering of the mass, and yet that the same
Epistle absolutely declares, that Christ can no more be offered,
because he can no more suffer ; nor any more become a propi
tiatory sacrifice, because without blood there is no propitiation :
all which Monsieur de Meaux allows, and professes to the whole
world, that in the notion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ
is not offered in the mass, nor can be anywhere else, we are not
very weU able to comprehend.
But that Epistle goes yet further. It tells us, that Christ
ought to be but once offered, because " by that one offering J
* Heb. ix. 25, 26. f Heb. ix. 22. t Heb. a. 14.
VOL. XII. K

130 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
he has fully satisfied for our sins, and has perfected for ever
them that are sanctified."* If, therefore, by that first offering
he hath fully satisfied for our sins, there is then " no more
need of any offering for sin :" if by that first sacrifice " he hath
perfected them that are sanctified,"t the mass certainly must
be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is
already perfect. In a word, J if the sacrifices of the law were
therefore repeated, as this Epistle tells us, because they were
imperfect ; and had they been otherwise, they should have
ceased to have been offered ; what can we conclude, but that
the Church of Rome then, in every mass she offers, does rio-
lence to the cross of Christ ; and, in more than one sense,
crucifies to herself the Lord of glory.
Lastly, The Council of Trent declares, that because there is
a new and proper sacrifice to be offered, it was necessary that
our Saviour Christ should institute a new and proper priesthood
to offer it. And so they say he did, " after the order of Melchi-
sedek," in opposition to that after the order of Aaron under
the law. Now, certainly nothing can be more contrary to this
Epistle than such an assertion : both whose description of this
priesthood shews it can agree only to our blessed Lord ; and
which, indeed, in express terms, declares it to be peculiar to
him. It calls it "an unchangeable priesthood," J that passes not
to any other, as that of Aaron did from father to son, but con
tinues in him 'only, because that he also himself continues for
evermore. Article XXIII.
Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine.
And here, then, let us conjure our brethren of the Church
of Rome seriously to consider these things ; and into what
desperate consequences that great error of the corporeal pre
sence has insensibly led them.
Can anything be more rash or more uncharitable, even the
literal interpretation of this holy eucharist being aUowed, than
their canon of transubstantiation ? To cut off from their com
munion the greatest and most orthodox part of the Christian
Church, only for a nicety; a maimer of presence which
neither has the Scripture anywhere revealed, and which they
themselves never understood.
• Heb. X. 18. t Ibid. ver. 2.
tHeb. vii. 11. § Ibid. ver. 24.

REFLECTIONS. 131
Is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dan
gerous error, than to set up a wafer for their God, and pay a
divine worship to a morsel of bread ? Shall their good inten
tions secure them ? Had not the Israelites * a good intention
to hold a feast unto the Lord, when they worshipped the
molten calf? Were they, therefore, not idolators for it?
Had this been a sufficient excuse, Nadab and Abihu had not
been punished : their intention was certainly good, to burn in
cense to the Lord.f The Jews had a good intention even in
crucifying the Lord of glory : St. Paul thought it zeal to per
secute his disciples. Our blessed Saviour has foretold, and we
hve to see it accomplished, that the time should come when
men should kill their brethren, " and think they did God good
service." J The Church of Rome may do well to consider whether
their good intention will justify them that do it; and whether
both in this, and that, they do not run a desperate hazard, if
it appear that they have no other plea than a well-meant mis
take to excuse them.
For our parts, we must needs profess, that these things give
us not only a scandal, but a horror for their rehgion. Monsieur
de Meaux had certainly reason to say, that this is the chiefest
and most important of all our controversies, and wherein we
are at the farthest distance from one another. And would to
God they had only offended us by these errors ; and had not
exposed our common name to the reproach ofthe very heathen;
who have been confirmed by them in their idolatry, and
thought it more rational to adore a stock or a stone, than with
the Christians to worship this moment what they eat the very
next. But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to ap
pear so obstinate against them, who declare ourselves so fa
vourably towards the Lutherans, who are yet involved in the
same error. It is true, we believe the Lutherans mistaken in
their Uteral interpretation of this holy sacrament. But we are
persuaded they are infinitely less so, and less dangerously than
the Papists.
They confess there is no change made in the substance of
the sacred elements. They beUeve that the bread and wine
continue in their proper natures, and that Christ's body is only
present when it is received. They adore not the holy eucha
rist : they found no propitiatory sacrifices upon it : they say
* Exod. xxxii. 5. t Lev. x. 1. t John xvi. 2.
K 2

132 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
no masses for the sins and satisfactions, for the wants and ne
cessities of the dead and the Uving : they deny not the cup to
the people; their error, in one word, whatsoever it be, is only
a matter of simple belief ; has no ill consequences attending it,
nor do they damn us for not receiving it.
Let the Church of Rome do all this : let them raze their
anathemas out of their Councils, and banish their masses and
adorations out of their churches ; let them no longer scandalize
us with any unwarrantable practices, nor desire to enslave our
consciences by submitting them to their own inventions ; and
though we still think transubstantiation to be the greater error,
yet will we receive them vrith the same charify as we do the
Lutherans : we will pray to God to give them a better under
standing, but will not drive them from our communion, for
matters of simple belief, and which are only to themselves,
though they be wrong.
But, till then, in vain does Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to
consider the ways of Providence to bring us to a union, which
God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss
of truth. In the meantime, if the Church of Rome in good
earnest thinks, that as we tolerate the foundation of all these
errors, the corporeal presence in the Lutherans, so we ought to
bear the consequences of it in them : let them at least do what
the Lutherans have done ; let them embrace our communion ;
let them leave off to persecute us where they have power, and
damn us where they have not ; let them receive us as brethren,
not lord it over us as our masters. This will make us hope
that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with
them, and they may justly, then, accuse us of partiaUty, if
we continue to repute them as enemies, when they will be
thus content to love, and receive, and deal with us as
friends.
Article XXIV.
Of communicating only under one kind.
This is the last of those consequences that give us a just
detestation for that great error of the corporeal presence, on
which they are founded. It is so plainly contrary to the
express command of our blessed Saviour, that we are persuaded
it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it, on purpose to
correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to
an opinion of infallibility : that whilst they lord it over men's

OF COMMUNICATING ONLY UNDER ONE KIND. 133
consciences, and will not so much as give them leave to ask
them a reason of what they do, they might here at last be
surprised in an error which the most vulgar eye is able to
discern. The Church of England, conformably to all antiquity, declares,
" That the cup ought not to be denied to the lay-people ; for
asmuch as both parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's
ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all
Christian men alike."*
For indeed, did not he who said of the bread, " Take, eat,
this is my body," say also ofthe wine, with the same express
ness, ' ' Drink ye all of this ; for this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins ?"
Did not he who commanded them, " Do this in remembrance
of me," for the bread, even according to their own construc
tion. Take and consecrate, and give to others as I have done to
you ; command them for the cup in like manner, " Do this,"
i. e. consecrate, and give it to others, as I have done to you, "in
remembrance of me ?"
We confess, that the grace of God is not tied to the outward
signs : yet we think withal, that without taking the outward
and visible signs, we can have no pretence to the inward and
spiritual grace of that holy sacrament ; which, deriving all its
effect from our Saviour's promise, we can have no security
that it shall have any good one to them, who do not receive it
according to his institution.
Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the blood
in the body, we suppose he would not have consecrated the
cup afterwards. But if it was our Saviour's pleasure, that to
commemorate the more Uvely his passion, we should take his
blood as it was spilt for our redemption, separate from his
body ; we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to
make ourselves wiser than God, and say, that it is sufficient to
participate of both in one.
Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an answer upon this
point, from the reply made to his treatise written purposely on
this subject, that he will have no cause to complain of us for
not repeating here, what has been so fully and so successfully
handled there.
Only as to that negligence of these latter ages, which he is
pleased to allege as the reason of this change ; we must needs
» See our 30th Article.

134 OP THE WORD WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN.
say, that God be thanked, we cannot observe any such negli
gence of this holy communion in our churches, where yet this
holy sacrament is administered to as large congregations, and
with as great frequency as any where among them. Both our
priests and the people give and receive it with that care and
reverence, that we find as little grounds for any such pretence,
as there is reason in it, were it never so true, to justify so great
and unwarrantable a change.

PART III.— OF THE CHURCH,
Article XXV.
Of the Word written and unwritten.
Our blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the
word which he preached, we confess, that the unwritten word,
as to that Gospel which he preached, was the first rule of
Christians. But God Almighty, foreseeing how liable such a
rule must have been to infinite inconveniences, thought fit to
have that word, which was first spoken by mouth, afterwards
consigned to writing. By which means the word written and
unwritten were not two different rules, but as to all necessary
matters of faith, one and the same : and the unwritten word
so far from losing its authority, that it was indeed the more
fully established, by being thus delivered to us by the holy
Apostles and Evangelists.
We receive with the same veneration whatsoever comes from
the Apostles, whether by Scripture or tradition, provided that
we can be assured that it comes from them. And if it can
be made appear, that any tradition, which the written word
contains not, has been received by all churches, and in all
ages, we are ready to embrace it, as coming from the Apostles.
Monsieur de Meaux therefore ought not to charge us as
enemies to tradition, or obstinate not to receive what is so
delivered. Our Church rejects not tradition, but only those
things which they pretend to have received by it : but which
we suppose to be so far from being the doctrine of the
Apostles, or of all churches, in all ages, that we are persuaded
they are many of them directly contrary to the written word,
which is by themselves confessed to be the Apostles' doctrine,
and which the best and purest ages of the Church adhered to.

OF THE CHURCH 8 AUTHORITY. 135
Article XXVI.
Of the Church's Authority.
The Church, i. e. the universal Church in all ages, having
been established by God the guardian of the holy Scriptures,
and of tradition, we receive from her the canonical books of
Scripture. It is upon this authority, that we receive princi
pally the Song of Solomon as canonical, and reject other books
as apocryphal, which we might perhaps with as much readi
ness otherwise receive. By this authority we reverence these
books, even before by our own reading of them, we perceive
the Spirit of God in them : and when by our reading them, we
find all things conformable to so excellent a spirit, we are yet
more confirmed in the beUef and reverence we before had of
them. This authority, therefore, we freely allow the Church, that
by her hands in the succession of the several ages, we have
received the holy Scriptures. And if as universal and uncon
troverted a tradition had descended for the interpretation of
the Scriptures, as for the receiving of them, we should have
been as ready to accept of that too. Such a declaration of the
sense of holy Scripture as had been received by all churches,
and in all ages, the Church of England would never refuse ;
but then as we profess not to receive the Scriptures themselves
only, or perhaps principally upon the authority of the Roman
Church, which has in all ages made up but a part, and that not
always the greatest neither, of this tradition ; so neither can
we think it reasonable to receive the sense of them only from
her, though she profess never so much to invent nothing of
herself, hut only to declare the Divine revelation made to her
by the Holy Ghost, which she supposes has been given to her
for her direction : whilst we are persuaded, that neither has
any promise at all been made to any particular Church of such
an infallible direction ; and have such good cause to believe that
this particular Church too often, instead ofthe Divine revela
tion, declares only her own inventions.
When the dispute arose about the ceremonies of the law.
Acts XV. the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem, for the deter
mination of it. When any doubts arise in the Church now,
we always esteem it the best method to decide them after the
same manner. That the Church has authority, not only in
matters of order and discipline, but even of faith too, we

136 OP THE church's AUTHORITY.
never denied : but that therefore any Church so assembled, can
with the same authority say now, as the Apostles did then,
" It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us :"* this
we think not only an unwarrantable presumption, for which
there is not any sufficient ground in holy Scripture, but
evidently in itself untrue, seeing that many such Councils are
by the Papists themselves confessed to have erred.
Hence it is that we cannot suppose it reasonable to forbid
men the examination of the Church's decisions, which may
err, when the holy Apostles, nay our Saviour Christ himself,
not only permitted, but exhorted their disciples to search the
truth of their doctrine, which was certainly infallible. Yet if
the determination be matter of order or government, as "not to
eat of things offered to idols," &c. or of plain and undoubted
precept, as to "abstain from fornication," and the hke : here we
fail not, after the example of Paul and Silas, to declare to the
faithful what her decision has been ; and instead of permitting
them to judge of what has been so resolved, teach them
throughout all places "to keep the orduiances of the
Apostles."t Thus is it that we acquiesce in the judgment of the Church;
and professing in our creed a holy catholic Church, we profess
to believe not only that there was a Church planted by our
Saviour at the beginning, that has hitherto been preserved by
him, and ever shall be to the end of the world ; but do hy
consequence undoubtedly believe too, that this universal Church
is so secured by the promises of Christ, that there shaU always
be retained so much truth in it, the want of which would
argue that there could be no such Church. We do not fear
that ever the catholic Church should fall into this enthe in
fidelity : but that any particular Church, such as that of Rome,
may not either by error lose, or by other means prevaricate the
faith, even in the necessary points of it ; this we suppose not
to be at all contrary to the promise of God Almighty, and we
wish we had not too great cause to fear, that the Church of
Rome has in effect done both.
It is not therefore of the catholic Church truly such, that
we either fear this infidelity, or complain that she hath en
deavoured to render herself mistress of our faith. But for that
particular communion, to which Monsieur de Meaux is pleased
to give the name, though she professes never so much to sub
mit herself to the holy Scripture, and to follow the tradition of
* Acts XV. 28. t Acts xvi. 4.

OF THE church's AUTHORITY. 137
the Fathers in all ages ; yet whilst she usurps the absolute in
terpretation both of the Scripture and Fathers, and forbids us
to examine whether she does it rightly or no, we must needs
complain that her protestations are invalid, whilst her actions
speak the contrary : for that if this be not to render herself
mistress of our faith, we cannot conceive what is.
In a word, though we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly
written, that it can very hardly happen, that in the necessary
articles of faith any one man should be found opposite to the
whole Church in his opinion : yet, if such a one were evidently
convinced that his belief was founded upon the undoubted
authority of God's holy word, so far would it be from any
horror to support it, that it is at this day the greatest glory of
St. Athanasius, that he stood up alone against the whole
world in defence of Christ's divinity, when the Pope, the
Councils, and the whole Church fell away.
Conclude we therefore, that God, who has made us, and
knows what is best and most proper for us, as he has subjected
us to the government and direction of his Church for our peace
and welfare, so to secure our faith, he has given us his holy
word, to be the last resort, the final, infaUible rule, by which
both we and the Church itself must be directed : and from this,
therefore, if any one shall endeavour to tum us aside, or preach
any other Gospel unto us than what we have therein received,
though he were an apostle* from the grave, or even an angel
from heaven, let him be anathema.
Article XXVII.
The Opinion of the Church of England, as to the Authority
of the Church.
For the two last articles of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition,
I might very well have passed them by. The Church of Eng
land, whose doctrine I pretend to explain, is but very little
concerned in them. Therefore only in a word, that we aUow
the Church a just authority in matters of faith, both the de
claration of our twentieth Article, and the subscription we
make to the whole Thirty-nine shew : such a deference we
allow to her decisions, that we make them our directions what
doctrine we may, or may not, publicly maintain and teach in
her communion : in effect, we shew whatever submission we can
* Gal. i. 8, 9.

138 AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE.
to her authority, without violating that of God, declared to us
in holy Scriptures.
Whatsoever deference we aUow to a national Church or Coun
cil, the same we think in a much greater degree due to a gene
ral. And whensoever such a one, which we much desire, shall
be freely and lawfully assembled, to determine the differences
of the catholic Church, none shall be more ready both to assist
in it, and submit to it. Article XXVIII.
Of the Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy.
For the Pope's authority, though we suppose no good con
sequence can be drawn from that primacy, we are content to
allow St. Peter among the Apostles, for that exorbitant power
which has of late been pretended to : yet when other differ
ences shall be agreed and the true bounds set to his pretences,
we shall be content to yield him whatsoever " authority the
ancient Councils of the primitive Church have acknowledged,
and the holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give
him.'; This Monsieur de Meaux ought to be contented with, who
absolves us from yielding to those pretences, that have indeed
very justly rendered this authority not only odious but into
lerable to theVorld.
Let those who are enemies to episcopacy, and who deny any
due respect to the chair of St. Peter, answer for themselves.
The Church of England has both retained the one, and will be
ready, according to what we have before declared, whenever it
shall be requisite, to acknowledge the other.
The Close.
Such is the doctrine of the Church of England in those
points which Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to propose,
as the principal matters in debate between us. May it please
the unprejudiced Papist to say what he can find in all these, to
warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceived
against us. To cut us off, as much as in them lies, from the
communion of Christ's Church on earth, and to deny us aU
part of his promises in heaven.
We firmly believe the holy Scriptures, and whatsoever they

the close. 139
teach or command, we receive and submit to, as to the word
of God. We embrace the ancient creeds, and in them all
that faith which the primitive Christians supposed, and which
the religious emperors, by their advice, decreed should be suf
ficient to entitle us to the common name of CathoUcs.
What new Donatists, gentlemen, are you, to presume to ex
clude us from this character ? And may we not justly de
mand of you, what St. Augustine once did of them on the same
occasion ; you say, " that Christ is heir of no lands, but where
Donatus is co-heir.* Read this to us out of the Law and the
Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel, out of the
sacred Epistles : read it to us, and we wUl beheve."
We accept the tradition of primitive antiquity truly such,
with a veneration we dare confidently say greater than your
selves. We have shewed, that the very ground of our dif
ference is, that you require us to believe and practise such
things as the holy Scripture forbids us, and the primitive
Church never knew.
You command uS " to worship images."f Is it not evident
that both the Law and the Gospel have forbid it ? and is it not
confessed, that both the Apostles and their successors abhorred
the very name ?
Yon command us " to communicate only under one kind:" J
that is in our opinion, nay, it is in yours too, to contradict the
institution of our blessed Saviour, and the practice of the very
Roman Church for above a thousand years, and of all other
Christians to this very day.
You command us "to pray to saints and angels." § Does not
St. Paul forbid it? II Did not the holy angel twice refuse it
from St. John?^ And many centuries passed without one
probable instance of any that did it.
You command us, under pain of your anathema, " to believe
transubstantiation."** Do you yourselves understand what you
mean by it ? Is it any where written ? Was it ever mentioned
for above a thousand years ?
You bid us "adore the holy sacrament."f f Has Christ pre
scribed it ? Have his holy Apostles written it ? Did not there
above a thousand years pass before any one attempted it ?
* De Unitate Ecclesiae, c. 6. t See Article 4.
X Article 24. § Articles. || Col. ii. 18.
f Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9. ** Article 20.
tt Article 20.

140 doctrine of the church of ENGLAND.
You require us to believe the blessed eucharist " to be a
true and real propitiatory sacrifice for the sins and satisfactions
both ofthe dead and of the hving."* Have ye any probable
proof of it ? Are ye yet, or ever like to be agreed among
yourselves about it? Do not your own principles evidently
shew the contrary ?
Men and brethren : consider, we conjure you, these things :
and if you please, consider us too, what we are, and what our
manners and conversation among you have been : beUeve us, at
least, that we have no other end but truth in these inquiries :
no other interest but to save our souls, and to go the surest
and directest way to heaven.
The proofs we offer, they are not vain conjectures ; they are
clear, we think, convincing arguments. And though the
design of this little treatise has been rather to shew you what
our doctrine is, than to give a just account of those reasons
that detain us in it : yet perhaps even in this there may be
somewhat to shew, that we do not altogether build in the air ;
but deserve certainly to have our articles and our canons both
better understood, and better answered, if it may be, than
they have ever hitherto been.
; For to resume yet once more some few of our differences.
You think you ought " to invocate the blessed Virgin and
the holy saints."f Now, not to repeat what we have before said
of the unlawfulness of it, this we suppose to be first needless,
because we know we have a more excellent and powerful
Mediator, that has commanded us to come to him ; and next
uncertain, because you are not able to tell us how, nay, not to
secure us that by whatever way it be, our prayers do always
and certainly come up to them. If we are mistaken, at least
we run no hazard in it : we address ourselves continually to the
throne of grace, where we are secure that we shall be both
heard and answered. But now should you err, consider we
beseech you how many prayers you every day lose, and what
a dishonour you put upon your Divine Mediator. And if you
please, consider too how unjust you are to damn us for not
joining with you in a practice, that has so great danger, so
little assurance, and not any advantage.
You suppose we ought, " to faU down before your images."!
Not to do this is to be sure no sin, you dare not say it is. To
do it may be ; and you can never secure us it is not abominable
* Article 21. t Article 3. X JVrticle 4.

THE CLOSE. 141
idolatry, odious to God, and contrary to that holy faith into
which we have been baptized.
You damn us for " doubting of the number of your seven
sacraments."* Has God revealed it to you ? Have the holy
Scriptures defined it? Or even tradition itself delivered it to
you ? If it be true ; can you yet escape the charge of rash
ness and uncharitableness, to damn whole Churches for so
needless a matter ? Should it be false, how wUl you escape
that anathema yourselves, you have then so falsely as weU as
uncharitably denounced against us ?
You require us to believe "that children dying unbaptized,
are excluded the grace of Christ for ever."f "To what purpose
this ? For what benefit ? Were it as evident as it is indeed
uncertain, and we are persuaded false ; our modesty is safe in
deciding nothing ; the error of such among us as beUeve it not,
is charitable ; founded upon the sure mercies and goodness of
God, who never inflicts any punishment where there is no
fault ; and in a word, has not any the least ill consequence
upon it. We take as great care to baptize our infants, as you
can do who most believe it. But now, if your opinion should
be false ; what answer will you ever be able to make to God,
for peremptorily defining what was so uncertain and uncharit
able ? And for damning us, only because we dare not venture
to cut off those from Christ for whom he died, and whom we
hope he will in mercy receive to him.
Lastly, you deny us, the entire communion ; J you pronounce
an anathema against us, because we will not confess that one
part alone is sufficient. Is it not certain that if we err, we
have yet both Christ's institution, and the practice and opinion
of many ages to absolve us ? But have you anything to excuse
you, if you are mistaken ? To take it as we do, you confess
can have no danger ; are you sure that to deny it as you do,
may not be a sacrilege ?
And what shall I say more ? For the time would fail me
to speak of every one of those other points Monsieur de
Meaux mentions, much more to add many others, and of no
less consequence, which he has thought fit to pass by. In all
which we have at least this undeniable advantage over you ;
that besides the clearest arguments that we are in the right,
the hazard we run is not very great if we should not be :
whereas for you, neither is there any tolerable proof of the
* Article 11. t Article 11. X Article 24.

142 DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
contrary errors, and an infinite danger should you chance to be
mistaken. These things, as both the character of the book we have now
examined, and the style of many other your later most con
siderable authors, give us cause to hope, begin to be no longer
totally hid from your eyes ; so shall we never cease in all our
prayers to make mention of you, that you may be perfectly
enlightened to discern, and impartially chsposed to receive and
embrace the truth.
In the mean time, whilst both you and we mutually address
ourselves to the eternal Truth for his assistance ; whilst as we
ought, we implore his mercy, that he would give us a right
understanding in all things ; remembering this, that we are all
but men, and that it is not therefore impossible for either of
us to err : that it may be strength of passion, or prejudice of
education, or even vehemency of affection, more than the light
of reason, has hitherto kept us in a too fond partiahty for our
own opinions : let us at least, we beseech you, agree in that
mutual charity which alone can secure us amidst all our errors;
which will both best dispose God's mercy to shew us what is
right, and will best incline our minds to that sincerity which
we all pretend to, and I hope all really have to embrace it.
If we cannot yet agree in all the points of our religion; let
us consider, that neither are the dearest friends entirely of the
same opinion in every thing. Let us wait God's pleasure ; if
it be his will to * " reveal even this also unto us : nevertheless
whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same
rule, let us mind the same thing."
We believe in the same God ; we rely on the same Redeemer ;
we embrace the same creeds ; we attend the same hopes of an
everlasting salvation : and in all these, amidst all our other
differences, have at least an entire agreement in what is most
necessary, and shall, we hope, to the honest and sincere
among us, be sufficient for our eternal security.
Let these things engage us to have the same love too : to
be more spariug in our anathemas and more zealous in our
prayers for one another, to seek and to maintain the truth, but
to do it so as not to violate our charity. In a word, whether
we write, or speak, to do both as men who in a little time
expect to be brought before the Divine tribunal, where we
must render a severe account for all these things ; and one
* PhiUp. iii. 15, 16.

THE CLOSE. 143
word spoken with this excellent spirit, to close those divisions
that so long have separated us, shall be preferred to ten
thousand volumes of endless and uncharitable controversies,
that serve only to widen our breaches, and heighten our
animosities.

A DEFENCE OF
THE EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
AGAINST THE EXCEPTIONS OF MONSIEUR DE MEAUX, LATB
BISHOP OF CONDOM, AND HIS VINDICATOR.

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 shaU need no great
apology, if upon this occasion I enter somewhat farther upon
a new history than might otherwise seem absolutely necessary
for m.y 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
shew what the real intent of them all has been ; and what the
design of those who 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

DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION. 145
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 ; 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 subtiety of the
composure, it must be avowed scarce anything ever appeared
more worthy that applause it met with in the world : and the
design, though expressed in one particular only, yet so appU-
cable to all the rest; that were the argument good, the Church
of Rome would have needed no other defence for all the cor
ruptions that had, or could possibly creep into it.
But the sophistry of this method has been sufficiently ex
posed in the volumes composed on this occasion. And indeed
without entering on a particular examination, any man's 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 ofthe 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 method amounted to thus
much ; that transubstantiation (and the same might have been
said of any other point in dispute) was visibly once the com
mon doctrine of the Church : and that it is impossible it should
have been so then, had it ever been otherwise before. And
this to be believed upon the strength of a sophistical argu
ment, notwithstanding all the evident instances of matter of
fact, which Monsieur de Aubertine |- and others at large
collected to the contrary.
The next attempt, and that as useful and universal as the
* La Perpetuity de la Foy de I'Eglise Catholique, touchant I'Eucharistie.
Anno 1664.
t Albertinus de Eucharistiae Sacramento. Fol. [Davent. 1654.]
VOL. XII. L

146 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
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, by
advancing certain matters of fact, which he calls just prejudices
against the Calvinists,* to shew, that without entering into
dispute about any of the points in debate, the bare external
consideration of the Protestants in the manner of their Refor
mation, and some other particulars, was enough to shew 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,f who undertook the defence of his party against it,
has shewn that in his proof he has not only advanced an argu
ment that might indifferently be brought against all sides, but
which a late author has since proved,J 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
httle effect. One, as is said by the same author, 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 incapable of
forming such a judgment, 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 iU
instructed in their rehgion, 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 will I beg leave to observe on occasion of
these several methods that have been proposed for our conric-
tion, that the great design of them all has been to prevent the
* Prejugez legitimes confa'cles Calvinists, Anno 1671.
t Examen du Uvre qui portre pour titre, Prejugez legitimes, &c. [Bion.
Anno 1673.
X Monsieur Jurieu Prejugez legitimes centre le Papisme. Anno 1685.]
§ Les Pretendus Reformez convaincus de Schisme. 1684.

THE PREFACE. 147
entering on particular disputes, which had hitherto been the
way, but such as experience had taught them to be the least
favourable of any of 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 anything to shew
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 plausible 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 Meaux's 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 con
version 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 beUeve 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 exposi
tion 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 pro
fession 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 doc
trines 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
* Avertisement, p. 2, 4. L 2

148 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
form in which the ministers," he says, " were wont to repre
sent 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 busi
ness of the ministers ofthe 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 Mon
sieur 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 Catho
lic Church, has been in some measure shewn already, and
shall in the following Discourse be more fully evidenced. And
whosoever shall please to consider the eulogies and approba
tions, which these men have received, no less than Monsieur de
Meaux, will be at least forced to confess it to be a disputable
point, whether the ministers, from these authors, have repre
sented their Church in a hideous and terrible form ; or whether
Monsieur de Meaux rather has not, instead of removing the
vizor, to shew her in her natural dress, a little varnished over
her face to hide her defects, and make her appear more charm
ing 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, vis. "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 ap
probation, 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." * Exposit. p. 3.

THE PREFACE. 149
This Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to deny as an utter fal
sity ; * " For that he never sent his book to the Sorbonne ; that
their custom is not to license books in a 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, nor 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 CathoUc doctor could find anything 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 ought I know. Monsieur de Meaux himself will be
in danger of being reputed, if it should be false. And there
fore to satisfy the world in this main, fundamental point be
tween us, I do hereby solemnly declare, " That there was an
impression of the Exposition, such as I spake 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 pure invention of
those passages I have cited from it. " As for those passages,"f
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 pas
sages 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
* Vindicat. p. 8, 9. t Vindicat. p. 12, 13.

150 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
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 seem
ing contradiction betwixt us, and leave us both at last for the
main in the right ! " It is 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. Nobody found fault
with the doctrine contained in it ; and I myself, without chang
ing anything 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 then 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 after
wards were only as to the order, and for the greater neatness
ofthe 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, " that the honour which the
Church gives to the blessed Virgin and the saints is rehgious,*
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, " that the mass may
very reasonably be called a sacrifice ;"f 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 abso
lutely 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,
' Collect, n. 2. t Ibid. n. 12.

THE PREFACE. 151
That the impression was made with Monsieur de Meaux's
knowledge, if not by his express order, whoever shall con
sider the circumstances of Monsieur Cramoisy who printed it,
either as a person of his reputation and estate, or as a 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 asking.
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
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 incorrectly, 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 sup
pressing that first edition ; the reader may please to know,
that a person, by many relations very intimate with the Mar
shal de Turenne' s family, upon the publishing of the pretended
first edition of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, first disco
vered to him the mystery of the former, and shewed him out
of the Marshal's hbrary 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 per
fect book, except in some few places in which it was transcribed

152 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
from the original of the Marshal, 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 license
books in body." And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell
us, who ever said or thought they did ?* " That that vene
rable 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 doc
tors." I doubt not but the Sorbonne very well knows the
respect that is due to bishops : but that it should be any argu
ment 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 un
heard of thing to see doctors of the Sorbonne setting their ap
probation to a book, approved and authorised by bishops before.
The next exception Monsieur de Meaux makes,f is 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 Monsieur Conrart often professed that he had seen it in
manuscript; who was not only his old friend, but as himself
characteriseth him, J " One endowed with all that the Catholics
themselves could desire in a man, excepting a better reUgion."
For what relates to Father Crasset, it is not for me to con
tradict Monsieur de Meaux's declaration, § that he never read
* Vindicat. p. 8. t Vindicat. p. 9.
X Monsieur de Meaux's Advert, p. 3.
f Vindicat. p. 10.

THE PREFACE. 153
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
Toumay' 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, to be directly opposite to his Exposition. And
for the rest,f 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 prin
ciples 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, J Monsieur de Meaux tells us,
he is so far from being contrary to the doctrine of the Exposi
tion, that his express approbation has been affixed to it. This
indeed were a good presumption that he should not have any
principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux ;§ 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 nevertheless a contradiction for his
so doing.
The next thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is, H the
relation of Monsieur Imbert and Monsieur de Witte. ^ The
stories are matters of fact, and the papers from whence they
are collected, were published by themselves. If they allege
Monsieur de Meaux's authority for principles that he main
tained not, this concerns not us ; nor whatever the little com
ment on the Bishop's letter pretends, was it at all needful to
be shewn by me that they did not, in the recital of the proposi-
* Seconde Reponse, p. 79, etc. [1680.]
t For all this see the Appendix, Num. 2.
X Vindicat. p. 10.
§ See Appendix, Num. 3. where I have shewed Cardinal Bona, another
of his approvers, to be nevertheless in his own writings contrary to Mon
sieur de Meaux's Exposition.
II Vindicat. p. 10, 11.
^ For what concerns Monsieur Imbert, see his own Letter to Mon
sieur de Meaux, Appendix, Num. 4. For Monsieur de Witte's case, it has
been ah-eady printed, and I have nothing new to add to it.

154 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
tions held by them. It is sufficient that they both declared
themselves to stand to Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition ;
and were both condemned, without any regard had to Mon
sieur 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, 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 fertiUty ;
his productions have not been many, and those so short, and
with such an ingenuous character of temper and moderation, as
ought 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.f 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 satis
fied 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 cirility
that the necessary defence of myself and 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 or incogitancy : aU 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 con
troversies of this kind ; that neither my age, nor learning, nor
opportunities have qualified me for such undertakings, as the
defence of my religion and my duty to my superiors have,
* Vindicat. p. 14.
t See de la B.'s Answer to the Advertisement, p. 5.

THE PREFACE. 155
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,* for the un-
sincere dealings and falsifications he accuses me of, and that
in almost every article ; here I must beg leave to justify my
self, 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."! I ^^^^ been taught, and am persuaded, that "no
evil may be done that good may come ;"f I am assured by St.
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 chap
ter, I should think myself indispensably obliged to make a
public acknowledgment 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 pro
ceeding 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 wiU 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, " That I endeavour to
represent Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition as a book that pal-
Uates and prevaricates the doctrine of his own Church ; and
* Vindicat. p. 22. t Ephes. iv. 20.
t Rom. iu. 8.

156 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
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 Meaux's 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 later 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 here
after shew that either Monsieur de Meaux has palliated, or else
the greatest of their authors have strangely perverted the doc
trine 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. I never thought
those letters Monsieur de Meaux has published,! any authori
tative approbations of his book at all : indeed in the place
which he cites, I have said somewhat like it of the 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 Mon
sieur de Meaux's book,§ 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 recep
tion as it did, only from my assuring the world that I had not
palliated nor prevaricated the doctrine of the Church of Eng
land ; 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 Meaux's treatise."
This indeed were somewhat, if the truth of the Exposition
were on either side to be taken from the number of approvers,
and not the nature of the doctrine. If Monsieur de Meaux has
really palliated the doctrine of the Church of Rome, it is 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 shew us
* Vindicat. p. 2.
t Exposition of the Church of England, p. 15.
X Of which see more in the Appendix, N. 3. p. 120.
$ Vindicat. p. 3.

THE PREFACE. 157
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 licensed 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, we must take notice, that the Bishop of Con
dom's intention was not to meddle with scholastic tenets, but
purely to deliver that doctrine of the Church, which was neces
sarily and universally received ; whereas Cardinal Capisucchi,
being obUged to no such strictness, would not, it may be, con
tradict the problematical niceties of those schools in which he
had been educated."
It is the Catholic distinction of this author, throughout his
own 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 vrill take only what at
first sight offers itself, viz. : that Cardinal Capisucchi does
positively affirm,-f "that a divine worship may be paid to images,
* Vindicat. p. 17.
t To satisfy the Vindicator what the Cardinal's words are, I wUl give
them at length. Ex his constat et in concilio Niceeno secundo, et in Tri
dentino, aUisque, Latriam duntaxat Idololatricam sacris imaginibus dene
gari, qualem Gentiles imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde Latriam illam inter
dici quie imaginibus in seipsis et propter ipsas exhibeatur, quaque imagines
seu 5fumina aut Divinitatem continentia more GentiUum colantur ; de
hujusmodi enim Latria controversia erat cum Judaeis et Hsereticis, qui hac
ratione nos imagines colere asserebant. Cseterum de Latria Ula quse
imaginibus S. Trinitatis, Christi D. aut sacratissimje crucis exhibetur,
ratione rei per eas reprEesentatse, et quatenus cum re reprsesentata unum
sunt in esse reprsesentativo, nuUamque divinitatem imaginibus tribuit aut
supponit, nulla unquam fuit aut esse potuit Controversia. Art. 8. p. 647.
[Rom. 1677.]

158 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
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 tell 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 ?
"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,f " 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 whatso
ever, the image of our Saviour or the holy cross be to be wor
shipped with divine worship ?" This the Cardinal affirms ; and
this, if Monsieur de Meaux does allow, let him speak it without
mincing ; if not, it is 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 otjier thing which the VindicatorJ thinks fit to take
notice of in my preface, 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, ought 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 quite the contrary, but even one university against
another in the same country, &c."
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
* Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, p. 8.
t Vindicat. p. 19. X Vindicat. p. 10, 17, 19.

THE PREFACE. 159
books whose principles they dislike. This the instances I
have brought shew plainly they do ; if they know it to be a
sin, and yet do it, they condemn themselves ; if they think
otherwise, then 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 pas
sages collected by me out of Monsieur de Meaux's first edition,
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, with
out a forced interpretation of my own, according to my wonted
way of turning all things to a wrong intention."
As to the first of which, no one ever charged the Bishop vrith
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 m that of
the eucharist ; in others he has proposed it rather with too
much strictness, as in the case of infants dying unbaptized.
All we say is, that in some other articles, such as the invocation
of saints, worshipping of images, sacrifices of the mass, &c. 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 Romef lay any obligation on parti
cular persons to join with her in the invocation of saints ? 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 shew,
that this is to palUate the doctrine of their Church.
Has the Church of Rome J ascribed no other virtue to images,,
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
Vindicat. p. 20. f CoUect. u. 5. X Ibid. n. 6.

160 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
de Meaux here also molUfy the known doctrine and practice of
his Church ?
In a word : 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 " wonted way of turning all things
to a wrong intention," beg leave to say, that either Monsieur
de Meaux palUated 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 method or neat
ness 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 thiuk, may, if not be representedf as a heinous crime, 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, J viz., "one that either
did not sufficiently understand the doctrine of his Church, or
that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright."
I shall 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 or the reader's§ expecta
tion, 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 reflec
tions 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 Vin
dicator, I suppose, may expect what is reasonably enough
refused by me.
* CoUect. n. 12. t Vind. p. 21, 22.
t Monsieur de Meaux's Advert, p. 2. ^ Vindicat. p. 120, 121.

INTRODUCTION. 161
But for the other part of his desire, that I would "take
the pains to peruse myself the authors cited by me, 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,f 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 errata 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 may 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 trouble
some and ungentle office indeed of undertaking what he could
not effect, " to demonstrate to the world the insincerity which
I have shewn in my quotations, and the falsifications of them;" J
his endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccessful, that I
know not whether himself or his reUgion will suffer more by
the weakness of his attempt. Article I.
Introduction.
He that accuses another of great and heinous crimes, ought
to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of those faults
which he condemns in others. Had the author of the Vindi
cation 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
* Vindicat. p. 121. t Ibid. X Vindicat. p. 122.
VOL. XII. M

162 defence of the exposition.
for my justification. Only as to the advantage he proposes to
himself from these endeavours, viz. to shew* " 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 infalli
bility ;f nor that " every nameless author, 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 ought he has proved to the
contrary, I believe it vrill in the end appear, that an Imprima
tur 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 insincerity 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. " My introduction is
calumny in a high degree, and my state of the question drawn
from thence, as insincere."
" I tell them (he says) of adoring men and women, crosses,
images, and rehcs : 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 prin
ciples, 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 con
tent 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 Missal
and Pontifical do command them to adore the cross; if it
appears 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 doc
trine of their Church, and agreeable to the intention of their
Council they so much talk of : then I hope the premises may
* Vindicat. p. 22. t Vindicat. p. 22. X Vindicat. p. 23.

introduction. 163
be as clear of the calumny they are charged with, as my
inference is allowed to be just, for the consequence I would
estabhsh. In the mean time, 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,t " 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, he says, is,{
" Whether the Protestants or Papists do innovate ? The
Protestants in refusing to beUeve 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 main
tain 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, 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 he superstruc
tures 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.
" Wtether the Roman CathoUcs ought to maintain their pos
session of these doctrines, or to quit them as erroneous ?
Whether Protestants ought to embrace the belief and practice
* Expos, p. 5. t Vindicat. p. 24.
J Ibid. p. 25. § Ibid. p. 26.
M 2

164 defence of the exposition.
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 insincerity ? In this, I suppose, that
I seem to insinuate as if the Roman Church granted that we
hold 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 Meaux's
arguing from Monsieur Daille's concessions as to this point,
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
is jealous for the authority of his Church, and to have whatever
she proposes, pass for fundamental. This therefore we must
put upon the issue, in which we shall not doubt to shew 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, f destroy those
truths that are on both sides agreed to be fundamental.
But if I have not mistaken the question between the Papists
and the Protestants, 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, vis. to give a true exposition of the doctrine of the
Church of England, in the several points proposed by Mon
sieur de Meaux. So that in reality the question between us is this,
mot whether Monsieur de Meaux has given us 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 shewn I had not done.
• See his Expos. §. 2. p. 2. t Vindicat. p. 23.
X Vindicat. p. 26.

invocation of saints. 163
Article II.
That Religious Worship is terminated only in God.
In this article I am but little concerned. The Vindicator
states the case, what it is they mean by religious honour being
terminated only in God. He distinguishes in 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
Meaux's Exposition ; and I shall not repeat what is so fully
and clearly estabhshed 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 on this subject.* Yet, since the Vindicator
desires to know what authority I have for my assertion, " that
the addresses which Monsieur Daille allows to have been used
by the Fathers of the fourth century, were rather innocent
wishes and rhetorical flights, than direct prayers ;" but espe
cially for that accusation which he says I bring against them,
viz. "that they did herein begin to depart from the practice
and tradition of those before them,"f I am content to give him
that satisfaction.
For the first then : that Monsieur Daille himself looked
upon them as no other than such addresses as I have charac
terized, because 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; J I then cited his
opinion to the contrary, and have now subjoined it in his
own words. §
* Discourse concerning the Worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints,
in answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the fourth Age.
t Vindicat. p. 29.
X Expos, of Monsieur de Meaux, p. 4. §.3. " It wiU not be unuseful to
take notice, how those of the Protestant Reformation begin to acknowledge
that the custom of praying to saints was estabhshed even in the fourth age
of the Church. Monsieur DaiUe grants thus much in that book he
pubUshed against the tradition of the Latin Church, about the object of
reUgious worship."
§ Monsieur DaiUe 's words are these : Neque eum a vero longe aberra-

166 INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
Secondly, That these addresses were really of this kind, the
several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers,
plainly shew; and both the examples I gave,* and the diffe
rences 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 have proved from
this plain argument,f " That they believed that the saints de
parted, were not admitted to the sight of God immediately
upon their decease ; and, therefore, by the Papists' own con
fession,! ought to have believed that they could not be prayed
turum puto, qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad sanctos
invocandos gradum, cum calefacti atque inardescentes rerum prseclare ab
iis gestarum meditatione, prsedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos
denique invocandos prorumpereut. Certe quae de quarto seculo prima
hujus invocationis afferuntur exempla, ea fere sunt hujus generis, ex enco
miasticis quorundam disertissimorum et eruditione seculari florentissimo
rum hominum in sanctos orationibus desumpta, Gregoru Nazianzeni in
Cyprianum ; in Athanasium j in Basilium ; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodo
rum, qui ambo quarto sed jam prsecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, &c.
Adv. Lat. Tradit. de cultus reUg. objecto, 1. 3. c. 18. p. 454. [Genev.
1664.] * The examples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these : 1. In
vectiv. in Julian, p. 2. [Eton. 1610.] He thus bespeaks Constantius:
"Akove Kalri rov ptydXov'K.iovffravTiov ^vx^, tirlg aXa^rjaig, otratTSirpb
avTov j3aaiKkiiiv ^iXoxpioroi. Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes,
'JaoKpariKov, dvrl tov idv ng awbriciig can rovg TtjSe aKoveiv. 2ndly,
Orat. 11. in Gorgon, p. 189. 1. D. [Par. 1609.] He thus addresses to his
sister. Ei Ss ng coi Kai rovg nptrkpiav iari Xoyog, Kai tovto rdig bniaig
^jjvxalg Ik 9£ov yspag, rovg toiovtoiv siraia^avta^ai, S'sxoio Kai rbv rips-
Tspov \byov dvrl ttoXXwv Kai irpb rrroXKotv kvraipiwv.
t The opinion that the souls of just men do not go straight to heaven
seems to owe its rise to the verses of the Sibyls ; which being very ancient
(within 140 years after Christ) and by the primitive Church taken for
authentic, drew the whole stream of the writers of those times into the
same mistake. Blondel, in his book of the SibylUne Oracles, affirms, 1. 2.
c. 9. p. 103. [Lond. 1661.] That aU the authors we have left us of the
second, and as far as the middle of the thii-d age, were of that opinion : and
adds, that even in the foUowing ages many of those very men Monsieur de
Meaux has aUeged for the invocation of saints, were involved very far in
the same error ; viz. St. Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and St. Augustine.
This is more fuUy shewn by Monsieur DaUM, in his book de Cult. Reg.
Obj. 1. 3. c. 22. [ut supra,] p. 474, et seq. ; aud in another of his books
de Poenis et Satisfactionibus ; where to the Fathers last mentioned he adds,
St. Jerome, 1. 5. c. 4, 5, 6. AU which Sixtus Senensis himself confirms,
Bibl. 1. 6. Annot. 345. p. 569. [Colon. 1586.] and particularly as to the
Fathers m question, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. AuKustme, [Ibid.]
p. 571, 572.
X Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat, 1. i. i;. 19. p. 2044. 1. D. [Ingolst. 1586.]

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 167
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 depart from the practice and tradition of the ages be
fore them, I proved from this,* " that they are not able to
produce any one instance of the three first centuries of any
such invocation ; but rather have been forced ¦(¦ to confess
that nothing of that kind was to be found among them." Be
sides that the maxims of the Fathers, even in the fourth cen
tury, concerning prayer, J 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
Notum est ; quia ante Christi adventum sancti qui moriebantur, non intra-
bant in coelum, nee Deum videbant, nee cognoscere poterant ordinarie pre
ces supplicantium : ideo non fuisse consuetum in Testamento Veteri ut di-
ceretur, S. Abraham ora pro me. See again, c. 20. [Ibid.] p. 2060. 1. B.
Sect, atque ex his duabus, coUat. cum p. 2059. 1. D. sect. aUi dicunt. The
same is Suarez's opinion, t. 2. in 3.D. Th. disp. 42. sect. l.p. 435. col.
1. 1. E. [Mogunt. 1610.] Quod autem aliquis directe oraverit sanctos de-
fuuctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hie enim
modus orandi est proprius legis gratise, in quo sancti videntes Deum pos
sunt etiam in eo videre orationes quae ad ipsos fuaduntur. And this is the
common doctrine of their writers.
* This I before chaUenged the Answerer to do, and he has not attempted
it. Bellarmine has but two within the first three hundred years. One of
Irenaeus misinterpreted : and one of Hilary, as little to the purpose. De
Sanct. Beat, 1. 1. c. 19. [ut supra] p. 2047, 2048.
+ So Cardinal Perron himself, Repl. a la rep. duRoy de laGrande Bretagne,
liv. 5. u. 11. 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meaux's shift of con
cluding from the following ages what he could not prove from the pre
ceding; and at last confesses freely, p. 1009. [Par. 1620.] Quant aux
autheurs plus proches de siecle ApostoUque, des quels la persecution nous
a ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu'il ne s'y trouve pas des vestiges de
cette coutume — il suffit — qu'il ne se trouve rien en leurs ecrits de repug
nant k I'Eglise de 4 premiers Conciles, pour se regard. Which is no more
than Monsieur de Meaux himself insinuates, where to this very assertion of
Monsieur Daille's I have made use of, he only has this to say, that it is not
Ukely that Monsieur DaUle should at this distance understand the senti
ments of the Fathers of the first three centuries better than those of the
next age did. Expos, sect. 3. p. 4. All which he aUowed in express
terms in his suppresed edition. See my CoUect. n. 3. p. 23.
X I shaU mention but two ; 1st. That they constantly defined prayer as
due to God only: Jlpoaevxv^ aiTtjaig dyaSov Trapd tuiv svat^uv tigSibv,
says Basil. Otov opikia, Greg. Nyssen. SidXi^ig Trpbg rbv ^ibv, Chry
sostom. a'irj;(ri£TiSj/7rpoff))/coi'rwj/7rapd3'£o5,Damascen,&c. And, 2ndly,
That it was the great argument used by St. Athanasius, and the other Fa
thers of those times, to prove our Saviour to be God, that he was prayed to.

168 INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
have made some reply, than after all this to cry out, as if no
thing had been said,* " what authority does he bring for his
assertion ? By what authority does he condemn these prayers,
these innocent wishes and holy raptures, as he caUs them, as
fond things, vainly invented ?" &c.
And now that I have satisfied his demand, may I in my turn
ask him, where is it that I condemn those innocent vrishes,
and holy raptures, of these Fathers, as fond things, vainly in
vented ? That I do, with our Church, censure their invoca
tion of saints as such, is confessed ; but that I pretend to pass
any judgment at all upon these holy men, is false ; nor was it
in any way necessary that I should do it.
As for the authority f he requires for our refusal of this in
vocation, it were very easy to shew it, 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 demon
stration against them ; and that one passage of St. Paul, Rom.
X. 14, " How shall they call on 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 ofthe points, in which I promised to shew,
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 avail
able to them ; I vrill subjoin a short specimen of every
one of these out of their pubUc rituals, to shew that there
was neither falsehood nor calumny in my accusation of them.
* Vmdicat. p. 29. t Vindicat. p. 30.

church of Rome's service to saints. 169

Appendix to Article 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 :* " We fly to thy protection,
O holy Mother of God, despise not our prayers which we make
to thee in our necessities, but deUver us from all dangers, O
ever glorious and blessed Virgin." Offic. B. V. p. 84. And in
one of their Antiphonas :-f " Vouchsafe me that I may be
worthy J;o praise thee, O sacred Virgin ; grant me strength
and power against thine enemies." Ibid. p. 103. They desire
her conjunctly with our Saviour to bless them. J Ibid. p. 105.
And in their hymns § they address to her in the most formal
manner ; that she would help them that fall : that she would
have pity upon sinners ; 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 Cardinal Bellarmine ^ and some
others are so ashamed of it, as totally to deny they have any
such prayer : " 0 happy Mother,** expiating our sins, by the
* Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, S. Dei Genetrix ; nostras depreca
tiones ne despicias in necessitatibus, sed a pericuUs cunctis Ubera nos sem
per Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.
t Dignare me laudare te Virgo sacrata ; Da mihi virtutem contra hostes
tuos. X Nos cum prole pia, benedicat Virgo Maria.
§ Alma redemptoris Mater, quae pervia cceU porta manes, et stella maris,
succurre cadenti surgere qui curat populo ; tu quse genuisti natura mirante
tuum sanctum genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore sumens
illud ave, Peccatorum miserere. Offic. B. V. p. 122. [Antv. 1631.]
II Maria mater gratiae, mater misericordise, 'Tu nos ab hoste protege, et
hora mortis suscipe. Ib. p. 123.
% BeUarm. 1. 1. de Sanct. Beat. c. 16. [ut supra,] p. 2036. 1. A. reflects
upon Calvin in these words. Quinto ibidem dicit, nos rogare Virginem ut
fiUum jubeat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit ? Cur non
probat uUo exemplo .' I before observed that Cassander owns the prayer.
Consult. Art. 21. And Monsieur DaiU6 assures us, that in the Missal printed
at Paris but in the year 1634, in Ubr. extrem. p. 81, it is still extant in
these words :
•* O felix puerpera, nostra plans scelera, jure matris Impera Sedemptori.
Da fidei foedera. Da salutis opera. Da in vitffi vespera bene mori. And in
deed, however scrupulous BeUarmine is of this matter, yet others among
them make no doubt to say, that she does not only entreat her Son as a
suppUant, but command him as a mother. So Peter Damian, Serm. 1 .

170 CHURCH OF Rome's service to saints.
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 our 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 : " That he would
loose the guilt 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 Evangehsts : " O ye just
judges, and true lights of the world, we pray mito you with
the request of our hearts ; that you would hear the prayers of
your supplicants. 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, it were infinite
to repeat the prayers they make of this kind. I wiU subjoin
two or three. In the feast of St. Nicholas, Dec. 6th: "0
God who hast adorned thy bishop St. Nicholas with innume-
de Nat. Mariae, speaking to the Virgin, tells her, Accedit ante aureum illud
humanae reconcUiationis altare, non solum rogans sed imperans. For so
Father Crasset, who both cites and approves it, translates the passage :
Thou comest before the golden altar of our reconcUiation, not only as a
servant that prays, but as a mother that commands. And Albertus Mag
nus, Serm. 2. de Laud. Virg. Pro salute famulantium sibi, non solum
potest fiUo suppUcare, sed etiam potest authoritate materna eidem impe-
rare. That for the salvation of those that serve her, the Virgin can not only
entreat her Son, but by the authority of a mother can command him. This
Father Crasset proves from more of the Uke stuff, in his 1 . part, trait.
1. qu. 8. p. 60, 61. [Par. 1679.] concluding the whole with this admirable
sentence : " Eadem potestas est Matris et FiUi, quae ab omnipotente 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,
pubUshed with the king's permission, and espoused at a venture by Mon
sieur de Meaux in his Epistle.
* Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, Mira gestorum famuli tuorum. Solve
polluti labii reatum, Sancte Johannes.
t Vos ssecU justi judices et vera mundilumina, votis precamur cordium,
audite preces suppUcum. .Qui coelum verbo clauditis, serasque ejus
solvitis, Nos a peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus. Quorum
praecepto subditur salus et languor omnium, Sanate segros moribus, nos
reddentes virtutibus. Ut cum judex advenerit Christus in fine sEECuli, nos
sempiterni gaudii faciat esse compotes. Ibid. p. 495.

images and relics. 171
rable miracles, grant, we beseech thee, that by his merits and
prayers, we may be delivered from the fire of heU."* 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, St. Andrew.f to
whom in their Secretum they thus address : " We beseech thee,
O Lord, that the holy prayer of the blessed Apostle, St.
Andrew, procure thy favour to our sacrifice : that as it is
solemnly offered in his honour, so it may be rendered accep
table by his merits, through our Lord." He that shall survey
the following festivals, vrill find either the Secretum, or Post-
communion, to run in the same strain : I shall instance only
in the saints I formerly mentioned. " Let the merits of St.
Bathildis, O Lord, prevail, that our gifts may be accepted by
thee : J Let the sacraments which we have received, we beseech
thee, Ije 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 owe 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 Vindicatory takes notice, 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.
* Deus qui B. Nicolaum Pontificem innumeris decorasti miraculis,
tribue queesumus, ut ejus meritis et precibus a GehennEe incendiis libere-
mur. t Sacrificium nostrum tibi, Domine, quaesumus B. Andi-ese ApostoU
precatio sancta conciliet, ut in cujus honore solemniter exhibetur, ejus
meritis efficiatur acceptum. Rom. Fest. Nov. p. 513.
X Ut hsc munera tibi Domine accepta sint, S. Bathildis obtineant
merita ; quaa seipsam tibi hostiam vivam, sanctam et beneplacentem
exhibuit. § Praestent nobis qusesumus sumpta sacramenta praesidium salutare, et
intervenientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui atque Pontificis Meritis, ab
omnibus nos absolvant peccatis. See Missale in usum Sarum, fol. 9, et
68. [1527.] in Fest. Nov.
II Vindicat. p. 31.

172 images and relics.
He teUs us that properly speaking, according to the Bishop of
Meaux's sense, and that of the Council ;* the image of the
cross is to be looked upon only as a representative, or memo-
rative 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 shew, precisely speaking, and according to the
ecclesiastical style, is not properly to the cross, but to Jesus
Christ represented by that cross."
In answer to the former of which, " 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 shews, 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 con
cludes 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."t
For the business of the Pontifical, we shall see more par
ticularly hereafter : in the mean time this short instance may
serve to shew that his distinction is purely arbitrary. In the
Order of receiving an Emperor, J it is appointed, that if there be
a legate present, his cross shaU take the upper hand of the
emperor's sword, because a divine worship is due to it.
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
* Ibid. p. 32. t Ibid. p. 38.
X Pontific. Ord. ad. recip. processionaUter Imperat. p. 205. col. 2.
[Venet. 1561.] si vero Legatus ApostoUcus Imperatorem reciperet, aut
cum eo urbem intraret, vel aUas secum iret vel equitaret, Ule qui gladium
Imperatori prsfert, et alius crucem Legati portans simul ire debent:
crux Legati, quia debetur ei latria, erit a dextris, et gladius imperatoris
a sinistris. § Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. Utrum crux Christi sit adoranda adoratione
Latriai ? Conclus. Crux Christi in qua Christus crucifixus est, tum propter
repraisentationem, tum propter membrorum Christi contactum, latria
adoranda est : Crucis vero effigies in aUa quavis materia, priori tantum
ratione latria adoranda est. And in the body, Unde utroque modo
adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, soil, adoratione latrioe.

IMAGES AND RELICS. 173
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 shews
indeed, St. Thomas's grounds for his conclusion, hut we are
but Uttle concerned in them ; nor was it any insincerity in me
not to transcribe all his reveries. The conclusion he makes is
plain and positive, and neither to be reconciled with the Vindi
cator'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
a Benediction of a new Cross, there are several passages which
clearly shew, that they attribute such things to the cross,* as
are directly contrary to Monsieur de Meaux's 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. propter Deum,
" for the sake of God."f 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 shew 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 ;J First, the bishop
makes several prayers : " That God would bless the wood of
the cross, that it may be a saving remedy to mankind ; an
establishment 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 :
II "Let this wood be sane -j- tified in the name ofthe Fa -^ ther,
» Vindicat. p. 39. t P- 39.
t Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis. [ut supra,] p. 161. col. 2.
§ Rogamus te, Domine pater omnipotens sempiteme Deus, ut digneris
benedicere hoc Ugnum crucis tuie, ut sit remedium salutare generi humano ;
sit soUditas fidei, bonorum operum profectus, et redemptio animarum, sit
solamen et protectio, et tutela contra saeva jacula inimicorum. Per.
II Ibid. p. 162. col. 1. Sancti4-ficetur istud Ugnum in nomine Pa -|-tris, et
Fi-|-lU, et Spiritus -[-Sancti : et benedictio illius ligni in quo sancta membra
salvatoris suspensasunt, sit in isto Ugno, ut orantes incUnantesque se (propter
Deum) ante istam crucem, uiveniant corporis et animae sanitatem. Per.

174 images and RELICS.
and of the S-|-on, and ofthe Holy -t- Ghost. Let the1)lessing
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."
Then the bishop kneels 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,f that he would
sane 4- tify to himself this cross, and bless it ; that our Sariour
Christ would embrace this cross (which they consecrate) as he
did that (on which he suffered ;) and by the holiness of that,
sane -1- 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.
Then the bishop as before, kneeling down before the cross,
devoutly adores it, and kisses it.J
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 false and notorious idolatry. For the
rest of my citations, he passes them over so triflingly, as
plainly shews he had nothing to say to them ; " 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 anything 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 con
secration; so many prayers shall I say, or rather magical
* Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus ipsam devote adorat et
osculatur. t Ut sancti-f fices tibi hoc signum crucis atque conse-f-cres: — IUis ergo
manibus hanc crucem accipe quibus iUam amplexus es ; et de sanctitate
ilUus, hanc sancti-|-fica : et sicuti per iUam mundus expiatus est a reatu,
ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimse, hujus cnusii
merito, omni careant perpetrato peccato. [Ibid.] p. 162.
X Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus eam devote adorat et
osculatur : Idem faciunt quicunque ahi voluerint.
§ Vindicat. p. 39.

IMAGES AND RELICS. 175
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-Friday's service:* 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 that hung 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 the day as to this point. f
" The morning prayersj 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 begins 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, begins 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,
and wholly uncovering the cross, and Ufting it up, begins yet
* Vindicat. p. 40.
t Note first, that in the Office of the holy Week, printed iu Latin and
EngUsh at Paris, 1670, the title of this ceremony is. The Adoration ofthe
Cross, p. 342.
X Missale Rom. feria vi. in Parasceve, p. 247. [Par. 1616.] Completis
orationibus sacerdos deposita casula accedit ad comu Epistolae, et ibi in
posteriori parte anguU altaris, accipit a diacono crucem jam in altari prae-
paratam ; quam versa facie ad populum a summitate parum disco-operit,
incipiens solus antiphonam, Ecce Ugnum crucis, ac deinceps in reUquis
juvatur in cantu a Ministris usque ad Venite adoremus. Choro autem
cantante, Venite adoremus, omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante.
Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguU ejusdem comu Epistolae,
et disco-operiens brachium dextrum crucis, elevansque eam pauUsper,
altius quam primo incipit, Ecce Ugnum crucis ; aUis cantantibus et adoran
tibus ut supra.
§ Deinde Sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris, et disco-operiens crucem
totaUter, ac elevans eam, tertio altius incipit, Ecce Ugnum crucis, iu quo
salus mundi pependit, venite adoremus ; aliis cantantibus et adorantibus ut
supra. Postea sacerdos solus portat crucem ad locum ante altare praepa-

176 IMAGES AND RELICS.
higher, ' Behold the wood of the cross, on which the Sariour
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 minis
ters of the altar, then 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 begins with these words,
' We adore thy cross, O Lord.' "
The is the service of that day. And now whether I had
reason or no 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 day's serrice plainly shews, that
the Roman Church does adore the cross in the utmost pro
priety of the phrase."
As for my last* argument from the hymns of the Church,
he acknowledges the fact, but tells us, "that these are poetic^
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 distin
guishes Christ from the cross ; and who those poets are to
whom this figure is sufficiently known, he wiU 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.
Thomas,f unacquainted it seems, as well as we, with this figure,
ratum, et genu flexo ibidem eam locat : mox depositis calceamentis accedit
ad adorandam crucem; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur.
Hoc facto revertitur, et accipit calceamenta et casulam. Postmodum
ministri altaris, deinde aUi clerici et laici, bini et bini, ter genibus flexis,
ut dictum est, crucem adorant. Interim dum sit adoratio crucis, cantan
tur, etc. — Deinde cantatur communiter Anna ; crucem tuam adoramm
Domine. [Ibid.] p. 209.
* Vindicat. p. 40.
t 3 p. q. 25. art. 4. p. 53. [Colon. 1662.] thus argues: " lUi exhibe
mus latrise cultum, in quo ponimus spem salutis : sed in cruce Christi
ponimus spem salutis. Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave," &c.

IMAGES AND RELICS.

177

concluded the adoration of the cross, to be the sense of their
Church from it. " The banner of our King* appears, the
mystery ofthe 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 ofa 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, -f and beUeve it next akin to transub
stantiation, the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us.
In the point of relics, J the Council of Trent proceeded so equi
vocally, 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. "They,"§
says the Council, " are to be condemned, who affirm that no

* VexiUa Regis prodeunt,
Pulget Crucis mysterium.
Quo came carnis conditor
Suspensus est patibulo.
Arbor decora et fulgida,
Ornata Regis purpura.
Electa digno stipite,
Tam sancta membra tangere.

Beata cujus brachiis
Secli pependit pretium.
Statera facta Corporis,
Prsedamque tuUt Tartari.
O Crux Ave spes unica !
Hoc passionis tempore,
Auge piis Justitiam,
Reisque dona Veniam.

Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis, p. 295, 296. [Antv. 1572.]
t The EngUsh translation in the Office of the holy Week, is this :

Hail cross of hopes the most sub
lime.
Now in this mourning passion time.
Improve religious souls in grace.
The sins of criminals eSace.
[Ut supra,] p. 355, 356.

O lovely and refulgent tree.
Adorned with purpled majesty ;
CuU'd from a worthy stock to bear.
Those Umbs which sanctified were.
Blest tree, whose happy branches bore
The wealth that did the world
restore :
i OfReUcs.
§ Con. Tr. Sess. 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem
atque honorem non deberi, damnandos esse. [Labbe, Concil. vol. 14.
p. 895. Lut. Par. 1672.]
VOL. XII. N

178 IMAGES AND RELICS.
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 : BO I render their venerari, whether well or ill, is now the
question. And first I observe, that in the very point before us, 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 ? He concludes
it in the terms ofthe Council, "Seeing we venerate the saints
of God, we must also venerate their bodies and relics."f
And again, in his second objection against this conclusion,
he argues against the adoration of rehcs, thus : " It seems
very foolish to venerate an insensible thing." To which he
replies thus : "We do not adore the insensible thing itself,"
&c. 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, thatrefe
are to be adored, their greatest authors render it beyond denial
evident. Vasquez, J in his disputations upon Thomas, tells us,
" It is,"' says he, " among the (pretended) Cathohcs, a truth
not to be doubted of, that the relics of saints, whether they he
any parts of them, as bones, flesh, or ashes ; or any other
things that have touched them^ or belonged to them, ought 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, or other relics of saints ought
to be venerated."
* Thom. 3. p.q. 25. art. 6. p. 54. [ut supra.]
t Utrum Reliquiae Sanctorum sint adoranda ? Conclus. Cum Sanctos
Dei veneremur, eorum quoque corpora et reliquias, venerari oportet. Sec.
Obj. Stultum videtur rem insensibilem venerari. Resp. Ad secund.
dicend. Quod Corpus Ulud insensibUe non adoramus propter seipsum ;
sed, etc.
X Vasquez in 3. p. D. Th. Disp. 112. p. 808. [Venet. 1610.] proposes
this question : " An Corpora et aliae sanctorum Reliquiae veneranda
sint?" To this he answers, u. 2. [Ibid.] p. 809. "Apud Catholicos
Veritas indubitata est, reliquias sanctorum, sive fuerint partes ipsorum, ut
ossa, cames, et cineres ; sive res alise quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ipsos
pertineant, adorandas et in honore sacro habendas esse." And again,
Disp. 113. c. 1. [Ibid.] p. 816. "Cum ergo jam contra hsereticos consti-
tutum sit, reUquias esse adorandas, superest expUcare quo genere cultus
et honoris eas venerari debeamus."

IMAGES AND RELICS. 179
Nor is this a scholastic tenet, or to be put off with an impro
priety 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 q;itic3
in the French tongue to use any expressions subject to ambi
guity, 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 the treatises published by them,* " 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 a palsy, she was carried
(say they) to the Port Royal to adore the holy thom." Of
another, that having adored the holy thorn, she was relieved
of her infirmity. They boast of the great multitudes that fre
quented their church to adore the holy thom ; 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 suffi
ciently evident, that I had reason to interpret venerari in the
Council, by worship in my Exposition. f As for the other thing
he charges me with ; that referring to the words of the Coun
cil, I should make it say, " that these sacred monuments are
not unprofitahly revered, but are to be sought unto for the ob
taining of their help and assistance: whereas indeed the Coun
cil'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 unprofitahly 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 trans
posed the Latin ou purpose to raise a dust and deceive his reader;
the true order being plainly as I before rendered it: "So that
they who shall affirm, that no worship or honour is due to the
relics of saints, or that these and the like sacred monuments
* Reponse a. un ecrit publie sur les miracles de la Sainte Espine, p. 15,
18.— 22, &c. Cited by Monsieur DaUI6.
t Vin. p. 42.
N 2

180 OF JUSTIFICATION.
are unprofitahly honoured ; and that for the obtaining of their
help (the help of these sacred monuments, eoruni), the me
mories of the saints are unprofitahly frequented, are to be con-
demaed."* This is the true sense of the Council; and for
the instances I added for the exphcation of it, they are the
same by which their own Catechism excites them to this wor
ship, and every day's experience shews how zealously the
people follow these relics, in order to these ends.
Article V.
Of Justification.
How far the true doctrine of justificationf was overrun with
such abuses as I mentioned, at the ^beginning of the Befor-
mation, he must be ignorant in the histories of those times,
that needs to be informed. I do not at aU 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, vrith the same blindness in matters
of fact, that they are required to do in points of faith.
As to the present Article before us, J two things there are that
he doubts I shall be hard put to prove. One, that it is the doc
trine of our Church to distinguish between justification and
sanctification; though the eleventh and twelfth Articles of
our Church do clearly imply it ; and our Homily of Salvation^
in express words interprets justification to be the forgiveness
of our 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."
* Ita ut affirmantes sanctorum ReUquiis venerationem atque honorem
non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta inutiUter honorari, atque
eorum opis impetrandae causa memorias sanctorum frustra frequentari,
omnino damnandos esse.
t Vind. p. 46. } Vind. p. 47.
§ P. 12. The very beginning of the Homily : " Because aU men be
sinners and ofienders against God, &c. no man can by his own acts, &c.
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 snch things as he
hath ofiended."— Edit. Oxon. 1683.

OP justification. 181
As to the former part of which imposition, as he calls it, it is
the very definition of the Council of Trent ; " By justification
is to be understood, not only remission of sins, but sanctifica
tion, and the renewing of the inward man:"* insomuch that
in their eleventh canon they damn all such as dare to deny it.
" 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 iu 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."i-
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 thirty-second canon of the same ses
sion is a sufficient proof, where an anathema is denounced against
him who shall assert, "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
the merits of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does
not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life. "J
Now if those words, truly merit, do signify that our good
works do in their own nature merit a reward, then it must be
confessed that our justification is wrought by them. If they
say that they are therefore only meritorious, because accompa
nied with the infinite merits of Christ ; what can be more im
proper 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
* Justificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio
et renovatio interioris hominis. C. Tr. Sess. vi. c. 7. p. 31. [Colon.
1679.] t Siquis dixerit, homines justificarivel sola imputatione justitise Christi,
vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et charitate quae in cordibus
coram per Spiritum S. difiiindatur, atque illis inhsereat ; aut etiam gra
tiam qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei, Anathema sit. Can. 11.
Sess. vi.
X 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, et Jesu Christi meritum, cujus vi-
vum membrum est, fient, non vere mereri augmentum gratiae, Vitam mter-
nam, et ipsius Vitse seternse, si tamen in gratia decesserit, cousecutionem,
atque etiam glorias augmentum. Anathema sit.

182 OP MERITS.
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, accord
ing to God's promises, have a most ample reward bestowed on
them. Article VI.
Of Merits.
It ought not to be wondered at, if to shew 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 de
servedly celebrated in their generations, than Monsieur de
Meaux's or the Vindicator's can be now. The Council of
Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this point, as plainly shews
they either did not know themselves what they would establish,
or were unwiUing 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 Coimcil 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, estabhshed by the Council, in the
canon I have now cited, is clearly this : "that the good works
of a justified person are not so the gift of God, 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."t
In a word, the point of merits, 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 re
ward that is given us only through God's acceptance and pro
mise 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 inquired by us.
• Vindicat. p. 48.
f Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. can. 33. [Labbe, ut supra, p. 758.]

or MERITS. 183
1st. 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 reward, as we do deserve punishment when,
without this grace, we do ill."
2ndly. For BeUarmine. 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 (eter
nal life) condignly, not only by reason of God's covenant and
acceptation, but also by reason of the work itself."t
This is his position :J 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 vine
yard 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, " 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."
• Maldon. in Ezek. xviu. 20. p. 425. [Mogunt. 1611.] Ex hoc loco
perspicuum est aUquam esse nostram, ut vocant, inhserentem propriamque
justitiam, quamvis ex Dei gratia, et largitate profectam : Et nos tam pro
prie et vere, cum gratia Dei bene agentes praemia mereri, quam sine ilia
male agentes supplicia mereamur.
+ De Justif. 1. 5. c. 17. Opera bona justoram meritoria esse ex con
digno, non solum ratione pacti, sed etiam ratione operum.
t Meritum ex condigno tribus modis variari potest. Nam si forte opus
aUquod sit multo inferius mercede ex conventione promissa, ut si Dominus
Vineae conduceret operarios, et non denarium diurnum, sed centum aureos
pro mercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi meritum ex condigno ratione pacti,
non operis. [Ut supra,] p. 1299. 1. B.
§ Opera justorum esse bona vere et proprie, sed non tam exceUentia
ut proportionem habeant cum vita aeterna. Et ideo acceptari quidem
a Deo ad justam et dignam mercedem vitEB aeternae, sed ex pacto et pro
missione, non ex operis dignitate. [Ibid.] p. 1300. 1. A.

184

OP MERITS.

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 work ; "meritorious of eternal lifef
upon the account of the work itself, though there were no
covenant that they should be accepted." This also he rejects.
A third sort of condignity is, J 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 work ; 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 CouncU 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.
But Vasquez goes yet further : §First, he rejects the opinion
of Bellarmine as too little for their good works ; and then
proposes his own three conclusions || mentioned by me; to
* Si opus sit revera aequale mercedi, vel etiam majus, sed conventio
nulla intervenerit.
? Opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae Eeternse ex condigno ratione
operis, etiamsi nuUa extaret divina conventio. [Ibid.] p. 1299. D.
X Si et pactum intercedat, et opus sit vere par mercedi ; ut cum
operarii ad vineam conducuntur pro denario diumo, id meritum erit ex
condigno ratione operis, et ratione pacti. And he explains it thus, p. 1300.
1. B. Non quidem quod sine pacto, vel acceptatione non habeat opus
bonum proportionem ad vitam aeternam ; sed quia non tenetur Deus ac
ceptare ad illam mercedem opus bonum, quamvis par et aequale mercedi,
nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam conformem esse non du-
bitamus concilio Tridentino, &c.
§ Vasquez in 1, 2d8e. q. 114. d. 214. c. 3. p. 802. [Ingolst. 1606.]
Jam vero hac nostra jEtate non pauci Theologise Protessores mediam
quandam viam elegerunt, inter Scoti opinionem quam primo Cap. memo
ravimus, et aUorum sententiam quam nos ut veram inferius probabimus.
Dicunt ergo rationem meriti perfecti et condigni, quod simplidter meritum
dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe et dignitate operis, et promissione mer
cedis : which was BeUarmine's opinion.
II [Ibid.] p. 803. The first is that of c. 5. [Ibid.] p. 804. "Bona
opera justorum absque uUa acceptatione et pacto, ex se habere dignitatem
vitEe a-tei-n^e." This is against Scotus aud the heretics, whose doctrine he
thus represents: "Opera bona necessaria esse ad vitam aeternam; ita

OP SATISPACTIONS. 185
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
shew that it is no way contrary to the Council of Trent,*
but rather a true and natural exposition of it.
Article VII. §.1.
Of Satisfactions.
Iff the Council of TrentJ has expressed itself in such
terms, as do plainly ascribe to our endeavours a true and
proper satisfaction, whatever Monsieur de Meaux or his Vindi
cator expound to the contrary, we are not to be blamed for
charging them with it.
It is 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,
tamen ut ipsa justorum opera non sint digna remuneratione vitae aeternae,
nisi Deus benignitate sua dignaretur iUa remunerare." Scotus's opinion
he puts down thus, c. 1. [Ibid.] p. 800. " Opera justorum ex se spectata,
quatenus procedunt ex auxilio gratiue Dei, et posita Sanctitate Animae,
per quam Spiritus S. in justis habitat, non habere condignitatem et ratio
nem meriti vitae aeternae, sed totam dignitatem et totam rationem meriti
habere petitam ex promissione et pacto Dei." The second conclusion,
c. 7. [Ibid.] p. 809. is this : " Operibus justorum nuUum dignitatis accre
mentum provenire ex meritis aut persona Christi, quod aUas eadem non
haberent, si fierent ex eadem gratia a solo Deo liberaUter sine Christo
coUata." The third ; which the Vindicator pretends he could not find,
though the title aud subject of the very next c. 8. [Ibid.] p. 811. is;
" Operibus justorum accessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen
nullo modo pertinere ad rationem meriti, sed potius advenire operibus,
non tantum jam dignis, sed etiam jam meritoriis." As for the conclusion,
wherein the Vindicator endeavours to excuse him, it is this : first, he sup
poses 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 need of Christ's merits to supply our defects, but that
our own good works are of themselves sufficient without any more impu
tation of his righteousness." See this at large, q. 114. art. 8. d. 222. c.
3. n. 30, 31. [Ibid.] p. 917.
• See Disp. 214. c. 11, 12. [Ibid.]. p. 819, &c.
t Vindicat. p. 54, 55. X Cone. Trid. Sess. cap. 8. can. 73.

186 OF SATISFACTIONS.
does not arise from any defect in that, but from a certam
order which God has estabhshed 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 our
selves. If God indeed has estabhshed any such order as they
pretend, let them shew it to us in Scripture : othervrise 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 Bellarmuie* 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 inge
nuous, 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 botbf he and othersj of their communion, have
• Lib. 1. de Purg. c. 10. to this objection, " Si appUcahir nobis per nos
tra opera Christi satisfactio, vel sunt duse satisfactiones simul junctse, una
Christi, altera nostra, vel una tantum." Resp. [ut supra,] p. 1899.
After two other manners of explication, he adds : " Tertius tamen modus
videtur probabiUor, quod una tantum sit actualis satisfactio, eaque nostra.
Neque hine excluditur Christus, vel satisfactio ejus ; nam per ejus satisfac
tionem habemus gratiam unde satisfaciamus ; et hoc modo dicitur apphcan
nobis Christi satisfactio ; non quod immediate ipsa ejus satisfactio toUat
poenam temporalem nobis debitam, sed quod mediate eam toUat, quatenus,
viz. ab ea gratiam habemus sine qua nihU valeret nostra satisfactio."
t As to the point of Satisfaction, BeUarmine distinguishes between a
satisfaction to justice, and a satisfaction to friendship : and then concludes,
" Cum homines peccant in Deum, Amicitiam simul et Justitiam violant."
As to the former, "Non potest homo Deo satisfacere," &c. [Ibid.] p. 1675;
the question is, " De satisfactione qua justitiae restauretur aaquaUtas."
And because he supposes that the guilt being remitted, and we received
into fiiendship 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 proprie sa
tisfactoria, itaut nos dicamur vere ac proprie Domino satisfacere." Now
both these he afiirms, and expUcates the latter from the Council thus, C.
7. de Poenit. lib. 4. [Ibid.] p. 1694. 1. C. " Per opera iUa poenaUa, de
quibus hactenus locuti sumus, vere ac proprie Domino satisfieri pro reatu
poenae, qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus."
X I shaU instance only in Vasquez, in 3. p. d. 2. c. 1. p. 11. [Venet.
1610.] First he lays down the opinion of the Schoolmen, Alex. d'Ales.
Ricardus, Ruardus Tappetus, &c. who held, that a mere man might con
dignly satisfy for his own sins. This he rejects, because he supposes it

OP SATISFACTIONS. 187
taught it as the doctrine of that 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, or any other
single point, as the cause of our separating from their com
munion ; that we ever taught that anything 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 this last remark, if it deserves any answer, "that I
reflect upon the bishop of Meaux, for bringing only we
suppose, to establish his doctrine, when yet very often I do
no more myself ;" I have only this to say, that I beUeve 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 suppo
sition. They who pretend to impose such things as these,
are the persons on whom the proof will lie ; it is enough
cannot be done without God's assisting grace, to which we forfeited all
right by sin : and so it wiU foUow ; "Nostram satisfactionem pro peccato
proprio perfectam non esse, ex eo quod fiat non ex propriis sed ex acceptis,"
[Ibid.] p. 21. c. 5. n. 53. But now, secondly, God's grace being sup
posed, he concludes as to mortal sins, c. 6. [Ibid.] p. 22. n. 58. "Nos
reipsa nunc satisfacere Deo pro nostro peccato et offensa." He tells us
that some indeed aUow that our contrition may be called a satisfaction,
though not a sufficient one, n. 59. " Nam qui pro compensatione exhibet
id quod potest ; licet minus sufficiens Ulud sit, dicitur aliquo modo satis
facere." This reason Vasquez dislikes ; he is content this satisfaction
should be called mimts sufficiens ; but then only upon the account before
mentioned, of its proceeding from the grace of God : so that, " si con
tritio praecederet infnsionem gratisB habituaUs ex parte ef^cientis, non
solum satisfaceret pro macula peccati condigne, sed etiam condigne merere
tur gratiae habituaUs infusionem." And this he expounds as the doctrine
of th§ CouncU of Trent, N. 62, 63. [Ibid.] p. 23. As for venial sins,
Disp. 3. c. 3. [Ibid.] p. 27. "Ita concedimus (says he) homini justo
pro suo peccato veniali condignam et perfectam satisfactionem, ut ea non
indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel aUquid illius, aut acceptantis
satisfactionem, sed talis sit ut ex natura sua deleat maculam et poenam pec
cati venialis."
* Vindicat. p- 57.

188 OF SATISFACTIONS.
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, 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 despatch them abroad, and his mission
aries preach them now as shamefully almost, as when Luther
first rose against them ? Is it not necessary, nor universally
received, to believe that these indulgences satisfy for the tem
poral 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 universal
indulgence throughout their whole Church ?f
When these things are considered, I doubt it will little avail
the Vindicator to put me in mind of my promise " that when
ever 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."
* Vindicat. p. 58.
t This BuU is dated August 11, 1683, and it runs thus : "We give and
grant, by virtue of these presents, a plenary indulgence, and entire remis
sion of aU sins. And that the confessors absolve them in the court of
conscience of all sins, excesses, crimes and faults, however 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 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 Archbishop of Paris promises the
people, in his instructions for the jubUee, shall restore them to the same
state they were first put into by baptism. Insti-uctions pour Gagner le
Jubile, p. 11. Paris, 1683. par ordre de Monseigneur I'Archeveque.

OP THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 189
Purgatory. §. 3.
What I have said, as to the design of the primitive Chris
tians* in praying for the dead, would have deserved either an
ingenuous acknowledgment of the truth of it, or some reason
able 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 behef 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 it will 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, the Vindicator f con
fesses 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 shewn us that all those seven which they receive,
have at least 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,J for not be
lieving "that infants dying unbaptized are certainly saved :"
• Vindicat. p. 59. + Ibid. p. 59.
X Ibid. p. 61.

190 OF BAPTISM.
but we must, and do complain of Monsieur de Meaux, for de
claring 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 httle
reflection of Huguenot or Puritan, before was ridiculous.
That he should be astonished to hear a Church of England
man argue for this point, shews 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 more strongly than ever I could have done for it :
one the venerable and judicious Mr. Hooker,* in his Eccles.
Polity, lib. 5. sect. 90. The other the learned Archbishop Bram
haU, in as et discourse, which he thus concludes : " Thisf I take
to be the doctrine of the soundest EngUsh divines, and which
I beUeve 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 oecumenical 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 httle 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 they were Puritans or Huguenots for their so doing.
But that the world may see with what rashness these men
talk, I wUl now be yet more express ; that whereas Monsieur
de Meaux affirms, that this " denial of salvation to infants
dying unbaptized, 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."J This is so notoriously false,
that not only the most learned of their own Church, § as I proved
* Page 275, &c. [Lond. 1676.]
t Archbishop BramhaU's Works, tom. 4. disc. 5. p. 983. [Dubl. 1677.]
t Monsieur de Meaux's Exp. p. 16.
§ First we have Cassander, libr. de Baptismo Infant, p. 762. [Par.
1616.] And he there cites of his side Jo. Gerson. Serm. in Nat. B. Ma-
rise, par. 3. preached before the Council of Constance, and aU the Fathers

OF CONFIRMATION. 191
before, but the very Fathers * themselves, have many of them
declared for this doctrine ; even St. Augustinef himself not ex
cepted, 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,^; I affirmed that several of
their own party had denied the Divine institution of this pre
tended sacrament ; and that neither the Council of Trent, or
their Catechism, had offered any thing to prove it.
The Vindicator repUes, " that my confession that the Apos
tles used imposition of hands, and that when our bishops after
their examples do the Uke, 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
spiritual grace."
Had I indeed affirmed that the Apostles had instituted this
imposition of hands to be continued in the Church, and pror
mised 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 sacra
ment 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
there assembled, [Ibid.] p. 769. Gabriel Biel in 4. dist. 4. q. 2. Cajetan
in 3. p. D. Th. q. 68. art. 1, 2. 3. TUmannus Segebergensis de 7 Sacram.
c. 1. art. 3.
* Grot. Via ad Pacem, p. 290. [1642.] in art. 9. Consult. Cassandr.
adds to these, Inter veteres Scriptorem quaestionum ad Antiochum qute
Athanasio tribuuntur ; Nazianzenum de S. Baptismate, duobus locis ; et
SchoUastem ejus Nicetam.
t Sed et ipsum Augustinum antequam in certamine cum Pelagio in
calesceret, 1. 3. de Ub. arb. c. 23. locum Joan. 3. intelUgendum de us qui
possunt et contemnunt baptizari, asserit Lombard. 1. 4. dist. 4.
X Vindicat. p. 63.

192 OP penance.
proof of confirmation, as it is now practised among them ; iu
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," &c. For which there is neither pro
mise, precept, nor example of the Apostles : but for imposition
of hands, the only thing they did, this they have resolved to
be but an accidental ceremony,* and accordingly have in
their practice wholly laid it by.-|-
Article XI.
Of Penance.
That PenanceJ is not truly and properly a sacrament, 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 disci
pline only, and alterable at pleasure ; 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 : and
then, as if he had done his business, " this (says he) we have
always held and practised, and this we affirm to be conform
able to the practice ofthe 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 pro
perly a sacrament, instituted by Christ, and necessary to sal
vation either in act or desire, he shaU not fail of an ingenuous
* So Estius hi 4. Sent. Dist. 7. § 7. p. 81. [Par. 1672.]
t So the same Estius proves from the CouncU of Florence : In quo,
says he, legitur quod loco Ulius manus impositionis per quam Apostoh
dabant Spiritum S. in Ecclesia, datur confirmatio, cujus materia est chrisma.
Ex quibus verbis utrumque coUigitur, et initio necessarium fuisse manuum
impositionem Sacramenti necessitate, et eandem ejus necessitatem, signa-
culo chrismatis introducto, cessasse.
X Vindicat. p. 46. § Ibid. p. 63. || Ibid. p. 67.

op EXTREME UNCTION. 193
reply to his arguments. In the meantime, I have tefore
shewn, that we do practise it, as far as is necessary or con
venient : and farther than this we shall not think ourselves
bound to go, till we are somewhat better convinced of our
obUgations to it, than the Vindicator has hitherto been willing
or able to do. Article XII.
Of Extreme Unction.
In explainmg the words of St. 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 Litur
gies shew, 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 he true, it was then best like St. James's 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 take 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's word be
general,f 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 ordi
narily cured the sick by anointing, had also the power to heal
the lame and the bUnd.
" Their power of miracles was not tied to unction onlv :"
but yet smce we find in St. Mark,J that this was the ordi-
* Vindicat. p. 68.
t 'XaSiivu answers to the Hebrew nbn ^'"^^ signifies aU sorts of infir
mities ; and aaSitvrig Toi>g rroSag, is no unheard of phrase for being lame.
t Maik vi. 13.
VOL. Xll. O

194 OF extreme UNCTION.
nary sign, what wonder if St. James describe it by that which
was the most common and frequent amongst them ?
" AU those that were anointed, were not cured." This is
false, and cannot be maintained without dishonour to that
Spirit by which they acted.* " Neither had aU they that were
cured by them who had the gift of healing, any assurance by
that cure ofthe 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 ex
pressly promises that in this case, whenever the health of the
body was restored, this sin should be forgiven too ; and there
fore 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 Apostles' time, who either neglected this ad
vice, or whose deaths prevented the accomplishment of this
ceremony." And if it must be understood of the soul's health,
then it will follow, that none were damned, either then or now,
but those who neglect his 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 per
form 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 heahng ; and yet he neither cured Timothyf of the
weakness of his stomach, nor his other frequent infirmities ;
and left Trophimus J at Miletum sick. That this gift of heal
ing 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,§ how little they have to object
• Vmdicat. p. 69. t 1 Tim. v. 23.
t 2 Tim. iv. 20. ^ Vindicat. p. 69, 70.

OP EXTREME UNCTION. 195
against the true design and interpretation of this passage : for
Cardinal Cajetan's authority, the Vindicator tells us,* " that
had I said only, that he thought it could not be proved, nei
ther 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 con
fesses it cannot belong to any other, is to impose upon him
and the readers.'' As if when two things only are in contro
versy, for the Cardinal absolutely to exclude the one, and apply
it to the other, were not in effect (for I designed not to trans
late 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, shew, 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
everybody's hands, to argue at once the truth of my assertion,
and shew 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.f — " Fer. 5. post Palm.
Emitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paracletum de Coelis in hanc
pinguedinem olivse, quam de viridi Ugno producere dignatus
es ; ad refectionem corporis ; ut tua sancta benedictione sit
omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen mentis et corporis, ad
evacuandos omnes dolores, omnesque infirmitates, omnem
segritudinem corporis."
" That by this blessing it might become the defence both
of the mind and body ; to cure all pains and infirmities, and
sickness of the body :" nothing else mentioned.
In the Office of Visiting the Sick, several introductory
* Nee ex verbis, nee ex effectu, verba haec loquuntur de sacramentaU
unetione extremae unctionis ; sed magis de unetione quam instituit Dominus
Jesus, a DiscipuUs exercendam in aegrotis. Cajet. Annot. in Loe.
t "The same is in effect the prayer of the Greek Church : oiors ytv'saQai
Tolg xpiopkvoig avrb (eXacov) elg SrspdTreiav irdOovg rravrbg, votjov
BojpaTiKtjg, Kai poXvapov aapKbgKal wvsvparog. Euch. p. 863. [Par.
1647.] Nor is it much different in that pubUshed by Thomasius, as Pope
Gelasius's Ritual, before Pope Gregory's, upon the same day, p. 69. [Rom.
1680.] only that he generally joins Mentis et Corporis.
O 2

196 OF EXTREME UNCTION.
prayers, all for the body's recovery, are first said : such as
this, p. 251, ^c. — " Ad visitand. infirm, p. 251. Deus qui
famulo tuo Hezekise ter quinos annos ad vitam donasti, ita et
famulum tuum N. a lecto segritudinis tua potentia erigat ad
salutem. Per," &c.
" O God, who didst add to the hfe of thy servant Hezekiah
fifteen years, let thy power in like manner raise up this thy
servant from his bed of sickness. Through," &c.
Some of these being said, the priest goes on thus : — "Do
mine Deus, qui per Apostolum locutus es,* Infirmatur quis in
vobis? inducat Presbyteros Ecclesise, et orent super eum
ungentes eum oleo sancto in Nomine Domini, &c. Cura
quaesumus Redemptor noster gratia Spiritus sancti languores
istius infirmi : et sua sacra vulnera, ejusque dimitte peccata,
atque dolores cunctos cordis et corporis expelle, plenamque et
interius exteriusque sanitatem misericorditer redde : ut ope
misericordise tuae restitutus et sanatus, ad pristina pietatis tuse
reparetur officia : Per," &c.
" 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 fuU 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," &c.
Then the sick person kneels down upon the right hand of the
priest, and this Antiphona is sung : — " Dominus locutus est
Discipulis suis. In Nomine meo daemonia ejicite, et super in-
firmos manus vestras imponite, et 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 shaU re
cover. Then the 49th Psalm, The Lord, the mighty God hath
spoken, &c. After which they repeat again, In my name,
&c. as before."
Then follows this Prayer : — "Oremus Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum, et cum omni supplicatione rogemus ut hunc
» St. James v. 14, 15.

OP EXTREME UNCTION. 197
famulum suum N. per angelum sanctum suum visitare, laetifi-
care, et 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 infirmoisti
N . et medica eum spirituali medicamine, ut in pristina 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, et cu
jus anima turbata est valde ; sed tu Domine convertere, et Sana
eum, et eripe animam ejus."
" Heal, 0 Lord, this sick person, whose bones are troubled,
and whose soul is very much afiUcted : but turn thou, O Lord,
and heal him, and deliver his soul."
After this is said the 6th Psalm, from whence the Anti
phona was taken; which being ended, they anoint the sickperson
in several parts, but especially in that where the pain lies, say
ing this Prayer : — " Inungo te de oleo sancto in nomine Patris,
et FUii, et Spiritus Sancti : ut non lateat in te spiritus immun-
dus, neque in membris, neque in medulUs, neque in uUa com-
pagine membrorum ; sed in te habitet virtus Christi altissimi
et Spiritus Sancti ; quatenus per hujus operationem mysterii,
atque per hanc sacrati olei unctionem, atque nostram depreca-
tionem, virtute sanctae Trinitatis medicatus sive fotus, pris-
tinam et immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem : Per
eundem." " I anoint thee \yith this holy oil,* in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that no un
clean spirit may remain in thee, but that the virtue of the
most highest Christ, and the Holy Ghost may dwell in thee :
* Instead of this, Arcudius gives us this form out of a very ancient ma
nuscript in the Greek Church : Ilarep liyie iarpi 4''"%'^''' *^"' aupdnav
. . . laaai Kai rbv SovXov uov rovbe sk rijg tyvvsxov<r7}g avrbv atopari-
Krjg Kai ^vxt.Kijg duQevsiag , . . /cai i^aionoirjaov avrbv Kara rb ffol
tiidptarov. And in another Office ; xp'iirsi rov iXaiov aov, Kai Upsiiiv
^i\dv9po)7rs, CTraipy, Toiig oiKsrag aov dyiaaov dv(o9sv, voatipdruv
pvaai, i^^x^S re rbv pivov KaQapov, ixirXwov aoiT^p. Arcudius de
Sac. Extr. Unct. p. 394. And the prayers in the Office of the Euche-
laion are all exactly conformable to what I have here observed.

198 OP EXTREME UNCTION.
to the end, that by the operation of this mystery, and through
the unction of this holy oil, and our prayers, thou mayest be
healed and restored by the virtue of the holy Trinity, and re
ceive thy former and better health : Through the same."
Then follows this Prayer: — "Domine Deus Salvator noster,
qui es vera salus et medicina, a quo omnis sanitas et medica-
mentum venit, quique nos apostoli documento instruis ut lan-
guentes olei liquore orantes tangeremus, respice propitius super
hunc famulum tuum N. et quem languor curvat ad exitum, et
virium defectus trahit ad occasum, medela tuse gratise restituat
in salutem. Sana quoque qusesumus omnium medicator ejus
febrium, et cunctorum languorum cruciatus, segritudinemque,
et dolorum omnium dissolve tormenta, viscerumque ac cordium
interna medica : meduUarum quoque et cogitationum : sana
discrimina ulcerum, vanitatumque putredines evacua, conscien-
tiarumque atque plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres, immens-
asque remove passiones : carnis ac sanguinis materiam refor-
ma, delictorumque cunctorum veniam tribue ; sicque ilium tua
pietas jugiter custodiat, ut nee ad corruptionem aliquando sa
nitas, nee ad perditionem nunc, te auxiliante, perducat infir-
mitas ; sed fiat illi haec olei sacri perunctio, morbi et languoris
prsesentis 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 be
seech thee 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, &c. — 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," &c.
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 Ser
vice every day to the sick person, adding the hymn, " Christe
coelestis medicina patris .¦"* which is a prayer entirely for the
recovery of the bodily health.
* See the Hymn, Cassandr. Oper. p. 287. [Par. 1616.]

OF MARRIAGE. 199
This was the method of their unction in Pope Gregory's
Missal ; and which I suppose shews it had somewhat more
than a bare respect to bodily cures ; indeed, it was, as I before
affirmed, especially designed for them. It were an easy matter
to shew the very same to be the practice of the Greek Church
at this day ; insomuch that Arcudius* himself could not dis
semble it. But I shall close this with one observation more,
which Cassanderf has given us, that it was anciently the cus
tom 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 bodUy health.
Article XIII.
Of Marriage.
That marriagej is not a sacrament truly and properly so
called, as the Council of Trent has defined it, their own authors
sufficiently shew. Lombard§ denies that there is auy grace
conferred in it, and affirms it as a sacrament, || to have been in
stituted 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.
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 properly so called.
It is therefore evidently false to say, that Lombard is against
• Arcud. de Sacram. Extr. Unct. 1. 5. c. 5. de forma hujus sacramenti.
t Cassand. Oper. [Ibid.] p. 289. where he also cites Cusanus for the
same remark.
X Vindicat. p. 70.
§ Cassand. Consult, art. 14. de num. sacram. iu fine. De matrimonio
vero non modo P. Lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri, sed longe
post eum Durandus diserte inquit, non esse matrimonium univoce sacra
mentum, sicut alia sacramenta novae legis, nam nee conferre gratiam non
habenti, nee augere habenti ; non esse itaque sacramentum proprie ac
stricte dictum.
II Lib. 4.d. 2. I.e. p. 696. [Mogunt. 1632.] Fuit tamen conjugium ante
peccatum institutum, non utique propter remedium, sed ad sacramentum.
Et d. 26. 1. A. Cum alia sacramenta post peccatum et propter peccatum
exordium sumpserint, matrimonu sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legi
tur institutum a Domino. % 4. Sent. d. 26. q. 3.

200 OP HOLY ORDERS — OP THE EUCHARIST.
me in this matter ; and for the torrent of Fathers and Scrip
tures* which he talks of, it would have been more to his pur
pose 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,
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 bands
has in Scripture, being only the example of three or four
places, where it was practised indeed, but nowhere 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 XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII.
Of the Eucharist.
As to the business of the eucharist, J 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
natural import of the words themselves ; the other from the
* For his torrent of Fathers, BeUarmine has been able to coUect but
six or seven, of which not one to the purpose, nor any very ancient. And
for the Scriptures, Estius, one of the vrisest of their own party, is forced
to confess : Cum igitur hujus doctrinae non possit ex scripturis haberi pro-
batio, saltern aperta et evidens ; conseqnens est articulum hunc, matrimonii
sacramento gratiam conferri, unum esse ex traditionibus ecclesias non
scriptis, et ad verbum Dei non traditum pertinere. 4 Sent. d. 26. S- 1-
p. 61. [Par. 1672.]
t Vindicat. p. 71. t Ibid, p. 72.

OP THE EUCHARIST. 201
intention of our Saviour in the institution of this holy sacra
ment. To the former of these the Vindicator thought he
could answer somewhat ; hut for the latter, it has been urged
chiefly since Bellarmine's time, and so our author had nothing
to say to it.
For the former then he tells us,* first, "ofthe insincerity of
my attack ; 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 us to
it."f It is 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 require a figurative interpretation : which is
much the same thing. And though I cannot tell what will
oblige him to take these 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 insincerity, or the falseness of their interpretation, I
shall leave it to the reader to judge.
First ;§ He confesses, as to my first position, that the
words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative interpreta
tion. " Nobody (says he) ever denied the words as they |he
(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, &c. 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 per
suade all the world they ought to be taken in a hteral. And
as it would be a madness to suppose all mankind might in
future ages be so sottish, as to renounce this figurative inter
pretation of Jesus Christ's being a door, and a vine, and
fall so far into the Uteral sense, as to believe him to be substan
tially present in them, and pay the utmost adorations to him
there, set them up in temples to be adored, and celebrate
• Ibid. P. 73, 74.
X Expos, of the Church of England, p. 47. ^ Vindicat. p. 73.

202 OP THE EUCHARIST.
feasts in honour of them ; * so we cannot but think it to be
irrational to imagine, that if the disciples and whole Church
in aU 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 Uteral."
The meaning of which discourse, if I understand it aright, is
this concession, that the words of institution do of 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 sup
poses, has from the beginning interpreted the one according
to the letter, the other in a figurative acceptation.
" Secondly, As to my argTiment, 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 repugn.ancy
there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another, bread
and Christ's body, will necessarily require the figurative inter
pretation." This Bellarmine,f Gratian, J 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)§ 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 Vin
dicator'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
* This is the pretence of Mr. Arnauld, and at large refuted by Mr.
Claude in his answer to him ; whose works being in English, 1 shall refer
the reader, who desires to see the vanity of this argument exposed, to
what he has there said.
t Hoc est impossibile quod Panis sit corpus Christi : De Consecrat. d.
2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss.
{ De Euch. 1. 1. .J. 1. [ut supra,] p. 462. 1. D. speaking of Carolostad's
opinion of the Eucharist : Scripsit, says he, verba EvangeUstae. Hoc est
corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hie panis est corpus meum, qus sen
tentia aut accipi debet tropice, ut panis sit corpus Christi significative, aut
est plane absurda et impossibUis, nee enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus
Christi. Et 1. 3. c. 19. [Ibid.] p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera sit pro
positio in qua subjectum supponit pro pane, pradicatum autem pro corpore
Christi, &c.
§ In the Ethiopian Church they give the holy eucharist vrith this ex
plication. Hie panis est corpus meum. Ludolphi Hist. 1. 3 i; 5 n 56
[Francof. 1681.]

OF THE EUCHARIST. 203
transcribed, excepting only the part I am now speaking of, I
will not _ charge him with insincerity in the omission, but I
must needs say it was indiscreet to put the issue of the ques
tion upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed:* "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 : there
fore he took bread, and blessed bread, and gave bread to his
disciples, and said of bread. This is my body." And in another
place,t 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,
it were absurd to say that anything 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 shewn some
certain thing, even before the other words were pronounced."
From which put together, I think we may frame this argu
ment :
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," then it must be understood figuratively, or it is
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 there
fore said of bread, "This is my body :" therefore.
That proposition, "This is my body," must be understood
figuratively, or it is plainly absurd and impossible.
How far the Vindicator will approve this logic, I cannot
tell ; but the first proposition is their common concession,
* BeUarm. de Euchar. 1. 3. o. 19. [Ibid.] p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus
accepit in manibus panem, eumque benedixit, et dedit discipulis, et de eo
ait. Hoc est corpus meum. Itaque panem accepit, panem benedixit, panem
dedit, et de pane dixit. Hoc est corpus meum.
t Id. 1. 1. c. 11. [Ibid.] p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aUquid ostendat,
dum pronouem effort, valde absurdum videtur dicere pronomine iUo non
demonstrari rem pra;sentem. Atqui Dominus accepit panem, et ilium
porrigens ait. Hoc est corpus meum ; videtur igitur demonstravisse panem.
Neque obstat quod propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis.
Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est oratio quaedam, tamen demon-
strativa pronomina mox indicant cei-tum aliqvud, etiam antequam sequantur
caeterse voces. Et sane in ilUs verbis, bibite ex hoc omnes, valde durum
est non demonstrari I D quod erat, sed I D tantum quod futurum erat.

204 OF THE EUCHARIST.
and he himself seems contented with it. The second is Bel
larmine'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 wiU be
enough at any time to make good the sequel of it.
But the Vindicator* has an exception against all this, 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 pro
position, supposing there were such a change made as they
imagine ; but the question is, whether these words do neces
sarily imply any such change, nay, rather do not oblige us to
take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none ?
However, he is resolved he vrill suppose the question |first
and then prove it, though I must not. " We will suppose,
(says he), and that not incongruously, that our blessed
Saviour, in changing 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 ia 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 there
upon 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 shaU have reason to do, tiU
* Vindicat. p. 75.

OP THE EUCHARIST. 205
they can prove that what we are sure was bread, is converted
into the body of Christ.
And thus much for his disputing ;* before he enters on an
examination of those authorities I produced to shew the novelty
and uncertainty of transubstantiation, he is wilUng 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 sacra
ment : 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. Our Catechismf
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 Lord's sup
per :" and the meaning of it our twenty-eighthf Article ex
pounds thus ; " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten
in the Lord's supper, only after a spiritual and heavenly
manner, and the means by which this is done is faith. 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, though they may participate of the outward elements
aUke ; whom therefore our Church declares,§ " to receive only
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but be no way
partakers of Christ ; but rather, as St. Paul again says, do eat
and drink their own damnation, not discerning the Lord's
body." II These are the words of our Church ; and the meaning is
clearly this : Christ is really present in this sacrament, inas
much as they who worthily receive it, have thereby reaUy con
veyed 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 shews it to he no more than
a mere figure ; yet it is not his body after the same manner
that the Papists imagine, " Christ's body^ being in heaven, and
* Vindicat. p. 77, 78, 79, 80. t See the Church Catechism.
J Article 28. ^ Ibid. 29.
II See the Appendix, N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same
account of it. '
1[ Rubric at the end of the Communion Office.

206 OF THE EUCHARIST.
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 stiU in their
very natural substance ; nor is there any corporal presence of
Christ's natural fiesh and blood at the holy altar. The presence
we allow, is spiritual, and that not only as to the manner of
the existence,* 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, i. e.
corporal),t 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, in which the faith
ful, by their faith, are made partakers of it.
Thus does our Church admit of a real presence, andj yet
neither take the words of institution in their hteral sense,§ and
avoid all those absurdities we so justly charge them with. As
to the authorities of their own writers, which I alleged to
shew 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. And for antiquity, he desires us to
observe, 1st, " that the CouncU of Trent*[f having in the first
canon, defined the true, real, and substantial presence of the
body and blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament,
brings this transubstantiation, or conversion of one substance
into another, as the natural consequence of it.** 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 remain-
* Vindicat. p. 77, 78.
t That this Exposition is agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of
England, the authorities already cited shew. See also the Homily concerning
the Sacrament, part 1. p. 283, &c. [Oxf. 1683.] and the same istheexpli-
cation which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it ; as is
evident by the collation of them made by Bishop Cosins, in his History
of Transubstantiation, c. 2. where he has set down their words at large,
p. 6, &c. [Lond. 1679.] X Vindicat. p. 80.
i Ibid. p. 79. II Ibid. p. 80, 81. If Ibid. p. 82.
*» Sess. 12. [Sess. 13.]. Can. 2. [Labbe, ut supra, vol. 14. p. 808.]

OF THE EUCHARIST. 207
ing, 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 ; * but also the manner or mode of his presence, against
the Lutherans, in two particulars : 1 st. Of the absence of the
substance of the bread and wine ; 2ndly, 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,
aud 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 manifestf (says he) that the Church does not here in
tend to fix the manner of that conversion, but only to declare
the matter, viz. that the body and blood of Jesus Christ be
comes 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 evi
dently false, that Suarez doubts not to say it is heresy to affirm
it. J " Forasmuch (says he) 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, and absence of the
substance of the bread, which he calls the thing itself; but also
about the manner, how Jesus Christ is present; vis. "whether
it be by that wonderful and singular conversion, which their
Church calls so aptly transubstantiation ?" Now, this being
that which 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
shews 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 Vindicator is pleased to caU a scho-
* Can. 1. [Ibid.] t Vindicat. p. 83.
} See Suarez cited below. § Vindicat. p. 83.

208 OP THE EUCHARIST.
lastic nicety ;* and it was indeed at that time no other, though
since become a matter of faith, viz. what kind of conversion is
there made ?+ whether formal, or substantial, or what else.
And for this he teUs 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, 2ndly, Scotus is yet more free.J He declares our in
terpretation contrary to transubstantiation, to be the more easy,
and to all appearance the more true: insomuch that the
Church's authority is the principal thing § that moved him to
receive their doctrine. He tells us that this doctrine of tran
substantiation II was not very ancient, nor any matter of faith
before the Council of Lateran; all which the Vindicator him
self does in effect confess.^
The same is, Srdly, affirmed by Snares of Gabriel,** and
» Ibid. p. 92.
t Lombard. 1. 4. d. 11. Ut. A. p. 736. [Mogunt. 1632.] De modis con-
versionis. Si autem quaeritur quaUs sit iUa conversio, an formalis, an sub-
stantiaUs, vel alterius generis, defiaiire non sustineo : quibusdam esse vide
tur substantiaUs, &c.
X Dicendum (says Scotus) quod ecclesia declaravit istum inteUectum esse
de veritate fidei. Si quaeras quare voluit ecclesia eUgere istum inteUectum
ita difficilem hujus articuU, cum verba scripturae possint salvari secundum
inteUectum facilem, et veriorem secundum apparentiam : dico quod eo
spiritu expositae sunt scripturae, quo conditse. See 4. Sent. d. 11. q.l3. p. 63.
§ And before, in sect. Quantum ergo, he professed, PrincipaUter
autem videtur me vovere quod sic tenet Romana ecclesia. In a word,
BeUarmine himself cites Scotus for this opinion: " Non extare locum
uUum scripturae, tam expressum, ut sine ecclesias declaratione evidenter
cogat transubstantiationem admittere, BeU. de Euch. 1. 3. u. 23. [utSUpra,]
p. 767. 1. D.
II And again, [Ibid.] p. 768. 1. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus quod mi
nime probandum est, ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei
transubstantiationem. ^ Vin. p. 88.
¦•* Suarez,in3part.D.Th. vo. 3. disp. 50. §. l.p. 593. [Mogunt. 1610.]
Sacramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem panis et vini
in corpus et 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 intelUgenda verba formae, et in vero sensu
eorum hanc veritatem contineri. And then, [Ibid.] p. 594. col. 2. adds,
1 . Ex hac fidei doctrina, coUigitur corrigendos esse scholasticos qui hanc
doctrinam de conversione hac, seu de transubstantiatione, non admodum
antiquam esse dixerunt, inter quos sunt Scotus et Gabriel Biel, leet. 41. in
Can. &c. And then, 2do infero, Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis
Christi, et absentiam panis, neget tamen veram conversionem unius in
aUud, in Hieresiu labi, quia ecclesia catholica, uon solum duo priora, sed
etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet.

OP THE EUCHARIST. 209
confessed by the Vindicator ; who also, contrary to his pre
tences, 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 heresy, forasmuch as the Church
has defined, not only the two former, but also the third hke
wise." 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 : 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, begins 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 f (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 autho
rity 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 con-
• Vindicat. p. 86.
t Cajetan. in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. p. 130. col. 1. [Venet. 1612.]
In comment, circa prsesentis et sequentium ai-ticulorum doctrinam, pro
claritate et ampUori intellectu diflScultatum, sciendum est ex autoritate S.
scripturse de existentia corporis Christi in sacramento eucharistiae, nihU
aUud haberi expresse, nisi verbum salvatoris dicentis. Hoc est corpus meum ;
oportet enim verba haec vera esse. Et quoniam verba sacrae scriphirse
exponuntur dupUciter, vel proprie vel metaphorice ; primus error circa
hoc fuit interpretantium haec Domini verba metaphorice ; quem magister
Sent. 1. 4. d. 10. tractat. Qui et hoc articulo reprobatur. Et consistit
vis reprobationis in hoe, quod verba Domini inteUecta sunt ab ecclesia
proprie, et propterea oportet iUa verificari proprie, habemus igitur ex
veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio, &c. Cited by the Vindicator.
VOL. XII. P

210 OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
sists 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, though the very
next words to those he cites ; 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 beheve, have found out a great many hard na.mes for
him, to testify his zeal against falsehood and insincerity, and
shew what a kind of religion that must be that is not main
tainable without such sinister doings ;* but I shall remit him
wholly to the reader's censure, and his own conscience, for
correction. As for my last assertion,f " that transubstantiation was no
matter of faith, tiU the CouncU of Lateran, twelve hundred
years after Christ ;" they are the very words of Scotus, J cited
by Bellarmine, and all his sophistry wiU not be able to prove
" that they make but little for my purpose."
Thus, notwithstanding all the little endeavours of the Vindi
cator, 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 twelve hundred years. 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 anything 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 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.
The CouncU of Trent affirms,^ "that the mass is a true and
* Vind. p. 222. t Ibid. p. 88. X See p. 64.
§ Vind. p. 92. 93. || Ibid. p. 94.
f ConcU. Trid. Sess. 29, p. 196. [Colon. 1679.] de Miss. Canon 1.
dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, aut

OP THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 211
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. A sacrifice wherein the same
Christ is now offered without blood, that once offered himself
m 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 (Uffering in the manner of oblation."*
This is, in short, what their CouncU 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
anew 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 Uttle the doctrine of the real presence, f as understood
by the Church of England, will serve to support this innova
tion, is, at first sight, evident from the exposition I before gave
of it. That those who are ordained priests, ought 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 ritualsf shew that our
priests accordingly have such a power, by imposition of hands,
quod ofierri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari,
Anathema sit. Canon 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse
laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificU in
cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, vel soU prodesse sumenti, neque
pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus, et aUis necessi
tatibus offerri debere. Anathema sit.
* Ibid. cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est hostia, idem nunc oSerens
sacerdotum ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtuUt, sola ofierendi
ratione diversa.
t Vind. p. 94.
X In the ordering of priests, when the bishop imposes his hands, he bids
him be a faithfiil dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacra
ments : and again, when he deUvers him the Bible, " Take thou authority
to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments," &c.
Sparrow's Collect, p. 158. [Lond. 1684.]
p2

212 OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
conferred on them. But that it is necessary to the evangeUcal
priesthood, that they should have power to offer up Christ
truly and properly, as the CouncU of Trent defines, this we
deny, and shall have reason to do so tiU 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, if, with the CouncU of Trent,* he indeed be-
Ueves 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 repre
sent a sacrifice more strictly and properly than the CoimcU of
Trent has defined this.
Article XX.
Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
To elude the authority of this epistie, the Vmdicator.f after
Monsieur de Meaux, thinks it sufficient to tell us, J " that they
understand the word offer, when they apply it to the mass, in
a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it ; as
when they are said to offer up to God whatever we present
before him : and that it is thus they pretend to offer up the
blessed JesMS to his Father in the mass, 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 shews. 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 pro
perly sacrificed; II 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.
* Vindic. p. 95. Ibid. p. 96, 97.
X Monsiem- de Meaux's Exposition, p. 31. § Vindic. p. 96.
II Sacrificium verum et reale, veram et realem occisionem exigit, quando
in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificu. Bellarm. de Miss. 1. 1. cap. 27.
[ut supra,] p. 1663. A.

reelections. 213
If in this exposition of their doctrine we do indeed misun
derstand 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 stiU
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 on the foregoing Doctrine.
If my reflections in this article* be but as good as my ex
ceptions 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.
Though 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 neverthe
less only bread and wine, from being what our Church censures
it, " idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ;"t 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,| the Vindicator advances three arguments from the public
acts of our own Church : the 1st, false ; the 2nd, both false and
unreasonable ; the 3rd, nothing to the purpose.
1st. He says, " the Church of England allows the commu
nion to be given under one species in case of necessity :" Art.
30. This is false : the Article estabUshes both kinds ; and
* Vmdic. p. 97.
t Rubric about kneeUng at the end of the Communion.
X Vindic. p. 98.

214 COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES.
speaks nothing at all of any case of necessity, or what may, or
may not be done on that account. " The cup of the Lord is
not to be denied to the lay-people ; for both the parts of the
Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment,
ought to be administered to all Christian men alike."*
2ndly. " Edward VI." he says, " m his proclamation before
the order of communion, ordains, that the sacrament of the
body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, should from thence
forth be commonly delivered and administered unto aU persons
within our realms of England and Ireland, and other our do
minions, under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine,
except necessity otherwise require."
This, as it is thus aUeged by the Vindicator, is both false
and unreasonable : false, for that Edward VL, in that pro
clamation, does not ordain any such thing, but only says, that
" forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden
at Westminster, this was ordained, vis. that the most blessed
body and blood of our Saviour Christ, should from thence
forth be commonly administered to all persons under both
kinds," &c.f 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.
It is in the next place unreasonableX to argue as to the pre
sent state of the Church of England, from what was allowed
only, and that in case of necessity too, in the very first begin
ning of the Reformation.
It was indeed the singular providence of God, that in the
second year of that excellent prince, things were so far reformed
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.
* See Art. 30. Sparrow's Collect, [ut supra,] p. 102 and 219.
t See Sparrow's CoUect. [Ibid.] p. 17.
X 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 Vlth published two other books, in which were considerable
alterations, and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind.

COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES. 215
His third argument is not only unreasonable upon the ac
count we have now said ; but were it never so proper, is abso
lutely 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,* 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 distri
buted. 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
Sariour 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 doc
trine 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. Though after all, did we indeed,
as some .others do, believe that the Church had power to do
this ; how wiU this excuse them, who without some necessary
or but reasonable cause, deny it to the people altogether ; and
damn aU those that wiU not beUeve " they had not only power,
but just cause so to do ?"t And why wiU it not as weU
foUow, 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 ?
* Sparrow's CoUect. [Ibid.] p. 24.
t ConcU. Trid. sess. 21. can. 1, 2.

216 op THE WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN WORD.

PART III.
Article XXIII.
Of the Written and Unwritten Word.
As to this article, 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 gene
rally 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 Uke veneration to that
we pay to the written word itself. But after all this, there is,
as the Vindicator observes, a very material difference be
twixt us, viz. who shall be judge when this tradition is
universal ?
He tells us, " They rely upon the judgment 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."f And this is that
to which he conceives every private person and Church ought
to submit, without presuming to examine how ancient that tra
dition 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 judg
ing of traditions, for these two reasons :
1. Because whether there were any such particular doc
trine 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
later 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 shew it to have been other-
¦" Vindic. p. 100. t Vindic. ibid.

op THE AUTHORITY OP THE CHURCH. 217
wise. 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 prac
tise any thing as an ancient tradition, then this must obtain
and be of force with all its members, though 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 or 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, concerning the authority of the
Church,* I was wilUng to aUow as much, and come
up as near to Monsieur 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 : * Vindicat. p. 101.

218 OP THE AUTHORITY OP THE CHURCH.
1 . That the Church of Rome should be taken for a parti
cular, 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 : the
first of these he calls an argument to elude the authority of the
Church of Rome ;* and to shew the fallacy of it, he thinks it suf
ficient 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 and orthodoxness of the faith, which
is the bond of this communion, this renders every distinct
Church professing this faith, equaUy 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 that 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 ; aud 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, Arme
nian, Abyssinian 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
* ibid. p. 103.

OP THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 219
were not of her communion, she could not be looked upon as
an universal, but only as a particular Church.
Now if this be so, then the Vindicator himself allows,*
2ndly, 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,f " that the
gates of hell should not prevaU agamst his Church :" seems
on all hands acknowledged, to refer to his whole Church, not
to any one particular branch or portion. And therefore,
though the particular Church of Rome should have faUen into
gross errors both in matters of faith and practice; yet the
cathoUc Church of Christ may still, as to other of its members,
retain so much truth and purity, as to keep it from faUing
away, or being guilty of entire infidelity. And then for the
3rd exception. The aUowing of 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 Apostle's rule, in "trying all things, and hold
ing fast that which is good."
But the 4th exception, he says, J " is yet more intolerable
than all the rest : that it should be left to every individual
person, not only to examine the decisions ofthe 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.§ 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 Expo
sition. For, 1st, I allow of this dissent or opposition, only
in necessary articles of faith, where it is every man's concern
* Ibid. p. 102. t Matth. xvi. 18.
J Vindicat. p. 102. § Ibid. p. 103.

220 OF THE AUTHORITY OP THE CHURCH.
and duty, both to judge for himself, and to make as sound
and sincere a judgment as he is able : and, 2ndly, as I take the
holy Scriptures for the rule, according to which this judgment
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
inquirer, " 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 the Scriptures are
a clear and sufficient rule for him to judge by ; it will plainly
foUow, that if a man be evidently convinced, upon the best
inquiry 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 Scrip
tures, 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 judgment by that Church, of which they are
members ; yet, if after this instruction, they are still evidently
convinced there is a disagreement in any necessary point of
faith, between the voice of the Church and that of the Scrip
ture, 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 mem
bers, but allows a higher place and authority to the guidance
of the holy Scripture,* than that of her own decisions.
As to the authority, by which I backed this assertion, viz.
that of St. Athanasius, though it is not doubted but that that
expression of " his being against the whole world, and the
whole world against him," did refer chiefly 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
* See Article 20.

OP THE AUTHORITY OP THE HOLY SEE. 221
Liberius himself, though 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 bpooviriov,* was purposely omitted, 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 beUeve that the
Western bishops, or even the Pope himself, did thoroughly
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
CouncUs, and almost the whole Church fell away."
Article XXVI.
Of the Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy.
In this Article the Vindicatorf is pleased to declare that he
has nothing to say against the opinion of the Church of
England ; 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 tum to let a man see, that their Pope
does at this day lay claim to a great deal more than those Coun
cils 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 aU other bishops must derive their authority from
him. These are things which he does now pretend to, but we
can find no footsteps in them in the first Councils or Fathers
of the Church. On the contrary, we find innumerable pas
sages which plainly shew, 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.
* Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. Ub. 4. cap. 15. t Vindicat. p. 106.

222 OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE.
As to that new question he has hooked in at the end of this
Article,* " Whether the first four General CouncUs 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 autho
rity to which Christians of all places, and all ranks, acknow
ledged themselves bound to submit, and attend where they
were summoned by it ; whereas this was a mere usurpation,
and being so, was not regarded hy a great part of the Chris
tian world, who were sensible that they owed no subjection
to it.
2ndly, 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 cormption,
were perpetuaUy 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 com
pared with those first four Councils, which were in all these
respects most opposite to it.
Close XXVII.
And now, that I have gone through the several Articles of
the Vindication,f and found the pretensions of this author
against me as false, as I think I have shewn 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 Exposition.
Have I calumniated them in anything ? Have I misre
presented 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 insincere dealings, the falsifications, the
• Vindicat. p. 106. t Ibid. p. 106.

CONCLUSION. 223
authors miscited, or misapplied ? Excepting only an error or
two, that is 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 unwilUng 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 ought 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, 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 infal-
Uble, or that the sight of an imprimatur would 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 learnt something of his fairness and civihty
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 doc
trine. But this is an artifice that our late controvertists seem
resolved we shaU have no great cause to apprehend. Who
therefore have not wholly laid aside the moderation of this
prelate ; but have in some of their last pieces faUen into such
a vein of hghtness and scurriUty, as if their zeal for their
Church had made them forget that religion is the subject,
aud Christians and scholars, to say no more of them, their
antagonists. » Ibid. p. 120.

224 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
I am ashamed to say, what mean reflections, and trivial
jestings 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, and
(whatever is pretended) with respect, too, by us ; instead of
being vuidicated, are ridiculed in the reply : in which it is
hard to say, whether the author has least shewn 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 vriU be very weU
satisfied vrith : 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 shilUng expense, as a late author
has very gravely observed.* If this be the case, I hope I shaU
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 vrith holy things if they
think good ; for my part I esteem the salvation of men's souls,
and the truth of reUgion, 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 confess I can
not but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those
men, who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the
Church now labours under ; whUst our common mother hes
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; Uke an unnatural off
spring, 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 reUgion, they ought to wish rather they could
with their dearest blood be so happy as to redress.
* Amicable Accommodation.

CONCLUSION. 225
For what remains of the Vindication,* I shall say but very
littie 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 it is 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 vride 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 barba
rous butcheries executed on the Reformed in Savoy, Bohemia,
Germany, Ireland ; and to say no more, the proceedings 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 Sovereignf towards these poor distressed Chris
tians, notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hide
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 re
present 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
heartily 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 which 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 I.
to establish them ; and I shall rather refer him to the answer J
* Vmdicat. p. 106, 107.
t See the words of His Majesty's Brief.
X See that aud a Vindication of it by the secular Priests, An. 1601,
published with some other pieces in a Collection, caUed, the Jesuit's Loy
alty, 4to. [Lond. 1677.]
VOL. XII. Q

226 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
which my Lord Burleigh made above one hundred years
since to this complaint, than take the opportunity he has so
fairly given me, to revive the reasons.
As for those injuries he teUs us that perjury and faction
loaded them with,* we are not concerned in them. It is weU
known that the Church of England was no less, if not more
strack 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 shews 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 loyaUy
served ; whose rights she asserted in the worst of times, when,
to use our author's own words, "perjury and faction for this
very cause, loaded her with all the injuries hell itself could in
vent." 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 conftitation 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 meantime, 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 wiUing to
conceive from thence, as to the sober part of their communion,
that those errors shall in time be reformed, which they already
seem not only to have discovered, but to be ashamed of.
* Vindicat. p. 111.

RECAPITULATION. 227
When our fathers disputed against Popery, the question then
was, whether it were lawful to worship images, to invocate
saints, to adore relics, to depend upon our own merits for sal
vation, 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 gene
ration 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 can
not be maintained. And they have accordingly undertaken it
as the easier task, by subtle distinctions, and palhating ex
pressions, 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 the 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.

OP RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
Old Popery.
It is a wicked and foolish error of the Lutherans and Cal-
rinists, to attribute religious honour only to God.* And sure
such sentences as these, " that God only is to be adored:" "that
no creature is to be adored," must be put into the Index Ex
purgatorius, to be blotted out of St. Athanasius and other
authors in which, they do occur. New Popery.
Rehgious honour or worship, if taken strictly and properly,
is due only to God : soli Deo honor et gloria. We ought not
to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone ; neither
* Impius et imperitus Lutheranorum et Calvinistarum error est, nullum
nisi Deo reUgionis honorem tribuentium. Maldonat. in Matt. 5. 34. p.
126. B. [Mogunt. 1611.] index expurgat. in Athanas. adorari. solius Dei
*st; Creatura nulla adoranda est. Dele p. 52. [Madrit. 1667.]
a 2

228 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
honour, nor worship, nor prayer, nor thanksgiving, nor sacri
fice. 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 extrinsical denomination from
the cause and motive, not from the nature of the act. Vind.
p. -27, 28. INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
Old Popery.
It is necessary to pray to the blessed Virgin. It is the in
tention 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.
The curates therefore shall diligently instruct the people,
that the saints who reign together with Christ, do offer to God
their prayers for men : that it is good and profitable in a sup
pliant manner to invocate them ; and recur to their prayers,
help, and assistance for obtaining blessing of God by his Son.-f
Concil. Trid. Sess. 23. [Sess. 25.] c. de 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 it is necessary to go to church, it
is necessary to pray to them. They confess their sins to them;
they dismiss departing souls out of this world in their names ;
they make direct addresses to them as the CouncU speaks,
* Speaking of St. Bernard, he concludes, C'est de cette grande verit6
qu'U conclut que nous sommes obUgez indispensablement de I'honorer et
de la prier ; quia sic est voluntas Dei, qui totum nos habere voluit per
Mariam. II veut que tons les hommes soient sauvez par les merits du
fils et par 1' intercession de la mere ; d'autant que Dieu a resolu de ne
nous faire aucune grace qui ne passe par les mains de Marie. Comme
on ne pent estre sauvfe sans grace, U faut dire qu'on ne le pent estre que
par Marie, qui est le canal de toutes les graces qui descendent du ciel en
terre. t Mandat S. Synodus omnibus Episcopis, et caeteris docendi munus
curamque sustinentibus, ut — de sanctorum — Invocatione fidelis diUgenter
instruant ; Docentes eos, sanctos una cum Christo regnantes orationes
suas pro hominibus Deo offerre ; bonum atque utUe esse suppliciter eos
invocare ; et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per fiUum ejus Jesum Christum,
ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiUumque confugere, [Can. Cone. Trid 1 p.
291, 292. [Colon. 1679.]

RECAPITULATION. 229
not only for their prayers, but also for their help and as
sistance ; they desire for their merits to be heard by God ;
and that he would accept their sacrifices themselves for the
sake ofthe saints they commemorate;* as in the third Artigle
of this treatise is fully to be seen.
New Popery.
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, it is only those victories they
had obtained by his favours, which we beseech him to look
upon, and not regard our unworthiness. Vind. ibid.
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. Vind. p. 30.
WORSHIP op IMAGES.
Old Popery.
The images of Christ and the saints are to be venerated, not
only by accident and improperly, but properly and by them
selves, 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. f Bellarm. de
/m^-. 1. 2. p. 2148.
The wood of the cross is to he adored with divine adoration;
and upon this account, if the Pope's legate at any time con
duct the Emperor into any city, his cross must take place of
the Emperor's sword, " because a divine worship is due to it." J
Pontific. see above. Art. 4.
This adoration is properly to the cross, as is evident in that
the Church invites the people on Good-Friday to adore it ; and
* Ord. Commend. Animae, p. 120.
t Imagines Christi et sanctorum venerandse sunt non solum per accidens
vel improprie, sed etiam per se et proprie ; ita ut ipsae terminent venera
tionem ut in se considerantur, et non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris.
X Pont. Rom. p. 205. [Venet. 1561.] See above, p. 15, 16, 17.

230 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
in its hymns distinguishes the cross from Christ, and addresses
to the cross as such.* See Art. 4.
The Church of Rome in praying to God, that several virtues
may proceed from the cross, shew it to be their opinion, that
it has other virtues than barely to excite the remembrance of
those they represent.f See above in the Consecration of a new
Cross. Art. 4. New Popery.
The use we make of pictures or images is purely as repre
sentatives or memorative signs, which call the originals to our
remembrance. Vind. 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.
Exposition of Monsieur de Meaux, 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.^. 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, whUst 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, l)ut
to Jesus Christ represented by that image. Vind. ib. p. 31.
Monsieur de Meaux's Expos, p. 8, 9.
OP RELICS.
Old Popery.
Seeing we adore the saints of God, we must also adore their
relics. J Thomas.
This is an undoubted truth amongst Catholics, that the reUcs
ofthe saints, § whether they be any parts of them, as bones,
* Missal. Rom. seria VI. in Parascev. p. 247. [Par. 1616.]
t Pontificale de Benedictione novae Crucis, [ut supra,"! p. 161.
X Thom. 3. par. qu. 25. art. 6. p. 54. [Colon. 1662.] See above,
p. 22, 23.
§ Vasquez in 3 part. D. Tho. disp. 112. p. 808. [Venet. 1610.]

RE CAPITULATION. 23 1
flesh, ashes, or some other things that have touched them, or
belonged to them, are to be adored. Vasquez, see above.
Art. 4.
Those are to be condemned * who affirm, that no worship or
honour is due to the relics of saints, or that those sacred monu
ments are unprofitahly revered by the faithful ; or that for ob
taining their help, men ought not to frequent the memories of
the saints. Concil. Trid. sess. 25. c. de Invocat. &c.
New Popery.
We honour relics as we do images, for those whom they be
longed to. Vind. p. 40.
We wiU not quarrel how we ought to call this respect and
honour, Vind. p. 43 ; but it is not worship. Ib. p. 42.
We seek not to them for any aid and assistance to cure the
blind, &c. and are therefore falsely charged with so doing.
Vind. p. 41. OF JUSTIFICATrON. Old Popery.
By justification f is to be understood, not only remission of
sins, but sanctification, and renewing of the inward man. Con
di. Trid.
If any one shall say that men are justified, either by the
alone imputation of Christ's righteousness, or only by the re
mission 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.
If any one shall aSirm the works of a justified man to be so
the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits ofthe jus
tified 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. Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 32.
* Ita ut affirmantes sanctorum reliquns venerationem atque honorem
non deberi, vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta a fidelibus inutUiter honorari,
atque eorum opis impetrandae caUsa, sanctorum memorias frustra frequen
tari, omnino damnandi sunt, p. 292, 293. [Colon. 1679.]
t Cone. Trid. sess. 6. cap. 7. [Ibid.] p. 31.
} See above, Art. 5.

232 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
New Popery.
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.
OP MERITS.
Old Popery.
We do as truly and properly,* 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 f are as truly equal to the reward
of eternal life, as the work of those who laboured in the vine
yard to the penny which they earned ; and God by his cove
nant 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, 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 cove
nant and promise of God. This was the opinion of Scotus,
condemned above, Art. 7.
Christ, indeed, 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 suffi
cient to salvation, without any imputation of his righteousness.
Vasques. See above, 1. c. New Popery.
Eternal hfe ought to be proposed to the children of God, as
a grace that is mercifully promised to them, by the mediation
of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and a recompense that is faithfuUy
rendered to their good works and merits, in virtue of this pro
mise. Exposition of Monsieur de Meaux, p. 1 1.
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.
* Maldonat. in Ezek. xviu. 20. p. 425. [Mogunt. 1611.]
+ BeUarmin. de Justificatione, 1. 5. c. 17.
X Vasquez in D. Th. 12ffi. q. 114. disp. 214. p. 800. [Ingolst. 1606.]
\ Vasquez, ibid. p. 917, &c.

RECAPITULATION. 233
OF SATISFACTIONS. Old Popery.
To this question, whether our works are to be called truly
and properly satisfactory ? Bellarmine replies that they are ;*
so that we may be said truly and properly to satisfy the Lord.
See above, Art. 7.
It is immediately our satisfaction,-]- and Christ's only inas
much as we receive grace from him, whereby we ourselves may
be able to satisfy. Id. ib. Art. 7.
As to mortal sins, J 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 to
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, 1. c.
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. New Popery.
They impose upon us, who say that we believe that by our
own endeavours we may be able to make a true and proper
satisfaction to God for sin. Vind. 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. Ex. p. 15.
OP INDULGENCES. Old Popery.
There being in all sins a temporal punishment to be under
gone after the eternal, || by the sacrament of penance is
remitted ; we call indulgence the remission of those punish
ments that remain to be undergone after the forgiveness of
* Bellarm. de Poenit. 1. 4. c. 7. t Bellarm. 1. 1. de Purgat. c. 10.
X Vasquez in 3 part. disp. 2. See above. Art. 7.
§ Quidam asserunt, Nos non proprie satisfacere, sed solum aliquid fa
cere cujus intuitu Deus applicat nobis Christi satisfactionem : Quae sen
tentia erronea mihi videtur. Bellarm. de Purg. 1. 1. c. 10. p. 1899. A. B.
[Ingolst. 1586.]
II BeUarm. de Indulgentus, 1. I.e. 1. [Ibid.] p. 3.

234

DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.

the fault, and reconcUiation obtained by the sacrament of
penance. The foundation of these indulgences * 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 C/hurch f have obtained from God the
power of granting indulgences, and dispensing of the merits of
Christ, and the saints, for this end out of the sacraments.
The punishments remitted by these indulgences are all those
which are or might have been enjoined for sins,J and that
whether the persons be alive or dead.
New Popery.
We believe there is a power in the Church of granting indul
gences, 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. viU. p.
10. Monsieur de Meaux's Expos. §. 8. p. 14.
OF THE MASS.
Old Popery.
The mass is a true and proper sacrifice ;§ a sacrifice not only
commemoratory of that of the cross, but also truly and pro
perly propitiatory for the dead and the living. Cone. Trid.
Art. 16.
Every true and real sacrifice requires a true and real death ||
or destruction of the thing sacrificed : so that if in the mass
* Ibid. c. 2. + Ibid. c. 3. p. 19, 27. X Ibid. c. 7. p. 47.
$ ConcU. Trid. sess. 22. can. 1. et 3. [ut supra,] p. 196. et ibid. c. 2.
p. 191.
II Verum et reale sacrificium veram et realem mortem aut destructionem
rei immolatae desiderat. Bell, de Missa, 1. 1. c. 27. [Ibid.] p. 1062. C.
Vel in missa fit vera et realis Christi mactatio, et occisio, vel non fit : si
non fit, non est verum et reale sacrificium missa : sacrificium enim verum
et reale, veram et realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur es
sentia sacrificu. [Ibid, p.] 1063. A.
And again. Per consecrationem res quae off'ertur, ad veram realem, et ex-
ternam mutationem et destructionem ordinatur, quod erat necessarium ad
rationem sacrificu. Ib. 1. D. sect, tertio.

RECAPITULATION. 235
there be not a true and real destruction, there is not a true
and real sacrifice. Bellarmin.
To offer up Christ, then, in the eucharist, is not only to pre
sent him before God on the altar, but really and truly to sacri
fice, i. e. destroy him. Bellarmin. New Popery.
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. p. 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 vouch
safes to render himself present before him. Vind. ibid. p. 96.
OP THE pope's AUTHORITY.
Old 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 to St. Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, a true obedience.
Concil. Trid. Jur. Pii Ati. p. 44. in fine.
The Pope * has power to depose princes, and absolve sub
jects 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 ab
solved 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 Hceret.
p. 147.
* Si Dominus temporaUs requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia, terram suam
purgare neglexerit ab haeretica foeditate, Excommunicationis vinculo inno-
detur. Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summa
Pontifici, ut ex tunc Ipse VassaUos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos,
et terram exponat Catholicis occupandam. — Salvo jure Domini principalis,
dummodo super hoc ipse nuUum praestet obstaculum, nee aUquod impe-
dimentum opponat : eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui non
habent Dominos principales. [Labbe, Concil. ut supra, vol. 11. par. 1.]

236 defence op the exposition.
This is no scholastic tenet, but the canon of a CouncU re
ceived by the Church of Rome as general.
New Popery.
We acknowledge that primacy which Christ gave to St.
Peter, in his successors ; to whom, for this cause, we owe that
obedience and submission, which the holy CouncUs and Fathers
have always taught the faithful.
As for those things which we know are disputed of m the
schools, it is not necessary we speak of them here, seeing they
are not articles ofthe catholic faith.
It is sufficient we acknowledge a head established by God to
conduct his whole flock in his paths, which those who love con
cord amongst brethren, and ecclesiastical unanimity, wUl most
willingly acknowledge. Expos, of '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 shew 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 the^e 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 vrith some weak
persons to their seduction ; though we know well enough that
all those abroad, who pretend to be Monsieur de Meaux's
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 seriouslj' 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

RECAPITULATION. 237
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 httle or no
difference at all betwixt us.
And would to God indeed this were truly so ! that these
differences were not so 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 where
fore 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 shew them the truth, and open their
eyes to a perfect conviction ?
Till this be accomplished, let us, who by God's gi-ace 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 stedfast in
that faith which has been delivered to us, but to use our utmost
endeavours to convince others also ofthe excellence of it.
Let not any fond pretences of antiquity or possession amuse
us.* Against God and truth there lies no prescription ; nor
ought we to be at all concerned to forsake errors, though 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 stedfastness. "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to
be tempted above that ye are able."f And he who for any of
these things J 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, though 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 shaU not be heretics.
* Vind. p. 112, &c. t 1 Cor. x. 13.
t Matth. X. 33.

238 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.

APPENDIX,
CONTAINING A
COLLECTION OF THE FOLLOWING PIECES.
I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning
Monsieur de Meaux's 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 Imberfs Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, proving
that his Prosecution was truly for maintaining the
Doctrine of that Bishop's Exposition.
V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Ccesarius, 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 ca
lumnies.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The following pieces have so near a relation to the present
controversy, and are in themselves of so great moment, that if
their length denied them a place in the work itself, their im
portance 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.
Number I.
The Extract of a Letter written from Paris concerning
Monsieur de Meaux's Pastoral Letter.
To shew that Monsieur de Meaux does not always so write at
first, as not to stand in need of any correction afterwards, I wiU

APPENDIX. 239
beg leave to subjoin the extract of a letter dated from Paris,
concerning his late Pastoral Letter ; which, it is there said, he
is about to change somewhat in ; whether only for the bet
ter advantage of the method, and greater neatness of style
(as in the Exposition), we shaU be better able hereafter to
judge. It is in the last Nouvelle, Juin, 1686. p. 736, 737.
On ecrit de Paris, que M. de Meaux retranchera de la 2
edition de sa Lettre Pastorale I'endroit oii il dit aux nouveaux
CathoUques de son dioceze, Qu'ils n'ont point souffert de vio
lence en leurs biens, ni en leurs personnes, et qu'il a oui dire la
meme chose aux autres eveques.
Je ne sgaurois dire precisement si ce sont ces propres mots,
car je n'ay point veil cette Lettre Pastorale, je sgai seulement
que c'est ce qu'on ecrit de Paris.
Ce prelat a eu en vlJle dans sa Lettre, de preparer a la Com
munion Paschale ces nouveaux diocezains. Je ne sgai pas ce
qu'U ont fait, mais ailleurs quand on a presente les convertis,
on leur a trouve si pen de disposition a communier a Paques,
qu' on n'a pas juge a propos de pousser I'affair.
Dans la dernier Fete-Dieu plusieurs ont mieux aime payer
une amende, que de tendre devant leurs maisons.
Apres cella, il est apparent que M. de Meaux retranchera 1'
endroit cidessus marque, et que les gens d' honneur se plain-
dront in petto de ce qu'on se tue de leur soutenir que les
Huguenots ont signe le formulaire le plus volontairement du
monde. Bien entendu, que ces gens d' honneur n'auront pas
le tour d' esprit et de conscience, du quel nous avons parle
ci-dessus. p. 471-
" They write from Paris that Monsieur de Meaux will re
trench in the second edition of his Pastoral Letter the place
where he tells the 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 pvecisely whether these were his very words,
having never seen his Pastoral Letter. I only know this, that
thus they write 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 con
verts in order to receive it, they found them so little disposed

240 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
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 hangings before their houses for the
procession. " After this, it is more than probable that M. de Meaux
will strike out the passage above-mentioned, and that men of
sense will complain in their minds to be thus wearied with
their pretences, that the Huguenots 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." p. 471,
above.
Number 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 Mon
sieur 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. It will 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. Ques. 1. Whether the intercession of the blessed Virgin
to God for us, be not only profitable, but necessary to our sal
vation ?*
Ans. I do not find the Father positive in his assertion here,
but at least he recounts abundance of their saints that are so :
St. Germain, St. Anselme, St. Bemard, the Abb^ de CeUes,
St. Antonine, and St. Bernardine ; whose horrid blasphemies
see at large repeated and approved.-}-
Ques. 2. Whether a tender and constant devotion towards
the blessed Virgin, be not a mark of predestination 1%
* P. 31. t 1 Pt. trait. 1. q. 4. X P. 39.

APPENDIX. 241
" Ans. This is what we read in all books, hear from all pul
pits : 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 autho
rity of the Scripture,* explained by the Fathers, and confirmed
by reason.
" Ques. 3. Whether a Christian-f that is devout towards the
blessed Virgin, can be damned ?
" Ans. The servants of the blessed Virgin have an assurance
morally infallible that they shall be saved. J
"Ques.\. Whether God ever refuses any thing to the
blessed Virgin ?§
" Ans. 1 . The prayers of a mother || so humble and respect
ful, 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
\^ person, over his goods, and over his omnipotence; so that,
as Albertus Magnus says, she can not 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' ||
" Ques. 5. What blessings the Virgin procures for her ser
vants ?^
" Ans. 1 . 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. She defends and protects them in their
temptation against their enemy ; and this not only men, but
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 re
turned to his mistress .ft 3. She comforts them in their dis
tresses, assists them in their dangers,JJ counsels them in their
doubts, eases them in their pains, animates them in their com
bats, and finally procures them a good death.§§ To this end,
4. She gives them a timely foreknowledge of their death, that
they be not surprised. || || She sends the angels to assist them in
it, and sometimes comes her own self in person. 5. She obtains

• Ibid. 39, 40.

t Ibid. 54.

X Ibid. 57.

§ P. 57.

II P. 60, 61.

t P. 91.

•* P. 92.

tt P. 93,

XX p. 94.

§^ P. 95.

nil Ib. 96.

OL. XII.

R

242 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
them the grace of repentance if they are in sin,* and of per
severance, if they be in a state of grace.f
" Ques. 6. Whether the blessed Virgin has ever fetched any
out of heU ?J
" Ans. 1 . As to purgatory, it is certain that the Virgin has
brought several souls from thence, as well as refreshed them-
whilst they were there. 2. It is certain she has fetched many
out of hell,§ i. e. from the 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 ; which the Father proves at
large, for the establishment ofonr faith and of our hope.\\
" Ques. 7. What honour ought we to render to the blessed
Virgin ?^
" Atis. 1. 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,-t"|- which many grave
authors do assure us was done before her birth, during her
life,Jt and since her death and coronation in heaven.
" Ques. 8. Whether it be good to make vows and pil
grimages in honour of the Virgin ?§§
" Ans. It is good to make vows and undertake pilgrimages
to the places where she is speciaUy honoured." 1| ||
The Practice of Devotion towards her.
" 1 . To wear her scapulary :^^ which whoso does shall not
be damned, but this habit shall be for them a mark of sal
vation, a safeguard in dangers, and a sign of peace and eternal
alliance. " They that wear this habit,*** shall moreover be dehvered
out of purgatory the Saturday after their death.
" 2. To enter into her congregations.-|~|~|-
" And if any man be minded to save himself, it is impossible
for him to find out any more advantageous means, than to en
roll himself into these companies. JJJ
"3. To devote oneself more immediately to her service :"
• Ib. 97. t P. 98. X P. 99. § P. 100.
II P. 102. f 2 Pai't. P. 73. ** p 79
n P- 92. XX p. 99. % P. 138. nil Ibid.
1^ P. 315. ••• P. 316. ttt P. 321. XXX P. 322.

APPENDIX. 243
for which the Father gives several very grave forms.* Ibid.
et seq.
These are some of the heads of Father Crasset's book. It
were infinite to recount his particular folhes, with which every
page and sentence is crowded. And however Monsieur de
Meaux is pleased, at a venture, to espouse aU this, yet I must
stiU beg leave to believe, that he neither approves this prac
tice, 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 Monsieur Imbert in his
letter to him,f and having caused such contests between
Monsieur Arnauld,{ and the Vindicator of the Preservative, §
upon this very account, still increases my wonder, that for all
this. Monsieur de Meaux should never hear there was anything
in this book of Father Crasset's contrary to his Exposition,
nor beUeve the Father to be of any opinion repugnant to his
principles therein estabhshed.
But why do I thus long insist upon probabihties ? Monsieur
de Meaux himself owns that he hath both seen and read the
Preservative ; and in his treatise of Communion, does particu
larly encounter what Monsieur Jurieu had therein advanced
against his Exposition ; and yet has this man, after aU, the
confidence to tell the world, not only that he never read Father
Crasset's book, which is very improbable, but that he never so
much as " heard it mentioned, that there was anything in it
contrary to his Exposition ;"|| though that author, in that very
book, has spent no less than six or seven pages on purpose to
prove it ;^ not to say anything of the 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.

* P. 339. t In his letter below, N. 4.
t Reflections sur le Preservatif, etc.
§ Le Janseniste convaincu de vaine Sophistiquerie. Article 7. p. 72.
etc. [Amst. 1683.]
II Vmdicat. p. 10. H P. 97, 98, 99, 100. 101, 102, 103.
•• Such are, among others, M. la B.'s answer to his Advertisement, p.
79. Reflections Generales sur 1' Exposition de M. de Meaux, p. 121,
144. [Col. de Brand. 1685.] M. Arnaud Reponse au Preservatif. M.
M. Jurieu's Vindication : le Janseniste convaincu de vaine Sophisti
querie, ut supra, p. 72, etc. L'Esprit de M. Arnauld, vol. 2. p.
174. Politique du Clerge de France, p. 67. [Amst. 1682.]
R 2

244 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
He that can beUeve this, let him also beheve, that Monsieur
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 Uttle alterations for the benefit ofthe 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,* as to a certain point, which I shaU beg leave not to
name, but which we can at any time bring him thousands to
contradict, he either ever beheved himself, or ever heard any
other bishops say ; all which, as they have been shewn to be
equally credible, so no doubt they are equally true too.
The reader may please to remember, that this book of Father
Crasset's was licensed by the Provincial, approved by the
Fathers of the Society, permitted and privileged by the King,
and printed by the Archbishop of Paris's printer, 1679.
Number III.
Cardinal Bona's Doctrine and Practice of this Worship.
In my preface to my former treatise, to shew with how Uttle
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 Mon
sieur de Meaux's Exposition, 'This, Monsieur de Meaux says,
cannot be, for this admirable reason, " qu'on trouvera son ap
probation expresse parmi celles que fai rapporties ;" that his
express approbation had been given to his book.
I have already said what I thought sufficient to the conse
quence of this answer ; but now, to satisfy the reader that
Cardinal Capisucchi is not the only person that has thus com
plimented Monsieur de Meaux, contrary to his own principles
and conscience, I will here offer another plain instance in
Monsieur de Meaux's learned and holy Cardinal Bona,f whose
memory, he says, shall be for ever blessed in the Church.
This learned cardinal was desired by Cardinal Buillon to ex
amine the Exposition with all rigour, because that some persons
accused it of certain defects ; and he assures him that he did
* Pastoral Letter, p. 3, 4.
t Avertissement de 1. 5. Edit. Francoise, 12mo. Paris, 1681, page 21.

APPENDIX. 245
particolamente osservare in che potesse esser ripreso ; particu
larly 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 satis
faction to himself, and praise to the author ; and yet has this
man as flatly opposed Monsieur de Meaux's principles in the
point of invocation to saints, before mentioned, both in his
doctrine and practice, as it is well possible for words to do it.
For Monsieur de ]\Ieaux's doctrine, I shall not need say any
thing here, after what I have so fully accounted for 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,f which he makes of his book of Divine
Psalmody to the blessed Virgin, 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
serrice, 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
Ught, 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 bride
groom 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 weU-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 wonder-working 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 I6th chapter,
page 551, J he gives this account, why, in all their offices, they
conclude with a prayer, or some compliment at least, to the
* See Cardinal Bona's Answer to Cardinal BuiUon.
t Oper. tom. 2. t Tom. 2. p. 551. [Par. 1676.]

246 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
blessed Virgin : " It is to this end, that if by human fraUty
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 hers. 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 go
verned ; 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 orna
ment of our manners, the brightness of our works, — all this we
receive from her favour, when we worship and venerate her.
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 vrise council, has decreed, that they
should, by a frequent observance, fly to her protection ; not
only by instituting a special office to her, 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;T need not say how extravagant his
verses are,* when the prose is thus high flown. I will give
but one instance more, which one would think would contain,
if any, a certain account of his persuasion, taken out of his last
will, in which, having commended himself to our blessed Sa
viour, 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. Pag.
37, tom. 3.
"And to thee also,t O blessed Virgin Mary, mother of
mercy, queen ofthe world, comforter of the affiicted, 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 I am afraid ; lift me up that am fallen ; 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.
• See especially c. 12. [Ibid.] p. 304, &c.
t See his Will in the beginning of the 3rd tome.

APPENDIX. 247
"Holy Michael ! 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, 3.uA. preserve my soul from their evil designs.
"Assist me, you also, 0 my patrons and tutelary saints I Thou
first of all, O St. John, forerunner of Christ, make my paths
straight, 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, loose 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 unfraitful tree, in this your vineyard,
0 forsake me not in this hour ! but remember that I am your
son, though 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
1 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 extraor
dinary, 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 Meaux's
principles and the Cardinal's, and that this good man needed a
very great apology to his patrons, for having approved a doc
trine so derogatory to their power and honour, as that of the
Exposition, in his opinion, undoubtedly was.
But I shall say no more to shew the insincerity of Cardinal

248 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
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;* 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 pubUshed at the same time that he sent his compli
ment to Monsieur de Meaux, do but ill agree with his
Exposition. Indeed, they run in such a strain as plainly
shews, that were but his power equal to his vrill, 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, whenever
Monsieur de Meaux or his Vindicator shall think fit to question
the truth of what I now say.
Number IV.
Copie cFune Lettre ecrite a Monsieur VEvique de Meaux, cy
devant EvSque de Condom.
Au Port de St. Marie, ce 13 Juin, 1683.
Monseigneur,
Votre Grandeur rapellera, sans doute, mieux I'idee de
mon nom, lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle
a eu la bonte de parler il y a environ 16 ans a Madame de
Chaune pour avoir son consentement d'une chapelle, comme
tutrice de Monsieur de  et j'efls I'honneur de la voir plu
sieurs fois a St. Thomas du Louvre, avec Messeigneurs de
Perigueux et de Xainte.
* See the Proc^z verbal de I'Assemblee extraordinaire des Messeigneurs
les Archeveques et Eveques en Mars et May 1681. M. de Meaux himself
was one of this assembly, and signed with the rest the report of the Abp.
of Rheims, in which there is abundantly sufficient to shew how repugnant
his Holiness's proceedings were to the doctrine of the Exposition, ap
proved 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 observing, that the very
same day the Pope sent his complimenting brief to Monsieur de Meaux
in approbation of his Exposition, he sent another to the Bishop of Pamife,
to approve his defending the rights of his Church against the King :
which was judged in the Assembly, of which Monsieur de Meaux was
one, to be an interposing in an affair, which neither the holy CouncUs nor
Fathers had given him any authority to meddle with.

appendix. 249
Depuis ce terns la, j'ai suffert la persecution, et particuli-
erement depuis 1' Exposition de la Foi, que v6tre grandeur a
publiee. Ses enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer centre elle,
se declarent centre ceux qui disent la meme chose. Et au-
jourdhui Monseigneur I'Archeveque de Bourdeaux me fait
faire le proces, pour avoir explique a I'Epargne le jour de
Vendredi Saint, " Que nous adorions Jesus Christ crucifie en
presence de la croix, et que nous n' adorions rien de ce que
nous voyons." Et parce que le cure dit sur le champ assez
haut "Le bois, Le hois ;" j'ajoutai, "Non, non, c'est Jesus
Christ, et non pas le bois." Et comme U ajouta, "Ecce lignum
venite adoremus; " je le relevai en luy disant, " Auquelle Salut
du monde a ete attache, venez, adorons ce Salut de monde."
J' ajoutai que le sentiment de I'Eglise etoit, que si par
impossible nous pouvions separer la divinite du FUs de Dieu
d'avec son humanite, puis qu'U est certain qu'U n'y a rien
d' adorable que Dieu ; et qu'ainsi nous devious nous persuader
que nous aUions au Calvaire adorer Jesus Christ, sans nous
arreter au crucifix. Que I'EgUse, comme une bonne mere,
nous I'avoit donn^ par une sainte invention pour aider a notre
foi, et pour frapper plus vivement ndtre imagination, et non
pour etre I'objet de notre culte, qui se termine k Jesus
Christ. Voila, Monseigneur, tout mon crime, et ce que I'on me
reproche. J'ai ecrit au Promoteur et au Vicaire General, et k
Monseigneur I'Archeveque. Je leur expose, que j'ofre a me
dedire, si j'ai mal parle ; j'ofre a me justifier. Au prejudice
de cela il persiste dans I'interdiction qu'U lacha verbalement
sur le champ. Je me suis pourvft par appel comme d' abus
au Parlement de Guienne ; j'ai fait assigner le Promoteur, et
bien que j'ai fait toutes les honetetes possibles a la justice eccle-
siastique, et rendu toutes les deferences, le dit Seigneur Arche-
veque me menace, comme ceux qui luy ont rendu ma lettre
me le mandent, de prison perpetuelle, et de fers aux pieds.
V6tre Grandeur pent connoitre par ce precede, combien il
y a de personnes qui detournent nos freres separez de rentrer
dans I'EgUse. L'on m'objecte, ce que Ton dit centre votre
Uvre, que j'adoucis, mais que le sentiment de I'Eglise est con
traire. On le verra mieux dans le proces que me sera fait,
ear je defie mes enemis de pouvoir faire des reproches centre
ma vie et moeurs, et de me reprocher d' autre doctrine que
celle de votre Grandeur, que je tache d'exprimer dans les
mfemes termes, la trouvant tres conforme aux sentimens de

250 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
I'Eglise Romaine, et ainsi si je suis convaincu d'heresie, j'ose a
v6tre Grandeur qu'eUe doit etre a ma garentie. J'ose pour-
tant I'assurer, que j'ay assez de lumiere pour bien defendre
cette doctrine, et pour detruire le Preservatif, si l'on me ne
fait point de violence. Je defie tons les docteurs du monde de
toutes les religions.
La grace que je demande a V. G. est que si I'Archeveque
se servoit de toute son authorite pour m'opprimer, qu'eUe
daigne interposer sa sienne pour obtenir la liberte de me de
fendre. Elle voit combien I'honneur de Dieu y est interesse,
dans un tems, ou toute la Province est remplie de missionaires,
de Capucins, et de Jesuits ignorans, qui prechent I'Adoration
de la Croix, et la font faire dans une province ou tout est
remplie de religionaires, et ou j'ose promettre 10,000 conver
sions, si la religion etoit pratiquee conformement k votre
Exposition. Les Messieurs de la religion P. R. n'ont autre
objection a me faire si ce n'st " que I'Eglise Remain vous traite
et me traite d'heretique." Je demande pardon a votre Gran
deur, Monseigneur, si j'ai crd etre oblige de luy faire connoitre
mon precede, apres quoi je I'assureray de la soumission,
De son tres humble et tres obeissant serviteur,
Imbert, Prieur.
The copy of a Letter sent to Monsieur the Bishop of Meaux,
formerly Bishop of Condom.
Port St. Mary, June 13, 1683.
My Lord,
Your Lordship, without doubt, will better caU to mind my
name, when I shall have told you, that I am the person for
whom you had the goodness, about sixteen years since, to
speak to Madame 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
Louvre, vrith my Lords of Perigueux and Xainte.
Since that I have suffered persecution, and especially since
the time that your Lordship has pubhshed 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 Bour
deaux has caused a process to be made against me, for having
explained upon Good-Friday, "that we adore Jesus Christ

APPENDIX. 251
crucified in the presence of the cross, and that we do not
adore anything of what we see." And forasmuch as the
cure rephed upon the place aloud, "The wood, the wood ;"
I added, " No, no ; it is 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 it is certain, that there is nothing
adorable but God ; and that therefore we ought to think that
we are now going out to Mount Calvary to adore Jesus Christ,
without stopping at the crucifix. That the Church, Uke 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 written to the Promoter, and to the Vicar
General, and to the Archbishop himself. I have offered, if I
have spoken anything 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 pro
nounced against me. I have transferred my cause by appeal,
as of abuse, to the Parhament of Guienne : I have caused
the Proctor to be summoned ; and though I have used all
imaginable fairness, with reference to the Ecclesiastical juris
diction, 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 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 agree
able to the sentiments of the Roman Church : so that if I am
convicted of heresy, I am bold to say, your Lordship must be

252 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
my surety. But I dare assure you, my Lord, that I have
knowledge enough to defend this doctrine, and destroy the
Preservative,* might I be but secure from violence : I defy all
the doctors of the world, of whatsoever reUgion 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 mssionaries. Capuchins,
ignorant Jesuits, and others, who preach up the adoration of
the cross, and cause it to be done in a country full of Protes
tants, and among whom I durst promise 10,000 converts,
were the practice of our rehgion 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
obhged 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 wilUng to publish it,
that those who had never seen the Factumf 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. de
Meaux's 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 BishopJ has been pleased to endeavour to
take off the force of this great allegation, by lessening the cha
racter of the person, I shall leave it to the indifferent reader
to judge, whether this letter carries anything 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.
• An Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, entitled, Preservatif
centre la changement de ReUgion.
t Forty-two pages in 4to.
X Vindicat. p. 116. Cet Imbert est un homme sans s9avoir, qui crut
justifier ses extravagances — en nommant mon Exposition, &c.

APPENDIX. 253
Number V.
The Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Ccesarius, cut, by some of the
Doctors of the Sorbonne, out of the Greek edition of Pal-
ladius, published by Monsieur Bigot, 1 680 ; urith a Disserta
tion premised, containing an historical account of the whole
affair.
It will perhaps be looked upon by some, as a little unsea
sonable, 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 shew the undistinguishing
justice of their proceedings, and that M. de Meaux is not the
only bishop they have dealt thus rudely with on these occa
sions, I was willing to communicate to the world one instance
more of the like nature, especially since the original leaves,
rased 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 Meaux's Exposition.
It may be some satisfaction to M. de Meaux to consider,
that in this case he has run no other fortmie 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 mat
ter 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 Meaux's Exposition,
though a bishop's, that had prevaricated their faith in so many.
Nor was I less engaged on the Vindicator's account to tins
pubhcation ; it is 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 with him for an
oracle, it may be some confirmation of the idea to shew him
one of their pretended patrons concurring with me in the ex
position, and manifestly supposing an union betwixt the bread
and Christ's body in the holy eucharist, and yet stiffly con-

254 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
tending 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
Bigot observes,* has hitherto passed for the great doctor of
the eucharist, as St. Augustine of grace, may possibly by this
run the hazard of losing his credit amongst them : and as it
has fared 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
ApolUnarian 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.
ApolUnarius the younger, from whom this heresy derives its
name, was son to the elder Apollinarius, a very learned man,
and never, that we read of, charged with heresy. -f- He was of
Alexandria, where he was ordained a priest, and became de
servedly eminent for this, that when Julian forbade the Chris
tians 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, re
paired in a measure this disadvantage, by opening of two
schools ; J the father turning the writings of the Old Testament
into heroic verse, and composing several tragedies ofthe histori
cal 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 youger Apollinarius, he is on all hands ac
knowledged to have been a very extraordinary man ; eminent
for his learning, and particularly cherished by St. Athanasius,
* See Mr. Bigot's Preface below.
t Godefry vie de S. .Ithanase, livre U. cap. 13. Ex BasU. Ep. 74.
{ Socrat. Eccles. Hist. Ub. 3. cap. 16. CalvisU Chronol. p. 525 an.
362. [Francof. 1650.J

APPENDIX. 255
as one of the most zealous defenders of the Nicene faith,*
whilst he was yet hut reader in the Church of Laodicea. He
wrote against Porphyry in thirty books ; against the Arians,
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 faUen 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. Ruffinusf tells us, that his extraordi
nary facility to write upon all sorts of subjects, aud 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. SozomenJ
relates, that St. Athanasius, in his passage through Laodicea,
where Apollinarius then was, contracted so intimate a friend
ship with him, that George, bishop of that place, and who
detested the communion of St. Athanasius, as the other
Arians did, excommunicated Apollinarius§ upon this account,
and would never be persuaded to receive him, whatever in
stances he could make to that purpose ; and that upon this he
conceived so great a disftontent, that it carried him in the end
to form himself a new heresy. And lastly, || Theodoret, differ
ing 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
• Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. Ub. 6. c. 25. See Epiphan. Haer. 77. Theo-
phUus 1. 1. paschal. Vincen. Lirin. Ub. adv. prof, novationes. Quid iUo
preestantius acumine, exercitatione, doctrina .' Quam multas ille hsereses
multis voluminibus oppresserit, quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores,
indicio est opus iUud 30 non minus librorum, nobUissimum et maximum,
quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias, magna probationum mole confudit.
Longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare, quibus profecto summis
ledificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset, nisi profana Ula hsereticse
curiositatis Ubidine, novum nescio quod ad invenisset, quo et cunctos
labores suos, velut cujusdam leprae admixtione, foedaret, et committeret
ut doctrina ejus non tam sedificatio, quam tentatio potius ecclesiastica
diceretur. t Ruffin. Ub. 2. cap. 20. X Sozomen. Ub. 6. c. 25.
§ Petavius says it was for keeping too much company with the heathen
Epiphanius. See dogm. Theol. t. 4. 1. 1. c. 6. p. 25. [Par. 1650.]
II Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. 1. 5. c. 4.

256 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
of the greatest ornaments of the Church, and who had tiU
then been the admiration of the best men, not only St. Atha
nasius, Basil, &c. 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 advan
tageous manner that could be expected : 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 Bishop of Laodicea ;f
whether ofthe great Laodicea in Syria, or ofthe other in Phoeni
cia of Libanus, is not certainly known. It was not long after this
promotion that he became a heretic. Athanasius, who died
within ten years after, having written a long letter to Epictetus,
bishop of Corinth, against his errors ; though either his
respect to a person he had so much esteemed, or being un
willing to exasperate one,J 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 CouncU at Alexandria ;§ in whlbh, among other things,
we find the heresy of Apollinarius expressly condemned,
though uo mention made of his name ; whether it were that
he was not yet known as chief of those heretics, or that, as
some think, he sent a renunciation || of his heresy to the Coun
cil 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
anathematized among the other heretics, can. 1. of that
Synod. VII. As to the heresy itself, I shaU 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. Chry
sostom. Now this, to take it in his own words as they are
reported by Photius from Eulogius, was, that &eog ical crapS
* Epiphan. Hffir. 77.
+ Godefry places it An. 3G1. See Bals. Zon. com. m can. 1. ConcU.
CEc. secundi.
X See this Letter in Epiphan. Hffires. 77.
^ See this CouncU in Labbe's Collection, t. 2. p. 816. [Lut. Par. 1671.]
II Vid. Binii not. loe. cit.

APPENDIX. 257
pia aTTCTikEirav fvaiv,* " that God and flesh make up but one
nature," which Balsamon and Zonaras thus explain, "EXtyE yap
TOV vlov TOV Sreoii, awpa pev Epxpvjfpv kic rijg aylag ^iotokov
avakapeiv, avow Se (ig rijg BtorrjTog dpnovarig dvrl voog.f
"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 eccle
siastical writers have left of him ; Gregory Nazianzen, Theo
doret, Epiphanius, Theorianus. &c. aU which unanimously agree
in this point of asserting, 'iptpvxov pev elvai tov aarfipog ro
aCipa, ov pev rrjv ko-yiKtjv Itrj^rjicEvat -^vx^liv' izepiTTog yap b vovg
rov S'EoD \6yov irapovrog.X " 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 koyog, or Word, was
present." IX. But though 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 Arius and Eunomius, that Christ
took a body destitute not only of the rational soul, but alto
gether inanimate ; awpw povov avEtXTj^Evat, says Theodoret, §
roi' S'Eoi' koyov, avrov Be rfjc \hvxfjg iv rip aiopari wkripSxrai rrif
¦XpEtav. " That God the Word took a mere body, and that
himself supplied the want of the soul." And the same was the
beginning of ApolUnarius's heresy too. TlpoTEpov piv Ekeyov,
says Socrates, dvakritpBfjvai rov arOpiOTTOv vtto tov Beoii ev rfj
OLKovopiq. rijg EvavQpiaTzrpTEiag ipv)(ijg avev elra i)g e/c pEravoiag
tviowpSovpevoi, TrpocrES/Etrav \pv)(r)v pkv a.vei\rj<pEvai, vovv Se
OVK Ej^Ejj/ avTfjv, akk' Etvai rov ^eov \oyo>' avrl vov elg rbv
dvakr]^S'evTa avSrpwn-ov .\\ " They first asserted, that God at
his incarnation took upon him man without any soul. After
wards, as if they repented, and meant to correct their error,
they held, that he took indeed the animal soul, but was desti
tute of the rational, God the Word being instead of that."
Both which Vincentius Lirinensis tells us,^ they sometimes
joined together, saying, " In ipsa salvatoris nostri came, aut
animam humanam penitus non fuisse, aut certe talem fuisse
* Photii Bibl. in Eulogio, p. 850.
f Comment, in Cone. 2. (Ecumen. can. 1.
X Theodoret. Haeret. Fabul. 1. 5. c. 11.
§ Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. 1. 4. c. 1. et Epist. 104. de Ario etEunomio.
II Socrates Hist. Eccl. 1. 2. c. 46.
1 Vincent. Lirinens. adv. Haeres. c. 17.
VOL. XII. S

258 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
cui mens et 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, 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 Gregory Nazianzen has at large
related. Only since some, for the more distinct conception of
the ApolUnarian heresy, have thus distinguished it from that
of Eutyches afterwards ; that the Eutychian affirmed, that our
blessed Saviour took nothing from the blessed Virgin, but that
the very logos, the Word itself being, as Theodoret expresses
it, "immutably converted,f 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 ApolUnarian too
affirmed oftentimes the same thing ; that, as the Father ex
presses it in the place I before cited, " 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."J Which
is what Theodoret long since observed, when in his third
Dialogue, speaking with relation to them both, he says, ol ttjv
iToiKlkrjv Tavrrjv trvvTE^eiKOTEg Kai Trokvpop^ov a'lpEaiv, vote piv
atapKa yEyEvrjarSrai rov Beov kuyov ^acrl, ttote Se rijv aapKa kiyovai
T^v Elg ^EOTrjTog (piiuLv ^Ete-j^^ai pETa(io\ijv. "They who have
patched together this various and many-formed heresy, some
times say, that the Word is become flesh, soinetimes that the
flesh is changed into the Word."
Wherefore laying aside these subtleties, this we may un
doubtedly conclude, that whatever their other differences were,
whether as to his body, which we see is uncertain, or to his
* Epiphan. Hasres. 77. Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. 1. 5. t. 5. Greg. Naz.
Orat. 46. p. 722, &c. [Par. 1609.]
+ Theodoret. Haerebc, Fab. 1. 4. c. 13. Oiibiv i<kri, Eutyches, rbv
&ebv \6yov dvSpoivsiov ix rijg ¦Kapdkvov Xafitlv, d\X avTbv drpiwnig
TpaTTSvra, kuI adpKa, yevopevov, rfiv ndpobov pSvrjv Sid rijg TrapSrsvov
TTOislaQai. X Naz. Orat. 46. Diet. AiafStPaiovrat ApoUinarius, irplv rov KarcX-
dsXv avrbv rbv vlbv dvQpdnrov tlvai, Kai KanXOiiv Ibiav iiraybpsvov
adpKa, SKtivrjV rjv sv Tolg ovpavoTg lxo>v hvyxave, vpoaioiviov nva
Kai avvovaiiap'svr)v. [ut supra,] p. 722.

APPENDIX. 259
soul, in which the variety was more constant and more discern
ible, the Eutychian affirming the union of the two entire na
tures, the human and divine ; whereas the ApolUnarian denied
that our Saviour ever assumed the reasonable soul at all ; cer
tain it is, for what concerns our present purpose, 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 per-
mixed ; from whence they were both of them afterwards called
by St. Chrysostomf and others awovaiaaral from their con
fusion 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. Chrysostom' s Argument from the Eucharist against the
Apollinarians, considered and explained.
Such is the account which the ancient Fathers have left us
of the ApolUnarian 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 human natures to be distinct in
Christ ; that the properties of the one, ought no 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. Where
fore, 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 dirided into two, but bearing in himself together the un
mixed proprieties of two distinct natures. Not two different
persons, God forbid! But one and the same Lord Jesus,
God, Word ; clothed vrith 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
* See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. tom. 4. 1. 1. c. 15. [ut supra,] p. 71.
i3.
t Apollinarius by St. Chrysostom, Eutyches by others.
s 2

260 defence of the exposition.
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 ofthe Son."
II. And now if this be the cathoUc doctrme, which this
holy Father here designs to bring Caesarius to; such the
errors, which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was in
volved 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 as hath been established by me in the
foregoing discourse.
III. The words of St. Chrysostom* in this Epistle are
these : " Christ is both God and man ; God, in that he is im
passible ; 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 con
substantial, forasmuch as either of them does without confu
sion retain its own properties, and being two, are yet incon-
fused 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 esteemed
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 (human) 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 de
structive 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 intend to signify
that the nature of bread is at all changed ; for that the bread
by consecration becomes indeed worthy to be calledihe Lord's
body, but yet still retains its own nature of bread."
* See below

appendix. 261
y. 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 Us accidents remain, but for
its substance, that is changed into the body of Christ. Thus
Gardiner,* Turrian, BeUarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez,
Suarez, Perron, Gamachseus, and, last of all. Father Nouet,-f
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 simih-
tude, to shew that the human nature of Christ was not changed
into the divine, as the ApolUnarian 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 beheve !
VII. But St. Chrysostom was not so absurd as these men
would represent him ; and his other expressions utterly over
throw this evasion, 1 . He teUs us plainly, that aU the change
that was made in the J bread by consecration, was in the name
not the substance : that whereas it was called the bread, by
being consecrated it became worthy to be called the Lords
body. 2. Had St. Chrysostom believed the 6rea«? 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 ofthe
nature of bread, in allusion to the nature of Christ ; if we will
have him consistent with himself, we must suppose him to have
* See most of these cited by Albertmus de Eucharist. 1. 2. p. 523.
[Davent. 1654.] in Chrysostomo, c. 1.
t Nonet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrament,
hb. 4. c. 5. Art. 3. p. 285. [Pai-. 1666.]
X See this argument managed by Monsieur Claude, Rep. u Pere Nonet
Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. [Amst. 1668.]

262 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
used that expression with reference to both, in the same sense.
As therefore in his discourse immediately before and after, by
nature, vrith reference to Christ, he does not mean the pro
perties 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 per
suaded 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 human nature became converted, or if you will,
transubstantiated into the divine.
IX. Now the falseness of this St. Chrysostom shews by the
example ofthe eucharist. That as the S^-ea^? 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 human nature of
Christ, being by the incarnation hypostatically united to the
divine, did not cease to be a human nature, but still continued
what it was before, however united with the other in one
person.' X. So that as certainly then as the human nature of Christ
does now continue to be a human nature, notwithstanding that
incarnation ; so certainly does the bread in the eucharist con
tinue bread after this consecration. As certainly as Apol
linarius 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 Chrisfs
body, in this holy sacrament.
IX. Christ's human 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 human nature stUl con
tinues what it was before in the one ; the nature of the bread
still continues what it was before iu the other, and there is no
transubstantiation made in either.
XII. In a word, in the hypostatic union, though there be
two distmct natures, God and man, yet there is but one person.

APPENDIX. 263
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.
1 . 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. It is now above one hundred years* since this passage
was first produced by PeterMartyr, in his dispute with Gardiner,
bishop of Winchester, concerning the eucharist. He then pro
fessed that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that
the whole Epistle was put by him into Archbishop Cranmer's
Library.f This Gardiner could not deny, who therefore in his
answer to him in 1 552, 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. Turrian,f who by his writing seems to shew that he
had somewhere or other seen this Epistle, contends in like
manner, and if we may believe Vasquez 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.
IV. And indeed Gamachseus is not very unwilling to ac-
* Ann. 1548.
t Lovami Confutatio CaviEationum, &c. ad Obj. 201.
X Libr. 1. de. Euchar. c. 18.
^ Vasquez dis. 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub. c. 7. §. SimiUter.

264 defence op the exposition.
knowledge this : for having with the rest assigned this Epistle*
to the other John, he tells us, 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 Cardinal Perronf 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 Johns, 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 proring 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, per
formed, Ann. 1 680. 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 shew 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 at least that his
censors would not esteem it to be so.
VIII. And in this I speak no more than what he himself J
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 Mon
sieur 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.
* Excusari posse, quod nee Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita per-
spicue tradita et explicata fuerat, sicut hodie. See Albertinus de Euch. p.
553. 1. 2. supr. cit.
t Perron de I'Eucharistie. p. 381, 382, 383. [Par. 1629.]
j: Expostulatio. p. 3.

APPENDIX. 265
IX. And of this the edition of Palladius of that year re
mains a standing monument, both in the preface* and in the
book ; and it was publicly complained of by a very learned
man, in an expostulation prefixed to a piece of Anastasius, pub
Ushed 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 Monsieur Bigot's preface, and the Epistle
rased 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 : that learned man having neither given the Greek
fragments,f which I now publish from Monsieur Bigot's own
impression ; nor Monsieur Bigot's 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 zealous 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 rea
sonableness doubt of all the rest of his works, which, perhaps
upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and un
doubted. But it is time now to see what account Monsieur Bigot him
self gives of it.
* Suppressa in Prcefatione Emerici Bigotii, de Epistola Chry-
sostomi ad Ccesarium, Monachum.
Hanc orationem sequitur Epistola ad Ceesarium.J mona-
* S. Anastasu in Hexaemeron lib. 12. Cui praemissa est expostulatio, &c.
Lond. 1682. 4to.
t Tom. 1. X Praefat. Ut. 1, 2. p. prior inter Un. 22. et 23.

266 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
chum, quae licet nitore suo native, id est, Graeco eloquio,
destituta, nihUominus sub velo veteris Latinse interpretationis
mirificos eloquentiae disertissimi doctoris radios exhibet. Pri
mus qui ultimis temporibus hujus meminit Epistolse, fuit
Petrus Martyr, Florentinus, qui ex ea locum quondam protulit
in locis communibus. Insolitus loquendi de Eucharistia
modus, qui ex ea referebatur, a Johannis Chrysostomi phrasi*
ac genio prorsus alienus lectores in diversas traxit sententias.
AUis supposititiam esse affirmantibus, aliis pro virili conten-
dentibus, veram esse ac genuinam ; omnes integram videre
summe concupivere ; dolueruntque Petrum Martyrem, qui
primus de ea mentionem injecerat, minime indicasse 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 Sti. Johannis Chrysostomi, hie etiam
non defuit. Ejus exemplar reperi apud R. R. P. P. Domini-
canos, in monasterio S. Marci. Cujus te in partem Ippaiov
venire libens patior ; nee expecto ut mihi succlames in com
mune, Koivbg Epfiijg si modo exorari te sinas, ut benigna
interpretatione emolUas, quae duriuscule sonant de eucharistiae
sacramento, et in memoriam revoces tot et tam insignes locos,
in quibus adeo luculenter de hoe sacro-sancto Mysterio loquitur
Johannes noster, ut Doctor Eucharistiae vocari meruerit, sicut
S. Augustinus Doctor Gratiae vulgo praedicatur. Dixi Petrum
Martyrem primum postremis temporibus hujus Epistolae
meminisse, quae antea Graecis patribus notissima fuerat, utpote
qui multa testimonia ex ea adversus Monophysitas et Acepha-
los adduxerunt, ut observare licet in Notis, quas raargini
apposui, indicando codices ex quibus Textum Graecum apud
illos patres a me inventum descripsi. Caeterum ubi deficiebant
verba Graeca, vacua columnarum spatia reliqui, nee passus sum
ea punctis, aut lineolis, sicut librariorum mos est, repleri, ut
possint inibi viri eruditi verba Graeca adscriberef siquando ea
invenerint. Cum enim experimento noverim, quo casu, quave
fortuna in ea quae attexui testimonia, inciderim, non despero
ab aliis alia posse inveniri. Quisque experiatur cui fortuna
erit faventior ; et si cui ea obsecundaverit, is ne publico invi-
deat, neque apud se inventa privatim detineat. Qui veteres
libros tractant, norunt nuUam veteris cujuscunque libri editio-
nem, quae ex unico exemplari fuerit eruta, hucusque prodUsse,
* Lit. 1. 2. [Ibid.] pag. altera. + Lit. 1. 3.

APPENDIX. 267
omni ex parte perfectam. Manu exarati codices mutuas ali
orum 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 emendate scrip-
tus est, et opem a Graeco praecipue codice, aut ab alio saltem
Latino, postulat. In eo quem vidi, aUquando voces continuae
sunt, aliquando simplex vocalis E pro diphthongo M scripta
fuit ; T pro D, et vice versa D pro T ; verbis ahquando ita
corruptis, ut ad sanitatem reduci minime possint absque sub-
sidio aliorum codicum. Quae scribarum incuria deterruit, opi-
nor, Petrum Martyrem ab ea edenda. Taceo interpretationem,
quae minus accurata, imo plane barbara videtur. Ego his om
nibus naevis Lectores benevolos nequaquam offensum iri arbi-
tratus sum ; imo eam libenter excepturos puto quam damns
Epistolam, Latine quoquo modo versam. cujus fragmentnm a
Petro Martyre editum, eruditorum animos pridem solUcitavit.
Quis enim illud cum legerit, Joannis Chrysostomi mentem
percipere possit, ex eoque animadvertere, qua occasione, quo
animo ejus verba scripta sunt ?* In ea porro Epistola mirari
licet summam et insolitam Dei amantissimi viri charitatem,
qui licet innumeris aerumnis oppressus esset, atque continuis
terroribus ob Isaurorum Incursiones, ut ipse scribit in Epis-
tolis ad Olympiadem, paene exanimaretur ; nihilominus cum
audjsset Csesarium, Monachum, amicum suum, in ApolUnaris
et Iivvovaiacrrav Haeresim incidisse, eum pro incredibUi sua
bonitate ab Haeresi avertere, atque in sincerse pietatis viam
revocare hac Epistola molitus est. Quantum vero ApolUnaris
Hseresis tunc grassaretur, et quam multos invasisset, ex eo
colUgere licet, quod contra ApolUnaristas et Synusiastas scrip-
serunt Diodorus, Tarsensis Episcopns, quem supra memoravi,
Gregorius Nyssenus, CyrUlus Alexandrinus, Theodorus Mop-
suestenus, Theophilus Antiochensis, ut aUos plures omittam.
Atque ut ab eo errore Caesarium revocaret Joannes, eumque
ad catholicam fidem, quae duas in Christo naturas inconfusas
sub una persona confitetur, Epistola reduceret, comparationem
ab Eucharistiae sacramento mutuatur, in quo Panis post conse
crationem, non jam Panis, sed Corpus Christi appellari dignus
efficitur ; Etiamsi natura panis, inquit, in ipso permansit, et
non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicatur. Quibus
Verbis sanctus Doctor veram ac realem, ut vocant, corporis
* Lit. 1. 2. [Ibid.] pag. altera.

268 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
Christi in Eucharistia praesentiam supponit, et agnoscit; aUas
certe nulla esset cum humana ac divina in Christo natura Eu
charistiae comparatio. Ipse Chrysostomus HomU. 2. ad
Populum Antiochensem : 'O pev yap 'HXiag prtkuiTrjv afrJKE
™ paBrjrrj' b Se vtbg tov S'Eoi) a.va€atvii>v, rriv aapKa ijplv
KaTekiwe Ttjv kavTOV' akX b [iEv 'BXiag awodvadpEvog, b Se
XpioToe (cat riplv KarikvirE, Kai E-)(uiv avTfjv avijkdE. " Elias
enim pallium reUquit discipulo suo ; Dei autem FiUus ascen-
dens in coelum, nobis camem suam reliquit ; sed Elias se exuit,
Christus vero et carnem suam nobis reliquit, ipsamque habens
ascendit."' Et. Hom. 83. in Matthaeum : Oiirw Kai eiri tUv
pvarriprnv TroiUpEV, ov Tolg KEipivoig fiovov eju/SXeVoitec, aXXci
ra pripara avroij Kari-f^iopEV' 6 pev yap XtiyoE avrov dirapa-
koyiarog, ri Se a'ia^'rjaig rjpiiv EVE^aTrarTjroc' oiiTog ovOETrore
SiEireiTE, avTTi Se to. Trkeiova oipdkkETai, ettei ovv b Xoyoc
(jyrjai, tovto ectti rb aS>pd pov, Kai rrEi^wpeOa Kai TnoTEVuptEV,
Kai vorjTo'ig aiirb ^kETciapEv 6(pBakpolg. " Sic etiam m mys-
teriis faciamus, non ilia quae ante nos jacent, solummodo
aspicientes, sed verba quoque ejus tenentes. Nam verbis ejus
defraudari non possumus, sensus vero noster deceptu facilhmus
est : ilia falsa esse non possunt, hie saepius atque saepius falli-
tur. Quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, obedi-
amus, et credamus, et oculis intellectus id perspiciamus."
Integrum librum conficerem, si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes
excerperem, in quibus de sacratissima Eucharistia simiUter
loquitur ; sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit, eos in fonte'legisse.
Thus far Bigotius' s 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 rased.
For the little Notes which I have added, they contain a col
lation, 1 . of the Latin of Bigotius, with the Latin of Mon
sieur 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 Chartophvlax Eccles. ; C. one of Monsieur Colbert's
Library, examined by the learned Monsieur Allix. M the
Latin copy published by Monsieur le Moyne.

APPENDIX.

269

Epistola S. Johan. Chrys.

Incipit Epistola B. Johannis
Episcopi Constantinopolitani, ad Cae
sarium, Monachum, tempore secundi
exilii sui.
Inspeximus Uteras tuae Reveren-
tise : inspeximus autem ^non 'prae
ter %chrymas. Quomodo enim
*non 'lachrymabimur, et animam ip
sam dolore conficimus, videntes
fratrem singularem vitam a pueritia
eligentem, et "'a/cpat^i/wE, id est, con
summate circa pietatem se habentem,
subito autem sfiaereticorum jactibus
pulsum. " Et dicas forsitan ab errore
ad id quod melius est venisse Te, et
gratiam confiteri his, qui Sdmirabi-
lem Ulum ^protulerint librum, quem
magnum esse ^optima tua nominant
scripta, qui splendide praedicat (^con-
cursum essentialem et commixtionem
sacram factam ex Divinitate et Came,
imam autem ex hac perfici naturam.)
Istud mirabitur insipientis ApoUinarii
inconsideratio, ista eorum qui intro-

* EttiotoX)) tov ayiov
Iwavvovf TOV Xpvao-
oTOpov irpbg^aiaapiov,
pova^^ov, pETO. tyivSev-
TEpav avTOV i^opiav.

J Kat ^ijaeiag rrav-
TO)g £K Ttkavrig irpog rb
KpE'iTTOv ekr/kv^Evai,
Kai xdpiv bpokoye'iv
Toig rfiv Bavpaarrjv
EKEivrjV aoi ¦KpouKopiaa-
aiv jiifikov, rjv apiarriv
rd KaXkiara aov dvo-
Kakovaiv ypappara ttj-
kavyiog SiayopEvovaav
avvSpoprjv oijcrioiSr], Kai

* Praeter Authores a Bigotio laudatos, unde fragmenta Graeca hujus
Epistolse coUegit vir eruditissimus ; extat alius Nicephori Uber MS. in
BibUoth. Colbert, continens quinque diversos tractatus. Ex secundo eorum
contra Mamonas qusedam coUegit, et mecum communicavit reverendus
D. P. AlUx. Titulus autem in iUo MS. ita se habet, p. 222. ToS dytot;
'Itodvvov TOV 'S-pvaoOTopov, sk rijg Trpbg ^aiadpwv pova^ov kiriaroXijg,
pird T^v SsvTspav avrov t^opiav. Paulo aliter legitur hie titulus in an
tique codice Bibliothecse Arundelianct a R. D. D. Cave in Chartoph. Eccles.
nuper edito, p. 69. [Lond. 1685.] 'Iiodvvov ' ApxiET^iOKonov Kwvffrav-
TivovvoXtwg SK Tfjg,&c. uti in MS. Colbert.
t Pag. 236. lit. Gg. part. alt. folii ed. Paris.
X Anastas. in MS. CoUeg. Clarom. Nicephor. C. P. in Antirrhet. MS.
Bibl. Colbert.

lachrimas, lachrimabimur.
^ AmmirabUem.

Var. leet. MS. M. ' pter. " N.
¦• dKPE<t>NwEC. * Hseredicorum.
' Protulerit. " Optime.
(' Concursum essentialem sacrum facta ex Divinitate et carnis unam
autem ex hoc perfici naturam.)

270

DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.

pl^iv ^EfTireaiav ytyE-
vijaBai BEOTrjrbg te Kot
aapKog' piav te evtev-
Bev aTTOTEkEaBijvai <pv-
aiv* roi;ro-j- BavpdctEiE
TOV wapdippovog 'Atto-
Xtvaptou TO arowripa'
avrr] tuiv Elaayovroiv'^
Kpdaiv Kai avvaXoi-
tpijv fj SvcTo-EjSEtrrarij
a'lpEaig.

ducunt icontemperationem et <rwa-
koi(j>riv, id est, commixtionem impi-
issima ('intentio, quae,) procedens
immutat quidem Arii, ApoUinaru,
4et Sabellii, *et Manetis nihU. Pas-
sionem autem excogitari et adponi
secundum Ulos Unigeniti ^imaginatur
Deitati, quod a ^Christianis alienum
est." Posside igitur Temet-ipsum iterum,
Dilectissime, et ad priorem regredere
ordinem ab abominabUi Ula abstinens
(^opinione, quae est ApolUnaris, et
eorum qui Synusiastae dicuntur.
Impia cogitatio assidua e puris) in-
fluens nocere novit, qui secundum
nos sunt simplicitati conviventes.
^Ductoris enim eorum est liber Apol-
linarii Mico ; '"etsi hunc sibi tua
Reverentia non recte faciens negotiata
est. Verum tamen nos recordantes
tuae nobiscum conversationis, senti-
entes autem ex his quae scripsistis,
errorem subsistere erga tuam dilec-
tionem ex Ulorum insipientia non so
lum erga dispensationis ''mysterium,
magis autem et erga Nominum con-
junctionem, excogitavimus Deo co-
operante nostrae infirmitati de
* AUudit ad hunc locum vetus Author contra Severianos et Acephalos,
a Turriano editus, Bibl. Patr. Edit. 4. tom. 4. ad fin. ubi post laudatum
quondam Ambrosii locum, subdit, Chrysostomus ad Caesarium Monachum.
Hgec est hseresis ipsissima introducentium Mixtionem et Compositionem.
Vid. Expostulationem, p. 10. [Par. 1680.]
t Locus hie corruptus videtur : Quid si legamus Sravpdatig, vel
StavpdaEiag, ut sensus sit, istud admiraberis, vel potius, istud admirari de-
buisses insani ApoUinaris absurdum ; hsec quippe estHaeresis ipsissima, &c.
X Pag. 237. edit. Paris. Gg. ui.
' Contemplationem. ^ CYNaAY^HTST. = (Intentioque. )
* Et deest. ^ emaginatur. ^ Xpianis.
' (Opinionem et qua ApolUnaris et eorum qui Synusiaste dicuntur ipsa
cogitatio assiduae puris, &c.)
8 Doctoris. 9 Dico, abest. "• Et si.
' Mysterium.

APPENDIX.

271

omnibus manifestam ostentationem
facere, ad redargutionem quidem
'malae Opinionis eorum qui ^ haereti-
cum Tibi protulerunt librum, *cor-
rectionem autem tuae venerationis.
'Deum ergo quando dicis, dilectis
sime, agnovisti id quod simplex est
' naturae, quod incompositum, quod
inconvertibile, quod invisibile, quod
immortale, quod incircumscriptibile,
quod incomprehensibile, et istis si-
milia. Hominem autem dicens, sig-
nificasti id quod naturae est infirmum,
esuritionem, sitim, super. Lazarum la-
chrymas, * metum, sudoris ejectionem,
et his similia, quibus id quod divinum
est extra (est. " ' Christum autem)
quando dicis conjunxisti utrumque,
unde et passibilis dicatur idem ipse et
' impassibilis, passibiUs quidem came,
impassibiUs autem Deitate. Eadem
ipsa et de FiUo, et " Christo et Jesu,
et Domino praedicantur. Communia
enim ista, et (J "' susceptibiUa dua-
rum) Essentiarum nomina sunt ;"
quarum conjunctio in haereticis qui
dem errorem facit, proprio pro com
muni utentes nomine ( " Christi uno.
His autem) communibus istis " uti
oportet nominibus quando dispensa
tionis confitendum est mysterium. Si
enim " Deum dixeris pertulisse, quali-
cunque " cogitatione quod § impossi
bile est, dixisti, id quod blasphemum
est, ('^ et in || manetis, et) in aliorum
* Edit. Paris, p. 238. f Anastas. in MS. Clarom.
X Edit. Paris. 239. Ut. Gg. 4. § Edit. Paris, p. 239.
II Sic videtur legendum ; et in Manetis, et in aUonim Haeresum decU-
nasti impietatem. Si iterum, &c.
MS. M. ' Male. " Ereticum. ' Dominum. ¦¦ Nature.
' In firmum. ^ Meum. ' [ e Xiim dn.]
* Im-passibiUs, deficit im, spatio tamen reUcto ubi oUm fuerit.
' XPO. et Inu. et dn5. '" (Susceptibili avarum.) " (XPi unos autem.)
" Uti oportet, deest. " dm. '* Cogitationem. '* (Et immane sed.)

-|- XpttTTOv Se orav
£i7rj)s avvrji^ag EKctrt-
pa, oBev Kai iraBrjTbg
kiyoiT av b aiirbg koI
awaBrig. rraBrjTbg pev
aapKi, d'lraBfjg Se Be6-
rrjTi' ravra Se Kai etti
roi vioij, Kai 'Irjcrov,
Kai Kvpiov, Karriyopel-
rai' Koivd yap ravra,
Kal Sektiku twv Svo
ovaiSiv rd ovopara'

272 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
1 haeresim decUnasti Impietatem, si
iterum hominem dixeris qui pertuUt,
inveniris purum aedificans templum,
Templum * Crucis extra inhabitantem
nunquam dicitur, quia jam non est
Templum. Et forsitan dicunt, et
quomodo ^ Dominus dixit, f Ut quid
me vultis occidere hominem qui veri
tatem vobis locutus sum quam audiri
a 3 Deo ? Bene et omnino sapienter
hoc dicendum est. (* Neque enim ex
hoc ab inhabitanti defraudabatur :)
sed significare volens patientem natu
ram hominis memoriam fecit, propter
quod et ^ Deus et Homo " Christus :
*Deus propter impassibilitatem. Homo
propter passionem. Unus filius, unus
' Dominus, idem ipse proculdubus
unitarum naturarum, unam domina-
tionem, unam potestatem possidens,
" etiamsi non " consubstantiales exis-
tunt, ('° et unaqaeque " incommixtam
proprietatis conservat agnitionem,
propter hoc quod '^inconfusa sunt,
dico.) Sicut enim antequam "sancti-
ficetur Panis, Panem nominamus,
divina autem ilium | '* Sanctificante
Gratia, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus
estquidem ^^AppellationePanis, dignus
autem habitus est '° Dominici Corporis
Appellatione,, etiamsi Natura Panis
in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora
sed " unum Corpus filii " praedicatur :
* Forte melius carnis. t Joan. 8. 40. t Edit. Paris, p. 240.
' Hseresum. ^ MS.D. le Moyne. ' Dns.
' do. (Neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitate.)
" ds. ^ Est Christus. Martyr. 1. c. in tract, de Euchar. Oxon. MS. M.
' XPS. ' dns. ° Etiam si. " Consubstantialiter, Martyr.
'" Et unaquseque in quo mixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem
propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo.]
" Incommixta. Martyr, ib. '^ Inconfusa sunt duo. Id.
" Scificetur. " Scificante gra. id.
" Ab AppeUatione. Ibid. '° Dominicse.
" Unus. " Praedicamus.

APPENDIX.

273

¦|- ovTiiig KfVTavBa
rrjg Bslag iviSpvpevrjg
7-j! awpart fvuEwg, Eva
vlbv, ev Trp6aa)irov, rd
avvapipoTEpa dTTErekE'
OEV yviapi'Copevov pev
TOi davy)(vr<i)g,X aSiai-
pirip kbyia ouk ev pi^
^v(rei, dkX ev Sviriv re-
ksiaig' ETri yap jutae,
iriSc ro aavy)(VTOV ; irwc
TO dSiaipETOV ; § wSg
i] EVbiiTig kExBeir) ttote ;
eavrfj yap r^v piav
EvoiJaBai,rj avyxfioBaii
rj SiaipelaBaidSwaTOV,
nolov oliv qSrjg e^rfpev-
^aro, piav eirl ^P'-'^rf
kiyeiv (pvaiv ;

sic et *hic Divina • IviSputrtitTi/c, id est
inundante corporis Natura, " unum
filiura, unam personam utraque haec
fecerunt. Agnoscendum tamen in-
confusam et indivisibilem rationem,
non in una solum natura, sed in dua
bus perfectis. Si enim unius, quo
modo id quod ipconfusum est, quo
modo quod indivisibile, quomodo uni-
tio dicitur aliquando ? (' Sibimet ipsi
enim uniri quae) una est, aut con-
fundi, aut dividi impossibile est.
Quod ergo infernum evomuit, unam
in ' Christo naturam dicere putamus jj
dirinam solam nominantes, non omni
modo unam negant, ''nostram, dico,
salutem aut humanam retinentes, non
divinae abnegationem faciunt, ° dicunt-
que, perdidit quod proprium erat. Si
enim unus est, salva nobis est unitio
' oranimodo, et ea quae unitioni sunt
propria, salvari necesse est : Si ^ enim
non, nee unitio, sed confusio et abo-
Utio." Mox autem ad interrogationis
fluctuantes responsionem, ad aliquid
aliud exiUunt, quod non sit proprium
ad interrogationem : et inconstantes
emittunt voces ; PertuUt ' Deus et
non pertuUt, et si petantur modum
dicere, ad ignorantiam recedunt, pro-
ferentes; Quomodo 'voluit Christi
apud ipsos memoria fiigiente post
haec » vituperari in hoc ? Mox dicunt, et
* Hie Martyr loe. cit. hsec. Totum hunc locum post Turrianum in edit.
Damaaceni, sic citat Albertinus de Euch. 1. 2. p. 532. {Daven. 1654.] Sic
et hie diving tvidpvadarig insidente corpori natur^, &c.
t Nicephor. Anastas. Joan. Damascen. To. IV. Var. leet. Canisu, p. 211.
X i. ip Kal. k Theorianus in Legatione ad Armenios, p. 74.
II Quae sequuntur extant apud Jo. Damascenum.
H Edit. Paris, p. 241. Ut. Hh.

' ENIAPYCaCHC. ^ (Sibimet ipsi uniriqne.)
* Nam. * Dicunt que. ^ Omni modo.
» Volunt XPI. MS. D. le Moyne. ' Vitiiperati.
VOL. XII. T

'XPO. 'Ds.

274 DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
' Christus non est ^Deus sed et homo.
Et iteram dicunt, post ' imitionem
non oportet dicere duas naturas. At-
tende significationem dicti. Unitio-
nem dixisti : unius unitionem non in-
venis fieri, quomodo * praevenientes
diximus, sed * Verbum Caro factum
est et 5 speculare eorum querentur
subtilitatem. IntuUt enim, et inha-
bitavit in nobis. Nunquid non ibi
videtur, ^ quia aliud est quod inhabitat
praeter habitationem. Si -f- cogno-
vissent, nunquam 'Dominum glorio-
sum crucifixissent. Dominum ite
rum quando dixeris, non proprium
sed commune ° significatur nomen
passionis et impassibUitatis suscepti-
bile. Consueverant autem et istud
J prsetendere putamus : Non corpus
" dei et sanguinem accipimus, fideliter
ac '" pie suscipiendum, non quia cor
pus et sanguinem possidet id quod
divinum est natura, sed quia " ea
quae carnis sunt, propria facit. 0 in
consideratio ! O impia cogitatio ! pe-
riclitatur enim apud ipsos dispensa
tionis mysterium, et iterum Domini-
cum corpus, sicut ^' verum corpus con
fiteri non patiuntur : per cogitationem
enim dici conversum "esse hoc in
deitatem imaginantur, unam hine
construentes naturam, et ipsam cujus
sit non '« juvantes dicere, ut passionem
divinitati; undique secundum Apol-
linarium excogitantes, decidant a
'= praemissis bonis putamus "^ non con-
tremiscent ista dicere audientes. Non
* Joan. i. 24. t I Cor. xi. 8. X Edit. Paris, p. 242.
' XPS. ' Ds. ' Unitatem. * Prenientes. ^ Specnlaneorum.
« Qui. ' Dnm. ' Significat. ' Di. MS. M. '" Piae.
" Ea deest. '* Unum Corpus. " Eti. 14 Invenientes.
" Pmissis. '* contremescent.

APPENDIX.

275

cogitant aeteraum judicium, et 'Do
mini vocem dicentis, *Ego sum et
non "immutor. -|-Caro infirma 'Spiri
tus autem promptus. JPatet si possi-
bUe est transeat a me cahx iste.
§Tristis est anima mea usque ad
mortem. [jPalpate et videte, quia
*Spiritus carnem et ossa non habet
sicut me videtis habere. Putamus
deitati ista apta sunt. Audiant et
Petrum dicentem ^'Christo pro no
bis passo came, et non dixit Deitate.
Et iterum, Tu es ^Christus Filius Dei
riri : Viventis dixit, non morientis.
Et quaecunque his simiUa divina nos
edocet Scriptura, cui violenti esse
Haeretici non desistunt. Horam istas
noritates **vocum declinantes "''Cha-
rissime, adid quodpraejacet, reverta-
mur ; pium et valde pium, ^Christum
qui morte circumdatus est, confiteri
in dirinitate perfectum, et in hu-
manitate perfectum, unum filium
unigenitum non dividendum in filio-
rum duaUtatem, portantem tamen in
semetipso indivisarum duarum natu
rarum inconvertibiliter proprietates,
non alteram et alterum, absit, sed
unum et eundem ^Dominum, '"Jesum
''Deum, Verbum, came nostrS, amic-
tum, et ipsa non inanimata, aut
irrationabili, sicut impius '^ApolUnaris

TovT(i)V rag -j~|-kevo-
(pbivlag EKKkivovreg,
ayaTtrjTE, Elg rb irpo-
KEipEVOV EiravEkdiapEv.
" Euo-eSec Kat kiav
Ei)aE§,eg rbv Bavdrio
*jrepi€\riBEvraxpiaTbv bpokoye'iv, ev QeoTr/ri
rekeiov,^^ Kal ev dvdpto-
iroTTiTi rekeiov eva
viov povoyevfj, ov-
Siaipovpevov e'lg viwv
SvdSa, (pepovra Se
bpwg ev eavr^ rSiv
dyuipiariov Svo tpvaeoiv
aavyj(VTovg rag ISioTr/-
Tag OVK aXXov Kot
akkov, prj yevoiTO,
aXX' eva Kal rbv av
rov Kvpiov, 'Irjaovv,
Qebv, Aoyov, adpKa
^^ iipETepavrip^ieapevov
Kai^^avTriv OVK a\pv')(ov
Kal avow, (ie o Sva-
<7e€^C 'Avokivdpiog
^^eiirev. ^"Tovroig rbv
vovvrrpoayiopEv, ^vyoi-
pev rovg Siaipovvrag.
EI ydp Kal Slrrrj fj (piiaig,
aXX' oiiv aSiaipETog Kai
^^dSid(nraiTT0g fi evii)aig
ev' evi rijg viorrjrog

* Malac. iii. 6. t Matth. xxvi. 41. X Ibid. 39.
5 Ibid. 38. II Luke xxiv. 39.
If Edit. Paris, p. 243. Lit. Hh. ii. Matth. xvi. 16.
** Anast. Nicephorus. tt Kaivoipiav'iag.
dni. 2 [nmutor. => Sps. * Sps. ' XPO.
XPS. ' Charissimse. » XPm. " Dnm. '» Ihm.
' dm. ¦' Apollinarius. '^ Evas^ig Kal deest iu MS. A.
' ntpiKXtjSi'svTa, MS. C. " 'OpoXoy&ptv. MS. A.
^ Kal sv dv9pu)7r6Ti}Ti tsXelov, ib. deest.
' 'HpsTtpav deest in A. " avrbv, ib. '" tlws, ib.
° TOVTip pro TovTOig, ib. '' dirapdairaaTog, ib.
T 2

276 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
bpokoyovpivr) irpo- dixit. Istis mentem intendamus,
ai)Tr<o, Kal piq. viroa- fugiamus COS qui dividunt. ' Nam
rtio-Et. (j>vywp£v rovg etsi duplex natura, veruntamen indi-
piav ipvaiv pErd t^v visibihs et indissipabiUs unitio, in una
Evoiaiv TEparevopEvovg, filiationis confitenda persona, et una
Trj yap rijg piag ini- "substantia. Fugiamus qui unam
volif rj) aTradEl 9ew naturam post unitionem prodigaUter
irddog TtpoaaiTTEiv eweI- dicunt ; unius enim cogitatione im-
yovrat, r^v olKovopiav passibili Deo passionem adjungere
dpvovpEvoi, Kol TOV impelluntur, dispensationem abne-
AiaSdXow Triv yEEvvav gantes et DiaboU Gehennam arripi-
irpoapird^ovTEg. Tavra entes. Ista propter mensuram
Sid rb pirpov rijg kiria- Epistolae sufBcere arbitror, ad con-
7-oX^e dpKE~iv Elg d(T(j)d- firmationem tuae dilectionis, 6 magni-
XEtai' fiyovpai Tijg arjg fice.-)-
ayairjje, BavpdaiE.*
ExpUcit * Epistola A. Joannis Episcopi Constantinopolitani
ad Caesarium, Monachum, tempore secundi exilU sui. Amen.
NUMBEK 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.
Aquinatis summa Theologiae, fol. Colon. 1662.
Articles of the Church of England. See Sparrow.
Arcudius de concordia Ecclesiae OccidentaUs et OrientaUs, fol.
Paris. 1626.
Albertinus de Eucharistia, fol. Daventriae, 1654.
Amauld Perpetuite de la Foy de I'EgUse Cathohque touchant
I'Eucharistie, 5 edit. Svo. Paris, 1672.
Amicable Accommodation, &c.
Bellarmini Controversiae, 3 vol. Ingolstadn, 1586.
Idem de Indulgentiis, 8vo. Coloniae, 1599.
Blondel ofthe Sibylline Oracles, Engl. fol. Lond. 1661.
• In MS. CoUect. BibUoth. reg. Gal. n. 1026. p 247
t Edit. Paris, p. 244.

' Nam etsi enim. ' Subsistantia. » Epistula.

APPENDIX. 277
Breviarium Bomanum, Svo. 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. Svo. Paris. 1676, 1677.
Nouvelles de la Kepub. de Lettres Mr. B  Juin 16S6.
Crasset, veritable Devotion, &c. 4to. Paris, 1679.
Card. Capisucchi Capit. Theol. selec.
Concilia Labei, 18 vol. Paris.
Common Prayer of the Church of England.
Claude Reponse au Pere Nonet, Svo. Amsterdam, 1668.
Cosins' History of Popish Transubstantiation, Svo. Lond. 1679.
Cassandri opera, Paris. 1616.
Ejusd. Consultatio, Svo. Vid. Grotii via ad pacem.
Cajetanus Card. inD. Thomam, Venetiis, 1612.
Ejusd. Comment, in S. Scr. Lugduni.
Canones, &c. Concil. Trident. 12mo. Coloniae, 1679.
Calrisii Chronologia, fol. Francofurti, 1650.
Cave, Chartophylax Ecclesiasticus, Svo. Lond. 1685.
Dallaeus adversus Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto Tradi-
tioneni, 4to. Genevae, 1664.
Idemde Poenis et Satisfactionibus, Amstael. 1649.
Durandus in Sententias, Lugduni, 1569.
Estius in Sententias, Paris. 1672.
Euchologium cum Notis Goar. Paris. 1647.
Expostulatio de Joau. Chrysost. Epist. suppressa, Lond. 1682.
4to.
Epiphanii opera, Gr. Lat. Coloniae, 1682.
L'Esprit de Mr. Arnauld, 2 vol. Svo. Deventer. 1684.
Forbesii instructiones Historico-Tbeologicae, Amst. 1645.
Grotius via ad pacem, cum consult. Cassandri, Svo. 1642.
Gregorii Nazianzeni opera, Gr. Lat. Paris. 1609.
I Invectiva in Juhanum, 4to. Etonae, 1610.
Gregorii Papae liber Sacrament. Menardi, 4to. edit. Paris. 1642.
Gratiani Decretum, fol. Paris. 1585.
Gamachseus.
Godefry vie de S. Athanase, 2 vol. 4to. Paris, 1679.
Idem vie de S. Basile, 2 vol. 4to. Paris, 1679.
Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, fol. Lond. 1676.
Book of Homilies, Oxford, 1683.
Index Expurgatorius, fol. Madriti, 1667.
Jesuit's Loyalty, collect, of several Treatises, 4to. Lond. 1677.
Instruction pour gagner le Jubile, 12mo. Paris, 1683.

278 DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
Jurieux Preservatif centre le Changement de Religion, Svo.
 liC Janseniste convaincu de vaine Sophistiquerie, Amst.
1683.
 Prejugez legitimes centre le Papisme, 4to. 1685.
Innocent the XI. BuU for an universal JubUee upon the Relief
of Vienna, August Ilth, 1683.
Ludolphi Historia iEthiopica Lat. fol. Francofurti, 1681.
Lombardi sententiarum libri 4. Svo. Moguntiae, 1632.
Maldonate in Prophetas majores, 4to. Moguntiae, 1611.
 In Evangelia, fol. Moguntiae, 1611.
Missale Romanum, Svo. Paris. 1616.
Missale in usum Sarum, fol. 1527.
Stephani le Moyne varia sacra, 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1685.
Petri Martyris de Eucharistia.
Monsieur Maimbourg peaceable Method, Eng. 4to.
Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, Eng. 4to. 1685.
 French, 5th edition, 12mo. a Paris. 1681.
Traite de la Communion sous les deux Especes, 1 2mo. Paris,
1682.
 Pastoral Letter, Eng. 4to. 1686.
Noiiet de la presence de J. C. dans le tres saint Sacrament,
4to. Paris, 1666.
Nicole, Prejuges legitimes centre les Calvinistes, Paris, 1679.
 Les P. R. convaincus de schisme, Svo. Paris, 1684.
Ofiicium B. Virginis, Svo. Antverpiae, 1631.
Office ofthe Holy Week, Lat. English, Svo. Paris, 1670.
Pontificale Romanum, fol. Venetiis, 1561.
La Politique du Clergfe de France, 12mo. Amst. 1682.
Du Perron RepUque a la reponse du Roy de la Grande Bre
tagne, fol, Paris, 1620.
Du Perron de I'Eucharistie, fol. Paris, 1629.
PetavU Dogmata Theologica, fol. Paris. 1650.
Papist represented and misrepresented, 1st edition, 1685.
Pajon Examen du Uvre qui porte pour titre Prejugez legitimes
contre les Calvinistes, 2 vol. 12mo. a Bionne, 1673.
Reponse a un ecrit publie contre les Miracles de la Sainte
Espine.
Seconde Reponse a Monsieur de Condom, Svo. 1680.
Ruffinus.Rituale Romanum, 4to. Antverpiae, 1620.
Reflections Generales sur I'Exposition de Monsieur de Meaux,
Svo. k Cologne de Brandebourg, 1685.
Sparrow's CoUection of Canons, &c. 4to. Lond. 1684.

APPENDIX. 279
Sixti Senensis BibUotheca, 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.
Thomasi codex Sacramentorum, 4to. Romae, 1680.
Theodoret opera, 6 vol. G. L. fol. Paris. 1642.
Theophilus, Turrianus, citati ab Albertino.
Vasquez inD. Thomam, Ingolstadii, 1606, in 3 part. Venetiis,
1610.
Vindication ofthe Bishop of Condom's Exposition.
Vincentius Lirinensis. Gregorius de Valentia, apud Albertinum.
Zonaras in Concilia : In Synodico Oxoniensi, 1672.

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION
OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
AGAINST THE
NEW EXCEPTIONS OP MONSIEUB DE MEAUX, LATE BISHOP
OF CONDOM, AND HIS VINDICATOK.
THE FIRST PART.
In which the account that has been given of the Bishop of
Meaux's Exposition, is fully vindicated ; the distinction of
Old and New Popery historically asserted ; and the Doe-
trine of the Church of Rome in point of Image-worship
more particularly considered.

To THE Reverend the Author of the Vindication of
THE Bishop or Meaux's Exposition, &c.
Sib,
Apteb two such obliging Addresses,* as I have now had the
honour to receive from you, I should be very much wanting in
my respects to a person who has shewn so near a concern for
my salvation, should I any longer neglect my return to you ;
and might reasonably expect to have my rudeness and in
civility mustered up to increase my damnation in the next
cataloguef your charity shall prompt you to pubUsh of my
sins. I cannot indeed tell whether I may not be defective in my
gratitude, by sending my thanks to yourself alone : and your
great caution in the close of your Vindication]; made me once
think that I ought to have returned you your own inscription, §
" To the author, or authors of those exceUent pieces you have
* Vmdication, p. 120. The Reply, p. 171.
+ Reply at the end of the Preface. J Vindic. p. 120.
§ Ibid. p. 120.

the dedication. 281
been pleased to oblige the world with on my account." For I
have some reason to beheve, that whatever you were as to the
first, yet you are not the only person concerned in the second
reply. But since your hooks run altogether in the singular
number, and that whoever gathered your materials first, or
supervised them after, yet I doubt not but you were the only
architect yourself, and alone concerned in those immediate
addresses to me ; I am confident I shaU not be much mis
taken in my particular return to you, or at least that you will
have the goodness to excuse so easy, and so involuntary an
error. And first, sir, I desire to return you my acknowledgments,
for your great care of my future state.* I do beseech you to
beUeve that it is exceeding dear to me ; and that I am sensible
that your advice is very just and reasonable that you give me
for it. And though I shall shew you in what follows, that for
what concerns either yourself or yom- Church, I had no great
need of it ; yet it pleases me very much to hope, that when I
shaU have fully proved, by God's grace, where the fault lies,
one who is so forward to preach to others, -f will certainly take
great heed that he does not in the meantime himself become a
cast-away. It were perhaps too much to expect that condescension from
you, which you are pleased to recommend to me, viz. " to make
a public acknowledgment of the calumnies you have thrown,
not upon myself alone, hut upon the generality of our
Church,"J and " to retraat the false witness you have home
against your neighbours ;"§ especially since this, sir, cannot,
you know, be done without acknowledging the insincerity (for
I am willing to give all things the softest names I am able) of
your late attempts in the " new methods of conversion.'
And, indeed, some experience makes me think I may without
uncharitableness presume, that " the pride of nature " |1 is as
powerful on your part to hinder persons retracting what they
have once advanced, as it is on ours ; and the principles of your
Church do much more indispose you to confess your errors, than,
God be thanked, ours do us. But sure, if any one, you, sir,
who so much consider that " eternity is at stake,^ and that an
injustice which wUl render us miserable for that eternity, can
not be expiated without making satisfaction, wiU not find it so
* Reply, p. 171. f 1 Cor. ix. 27. t Reply, p. 172.
$ Reply, p. 173. || Reply, p. 174. f Ibid.

282 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
difiicult to acknowledge your mistake ; no, not though it
should have been vrilful ; (which I dare not say of yours, how
ever you, in charity, no doubt, to my soul, judge mine to be
so) ; rather than run into inevitable damnation. And I pray
God give you this serious thought and resolution."
Having thus performed this first duty, I must, in the next
place, sir, thank you for what, next to my salvation, has always
been most dear to me, the care you have had of my reputation.
It may, perhaps, be thought by some, that are not sensible how
great my obligations in this particular are to you, that I might
well enough have spared this compliment,* especially since your
modesty makes you utterly disavow any such tenderness of it.
Indeed, sir, as to your expressions, it must be confessed you
are very free with me. You not only still adhere to your first
charge of calumnies,f misrepresentations, unsincere dealings,
falsifications, every thing that you could think of that might
serve to bespatter me (but only false quotations, which I do
not now find you so ready to insist upon), but that your reader
might be sure to take notice of them, you draw them up into
a catalogue at the beginning of your Reply, J and aU along
in your margin you put him in mind to remark them. But
yet, sir, after all this, I cannot but own to you, that your books
have done more to secure my reputation among all those
whose esteem I value, vis. the honest and judicious readers,
than any thing my best friends could have done for me.
I need not, sir, tell you, that my Exposition first, and then
my Defence, made some noise among very great numbers of
both Churches. I had discovered such secrets as perhaps few
could have done besides ; such as startled many worthy persons
of your own communion, and which some even of our own side,
who did not know what evidence I had ready to produce for
them, could hardly almost believe. Whilst great inquiry was
made about them, some of your religion knew not what to
think, others flatly denied all that had been said ; you, sir,
more kind, procure me a letter from that worthy person the
Bishop of Meaux himself ; pretending indeed to disavow, but
really acknowledging all that I had said with reference to his
Exposition : a favour for which, now I am discharging these
kind of debts, I shall not fail to pubhsh to the world my en
gagements to him.
• Reply, p. 4. 172, &c. f Vindicat. p. 22. Reply, p. 172.
X Reply at the end of the Preface.

THE DEDICATION. 283
It was not long before my Defence made a new noise, and
but little inferior to that of my Exposition. For besides that
it confirmed aU my former aUegations with new proofs ; it
gave me opportunity, moreover, to make some further disco
veries, both of your Church's worship and of your own sin
cerity. And this, sir, you tell me, " did induce many others to an
imitation of those calumnies "* I there threw upon you ; but I
must beg leave to mind you of another inducement too, and
that is, that it did induce the generality of your side to calum
niate me, as one who had uttered nothing but downright un
truths, and charged you with such things as were not to be
found either in your books or in your practice. But I may
now reasonably presume, that they will from henceforth retract
this calumny too (if at least you will allow it a calumny to
accuse falsely one of our reUgion) ; since you have here satis
fied the world that these things you do write and practise,
though indeed for want of an infallible interpreter, we who
judge according to the principles of reason are not able rightiy
to understand the meaning of them. And therefore, sir,
though your words stUl style me criminal, yet your allegations
everywhere protest against them ; and I desire no other advo
cate than yourself to plead my innocence.
There is, sir, yet a favour which I ought not to pass by,
though I could not for a long time divine the meaning of it ;
and it is your great self-denial which prompted you, I suppose,
through all your book, as well as in that single place, where
you yourself have been pleased to remark it, not " to take too
much satisfaction in having your adversary at an advantage."t
It was, indeed, generously done of you, though some (con
sidering the nature of your Church) will be apt to think it was
not merely an excess of charity that made you treat your ad
versary with so much favour, but either the insuperable illness
of the cause you had to maintain, or some other defect which
I shaU beg leave not to name. However, it puts me in mind
of the supererogating merits of many of your saints, to whose
honour, the prudent writers of their lives have remembered it,
that they were wont to counterfeit themselves mad or foohsh,
and do a thousand ridiculous and extravagant things, that
being laughed at and despised by all the world for them, they
might thereby have the better opportunity of exercising their
* Reply, p. 173. t Reply, p. 1 72.

284 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
Christian humility and self-denial. But, sir, I fear by this
time my civility may begin to grow more troublesome to you
than my rudeness would have been, should I have dispensed
with myself as to this point of ceremony. And, indeed, I have
so much to say, in order to yours and the world's satisfaction,
that I ought not to spend too much time in unnecessary preU-
minaries. Three things there are which I would willingly do
in the following Defence, and which I think will comprise all
that can reasonably be desired of me, vis.
I. To discharge my obligations to the Bishop of Meaux.
II. To vindicate myself against such imputations as do im
mediately concern my own particular, but do not at all affect the
cause I am to maintain.
III. To consider what you have further offered to clear your
Church of those great exceptions I had brought against it.
And in all these I should be heartUy glad I might acquit
myself to yours ; but, however, I hope I shall do it to my
reader's satisfaction, and to whom, therefore, I must now beg
leave to address myself, as to whose Examen* (if I may pre
sume to borrow your own phrase) I freely commit it to judge
betwixt us.

THE PREFACE.
Whew I consider the nature of those methods that have of
late been made use of by many of the Church of Rome to pro
pagate their errors ; with what industry they conceal the real
doctrine of their Church, and by complaining loudly against
others for misrepresenting their opinions, endeavour to keep
men from suspecting that the juggle indeed lies at their own
doors ; I cannot but call to mind the complaint of an ancient
Father against the heathen phUosophers, and in apology for the
Christian religion :t " Would to God (says he), we could but
look into your own opinions, into the secret recesses of your
mind, in which you tum and devise various and hidden
thoughts, we should find that you yourselves think the very
* Reply, p, 1.
t Arnob. adv. Gent. 1. vi. p. 197. Utinam Uceret introspicere sensus
vestros, recessusque ipsos mentis, quibus varias volvitis atque initis obscu-
rissimas cogitationes ! Reperiremus et vos ipsos eadem sentire, quse nos
— Sed studiis facere quid pervicacibus possumus ? Quid intentantibus
gladios, novasque excogitantibus pcenas .' [Animantis.]

the PREFACE. 285
same with us. But what can be done to men that are obsti
nately bent to serve a cause ?*  Ye know that ye main
tain an ill cause, and what ye have once done without reason,
that ye defend, lest you should otherwise seem to have been
once mistaken, and think it better not to be overcome than to
assent to that which you cannot but confess to be the truth."
I shall, perhaps, be thought by some to assume too great a
liberty, in applying this to those with whom I have now to do.
But when I see men so industrious in expounding the doctrine
of their Church into a sense that may come as near the Refor
mation as is possible ; when for the doing of this they are
forced to so many shifts as plainly shew there is something of
violence in the undertaking : words forced from their natural
signification,f to speak that which they call the Church's
sense ; the order of sentences inverted ;% figures pretended
that were never heard of in the world ;§ the irrefragable, ange-
Ucal, subtle, seraphical, invincible, illuminate, illustrious doc
tors, whose Sentences and Sums our fathers so much admired,
now laid aside, as containing only scholastic opinions, || and
not the necessary and universally received doctrine of the
Church ; the rest of their writers thrown off as private men ;
and for whose opinions^ the Church is not to be responsible.
I cannot then but think, that these men are certainly conscious
to themselves, that they have been in the wrong, and that there
was reason in our Reformation; though it is neither safe nor
convenient for the members of a Church that has so long been
used to damn us as heretics on this account, and would be
thought infalUble in her decisions, to own it to the world.
It is one of my chiefest crimes, and for which I perceive
there is no indulgence to be expected, that I have in some
measure endeavoured to bring these designs to light ; to shew
that all this is indeed but a lure to draw men in, and that when
once they are ensnared, they will then find things to be far
otherwise than they are made at first to believe : or that if
they are in good earnest in their present pretences, then they
herein plainly depart from what their Church once held, and
are upon that very account esteemed by others of their com-
* Asseritis malam scientissimi causam, et quod semel sine ratione fecistis,
ne videamini aliquando nescisse, defenditis ; meUusque putatis non vinci,
quam confessffl cedere atque aunuere veritati. Lugd. Batav. 1651.
t Bishop of Meaux's Expos, p. 5. §. 4.
t Vuid. p. 42. Rep. p. 43. § Vind. p. 40. Repl. p. 39, 41.
II Vind. p. 19. 38. Reply, p. 3. 29, &c. t Reply, p. 3, 4.

286 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
munion at this day, to be little better than Protestant heretics.
How far the allegations I have heretofore brought to prove
this, have been invalidated by what our author has endeavoured
this second time to return to them, I shall then consider, when
I come particularly to examine the several articles of his reply.
In the mean time I cannot but observe, that how much soever
the Vindicator* may dislike the distinction I made of Old and
New Popery, it is yet no other than what I found in effect
made to my hand in some of the Bishop of Meaux's own
converts, and in books which are said to have undergone his
particular perusal, before they were, permitted to come into the
world. It is this which we find in plain terms avowed by Monsieur
Brueys, in his Examinationf of the reasons which occasioned
the separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome.
For having expounded his new faith so scrapulously according
to Monsieur de Meaux's principles, that as himself tells us,
J" He says nothing but what that Bishop had inspired into
him ; so that he did in a manner but copy his sentiments, and
repeat in pubUc what he had learnt in private from him ;" he
finally exhorts the Protestants to return now from their odious
separation, since the Doctrine ofthe Church was so expounded,
as none of their forefathers had ever understood it ; nor, if
they had, would ever have separated from it. §"I say,
return now, (they are Monsieur Bmeys's own words), for
it must be sincerely confessed, that the doctrine and wor
ship of the Roman Church was never so cleanly expounded
as in these our days. And I cannot but think, that
had our Fathers beheved things to be, as in effect they
* Reply, p. 171.
t Examen des raisons qui ont donn^ Ueu a la Separation des Protestants.
A la Haye, 1683.
X Aussi je ne dis rien dans cet examen qu'U (Monsieur I'Eveque de
Meaux) ne m'ait inspire : je ne fais presque que copier ses sentimens, et
redire au public ce qu'il m'a dit en particulier, ou ce que ces ouvrages
m'ont persuade. Avertissement.
§ La Raison, la Charit^, la Gloire de Dieu, la Paix de I'EgUse, le Bien
de I'Etat, etl'Interest de leur salut demaudent qu'Us revieiment aujourd'-
huy de cette separation odieuse, en remettaut les choses en I'estat ou elles
estoient auparavant. .Te dis aujourd'huy : car on doit avoiier sincerement
qu'on n'avoit jamais sinettement exposS les dogmes etles cultes de I'EgUse
Catholique qu'on I'a fait de nos jours. Et je ne SQaurois m'empescher
de croire que si nos Peres avoient crfi les choses teUes qu'eUes sont en effet,
et qu'on nous les propose aujourd'huy, iis ne se seroient jamais separez de
sa Communion. Ibid. p. 106.

THE PREFACE. 287
are, and as they are now 'proposed to us, they would never
have separated from its communion."
I do not at all question, but that our fathers, who undoubt
edly understood the doctrine and worship of a Church in
which they had been born and bred, and were many of them
admitted to places of chiefest honour and dignity in it, could
they now rise up from their graves, would stand amazed to see
with what insincerity it is now expounded to us in these days.
And though it has been so fully shewn, that no one has cared
to give us an answer to it, that even taking the Roman Doc
trine* according to their own Exposition, we are not yet able
to -embrace it ; yet it must be acknowledged, we should have
much less to say to justify our separation, had it been always
such as it is now represented to us.
But this is not the only person that has given us grounds
for this distinction ; for however we confess that Popery is
more cleanly expounded now than it was heretofore, yet even
in these happy expounding days of ours, there are still some
who repine to see the good old Popery so much run down,
and 'give us very different interpretations both of the Doctrine
and Worship of their pretended Catholic Church.
And of this the author of the wholesome Advices of the
blessed Virgin to her indiscreet worshippers, will afford us a
notable example ; who having given such a cleanly exposition
of the Church's doctrine in the points of the Invocation of
Saints, and Worship of Images, as the Bishop of Meaux and
his Vindicator now do ; though approved with all the solem
nity I have heretofore shewn, and may now more fully be
seen in the editionf that has since been made of it in our own
language, was nevertheless condemned in the most violent
manner that can well be imagined, and that by the authority
of the Pope himself,; and drew the zeal of Father Crasset t»
overwhelm him with a whole volume of Doctors and Saints
that lived in the former days of superstition and sincerity,
before these new expositors had, by pretending to interpret,,
indeed corrupted their faith.
Father Crasset having thus defended the honour of the
blessed Virgin, and justified the Old Popery to be the trae
* First Answer to the Papist misrepresented. Answer to the Conclus.
But especially in the Answer to the Papist protesting against Protestant
Popery. t Expos, ofthe C. E. Pref. p. 6, 7. [Lond. 1685.]

288 SECOND DEFENCE OE THE EXPOSITION.
and standing Doctrine of his Church, his authority was soon
aUeged by the Protestants* in opposition to the Bishop of
Condom's Exposition. Monsieur Amaud,t who undertook
the defence of the Bishop, and it seems could not foresee
how by the metamorphosing power of a cleanly Exposition,
even this Father's book should come one day to be perfectly
reconciled to Monsieur de Meaux's, freely gives up the author
for a pitiful Jesuit,]; and whose authority was not fit to be
compared with that of a Bishop, supported by the appro
bations of so many other Bishops and Cardinals, and, in short,
of the Pope himself.
It is not then only in our calumnies that this reflecting
distinction of the Old and New Popery§ is to be found, but
in the real disagreement of those of their own Communion,
who all equally pretend to understand the doctrine of their
Church, and the decisions of the CouncU of Trent. But to
put this matter, if it be possible, out of all doubt, I will here
subjoin the copy of a letter written by an eminent convert
upon his change, in which this distinction is plainly expressed,
and the Bishop of Condom's Popery evidently (Ustinguished
from that of the people, and of the bigots, or (as he calls
them) the Tartuffes of that Church. The person who wrote
it was Monsieur Ranchin, a Counsellor of the Parhament
of Tholouse, to Monsieur Ranchin his kinsman, and Coun-
seUor in the Court of Accounts, Aids, and Finances of
MontpelUer. "Tholouse, April 27, 1680.
" I am not much concerned, my dear cousin, to think that
my conversion has caused so general a joy, as you are willing
to make me believe it has. It is sufficient to me that our
family, and particularly yourself, has taken some part in my
change : and I most humbly thank you for the obUging tes
timony you have given me of it in the letter which you have
done me the honour to write to me. But, Sir, I ought a little
to complain of your accusing me to have tarried so long out of
interest in the P. R. reUgion. This might indeed be said in
England or in Holland, but that in France one should be ofthe
* Preservatif. p. 97, &c.
t Reflexions sur le Preservatif. A Anvers. 1682.
X [Ibid.] P. 19. V. Reflex, le livre d'un pitoiable Jesuite, nomme le Pere
Crasset. § Reply, p. 171.

THE PREFACE. 289
P. R. religion out of interest, is what I never heard before.
As for my own particular, I can truly say, that my professing
that religion has been the ruin of my family. But I am
become a Catholic, because I thought that I might obtain
salvation in that communion.
" It is the book of Monsieur the Bishop of Condom that
has conrinced me ; that admirable book approved of late by
the Pope. If you have not yet seen it, I advise you to get it,
and read it all your life. I do also in part owe my conversion
to another Uttle book composed by one in Flanders, entitled,
"Wholesome Advices of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet
Worshippers ;" and to the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of
Tournay, in form of an Apology, dedicated to the people of his
diocese, aud which is also truly a golden book. For were the
faith of the Church such as the people and the Tartuffes
practise it, I would never have gone where I am ; and I have
learnt from these books, that the pure belief of the Church is
quite different from their practice. You will comprehend by
this, my dear Cousin, that these books are no less necessary to
the Catholics, than to the P. R. But I consider too late, that
instead of a letter, I am writing a treatise of religion. I
hasten to conclude, and to assure you that I am, &c."
Were I minded to indulge myself the hberty of commenting
upon this letter, I should not want occasions from a piece so
very extraordinary, to make some rare and useful remarks.
But I shall confine myself to the particular for which I alleged
it. Monsieur Ranchin was one of the CounseUors of the
Chamber of the Edict of Languedoc, whilst it subsisted.
The King having suppressed that Chamber, and uicorporated
the Officers into the Parhament, Monsieur Ranchin soon per
ceived that things would not stop there, but that those of the
Reformed religion must expect in a little time to be turned out
of all their places. He had a great family, and but a small
estate for a person of his quality. And now it was that the
Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux began first to open his
eyes : he perceived the Roman religion to be quite different
from what he had hitherto thought it ; insomuch that from
henceforth he became disposed to embrace it, not by way of
abjuration of what he held before, but by way of addition,
i. e. by adding the Roman superstitions to it.
This was easily consented to by those of the other party ; he
insisted upon having the communion in both kinds, but that
was denied him ; but the principal matters were agreed to, viz.
VOL. XII. u

290 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
That for the change he was to make, he should have 10,000
crowns in hand, and a pension of 1000 more per annum,
together with the assurance of his place to himself and his son
after him, besides the hopes of higher advancement.
And thus our new convert enters into the bosom of the
cathoUc Church ; not that he disliked his own reU^on, or
thought the other better ; no, his letter evidently imphes the
contrary ; but he thought that by the help of the Bishop of
Meaux's Exposition he might make a shift to be saved in it.
He saw the abuses that were in that Church, and he loudly
declares against them : he professes that he was so far from
being of the religion of the people, and of the Tartuffes of the
Church of Rome, that nothing, no not ready money in hand,
and a good place and pension for the future, should have been
able to carry him to it. He advises his kinsman to read those
golden books (he had indeed reason to call them so, for so
they were to him), that had so weU expounded the doctrine of
the catholic Church ; and were no less necessary for the
Roman CathoUcs than for the Protestants' instruction : that
according to these he did hope he might be saved in the
Church of Rome ; but for the people and the Tartuffes, that
are not yet so happy as to understand these Expositions, there
is no salvation to be had for them.
And here at least I think it cannot be denied, but that we
have two sorts of Popery very openly and freely avowed : one
such as that a man may be saved in the profession of it, viz.
that of the Bishops of Meaux and Toumay, and of the " Whole
some advices of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet wor
shippers ;" the other of the people and the Tartuffes, or zealots
of that Church, and for whom Monsieur Ranchin it seems had
no great hopes. Nor let it be thought so very extraordinary
in this person, that he entered into the Roman communion at
the same time that he saw and condemned the excesses of it.
This has been but too common in those parts. And* my
author, from whom I have borrowed the foregoing account,
gives us a notable instance of another, one Monsieur Paulet,f
a minister of his own acquaintance ; how being convicted in
one of their Synods of such crimes as rendered him unworthy
of his charge, he endeavoured to cover his infamy by changing
his reUgion ; and was wont afterwards frequently to declare,
* Dial, entre Photin etirenefe. AMayence, 1685.
t Part 2. Dial. ui. p. 105.

THE PREFACE. 291'
when he came among those of his former profession, " that
he could not but very much blame such as followed his exam
ple ; that for his own part, he knew the secret how, to save
himself, notwithstanding his change ; but for the other re-
volters who were ignorant of it, they would aU infallibly be
damned." But the resolution of the inhabitants of Montauban is yet
more extraordinary ; who being by the missionary dragoons
convinced that it was their duty to obey their prince in chang
ing their religion, did it with this declaration : " We acknow
ledge that the abuses which are imputed to the Church,*
were not sufficient to oblige our ancestors to separate from it :
wherefore we do now reunite ourselves to the Church, but yet
so as not, to prejudice thereby those remonstrances which we
shall be permitted to make to the clergy to purge the Roman
Church from many abuses."
I need, not sure repeat what I have already said, with refe
rence to Monsieur Imbert's case. For however the Bishop of
Meaux may endeavour to lessen the reputation of that man,*
yet since he cannot deny the truth of my relation (vyhich is
indeed no other than what he himself pubUshed both in his
Letter and Factum of it),, we may thereby plainly see how his
exposition of the faith agreed neither with, the missionaries
preaching, nor the people's practice. And let the Vindicator cry
out calumny\ as much as he pleases in his answer to my
account of their Good Friday service, and tell the world that I
falsifyX their words, because I render their Venite adoremus,
"Behold the wood, of the. cross, come let us adore lY,-" the
dispute between that unfortunate man and the curate upon
that very occasion. Monsieur Imbert insisting upon the same
exposition the Vindicator does now: whilst the other cried
out, " The wood, the wood, come let us adore it," sufficiently
shews that all were .not agreed on the New Popery interpreta
tion ; and the hard usage he has met with from his Diocesan.
since, for supporting that exposition the Vindicator so much
* Ibid. part. 2. p. 352. "Nous reconnoissons, que les Abus qu'on
impute a I'Eglise, ne suffisoient pas pour obligernos Peres a s'en separer :
C'est pourquoi nous nous reiinissons a I'EgUse ; sans prejudice de Remon
strances qu'U nous sera permis de faire au Clerg^ pour repurger I'EgUse
Romaine de beaucoup d'Abus.
t Reply, p. 35, 36, 37. Seein the margin.
X Defence ofthe JExposition of the Church of England, p. 121, 124.
Append. u 2

292 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION,
contends for, may satisfy the world, that not only the curfe,
but even the Archbishop of Bordeaux himself thought there
was neither calumny nor falsification in the application I made
of that day's service. I am sure poor Monsieur Imbert
has been made but too sensible of it, and I shall rather be
content the Viudicator should still esteem me a falsifier and a
calumniator, than be so uncharitable as to wish him the like
conviction. It may perhaps be thought a little too late, since the new
alliance strack up between Father Crasset and the Bishop of
Meaux, to remember the quarrel between the " Wholesome
advices of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet worshippers,"
and the " true devotion towards the blessed Virgin estabhshed
and defended ;" that is to say in other words, between the
New Popery and the Old. But though Father Crasset be
now become an expounder too, yet may I not beg leave to
remark from the subject of those advices against which he
wrote, that there are, it seems, some in the Church of Rome,
" Who* persuade themselves that though they live sinful lives,
yet they may be assured of their salvation, if they do but per
form some devotion to the blessed Virgin? — "hnay, that think
though they have no love for God, yet they may be saved by
supplicating our lady : — Jwho pray to the holy Virgin as if
she had more goodness and mercy than Jesus Christ, and so
put more confidence in her intercession, than in the merits of
her Son : — §who pay their homage to the holy Virgin, as to
some inferior divinity, and believe that without her there is no
approaching God, even through Jesus Christ himself: — l|who
make the Virgin Mary mediatrix between men and Jesus
Christ, as if she had some merit in herself which she had
not received from her Son: — ^who give the same titles of
honour to the Virgin Mary, which ought to be given to
God only; — nay,** and even make her equal with God and
Jesus Christ : — f -fwho depend so much on the Virgin Mary,
that they never have recourse to Jesus Christ ;— JJpre-
ferring their devotion to the Virgin, before their love to
God." Who, as to the point of images, "put their trast in
them,§§ as if there were some divine power in them ; imagining
* See the Advices of the Blessed Virgin, Advice I.
t Advice V. X Advice VII. ^ Advice VIII.
II Advice IX. IT Advice X. ** Advice XI.
tt Advice XII. XX Advice XIV. §§ Advice XVII.

THE PREFACE. 293
that there is a great difference between some of the images of
the Virgin, and that some are better than others ; and that it
is no longer ago than 1679,* that it was thought a crime to
be condemned, not only by a Pope and a King, but by the
learned of all nations, a crime worthy of banishment in this
life, and of damnation in the other, but only to advise them
better." It may be the Vindicator will here cry out, " That these
are only private men, and that the Church is not to answer for
their extravagancies :"t but yet still this at least shews that
there is an Old and New Popery amongst them, and that it
was none of my fiction to oppose them to one another.
But however, because he is concerned that I took no notice
of his admonition, and may otherwise in his next replyj clap
a new note of calumny in his margin ; to prevent, if it may
be, not so much my own defamation as his sin, may I humbly
beg leave to inquire, what at last this thing called the Church's
sense is, and how we may come to the knowledge of it ?
If the Pope and aU the states of the Church, if the large
dominions of his Catholic Majesty, if the learned of all nations,
if not the simple people only, but the most holy bishops, and
most learned doctors, nay, and even the Fathers themselves
be sufficient to declare a doctrine§ of the Church, all these
Father Crasset has assured us do maintain that honour of the
blessed Virgin, which this adviser writes against, and which is
utterly destructive of the Bishop of Meaux's pretences.
But if all these be but private men's opinions, and the
Church is not concerned to answer for them, how then comes
the Bishop of Condom to be so catholic an expositor, that
whatsoever he delivers, must presently pass for the sense of
the Church, but what all others say, only for scholastic nice
ties, or the doctrines of particular persons, and which the
Church is not obliged to maintain ?
Now this I so much the rather desire to be informed of,
for that,
1. As to number: it is certain that the patrons of Old
Popery in Italy, Spain, Flanders, and Germany, among the
Tartuffes and common people in general, as Monsieur Ranchin
is pleased to assure us, do very much exceed both the French
* See Father Crasset's Devotion, envers la Sainte Vierge. Pref. Paris,
1679. t Reply, p. 3, 29.
X Ibid. p. 3, 4. § See his Preface.

294 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
expositors, and then- -late disciples, the English Representers
and Vindicators.
II. As to the expressions, not only of the public services
and rituals of their Church, but even of the Council of Trent
itself : they are so plain on their side, that it needs a great
deal of artifice in these new undertakers to reduce them to
what they call the Church's, but is indeed their own sense.
The CouncU of Trent directs them with reference to the
saints themselves,* to fly not only to their prayers, but to
their aid and assistance too ; that is, says our infaUible Exposi
tor, -j- and his Vindicator,! to the aid and assistance of their
prayers : but others, with less art indeed, but with more
sincerity, and in the very words of the Council, to their
prayers, aid, and assistance.
As to their relics ; the Council of Trent declares, that
" those who affirm that veneration and honour is not due to the
relics of saints, or that the said relics and other sacred monu
ments, are unprofitahly honoured by the faithful ; or that for
the imploring of their aid, the memories of the saints are in
vain frequented, are to be condemned." This the Council
decrees ; and the Old Popery men accordingly do go to these
relics, these sacred monuments, to receive the benefits of
them : some to sanctify their handkerchiefs, or beads, or rings ;
some to procure health and strength by virtue of them ; others
for other benefits which they hope to obtain by them: all
which is so undoubtedly their practice, that the Representer^
himself is content to allow of it : " Since (as he expresses
it), God has made them the instruments of many evideilt
miracles which he has visibly worked by them, as is manifest
upon undeniable record : but this (says the Vindicator), || is a
.false translation ; for we do not seek to those sacred monu
ments for the obtaining of their help and assistance, no, that
is not the Council's meaning ;"^ but we seek for the help of
the saints at their monuments : and be either the words of
the CouncU, or the practice and belief of the people never so
against it, yet our infaUible Interpreter assures us upon his
word, that the sense of the Church is what he expounds to us.
Concerning images :** the CouncU of Trent determines,
* Sess. XXV. — ad eorum orationes, Opem, AuxiUumque confugere.
[Labbe, ConcU. vol. 14. p. 895. Lut. Par. 1672.]
t Advertisement, p. 11. X Reply, p. 22.
§ Papist repres. &c. Part. 1, c. 4. || Rep. p. 42. ^ Ibid.
** Cone. Trent. Sess. 25. [Labbe, ut supra, vol. 14. p. 895.]

THE PREFACE. 295
" that the images of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the Saints,
should be had, and retained in temples, and that due honour
and veneration be given to them." Upon this the Old Popery
men dispute what this due honour and veneration is : some
wiU have it only an inferior cult, but more to be the same,
whatever it is, that is given to the proto-type : and these are
so positive, that theirs is the Church's sense, that Cardinal
Capisucchi however approving Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition,
yet can hardly forbear passing very severe censures on those
who deny it. I shall hereafter more fully shew his opinion as
to this point ; suffice it to add here that instance which he
gives us of .Egidius Magistralis,* canon of Seville in Spain, who
was forced to abjure, among others, these two propositions as
heretical, viz. 1st. "That the images of the saints are not to
be adored with the same adoration with which the proto-types
are qdored. 2dly, That the cross is to be worshipped only with
an inferior worship ; which proposition, says he, is heretical,
and I retract it." Then he declares with St. Thomas, that
^he. cross is to be worshipped with a supreme adoration. So
that this, it seems, is not thought a meref scholastic nicety in
Spain, whatever it be in France or England : but so much the
Cimrch's sense, that it was declared to be heresy to oppose it.
But what now does our Catholic Expositor say to all this ?
Why, truly, that these men quarrel with one another to very little
purpose, seeing that after all their disputings, " Jto speak
precisely, and according to the ecclesiastical style, when we
hpHOur the image of an apostle or martyr, our intention is
not so much to honour the image, as to honour the apostle or
martyr in presence of the image." Which his Reverend Vindi
cator thus paraphrases : " The cross, § whether taken as wood
or stone, or moreover as the image of Jesus Christ crucified,
is not properly the object of our worship, but is a help to recall
our wandering thoughts back to a consideration of the benefits
we ^ave received by his dying for us : and whilst we have these
good thoughts in our minds, our affections are inflamed, and
we in presence of that image, which occasioned these pious
affections, shew by some exterior act what are our inward sen-
tinients, and pay our adorations to our Redeemer, but not to the
* Capisucchi Controv. Theol. p. 649. [Rom. 1677.]
t Reply, p. 29.
X Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, §. 5. [ut supra,] p. 8.
§ Vindic. p. 32.

296 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
image that represents him. This is the pure and innocent
doctrine of the Church, without the mixture of scholastic
niceties." That here are two very different expositions of the same
Council, is not to be denied ; and whether is most agreeable to
its directions, and by consequence to be esteemed the Church's
sense ; whether that " due honour is to be given them," as St.
Thomas and the Schools say ; or that* " none at all," as the
Vindicator, or " none in effect," as Monsieur de Meaux says, it
is, I think, easy to determine. And the abjuration of j3jlgidius
Magistralis, who favoured this new doctrine, but was forced to
retract it as heretical ; not to remember the hard fortune of
poor Monsieur Imbert any more, may inf Cardinal Capisucchi's
phrase, be at once both a caution and a conviction to them.
As to the service of the Church ; and which one would think
should certainly speak the Church's sense, that is so clear
against our new expositors, that the Vindicator is put to great
shifts to reconcile its offices to their interpretations. In those
the saints are prayed to, to help and deliver them, to open to
them the gates of heaven ; J " to command that they be loosed
from their sins ; to loose their polluted Ups, that they may
pray as they ought to do ; to receive them at the dreadful
hour of death, and by their merits to pardon their trans
gressions." And all this the people and the Tartuffes, i. e. the
false zealots of their Church, in the simplicity of their hearts
believe that they do for them. But our new expositors assure
us they are all grossly mistaken ; however the words do indeed
in their own natures signify all this, yet the sense of the Church
is but one ; and be the expressions what they will, yet after all,
we must understand by them no more than this, pray for us.
But wherefore this extravagant exposition must pass for the
Church's sense, or how their declaration makes it become so,
when that of so many others that interpret all these phrases
according to their proper meaning, is to be looked upon only
as the opinion of private men, we are yet to learn.
In their address to the cross, they cry out, " We adore thy
cross, O Lord ;" they fall down before it, and adore it ; and this
not only the people and the whole Church does, but for en
deavouring to mollify the design of it, one man is imprisoned,
another banished, a third recants, and abjures his opinion as
• See before. And Reply. Preface.
t lb. p. 649.
X See the Defence of my Exposition. App. ad Art. 3.

THE PREFACE. 297
heretical ; yet still it is calumny, it is* falsification, misinter
pretation, and what not, for us to presume to say that they do
adore the cross, or that the Church's sense is any other than to
adore, not the cross, but Jesus Christ represented by that
image. Let us add to all this,
III. That not only the expressions of their Councils and
rituals more visibly favour the Old Popery, but the allowed
practice of the Church most evidently confirms it. It is weU
known that a great part of the devotion of Italy, and some
other countries, consists in these things. With what zeal they
enroll themselves under the more immediate protection of the
blessed Virgin, to love, honour, and serve her all their lives ;
and what confidence they repose in her, as I have observed ;
how every place, and person, and trade, and company, have
their tutelary saints to guard, and to defend them; every
disease for man or beast, its proper physician above to cure it.
How they flock to such images as have been eminent, whether
for some pretended miracles, or any other virtues above others ;
and with what ardour they accompany them, if they chance at
any time to be carried abroad in procession ; what a value ex
traordinary they put upon any thing that has but touched the
shrines in which are kept the relics of their saints, and being
sanctified thereby, and how much devotion they esteem it to
go to the places where they are kept, to visit and adore them ;
how many excellent things they are taught an Agnus Dei is
good for, not only to secure them against thunder and lightning
at land, against storms and tempests at sea, but if Pope
Urban V. may be beheved, even to break sin, as if it were the
blood of Christ ; not. to mention any more of their superstitions.
Now as this cannot be denied to be their practice, so we desire
to be informed how it came to pass, that if the Church's sense
be indeed so contrary to it, these things are not only thus
universally tolerated', but encouraged, and there especially
where one would think the Roman religion should be best un
derstood ; I mean in those places where there has been the
least mixture of Protestant heresy to corrupt it ; where the
rigilant eye of Christ's vicar does more immediately watch over
it ; and above all, the sacred authority of the holy inquisition,
that rock upon which the Church is built, has hitherto de
fended it against such reforming expositors as we have here to
do with.
It may, I think, by this time appear how unwarrantable a
» Reply, p. 37.

298 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
presumption it is in these upstart interpreters, to run down all
others of their Church that do differ from them as only private
men, and at the same time to forget that themselves are no
more. And he must certainly be very willing to be deceived,
who knows any thing of these matters, that can believe that after
all the disputes of so many learned men on both sides, as have
heretofore laboured in this controversy, nevertheless the trae
doctrine of the Church of Rome was never rightly understood
till these new Catos dropped down from heaven to publish to
the world their expositions of it. It is, doubtless, much more
reasonable to expound the doctrine of any Church according to
the general and allowed practice of it, than according to the
singular notions of a few private men, though pretending to
deUver nothing but the Church's sense. A neat turn, and a
happy invention may palhate the foulest things, and make them
appear in the idea exceeding innocent ; but what a general
practice confirms, no colour can disguise ; and let man say
never so many fine things in their defence, yet all reasonable
persons wUl still believe, that the Church of Rome does certainly
approve that which its most zealous votaries so universaUy
follow. And indeed after all. Monsieur de Meaux himself must ac
knowledge this to be the most reasonable : so that if his Ex
position does differ from what is generally practised in his
Church, all his pretences of its agreement with the Council of
Trent, will not suffice to justify his sincerity. It is upon this very
principle, that himself in his " Discourse of Universal History"
attacks the heathens. He presses them with the public practice
of the people towards their gods, and values not what the poets
or philosophers said with great pomp of words concerning the
Divine nature, whilst he saw the others involved in such gross
superstitions. Nor is this my reflection, it was made by one
of his own communion, not long since, upon this very occasion.
And because it may serve at once, both to clear what I am
now shewing, and more fully satisfy the world, that this Bishop's
Exposition, how much soever pretending to deliver to ijs the
true doctrine of the Catholic Church, yet was not thought at
aU conformable, even by those of his own religion, to the general
practice of it, I will beg leave to offer it in his own words.
*" As for what I have said, that we must judge of the Pagan
* Lettre a Monsieur L. A. D. C. touchant les Cometes, p. 372, et seqq.
de I'Edition de Eiotterdam, 1683. And in the Considerations sur le livre
de Monsieur Brueys, p. 65, &c. Rotterdam, 1684.

THE PREFACE. 299
religion not from the impertinencies of the poets, or the specious
discourses of the phUosophers, but from the worship which
was practised by pubhc authority, I do not see that any one
can reasonably except against it. For it is most certain, that
it is this alone which must justify or condemn any religion.
And it is from this that the ancient Fathers heretofore run
down the heathens. Monsieur de Condom himself, who seems
not to approve this method, but pretends that we ought to
impute nothing to the Cathohc religion, but the mere decisions
of Councils, has nevertheless thought fit to impute to the Pagan
religion those abuses that were pubhcly committed amongst
them. He decries it upon this principle, that its mysteries,
its feasts, its sacrifices, the hymns which they sung to their
gods, their paintings which they consecrated in their temples ;
aU these had relation to the loves, and cruelties, and jealousies
of their gods.
" The same Monsieur de Condom (says he) decries Paganism
upon this account, that they consecrated to their gods the im
purities of the theatres, and the bloody spectacles of their
gladiators ; that is to say, whatever can be imagined most
corrupt, and most barbarous ; and he laughs at the expositions
aud softenings which the phUosophers brought to all this, when
they were to encounter the objections of the Christians.
" He has reason (continues our author) so to do ; but yet
this shews, that the method which himself has taken to render
the Catholic religion fair and agreeable to the Protestants, is
not to be maintained. For what is it to us, may they say, whe
ther the abuses and superstitions that offend us in the Church
of Rome, be to be found in the decisions of their Councils, or
not ? as long as we see them publicly and solemnly authorized
by it, and that their worship consists in them, it.js enough for
us to keep ourselves from its communion. For might not the
heathens have defended themselves the same way ? Might they
not have said, that those things which we reproach them with
were indeed abuses into which the people was insensibly fallen
by the connivance of the magistrates, and by the ignorance or
ivarice of the priests ; but that we could never be able to prove,
that the College of Pontiffs, and of the Church duly assembled,
had decided these things ?
"There is no doubt but the heathens might have made
these excuses, had they been as subtle and ingenious as Monsieur
de Condom, but what should we have answered ? That certainly
they must take us to be very fools to defend themselves after

300 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
such a manner. Suppose a man should invite another to settle
himself in a city where robbery and murder should be evidently
and publicly tolerated, by shevring him there was not to be found
among aU the laws of that city any one statute that ordered
men either to kiU or rob, would he not have reason to laugh
at him ? What is it to me, would he say, whether there be
any law that commands you to murder or rob, or no ? It is
sufficient to me to keep me from dwelling there, that they do
without contradiction rob and kiU. Confess we then (says he),
that the heretics may make the same answer to Monsieur de
Condom, and that therefore the true and only means to free
our reUgion from their exceptions, is to shew that it does not
tolerate anything but what is good; and that not only the deci
sions of its CouncUs are orthodox, but also that the pubhc
worship, the customs and doctrines authorised in it are just
and holy."
And here then let us fix ourselves : Upon this principle be
it resolved, whether I have falsified and calumniated, or
whether Monsieur de Meaux and his Vindicator have not
rather palUated and prevaricated the doctrine of the Church of
Rome. If what these men expound to us be, indeed, in our
Vindicator's phrase, " the universally received doctrine of that
communion ;" if it is according to these softenings, not that a
few converters whose very character carries a design in it : but
the Pope himself proceeds, the inquisition judges, the most
Catholic countries (where there is no design to be served by
these molUfyings), Italy and Spain, believe, the people prac
tise, and their chiefest saints have gone to heaven, and are now
honoured : if this be the exposition which their books of con
troversy follow in stating of the points in difference between
us (and where one would think they should certainly deliver
the Church's sense against us), which their public rituals, in
their natural and most proper meaning speak ; which their
treatises of devotion recommend, and which by all these
several ways the Church publicly authorizes ; be it then con
fessed that we do indeed misrepresent them to the world.
But if otherwise these softenings be only the inventions of
some few persons, who, it is much to be feared, see weU
enough the errors of their Church, but want either the courage
or the honesty to avow it ; if they are so far from being uni
versally received, that as we have seen they openly opposed,
nay, condemned ; and those who have endeavoured to support
them, imprisoned, banished, forced to recant, and abjure their

THE PREFACE. 301
opinions as heretical, I hope it vrill not be thought at all un
reasonable in us to let the world know wherefore we suspect
these expositors, who, by whatsoever name we shall distinguish
them, whether they be Condomists, Representers, or what else
you wUl, they are indeed all of them but a sort of half-
reformers, seeing the others have so much a just pretence, both
for number aud authority, to be esteemed, what in truth they
are, Old Romanists. .
I shall close all with that reflection which Monsieur Maim
bourg makes in general upon these kind of expositions, on the
occasion of that paper which Monsieur Granville, by order of
the Emperor Charles V. did present to Cardinal Contarini, the
Pope's Legate in the Diet of Ratisbon, 1541, and which was
by him afterwards, with some little alterations, sent to Rome, as a
model of union between the Romanists and Protestants. "It may
be observed (says he), that in all times these pretended accom
modations and managements of religion, which have been con
trived to re-unite the heretics vrith the Catholics,* in these pre
tended expositions of the faith, which either suppress or dis
semble, or express in doubtful terms, or too much soften some
part of the doctrine of the Church, have never satisfied either
the one or other party; but they have both equally complained,
that men should not deal sincerely in a matter so delicate as
the faith is, where it is impossible to fail in one point, vrithout
being defective in the whole."
How far not only I may beg leave to apply all this to the
Bishop of Meaux's* Exposition, but even Monsieur Maimbourg
himself designed hereby to reflect upon it, I shall leave it to those
to judge who know how far that author took all occasions, under
the pretence of writing the histories of past times, to make
particular reflections upon the men and actions of the present.
I am persuaded that at least it is the true character of it ; and
I hope, before I have done, to satisfy the unprejudiced reader,
that I have good reason to think so. But if, after all, some
there shall be, whom no reason can prevail with, who, in
Monsieur de Meaux's own phrase, " take pahis to blind them
selves, and will not see the hght at noon-day ;"t I shall only say
to them what TertulUan once did to some heretics m his time :
that it is not so much for want of evidence that they are not
satisfied, as because their cause requires that they should not :
for if men once resolve not to be persuaded, " it is then neces-
• Histoire de Lutheranisme, Uv. 3. p. 253. t Reply, p. 178.

302 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
sary for them not to acknowledge those thuigs by which they
are confuted."*

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.
And thus far have I cleared the way to my Defence, and
shewn both that there is at this day an Old and New Por
pery in the Church of Rome, and how we are to proceed in
order to the finding out which is the true and genuine sense
of that Church. I must now remember the method I before
laid down, and shall from henceforth carefully pursue.
Two things there are, which I shall chiefly aim at in this
undertaking, viz. clearness and sincerity : and in either of
which, but especially in the latter, if I prove defective, I shall
neither be able to satisfy my own conscience nor my reader's
expectation. As for the former of these, I have made such a division of my
discourse as seemed to me most proper for this end. I have
resolved to give every thing its due weight, by separating what
belongs to myself alone, from what concerns the cause I am to
maintain. And to the end that nothing of passion or fro-
wardness may arise to hinder me from weighing all things with
that indifference I desire, I shall first distinctly consider what
is fit to be replied to those severe (for I will not yet call them
unjust) reflections you have so industriously made upon me,
that so I may afterwards have nothing to do but freely examine
the force of your arguments without being diverted by the re
proaches that accompany them.
And for the latter, I do here promise you to make it sincerely
my endeavour, not only that what I defend be the truth, but
to defend it only with truth. You may think of me as hardly
as you please, or as your furious zeal shall prompt you to do ;
but I assure you I never will endeavour to persuade that to
others for truth, of which I am not first myself convinced. So
that, if then you have indeed discovered in my book any of those
ill things you charge me with in your reply, you shall not fail
to find me as ready to acknowledge my faults, as, I bless God,
I always have been ; and if I m.ay be allowed to know my own
* Necessario nolunt agnoscere ea per quae revincuntur. TertuU. de Pr»-
scrip. Hser. c. 17.' p. 108. Ed. Paris. 1675.

SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION. 303
heart, still am unwilling to commit them : or if this will not
satisfy you, I will add, as you have been to discover them.
BeUeve me, good sir, my desire is to go the right way to eternal
happiness ; but whether this way lie on the right hand or on
the left, or straightforward, * to me it is indifferent. And
however you have thought fit, according to your usual charity
towards those that differ from you, to assume to yourself the
prerogative of God in judging the secrets of my soul, and to
affirm, as you most rashly and unchristianly do, what you can
never be sure is true, and what I am sure is undoubtedly other
wise, " that if I would speak my conscience, I know that what
I say is false,"f yet give me leave to tell you that my con
science is so far from accusing me in this matter, that I have
hitherto felt no other motions at the reading of these bitter re
proaches, than what fill me with wonder aind indignation at
your presumption ; at the same time that they engage me not
only to forgive you myself, but earnestly to beseech God to
forgive you too.
And for your other reflections, wherein you seem to have
taken a particular satisfaction to blacken me all you can; (you
being, as I shall hereafter shew, much more solicitous about
your calumnies than your arguments). Though you have
been so scrapulously careful not to allow, no, not for the
smallest errors, that you have often taken the hberty to invent
there where you could not otherwise find whereof to accuse
me ; yet so far shall I be from rfetuming anything of this upon
you, that, on the contrary, I will shew you that your example
is not contagious where your principles do not prevail ; and
that I am therefore as far from being moved by your calumnies,
as I have hitherto seen any reason to be convinced by your
arguments. But of these thuigs more particularly hereafter. I must now
pass to the first thing I proposed to do, which was to discharge
my obUgations to the Bishop of Meaux, whom, you tell me, "I
have endeavoured to expose by my contemptible raillery, to my
own confusion among thinking men." J To which aU that I shall
say at present is, that for the contemptible raiUery you speak
of, it is none of my talent. I have heretofore shewn you some
of your own friends, § who have indeed attained to a perfection
in it, and it is pity they should lose that reputation, seemg they
• Mr. ChUl.'Pref. t Reply. P- 21-
t Reply, Pref. § Defence, p. 85, 86.

304 AN ANSWER TO THE
have littie to pretend to besides. I have treated the Bishop
of Meaux, and by the help of God wiU always treat him, as his
character requires me to do. I have neither laughed at him,
nor mocked him, nor sharpened what I have said with any
Ught, satirical pleasantry, to render either his person or his
Exposition ridiculous ; and these are the only notions of rail
lery that I know of, or that I beUeve your better attainments
in the French language will be able to discover. No, sir, be
assured that what I have said was serious truth, and delivered
m such a manner, as I believe no one but yourself ever mistook
it for raiUery. And if from what I shall now further remark
it does appear, that even by that Bishop's own pubhc confession
I have spoken nothing without good grounds for it, I shall then
leave it to any of your thinking inen, be their faith what it
will, freely to judge where the confusion ought to Ue.
Sect. I.
An Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Second Letter ,-
addressed to the said Bishop.
Mr Lord,
Though I do not see any such great difference between
your former Letter and this I am now about to consider, but
that the Answer I had given to that, might have excused me
from saying anything to this ; yet my respect to your charac
ter, which I cannot but reverence, be the person what he wUl
that bears it, engages me to pay that to the dignity of your
place, which I should not have thought due to the weight of
your arguments.
I could wish that our controversy had been so managed from
the beginning, that I might have addressed myself to you
without an interpreter, either in your own tongue, or in the
language of the Church : but it being now become the subject
of a popular debate, I must leave it to those from whom you
received the former, to send you an account of my present
Defence ; though I cannot but apprehend that they who have
committed so many mistakes in communicating your Letter to
the world, will not be infallible interpreters of mine to you.
Your Vindicator accuses me in his Reply* to my Defence,
" of having endeavoured to expose you by my contemptible
raUlery." It is not improbable but that he who has the con-
- Reply, Pref. .

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER.

305

fidence to lay so unseemly a behaviour to my charge, in the
face of so many persons as have read my book, and must
therefore know it to be a false and groundless imputation, mav
also have represented my demeanour to your Lordship, much
otherwise than indeed it has been. But, my Lord, I know
better what I owe to your character, than to fail in any due
reverence tow.ards it ; and if I may be permitted to add it am
too sensible how you ought to have respected it yourself, to be
guilty of any rudeness that may seem further to lessen 'it I
beheve, indeed, I may have said things that have been very
ungrateful to you, but I am persuaded I have done it in such a
manner, that you yourself cannot justly complam of any want
of cmhty in me. And I wiU now, as I have hitherto done
be by so much the more careful not to offend you in my ex'
pressions, by how much the more I apprehend I must displease
you in my allegations.
It is indeed a thing to be lamented, that one, whom God
has caUed to so high a dignity in his Church ; whom he has
endowed with aU the accompUshments of nature and art, that
might fit him to do some eminent good in his generation ¦ to
whom he has given favour in the sight of one of the greatest
prmces of Christendom, and whose eyes he has opened to see
™.^°y,?f ^*^^°se errors, to which others of his communion are
stiU bhnd, should not attempt something worthy both his own
character, and aU these great opportunities : that the know
ledge he has of some at least of those superstitions which his
Church IS involved in, should not yet provoke his zeal to do
something that might effectually deliver it from them.
I have heard, my Lord, of the endeavours you use to reform
these things in your own diocese; and I am persuaded you
would be glad to see your Exposition estabhshed, not by a few
vain compliments, which you know signify nothing, but by the
effectual practice and decision of your Church to become in
deed an exposition of the faith of it. And though, were it
as authentically ratified as it is now pompously approved, we
should not even so be in a condition of returning to you ;' yet
we should not then despair, but that being once sensible you
could err, God Almighty who disposed you to go thus far
would not suffer you to stop there ; but would incline your
heart totally to embrace that truly cathohc faith, from whence
you have departed, and to which you now seem wUling aeain
to return. ^
Thmk, I beseech you, what an honour it would be to your
VOL. XII. X

306 AN ANSWER TO THE
see, if as the last Reformation in France began there, so now
a new and more lasting one might spring up, not from a poor
tradesman as before, but from whence it ought to come, the
supreme pastor of it. And if any secular hopes or fears have
hitherto kept you from employing those advantages I before
mentioned, to this great end, and for which perhaps it was that
God has given them to you ; be persuaded at least yet to con
sider your dignity; and what your people, your reUgion, your
own soul requires of you. It is yet in your power to redeem
all, and by your courage and sincerity now at the last, not
only to blot out all that scandal you have hitherto given us ;
but if it shall please God to bless your endeavours, to render
your name honourable to the present, and your memory pre
cious to all future generations.
But if none of these considerations shall be able to stir you
up to so glorious an enterprise ; if you are still so tender of
the credit of your Exposition, that you will not be persuaded
to pursue any reformation, but by a method which you ought
by this time to see will never accomplish it ; you must then
excuse us if we endeavour to lay open your designs to the
world, and keep you from doing any hurt, if you wUl not be
persuaded to do all the good that you ought.
The first thing I said concerning your Exposition* was,
" that it was designed either to satisfy or to seduce the Mare
schal du Turenne." This your Vindicator confirms with an
authorityf which shall to me remain unquestionable. And
though when I consider how many points were wanting to that
first draught which appeared of it, I must still beUeve that
either your personal conferencesj with him, or some other
papers to us unknown, did perfect his conversion ; yet I will
not doubt, but that it was the Exposition that prepared the
way to it. Nor do I hereby pretend to undervalue the efficacy
of your book : it is neither for your Lordship's nor the
Mareschal' s reputation, to have it thought that he parted
so easily with his religion, as he must have done, if the
reading of an exposition of some few matters, and those none
of the most considerable in debate betwixt us, were all the
care that he took about it. But it may be the Vindicator
judges of your Lordship's pains in converting heretics, by the
little they take who now labour in this design among us ; and
which I cannot more nearly compare with any thing than that
* Expos.C. E. II. t Reply. Pref. X Expos. C. E. ib.

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER, 307
method whereby Tertullian* teUs us, the Valentinians were
wont heretofore to make proselytes to their faction : " They
trust not," says he, " their own disciples, before they have
made sure of them : they have an artifice by which they per
suade them before they instruct them : but truth persuades by
teaching, not teaches by persuading."
1. But I return to your Lordship's Letter :f where the
first thing you except against, is what I mentioned in my
Exposition, J '' concerning a private edition of your book which
was suppressed, because the Sorbonne Doctors, to whom
it was sent for their approbation, excepted against some things
in it."
Now this, as it was none of my invention, but communicated
to me by a person of undoubted integrity, and who came to
the knowledge of it by the means I have heretofore said ;§ so
J thought I had the more reason to credit the relation, because
in your advertisement, wherein you take notice of the other
objections of Monsieur de la B  , you pass over in profound
silence all that he had charged you with concerning this sup
pressed edition ; though a point certainly considerable enough
to have had some notice taken of it, had it not been a Uttle too
hazardous, especially in your own country, so soon to deny it.
And I must confess I was inclined to conclude, as I formerly
told you, II that you therefore took no notice of it, because you
were sensible it would not have been safe to disown it.
But now it seems you thought you might securely disavow
it. And therefore in your former letter you solemnly declare,
" that you never did publish nor cause to be printed any other
edition than that which is in the hands of every one, to which
you never added nor diminished one syllable." •[[
In return to which I have also declared, " that there was an
edition,** such as I spoke of, differing in many particulars
from what we now see ; that a copy of this edition was
in ray own hands, and free for any one that pleased to examine
it." But it seems you durst not trust to your first denial, and there-
* TerhU. Adv. Valent. u. II. [ut supra,] p. 250. Ne discipuUs quidem
propriis ante committunt, quam suos fecerint. Habent artificium quo prius
persuadent quam edoceant. Veritas autem docendo persuadet, non sua-
dendo docet. C.
t Reply, p. 185. X Expos. C. E. p. 3.
t Defence ofthe Expos, p. 11. || Expos. C. E. p. 3, 4.
H Vindicat. p. 9, 12, 13. ** Def. p. 8.
X 2

308 AN ANSWER TO THE
fore you were pleased upon second thoughts to confess in effect
what you had twice before denied ; " that it is true indeed*
there was such an impression, as I said ; but that it wasmade
without your order or knowledge."
¦ To this I answered, f" that it was printed by your own
bookseller, a person of great credit and estate ; with the
King's permission and approbation ; all which could not weU
be done without your knowledge, nor would Monsieur Cra
moisy have presumed to do it without your order."
And what has your Lordship now to except against this ?
Can you say that these presumptions are not reasonably
against you ? No, that you do not pretend. Can you deny
the fact ? Neither dare you put it upon that issue. But how
then will you clear yourself? Why, you persist to affirm,
" that there never was any such edition owned and avowed by
you."| No, my Lord, that we know ; you were so far from
owning and avowing it, that you endeavoured vrith all possible
care to suppress it. But did you never make such an impres
sion, though you did not, nor do not yet care to own it ? " And
if somebody,! (you say), hasbeen pleased to tack the King's
approbation and privilege with the name of Cramoisy to some
other edition, it is but a weak argument to give the lie to what
you say."
Behold the vain presumption that is brought to oppose so
plain a matter of fact. Here is a book printed, Cramoisy's
name, and the King's approbation to it : this edition is col
lected from Monsieur Cramoisy's own printing-house ; collated
with another of Monsieur de Turenne's that cannot be doubted
to be authentic ; attested by the person that compared them,
to be the very same '; and if this be so, the Bishop of Meaux
remains actually convinced of being privy to the impression
which he confesses was made, but, as he pretends, without his
order or knowledge; and to all this, he has only this to say,
that it may be somebody has tacked Cramoisy's name, and the
King's approbation to an edition that they do not of right
belong to.
Judge, my Lord, yourself, if you can but for one moment
sequester your thoughts from your own concern in this matter,
whether so poor a supposal be sufficient to overthrow such
positive evidence against you : and do not force me to appeal
* Vind. p. 14. t Def. p. 10, 11. J Reply, p. 185.
4 Ibid.

BISHOP OP MEAUX 8 SECOND LETTER. 307
to any other to judge betwixt us. I shall be thought perhaps
to undervalue my better authorities in this matter, should I
say that those who are acquainted with Monsieur Cramoisy's
letter, will soon discern whether my book come out of his im-
vrimerie. But if it be not sufficient to confound your supposal,
that it was gathered up from your own printers ; collated with
Monsieur de Turenne's copy ; to which I am sure you will not
say these things were falsely tacked ; and attested to be the
same : I vrill then add only this more ; " that whenever your
Lordship will help us to a copy of that impression you speak
of, made without your knowledge or order ; that we may com
pare it with what we have ; and give us some good assurance,
that neither did Cramoisy print it, nor any other with your
consent ; if it does upon collation appear that ours is one of
;that stolen edition, I will no longer insist upon the authority
of it." In the meantime, your Lordship subjoins two suppositions,
which very much confirm me in all that I have said in this
matter. *" But what if I had taken out some leaves, and put
m others, in the room of them (for so the French signifies) f
after the book was printed, before it was made public ; what
if I had corrected in it what I thought fit, or if they please,
altogether changed it ? What consequence can they draw from
thence against me upon account of those alterations ? Let us
put the case also, if they please, that somebody should have
been so vainly curious, as to take the trouble to find out this
, impression, before I had thus corrected it ?"
0 my Lord ! may I not here at least beg leave to think, that
" out of the abundance of your heart, your hand wrote this ?"
Would your Lordship have made such proposals in our
favour, had not your conscience here got the better of your
reason ? " Suppose (you say) before the book was published,
some leaves had been cut out, and you had corrected what
you thought fit, or it may be, altogether changed it." Is not
this the very thing we charge you with, and which you have
been so weakly endeavouring to persuade the world you did
not do ? And if I may be allowed to answer one supposal
with another : " What if you did do this upon the corrections
that were made by those Sorbonne Doctors, to whom it was
• Reply, p. 185.
t Mais quand j'aurois adjouste des cartons k une impression deja fait .'
p. 179. [Par. 1681.] Translated, p. 185. [Lond. 1685.] But what if I
had made some additions to a printed impression ?

310 AN ANSWER TO THE
sent for their approbation?" Again: "Suppose (you say)
some one was so vainly curious, as to take the trouble to find
out this impression before you had corrected it." I reply,
that then it is very possible, that the person from whom I
obtained my copy was one of these ; and if so, then both
Monsieur Cramoisy's name, and the king's privUege, may
honestly belong to it ; and my book be one of those that was
first printed ; and that with your knowledge and approbation ;
before these leaves you speak of were changed in it.
You see, my Lord, of what advantage these supposals are
to us ; and I doubt not but this will hereafter make you
assure us that they were only cases put, for discourse sake, not
that you really did this. And to this you may be sure there
is no reply ; all that I desire is, that if yon intended no more
by them than so, why you could not have as well made the
supposal in the very terms of our charge ; which would have
been much more proper than to alter them to another very
like it ; for my part I cannot but think, that as I said before,
your heart here guided your hand, and the conscience of what
you knew you had done, led you to make this supposal of it.
But here the Vindicator desires to come in with his supposal
too ; and that is yet nearer to what we say. " Suppose (says
he) the Bishop had permitted an* impression to be made, or
(which it may be was all he did) had caused a dozen or four
teen copies to be printed off; to shew them to his friends,
before he would put the last hand to his book : nay (if you
will), let us suppose, that some of the Doctors ofthe Sorbonne
were of the number of those friends to whom he communicated
these copies, and that they had made some corrections, obser
vations, or additions." Why truly, sir, I say then, that sup
posing you had the Bishop's authority to write this, you have
fairly given away his cause and credit together ; by confessing
that there was, as we affirm, a private edition made, that it
was communicated to some of the Doctors ofthe Sorbonne;
that these Doctors did correct it, and that then it was reprinted
as we now see it.
But I have more to observe from this passage, and it may
be that which wUl unriddle this whole intrigue. I . Whereas
the Vindicator having supposed that the Bishop caused a few
copies to be printed for his friends, he then immediately
changes his style from a supposal to a kind of affirmation of it ;
* Reply, Pref.

BISHOP OP MEAUX S SECOND LETTER. 311
" Which (says he) it maybe, was all that the bishop did." 2.
He supposes that some of the Sorbonne Doctors might be of
the number of those friends, and might have made some cor
rections and observations in it." 3. He doubts, "whether a
few such copies could be properly called an impression .-" and
now to add my* supposal to all the rest, what if this were the
case ? The Bishop prints a few copies of his book ; but they
being but very few, and designed only for his friends, not
the public ; he does not think that this could properly be
caUed an impression : and therefore whereas we charge him
with a private impression, he readily denies that he had
made any. . For so few copies cannot properly be called an

He sends it to some Doctors of the Sorbonne, and they make
corrections in it. But these Doctors he sent it to as friends, not
doctors, and therefore when we charge him with sending it to
the Sorbonne for their approbation ; he assures us he never did
any such thing, because he designed only their private judg
ment as his friends, not to prefix their public approbation as
doctors to it.
I do not say that this is the case ; but however I thought
I might make such a supposal of it upon the grounds that
were so fairly offered to me; and I shall submit it to the reader
to think what probability there may be in it.
But to return from this digression to the Vindicator : you
will tell me, it may be, that you did not intend I should make
this use of your suppositions ; that which you would know, is,
"What all this signifies, to the book as it is at present ?"f
And this, my Lord, is your Lordship's question too.
I answer ; that this shews, as I said in that place where I
first produced this allegation, thatj " those Protestants were
not mistaken, who thought the doctrine of your Exposition, as
it was first drawn up by you, would never pass among those
of your own party." And when your Lordship considers how
you insult over them in your advertisement for this behef, you
wUl see some reason to own that it was neither to§ cavil with
you, as you express yourself; nor "to juggle and perplex the
world with tricks," as your translator makes you speak, that I
• Ibid. t Reply, Pref. Expos. C. E. p. 2.
§ Ceux qui debitent avec tant de soin des choses si values, cherchent
des chicanes et non pas la Verite. Rep. p. 179.

312 AN ANSWER TO THE
mentioned these things ; but to seek and shew the truth, and
let the world see how this new mystery is wrought. And this,
my Lord, to the first point : I go on with you to the
II. Second; where you say* "You do readily acknow
ledge, that the edition of your book which you pubhshed,
differs in some things from your MS. And for the same
reason you doubt not but we may find in the edition (or as
the Bishop's letter has it, the editions ;f for I know not
whether the Vindicator has corrupted the one, or false-trans
lated the other ;) which you did not approve, some things not
agreeing word for word with the trae one : but that a Uttle
justice must needs make us acknowledge the difference to regard
only the beauty and conciseness of the style, and not at all the
substance of the faith."
In all which I find nothing more than what you have before
said in your former letter ; and the examples of some of your J
changes which I offered in answer to this pretence then, may
still serve to satisfy the world what credit is to be given to the
same assertion now.
But because you desire your Reverend Father to remember
the occasion of this difference, we ought not by any means to
forget it : viz.^ " That it was made for the instruction of some
particular persons, and not to be printed:" I shall take it for
granted, that these particular persons for whom it was made,
were either your new converts, or such as you desired to have
so. Now the Exposition being framed for their instruction,
and not to be printed; is it not very natural to believe that
you might have softened things in it to serve that design,
somewhat more than you could afterwards justify when you
came to pubUsh it ; and that the alterations therefore might be
such as our copy shews in things that "concern the substance
of the faith, as well as the beauty and conciseness of the
style?" And for this I have yet another presumption. The MS.||
copy which first went abroad, and was that which I suppose
you drew up for the particular persons you speak of, ended at
the article of the Eucharist. Now I cannot but observe that
the most considerable alterations do end there too : for however
indeed in the pomt of the eucharist you had omitted the name
* Reply, p. 186. t Dans les Editions. Reply, p 179
X Defence, p. 9, 10. § Reply, Ibid.
II Rep. de Monsieur de la B  Avertissement, p. 5.

BISHOP OP meaux's SECOND LETTER. 313
of transubstantiation, yet in effect you asserted the thing ; in
the adoration of the host, communion in one kind, and the
following articles, we find changes indeed, but rather in the
style, than, as you say, in the substance of the faith : the
business of the mass was the only considerable instance in
which you prevaricated. From whence I conclude, that those
first articles were written, as you say, for the instraction of
particular persons, and not to be printed ; and therefore
you thought you might take the liberty to write them as you
pleased, and as your design led you to do : but when you came
to add the others in order to the pubUshing your Exposition,
though you were stiU exceedingly careful to mollify things aU
you could, and sometimes more than was thought fitting, yet
you were forced to proceed vrith greater circumspection.
But your Lordship desires to have our* "pretended edition,
put into the hands of some person of credit ; where you may
have it seen by some of your friends : and you do then engage
yourself either to shew the manifest falsity of it, or if it has
been traly printed after your MS. to make appear as clear as
the day, that the differences we so much magnify, deserve not
even to be thought upon."
This indeed, my Lord, is an extraordinary favour, consider
ing that you have suffered an extract made out of this very
book by Monsieur de la B  of twenty changes, to pass now
almost this fifteen years without any reply. And because I
would not be too importunate, be pleased only at your leisure
to shew us in them, whether it may be worth our while to put
you to the trouble of considering any more. But if you suc
ceed no better in the other nineteen than you have done in
this one, wherein you have first made the experiment, it will be
neither for your credit, nor our satisfaction, to disturb yourself
about it. The point is, concerning honouring the blessed Virgin
and the saints : the case lies thus.
In both your editions you lay down this principle ; " That
all religious worship ought to terminate upon God, as its ne
cessary end." From this you infer :
1st Edit. " Therefore the honour which the Church gives to
the blessed Virgin and the saints is religious, because it gives
them that honour with relation to God, and for the love of
him ;"t
And therefore, again,
* Reply, p. 186. t Expos. C. E. p. 22.

314 AN ANSWER TO THE
1st Edit. " So far ought one to be from blaming the honour
which we give to the saints, as our adversaries do, because it
is religious, that on the contrary it ought to be blamed if it
were not religious."*
I am not now to question the reasonableness of this conse
quence ; but to observe the new turn you give it in your
second edition ; where the principle remaining the same, you
infer thus, directly opposite to the former conclusion.
2nd Edit. "Therefore if the honour which it (the Church)
renders to the blessed Virgin and the saints may in some sense
be called religious, it is for its necessary relation to God."
This is the case ; let us see how you answer it. You tell
us, " that at the bottom what you said at first was true."t
Very hkely ; but that is not our question : that which we ex
pect is, that you shew us as clear as the day, that the difference
is only in the style, not the^substance of faith. You add,
therefore, " that if afterwards you gave it another turn, it was
only that you might speak with more brevity, and avoid the
pitiful equivocations which are every day made upon the word
religious." And this is all you have to say to it.
To which I answer : First, Though it be not material, yet
that it is not true, that your new turn was that you might
speak with more brevity ; for whereas you had before said,
that this honour was religious, you now put in a few other
words, which do not indeed add much to the length, but make
a great deal of difference as to the sense, if it may in some
sense be called religious. But, 2ndly, The reason you give
does not at all satisfy us : we come not now to hear the
distinctions of the Schools, but to read an exposition of the ne
cessary doctrine, of the Church ; and in which you teU us,
that one word ill rendered would spoil all.
What, then, is the Church's sense J concerning that honour
which it renders to the saints departed ? You pronounce dog
matically : First, It is a religious honour, and were to be
blamed if it were ?iot religious. Then comes out a new
edition, and having considered better of the matter, you doubt
whether it may even in some sense be called a religious honour.
Your Vindicator § comes after you, and with another turn sets
all right again, that it cannot be called a civil honour, and
therefore it must be a religious. And which of these, or whe-
* Ibid. p. 23. t Reply, p. 186.
X Advertisement to your Expos, p. 5, 6. § Reply, p. 9.

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER. 315
ther they be all of them the Church's sense, we are yet to
leara. Had you, my Lord, distinguished in your Exposition as you
would be thought to do, now : had you told us that this
honour as it refers to God, and is done out of love to him, is
reUgious, but in any other respect (if there be any other) you
could not weU tell what it was ; we had then understood
yours, if we had not the Church's sense of it. But to tell us
without any distinction in one edition that it is religious, and in
another to doubt, whether it may in any sense be called reU
gious, this is such a kind of turn, as he once gave to the
canon law, who being to expound a certain decree, which began
TFe command, that is, says the Gloss, We forbid: and, I think,
plainly shews, that either here you did not well know the sense
of your Church, or you did not care that we should.
And thus much to your second remark. As to the
III. Point,* I shall not need to insist upon it. It neither be
longs to your Lordship, nor is there any difference between us
concerning it ; since you freely confess that the Epistle of
St. Chrysostom ought not to have been stifled ; and Monsieur
de la Faure f himself, who gave the advice by which it was sup
pressed, afterwards repented of it. As to the
IV. Objection ;+ concerning Monsieur M — 's writing against
your Exposition, I am not at all concerned whether your Lord
ship will believe it or no; though, for the sake of truth, I vrill
add thus much, that Monsieur M — has again owned it since
the publication of my Defence, to a person of great worth, who
at my desire inquired about it. And for the conclusion we
would draw from it, your Lordship must needs have seen it,
had the person who informed you of these things given you so
full an account of these things as he ought to have done ; viz.
to shew that all even of your own communion were not satis
fied with your Exposition, and to confirm by the testimony of
a second witness, what Monsieur Conrart had before declared
concerning it.
And now I mention the name of your old friend. Monsieur
Conrart, I could wish for the sake of that good opinion you
have so worthily testified of him in your Advertisement, you
had given some other character of him in your Letter. For,
* Reply, p. 186.
t See this Epistle reprinted by Monsieur Basnage, Rotterdam, 1687.
p. 34. t Reply, p. 187.

316 AN ANSWER TO THE
however I am persuaded you meant no more by your expres
sion,* than to signify that firm persuasion he had of the truth
of his religion; yet your translator has from thence taken oc
casion to represent him to the world as a hot-headed man,
which you know to have been far from the true character of a
person so sober, however opinionated of his faith, as Monsieur
Conrart was. The
V. Objection is this. In the preface f to my Exposition, I
had observed how Father Crasset in his answer to the "Whole
some advicesj of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet wor
shippers," had in that opposed your Lordship's Exposition. To
this you return this answer in your former letter :§ "I have not
read that book, but neither did I ever hear it mentioned, that
there was anything in it contrary to mine."
This, in my Defence, 1| I told you was very strange, con-
sideririg that not only Monsieur de la B — in his answer to
your Advertisement, and Monsieur Arnauld in defence of your
Exposition, had taken notice of it ; but even Monsieur Jurieux,
in his Preservative, had objected it to you : which book I sup
posed you must have read, because you answer a part of it in
your treatise of Commimion in One Kind.
What does your Lordship now offer to excuse your prevari
cation in so clear a matter ?^ " I still continue to say that I
never read Father Crasset's book which they bring against me.
I know well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux objected it to
me." So your translator renders you ; I suppose that the
charitable reader might believe that you do now know it, since
I put you in mind of it ; and not believe a person of your
Lordship's character would so openly confess that you did
not know that which you so utterly denied to have ever
heard mentioned before. But, alas ! this is no such great
matter vrith your Lordship ; and therefore to set things right
as they ought to be, and shew at once both yours and your
translator's sincerity, I must desire the reader to cast his eye
upon the French original,** where he will find your words to
be these :tt " It is trae, indeed, I knew well enough that Mon-
* Monsieur de Meaux's expression is, enteste de la Religion : hot
headed of his religion: Reply, p. 181, 187.
t Reply, p. 187. J Expos. C. E. [Ibid.] p. 6, 7.
$ Vindicat. p. 10. || Def. p. 13, and 114.
IF Reply, p. 187. *• Ibid. p. 181.
tt J'ay bien sijeu, a la verity, que Monsieur Jurieux me I'opposoit.
Reply, p. 181. "^

BISHOP OP meaux' S^ SECOND LETTER. 317
sieur Jurieux objected it to me ;" and therefore, in conscience,
my Lord, what did you do when you told us in your other
Letter,^" that you never heard it mentioned, that there was any
thing in it contrary to your Exposition."*
0, my Lord, think a Uttle upon these things ; and do not
imagine that a trifling flourish will secure you either against
God's judgment or the world's censure. For what if Monsieur
Jurieux were such a one as you pretend ?* that was wont to
mingle trae, false, and doubtful things together : yet since you
-confess that you did read in him that Father Crasset had con
tradicted your Exposition, will that excuse you for being
guilty of an offence against truth, in saying that " you had
never heard any such thing mentioned?" But, my Lord, I
must go farther with you; he did not barely say it, he proved
it too, and that by a very large extract out of his book ; and be
Monsieur Jurieux' s credit never so small with your Lordship,
yet your own reason could not but tell you, when you read
those passages, that in this at least he was certainly in the
right. And I once more appeal to your own conscience,
whether you never read in Monsieur de la B.'s Answer to your
Advertisement, nor in Monsieur Arnaud' s Defence of your
Exposition, the very same ; and whether these also vrill not
one day rise up in judgment against you, for so positively
denying that you had ever heard of any such thing ?f
But you go on : " Father Crasset himself, troubled (as for
the offended,! that is a piece of the translator's liberaUty) that
any one should report his doctrine to be different from mine,
has made his complaints to me ;" and in a preface to the second
edition of his book, has declared that " he varied in nothing
from me, unless, perhaps, in the manner of expression ;" and
this, you say, " you leave to them to examine who shall please
to give themselves the trouble." The truth is, you saw by what
Monsieur Jurieux had copied from him, that should you read
his book you must give him up for a pitiful Jesuit ; and there
fore thought it the best way to stand neuter, and not be
engaged to say anything Jabout him. Think not, my Lord,
the expression too slighting :§ your own defender is my prece-
* Ibid. t Ibid-
X Le Pere Crasset touchy de ce, &c. Father Crasset touched or
troubled, &c. Reply, p. 181.
§ Reflections sur le Preservatif. le livre d'un pitoiable Jesuit nomme le
Pere Crasset. V. Reflex, p. 19. le miserable Uvre d'un Pere Crasset, p. 44.
Pourquoi veut U que nous fassiohs de difficult^ de dire q'un Pere Crasset
s'est tromp^, p. 47. [Anvers, 1682.]

318 AN ANSWER TO THE
dent for it, who finding it impossible to reconcile the extrava
gancies of his book with the doctrine of your Exposition,
utterly disclaims both it and the author in the very terms I have
mentioned, and with greater contempt than I am wiUing to
transcribe from him.
But since you are resolved you will not interest yourself in
this matter, I must here address to Father Crasset himself;
and since his doctrine is, he says, the same with that of your
E,xposition, desire him that he will please to inform us wherein
it is that that heretical, banished, condemned author of the
wholesome Advices, against whom he writes, differs from it.
" Is it that he blames those who pay their homage to the
blessed Virgin as to some inferior divinity, and believe that
without her there is no approaching to God even by Jesus
Christ ?" But this, reverend father, the Bishop of Meaux
blames no less than he.
"Is it that he advises the worshippers of the holy Virgin
not to think that she has any merit but what she received
from her Son ? — that they ought not to give the same titles
to her as to God ? Is it that he condemns those who depend
so much on the blessed Virgin, that they have no recourse to
Christ ; and prefer their devotion to her before the love of
God ? *Is it that he advises the people not to put any trust
in images, as if there were any divine power in them, and it
were not in effect all one to worship the blessed Virgin in any
place or before any image ? This, my Father, is that author's
doctrine whom you oppose, and if the Bishop of Meaux will
disown all, or any part of this doctrine, as contrary to his Ex
position too, I shall for my part be content that then your
true devotion towards the blessed Virgin pass as agreeable to
the principles of it.
You will, it may be, tell us, that though you oppose his book,
yet you are not his enemy in every one of these particulars ;
nor will I affirm that you are. But yet since you charge him
as an enemy to the honour of the blessed Virgin, and to the
worship of images, you ought to shew us what those principles
are, in which you esteem him as such ; and then we shall
soon see whether the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition does not
maintain the very same doctrine.
Good God! To what a state are we arrived? That men
can presume in the face of the world to deliver such falsities.
Judge, reader, whoever thou, art, are these men fit to be
trusted to deliver to us the principles of faith, that in the

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER. 319
plainest matters of fact, shew so little a concern for truth ;
even when they know it is impossible for them to hide their
confusion. And here, my Lord, I could have wished I might have
finished these remarks : sorrow and anguish are in the next
consideration, more thanin all I have yet delivered : and I can
not without confusion repeat, what you would be thought to
have written without blushing. But I must follow whither
yourself have led me ; and speak those things which if you
have yet any regard to your own dignity, any sense even of
common Christianity itself, will certainly bring upon you the
most sensible perplexity of mind, and great confusion of face.
In your Pastoral Letter to the new converts of your diocese,
you tell them, " I do not marvel, my dearest brethren,* that
you are returned in troops and with so great ease to the
Church where your ancestors served God. Not one of you
hath suffered violence either in his person or goods. Let them
not bring you these deceitful letters which are addressed from
strangers transformed into pastors, under the title of Pastoral
Letters to the Protestants of France that are fallen by the force
of torments. So far have you been from suffering torments,
that you have not so much as heard them mentioned. Tou
are returned peaceably to us, you know it."
This you now again confirm, as to what has "passed in the
diocese of Meaux,f and several others, as you were informed
by the bishops, your brethren and your friends :" (for J so your
words are, not and other your friends, as your translator ren
ders you), " and you do again assert in the presence of God who
is to judge the living and the dead, that you spoke nothing but
the truth."
And believe me, my Lord, that God whom you call to
witness has heard you ; and will one day bring you to judg
ment for it.
For teU me, good my Lord ; have those edicts which the
King§ has published against the Protestants of France ; and
ill which he involves not only his own subjects, but as far
* Past. Letter, p. 3, 4. t Reply, 187, 188.
X Dont les Eveques, mes Confreres, et mes amis, m'avoient fait le recit,
p. 181.
§ See all this in the collection made by the King's authority, and dedi
cated to him by Monsieur le Fevre, Dr. of Sorbon ; caUed Nouveau
ReciieU detout ce qui a'est fait pour et contre les Protestants en France.
4 Paris, 1686.

320 AN ANSWER TO THE
as he can all the other Protestants of Europe, made any ex
ception for the diocese of Meaux ? Have not their churches
been puUed down; their ministers banished; their chUdren
ravished out of their bosoms ; their sick forced into your hos
pitals, exposed to the rudeness of the magistrates and clergy ;
their shops shut up ; their offices and employs taken from
them ; and all opportunities of the pubUc service of God been
precluded there as well as in other places ?
See, my Lord, that black collection which Monsieur le
Fevre has lately published with the King's privilege of those
edicts, whereby, as he confesses, the Reformed have in effect
been persecuted for these thirty years. Has your diocese
escaped the rigour but of any one of these ? Or is there no
thing of violence either to men's persons or goods in them.
Your Lordship, I perceive by some of your private letters,
is not a stranger to Monsieur le Suer, and to whom I have
had the honour for some years to be particularly known. Was
he not driven from la Ferte even before the edict of Nantes
was revoked ? And was there nothing of violence in all this?
Was that poor man forced to forsake all that he had, and seek
for refuge in foreign countries, first in England, then iu Hol
land, and did he yet (with his numerous family) suffer nothing
either in his person or goods ? And might I not say the same
of the other ministers his brethren in your diocese, were I as
well acquainted with their conditions ?
But it may be you vrill expound yourself of those who re
mained behind, and changed their religion. And can yon in
conscience say that they returned peaceably to you ? Does a
town that holds out as long as it can, and when it is just
ready to be carried by storm, then capitulates, yield itself up
peaceably to the wUl of the conqueror ? They saw desolation
everywhere surround them ; the fire was come even to their
very doors. The dragoons were arrived at your own city of
Meaux. Before they were quartered upon the poor people,
you call them for the last trial to a conference. Here you
appear moderate even beyond your own Exposition ; and
ready to receive them upon any terms. What should they
now do ? Change they must ; the deliberation was only whe
ther they should do it a few days sooner, and prevent their
ruin, or be exposed to the mercUess fury of these new con
verters. Upon this foUows the effect you mention ; the Holy
Spirit operated upon your preaching, as it heretofore wrought
in the Council of Trent's decisions. When the courier arrived

BISHOP OF meaux's SECOND LETTER. 321
from Rome, then presently the Fathers became enhghtened ;
and " it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and them." When
the dragoons stood armed to ruin them, if they did not yield ;
" then they returned in troops, and wjVA prea^ ease,* to the
Church, where their ancestors served God.' '
,, And yet after all, " has no one, my Lord, even of these,
suffered violence either in his person or goods ?" Judge, I
pray you, by the extract I will here give of a letter which I
received in answer to my particular desires of being informed
how things passed in your diocese.
" It is true that the dragoons were not lodged in the diocese
of Meaux ;f but they came to their doors, and the people
being just ready to be ruined, yielded to their fears. Inso
much that seeing afterwards the Pastoral Letter, they would
not give any heed to it : saying, that seeing it was so visibly
false in an article of such importance, it did not deserve to be
believed by them in the rest. One only gentleman of the
bishopric of Meaux, Louis Seguier, Lord of Charmois, a rela
tion of the late Chancellor's of the same name, had the
dragoons. It is true, that after he had signed, he was repaired
in some part the loss he had sustained. But it, happened that
he did not afterwards discharge the part of a good Catholic.
He was therefore put in prison, first in his own country ; but
it being impossible there to deprive him of all sort of com
merce, to take him absolutely from it, he has since been trans
ferred to the Tower of Guise, where he is at present. Two
other gentlemen ofthe same country, are also prisoners on the
same account."
But there is an answer to your Pastoral Letter,! which goes
yet farther. He tells you of Monsieur Monceau, a man of
seventy-seven years of age, shut up in a convent : of the cruel
ties exercised upon two orphan children of Monsieur Mirat,
the one but nine, the other ten years old, at la Ferte sous
Jouarre : nay, my Lord, he adds, how even your Lordship,
who in the conference appeared so moderate, in the visitation
of your diocese, three months after, threatened those that
would not go to mass, that continued to read their Protestant
books, or to sing their Psalms. And wiU you yet say there
* Ibid.
t Extract of a letter concerning the state of the Protestants in the
diocese of Meaux.
{ Reponse a la Lettre pastorale de Monsieur de Meaux : a Amsterdam
chez Pierre Savoret, 1686. p. 20, &c.
VOL. XII. T

322 AN ANSWER TO THE
has been nothing of violence in your diocese ? "You are re-
tumed peaceably to us, you know it."*
I must then descend to the last sort of conviction, and out
of your own mouth you shall be judged.f Your Lordship vrill
easUy see what it is I mean. The copies of your own letters
to Monsieur U  , who was forced to fly from his country,
and out of your diocese, upon the account of the persecution
you now deny, and which were printed the last year at Berne
in Switzerland, have sufficiently satisfied the world of your
sincerity in this point.
Your first letter is dated at Meaux, October 1 7, 1685. In
this, after having exhorted him to return to you, by assuring
him, " that he should find your arms open to receive him ;" J
and again, "that he should meet in you the spirit of a true
pastor ;" among other things you tell him, " that we ought not
to please ourselves that we suffer persecution, § unless we are
well assured that it is for righteousness' sake." It was too
much to deny the persecution to one who was just escaped out
of it, and therefore you thought it better to flourish upon it.
To this he replies, || January 28, 1686. "That he pleased
himself so little in the persecution, that it was to avoid those
places where it reigned, that according to the precept of the
Gospel, he was fled into another." And then he goes on to
testify the just scandal which the persecution had given him
against your religion.
Your answer to this was of April 3, 1686, or rather not so
much to this, as to one he had sent about the same time to
his lady, and wherein it seems he had again declared how
scandalized he was at the persecution. And here you enter in
good earnest on the argument. Instead of denying the perse
cution, you defend it. And though you seem to testify in
your reasons as little regard to the truth of the ancient history
of the Church, as in your Pastoral Letter to the condition of
the present : yet you sufficiently shew " of what manner of
* Pastoral Letter. Ibid.
t La seduction elud^e : Ou Lettres de Monsieur I'Eveque de Meaux k
un de ses diocesains, qui s'est sauv^ de la Persecution.
X Vous me trouverez toujours les bras ouverts — Je ne cesgaray de voUs
rapeller par mes Voeux et par mes prieres ; etant cordialement et avec
I'esprit d'un veritable Pasteur, Votre, &c. p. 10.
§ Songez qu'il ne doit point se complaire quand on soufFre persecution,
si l'on n'est bien asseur6 que ce soit pour la iustice, p. II.
II Ibid. p. 16, 17.

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER. 323
spirit you are of;" since for your part "you cannot* (you say)
find where heretics and schismatics are excepted out of the
r^T n^°l "'^ evil-doers, against whom St. Paul tells us,
that God has armed Christian princes."
And here, my Lord, I shaU stop and not multiply proofs in
a matter so clear as this. Onfy let me remember you, that
there is butf ten days difference between the date of this and
of your Pastoral Letter; too Uttle a while to have made so great
a change. But, I suppose, we ought to remember here the
Mb. copy of your Exposition ; that these private letters were
designed only for the instraction of a particular person, and
not to be prmted.J Whereas, that other which you addressed
to your diocese, was intended to be published, and, therefore,
required another turn.
As for the bishops, your brethren and friends, who have,
you say, affirmed the same thing, your Lordship would do us a
singular pleasure to let us know whether they were not some
ot those that approved your Exposition. It was pity they did
not set their reverend names to your Pastoral Letter too. We
should then have been abundantly convinced of their integrity -
and that they are as fit to approve such tracts, as your Lordship
to write them. And he must be very unreasonable that would
not have been convinced by their authority, that your Exposition
gives as true an account of the doctrine of your Church as
your Pastoral Letter does of the state of your diocese. '
You wiU excuse me, my Lord, that I have insisted thus long
upon these reflections. If you are indeed sensible of what you
Jiave done, no shame that can from hence arise to you wiU seem
too much ; and if you are not, I am sure none can be enough.
I beseech God, whom you caU to witness against your own
soul, to give you a due sense of aU these things ; and then I
hope that you will read this with the same resentments of
sorrow and regret, as I can truly assure you I have written it.
This to the fifth objection.
The occasion of the next was this :
(^ ^}' ^^^^^ Preface to my Exposition, § I had observed that
i/ardinal Capisucchi, one of the approvers of your Exposition,
' had, mhis own writings, contradicted your doctrine as to the
• Ibid. p. 22, 23, 24. Dites moi en quel endroit de I'Ecritiire les
Herehques et les schismatiques sont exceptez du nombre de ces malfaiteurs.
conh'e lesquels St. Paul a dit que Dieu meme a arm^ les Princes, p 24
tLettre Pastorale, March 24. Lettre a Monsieur de U. April 3
X Reply, p. 186. § Expos. C. E. [ut supra,] p. 8, 9.
y2

324 AN ANSWER TO THE
point of image-worship." To this you reply in your former
letter, " that he is so far from being* contrary to the doctrine
you have taught, that he had on the contrary expressly
approved your book." I answered in my Defence,t " that this
was a good presumption that he should not have any principles
contrary to yours; but yet, if what I had alleged out of his con
troversies were really repugnant to what you taught in your Ex
position, it might indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent
with himself as he should be, but that the contradiction would
be nevertheless a contradiction for his so doing."
To this, therefore, you now rejoin, "that it is a weak
objection, J which runs upon the equivocation ofthe word /airza ,-
concerning an absolute and relative worship. And falls so
visibly into a dispute about words, that you cannot imagine
how men of sense can amuse themselves about it. That for
your part, you never engaged yourself to defend the expressions
of the school, though never so easy to be expUcated, but only
the language of the Church in her decisions of faith. In short,
that Cardinal Capisucchi has written an express treatise about
images, and said nothing in the whole that contradicts you.
I am very glad, my Lord, you refer us to the treatise of
Cardinal Capisucchi that you mention ; though I am apt to
believe you did it out of a presumption that I could not procure
it to examine your pretences. For indeed the whole design of
it is so expressly against you, that one would stand amazed to
think that a Christian and a bishop, and what is perhaps yet
more to you, an expounder of the Catholic faith, that would
pass with the world for a person of honesty and integrity,
should venture his reputation ou such self-evident falsities.
For to examine the comparison :
I. The doctrine of your Exposition concerning images is
this: "That all the honour which is given to them,§ should be
referred to the saints themselves who are represented by them.
" The honour we render to images is grounded upon this :
No man, for example, can deny but that when we look upon
the figure of Jesus Christ crucified, it excites in us a more
Uvely remembrance of him who loved us so as to deliver himself
up to death for us. WhUst this image being present before
our eyes causes so precious a remembrance in our souls, we are
• Vindic. p. 10. f Defence, p. 14.
X Reply, p. 188. j) Expos. Sect. 5. [Ibid.] p. 8, 9.

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER. 325
moved to testify by some exterior signs, how far our gratitude
bears us ; and by humbling ourselves before the image, we
shew what is our submission to our Saviour. So that to speak
precisely, and according to the ecclesiastical style, when we
honour the image of an apostle or martyr, our intention is not
so much to honour the image, as to honour the apostle or the
martyr in presence of the image.
" In fine, one may know with what intention the Church
honours images, by that honour which she renders to the cross
and to the Bible. All the world sees very well that before the
cross she adores him who bore our iniquities upon the wood.
And that if her children bow the head before the Bible, if they
rise up out of respect when it is carried before them, and if
they kiss it reverently, all this honour is referred to the Eternal
Verity which it proposeth to us.
"We do not worship images, God forbid;* but we make
use of images to put us in mind of the originals. Our Council
teaches us no other use of them."
All which your Vindicator thus plainly and dogmatically
delivers to us, in the four following propositions, in the prefacef
to his Reply.
1 . " We have a veneration for images as for sacred utensils
dedicated to God and the. Church's service ; and that too in a
lesser degree than for our chalices, &c.
2. " In the presence of them, J we pay our respect to the
persons whom they represent. Honour to whom honour,
adoration to whom adoration; but not to the images them
selves, who can claim nothing of that nature, viz. honour or
, adoration from us.
3. " That the hard expressions of the schools, § as of absolute
and relative latria, may perhaps be defended in the sense
meant by them ;' ' (it seems it is a doubtful case whether these
men can be excused from being guilty of idolatry or not ; and
one of these is Cardinal Capisucchi ;) " but ought not to be
the subject of our present controversy, because they are not
points that are universally and necessarily received."
4. In answer to my demand, || " Whether upon any account
whatsoever the image of our Saviour and of the holy cross
were to be worshipped with divine worship ?" He repUes freely
and plainly, vrithout any of the school errantry ; " That the
* Advertisement, p. 12. + Reply, Pref. p. 17, 18.
X p. 18. § Ibid. II Ibid.

326 AN ANSWER TO THE
image of our Saviour or the holy cross, is upon no account
whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship."
This is the doctrine of your Exposition, and your Vindicator's
interpretation of it. Let us see :
Secondly, Whether Cardinal Capisucchi, in that treatise to
which you appeal, has nothing that contradicts this: That so
we may from hence, too, learn how far we are to credit your
allegations ; and.
First, Whereas your Lordship affirms, " that all the honour
which is given to images, should be referred to the saints
themselves ;" that is, as your Vindicator expounds it, " that
in the presence of them you pay your respect to the persons
whom they represent, but not to the images themselves, who
can challenge nothing of that nature from us ;"* Cardinal
Capisucchi, on the contrary, lays down this express position,
" That the holy images are to be worshipped, and are rightly
worshipped by the faithful ; nay, so as that the worship
should terminate upon them.f For as inanimate things,J
though in themselves they are not holy, yet in order to
another to which holiness does primarily agree, they are called
holy, and in relation to that other thing, may and ought justly
to be adored with it. So images, § though of themselves they
are not holy, yet they are holy in order to the exemplar which
they represent, and they may and ought to be adored in order
to that, and together with it."
Secondly, Having thus resolved against your first foundation,
that images are to be adored ; he next inquires, what worshipl|
is to be paid to them ?
Your Lordship's position is this : " We do not worship
images, God forbid ; but we make use of images to put us in
mind of the originals. Our Council teaches us no other use of
them." Which your Vindicator thus more plainly deUvers ;
" that the image of our Saviour or the holy cross, is upon no
account whatsoever to be worshipped vrith divine worship."
Let us see if there be nothing in the Cardinal's treatise that
contradicts this. And here.
First, He rejects the opinion of Durandus,^ " that property
speaking, images are not to be adored, but because they re-
* Card. Capisucchi Controversise Theologicse Selectse, fol. Roma, 1677.
Controver. XXVI. Quest. 1. Paragraph 9. p. 605.
t [Ibid.] pp. 627, 648. X Paragraph 9. [Ibid.] p. 606.
§ See above. || Ibid. Quest. U. p. 624.
llParagr. 1. [Ibid.] p. 625.

BISHOP OP meaux's second LETTER. 327
'Semble things worthy of adoration, which, by remembrance,
are adored in presence of the images; therefore the images
themselves improperly are, and are said to be adored." Are
not these, my Lord, almost the very words of your Exposition?
Hear then what the Cardinal says to them : " This opinion
(says he) is to be rejected." And I beseech you, consider the
reason he gives for it : " because (says he) in truth it takes
away the worship of images ; and teaches that they ought only
improperly to be adored." But if we must hearken to your
Exposition, this can be no reason, unless it be to establish the
opinion which he pretends to combat. For according to your
Lordship, "the Church does not worship images, God forbid."
But to go on with the Cardinal.
If,. "Whence Raphael de Turre says, that this opinion is
.dangerous, rash, and savouring the heresy of those who oppose
images." An admirable character of your Lordship's Expo
sition. " For several Councils, says he, have defined, and the
holy Fathers taught, that images are to be adored, by a
tradition kept from the times of the Apostles unto our days ?
But now if images should be venerated only improperly, as this
opinion (let me add, and your Exposition) asserts ; then the
.images would not be truly adored: and therefore this
opinion does truly savour the heresy of the enemies of images.
— The same is asserted by Ferdinandus Velosillus, who
therefore concludes this opinion to be not only false, but rash
and erroneous, especially since the definition of the Council of
Trent." Behold, my Lord, the wonderful concord between the Car
dinal and your Lordship ; for, tell me now, I beseech you, is
there nothing in all this that contradicts you ? Or rather, do
you not here see what you deliver so magisterially as the
Church's sense, condemned as dangerous, rash, erroneous, and
savouring of heresy, and contrary to the definition of the
CouncU of Trent? But,
Secondly, In the next paragraph he lays down the opinion
of Vasquez ;* and if the other did not allow images as much
honour as you pretend to, I hope this man did. " The
opinion (says he) of Vasquez is, that images are no more to be
adored, but because in the presence of them and about them
are exhibited those external signs of honour, as kneeUng,
kissing, uncovering the head, and the like : (I think this, my
* Ibid, parag. ii. p. 625.

328 AN ANSWER TO THE
Lord, will come up to your instance of the respect that you
pay to the Bible, and from which you explicate your doctrine ;)
but that the inward veneration is by no means directed to the
image, but only to the thing recommended by the image.*
— This opinion (says the Cardinal) is in effect the same vrith
the foregoing ; for since Vasquez does assert that the inward
act of the adorer terminates only on the thing represented by
the image, he does, by consequence, affirm (what your Lordship
and your Vindicator would have us believe to be the doctrine
of the Church), that the images themselves are not traly and
properly to be adored."
You see, my Lord, the Cardinal still sticks to his principle,
that " the images themselves are truly and properly to be
adored." But let us hear him out. " Vasquezf tells us that
the Council (of Trent) does not much care how the adoration
of images is called, whether salutation, or embracing, or
adoration, provided we do but grant that out of affection to
what they represent (see, my Lord, your own principle) the
images themselves are to be kissed, the head to be bared
to them, and other signs of submission to be paid, concerning
which the controversy was with the enemies of images," —
" In which (says the Cardinal) he involves many falsities. For
it is both defined in our Councils, that the holy images are
traly and properly to be adored, and therefore that ,even the
inward act of adoration is to be terminated upon the images ;
and the controversy with the opposers of images was not only
about giving to images the external signs of honour, but con
cerning the true and proper adoration, which therefore coiicems
the inward act of veneration."
And, a little lower, he repeats and comihends these words
of Lorca : " This propositioii, that honour and adoration is
due to the image, J is so certain and firm among all the faithful
(and I hope your Lordship would be thought at least one of
them), that the contrary cannot vrithout scandal be admitted.
Nor is it lawful for any one to deny this proposition, and hold
the opposite at pleasure, though he does add, that images are
to be kissed; because from the doctrine and CouncUs of the
Fathers it appears, not only that images are to be kissed, but
we are taught expressly that they are to be venerated and
adored." Behold, my Lord, another instance of the admirable agree-
* Ibid. p. 626. t Ibid. p. 627. t Ibid. p. 627.

BISHOP OF meaux's SECOND LETTER. 329
ment between the Cardinal's treatise and your Exposition ;
whose doctrine he is so far from admitting as the Church's
sense, that he tells you plainly it is contrary to your Council's
decrees, and therefore may not be held at pleasure ; indeed
that it is such as cannot without scandal be admitted.
Thirdly, Having thus refuted these new Popery expositions
of your Church's doctrine,* he now comes to lay down the true
opinion, and which, therefore, I suppose must be the Church's,
as he shews it to be the Council of Trent's sense. And it is
this : " that the worship of the image and of the exemplar is
one and the same. — So that the image of Christ (contrary
to the Vindicator's fourth position) is to be adored with the
supreme worship that Christ himself is." — That for the
images considered in themselves, " as they are gold, silver,
brass, iron, stone, wood, &c.f no reverence is to be given to
them : but as they are the images of Christ or some saint, so
they are to be worshipped with the same adoration as the
person whose image it is." Nay, he adds, " that this supreme
worship terminates % upon the image," whereas your Lordship
lays it down as a fundamental principle, " that all reUgious wor
ship terminates in God alone." It is true, he adds, " that this is
not for any exceUence in the image, but upon the account of
Christ represented in it ;" and from hence he thinks to free your
Church from idolatry. But as to this, I do still say I am not
at present concerned ; my business being, not to examine the
reasons that are offered to justify this worship, but to clear the
matter of fact, viz. whether the Church of Rome (whatever
her reason be) does hold that images are truly and properly to
be worshipped ? And to this I think the Cardinal has spoken
very honestly and plainly. ' And I shall leave it to your Lord
ship and to the world to consider, whether there was either
conscience or truth in that assertion, which has occasioned
this search, " that Cardinal Capisucchi has said nothing in all
this treatise that contradicts you."§
But of these things more particularly when I come to the
article itself to which they belong. I go on in the meantime
to the
VII. Objection. In my Exposition || I told you that Mon
sieur Imbert, a doctor of divinity, of the province of Bourdeaux,
" was clapped in prison by order ofthe Archbishop, for having
* Parag. vu. [Ibid.] p. 639. t Ibid. 640.
X Ibid. 648. § Reply, p. 188.
II Expos. C. E. [ut supra,] p. 9, 10.

330 AN ANSWER TQ THE ^
instracted the people in the Good-Friday service, that they
ought to apply their adoration to Christ, and not to the
cross which was there exposed to them. And that, although
he alleged your Exposition in his defence, and upon that
account yourself had written to the Archbishop in his behalf,
yet was not all this sufficient to avail for his deliverance."
To this you reply in your former letter, " that this Imbert
was a man of no renown, as well as of no learning, who
thought to justify his extravagances before the Archbishop of
Bourdeaux, his superior, by alleging your Exposition to this
prelate. But that aU mankind saw very well that heaven and
earth was not more opposite than your doctrine, from that
which this daring person had presumed to broach."
It would have been, my Lord, more for your own honour as
well as the world's satisfaction in this matter, to have told us a
little what this extravagant doctrine was, which this daring
person had presumed to broach, so contrary to your Exposition.
At least you should have given us some eridence to let us see
that he had been convinced by his superior of having abused
your authority : that your Exposition did by no means favour
any such extravagances as he alleged it for, and that it was a
daring presumption in him by such pretences to abuse so
catholic an exposition of the Church's faith. That he pro
duced your Exposition for his warrant of what he had taught,
you do not, cannot deny. That he was ever convinced of pre
tending falsely to the authority of it we never heard ; and if
your Lordship means to have it believed, you must really
begin to produce some better authority now-a-days, than your
bare word to assure us of it.
And indeed, my Lord, I am apt to think you will never be
able to do this. The factum of his case was too long to
be printed, and is too well known to need a new publication.
Instead of that, I chose rather to communicate to the world
the letter he wrote to your Lordship on this occasion. And
here we have a full account what that daring doctrine he had
broached was ; and how little reason you had to disclaim it as
contrary to your Exposition. f " The Archbishop of Bourdeaux
(says he) has caused a process to be made against me, for
having explamed upon Good-Friday, that we adore Jesus
Christ crucified in presence of the cross, and that we do not
adore anything of what we see : — that therefore we ought
» Vindic. p. 11. f Def. p. 124, ] 25.

BISHOP OF meaux's SECOND LETTER. 331
to think that we are now going out to 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 Uvelier impression
upon our imagination ; but not to be the object of our worship,
which must terminate upon Jesus Christ." And this, he tells
you, is all his crime : he defies his enemies to reproach, if they
can, his life and manners, or to tax him vrith any other doctrine
than that of your Lordship, and which he endeavoured to
'express in the self-same terms.
' And is this, then, in your opinion, such daring doctrine ?
or can you with any shadow of sincerity say, " that this is as
opposite to your Exposition as heaven and earth to one
another?" Your Lordship may pretend what you please, but I
doubt your Vindicator will hardly allow that there is any heresy
in the explication he here gives of your Good-Friday's service.
But let us see what you now further say to this. You confess
the letter and the contents of it ; only you say, " you did not
believe him, because you were too well acquainted with my
Lord the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, his diocesan, of whom he
made his complaint." And in this you had certainly reason ;
for it is not easily to be believed that so great a prelate, who,
as you observe, had not very long before himself approved your
¦ Exposition, should now prosecute a poor man with such vio
lence only for teaching the doctrine of it.
" But as you had always lived in a strict correspondence and
friendship with that Archbishop, you wrote to him on this sub
ject, and understood that this Monsieur Imbert was an odd
kind of man (the translator calls him hot-headed *), who had
done even in the Church very remarkable extravagances, which
he was more cautious than to boast of to you. His conduct
had been tainted with many other irregularities, which indeed
hindered you from interesting yourself for him any farther in
the business, or to intercede for one in whom at first f you
thought there had been nothing but weakness and ignorance ;"
(for so I choose to transcribe you, and not to follow your
translator's blunders.)
Concerning Monsieur Imbert's other faults I am wholly
ignorant, and therefore cannot pretend to answer for them.
• Une teste malfaite. Reply, p. 182.
t Ou d'abord je n'avois cru que la foiblesse et de I'ignorance. Reply,
p. 182. In whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with ignorance,
p. 188.

332 AN ANSWER TO THE
But as we are by nature exceedingly apt to pity the miserable,
SO I cannot but compassiotiate this poor man's misfortunes, and
tUl I see the contrary made out by some better evidence than
your Lordship has yet given us, I must beg leave to believe him
to have been an honest worthy man. In the meantime I do
not find that in all this you deny the cause of his prosecution
and imprisonment to have been what he declared to yourself
and to the whole world, viz. that he maintained the doctrine
beforementioned. If his diocesan indeed persecuted him, not
for asserting this doctrine, but for those other irregularities you
pretend he was guUty of, prove this, and you do something.
But else, were the man as bad as you represent him, yet if he
suffered for teaching that faith which you expound to us ; if he
produced your book for his warrant, and yet stUl was perse
cuted ; all his other faults will not hinder but that your Lord
ship's doctrine was condemned and punished in him.
And though I am an utter stranger to his conduct, yet if
this matter did pass so as it appears to have done, I will be
bold to say the worst of his irregularities was a venial sin in
comparison of the Archbishop his diocesan's insincerity ; to
prosecute one of his clergy for teaching that doctrine, which in
the General Assembly of 1682, he had, as you tell us, himself
approved. And here I cannot but observe the progress you make in les
sening this poor man. At first you only say, and that nothing
to your purpose, that he was a man of no learning and renown.
When I had published his letter, and which I will again say
was not written by a fool or an idiot ; so that this was not
found sufficient to take off the force of a matter of fact of such
importance : next, his conduct is questioned ; you charge him
with irregularities, but prove none ; nor can you say that he
was prosecuted for any other crime but this one, that he relied
too much upon your authority, and so taught that for the
CathoUc faith, which he since, to his cost, learnt not to be
universal. Judge, my Lord, if this be a generous way of de
fence ; much less becoming the charity of a Christian, and the
dignity of a bishop.
But there is one presumption against all this in your former
letter, and which ought therefore to be considered. Monsieur
Imbert had said in his factutn,'* that his opinion was that the
* Expos. C. E. p. 10.

BISHOP OP meaux's SECOND LETTER. 333
" Church adored not the cross ; and that the contrary opinion
was not only false, but idolatrous. That not only the Protes
tants made their advantage of those who maintained such errors,
but that he himself was scandalized to converse every day with
the missionaries and others, whom he had heard openly preach
a hundred times ; that we ought to adore the cross with Jesus
Christ, as the human nature of our Saviour vrith the divine."
From hence your Lordship* raises this argument to lessen
his credit : " that it never entered into the mind of any
Catholic, that the cross was to be adored with Jesus Christ, as
the human nature of our Saviour with the divine in the person
of the Son of God : and if this man, say you, gives out, he is
condemned for denying those errors, which nobody ever sus-
tained,f he shews his maUce to be as great as his ignorance."
Now certainly, my Lord, it is a very bold undertaking to
answer for all the Catholics of the world, that such or such a
thing never entered into their heads, especially when a person
here positively declares that he had heard it openly preached
, above a hundred times : unless it may be, you esteem this to
be an assertion of such malignity, that a man cannot have it
enter into his mind without the forfeiture of his Catholicism.
I do indeed confess it is a most extravagant notion ; and such
as, one would think, should never enter into any Christian's
thoughts ; but we know too well what excesses those whom
you call Catholics are capable of falling into, and especially
your missionaries, to look upon this assertion to be at all in
credible. But since you are so sure that this never entered into the
mind of any Catholic, what does your Lordship think of your
friend Cardinal Capisucchi ? I suppose a Cardinal and Master
of the sacred Palace may be allowed to pass with you for a good
CathoUc ; and yet in the very tract to which your Lordship
appealed, behold the very thing you here so confidently deny :
" as the human nature of Christ, J though it be a creature, is
adored with supreme adoration, because it is united to the
person of the Word, and with the person ofthe Word makes up
one Christ : so the image of Christ being in its representative
essence one and the same with Christ, is adored with the same
adoration with which Christ is adored." Here, my Lord, is
one Catholic into whose mind this error has entered ; and I
may presume to say, I know another CathoUc of the same
* Vindic. p. 11, 12. t Maintained. | Capisucchi, Ub.- cit. p. 648.

334 AN ANSWER TO THE
mind, even the Bishop of Meaux himself; unless you will
retract here what you before asserted, "that there is nothing
in this treatise of Cardinal Capisucchi, that contradicts your
sentiments." Thus you see how rash you were in your pre
sumption against Monsieur Imbert's assertion; and were I
minded to retort your own conclusion upon you, it would, I
believe, be hard to say whether of those two very ill things
you impute to him, were greater in this reflection.
And now. Reverend Father, to close this objection almost in
your ovra words, " let your heart be truly grieved to see such
objections brought against you ; and consider, if you yet can,
in the anguish of your soul, how by your own fault you have
suffered yourself to be brought into such snares, as too much
shew to what weak and miserable shifts wise men will some
times be reduced, when they do not act by a steady principle
of truth and integrity."
Your next point concerns those extracts* I made from
Cardinal Bona about praying to saints ; "the common dif
ficulty so often repeatedf (not, as your translator has it, pro
posed) by Protestants." You give us some pretended evasions
of the difficulty raised by them ; and then, according to your
wonted tenderness, conclude, " that it troubles a Christian's
heart to see, though the sense of the Church be made never so
evident in her decisions, people should stUl continue thus to
cavil (and as your translator adds, no doubt, for the greater
beauty of the style, to juggle) with you about words."
But all this I shall rather consider in its proper place, where
your Vindicator objects the same things, than enter into any
disputes here. I wiU only observe, that my extracts from
Cardinal Bona, were neither out of his Hymns, nor any other
poetical works ; but out of his Discourse upon your Offices, out
of his last WiU and Testament ; and m which certainly, if any
where, one would think, he would have written with the
greatest exactness. And yet they are so irreconcUable with your
pretended Exposition ofthe CathoUc faith, that I shaU leave it
to any one that has ever read them, to be deluded by you if
he can.
You teU me you wiU say nothing about Monsieur de Witte, J
_" because you find nothing in that objection that concerns you
in particular." Nor vriU I say any more of it than to remind
you, that if your Exposition does concern you, then his case
• Reply, p. 189. t Tant rebatiie. Reply, p. 182. ( Ibid.

BISHOP OF meaux's SECOND LETTER. 335
does so too : for he alleged your Exposition,* as I have shewn
in his defence, and yet was censured by the faculty of Louvain,
without ever being shewed that he alleged it wrongfully.
And because I doubt not, but you would have your general
expressions concerning the Pope's authority expounded by the
Four Propositions of the Clergy of France, 1 682, in which your
Lordship, with the Bishops of Toumay, St. Malo, de la Vaur,
de Chalons, and d'Alet, had the chief hand ; I must put you
in mind that the Archbishop of Strigonia with his clergy has
censured these propositions, and in them, your Lordship's Ex
position, as to that point too, as not delivering the true doctrine
ofthe Catholic Church.
Concerning the Pope's brief to your Lordship,-|- I observed
this : that the very same day that he dated his brief to you
in approbation of your Exposition, he dated another to the late
Bishop of Pamier in approbation of the defence he made of his
authority in the business of the regale. Now if your Exposition
gives his Holiness all that power he pretends to over the Galli-
can Church, he had as much reason to approve your book as
Monsieur de Pamier' s actions. But if in expounding the point
of his authority you give him no such power as he pretends to ;
nay, if you yourself at that very time actually joined with the
other bishops of France in opposition to it, what insincerity
must it be in the head of the Church, Christ's vicar upon earth,
at the same time to claim an authority which neither your book
allows, and you yourself opposed, and yet with the same pen
sign one brief to you in approbation of your doctrine, and
another to Monsieur de Pamier to thank him for his opposing
of it.
And thus have I passed through the several parts of your
Lordship's letter. I could have been very well pleased I might
have been freed of so ungrateful an undertaking, had not your
new reviving of all these things forced me once more to lay
open those faults, which I am both sorry and ashamed that
any one of your dignity should ever have committed.
, I have only remaining here in the close of all, earnestly to
beseech you, " by the bowels and mercy of Christ Jesus our
Sariour," seriously to consider these things. Think on that
account which both you and I must shortly give of what we
are now doing before the Eternal Tribunal.
If I have wilUngly and knowingly varied in the least tittle
• Expos. C. E. p. 34. t Reply, Ibid.

336 AN ANSWER TO THE
from the truth ; if I have slandered your Lordship in any
thing ; nay, if I have but taken any pleasure in discovering
the weakness of a person of your place and character in the
Church ; be I then responsible for it to God, and let mine
enemies triumph in my confusion.
But if I have spoken nothing but in the necessary defence
of the truth, and in a spirit of charity remonstrated to you
your prevarications : if your own conscience be a thousand
witnesses, to tell you that these things are indeed so, as I have
now exposed them to your and the world's consideration ; 0,
my Lord, think then upon these things. Whilst you have yet the
time, give God the glory. Take that shame and confusion to
yourself now, which may prevent an eternal confusion hereafter.
Consult, consider, and be vrise ; and take it not in scorn
that I have shewn you the way to surmount all these re
proaches. To exchange that scandal which you have given to
the Church, for a name that shall never be forgotten. Declare
only what in truth you are. Put off those disguises you have
hitherto walked in, and confess once for all that your Church
has erred, and stands in need of a reformation. It is in vain
to palUate, what your books, your practice, all declare to us.
Your errors, in short, may be reformed, but they are too
notorious to be denied, too gross to be justified.
Sect. II.
Wherein are considered those false imputations which the
Vindicator has cast upon me, and upon the rest of my
Brethren of the Church of England.
Hitherto I have been considering the weak defences of an
insincere yet moderate adversary. I must now shift the scene,
and prepare from henceforth to encounter nothing but rudeness
and incivility. So much easier is it esteemed by some men to
blacken an enemy, than to answer him ; and what they cannot
do by confuting his reasons, they hope to make up by lessen
ing his reputation.
It was the consideration of St. Cyprian, in his answer to such
another antagonist as I have now to do vrith,* "that though
he had before thought it better with silence to despise his
ignorance, than by speaking to provoke his madness, remem-
* Ad Demetrianum, pp. 185, 186. Ed. Oxon. [1G82.]

vindicator's reflections. 337
hering that advice of Solomon, Prov. xxUi. 9, Speak not in
the ears of a fool, for he will despise the vrisdom of thy
words : and again, chap. xxvi. 4, Answer not a fool
according to his folly, lest thou also be Uke unto him. Yet
when he began to caluminate the Christians, as the authors of
aU the evils that befel the world ; he then esteemed himself
obliged to speak ; lest his silence should now be imputed not
so much to his modesty, as to his diffidence ; and whilst he
scorned to refute his false accusations, he should seem to
acknowledge the faults with which they had been charged."
Had this gentleman, who has thought fit to make himself my
adversary, so laid his reproaches upon me, as not to have
wounded through my sides the common interests of the Church
of England, I should have judged it as unnecessary to take
notice of his revilings, as I esteem it to be unchristian to return
them : and have contented myself with that general answer
which the Archangel once gave to the father of lies,* "The
Lord rebuke thee." But now that I am marked out not so
much a private person, as the defender of a public cause ; now
that the rest of my brethren are all represented as guilty of the
same iUs that I am charged vrith ; and our very religion itself
impeached as needing such defences, as both that and we
detest and condemn; it would be want of charity to the Church
I am of, rather than any breach of it towards such an enemy,
to decline a just defence : I shall therefore take up the
example of this holy Father, as mine adversary has done that of
his antagonist ;-f " lest if I scorn to refute his false accusa
tions, I should seem to acknowledge the faults with which we
are charged." §. L
It has ever been esteemed the first step to invaUdate the
credit of such kind of imputations, to shew the calumniating
spirit in the author of them. Here therefore I wUl begin my
defence ; and were I to prove this to him only who has been
the author of these reproaches, I am persuaded I need only
appeal to his own conscience to bear witness against him. But
since I can expect but little justice from one from whom I have
received so great an injury, and am now by a public scandal,
called forth (against my vrill) to as public a vindication ; you
must excuse me. Sir, if I take all the Christian ways of a fair
defence which charity allows me ; and shew your testimony in
* St. Jude 9. t See St. Cypr. before.
VOL. XII. Z

338 AN ANSWER TO THE
this matter to be so vefy suspicious, that "though the jury be
not packed, nor the vulgar caUed in to give their verdict,"* yet
I doubt not but all reasonable men vrill confess that you are a
very unfit witness to be credited against me.
And first ; though I perceive I shall displease you in the
allegation, yet I must beg leave to repeat what I before said in
my Defence,t " that some men do think that any thing may
be done against a heretic ; and that lying and calumny are
but venial sins, when committed vrith a good intention to
serve the Church, an4 to blacken an adversary." You are
pleased indeed vrith great assurance to deny this ; and teU us,
vrith your usual smcerity,]; " that you have heard some Roman
Catholics accused as if they taught such doctrines ; but that
you always found the calumny to stand at the accuser's doors,
whose art was only (according to your GentUe way of expressing
things) to cry whore first."
I could wish that not only for the sake of your old casuists,
but of some at least of your new converts, you had not been
so very positive in this particular. For beUeve me. Sir, I
could tell you the men who are not ashamed at this day pubhcly
to own what you so confidently deny. And indeed it were
better that you yourself believed it too, unless you would
resolve to leave off to practise it. It being more tolerable to
do evil by foUowing the guidance of an erroneous conscience,
than to know a thing to be sinful, and yet to commit it.
But you deny that any of your Church have ever held any
such doctrine. I pray. Sir, of what Church were those who in
their solemn Theses pubhcly defended (and that in the most
formal terms), " that it is but a venial sin by false accusations
to lessen the authority of one that detracts from us, if it be
like to prove hurtful to us." This was openly maintained in
the University of Louvain,§ in the year 1645. And I cannot
choose but think, that in your opinion at least, I may be one
of those that are meant by it. You tell me often that I have
detracted from you, and my authority therefore, if it be not
lessened, may be hurtful to you ; and how shall I be sure that
you esteem it more than a venial sin, by false accusations to
detract from me? I shall not need to multiply authorities from
your particular casuists to prove this ; since the condemnation
that was made of this very doctrine in the decree of the present
• Reply, p. 37. + Defence, p. 16. X Reply, p. 43.
§ Provincial Letter, XV.

vindicator's reflections. 339
Pope, no longer ago than 1679, wUl satisfy the world that such
things have been taught in your Church ; and a man must
have a great deal of charity to suppose, that after so solemn
an act as this, you could indeed be ignorant of it. You may
consult at your leisure the 43rd and 44th opinions there men
tioned, and consider the meaning of this doctrine contained in
them, " that it is only a venial sin in any to lessen the great
authority of another which is hurtful to himself, by charging
him vrith some false crime. — It is probable that he does
not sin mortally, who fastens a false crime upon another,
that he may defend his own justice and honour : and if this
be not probable, there is scarce any opinion probable in
dirinity." And now. Sir, I am pretty confident that, if not for my sake,
yet in duty to his Holiness's decree, you will a little mollify
your charge of calumny against me for this assertion ; and if
ybu desire any farther conviction, you may please when you
write next to the Bishop of Meaux, to engage him to inquire
of his new disciple. Father Crasset, whether he never heard of
one who for practising this doctrine in the very pulpit, was by
ordinance ofthe Bishop of Orleans, Sept. 9, 1656, forbid to
preach in his diocese,* and the people to hear him under pain
of a mortal disobedience. Really, Sir, when I consider vrith
what assurance you deny a matter so well known to all the
world, and compare it vrith the maxims by which you have
proceeded against me in your Reply, I cannot but fear that after
aU your pretences, this doctrine may have had some influence
upon you : however, seeing it is plain that you make so Uttle
scruple to practise it, you should not have been so very positive
in denying it.
But this is only a general presumption : and I shall be con
tent that it be no farther remembered against you, than I shall
hereafter make it appear your actions do deserve. I must now
come more closely to you ; and because I would not trespass
too much upon either yours or the reader's patience, by making
any tedious proof of that which I am confident you know, and
the other vrill soon see does not need any : I vriU offer only
three or four considerations, out of many that occur to me, to
invalidate your authority.
And here not to mention, first, that great care you seem
industriously to have taken that your reproaches might not be
* Provincial Letters, L. XV.
Z 2

340 AN .vnswer to the
lost (whatever became of your arguments), by summing them
up into a catalogue at the beginning of your Reply, and after
wards filUng all along your margin vrith the Uke scandalous
reflections : to pass by, secondly, your nauseous repetitions of
the very same charges, not only in the same place, but almost
in the very same words ; as if my faults were to increase in
proportion to your repetitions of them : to say nothing, thirdly,
of those general accusations you often bring, not against myself
alone, but the rest of my brethren of the Church of England,
vrithout so much as the least shadow of a proof of them; what
less than an unquestionable argument of a detracting spirit can
arise. First, From those obUging titles you every where bestow
upon me, even where you have not so much as a pretence for
it ; and that scandalous idea you would from thence give your
reader of me.
Shall I gratify your ear vrith a repetition of some few of
them ? Hear then those strains of rhetoric you so delight in.
"A doctor ofthe populace," p. 31. A pretended "son of
peace," p. 76. A pretended " lover of peace and unity, but
indeed a multipUer of accusations to hinder such good effects,"
p. 60. "One that courts the applause ofthe vulgar," p. 25.
" And has learnt a MachiavelUan trick to keep them from seeing
what is as clear as the sun, by casting a thick mist of
calumnies before their eyes," p. 36. " One who is vrilling to
let himself be persuaded of any thing that but renders the
Papists odious," p. 28. "That has a wilUngness to shew at
least some kind of opposition to every thing that is said," p.
61. "Rash and bold in his assertions," p. 64. "Far from
agreeing to any thing that has once been esteemed a difficulty,"
p. 81. "Having no intention to contribute any thing to the
healing of the Church in any punctilio," ib. " Whose whole
business is nothing but shifts," p. 82. "One that is loath to
trouble himself with such distinctions as make for peace," p.
126. "That is conscious to himself that he cannot defend
his cause, and yet has not sincerity enough to repent," p.
155. " One that is wilful in his mistakes, and knows them
well enough, if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge
it," p. 22. " In short, one that does not believe himself what
he writes, though he is wiUing that others should beUeve
him," pp. 54, 55. I pass by your more common appellations of
•'falsifier," "cavUler," " unchristian and unscholar-like calum
niator," "perverter ofthe Church's sense," "vrilfuUy blind,"

vindicator's reflections. 341
^•wilful prevaricator," "wilful mistaker of your doctrine,"
" insincere," &c. AU which you either in express terms call m'e,
pr at least insinuate me to be ; and of which we must discourse a
Uttle by and hy. For indeed I think, what I have already
mentioned may be sufficient to satisfy any sober man, how weU
versed you are in the controversial dialect of your party : and
whether you were not exceedingly desirous that something
should stick, when you took all this pains,* in your own
phrase, " to cast so much dirt upon me."
Secondly, Nor does it less betray the trae nature of your
spUit, to consider what pitiful, light occasions you lay hold on,
to run out into the most terrible outcries against me.
'Thus in the Article of Satisfactions, the Bishop of Meaux
distinguishes between two sorts of remission of sins ; the one,
wherein God entirely forgives us, without reserving any
punishment ;t the other a partial remission only, wherein he
changes a greater punishment into a less, that is, an eternal
pain nito a temporal: "This first manner (says the Bishop)
being more complete, and more conformable to his goodness, he
makes use of it immediately in baptism : but we suppose he
makes use of the second in the pardon he grants to those that
faU after baptism."
In my Exposition, I tell him, " that this is a very great
doctrine, and ought to be tendered to us vrith some better
argument, than a bare, we suppose."
Upon this you make a tragical outcryj against me for an in
corrigible falsifier, that though you had before told me of
my prevaricating, yet I still take no notice of it ; for that the
Bishop of Meaux says no such thing. What, not as we sup
pose ? No ; but what then does he say ? Consider, reader,
ihi falsification, and be astonished at his cavil ; he says only,
we believe. And now let any one from henceforth trust me
that can, that am so plainly caught in so important a cheat.
But pray. Sir, bating that it serves to fill up your catalogue
and margin with a hard word against me, what is the great
difference now between saying, we suppose that God does not
remit the whole punishment, and, we believe that he does not ?
You tell us, "this latter phrase was conformable to his design
of an exposition, not a proof." And is not we suppose as
conformable to the design of an exposition, and as Uttle fit for
a proof, as we believe ? Really, Sir, I am persuaded the
* Reply, p. 4. + Expos, sect. viii. p. 14. X Reply, p. 54.

342 AN ANSWER TO THE
reader will think, that had you marked this observation with
a cavil in your margin, you would have expressed yourself
more properly, than by putting a, falsification to it. And yet,
though it be hardly worth the while, I vrill tell you what
I presume might be the occasion of this Uttle difference ; for
really I am not yet convinced that it deserves to be caUed a
mistake. In my edition of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, which I
have so often had occasion to speak of, the word is neither so
exactly as you, or I, render it ; but another to the same sense,
we esteem. Now this being no very proper EngUsh phrase,
and having not yet set eyes on your translation, when I wrote
my Exposition, I chose rather the word we suppose, as bearing
the same sense, and being on this occasion more generally
used amongst us. This, Sir, I believe was the ground of our
difference ; and one that had not a huge mind to find faults
would have been ashamed to inscribe so great a crime as falsi
fication, to a trifle that all men of sense vrill despise, and that
I ought to apologize but only for taking notice of. Though
yet perhaps I have taken the only way to make it consider
able, by observing from it, what spirit and disposition you
are of.
Another opportunity of clamour that you lay hold on is this ;
and for meanness cousin-german to the foregoing. In the
point of the mass, the Bishop of Meaux, vrilling to take off the
argument which the Epistle to the Hebrews raises against it,
observes, that " the Apostle concludes, that we ought not only
to offer up no more victims after Jesus Christ, but that Jesus
Christ himself ought to be but once offered up to death for us."
In my Exposition, I thus quote him,* "Monsieur de Meaux
thus observes, that the author of this Epistle concludes, that
there ought not only no other victim to be offered for sin, after
that of Christ, but that even Christ himself ought not to be
any more offered. Now the reason which the Apostle gives
is this, because that otherwise (says he), Christ must often
have suffered, Heb. ix. 25. Plainly implying that there can be
no true offering vrithout suffering ; so that in the mass then,
either Christ must suffer, which Monsieur de Meaux denies,
or he is not offered, which we affirm."
But where now is Xhs falsification ? "why I make advan
tage (you say), ofthe Bishop's words by an imperfect quota-
* P. 67. Art. xxi. [xxii.]

vindicators reflections. 343
tion ;* for had I added but the next words, they would have
solved the difficulty." The next words you mean are these ;
" that Christ ought to be but once offered up to death for us."
The difficulty was this ; Christ can be but once offered because
he can no more suffer : Monsieur de Meaux confesses that
Christ can no more suffer ; (which I think is the meaning of his
words, "that he can be but once offered up to death for us ;")
therefore he ought to confess, that he can be no more offered.
Good, Sir, enlighten us a little in this matter : for I assure
you by offering I meant offering to death, the only kind of
offering that I know of a true and proper sacrifice ; and the in
terposing of those words are so far from clearing the difficulty,
as you pretend, that without either them, or some other equi
valent to them, my argument is utterly lost. And now, let
the reader judge, whether that man be not fond of calumniating
his adversary, that can have the face to call this a, falsification.
And hitherto I have offered some presumptions to shew
vrith what spirit you write against us : I vrill now come to such
proofs as shall put it beyond aU doubt, and shew you to he
what I am sure ought to lessen your credit against us, a most
false and unjust accuser of our brethren. For,
Thirdly, What else can be said of those charges you bring
against me, of such crimes as vrithout some Divine revelation you
can never be sure of? And though I think enthusiasm,f no
more than miracles, is not yet ceased in your Church, yet you
tell me that you do not yourself pretend to be inspired, and I
do not hear that you have at this time any hypochondriac lady
amongst you, to deliver oracles to you upon these occasions.
You reflect upon me as one, "who am conscious that I
cannot defend my cause, yet have not the sincerity to repent :
that I speak such things, as would I deUver my conscience, I
know to he false : that I am wilful in my mistakes, and do not
myself believe what I write, though I am wilUng that others
should." Thus you charge me with a sin somewhat Uke the
sin against the Holy Ghost ; that knowing the way of truth,
I not only refuse to embrace it myself, but (as you sometimes
insinuate too) keep as many others as I can out of it.
But this. Sir, I take it, is to divine, not to reason : should
I tell you in return I have some cause to believe, that if you
do indeed credit your own calumnies, it is because you measure
my insincerity by the sense you have of your own hypscrisy.
Reply, p. 126. t Reply, Pref. p. 24.

344 AN ANSWER TO THE
I should not perhaps be altogether out in my conjecture. But,
Sir, I shall leave you rather to the judgment of God, to whom
alone these secrets are known. And to return to my own de
fence ; tell me, I beseech you. Sir (if you can), what occasion
my hfe and manners have given you for such reflections ? Are
my interests in the Church of England so great, or my expec
tations otherwise so low in the world, as to prompt me to such
villany ? Is conversion so certain a way to ruin, that a man
should rather damn himself for ever, than follow the dictates
of his conscience, at this time of day especially, to embrace your
religion ?
It is well known to several of your ovm Church (and whose
civiUties to me I shall always most thankfully acknowledge),
vrith what readiness I have at all times pursued the means of
instruction. Let them tell you. Sir, if ever they found me
inclined to such perverseness or hypocrisy, as you here most
unchristianly suggest against me. They know my conduct
whUst I was amongst them ; and from what some of them very
honourably have done, I ought not to doubt but that the rest
will at any time justify me against such scandalous insinua
tions. So free I was in my inquiries, so desirous of imder-
standing both your reUgion and your reasons to the bottom ;
that many of your Church were incUned to think, what I hear
others did not stick confidently to report, that I designed to
come over to you. And though after a most impartial exa
mination of your arguments, I remained more convinced than
ever, both of the purity of my own, and of the dangerous
corruptions of your Church ; yet I assure you. Sir, I am the
same indifferent person I ever was. Not vrilling indeed to be
deluded with sophistry, nor to follow every guide that vrill
vrithout any reason pretend to lead me ; but most vrilling to
yield to truth wherever I find it. And however you may
uncharitably represent me to the world ; yet I faithfuUy pro
mise you, that if even in this reproachful book of yours, there
should be anything to convince me that I am mistaken, I will
not fail ingenuously to acknowledge it ; and where I am not
convinced, you may suddenly expect to receive my reasons
of it.
There is now but one thing more remaining to make a de
monstrative proof of a calumniating spirit and design in vou :
and that is.
Lastly, To shew, that you accuse me not only of such
things as you can never be sure are trae, but such as you

VINDICATOR S REFLECTIONS. 345
know to be evidently false ; nay, of such as I have shewn you
already to be so, and that so clearly, that you have nothing to
return to it, and yet still you persist in your calumnies against
me. This I think is the last degree of proof ; and I shall leave
it to yourself to judge whether I do not make it good against
you. In the article of extreme unction, I expounded those words
of St. James v. 14, 15, of the miraculous cures which were
in those days common in the Church ; and added in confir
mation of it, " that Cardinal Cajetan* himself freely confessed
they could belong to no other." — To this you reply in your
Vindication, f " that had I said that Cardinal Cajetan thought
it could not be proved, neither from the words, nor from the
effect, that the words of St. James speak of the sacramental
unction of extreme unction, but rather of that unction which
our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his
disciples on the sick ; I had been a faithful quoter of his
sense ; but to say that he freely confesses it can belong to no
other, is to impose upon my readers."
In my Defence I shew the vanity of this cavU : that seeing
there were but two interpretations proposed of these words,
either to refer them to extreme unction, or to miraculous
cures, for the Cardinal utterly to exclude the former, and apply
them to the latter, was certainly in effect (for I pretended not
to give his words) to confess that they could belong to no
other. Instead of answering this, you again charge me both in
your catalogue and in your margin vnth falsification as to this
point. " I told him," say you, " that Cardinal Cajetan did
not positively say as he affirmed he did :" and then presently,
as if your conscience had given your reflection the lie ; you
go on, "" But what if he had ?" Why traly. Sir, then any one
may see that it was not any concern for truth, but a mere
desire to defame me, that here inspired you to lay so great
a crime to my charge, and your own conscience at the same
time seems to have told you, that you did not yourself beUeve
me to be guilty of it. §. II.
And thus have I shewn from the very nature of your Reply,
vrith what design it is that you write against us. I might
• Expos. C. E. p. 44. Art. xiv. t Vindic. p. 70.

346 AN ANSWER TO THE
now go on to consider your arguments, without troubling
myself to return any more particular answer to your reproaches.
But it is fit the world should be fuUy satisfied of your charac
ter : and indeed the reasonings of your Reply are not so
dangerous, but that we may venture to let them lie, whilst we
go on to consider your reviUngs.
I shall need no other apology for this undertaking, than
what you yourself have already made for me. It is I confess
an ungrateful employment to expose the vices even of an enemy.
But where a public challenge' is made, and the greatest of
crimes charged upon those who abhor such villanies : in your
own words, *" where so great a concern as the reputation of an
innocent Church is joined vrith the single honour of such an
adversary as you are ; I think I may be excused if I let the
dirt fall where it ought, when by vriping it off from the one, it
must necessarily stick upon the other."
Your reflections are of two kinds : either such as strike at
the generaUty of our Church ; or such as concern myself only.
I shall take a view of both in their order. And,
1 St. Your reflections on the generahty of the Church of
England, Are such as these. " That they are menf whose interest
and malice prompt them to defame you. I. VI. Who, when
ever any argument pinches them, fall to revUing : and make it
their business to misrepresent your doctrines ; to calumniate
your practices, and to ridicule your ceremonies. V. From
whom nothing is to be expected but clamour, insincerity, and
misrepresentation. XII. Who seem to have no other end in
all their controversial books and sermons, but to cry down
Popery at any rate, lest they should suffer prejudice by its
increase. XXIII. Who keep their people in ignorance, and
pretending to be their guides, shew themselves by their writing
to be blind, or which is worse, malicious. XXV. Men, who
from tl^eir very pulpits second the common cry. XIII.
Lest people should open their eyes, and see the truth ; and
so whilst they pretend to be lovers of peace and unity, yet
resolve to multiply accusations to hinder such good effects, p.
60. Men, who cannot endure that any of their party should
seem to close with Rome, as those who live by breaking the
Church's peace, 80. Men, who have been estranged from
devotion, 37. And are so far biassed, many of them, in their
* Reply, p. 4. t Reply, Preface.

vindicator's reflections. 347
affections to their party, that they ¦will scarce allow themselves
their common senses in the examen of things, but pass their
votes against anything that leads towards Popery, though
against justice, equity, and conscience, 115, 155. Factious
spirits, who have animated the pulpit's zeal, to hinder the Par
liament from going on to testify its loyalty as it had begun, by
throwing fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were
bigotted in their religion. XI. Men, in short, who manage
things upon poUtic motives to gratify some persons at this
juncture, lest there should appear a possibiUty of union vrith
the Church of Rome. 46. Who have something more in the
bottom, than what appears at first sight, in being thus zealous
against Popery. As Queen Elizabeth had, who being con
scious of her mother's marriage, and her ovra birth, run out
against the Pope, to secure her title to the crovra of England ;
not foreseeing the ill consequences that vrill follow in the
nation, 5. By keeping open our bleeding divisions to the rain
both of Church and State, 123."
This, Sir, is your charge ; and such as either they or you
must resolve to sink under the burden of it. The truth is, I
cannot but wonder, that a person who gravely exhorts others,
" to consider what rash judgment is,* and what punishment
God has reserved for those that are guilty of it," should be
able to speak of so exceUent a body of men, in so infamous a
maimer. For certainly greater crimes than these can hardly
be imputed to the devil himself ; and I am verily persuaded
that in aU this scandalous catalogue there is not one single
allegation either in itself trae ; or which (now. Sir, that you
are hereby publicly chaUenged to it) you shall ever be able
to make good against us. But I must be more particular.
And, 1st. The first charge against us is, "that whenever your
arguments pinch us, we faU to reviUngs, and make it our busi
ness to blacken and calumniate you; to misrepresent your
doctrines, and to ridicule your ceremonies."
I vriU not here in return to this clamour desire the world to
consider, how unfit a preacher you are of honesty and civility,
who have shevm yourself in this Reply to have observed but
very little any measures of either. I wUl rather entreat you
to reflect, how unfortunately this charge has been managed by
the first undertaker of it ;t who having advanced such a charge
* Reply, p. 28. t The Misrepresenter.

348 AN ANSWER TO THE
against us in thirty-seven particulars, and being fuUy answered
to every one, never durst vindicate his calumny against the first
attack, though the challenge stiU Ues against him to do it. And
methinks whUst those large defences* remain yet vrithout a
vindication, it is a great assurance and indiscretion too in you,
by reviring the calumny, to put the world in mind where it has
been shewn to Ue. I know not what opinions you may have of
your Church and of your arguments. But we have always found
so much to censure in the one, and so little to press us in the
others, that we have never had the least temptation to run to
such shifts, as you here accuse us of. But what can be done,
when men dissemble their doctrines, misrepresent their prac
tices, and outface the plainest matters of fact ; and then cry
out nothing but calumny, and falsification, if any one goes
about to discover their hypocrisy. But,
Secondly, Your next charge is yet more grievous; "you
tax us vrith malice and interest to defame you ; and say, that
by the methods by which we carry on disputes, we give you
cause to think, that we have no other end in all our contro
versial books or sermons, but to cry down Popery at any rate,
lest we should suffer prejudice by its increase."
That is, in other words, that those of the Church of
England who oppose your 'designs, are all of them a pack of
atheists and hypocrites ; who value nothing hut their temporal
interests ; and therefore seem resolved at any rate to run down
Popery, lest they should suffer prejudice by its increase. A
character so vile and scandalous ; so void of all appearance of
truth as well as of modesty, as sufficiently shews what manner
of spirit it was that assisted you in the writing it. And who
soever he be to whom it belongs ; Tros Rutulusve fuit ; let
him be anathema.
But I reply to this calumny : 1st, That this is a charge
which you can no otherwise pretend to make good than by our
outward actions ; for I am confident you never received any
assurances of this kind in confession from us. Now then, tell
me, I beseech you ; or rather. Sir, tell the world, before which
you have traduced us, from which of our actions is it that you
presume to pass so uncharitable a censure against us ? Are
our lives so scandalous, or our writings so destitute of aU sense
of religion, as to speak us to be governed only by maUce and
interest ? Do we no longer preach up the doctrines of piety in
* See below. Close.

vindicator's reflections. 349
our sermons ; nor profess in our assemblies the belief of a
future judgment, and an eternal state of life or death after
this ? Either make good this charge against us, or resolve to
fall under the weight of that infamy you thought to have cast
upon us. And remember what you tell me (and what I know
not any one in the world on whom I can more properly
bestow it than yourself) of a certain necessary duty both to
God and men ; vis. " of making a public acknowledgment of
those calumnies you have thrown upon us,* and without which
(according to your own sentence) you cannot expect your sin
to be forgiven you." But,
2ndly, You affirm that it is out of malice and interest that
we oppose you. As to the former of these, I confess indeed
your principles and your actions too, against those you call
heretics, are such as might almost tempt a good man to
maUce against you. But, Sir, those principles and those prac
tices are so contrary to Christianity too, that no man need be
acted by malice, whUst it is so much his duty to oppose you.
You may call our firmness (as you do our religion) what you
please : it is easy to give ill names to the best things. But
whilst our arguments stand good against you, no man can, vrith
out great uncharitableness say, that it is out of malice that we
oppose you ; seeing those shew, that it is a well-grounded zeal
for the truth and purity of the Gospel, that moves us against
such corrupters of it as you are, and which shall, I trust, make
us steady even to the death against you.
For the other part of your charge, interest .- were a Chris
tian capable of being led by so base a motive, yet how comes
this to inspire us against you? 1st, Is there so much less of
interest to he carried on in the Church of Rome, than in the
Church of England ? Have not the clergy on your side as
great a command over the consciences and over the purses too
of their flock, as on ours ? Where would our interests suffer
by preaching up the golden doctrines of satisfactions, pur
gatory, indulgences, masses, and prayers for the dead; of
the necessity of auricular confessions, and of the priest's
power to forgive sins ? Certainly, Sir, you forgot yourself
when you imputed our firmness to this motive. It has indeed
been an objection against you, that in most of those points
wherein you differ from us, you have secular interests to serve
by them : but I never yet heard that the divines of the
» Reply, p. 172.

350 AN ANSWER TO THE
Church of England had any such interests to oppose these cor
ruptions. 2. Again, those who have been so honest (in your opinion at
least), as to lay aside their malice and follow a good conscience
in embracing of your reUgion, have their temporal interests
sustained any loss by it ? Much more would aU those who
now write or speak against you, come over to you, wherein I
pray would their worldly concerns lose by their so doing ?
3. But it may be, we gain something by being firm to our
principles : as to the other world no doubt but we do ; but
will you say. Sir, that they who are the most stedfast against
Popery, do take the readiest course to advance their fortunes by
it in this ? In short, were we so vricked as to be governed by
so mean a consideration, I do assure you we are not so bUnd
as not to see whither interest would lead us. And I shall leave
it to the world to judge, whether it has not pleased God here to
direct your malice to your own confusion, in choosing out such
a topic as this whereby to calumniate our stedfastness. But,
Thirdly, There is yet a third thing which you insinuate as
another means we use, to keep our party firm against you, and
that is ignorance.* " You desire them to read your book, that
they may see how much they have been kept in ignorance by
us :" Pref. You mean, I suppose, as to the points wherein we
differ from you, and which are many of them very considerable.
Now were this indeed so, yet methinks it is not very decent
for a guide of the Church of Rome to complain of it. The
truth is, we do give our people all the instruction that we can.
We put the holy Scriptures into their hands in their own
tongue ; we exhort them to read them ; and we know who
they are that not only do not do this, but blame us for doing
it. We instruct them vrith all diUgence, by writing, preaching,
catechising, &c. ; and as ignorant as they are, yet we find
them (and so do you too), too vrise to be deluded by such se
ducers as would fain draw them away from us. There is no one
so ignorant but what can at least give you an orthodox summary
of his belief ; can say Amen, with understanding, to the pubhc
service : and in short can tell you. Sir, that which all your
learning, or, because that is not much, I may add, and all the
learning of your Church, wiU never be able to answer : " That
God spake these words and said, 1. Thou shalt have none
other gods but me. 2. Thou shalt not make to thyself any
graven image, nor the likeness of any thing in heaven above,
* Reply, Pref.

VINDICATORS REFLECTIONS. 351
or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth; thou
shalt not bow down to them nor worship them."
As for those rare mysteries of Ave Marias and Pater Nos-
ters ; of the extraordinary virtues of holy water and Agnus
Deis ; of St. Francis's girdle, St. Dominick's beads, and
Simon Stock's scapulary ;*. of the great significancy of oil and
balsam ; of white fillets and boxes on the ear ; of ashes and in
cense ; of Ughted tapers and naked images ; of the several
ways of Ufting up hands, and crossing and knocking breasts ;
of standing, bovring, creeping, &c.; in these I confess our people
have (for us) been kept in ignorance ; and I hope they vrill
never have occasion of being instracted in them. But for any
ignorance of any thing that is worth their knowledge even in
your religion (which I suppose you here especially aim at),
for any designed concealment of your true doctrine from them,
much more for any thing generally necessary, or but profitable
to their salvation, we must beg leave to justity ourselves in the
words of St. Paul, " that we have not shunned to declare unto
them all the counsel of God."f
III. Your next charge is, " that we have been estranged
from devotion."J And, indeed, what wonder is it, if men,
who, as you say, are acted only by the influences of malice
and interest, are not much acquainted with the ardours of de
votion ? But, Sir, setting calumny apart, whence is it that you
derive this charge against us ? Have we no service of God in
our churches ? Or is our Liturgy so unapt to excite devotion
in those who duly attend upon its offices ? Have you never.
Sir, yourself heard us recommend ¦with all earnestness, the
practice of this piety to our congregations? Should we put
our prayers into an unknown tongue, that if not the zeal, yet
at least the wonder and astonishment of the people might be
increased ? Instead of reading our service aloud, would you
have us tum our backs to the assembly, and whisper they
know not what between our hands into a comer that nobody
may hear us 1 Or, what is it. Sir, that we must do to satisfy
you, that we are not utterly estranged from devotion ? In
short, aU the pretence I find you have for this charge is, " that
we think many of your ceremonies uncouth ;"§ and you tell us
it is because we are unacquainted vrith devotion : but we vriU
take your own words, for indeed they are very extraordinary, and
• Reply, p. 66. t Acts xx. 20, 27.
X Reply, p. 37. § R«ply. P- 37.

352 AN ANSWER TO THE
it is pity they should be lost. The case you say is this : " As
the Church of England in general for gravity and reverend be
haviour exceeds the conventicles, or other Reformed Churches;
so the cathedrals of the Church, we confess, are more solemn
than the country churches ; the Catholics, as it is fit, far beyond
the English cathedrals; and what is the issue ? The churches
of England are censured as superstitious by the kirkmen and
conventiclers ; the cathedrals are censured as such by the
parish churches ; and the Catholic is censured also by the Re
formed cathedral : still the more solemn and devout Church is
censured by the less."*
So that here now is a religious war ; and the conventicles,
the parish churches, the cathedrals, and the mass-houses are,
in their respective synods, assembled to damn and anathe
matize one another ; and you as a CathoUc Moderator thus
decide the controversy : There is a little devotion (and but
very little) in the conventicles ; there is somewhat more in
the parish churches ; there is a pretty deal more in the cathe
drals; only in the mass-house is to be found the perfection of
piety, the ne plus ultra of devotion upon earth.
Is not this rare stuff ? And will not the world, think you,
be strangely edified at so demonstrative a proof that we are
(God be thanked, not totally, but yet, especiahy when we
go to our parish churches, very much) estranged from de
votion ?
But pray. Sir, where is the necessity, that because we have
not so much ceremony as you, we must be further estranged
from devotion too ? If you ¦will allow our Saviour and his
Apostles ; if you vrill grant that the primitive Christians were
devout vrithout all this ceremony, why may not we be so too ?
And if we may, how vrill you justify yourself from being
grossly uncharitable in thus insinuating, upon so slender a
ground, that we are not ? We want nothing that may serve
for decency and order in God's service ; the ceremonies we
have cast off are only those useless ones, of whose burden St.
Augustine, even in his time, complained, who was yet, I hope,
no stranger to devotion.
To go no ftirther than those ceremonies upon which you thus
traduce us. In your Good-Friday service, " the priest takes a
cross, and standing on one side of the altar, uncovers a little of
it from the top, and then sings. Behold the wood of the cross;
the people answering, Come, let us adore; and at the same time
• Ibid. p. 38.

VINDICATOR S REFLECTIONS. 353
falling down upon their faces ; then he goes out to the other
side of the altar, and uncovers the right arm of it, and sings,
whUst the people answer and faU down as before ; then he
comes to the middle of the altar, and quite uncovers it, and so
they all fall down and sing as before ; then he sets it up on a
place befisre the altar, and pulls off his shoes, and comes up to
adore the cross, bending his knee three times before he kisses
it ; after this, the rest of the priests, and the people, two and
two, do the Uke."*
This is the manner of that service; and to say the truth, it
does seem to us very uncouth, and to have but little of the true
spirit of devotion in it ; but, however, let us for one moment
suppose it to be a reasonable service, pray. Sir, why might not
there have been as much piety, though there had been less
ceremony? For instance: what if the priest had uncovered
the cross all at once ? What if he had stood aU the whUe in
the same place, and not uncovered one part at one end of the
altar, a second at the other, the rest in the middle ? Might
not the people have had the same zeal by beholding the cross,
to adore him that suffered upon it? Suppose the priest and the
congregation had gone with their •shoes on to the place where
the cross stood (as I believe verily they might have done, for
all God's command to Moses to put his shoes from off his
feet,t because the place on which he stood, was hy God's
presence made holy ground) ; nay, what if instead of bending
their knees three times before they kissed it, they had done it
but once, or not at all ? I confess in this case a great deal of
the state of the business had been lost, and the people would
not have been half so agreeably entertained ; but I cannot
see why they might not have had the same true, inward de
votion towards our Saviour for all any such defect.
To conclude this : If you can prove that we have no regard
to decency or order in God's service ; if you can shew that
we despise prayer, or neglect to exhort our people to the prac
tice of it ; if we do, Uke you, amuse them only with noise
and show, instead of a reasonable, intelligible service ; some
times whisper the prayers, that they cannot always speak them
in such a language that the ignorant among you do not know
how to improve their zeal by them ; then, in God's name, con
tinue to revile us : but if you cannot say we do anything of this
kind, I must then plainly tell you, that you have most unchris
tianly judged us ; and I beseech you, as ever you would free
• Missale Rom. t Reply, p. 37.
VOL. XII. 2 A

354 AN ANSWER TO THE
yourself from being thought a calumniator, give us but any one
argument that an honest man shall not blush to read, to prove
us, as you say, estranged from devotion.
IV. And hitherto you have aimed especially at the clergy of
the Church of England ; your next reflection is upon the laity;
and indeed it was but fit that having set forth the guides as
men of no religion, you should represent the flock to have
neither justice, equity, nor conscience. But we will take it in
your own words :*
You tell us then of some among us, " that are so biassed in
their affections to our party, that they vrill scarce allow them
selves their common senses in the examen, but pass their votes
against any thing that tends towards Popery, though against
justice, equity, and conscience."
This, Sir, is another of those severe reproaches, which with
out the least shadow of a proof, you cast on many of our
Church ; and for which, tiU you shall think fit by some very
good arguments to clear yourself, I must again beg leave to
esteem you a caltynmator.
In the meantime, till you shall think fit to remove that
reproach you may please to know, that men so prejudiced and
obstinate as you speak of, whatever they may pretend, yet reaUy
are none of our disciples : we direct all men, as you very well
know, to use both their senses and their reason in examining
their reUgion ; and you can sometimes alter your note, and
inveigh against us for our so doing. And we should be
heartily sorry that any of our friends should be so nigh to
a perversion, as to haye abandoned the use of any of these
faculties. They pass their votes, you say, against any thing that tends
towards Popery, though against justice, equity, and con
science. This I am sure they never learnt of us. We have
always directed men to act according to justice, equity, and
conscience ; and not to be afraid of any thing that is good,
because a Papist does it. Indeed, Sir, I have heard of some
who, when they receive a proselyte into their Church, make
him swear, " that he •will never by any persuasions, or by any
other means be drawn off from it v\- and if by any occasion or
argument he shall fall away, he wishes that incurring the guilt
of his perjury, he may be found obUged to eternal punishment:"
* Reply, p. 115.
t Pontific. Ord. reconc. Haeret. vel Schismat. p. 200. Ed. Venet. Ann.
1561.

vindicator's reflections. 355
and this we have always blamed in them as most unwarrant
able and unchristian. But the truth is, you have here, as in
most of your other reflections, taken up our objections against
you ; and what we vrith truth lay to your charge, you most
detractingly, because most falsely, return upon us. But,
V. You have yet more to accuse us of. You tell us " of
certain factious spirits that have animated the pulpit's zeal, to
throw fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were
bigotted in their religion, to the hindering of the Parhament
from proceeding in its loyalty as it had begun."*
I do not very well understand, what liberty this is you take,
to censure the loyalty of so great a body as the Lords spiritual
and temporal, and the members of the honourable House of
Commons amount to : but sure I am, it is not such a pen as
yours that can blast their reputation. As for the factious
spirits that animated the pulpit's zeal, when you dare speak
openly what you mean by it, you may be sure of an answer
either from them or me. In the mean time, God be thanked,
the pulpit's zeal has ever been employed to keep up in the
subjects that duty which by God's command they owe to their
prince ; and nothing is at this day, next to our zeal for our
reUgion, more our desire and our endeavour, than to make
men loyal to their sovereign. Our pulpits still speak the
same principles of subjection they ever did. We are neither
ashamed of the doctrine of passive obedience, nor afraid
of its practice; though some of your acquauitance have
endeavoured to laugh both that and us out of countenance for
its sake. Our steadiness to our reUgion shall never make us
fail in our duty to our king. In one word, we will both by
our preaching and actions make it our business to fulfil that
great evangelical precept, "of rendering unto Csesarthe things
that are Caesar's ; and unto God the things that are God's."f
But, Sir, since you mention fears and jealousies, I vrill shew
you who they are that have alarmed the nation vrith them :
For, VI. Thus finally you reflect upon us, " that we are men
who manage things upon politic motives to gratify some
persons at this juncture." J You insinuate as if there were
something more in the bottom of our opposing you, than what
appears at first sight. § You tell us a very dangerous story of
* Reply, Pref. t Matth. xxii. 21.
X Reply, p. 45. h Page 5.
2 A 2

356 AN ANSWER TO THE
Queen Elizabeth, how that doubtmg the goodness of her title
to the crown of England, books were fiUed vrith revUmgs
against the Church of Rome, the better to secure it. Then
you speak again of designs, "and of leading men :* and of iU
consequences that vrill follow in the nation, to the ruin both of
Church and State, if we keep open these divisions."
I would wUUngly believe that you had no other meaning in
all this, but only to insinuate once more to the world, that we
are a sort of mercenary creatures, that have indeed no religion^
but are acted only by politic motives, to gratify I know not
whom at this juncture. And that the hints that follow, " of
something more being in the bottom than at first sight ap
pears ; of Queen Ehzabeth' s title to the crown ; of designs
and leading men ; of ill consequences to the nation," &c., are
but words put together, vrithout any other intention than to
render your little reflection the more considerable. But, Sir,
all men do not make so favourable a construction ; they think
there is somewhat alluded to in that history, which if you dare
justify, we need not be ashamed of giving you an answer.
They desire you to speak out, how you apply all these things :
whether there be any body now bring to answer to Queen
Elizabeth ; whether those words of her " mother's marriage,
and her own birth, making her title doubtful to the crown of
England," have any signification? How our zeal against
Popery is to bring such iU consequences upon the nation ; and
whether here you threaten or prognosticate only these things to
us ; and who gave you authority to do either ? When you
shall have explained yourself as to all these particulars, you
may then expect a further answer : in the mean time give me
leave to tell you, that whether you have any meaning in it or
no, the very mention of these things is dishonest ; and may
raise such fears and jealousies in the people, as all our zeal for
peace shall not be able to allay : and I know not well what I
ought to think of those men who, at the same time that his
Sacred Majesty proclaims a pubhc peace to his subjects, what
ever their persuasions be ; and particularly declares in favour
of the Church of England, " that he ¦will protect and maintain
it in the free exercise of our religion, as by law established ;
and in the quiet and full enjoyment of all our possessions,
vrithout any molestation or disturbance whatsoever ;"-j- never
theless dare threaten us with rain and destruction.
* Page 123. t King's Indulgence.

vindicator S REPIECTIONS. 357
Tou speak of the ill consequences that •will follow in the
nation by our opposmg you ;* p. 3 ; of keepmg open divisions
to the ruin both of Church and State, p. 1 23. Another teUs
us, " of his Majesty's withdrawing his royal protection from
iis."f A third in plain words declares, that the " Church of
Rome •will triumph, when perchance a certain divine of the
Church of England may smart for having attempted its
destruction." J These are such insinuations as the pulpit's
zeal would never have presumed to throw into the minds of
their auditors ; and they certainly deserve to be some other
way taken notice of than I am authorized to do. But it is well
that having shewn how small your charity is to us, you now
let us see that your duty is not much greater to your prince.
And before you shall next think fit to charge us vrith raising of
fears and jealousies in men's minds, I desire you to consider
how you vrill be able to purge yourselves from being by these
kind of insinuations indeed the greatest incendiaries.
'. And thus have I offered what seems to me to be sufficient to
vindicate those of our Church from your false and scandalous
aspersions. 1 shall detain you but a very little while in the
other part : wherein I am,
II. To consider those imputations you have brought against
myself in particular.
For indeed it was not for these that I entered at all on this
ungrateful employment of laying you open to the world ; and if
my Church, and its more worthy members, be but clear of
your censures, it is no great matter how much such an incon
siderable part of it as I am, suffer by them. Something yet I
vriU add, that I may not seem wanting to my own defence, and
give credit to your censures, by neglecting to refute them.
And first, to all the hard names you have so liberally
bestowed upon me, and the crimes for which you have not
offered the least shadowof aproof ; I shall only say, TheLgrd
forgive you. Call me, if you please, a doctor of the popu
lace ;§ tell the world that I court the applause of the vulgte ;
that I am but a pretended son of peace ; that my busings ig
nothing but shifts ; Say that I am wilfully blind, a vrilful
prevaricator, a wilful mistaker of your doctrine; caU me-
insincere, cavUler, and as many other names of the like kind
* Reply, p. 3. 123.
t New Test, of the C. E. loyalty, p. 8.
t Answer to the Conferences about the Eucharist.
§ See before.

358 AN ANSWER TO THE
as I have either now forgot, or you shall be able hereafter to
invent : my answer shall still be the same to them all, " Lord,
lay not this sin to your charge."
Secondly, To your several reflections, whereby you represent
me to the world as a wilful prevaricator in many uistances, I
have already said that this is what you can never be sure is
true, and what I am sure is utterly false : and I do not know
by which of my actions I have ever given you a cause for so
unchristian and slanderous an imputation. BeUeve me. Sir, it
is not a Ught matter that you here lay to my charge : "to
be conscious to myself that I cannot defend my cause, and yet
not to have the sincerity to repent," must imply a most incor
rigible spirit in me ; and if I may guess by your Reply, you
have not found my Defence so weak as to justify such an impu
tation. To mistake is human, and I shall be far from pretending
an exemption from that to which we are all by nature subject ;
but to do it wilfully, and being admonished of it, nevertheless
StiU to persevere, and put such things upon the world, as in my
conscience I know not to be true ; to endeavour to make others
believe what I do not believe myself; these are crimes for
which no apology is to be made, nor therefore ought any one,
without very convincing reasons, to be presumed guilty of them.
But to undertake positively to charge another vrith them, as
you have done me ; and upon such slender proofs, and with
such repeated assertions : this. Sir, must proceed from an un
charitable spirit ; and wiU, I am persuaded, much more
prejudice you than me in the opinion of aU considering men.
However, as I shaU in my reflections upon your Reply, par
ticularly answer your pretences (where you have any) for these
censures ; so I do now assure you, that whatever mistakes you
may think you have discovered either in my Exposition, or my
Defence, they are sins of ignorance, and not voluntary errors,
as you most rashly pronounce them to be.
Thirdly, For those reflections which have no relation to the
cause in hand, but are drawn in merely to defame me without
the least provocation; though I might pass them by as foreign
to my present design, yet I vrill stop so long as to give some
answer to them. Two of these especially there are ; and of
neither of which (excuse me. Sir, this little vanity which your
reflections force me to) I think I need to be ashamed.
The first concerns my preaching ; in which not only I myself,
but aU those whom you call by way of scoff, and vrith more
disrespect than so honourable an assembly deserves, my learned

VINDICATOR S REFLECTIONS. 359
auditory,* are involved together with me. You say that you
hear (and in that you speak properly, for I am told that you
yourself have vouchsafed sometimes to make up a part of my
then, I hope, truly learned auditory),f that I tell my congre
gation, that you, " give divine worship to saints ; that I speak
m^uj thmgs, ad faciendum populum, and ray learned auditors
admire my learning, and applaud my eloquence." Other
reflections of this kind you have, and to which I shall only
say, that I have never delivered any thing on those occasions,
but what I have firmly believed to be the truth ; and which,
•had I not been so persuaded, I should never have durst to
utter in that holy place. And if this be all the effect of those
critical Sunday-night's conferences, in which (if I am rightly
informed) my sermons have sometimes been put to the rack by
you ; I may now conclude that I have not much transgressed,
in those few things I have therein spoken against you.
2. The other thing for which you sometimes reflect upon
me, is popularity. You call me a doctor of the populace, p.
31 ; you tell the world that I court the applause ofthe vulgar,
p. 35 ; and it seems have had the good fortune to obtain it, p.
36. Now this. Sir, may be a fault, if you can say that I have
done any thing that is ill for it ; or that in any of my actions
I have managed myself otherwise than I ought to have done in
consideration of it. But if it should chance to be only your
envy or concern at any thing of a reputation you may think I
have got in the world, that prompts you to give it so invidious
a name, I must then tell you, that whilst I know my innocence
of any wicked designs in it, or endeavours after it, I shall be no
more ashamed of, than I pretend to what you call popularity ;
and I vrill endeavour. Sir, if I can, to be still more popular ;
that so I may have the greater influence upon men's minds, to
persuade them to their duty, and confirm them in that steadi
ness, from which such false teachers as you are would
endeavour to draw them off. But for the rest, I have neither
courted any one's applause, nor gone one step out of the way
in which my duty and my conscience have led me, to gain an
esteem or interest in the world. In this method, by God's
grace, I shall always walk ; and I make no doubt but my
learned auditors, and my friends the vulgar, wiUl approve my
resolutions. And as I have nothing but this integrity whereby
to deserve their regard, so whUst I keep firm to it, I shaU not
* Reply, p. 20, 21. i Page 56.

360 AN ANSWER TO THE
fear to lose their esteem. The approbation that is founded on
any other bottom, often changes : but where good men value,
and honesty is the only ground of the esteem, there it is
impossible it should ever fail, till either the one or the other
fall from their principles.
Fourthly, For those reflections which are involved in the
course of your Reply, and cannot well be separated from it, I
shall examine them as they Ue in their several places there, and
not follow the catalogue into which you have collected them
against me. There I shall shew you, that what you call
calumnies, are indeed most undoubted truths : the falsifica'
tions you tax me with, either your mistake, if you indeed
thought them so, or your crime if you did not. That in my
whole Defence, there is but one thing that can any ways be
called an error in the translation of aU those numerous pas
sages I have brought against you, and that such as no one else
would, and you (who are so obnoxious to such mistakes as to
commit above a dozen in the translation of a short letter) ought
certainly the least of any to have censured. There you shall
see the insincerities shewn to lie at your own door : the
uncharitable accusations, proved to be, if not the new, yet the
old doctrine of your Church. The wilful mistakes, and
affected misapplications of equivocal words, to be no mistakes
nor misapplications at all : what you call a false impositiort
in me, to be indeed a bold denial of your own words: the
authors you pretend to be misapplied, if there be any such
(for I have yet found them nowhere but in your catalogue),
speaking properly what they were brought for : and the plain
contradictions nowhere to be found but in your own undis
tinguishing brain. In the mean time I have this only vrith you,
to entreat the "judicious reader, that he vrill suspend his
judgment* till these things are examined, and not take all for
gospel that is said vrith confidence."
There is now only one charge remaining, and from which I
ought, before I proceed farther, to defend myself against your
reflections ; and that is,
V. Concerning the ill language you pretend I have used in
my Defence ; a fault which I assure you no man more dis
approves, nor is more scrupulously careful to avoid than
myself ; but then I must confess that perhaps I do not think
aU to be Ul language that you shall please to call so j for though
• Reply, Pref. 1.

vindicator's REFLECTIONS. 36!
I esteem it generally the best to use the softest expressions
that may be, yet there is a necessity in some cases of
speaking plain, and of caUing evil things by their proper
names ; and really, Sir, when you have to do with such a
cause as yours, and such Vindicators of it as yourself, let us
do what we can, we must appear to write a satire.
You are, for instance, very much offended that I should
charge your Church with idolatry ; that I should represent
some of your saints as speaking horrid blasphemies ; that I
caU St. Thomas's notions in defence of image-worship,
reveries ; and the addresses vrith which you consecrate them,
rather magical incantations, than Christian prayers : these,
¦Sir, are hard words, I do confess ; and if I have no grounds
for them, unjust reproaches, calumnies, or what else you please
of the like kind ; but yet till you answer my reasons, and con-
rince me of my error, that these things are indeed not such as
I suppose, I cannot imagine how I shall change my style ; or
what other words to find out that might express my sense, and
yet not offend your ears.
Again: It is possible, you vrill hereafter say that in these very
reflections wherein I complain of you for calling us falsifiers,
calumniators, cavillers, misrepresenters, and the like, I do yet
sometimes myself return the very same language upon you ;
this indeed is true, but then here is the difference ; you accuse
us of these things vrithout reason, often without any occasion,
and therefore do calumniate, whereas I never (that I know of)
return them upon you till I have first shewn a just cause for
the doing it ; and though it be calumny to call an honest man
a knave, or a dishonest man, yet I know not what other kind
of name we can give to him that is truly so.
This, Sir, is my notion of these things ; and if I am out, I
shall be most vrilling to stand corrected by you ; in the mean
time let us see whereon it is that you ground this charge
against me. Two places there are in which you accuse me
of it.
The first refers to the Bishop of Meaux, whom, as you pre
tend,* " I have endeavoured to expose by contemptible raUlery."
To this I have already replied, that I know not wherein I have
been guUty of any thing that looks like raiUery in all my
treatment of that Bishop, having always been mindful of his
character in every thing I have written against him : that I am
* Reply, Pref.

.362

AN ANSWER TO THE

sorry the necessary defence of truth has forced me to speak
what I have done concerning him ; and if after all, I should
chance, in my pursuit of his insincerities (let not that word
offend you, I have proved before what I now say, and much
more), to have dropped any expression that looks Uke raillery,
as I cannot yet find upon a dUigent examination that I have
done it, so neither will I justify myself in it, whenever you
shall be able to prove your allegation : but. Sir, this is not the
only instance in which you give me occasion to complain (in a
very mild word) of your groundless accusations.
lI. The other place in which you charge me vrith this fault
is more considerable, because there you do (what you have
seldom done any where else) bring some instances of it ; and
out of respect to so extraordinary a piece of justice, I vrill
neither call them by any hard name, nor any farther insist
upon your undue repetition of them. The expressions you
accuse me of are these three.
I. That I call St. Thomas's opinions, reveries :
II. The rhetorical expressions of the greatest saints, horrid
blasphemies : and,
III. The pious and significant ceremonies of the Church,
magical incantations.
in every part of which charge you are a Uttle mistaken.
For, 1. They are not St. Thomas's opinions, but the argu
ments and distinctions vrith which he endeavours to defend your
Church's opinions, that I called reveries.
2. Nor are they any of the greatest saints, though some
of them I confess were pious men, whose expressions I styled
horrid blasphemies. Nor, 3. Are they the pious and significant
ceremonies of Christ's holy cathoUc Church ; but the prayers
of a Church, usurping those titles of holy and catholic, that
can the least belong to her of any Church in the Christian
world ; they are, I say, the prayers of that Church, which, in
just indignation to so great a superstition as the consecratmg
stocks and stones in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, I said looked more like magical incantations than
prayers. It may be you vrill think these remarks might well
have been spared : but we hve in a critical age, wherein men,
you know, cannot endure to have things misrepresented ; and
when you charge me vrith speaking reproachfully of your
Church, you should be very careful to see, that in the
chargmg of it you did not speak (though but a Uttie) falsely of
me. But,

VINDICATOR S REFLECTIONS. 363
I. It displeases you that I should caU some of Thomas
Aquinas's notions, reveries.
It was indeed a bold thing in me to fail in my respects to a
doctor, who, as you tell me, former times had styled angelical;
I wonder you did not add out of your breviary,* that he was
one too who attained to all his knowledge, not by study and
labour, but by divine inspiration ; for this would have added
much to my offence ; nay, to whom (if all that is there said
be true) a certain crucifix once upon a time declared, that
"all he had written concerning him was well;" and one
part of that was this very thing before us, " that the wood of
the crucifix was to be adored vrith the same adoration as Christ
himself;" and after the attestation of it by so notable a
miracle, I cannot but wonder how you dare to question it.
But then. Sir, you ought to have considered whether you were
sure there was any disrespect in my expression : now,
had not you been too little acquainted with the French tongue
(as I shaU hereafter shew you are with some others) to turn
critic in it, you would have known that reverie is not
necessarily a word of reproach, but used very innocently to
signify a deep thought, a profound meditation, and from
thence, secondarily, the productions themselves that come from
such reflections : and therefore you ought not, without aU
distinction, to say, that I affront St. Thomas in calhng his
notions reveries, for so the best men's works may without
afiront be called; but since this displeases you, whatever I may
do to others, yet I assure you I never will so far affront you,
as even in my thoughts to suppose you to be a rever, i.e. a
man of profound thought and deep meditation.
And thus, were I minded to cavil, I might end this objection.
But, Sir, to satisfy your little remark, I do confess I did not
mean that expression in its best sense ; no, the subject upon
which I spoke it was too bad not to reflect some of its illness
upon the very words that are used about it ; and when I said
that I did not think myself obliged to transcribe all St. Thomas's
reveries, I did indeed mean, what I now call them in plainer
words, his vain and triffing reasons, which he brings to justify
that wicked doctrine of your Church, " that the cross of Christ
is to be adored vrith a supreme divine worship." This I under
stood by that expression, and such I take his discourse to be ;
* Brev. Rom. in Fest. vii. Mai'tii.

364 AN ANSWER TO THE
and I will now leave it to the world, to judge what else they
can make of such profound nonsense as this :
" Honour or reverence is not (primarily) due to any but a
rational nature ; but to an insensible creature honour or
reverence is not due but with respect to a rational nature : and
this may happen two ways, one upon the account of repre
senting a rational nature, the other, because it is some way
joined to it ; by the first means, we worship the image of a king,;
by the second, his garments ; and we venerate both vrith the
same veneration vrith which we venerate the king himself."
Is not this, think you, wonderful reasoning ? and was I not
horribly to blame to call such fine notions reveries ? But now
for the application :
" If, therefore, we speak of that cross upon which Christ
was crucified, it is to be adored upon both accounts by us, both
as it represents Christ, and as it touched his members, and was
sprinkled with his blood, and, upon both these accounts, vrith
the same supreme worship vrith which Christ is adored ; and
hence it is that we speak to the cross, and pray to it as if it
were Christ."
I doubt, Sir, you wUl think this last looks something like a
reverie, because (as I remember) it crosses your notions. But
we vrill go on :
" But if we speak of the image of Christ in any other matter,
so we adore the cross only as the image of Christ, which we
adore vrith divine adoration."
These are Aquinas's notions on this point ; and these I call
his reveries, i. e. his vain fancies and imaginations, and so I
still esteem them to be. If you think otherwise, and that
these dreams and shadows of reason are indeed conclusive
proofs, why then do you reject this doctrine,t and tell us, that
perhaps it may be defended, and not speak out boldly that it
is good and orthodox, and what we ought to follow ; but if
you hke this arguing really no better than I do, wherefore
do you expose me for calhng that a vain fancy, which, after
all, you yourself look upon as no other ?
To conclude : I am persuaded that no one among you has a
juster respect for St. Thomas than I have ; I have always
esteemed him an exceUent doctor, and profited by his works ;
but what can the best man do when he has not trath on his
side ? Error may be palUated, and a great deal of thought be
* Aquinas sum, 3 Part. Q. xxv. Art. 4. t Reply, Pref. p. 18.

vindicator's REFLECTIONS. 365
spent and vrit shewn to give it the appearance of trath, but
when all is done it is error still, and the arguments that are
brought to support it, how fine and subtle soever they may
seem, are yet but reveries, i. e. visions, shadows of reason, not
rational and conclusive proofs ; and upon this ground, though
not only an angelical doctor, or a crucifix from a wall, but even
an angel from hedven, should argue in this sort, I should not
be ashamed of the expression if I had called it raving. But,
¦ II. The next thing you find fault vrith is, that I call some
of the expressions of your saints, with reference to the Virgin
Mary, horrid blasphemies.
And here you put me upon a very ungrateful work, to rake
into the ashes of good but superstitious men, and who, falUng
into corrupt times, were by their piety carried into vain and
extravagant expressions of it. But as 1 hope God has pardoned
their well meant, though very indiscreet zeal, so I desire, that
what I here repeat in my defence may not be a means to lead
any one to triumph in their weakness, whose virtues otherwise
we few of us perhaps shall be able to come up to ; and this I
say of some of those I am to mention, for however your Church
has thought fit indifferently to canonize them, yet I hope saints,
as well as stars, may differ from one another, both in their
goodness and in their glory.
The first you mention is St. Germain, whose expressions to
the blessed Virgin, or, as you call them, rhetorical ffights, will, I
think, justify the worst that can be said of them. " O, mother
of God," says he, " your defence is immortal; your intercession
is the life ; your protection is security : if you do not teach us
the way,J no one can become spiritual, nor adore God in.
spirit. 0, most holy Virgin ! no one can have the knowledge
of God but by you ; O, mother of God ! no one can be saved
but by you ; O, Virgin mother ! no one can be delivered from
dangers but by you ; O, favoured of God ! no one can obtain
any gift or grace but by you."
The second is St. Anselm. His expressions of this kind are
numerous, and I will mention only some of them. " 0, blessed
Virgin," says he, " as it is necessary that every one who is hated
and despised by you should perish, so it is impossible that he
whom you regard should be lost ;f only be it your wUl that
We should be saved, and then we cannot but be saved."J
* Crasset Veritable Devotion, p. 31. [Par. 1679.]
,t Crasset, [Ibid.] p. 49. J Ibid. 56.

366 AN ANSWER TO THE
Hence he elsewhere calls her "the repairer ofthe lost world,"*
and adds, " that, as God, creating all thmgs by his power, is
become God and Father of all, so Mary, the blessed mother of
God, by restoring all things, is become the mother and lady
of all." t In one of his addresses to her, he says, "that God
has given this to her, in common with himself, that with her
all things should be possible ;" J and, to go yet one step farther,
he tells us in plain terms, " that a man is sometimes sooner
saved in calling upon the name of Mary, than by calling upon
the name of Christ." §
Thirdly, Your next saint is St. Bernard, and he, too, is
voluminous in his expressions. Thus he also makes her re-
demptrix of the world : " We have," says he, " sent before us
from earth to heaven an advocate, who, being mother of our
Judge, and mother of mercy, vriU treat, sincerely and vrith
efficacy, the business of our salvation. || It is she that hath
obtained the reparation of the whole world, and the salvation
of all men. — It must be confessed that one man and one
woman have done us a great deal of harm ; but another man
and another woman have repaired vrith advantage all the Ul
which the former had done us. I acknowledge that Jesus Christ
is sufficient to us, but it was not expedient that man should
be alone ; it was more congruous that both the one and the
other sex should come in to our reparation, seeing neither of
them was wanting to our destruction.^ — Consider then more
deeply, with how great an affection of piety God would have
us adore her, who has put the whole fuhiess of good in Mary ;
so that, if there be any hope in us, if any grace, if any salvation,
we should know that it proceeds from her."** — And therefore
he elsewhere calls her " the ladder of sinners, his great trust,
and the whole foundation of his hope."-t-t But I must not
insist too largely.
The next you name is, fourthly, the Abbot of Celles. I
vrill produce but one passage from him': ''Approach," says
he, " by a devout contemplation of spirit towards the blessed
Virgin, because through her, and vrith her, and in her, and
from her, the world both hath, and wiU have, all that is good. —
She is our advocate to her Son, as the Son to the Father ; she
solicits for us both the Father and the Son. Oftentimes those
* Ibid. 234. t Ibid. 235 X Ibid.
% Ibid. 112. II Crasset, [Ibid.] p. 30.
t Ibid. p. 31. *• Ibid. 32. tt Ibid. 74.

vindicator's REFLECTIONS. 367
whom the justice of the Son might condemn, the mercy of the
toother deUvers. — In short, as our Saviour once said, that no
one could come unto him, whilst he was on earth, unless the
Father drew him, so dare I," says he, " in some sort affirm,
that no one comes now to thy glorified Son, unless thou by
thy holy assistance drawest him."*
Fifthly, "As it is impossible," says St. xAntonine, from St.
Anselm, " that those from whom the Virgin Mary turns the
eyes of her mercy should be saved, so is it necessary, that those
towards whom she turns her eyes, interceding for them, should
be justified and glorified."f
Sixthly, " From the time," says St. Bernardine, "that the
Virgin mother conceived in her womb the Word of God, she
obtained, as I may say, a certain jurisdiction and authority
over all the temporal processions of the Holy Ghost : so that
no creature has obtained any grace or virtue of God, but
according to the dispensation of his holy mother." J
He that desires more of this, may see in Dr. J. C.'s "Apology
for his Contemplations on the Life and Glory of Holy Mary ;" §
who, though he be not yet a saint, yet may for his zeal deserve
hereafter to be canonized, and make as great a figure one day
in the Church as any that I have named.
These, Sir, are some of the expressions to which I referred :
you may think as you please of them, and give what dexterous
expositions your wit shall enable you, to free them from cen
sure ; but I dare venture it to all sober men to judge, whether
I was much out in my expression, when I said, in my Defence,
that they were horrid blasphemies.
III. Your last censure is, that I said of those collects which
you use in the consecration of a cross, that they seemed to be
magical incantations rather than prayers.
And I would to God, Sir, we had not too good grounds for
such a censure ; I should most vrillingly retract my expression.
But, in the meantime, tUl you wiU learn to be ashamed of
doing such things, I see no cause wherefore I should be con
founded for giving them their proper names.
"You pray to God that he would bless the wood of the
cross." "To what purpose, I pray, give a blessing to the stock
of a tree 1 " That it may be a saving remedy to mankind, an
* Crasset, [Ibid.] p. 33, 34. t Crasset, Ibid.
t Crasset, [Ibid, p.] 37. § London, 1687.

368 AN ANSWER TO THE
estabhshment of the faith for the increase of good works and
the redemption of souls, for a comfort and protection against
the cruel darts of the enemy." Is not this, Sir, a most edifying
prayer for a Church calling herself catholic to use ? to desire
the blessing of God upon that which he has expressly forbidden
us to make for any such purpose as that for which it is here
consecrated ? But to go on with the ceremony :
"You incense it, you sprinkle it with holy water ; you con
secrate it in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost : you pray again, that as by the cross upon
which Christ suffered, the world was redeemed from guUt, so
by the merits of this cross, the souls of those who offer it,
may be freed from all the sins which they have committed.
And now the work is done ; and it is fit for you to fall down
before it, and worship it."
Consider, Sir, I beseech you, in the spirit of a Christian,
what it is about which these prayers are bestowed, and what
it is you beg in them. And seeing you desire that such
benefits may be derived to you from a senseless inanimate
creature ; think what the import of magical incantations is,
and tell me if these requests do not look more like charms
than prayers ; and whether I was very much out, when in a
just indignation at so wretched an abuse of the name of the
holy Trinity, I said, they seemed rather the one than the
other. But if my expression still offends you, consider then, how
much more justly these practices scandalise us. Do not tell
the world that I reproach Christ's holy catholic Church, as
guilty of magical incantation : no, it is your Church, the cor
rupted Roman Church alone, that I charge as coming in these
things too nearly to the practices of the heathens : God
be thanked, Christ has other Churches that are freed from
such abuses as all his faithful servants lament in you, and
earnestly desire you would yourselves learn at last to be
ashamed of.
I will add but one word more, and it is this : that before
you censure me any farther for this expression, you vrill please
to remember, that there is another practice in your Church,.
which I might have mentioned in my Defence, called exorciz
ing ; but far distant from the ancient ceremony designed by
that word. This your ritual authorizes ; and for the ftdler
practice of it, directs us to your approved authors ; such as

vindicator's reflections. 369
Mengus, and some others. The plain English of that hard
word, you know, is conjuring, and the thing does not at all
belie the name. You may force me to speak of this if you
think fit ; and to add to this your other ceremonies of chris
tening of bells, consecrating water, Agnus Deis, and the like ;
and what wonderful benefits you pretend to derive from
thence. But I had rather, if you please, be prevented in this
design, than vindicate myself so much to your Church's
scandal. Sect. III.
And here I shall finish my present reflections ; and might, I
think, have concluded my whole defence. For having justified
the distinction I had advanced of Old and New Popery , having
shewn you, that it is not merely from the decrees of your
Counefls, but from your private authors and common practice,
that we are to interpret your Church's doctrine; having par
ticularly answered all the Bishop of Meaux's pretences, and I
hope sufficiently vindicated (even in your own opinion) myself
and brethren from your unjust and scandalous imputations i
nothing now remains, but to consider the doctrine of your
Reply ; and that has been already so fully done, that neither
can you answer it, nor am I able to add any thing to it. But
you have always had a particular gift, to advance again
without blushing those objections to-day, which but yesterday
were confuted beyond a possibility of reply.
1. You charge us vrith misrepresenting your doctrines;*
you speak largely of a certain book that undertook to prove
this to the world ; but you forgot to tell us, that a learned
man of our Church,-|- went along with this book through all the
several particulars, and shewed you the contrary. And thus
the calumny goes on; but the defence we have made is never
¦Uke to be considered.
2. You seem concerned that I took so little notice of your
second articlej about the nature and object of religious
worship ; but you do not acknowledge that my reason was,
* Reply, Pref.
t The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented.
ffeoer Answered. — See the View of the whole Controversy, which has
plainly shemi that the business of the Reflections was to decline an answer.
X Reply, Art. ii. p. 6.
VOL. XII. 2 B

370 AN answer to the
because it had been fully done in several treatises* on that
very subject, and which Ue stiU unreplied to.
3. You run out into a great length about the invocation of
saints : but is it to answer any thing we had replied to your
arguments on that subject ?t No, though I directed you to
a bookj purposely written on this subject, wherein all your
objections are obviated, and from which I have reason to
believe you borrowed some of your quotations against me ; yet
you neither take care to prevent the same repUes, that have
been there made, nor have the ingenuity so much as once to
confess by whom you have profited.
4. Concerning images, much has passed since my Defence
came out ; the Representer§ tried all his strength to defend
them, but was content to leave the field : what do you now
do ? You take his arguments, you follow his evasions ;
but make no new advance, nor seem at all concerned to
own that they have been fully answered|| some months
since. 5. In the article of purgatory,^ you talk vrith great assur
ance about the intention of the Primitive Church in praying
for the dead : which I said in my Exposition was no proof that
they believed a purgatory. You reply, that those who have
been abused by me, and others of my coat, need only read the
Fathers, or look into the Nubes Testium for satisfaction. But,
Sir, what must I call this, to be sent to a book, that has been
on that very point answered in every one of his pretences ;**
and no one has yet appeared in his vindication ?
*A Discourse concerning the ObjectofReligious|Worship. Unanswered.
— Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery, &c. Un-
atiswered. — See for this also the View ofthe whole Controversy, which the
Representer has now shewn, is never hke to be fairly answered.
t Reply, Art. iii. p. 10.
X Speculum beata Virginis. Unanswered. — A Discourse concerning
the Worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints, in answer to M. de
Meaux's Appeal to the fourth age. Unanswered. — A Discourse concerning
Invocation of Saints. Unanswered.
§ Catholic Representer, first and second, fifth and sixth sheets.
II Answer to these sheets ; the last yet Unanswered. — Three Letters to a
person of quality, about Images ; the last Unanswered. — The Fallibility of
the Roman Church, out of the second Nicene aud Trent Councils, about
Images. Unanswered.
% Reply, Art. vii. p. 59.
" Two Discourses of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead. Unanswered.
— An Answer is lately published to the whole book ; and we fear vrill
remain Uke the rest. Unanswered,

vindicator's reflections. 371
6. In the article of extreme unction, you have a challenge*
sent you ; and which I am commissioned once more to desire
that you will be pleased to accept. In consideration whereof you
wiU not be dissatisfied if I return but little on that subject to you.
7. The holy eucharistt has in every respect been fully con
sidered. Scripture, antiquity, sense and reason, all produced
against you. What have you here done ? You have put
together the common arguments we have a hundred times
baffled ; and improved nothing to obviate the same replies.
But you. Sir, may expect from me, what some others will
suddenly have from a much better hand, a full satisfaction to
your pretences ; though in truth neither you nor they could
reasonably expect it.
8. For the adoration of the host,}: you refer us to the two
Oxford discourses ; but you never observe that there have been
two answers made to them.§ And a particular discourse||
has passed now some time upon this subject, in which most of
your allegations are prevented, and yet you take no notice of
it, but bait us eternally with the same repeated crambe !
9. As to the point of the mass, you may expect a full
answer^ before you receive this. And,
10. For communion in one kind,** when you can either bring
some other arguments than what the Bishop of Meaux has
done, or vindicate those from our answer to him, you may
expect to be considered ; but else it is a great confidence in
you to expect it.
1 1 . As to the point of tradition,-ff I do not find that any one
has yet confuted a particular treatise about it.
• A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
Unanswered. t An historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, by one of the Christian
religion. Defence of the Dublin Letter. Veteres Vindicati, in answer to
Mr. Sclater. Plain representation of Transubstantiation. Dialogues con
cerning the Trinity and Transubstantiation. Answer to the Oxford Dis
courses. Paraphrase upon the sixth of St. John, Six Conferences pub
lished by Dr. Tenison. AU unanswered.
X Reply, p. 122.
§ A Reply to two Discourses concerning, &c. from Oxford. Unanswered.
— A Discourse concerning the Holy Eucharist, in the two great points of
the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host. Unanswered.
II A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host, &c. Unanswered.
i[ A Discourse concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Unanswered.
** A Discourse of Communion in one Kind, in answer to the Bishop of
Meaux. Unanswered.
tt A Discourse about Tradition. The Catholic Balance. Unanswered.
2 B 2

372 an answer to the
12. For the authority of the Church,* to which you seem
particularly to desire my reply, I do promise you that in
due time you shaU have it. But because I would not deceive
your expectations, I must tell you freely, I can say nothing
but what you have had already in those excellent discourses to
which I refer you ; and which we are apt to think you have
found to be more than enough.
13. For the remaining points the authority of the holy
Sees and of the Council of Trent ;f methinks you should be
ashamed to desire any answer to them, tUl you first return
some reply to those learned men that have so lately written
upon them.
14. For the other articles which I have passed by, J it is not
because there has not been enough said to them, but because
what has been said, is to be found in those other treatises to
which I have already referred ; and I believe when I come to
examine your discourse more particularly, I shall not find any
one thing, except a few cavils (which indeed are all your own),
that will need my consideration ; and those do not deserve it.
You see. Sir, how reasonable a pretence I might here have
to take my leave of you, and not insist any longer on these
points, till you shall think fit, by giving us a substantial answer
to what has been already offered, to encourage us to make
some new advances against you. But I will not insist upon
any of these things ; nor give you cause, by my declining a
particular examination of your Reply, to think any better of
your arguments, than I hope by this time you may do of your
reproaches. I will travel vrith you once more through every
article ; and though in consideration of these exceUent trea
tises I have now mentioned, and which are almost in every
body's hand, I shall only reflect upon your arguments, and
* Of a Guide in Matters of Faith. The Protestant Resolution of Faith.
Answer to Reason and Authority, &c. A Discourse concerning a Judge in
Controversies. A plain Discourse concerning the Catholic Church. Of
the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. Two Discourses of Schism
and Heresy. The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods.
The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Vindication ofthe Answer to certain
Papers. All unanswered.
X Sermon upon St. Peter's Day. Sure and honest Means for the Con
version of all Heretics. The Catholic Balance. Summary of the Contro
versies between the Church of England and the Roman Church. Dr.
Barrow of the Pope's Supremacy. The Necessity of Reformation, par. 2.
All unanswered.
X A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession. The Doctrines and
Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented. Unanswered.

vindicator's reflections. 373
not insist so as if I were particularly to state every point again :
yet I vrill do it in such a manner as you shall have no cause to
say, I either dechned your difficulties, or was unvrilling, if you
have any strength, to examine it to the bottom.
And of this you may expect an account in a little time. In
the meanwhile I commend my present reflections to yours,
and both them and you to the reader's consideration.
POSTSCRIPT.
Being a full Answer to a Pamphlet published the last night,
called, A Third Part of a Papist Misrepresented.
Ecce iterum Crispinus-^
I little thought when this last sheet was sent to the
press, that I should have deprived the world of a more useful
advertisement of the late tracts, that have been published, for
the inglorious undertaking of refuting so trifling a book. But
since it is now become the mode to draw up full answers to
the most solid discourses in single half-sheets, I know not
why an author that has nothing in him, may not be exposed
in much less room.
The sum of his defence is this, " that we do without all
grounds advance against them a distinction of Old and New
Popery,* to make the world believe that it is they who dis
semble their doctrine, not we that misrepresent it." Now
this I have at large answered in the foregoing discourse, and
thereby destroyed the whole foundation both of his and his
party's present pretences ; and since he observes the ill luck
his last adversary had to suppose they had forsaken their
charge, when at the same time the Vindicatorf was printing
his Reply in defence of it ; I cannot but take notice that him
self is not much more fortunate, to establish the whole stress
of his cause upon the denial of a distinction, which is at the
same instant shewn by undoubted matter of fact, to be most
just and well grounded.
For his beloved elegancies of Bartholomew fair booths ; false
cards ; and cogging dice ; J of the pretty sleights of legerde
main ; of screwing mouths ; distorting noses, and dravring in
cheeks ; for the wonderful tricks of his friend the posture-
master in the PaU-Mall, &c. whereby he here, as usually,
embellishes his periods ;§ they sufficiently shew how very
* Pref. p. 14, &c. t lb. p. 19. X lb. p. I. ^ Page 13.

378 AN ANSWER TO THE VINDICATOR'S REFLECTIONS.
serious this gentleman esteems the matter of religion to be,
and how well the fineness of a Merry- Andrew's vrit agrees vrith
the profoundness of a Representers reasoning.
And though such a character-maker as this (who never yet
knew what it was to answer an adversary vrith good sense, and
but seldom vrith good manners ; and has here, I know not
how, fallen even below his ownself), be more fit to be despised
than confuted ; yet to satisfy him that his adversary designed
not any retreat at all by the method* he took of dealing with
him, and therefore not an honourable one (as he pretends) :
I do hereby promise him, that he shall not pass as he deserves,
without a consideration : but may expect that which shaU
abundantly satisfy the world, that he ought, though there be
no great reason to expect that he will at this time of day
begin, to be ashamed of his undertaking.
* Pref. p. 22.

A SECOND DEFENCE
OP THE
EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
AGAINST THE NEW EXCEPTIONS OP MONSIEUR DE MEAUX
AND HIS VINDICATOR.

THE SECOND PART.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
The design of your Preface seems reducible to these two
points, vis. : —
I. Of the state of the controversy between the Papists and
Protestants in general. And,
II. Of the disputes that have heretofore been, and are at
this day managed against you, by us of this Church in par
ticular. 2. Ad p. l.J The former of these you introduce vrith a
short harangue of " the mischief which heresy and schism
bring along with them, not only to the individual persons that
are guilty of them, but also to the nations in which they are
propagated." You represent to us " the miserable broils, and
other worse consequences that have attended these contro
versies of religion in this aud the last age ;" and from thence
you conclude, " how much they are to be commended who
labour to establish truth and unity, and those to be con
demned, who seek all means possible to obscure the one and
obstruct the other."
3. Answ.l To all which I have only this to reply, that we
need no arguments to convince us of these things. There are
none more sensible of the mischiefs of schism and heresy than
we are, or that do more truly lament the divisions that are in
the Church, or would more heartUy contribute, what in us
lies, to the closing of them. But then as we have good cause

376 SECOND defence op THE EXPOSITION.
to beheve, both from the authority of holy Scripture and from
the nature of mankind, that whUst there is a devU in hell, and
men of interests and designs upon earth, there shall also be
heresies, that " they who are approved may be made mani
fest ;"* so we cannot but complain that those should be the
most forward to charge us both vrith the guUt and mischief of
them, at whose doors the crime, and therefore the evil conse
quences of it, will one day be found to Ue. The former of
these, it will be the business of the foUovring discourse to make
good ; and for the latter, whosoever shaU impartially consider
the origin of those broils with which the world has, you say,
been agitated in this and the last age upon the account of re
ligion, not to mention those other mischiefs of treasons, plots,
massacres, persecutions, and the like, will soon be convinced
who they are that have cause to complain of these evils. For
what you add,
4. Ibid.] " That they who vrill but impartially consider mat
ters, will find that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the
most advantageous means to procure this Christian peace;
though to their grief they have stUl been hindered from effect
ing this good work."
Answ.] I do not well know what you design by it. If by the
most advantageous means you understand those means of
knowledge which God has given us, whereby to come to dis
cern the truth of religion ; such as, 1 . A diligent reading of
the holy Scriptures, the using of all imaginable assistances for
the understanding the sense of them, by studying the original
languages in which they were written, searching of antiquity,
collating parallel places, and the like. 2. The divesting of
ourselves of our prejudices, and forming in our minds an im
partial desire to find out the truth, with an honest readiness to
embrace it, on what side soever it Ues. And lastly, to all this,
add our earnest prayers to God for his grace to bless and
prosper our endeavours; these, I confess, are the best means to
discover Christian truth ; and to exhort all others to the use
of them, the most advantageous way to promote it. But then
I cannot imagine why you should seem to appropriate these
means to yourselves, as if you only sought truth and peace by
them ; seeing it cannot be denied but that we have employed
all these vrith as great diUgence as you can pretend to have
done it. But now some other means indeed there are, which
you have pursued, and which it may be you understand by this
* 1 Cor. xi. 19.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 377
expression : and then we neither deny your assertion, nor envy
you the glory of being singular in your endeavours of procur
ing peace by them. Such are, 1. The means of force and
violence ; your holy leagues and [private treacheries, your in
quisitions, plots, persecutions, and such like. 2. The means
of fraud and deceit, your false expositions and misrepresenta
tions of your doctrine to deceive the ignorant and unwary, till
you get them into your nets. 3. The means of confidence and
uncharitableness, your bold anathemas and vain thunderings
of damnation against all that differ from you, your assuming
the name and privileges of the Church Catholic to your single
communion, and excluding all others out of it, as schismatics
and heretics. And lastly, to mention no more, the means of
gross ignorance and blind obedience ; by depriving men of their
hberty of reading the holy Scripture, by keeping your service
in an unknown tongue, by teaching men to depend entirely on
your Church's dictates, and not to depart from them, though
sense, reason. Scripture, aU be contrary to them. These are,
I confess, some of those peculiar means whereby you have
sought to procure Christian peace ; and experience tells you,
that they are indeed the most advantageous of any cause you
have to defend. And if those be the means which you
say we have opposed, I hope we shall always continue so
to do, and rather bear all the evils of these divisions, than
either buy peace upon such terms, or pursue it by such means
as these.
5. Ad p. 2, 3.] To what I observed from the late methods
that had been taken up in our neighbour country to avoid the
entering lipon particular disputes, which I said you were sen
sible had been the least favourable of any to your cause, you
reply, " that you have never declined fighting with us at
any weapon :" which how trae it is, the account before given
of your managing the present controversy with us sufficiently
declares. And indeed you seem in some sort to have been
sensible of it; and therefore recur to your ancient authors for
proof of your assertion. The sum of what you say is this :
6. Reply.'] " That there have been three sorts of Protestants
since the Reformation : 1 . Some who appealed to Scripture
only, neither would they admit of primitive Fathers nor Coun
cUs. 2. Others who perceived that they could not maintain
several tenets and practices of their own by the bare words of
Scripture, and despairing of Fathers and Councils of latter ages,
pretended at least to admit of the first four General Councils,

378 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
and ofthe Fathers of the first three or four hundred years.
3. Others finally who ventured to name tradition as a useful
means to arrive at the trae faith." And aU these you say you
have convinced of their errors.
7. Answ.] It has always been your way to multiply sects and
divisions among Protestants as much as ever you were able,
and then to complain against us upon the account of them ;
and here you have given us a notable instance of it. The
three opinions you have dravra out as so many different
parties amongst us, do all resolve into the very same principle :
" that the holy Scripture is the only perfect and sufficient rule
of faith." So that aU other authorities, whether of Fathers,
or CouncUs, or unwritten tradition, are to be examined by it,
and no farther to be admitted by us, than they agree vrith it.
This is in effect the common belief of all Protestants whatso
ever, as appears from their several confessions, and might
easily be shewn out of the writings of our first Reformers, and
the most eminent of those who have lived since, and built their
faith upon the same foundation. It is true, indeed, there have
been some who, the better to maintain their separation from
the Church of England, have from this sound principle, that
nothing is to be received by us as a matter of faith but what
is either plainly expressed in the holy Scripture, or can evi
dently be proved by it, drawn a very ill consequence, viz. that
nothing might lawfully be done or used in the worship of God,
unless there were some command or example for it in Scrip
ture ; and have by this means run themselves into great incon
veniences. But the rule of faith, which an uninterrupted
tradition, by the common consent of all parties of Christians,
however othervrise disagreeing in other points, has brought
down to us, and delivered into our hands as the word of God,
this has among all Protestants been ever the same, viz. the
holy Scripture. And if for the farther proof of the truth of
our doctrine, we have at any time put the issue of our cause
to the decision of the Church of the first three or four hun
dred years, it is not because we suppose that those Fathers who
then Uved, have any more right to judge us, or to determine
our faith, than those that followed after : but because upon
examination we find them to have yet continued (at least as to
the common belief received and established among them) in
their purity ; and that what was generally established and
practised by them, was indeed conformable both to their and
our rale, the word of God.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 379
8. This then is our common principle, and this you cannot
deny to be most reasonable. For whatsoever authority you
would have us give to those holy Fathers, yet it cannot be
doubted, but that,
1st. Being men* subject to the same infirmities with our
selves, they were by consequence obnoxious to errors as well
as we ; and therefore may not vrithout all examination be
securely followed by us.
Especially if we consider, 2ndly, That we are expressly for
bidden in holy Scripture, to rely on any persons whatsoever
vrithout inqmry, whether what they teach be true or not :
" Dearly beloved (says St. John),f beUeve not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they be of God or no." The
same is St. Paul's J doctrine, "to prove all things, and then
hold fast that which is good." St. Peter exhorts all Christians
," to be ready to give a reason ofthe hope that is in them :"§
and our blessed Saviour himself once gave the same encourage
ment, of examining even his own doctrine ; " And why (says
he) of yourselves judge ye not what is right ?" ||
Nay, but, 3rdly, These holy Fathers were not only capable
of erring, but in many things they actually did err, and are
forsaken by you upon that account. The millenary opinion
was generally received by the first ages of the Church. They
'derived it from St. John to Papias, from him to Justin Martyr,
fcnaeus, MeUto, TertulUan, &c. Yet is this opinion now
rejected by you. The doctrine of the necessity of communi
cating infants, was the common doctrine of the Fathers in St.
Augustine's time ; and is confessed by your most learned men.
Cardinal Perron and others, to have been generally practised
in the Church for the first six hundred years :^ yet have you
anathematized those who shall now assert, with those Fathers,
that there is any necessity at aU of communicating chUdren
before they come to years of discretion. I need not say what
heats arose between one of your own Popes and St. Cyprian
about rebaptizing of heretics ; and both of them in the wrong.
The ancient Fathers generally beUeved, that the souls of the
* Durandus, 1. 4. sent. d. 7. q. 4. de S. Gregorio, Nescio cur non
possit dici quod Gregorius, cum fuerit homo, non Deus, potuerit errare.
t 1 John iv. 21. t 1 Thess. v. 1.
§ 1 Pet. iii. 15. II Luke xii. 57.
If Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 4. [Labbe, Concil. vol. 14. p. 847. Lut.
Par. 167^.]

380 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
blessed do not yet enjoy the vision of God : but from the
time of Pope John XXII. the contrary is become the catholic
doctrine among you. The necessity of communicating in both
kinds was believed in the time of Pope Gelasius,* and the
CouncU of Constance, in that very canon in which it took
away the cup from the laity, yet confessed that Christ had
estabhshed it in both kinds, and the Churchf constantly ad
ministered and received in both kinds, in obedience to his
institution : but it is now no less than damnation to say, that
one kind alone is not sufficient. In the Primitive Church it was
generally received, that the souls of the faithful, after they are
delivered from the burden of the fiesh, are in joy and felicity.
Now you teach that they go first to purgatory, a place of pain
and sorrow, inferior in nothing but the duration to hell itself.
Other instances I might add to shew, that you yourselves do
no otherwise foUow the Fathers, than as you esteem them to
have followed the truth, and therefore have thought fit to for
sake them in the several points I before mentioned: and
therefore certainly you ought not to condemn us, if we pay
no other deference to them ; nor appeal to them but only as
witnesses of the doctrine of the Church in those times, not as
judges and masters of our faith.
9. Ad. p. 4.] Reply. "And in all these several ways you
say you have shewn us to be mistaken, insomuch that there
has not been any thing Uke an argument produced against
your faith, or to justify your schism, but what has been abun
dantly answered and refuted."
10. Answ.] This, Sir, is a boast which I beUeve the world
will think you might very well have spared at this time. I
need not send you back, as you have done us, to our ancient
authors ; and desire you once more to consider what has been
offered, both from Scripture and antiquity, by Monsieur de
Mornay, Aubertine, Chamiere, BlondeU, Daille, Larrogue, and
others abroad ; by Bishop Jewel, Bishop Morton, Archbishop
Usher, Dr. J. Forbes, Dr. White, Dr. Barrow, and many more
of our own country : and whose names among the wisest even
of your own Church are much more valued, than for a Coccius
or a Brerely to be able to obscure them. I appeal only to the
present times to witness against you ; and would entreat you,
* De Consecr. Dist. 2. Sess. 13. [c. 12.] [Corp. Jur. Can. p. 1918.
Lugd. 1671.]
t Cone. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1. [Ibid.]

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 381
before you tell us any more of your performances, to give
some good reply to that catalogue I have sent you of above
forty treatises lately published in all these kinds of arguments
that you speak of ; and your declining of which does not very
weU suit with such vain pretences.
1 1 . Ibid.] You add : " That you have so far complied with
the infirmities of your adversaries, that you have left no stone
unturned to reduce them to the unity of the faith, and that by
meekness as well as powerful reasoning."
12. Answ.] It must be confessed indeed that you have not
been wanting in your endeavom's to convert us. Your zeal has
even equalled that which our Saviour Christ once remarked,
or rather reproved, in your predecessors the Scribes and
Pharisees : and I would to God it had not too often produced
the same effect also. As for the means that you have made
use of for the carrjdng on of this work, I have already in part
recounted them to you ; and shall only now add, that if your
meekness has been no greater than your arguments have been
powerful, we shall have as little cause to applaud the one, as
we have hitherto had to be convinced by the other. And in
deed whosoever shall consider your behaviour towards those
you call heretics, will find that some other would have suited
your character better than that of meekness. If there be any,
who, deluded by your pretences of moderation doubt this, let
them look only upon the actions of a neighbour kingdom,
and whose clergy has ever been esteemed the most moderate
of your Church. For if such a deportment as theirs towards
our brethren be the meekness you boast of, I shall only beg
leave to say vrith Solomon,* that then the " tender mercies" of
some men are cruel. But you go on to shew us wherein you
have made a testimony of this meekness : you say,
13. Ibid.] " You have not only condescended to satisfy
the curiosity of them that have more leisure, by writing large
volumes upon every particular controversy — but you have
gone a shorter way to work ; and to some have manifested the
unerrable authority of the Church of Christ, against which he
had promised that the gates of hell should not prevail. Others
you have shewed it from the nature of truth and error, and
the impossibUity that a universal tradition could fail, especially
when God had promised that the words he put into their
mouths, should not depart out of their mouths, nor out of the
mouths of their seed, nor out of the mouth of their seed's seed,
* Prov. xii. 10.

382 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
from henceforth, and for ever. To others you have proved the
innocence and antiquity of your doctrine from the testimony
of learned Protestants themselves."
14. Answ.] This indeed was a great condescension; that
being so well satisfied on all these accounts that you had the
truth yourselves, you should so far vouchsafe, as for our sakes
to prove that you had so. But traly unless you can produce
some better proof that your Church cannot err, than this,
that our Saviour once said of his Church, that "the gates of heU
should not prevaU against it," you vrill never satisfy any reason
able man of it. How often. Sir, have you been told, that here is
something indeed to establish the perpetuity of the Church,
but nothing of its infallibility. Unless you wiU suppose (what
you know we utterly deny) that the Church cannot subsist
except it be infallible in every point. The Church may faU
into many errors, and yet continue a Church still. A man is
never the less a man, because he has an ague or some other
distemper upon him. And whUst the Church thus subsists,
Christ's promise is made good, that " the gates of hell shall not
prevaU against it." Though now, 2ndly, Were the infal
libility of the Church in this text clear to a demonstration, yet
still the main thing would be wanting, how to prove your
Church to be the catholic Church, and to have alone the
right to this promise, which for aught appears from this pas
sage, any other may pretend to upon as good grounds as she.
1 5 Again ; as to the point of tradition, with what confi
dence can you say it is impossible that should fail, seeing the
instances I have before given of your departure from the tradi
tion of the primitive Fathers in so many particulars, plainly
shew that 'it has faUed ? For your argument which you
allege from Isa. lix. 20. It has the same faults with the
foregoing, and one more. For that passage, 1 st. If it speaks
any thing at all of these matters, it is for the perpetuity, not
infallibility of the Church. 2ndly, That there is not one
word in it of any privilege, either in the one or the other
kind bestowed upon your Church in particular ; and the
Greek, or any other Church may as reasonably argue from it
as yourselves. Nay, 3rdly, It is plain from the context that
it does not belong to any of us, the covenant here spoken of
being made with Zion, and " those that tum from transgression
in Jacob," that is (as St. Paul himself applies it, Rom. xi.) to
the convert Jews, when they shaU come in and embrace the
Gospel of Christ.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 383
16. And for your last method, the concessions of Protes
tants themselves, this wiU but little avail you ; seeing if it
could be proved that any of our particular writers had said
some things in favour of your doctrine, this would be of no
force against any but themselves, any farther than their argu
ments shall upon examination be found to warrant their asser
tions. We have often told you, that our faith depends not on
any human authority. Such concessions may shew the weak
ness or error of him that made them, but they are nothing
available to prescribe against the trath of the Gospel. And
this I say, supposing that you could produce the opinions of
Protestants (as you pretend) in favour of your doctrines : but
now let me tell you, the collection to which you refer us, has
been found so very insincere by those who have had occasion
to examine it, that should we allow these kind of authorities to
be as conclusive against us as you can desire, you would not
yet be able either to advantage yourselves, or to convince any
others by them.
17. Ad p. 5.] You see. Sir, what little reason we have
to expect very much from these methods, which in your great
humility you have condescended to make use of in order to
our conversion. And we cannot but congratulate our good
fortune, that you seem to tell us you have yet some better
arguments in reserve ; those which you say might have been
brought to prove the authority of your Church. And though
you think us so fond of flying off to particular disputes, that
no arguments can keep us from them ; yet I do hereby
promise you, that whenever you shall have clearly made out
this proposition, that the Church of Rome is infallible, and
whatsoever she proposes to be received by us is the traly
CathoUc faith, vrithout which there is no salvation ; and then
shew me, how I shall infallibly know, amidst so many different '
proposals of her doctrine, what that faith is which this Church
teaches as necessary to that end ; I will from thenceforth
become as blindly obedient a disciple, as the most implicit
believer, whose credulity you have ever yet imposed upon with
these pretences.
18. Ibid.] For your next allegation, that you could never
get us to take your doctrine aright, if what I have heretofore
said be not sufficient ; I wiU once more put you in mind that
you must first resolve to answer from point to point, the
Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly repre
sented, before you can expect to be credited by us. And if

384 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION,
from what we have truly said concerning you, you are
indeed grown to be looked upon (in your own words) to be
as bad as devils, and your doctrines as the dictates of hell it
self ; though I believe in this excess you do something mis
represent both yourselves and us : you may attribute it if
you please to our calumnies against you, but I beUeve all in
different persons wiU be able to find out some better reasons
for it.
19. Ad p. 6.] As for your expositions which you from
hence thought fit to pubUsh to the world, as your last reserve
for our conversion ; the world is sufficiently satisfied vrith what
sincerity you have proceeded in them. And for what you add,
in the close of this first point, concerning the character of the
times we are fallen into, such as you say St. Paul foretold, in
which men vrill not endure sound doctrine ; it is indeed too
true, and vrithal it is such a complaint as is equally made on
all hands, whilst every one thinks his own way the best. But
I vrill, in return, send you to another character of the same
Apostle concerning these days, which is all your own, ,
2 Thess. U. verse 3, to the 13th; and I think it is so plain,
that you may without an infallible interpreter understand the
meaning of it.
20. And thus far you pursue the former consideration of
the state of the controversy between the Papists and Protes
tants in general. Your next work is to give some account of
your disputes with us of this Church in particular.
21 . You begin vrith the history of the first conversion of the
EngUsh by Augustine the Monk, sent hither by Pope Gregory
the Great. But your account of it is so very uncertain, that
I would wUlingly hope, however you quote Bede for it, yet
that you never read one word of him, but took it upon the
credit of one of your new converts,* whose errors in this point
you have as bUndly embraced, as his book testifies him to
have most impUcitly taken up your prevarications.
22. Ad p. 7.] Reply. You teU us, "That notwithstand
ing the long interruption of intercourse with Rome, and the
members of that communion, occasioned by great oppressions
and persecutions during the reign of the Pagan kings, yet had
there not many errors crept into this Christian part of the
nation. For St. Augustine found only two customs among
them which he could not tolerate, the one their keeping Easter
* Reason and Authority.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 385
at a wrong time, and the other some errors in the ceremonies
in administering baptism. These two he earnestly solicited
them to amend, but they were obstinate, and would not suffer
any reformation in those two points, till God was pleased to
testify his mission, and the authority he came vrith, by the
authentic seal of miracles."
22. Answ.] In which relation you are many ways mistaken.
For, 1st, As to the intercourse that you say was a long time
lost between Rome and the British churches, by reason of the
persecutions of Pagan kings ; this is not easy to be credited :
it being the middle of the fifth century ere the Romans
left this island, and the Saxons were called into it. It was
near the middle of the sixth before the Britons were dispossessed
ofthe rest of their country, and forced to retrench themselves
within the mountains of Wales. During all this time their
intercourse with Rome, if they had any, might well have con
tinued; and it was not fifty years after, that Augustine the Monk
came into England. 2ndly, you say, that Augustine found only
two customs among the Christians here, that he could not
tolerate. It is trae indeed, upon the second meeting that he
had vrith the British bishops, he told them, " that though in
many things they were contrary to the custom of his Church,
yet if in those two mentioned they would obey him, and join
with him in preaching the Gospel to the Saxons, he would
bear •with them in the rest :" but did they therefore acknow
ledge his authority in complying vrith his desires ? So you
would make us believe; "they were obstinate, say you, till
God was pleased to testify his mission, and the authority he
came vrith by the authentic seal of miracles." As for his
miracles, we have no great opinion of their authority, since we
read in the passage to which I just now referred you, that
Antichrist himself shall come with this attestation. It is the
doctrinef that must give credit to the miracles, not these to
the doctrine. Should an angel from heaven preach any other
Gospel than that which we have received, St. Paul has com
manded us, for all the wonder, to bid him be anathema. But
I return to the history, in which you so notoriously pre
varicate, that I cannot imagine how one that pretends in this
inquisitive age to deliver the antiquities of his own country,
durst betray himself so notoriously ignorant of it. See, Sir,
the words of your own author Bede, J expressly contrary to
* Bede, lib. 2. c. 2. t Gal. i. 9. t Bede, be. cit.
VOL. XII. 2 C

386 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
your allegation : "But they answered, that they would do
nothing of all this, nor receive him for an archbishop." Inso
much that Augustine came to high words vrith them, threatening
them with that destruction which they afterwards, to their cost,
met with from his new Saxon converts. And your illustrious
annalist. Cardinal Baronius,* cannot forbear making some
severe reflections upon the state of our island at that time, as
if God had therefore given it into the hands of the barbarians,
because of the refractory and schismatical minds of these
bishops. 23. Ibid.] Reply. " Your adversaries (you say), acknow
ledge, that when St. Augustine came into England, he taught
most, if not all the same doctrines the Roman CathoUc Church
now teaches, &c."
24. Answ.] If St. Augustine (as you call him) taught the
same doctrine which Pope Gregory the Great taught, who sent
him hither, and whose disciple we are told he was, I must
then put you in mind that a very leamed man has lately
shewed you (and I may rensonably presume you could not but
know it), that he did not teach most, much less all the
doctrines which you now teach. No, Sir, the mystery of
iniquity was not yet come to perfection ; and though your
Church had even then in many things declined from its first
faith, yet was it much more pure than now it is. Had you,
when you took this pretencef from your friend Mr. Brerely,
looked into the answer that was at large made to it, I am
persuaded you would have been ashamed to have again
advanced so false and trifling an objection. Look, Sir, I
beseech you, into the Protestant's Appeal, J or if that be too
much for one of your employments, look into the treatise§ to
which I refer you : there you vrill find, 1. That the Scripture
was yet received as a perfect rule of faith. 2. The books of
the Maccabees, which you now put into your canon, rejected
as apocryphal. 3. That good works were not yet esteemed
meritorious : nor, 4. Auricular confession a sacrament. That,
5. Solitary masses were disallowed by him ; and, 6. Transub
stantiation yet unborn. That, 7. The sacrament of the
eucharist was hitherto administered in both kinds ; and, 8.
* Baron. Annal. tom. 8. an. 604.
t Protestant's Apology, p. 57, &c. 2nd edit.
:j: Protestant's Appeal, lib. 1. cap. 2.
§ Vindication ofthe Ans. to some late Papers, p. 72, &c.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 387
Purgatory itself not brought either to certainty or to perfec
tion. That by consequence, 9. Masses for the dead were not
intended to deliver souls from these torments : nor, 10. Images
allowed for any other purpose than for ornament and instruc
tion. 1 1 . That the sacrament of extreme unction was yet
unformed ; and even, 12. The Pope's supremacy so far from
being established as it now is, that Pope Gregory thought it to
be the forerunning of Antichrist, for one bishop to set himself
above all the rest. These are the instances in which you have
been shewn the vast difference there is between Pope Gregory's
doctrine, and that of the Council of Trent ; and which may
serve for a specimen to satisfy the world vrith what truth you
pretend, that we acknowledge that St. Augustine, when he came
into England, taught most, if not all the same doctrines that
you now teach. And this may also suffice for your next
argument founded upon it, viz.
25. Ad p. 7, 8.] Reply. " That these doctrines and practices
were either then taught and exercised by the British Chris
tians also, or they were not. If they were not taught by them,
certainly we should not have found them so easily submitting
to them. If they were taught by the British bishops also,
then they were of a longer standing than St. Augustine's time :
and we must either grant they were introduced by the first
preachers of the Gospel here, or evidently shew some other
time before St. Augustine when this Church embraced them."
26, Answ.] A dilemma is a terrible thing with sense and
truth, but vrithout them it is a ridiculous one ; as I take this
to be. For,
1 . It is evident from what I have before said, that Augustine
did not teach the same doctrines, nor estabhsh the same
practices that you do now teach and establish, but did indeed
in most of your corruptions differ from you. So that like the
unvrise buUder, you have erected a stately fabric, and founded
it upon the sand.
2. Had he been as very a Romish missionary as yourself,
yet is your argument stUl inconclusive. For whereas you
suppose the British bishops submitted to him, they were on
the contrary so far from either obeying his authority, or follow
ing his prescriptions, that, as I have shewn you, they utterly
rejected both ; and I will presently add, that for abov^e a
hundred years after his death, they utterly refused so much as
to communicate with his proselytes, nor esteemed them any
more than Pagans. So that I may now turn your own argu-
2 c 2

388 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
ment upon you, that seeing they had such an abhorrence for
Augustine and his followers, that they looked upon them no bet
ter than heathens, it very probably was, because they neither ap
proved what he taught, nor saw any cause to submit to that
authority to which he pretended. You see. Sir, what an ad
mirable argument you here fiourish with; and how little cause
we have to expect any great sincerity from you in other matters,
when in the very history of your own country, you so wretch
edly prevaricate, and against the exjiress authority of that very
person whom you quote for your relation.
27. Having thus given us a proof either of your skill or
your integrity in the account of the first conversion of our
island under Pope Gregory the Great, you next make a very
large step as to the progress of your religion, and such as
still confirms me more and more, how very unfit you are to
tum historian.
28. Ad p. 8.] Reply. "This faith and these exercises (say
you) taught and practised by St. Augustine, were propagated
down even till King Henry VIII.'s time."
Answ. In which account, whether we are to complain of your
ignorance or your insincerity, be it your part to determine ; this
I am sure, they cannot both be excused.
29. I have already shewn you that that faith which was
in the Church of England in King Henry VIII.'s time, could
not have been propagated dovm from the time of Angus-
tine's coming hither, seeing that monk neither taught nor prac
tised the greatest part of those corraptions which were after
wards by degrees brought into ours, as well as into the other
churches of the Roman communion. But, however, not to
insist upon this fundamental mistake, can you. Sir, with any
conscience affirm, that the doctrine which you now teach, was
tUl King Henry VIII.'s time vrithout interruption received and
practised in this country ?
30. First, For the British bishops, whom you before bring
in as submitting themselves to Augustine, your ovm author Bede
expressly declares, that in his time (which was an hundred
years after the death of Augustine) they entertained no commu
nion with them. " Seeing (says he) to this very day it is the
custom of the Britons to have no value for the faith and reli
gion of the Enghsh, nor to communicate vrith them any more
than with Pagans."* Which Henry of Huntingdon thus con-
* Lib. 2. cap. 20.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 389
firms : " that neither the Britons nor Scots (i. e. Irish) would
communicate vrith the EngUsh, or with Augustine their bishop,
any more than vrith Pagans."* So that for one age, at least,
the British bishops then neither owned the authority of your
Church, nor had any manner of communion with the members
of it. But,
31. Secondly, Have you never heard of some other kings
of England, who, vrith their Parliaments, have most stiffly op
posed the pretences of the Pope, and refused all messages
from him, and made it no less than high treason for any one to
bring his orders or interdicts into the kingdom ? What think
you of another Henry, no less brave than his successor, whom
you so revile, in his defence of himself against his rebellious
subject, but your saint, Thomas a Becket ? I could add many
acts of Parliament made long before King Henry VIII.'s
time, to shew you, that though he indeed proved the most
successful in his attempts to shake off the Pope's authority,
yet that several other of our Princes had shewn him the way,
and that the usurpations of that See were neither quietly
owned, nor patiently submitted to by his royal predecessors.
And then,
32. Thirdly, For the matter of your doctrine, it must cer
tainly be a great piece of confidence in you to pretend that this
came down such as you now believe and practise, from the
time of Augustine the monk, to King Henry VIII.'s days. I
speak not now of the great opposition that was made to it by
Wickliffe, though supported by the Duke of Lancaster, the
Lord Marshal of England, and divers others of chiefest note
in this kingdom, in the time of Edward III. and Richard
II. I need not say in how many points he stood up against
the doctrine of your Church; what a mighty interest he
had to support him against the authority of the Pope, and
the rage of the Bishop of London, and his other enemies on
that account ; so as both freely to preach against your errors,
and yet die hi peace in a good old age. The number of his
followers was almost infinite, and though severe laws were
afterwards made against them, yet could they hardly ever be
utterly rooted out. But yet, lest you should say that Wick
liffe was only a schismatic from your Chm-ch, which constantly
held against him ; I vriU rather shew you in a few instances,
that even the Church of England itself, which you suppose to
* Lib. 3. Hist.

390 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
have been so conformable to your present tenets, was in truth
utterly opposite to your sentiments in many particulars. And
because I may not run out into too great a length, I vrill insist
only upon two, but those very considerable points.
33, The first is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which as
it came but late into the Roman Church, so did it by conse
quence into ours too. Certain it is, that in the tenth century
the contrary faith was publicly taught among us. Now, not
to insist upon the authority of Bede, who in several parts of his
works plainly shews how little he believed your doctrine of
transubstantiation ; this is undeniably evident from the Saxon
homily, translated by JEifnc, and appointed in the Saxons'
time to be read to the people at Easter, before they received
the holy communion, and which is from one end to the other di
rectly opposite to the doctrine ofthe real presence as estabhshed
by your Council of Trent. And the same iElfric in his letters
to Wulfine, bishop of Scyrbume, and Wulfstane, archbishop of
York, shews his own notions to be exactly correspondent to
what that homily taught. " The housell (says he) is Christes
bodye not bodelye but ghostlye. Not the bodye which he
suffred in, but the bodye of which he spake when he blessed
bread and wyne, to housell a night before his suffring, and
said by the blessed bread, Thys is my bodye, and agayne by
the holy wyne. This is my blond which is shedd for manye
in forgiveness of sins. Understand nowe that the Lord who
could turn that bread before his suffering to his bodye, and
that wyne to his bloud ghostlye, that the self same Lord
blesseth dayly through the priestes handes, bread and wyne to
his ghostlye bodye, and to his ghostlye bloud." AU which he
more fully explains in his other letter. Nay, it appears by a
recantation of Wickliffe, mentioned by Knyghton,* that even
in the latter time of that man's life there was no such doctrine
then in England as transubstantiation publicly imposed as an
article of faith. By all which it is evident, that your great
doctriue of the real presence, with all its necessary append
ages, was not, as you pretend, propagated down from Au
gustine's to King Henry VIII.'s time, but brought into the
Church some hundreds of years after that monk died.
34. The other instance I shall offer to overthrow your pre
tences, [is no less considerable, viz. the worship of images.
It is well known what opposition was made, not only by the
* H. de Knyghton de Event. Angliae, 1. 5. p. 2647, 2648.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 391
Emperor Charles the Great and the Fathers of the Synod of
Frankfort, but by the French clergy in their Synod at Paris,
and by almost all the rest of the bishops of the Western
Church, against your pretended General CouncU of Nice,
wherein this doctrine was first established. The definitions
of this CouncU being sent to the Emperor out of the east, he
transmitted a copy of them into England. Hereupon Al-
cuinus, who had formerly been his schoolmaster, wrote an
answer to him in the name of the clergy of England, to declare
their dislike of this doctrine ; and the account of which our
ancient history gives us in these words : "In the year from the
incarnation of our Lord 792, Charles King of France sent to
Britain a Synode Booke which was directed unto him from
Constantinople ; in the which book, alas ! many things un-
convenient and contrarye to the true fayth were found ; in
especial, that it was established vrith a whole consent almost
of all the learned of the east, no less than of three hundredth
bishops or more, that men ought to worship images, the which
the Churche of God doth utterly e abhorre. Against the which
Alcuine wrote an epistle wonderouslye proved by the autho-
ritye of holy Scripture, and brought that epistle with the same
booke, and names of our byshops and princes to the King of
France."* And thus neither was this doctrine nor practice
propagated down from Augustine to King Henry VIII., but,
on the contrary, unknown to Augustine, and rejected as you see
by the Church of England, almost 200 years after his first
conversion of it.
35. Ibid.] And this may suffice to shew both your skiU in
church history, and the little pretence you have for that vain
and most false assertion, " that your religion was taught and
practised by St. Augustine, and propagated dovm even to King
Henry VIII.'s time ;" whereas, indeed, it is made up of
such corruptions as crept into it long after his decease. Your
next business is to raU at King Henry VIII., which you
do very heartily, though let me teU you, that better men
than you are, even of your own communion, and who were
much more acquainted with the affairs of those times, speak
better things of him.f And had he been as bad as you are
able to represent him, yet I could send you to some of the
* Hoveden. Annal. ad Ann. 792. Simeon Dunelm. Hist. p. 111. Mat.
West, ad An. 793. Spelm. Cone. tom. 1. p. 306.
t Thuanus.

392 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
heads of your Church, who have as far exceUed him in wicked
ness as ever any of your canonists have pretended they did in
authority. But the merits of princes, as well as ordinary per
sons, are measured by some men, not according to their real
worth, but as they have served their interests or opposed
their usurpations. And though King Henry VIII. be now
such a monster, yet had he not thrown off the Pope's supre
macy, you would have made no difficulty to have forgiven him
all his other sins whilst he Uved, and woiUd have found out
somewhat to justify his memory now he is dead. We know
one of the best Popes of this last thousand years called heaven
and earth to celebrate the praises of a traitor, that had mur
dered his master, and possessed himself of his empire. And
Cromwell himself, though an usurper and heretic, yet wanted
not his panegyrists among those pretenders to loyalty, who
now cannot afford a good word to the honour of a prince,
from whose royal line their present sovereign at this day de
rives his right to the crown he wears.
36. But, however, were the vices of that prince otherwise
never so detestable ; yet I shaU leave it to the world to judge
who proceeded with the most care and sincerity in the point
you insist upon of his divorce vrith Queen Catherine : the
King who consulted almost aU the learned men, as well as the
most famous universities of Europe, and then acted according
to their determination: or the Pope, who by his notorious
juggUng with him in the whole process of that affair, shewed
that he resolved to decide it not by any laws of God or the
Church, but merely as his greater interests with the Emperor
or the King should move him to do.
37. Ibid.] The next step you make is from King Henry, to
his son King Edward VI. And here you teU us.
Reply, p. 8.] " That as schism is commonly followed with
heresy, so nowthe Protector, who was tainted vrith Zuinglianism,
a reform from Luther, endeavoured to set it up here in
England." In which you again discover your zeal against us, but not
according to understanding. There is hardly any one that
knows anything of the beginning of this Reformation, but wUl
be able to tell you that the chief instrument of it was one whom
you have not once mentioned. Archbishop Cranmer. I vrill
not deny but that the Protector concurred vrith him in his
design, but whether he was Zuinglian, or what else, neither
you nor I can teU. Dr. Heylin, who on this occasion is

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 393
usually your oracle,* seems rather to think he was a Lutheran,
though easy to be moulded into any form. But this I know,
that had you been so well versed in these things, as one who
pretends to write historical remarks ought to be,t you would
have spared that idle reflection of ZuingUus's being a reform
from Luther, it being evident to those who understand his
history, that neither himself, nor the Cantons in which he
preached, were ever Lutherans. But, on the contrary, whereas
Luther appeared but in the year 1517, Zuinglius began to
preach against the corraptions of the Church of Rome some
years before, when the very name of Luther was not yet heard
of: and had several conferences with Cardinal Matthews then
in Switzerland, to this purpose, before ever the other appeared
in public against them. So unfortunate a thing is it for men
to pretend to be witty upon others, vrithout considering their
ovm bUnd side. But you go on :
38. Ad p. 9.] Reply. " And from that time the Catholic
doctrine which had been taught by our first Apostles, and
propagated till then, began to be rejected and accused as
erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous, and they who professed
it, persecuted."
Answ.'} This is stUl of the same kind, as false as it is malicious .
How false it is that the doctrine you now profess was either
planted here by our first Apostles, or propagated tUl this time
in the Church of England, I have already shewn. And for the
persecution you speak of, methinks you should have been
ashamed to mention that word, being to name Queen Mary's
reign in the very next Une. But what at last did this perse
cution amount to ? Were any Roman Catholics banished, or
put to death for their reUgion ? Were the laws turned against
them ; or any dragoons sent to convert them ? No ; Bonner
and Fisher, and two others. Heath, bishop of Worcester, and
Day, bishop of Chichester, were deprived of their bishoprics,
and the three first imprisoned. A very few of the inferior
clergy suffered in the same manner, and all after much provo
cation. This was the utmost of what you caU persecution :
and soon after we met other kind of trials : for this king dying,
39. Ibid.] Reply. You teU us, " The Catholic religion began
again to bud forth under Queen Mary."
* See your Hist. Coll. p. 103.
t Hosp. Hist. Sacram. par. 2. p. 33. Lampadius, par. 3. p. 439.
Scultetus Annal. ad An. 1516.

394 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
Answ.] And then as if you were afraid of burning your
fingers in those fires which her persecution* kindled against
us ; you immediately pass to her sister's succession : and to
whose reign I will so far comply vrith you, as to pass without
one word of reflection, which you know I might here have
occasion enough to make.
40. Ibid.] Reply. " But that bud being early nipped by
her death. Queen Elizabeth, by the adrice of the new CouncU
which she chose, and to secure herself in the throne, resolved
to destroy the CathoUc interest, and set up a prelatic Protes-
tancy, which might have the face of a Church. But other
pretended reformers opposed her prelates, and called their
orders antichristian, and would needs have the rags and rem
nants of Popery, as they caUed them, taken away ; telling them,
that if the word of God was to be the sole rule of reformation,
such things as were not to be found in that rule, were certainly
to be rejected."
Answ.] The method by which Queen Elizabeth proceeded
in her Reformation, was such as will sufficiently justify both
her piety and prudence in the choice of it. Never was more
care taken that nothing should be done out of interest or
passion ; but all things be estabhshed upoii the best and
surest foundations. And had not some misguided zealots, out
of a too great affection to those models they had seen abroad,
run into unreasonable oppositions at home, the Church of
England had at this day been the most flourishing, as it is the
most primitive Church in the world.
41. But though this be a matter justly to be lamented by
us, yet certainly you have no cause to complain of that great
Queen's proceedings towards you. It is well known how many
years passed before any severe laws were made against recusants ;
and how the attempts of the Pope, and the King of Spain from
abroad, and of your brethren in compliance with them at home,
forced her to that severity, which was afterwards, but vrith
gTeat moderation, used against you. Bonner, though infamous
for his cruelties in Queen Mary's days, was yet suffered to go
in safety now. Heath lived not only in great security, Lut
even in favour vrith the Queen herself. Tonstal and Thirleby
found a retreat with the Archbishop at Lambeth : the rest of
the bishops continued in quiet amongst us ; only three chose to
retire beyond sea. When the high-commission was estabhshed
* See Dr. Burnet's Cont. of his Refl. on VariUas, p. 4, 5.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 395
for visiting the churches of England, they were expressly
.ordered by her Majesty's injunctions to reserve pensions for
those that refused to continue in their benefices : and the
Reform.ation itself appeared so reasonable to them, that of nine
thousand four hundred beneficed men in England, there were
but fourteen bishops, six abbots, twelve deans, twelve arch
deacons, fifteen heads of colleges, fifteen prebendaries, and
eighty rectors of parishes that left their benefices upon the
account of religion. Consider, Sir, this procedure, and then
compare it with that ofthe Queen her sister ; or if these things
be too far out of your reach, look upon the methods that have
been used in our neighbour country, and that not in the severe
accounts of any particular persons, but in the public edicts, in
the report which one of your ovra party, Monsieur le Fevre,
has published with the King's permission ; and then say freely
which has most in it of the true spirit of Christianity, the
meekness whereby this princess estabhshed the truth in her
kingdoms, or that furious zeal which has been employed to root
it out of this other.
42. Ad p. 9.] Reply. "From that time (you say) the
nation has been variously agitated with disputes."
Armo.] And give me leave to tell you, we are in great
measure to thank you for it. They were your brethren, that
creeping info chambers and conventicles, under pretence of a
purer reformation, endeavoured to divide us among ourselves,
and especially to draw as many as they could from the
estabhshed religion, which you have ever the most hated.
Such was FaithfuU Commin in the ninth year:* Father Heath
in the tenth of that Queen's reign ; and both discovered to be
priests in masquerade. And it was in this very year 1568,t
that the Puritans chiefly began to appear : and the heads of
them which our historians mention, HalUngham, Coleman, and
Benson, are named in a letter that dropped out of Father
Heath's pocket,t to have been some of your emissaries. How
far the same policies have kept open our divisions smce, it is
now no longer a mystery. We know how provision has been
made to tutor up scholars, not only in learning,! but in handy-
craft trades too, in Italy, France, Germany, and Spam: how
• See Foxes and Firebrands, part 1, & 2.
t See Camden's Eliz. ad Annum 1568.
X Foxes and Fuebrands, part 1. p. 37. Ed. 8vo.
§ See Archbishop BramhaU's Letter to Archbishop Usher, p. 611.
[Dubl. 1677.]

396 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
they have been taught tvrice a week regularly to dispute pro
and con, concerning Presbytery, Independency, Anabaptism,
Atheism ; every one to take his part among us, according as
his fancy or genius leads him. Who was it but a St. Omer's
Jesuit* that confessed (as we are credibly informed), that they
were twenty years in hammering out the sect of the Quakers ?
And indeed the principle they go upon to refuse aU oaths, is a
neat contrivance for priests and Jesuits to avoid the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy, vrithout a possibUity of being dis
covered. But this may suffice to shew how unreasonable you
are to complain of those divisions which yourselves have in
great measure been the authors of amongst us : and shaU, I
hope, make us hereafter better understand one another, than
to give you any longer the opportunity of keeping up these
differences amongst us, and then I am sure we need not much
fear whatever you can do in your own shapes to ruin us.
43. Ibid.] "During this time (you say) all things were
carried to an extremity against you : so furious was our rage
against the truth."
Answ.] But certainly you here again make history, and do
not report things as they truly passed in those days. I am
sure, if we may conclude any thing, either from the writings or
actions of those times, nothing can be more moderate than we
shall find them both to have been. It was then our XXXIX
Articles were drawn up, and in which I am confident you will
not have the face to say, that things were carried to any undue
excess against you. And if the Homilies in some particulars
may seem somewhat severe, yet I believe there are but few
expressions in them that you have not very well deserved.
But this first dream gives you occasion in the next paragraph
to run into a contrary extravagance, and that as groundless as
the foregoing : for you add,
44. Ad p. 9, 10.] Reply. " That things grovring calmer
in King James and King Charles the First's time, such ca
lumnies and accusations, as had before been used, were looked
upon by the more learned party as the effects of passion ; and
moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome
to be a mother church, and that salvation was to be had in her.
That many of those accusations which were brought against
her were but the dreams of distracted brains ; and the more
moderate persons began to look upon her vrith a more favour
able eye." * Foxes and Firebrands, part 1. p. 7.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 397
45. Answ.] I wish you had here given us some proofs of
what you say, that so we might have known who these learned
men were, and what those charges that they begun to leave off
agamst you. It is well known how earnestly Kmg James
wrote against your Church; King Charles I. was your
avowed enemy, even to his death ; the most learned men of
those times have left such volumes against you, as you never
were, nor ever will be, able to answer ; and I shall hereafter
shew you, that even those whom you aUege as excusing you
from idolatry— which is, I believe, in your own estimation, our
severest charge against you— are, for aU your pretences, far
from thinking that there is either falsehood or calumny in such
an accusation. %
46. It is therefore great confidence in you, vrithout the least
shadow of authority for what you do, to represent such eminent
persons as favourers of your doctrine. But this has been ever
your way, and we ought not to wonder at it, seeing we can
remember the time that we ourselves were reported to be
Popishly affected ; and it is but a few months since that some of
you put out a hook to shew an agreement at this day between the
Church of England and the Church of Rome ; though, I sup
pose, he may by this time begm to repent of an undertaking
which has brought nothing but infamy to the author of so false
and scandalous an attempt.
47. What you mean by our acknowledgmg your Church to
be a mother-church, I do not very weU comprehend. We
confess, indeed, it was a Roman missionary that especially
contributed to the conversion of the Saxons, and this, I beUeve,
no man ever dem'ed ; but let me teU you, that, if your own
historian, Bede, be to be judge, our country was much
more beholden to the labours and prudence of the Scots and
French than to the Romans.* Look uito the account that has
lately been given by a learned person of our Church, in his an
swer to one of your new converts. There you vriU find that they
were Columba, Aidan, Ced, Ceadda, Finan, Colman, Trumhere,
Agilbertus, and Felix, that restored Christianity, and propa
gated it among the Saxons, when the planting of it by Augustine
was almost lost ; insomuch that, at the death of Deus-dedit,
archbishop of Canterbury, there was in all Britain but one
bishop of Roman ordination remaining, viz. Wini, who called
in two British bishops to his assistance for the ordaining of
• Answer to Reason and -Authority, p. 83, &c.

398 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
Ceadda to be Archbishop of York. And to shew what great
obUgations we have to own the Church of Rome as a mother-
church : when things were now in peace, and the paschal con
troversy laid aside, and great hopes that all things would come
to a right understanding, Wilfrid, returning from Rome, revived
again the old quarrels, and forced Colman and his followers to
retire into Ireland — St. Chad to leave his bishopric of York,
and so deprived our country of the benefit of so many excellent
pastors, as Bede himself — no friend to them — could not choose
but give an extraordinary character of them. But that you
may see what little reason we have to acknowledge your Church
above all others to be our mother-church,* I will lay this whole
affair in short before you. Our whole island^ heretofore was
dirided into four languages, of Britons, Scots, Picts, and
English. As for the Britons, they were so far from being
converted by Augustine, that, at his coming, he found an estab
lished Church amongst them, and that utterly refused to have
anything to do with him.f For the Scots, they were estab-
lislied Christians before Augustine's time, under Palladius their
bishop ;f and your own annalist carries their conversion yet
higher. § The Picts embraced our faith at the preaching of
Columbanus, who came hither out of Ireland thirty-two years
before Augustine's arrival. And lastly, for the English, || though
we are far from detracting anything from the labours of St.
Augustine, yet neither may we forget, that the glory even of
their conversion is not his alone, but must be ascribed to those
other holy men, who were his fellow-workers in the Gospel,
Felix, Aidan, Ceadda, Lethardus, etc., and some of which had
begun before him, and prepared the way for that success which
afterwards attended his preaching.
48. As to what you add, that they began to confess then,
too, that salvation was to be had amongst you, it is what we do
not any more deny at this day. We do hope that some men
amongst you may be saved, because we hope there may be
some in your Church who Uve in a more excusable ignorance
of the truth, and that these, holding still the foundation, and
being ready to submit to any conviction that should be offered,
May, by God's grace, and a general repentance, even for their
very errors, among the rest of their unknown sins, be saved
* See Mason de Minist. Angl. 1. 2. cap. 4. Bede, 1. 3. c. 6.
X Ibid. 1. 2. c. 2. X Ibid. 1. 1. u. 13.
§ Baron, ad Ann. 429. H Bede, 1. 3. c. 4.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 399
through faith in Christ Jesus. But yet, that you may not
mistake our charity, give me leave to tell you,
(1.) That we think it much more difficult for any one to be
saved in your Church now than it was before the Reformation;
because that then your errors were neither so well known, nor
so fully refuted as they have been since ; and therefore ignorance
was in those days much more invincible, and, by consequence,
more fit to excuse than it is now.
(2.) That for those who Uve, as you do, in a country where
you might, would you sincerely apply yourselves to it, find
sufficient means of instruction, it is yet more dangerous than
in those parts where these helps are wanting.
But especially (3.) will this hold good against you whom
God has called to be the pastors of his Church, and whose
character engages them to be, in an especial manner, sedulous
and inquisitive, earnest in their prayers, and unprejudiced in
their desires to know the truth, more than against the lay-
members of your Church ; so that, however we vrill not judge
you, yet neither can we vrith any comfort say that God vrill
acquit you.
And (4.) for those whom by this argument you endeavour
to draw away from us ; that we confess that men in your
Church may be saved, but that you utterly deny that they can
be in ours, and therefore it is best for them to be on yours,
that is, the safer side. If they do indeed use aU possible
means to be satisfied in the points of debate betvrixt us ; if
they indifferently apply themselves to the examination of them,
and, after a diUgent trial, remain at last convinced in their
consciences that yours is the best and purest Church, we shall
then be encouraged to hope well of them, as we do of others
of your communion, notwithstanding such a change. But
now, should interest or prejudice, or any human motives,
chance to have interposed to bias their judgments, if they
choose your reUgion vrithout this diUgent and impartial exa
mination, and suffer themselves, without reason, to be seduced
by you, we must freely profess our charity, in this assertion, is
not meant for them ; nor do we think your Church, in this case,
any way of salvation at all to such converts, much less, a safer
than that of the Church of England. In short, the sum of
this matter is ; we hope honest men may be saved in your
communion, but we are sure they shall be in ours. Whether
God will condemn you for professing errors that you do not
know to be such, we cannot tell ; we believe he vrill not ; sure

400 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
we are he would damn us, should we, who are convinced of
your corraptions, be seduced by any base motives to go over
to you. And this is enough for us to know : the other is your
concern, and do you look to it. But you go on, and tell us,
49. Ibid.] Reply. "That the aversions which the people
had imbibed from so long-continued slanders could not be
removed, and the arising factions in the state blew up the
coals afresh, and pretended this moderation was nothing but
an inclination to Popery, which so frighted the mobile, that
they were ready to join with any party that pretended to sup
press such a monster as they thought it to be : from hence
came rebellion, and the horrid murder of King Charles I."
50. Answ.] That the people had an aversion to Popery
then, I can easily beUeve, from what I have the satisfaction to
find in them at this day ; but that this aversion sprung from
any slanders that had been laid upon you heretofore, I no more
believe, than I do that it proceeds from our misrepresenting
your doctrine now. No, Sir, believe me, there is enough in
Popery to make an honest man hate it, vrithout raising any
calumnies against it to render it the more odious ; and I do not
find, since your endeavours to vindicate yourselves against us,
that it begins to be at all more liked than it was before.
51. For what you mention of the original of the civil wars
in King Charles I.'s reign, I readily grant that the fears of
Popery contributed much to blow up the people into rebeUion;
but I am persuaded, we must look somewhat farther, if we
mean to rise up to the trae authors of them. Shall I tell you
freely what I think? I do beUeve there was more at the
bottom of these civil wars than either the people did then
believe, or, it may be, the wisest men are at this day able
sufficiently to dive into. But, yet, thus much we do all
know :
(1.) That the King himself, in the very first breaking out
of them, observed, that the fanatics proceeded upon Popish
principles against him. "Their maxims," says he, "are the
same vrith the Jesuits ; their preachers' sermons have been
delivered in the very phrase and style of Becanus, Scioppius,
and Eudaemon Johannes.* Their poor arguments which they
have delivered in their seditious pamphlets, printed or written,
are taken almost verbatim out of Bellarmine and Suarez ; and
the means which they have used to induce a credit of their
• See the King's large Declaration about the Scotch Troubles, p. 3, 4.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 401
conclusions vrith their proselytes, are purely and merely Jesu
itical fables, false reports, false prophecies, pretended inspira
tions and divinations of the weaker sex, as if now Herod and
Pilate were once again reconciled for the ruin of Christ, and
of his true religion and worship."*
2. That in the year 1640, there was discovered to the
Archbishop of Canterbury a design, in which the Pope, Car
dinal Richelieu, many of the English Papists, but especially
the Jesuits, were concerned in stirring up those divisions
that had ^ust before broke out in Scotland, for the ruin of
the King a,nA' of the Archbishop. This may be seen at large
in the histories of those times, and the very papers themselves
ntiay be found in Mr. Rush worth's coUections.f
3. That Sir William Boswell, his Majesty's Resident at
that time at the Hague, and to whom this discovery was first
made; did find out,f " that the Romish clergy gulled the
misled paijty of our English nation, under a puritanical dress.
That they had received indulgences from the See of Rome
and Council of Cardinals, to educate their scholars in prin
ciples and tenets, contrary to the Episcopacy of the Church of
England. That within the compass of two years, above sixty
of the Romish clergy were gone out of France, to preach
up the Scotch covenant, and to pidl down the English
Episcopacy, as being the chief support of the imperial crovm
of our nation."
4. That Archbishop BramhalJ being in France, some time
after the King's death; did there learn how all these things
were managed: that in the year 1646, above an hundred
Romish clergy were sent over into England; who were most
of them soldiers in the Parhament army, and were daily to
correspond vrith the Romanists in the King's army : that in
the year 1647, they had a consult vrith one another, wherein
they discoursed about the death of the King, and England's
being a Commonwealth ; that hereupon the Romish orders
wrote to their several convents, but especially to the Sorbonists,
to know whether it might be lawful to make away the King
and'.the Prince ? In short, that the Sorbonists returned, that
it was lavfful for Roman CathoUcs to work changes in govem-
• See his Majesty's Declaration after the Battle at Edgehill. King's
Works, part 2. p. 213.
t Vol, 3. p. 1310, &C-
j See in the Life of Archbishop Usher, Appendix, p. 27. Letter 17.
§ See Bishop Usher's Life, p. 293. Letter, p. 611.
VOL. XII. 2 D

402 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
ments for the mother church's advancement, and chiefly in
an heretical kingdom, and so lawfully make away the King."
5. That after the engagement at Edgehill,* several Romish
priests were found among the slain of the Parhament army.
This Father Salmonet declares in his history of those civil
wars, printed in France, with the allowance ofthe King: and
adds, that the Parliament had two companies of Walloons,
besides others of that religion in their army.
6. When the rebellion broke out in Ireland, it was we know
blessed vrith his Holiness's letters, and assisted by his Nuncio,
whom he sent on purpose thither for that service.
Lastly, that Monsieur du Moulin f has confirmed this with
several plain instances, which he declared himself ready to,
make a legal proof of before his judges, and after seventeen
years attendance, in a new edition of his book desired once
more that he might be called to account for it, and yet died
vrithout being ever attempted to be disproved.
These things, I say, we know of this matter, and therefore
though I do confess that the fears of Popery was the pretence
to blow up the people, yet whether there might not be some
other persons and designs at the bottom, I shall leave it to the
reader to consider what credit he vrill think fit to give these
relations, and then judge as he sees cause.
52. Ad p. 10.] Reply. "During this war there was
(you say) a good tmderstanding between the Papists and the
Prelatic party, which was the cause of a no less pleasing
union after the restoration of King Charles II., till Shaftes
bury and his adherents invented a maUcious calumny, laying
a pretended plot to their charge. — The trath of which
being detected by a subsequent real one, the more moderate
of the Church of England again began to favour them : only
still the laws enacted against them being in force, there were
persons enough to put them in execution."
Answ.] To all which I have nothing more to say, but that
being come now to the affairs of our own times, I suppose
every man is already satisfied what to believe as to these
things : or if he be not, I am sure there is nothing here to
direct him. The accounts of these transactions have been
published by authority ; and those who desire more nearly to
consider them, may recur to the history of the latter of the plots
• Salmonet Hist, des troubles d'Angleterre, liv. 3. p. 165.
X Answer to Philanax Anglicus, p. 61.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 403
mentioned : and to the several trials and narratives, espe
cially to Mr. Coleman's letters, for his information in the
former. 53. Ad p. 11.] Reply. "In this posture were affairs, when
it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty : no sooner
was his present Majesty ascended upon the throne, but he
declared himself a CathoUc : yet was pleased to declare that
he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon
loyal principles, and that he would protect her. This gained
the hearts of that party, and had so much power over the
Parhament, that notwithstanding the conclusion of a sermon
preached before them, in which it was declared that an
EngUshman might be loyal, but not a Papist, that Parhament
testified its loyalty to such a degree as shall never be for
gotten." And thus after a long story nothing to the purpose, and that
too fraught (as we have seen) vrith many falsifications, we are
at last come to the point to be considered, of the controversies
that are now depending betvrixt the two Churches, and the
original whereof you here recount to us.
54. Ad p. 11, 12.] Reply. "This was the occasion of
our foUovring controversies, and the first thing that appeared
in print against the Roman CathoUcs, though the author of
the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of
it. And the more considering men of your party (you say)
looked upon it as the throvring out ofthe gauntlet, and bidding
defiance to all the Catholics of England. This produced a
remonstrance from you, and that an answer from the Doctor,
and there (as almost all our controversies have done since) it
ended, though a reply was prepared and approved of. But it
was thought fit by those who were to be obeyed, to let the
coutroversy die, rather than stir up a reUgious Utigation upon
apoint which not only the protestations of Catholics, but their
practices had justified them in."
55. An^w.] What you thought of that passage in Dr.
Sherlock's sermon I cannot teU ; but others think that by
your clamours against it you have given the Doctor occasion to
satisfy the world, that what he had said was but too trae.
And smce you tell us that there is an answer ready prepared
and approved, and that the controversial spirit is now let
loose, so that our quarrels vriU not be much mcreased by such
an accession, I dare say the Doctor vriU be very glad to see that
answer, and whether it has force enough to convince him of his
2 D 2

404 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
mistake. As for your pretence why you decUned engaging
any farther in. this dispute, viz. " that it was a point, wMch
not only your protestations, but your practices had justified
you in;" though I readily acknowledge that the Englishman
has in. many of your communion been too strong for the Papist
(and far be it from us tp, detract from their worth), yet as to
your assertion in the general, that both your protestations and
practices have sufficiently justified you in this point, give me
leave. tp telliyou that we are not very forward to credit the one,
because we have known too much of the other. We cannot so
soon forget, the names of Mariana, Suarez, Bellarmine, of
Parsons, Stapleton, and many others of your communion, as
not to remember what sort of loyalty has sometimes been
taught in your schools. Who were they that sainted Thomas
k Becket, and have applauded even the assassins of some
princes since, but the venerable heads of your Church ? and in
what esteem Gampian and Garnet are at this day among you,
we. are not ignorant. When that wicked wretch J. Castel
assaulted Henry IV. of France, he found an apologist among
you ; and the Arrest of the Parliament of Paris against him,
stands at this day among the prohibited books in the last
Index set forth at Rome. They were these things that
moved our King James I. to set out his admonition to all
Christian princes against you ; and even that your Cardinal
Bellarmine was :not. ashamed to answer, in defence of his doc
trine ofthe Pope's, authority over kings : in short, he that
would know what credit is to be given to you in your assertion
as to this matter, need only recur to Mr. FouUs's collection,
and I' am confident he vrill then confess that the distinction
the Doctor made in behalf of his countrymen of your religion,
is the best apology that can be offered, and the most to the
honour of oiir- nation, though it may be not so much for the
credit, of your. Church, vis. that your principles considered,
the EngUshman may be, I wUl add, and has often been found
loyaly but, then he has laid aside the Papist to be so.
56. Ad p. 12.]-Reply. You teU us, "That this imputation
of the Doctor's, joined vrith the mistakes that most men had
conceived of your doctrine, gave occasion to the Representer to
shew your doctrines truly as they are in themselves, vrithout
the •mixture of the particular opinions of the schoolmen, or
the practices, which are neither umversally nor necessarily, re
ceived." Jmszo.] And this book, though it produced not any manner

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 405
of authority for its representations, and was contraiy in mOst
points to the opinions of the chiefest writers of your Church,
soon received an answer in every particular. There your doc
trine was truly stated from your own authors, his false colours
detected, and to your shame never replied to. For I suppose
no one will be so far mistaken, as to think that trifle that
came out against it deserves the name of an answer.
57. Ad p. 1 3.] And whilst this book yet subsists in its full
force, and that we have so effectually shewn you the opinions
of the most eminent divines of your Church, the practice of
the generality amongst you, and the very words of your
Councils and Liturgies, to be utterly inconsistent with your new
representations, that you are not able to make any reasonable
defence of the one, and are forced utterly to reject after all the
other : what a forehead must that man have that can tell the
world as you do " that we cannot deny (what yet yciu
complain of me in this very book for denying) that all CathoHes
do believe according to that doctrine which the Representer
expresses," and which you in vain endeavour (as I shall here
after shew you) to defend.
58. Ad p. 14.] Reply. " During this dispute two hooks
(you say) were published vrith the same intention : the first,
the Acts of the Clergy of France in their General Assemblyj
1685, in which was shewn in one column the doctrine of your
Church from the words of the Council of Trent ; in the other,
the calumnies of Protestants against you, from the very words
of their authors. And this you think to have been so clear a
proof of what the Representer had said, that you suppose his
adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such
plain and ample testimonies."
Answ^ And here you think you have found out somewhat
to boast of : a wonder indeed not every day to be seen ; a
book never yet answered by us. It is true, 1 do not know of
any one here at home, that has taken the pains to examine the
Clergy's quotations, as the Answer to Papists protesting against
Protestant Popery has done, for the instances there offered by
their humble imitator, the Representer. But then the discovery
that was made by that worthy author of the whole cheat, by
distinguishing matters of dispute, from matters of representa
tion, has abundantly confuted all their pretences. We charge
you (for instance) with idolatry, for worshipping of images,
praying to saints, and for adoring the host. If you do not
worship images, nor pray to saints, nor adore the host, then

406 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
indeed we misrepresent you. But now for the other pomt,
that therefore you commit idolatry, this is our consequence
which we draw from those practices, and must be put to
the trial betvrixt us. If our reasons be good, our conclusion
will be so too : if they are not, we are then mistaken in our
opinion, and you may say we are in an error, but we do not
therefore misrepresent you. We never yet pretended that
you thought idolatry to be lawful ; or that you confessed that
you committed it : we accuse yon of it only as a thing which
upon the premises before-mentioned, we conclude you to be
guUty of; and in that certainly, if we misrepresent any body,
it must be ourselves, not you. Now this one thing being
observed, the book you mention is utterly overthrovni, and
both the artifice and the evidence fall together.
59. Ibid.] The other book you tell us you pubUshed, was
the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, and what has been done on
this occasion is very well known, and I shall not need to give
any account of it.
60. Ad p. 1 7.] And thus have we done vrith the two points
to which I reduced the sum of your preface : what further
remains, is your adrice to the readers of our books, what they
are to take notice of, and what to pass over in them. "You
tell them that you will lay down the trae state of the difference
betwixt us, and that whatever they find vmtten by us that does
not immediately oppose some of those tenets, they should pass
it over, though never so plausible or pleasing."
61. Now how politic such an advice as this may be to hinder
the good effect of our writing, I wUl not dispute ; but sure I
am it is highly unreasonable. For what if the very subject of
the controversy should be (as indeed at this time it is) whether
those things which you here lay down, be your Church's doc
trine, or only your private exposition of it ? Ought not the
judicious reader in this case to consider our aUegations, and see
whether we have not reason to say that you do endeavour to
delude them, by pretending that to be your behef, which in
truth is not received by the generality of your Church as such?
As for instance : you positively deny that " the holy cross is
upon any account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine wor
ship." Now this we deny too, and therefore as to this point
there can be no dispute betwixt us. But now what if I should
undertake to shew, that you here impose upon your reader, and
that whatsoever you pretend, yet your Church does teach, that
the holy cross is to be worshipped with divine worship, and

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 407
practises accordingly ? Is not this think you fit to be con
sidered by him ? Or is the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition
become so far the guide in controversy in France and England,
that all other Expositions are to be looked upon as superan
nuated, and this only to contain the true interpretation of your
.pretended catholic faith !
62. But indeed I do not wpnder that you would persuade
your proselytes not to read our books, since you easily guess
that those things may well stagger them, which, were not your
.obstinacy or your prejudices too strong for your reason and
conscience to grapple with, must long ere this have convinced,
as they have sufficiently confuted, your ownselves.
63. Ad p. 27.] "And because you were not willing to pro
long disputes, you do here declare, that if the Defender do
meddle hereafter vrith such points as those which are not of
necessary faith, you shall not think yourself obliged to answer
him, though after that he may perhaps boast how he had the
last word."
Answ.] That is to say, the great business of the Defender
has been to discover your true doctrine, and yours to dissemble
it. Now if the Defender makes any answer at all to your
Reply, it must be to maintain those doctrines to be yours which
he had laid to your charge, and which you deny ; and this, if
he does, you here declare you vrill have done vrith him :
which I think is plainly to confess, that you have had enough
of this argument.
64. But, Sir, the Defender has such a kindness for his sub-
j ject, and such a respect for you, that he is resolved not to
part either vrith you or it. And therefore, for what concerns
his subject, he will still make good in the several points in which
he advanced it, his distinction of Old Popery and New Popery
against you, and which in your last Defence you have been shewn
yourself to allow of : he vrill ^ prove that you do palliate the
ancient doctrine of your Church ; and that greater men than
either the Bishop of Meaux or yourself, have and do interpret
your Church's sense in a much other manner than you repre
sent it. And to this you may return or not, as you think fit.
For yourself, he is resolved so be so far your humble servant as
to join issue vrith you upon your own terms, and shew you
how you have abused the world to no purpose at all ; for
that even taking your doctrine as you misrepresent it, yet
stiU we are not able nevertheless to embrace it. But then
for your other proposal, of throwing aside all the rest of

408 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
our points, only for the sake of those two which you men
tion, here he desires to be excused : it being much more
for the edification of his friends, the populace (and whose
applause you know he courts), to give them a full prospect
of your doctrine, and your misrepresentations of it, than to
run the circle with you in the single point of the Church's
authority, in which they may more easUy be amused and
deluded by you. But you say,
65. Ad p. 24.] Reply. "That you may be bold to
foretell, without pretending to be a prophet, that nothing
of this will be done by me, but that I shall either still fly
to the tenets and practices of particulars, or misrepresent
your doctrine, or fob off your arguments with such an
answer as I think sufficient to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpe
tuite, which I said wanted only Diogenes's demonstration to
confute it."
Answ.] I am very glad. Sir, you profess yourself to be no
prophet (and I have long been convinced that you are no
conjuror), for if your arguments be no better than your
guesses, I shall have a very easy task of it. I liave already
told you what method I resolve to proceed in, and I hope
you will comply so far with me as to excuse one part of it,
seeing I go utterly besides my measures to gratify your desires
in the other. As for your fear that I should fob off your
arguments, by which I suppose you mean that I shall endea
vour to elude them with some imperfect answer, I do promise
you it is groundless ; I will very carefully sift your Reply to
the bottom, and not let any thing, that is not very impertinent,
pass my examination. But shall I beg leave, now that I have
satisfied yours, to confess my own fears ; and that is, that as
far as I can yet judge by what I have hitherto read of your
Reply, I shall find but few arguments in it either to fob off,
or to answer. For having already considered your calumnies,
I much doubt by that time I have rectified your mistakes too,
I shall have httle more remaining to encounter.
66. As to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpetuite, I do stUl say that
Diogenes's demonstration is the best confutation of it. The
case in short is this : Monsieur Aubertine has shewn in the
first ages of the Church, that the doctrine which we now em
brace of the holy eucharist contrary to transubstantiation, was
the ancient catholic doctrine of the Church. This he confirms
by a multitude of clear testimonies drawn out of the writings
of those Fathers who Uved in those times. Now for Monsieur

AN ANSWER TO THE PREPACK. " 409
Arnaud after this to think to confute this evidence by a
logical argument, that had not the doctrine of transubstan
tiation been the doctrine of the Church at the beginning,
it could never have become so afterwards ; and that such a
Uttle shift is sufficient to overthrow all, those testimonies, this
must certainly be a mere reverie {yon will I hope excuse me
that expression, now you know the meaning of it), and needs
no other confutation, than to shew him that : the matter of
•fact is evidently opposite to his pretences.
67. Ad p. 25.] Reply. " But such things as these (yoii
say) are now-a-days put upon the world vrithout a blush: and
they who are this day ingenuous, leamed, honest men, shall be
to-morrow, time-servers, blockheads, and knaves, if they chance
to cast but a favourable eye towards Popery.''
Answ.] O Tempora ! O Mores I To what a sad state are
we arrived, that men should be able to do such ill things, and
yet not to blush at them ! But what now is the matter ?
Why, " men who were yesterday esteemed very honest men,
are the next found out to be knaves and time-servers." Good
Sir, be not too hasty ; it is possible this may be done^ and
yet no cause of blushing neither, unless for those persons
who are so found out. . For, 1 . What if we mistook those
men for honest men, who at the bottom were not so ? And
when we saw our error, altered our opinion ? And as every
thing that is done, must be done some day or other ; what if
we took them for honest men to-day, and to-morrow find
that they were not so honest? Is it any crime for one upon
good grounds to change his mind in this case ? Again, 2.
There is a certain season when the worst man first 'begins to
be so. Now, what if one that had hitherto done nothing to
forfeit his reputation, should begin to do such notorious ill
things as to deserve our censure ? Here we had both reason
to believe him an honest man whilst he was so, and as much
reason to believe him othervrise, since his actions have
declared his change. So that then, for aught I can find, we
must come at last to the grounds of these charges, before we
can judge of them. And for that, whenever you will please
to give us your instances of the persons who have been thus
censured by us ; that have been heretofore esteemed honest,
ingenuous men, and are now found out to be knaves and block
heads ; though I shall have no occasion to justify any such
censure, till you can prove that I have been concerned in
.passing of it ; yet I doubt not but those who have done this,
wUl be able to give you abundant satirfaetion of it.

410 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION.
68. Ibid.] Reply. " You conclude aU with an msiuuation,
the most Ukely to catch those that are not well acquainted vrith
you, of any thing in your whole book, " that it is not likely
you should palliate your doctrine to gain proselytes, seeing
that proselyte, the first time he should see you practise con
trary to your doctrine, would be sure to return and expose your
villany." Answ.] But yet to this I answer, 1st, That it is possible you
may palliate your doctrine, and your proselyte never discover
it. It is no such strange thing for men to profess one thing
and do another, and yet by subtle distinctions justify them
selves to those who are prepared to deny sense and reason,
rather than not believe them. You tell us, for instance, that
the holy cross is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped ;
and yet certainly your Good-Friday serrice directly leads you to
it. But then, if your new proselyte begins to inquire what this
means, presently you tell him a story of absolute and relative
worship ; and he who knows nothing more of the matter than
you are pleased to let him, humbly submits himself to yours
and the Church's judgment.
69. If we urge your expressions against you, and he
fortunes to get something of this by the end, either you confi
dently deny that you have any such 'words (a case which has
happened to myself in this very allegation) ; or, if you are
baffled there, then it is not, for instance, " Come, let us
adore the cross," but " Come, let us adore Christ who suffered
on it :" concerning which we must discourse a little by and bye.
70. If this, too, fails, and we shew you plainly that you
say, " We adore thy cross, O Lord ;" so that our Saviour is
himself distinguished from his cross which you worship, then
the cross there is put to signify Christ's passion ; though I
am afraid the adoring of Christ's passion is something like that
which you call jargon, and we, in plain English, nonsense.
71. If even this be beaten off, and other hymns produced
in which that cross is plainly specified which bore Christ's
sacred members, " the tree upon whose arms the Price of the
world hung ;" then you have your figures ready : it is a
metonymy in one line, a prosopopoeia in the next, in the third
a conjunction of both together; and vrith these quirks the
poor, implicit proselyte's head is turned round. He beheves
there is something meant by all these hard words, though he
knows nothing of the matter; and his opinion of your
integrity, joined vrith the good assurance with which you pro
nounce your oracles, and thunder out your anathemas against

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 411
US as heretics and schismatics, calumniators, falsifiers, mis
representers, and what not ? makes him that he no longer
questions your pretences.
72. As for your authors, he knows nothing of them : or if
he did, yet those who have so many tricks to elude such clear
expressions of their public rituals, could not want distinctions
enough to expound them; or, however, a general outcry
against them as private men, and for whose opinions the
Church is not to answer, wUl at once silence all such allega
tions, that they shall not make any the least impression upon
them. By aU which it appears that you may (as we affirm
you do) palliate your doctrine, and yet your proselyte be never
the vriser for it.
73. But now, 2ndly, If he should discover something of this
kind, yet is it not necessary that he should, therefore, presently
return and expose your villany. I vrill suppose that those few
proselytes you have made may all be reduced to these two
kinds : men of conscience, or men of interest and design. For
the latter of these, whilst they serve their interest by the
change, there is no great fear of their making any such
dangerous discoveries. ReUgion is not their concern ; and
whether it be New Popery or Old that they embrace, they
neither know nor care : it is to them indifferent, and they
understand, as well as value, both alike. As to the conscien
tious converts (allovring for their capacities, and that they
are able to overcome all the forementioned difficulties, and
to discover the cheat, which, I fear, is what the much greater
part of these are not able to do), it is indeed hard to say what
a terrible conffict this will be apt to make in them. But yet
the point of reputation, the opinion of the world, shame of
retum, and the dangers those commonly run who venture to
reveal such sacred mysteries, these considerations have some
times kept good men a longer time in suspense than any of
your proselytes have yet had to resolve upon a return to us.
And who can tell what times and changes may one day bring
forth ?
74. Again : We know that there have been many in your
Church, who, though they have discovered these prevarica
tions, yet have thought, that as long as they did not them
selves join in your errors, they might hold their tongues, and
live quietly in external communion vrith you ; and their eyes
have been so dazzled with the splendour, succession, extent.

412 SECOND DEFENCE OP THE EXPOSITION.
&c. of your Church, that they have preferred it, vrith aU its
faults, to others who seem to want these advantages. Such
were the famous George Cassander, Father Barnes, and others
that I might mention. Nay, it is no very long time since a
person, yet Uving, Monsieur Ferrand, has published a book to
shew, that were the Church of Rome as corrupt as we pretend
it to be, yet we ought not, nevertheless, to separate from it.
And should any of your converts be of this persuasion, they
may still -continue, to all appearance, in your Church, though
they see the errors, and the falsifications of the trae doctrine
of it.
75. But, 3rdly, Though Ido affirm that what you pubUsh is
not the ancient doctrine of your Church, yet I do not deny
but it is that which you endeavour to make pass with your
converts as such. This you teach your proselytes, the Bishop
of Meaux his diocese; and they rarely meet with any one
that maintains the contrary. But this does not hinder, that
because this is the Popery of a few English missionaries and
French expositors, that therefore it has been all along the
common doctrine of your Church, or is conformable to the
practice of other countries at this day ; and all men have not
the leisure to go into Italy or Spain, or the abiUty to read over
your several authors for satisfaction in it.
7^. But, 4thly, to quit all these suppositions, yet since
you make it no less than a mortal sin to have any doubt of
your rehgion, you are sure, as soon as any such arise in their
minds, to hear of it in confession from them. Being thus
acquainted vrith the first motions of this kind, you presently
take all the ways imaginable to stifle them, and hinder them
from coming to an open defection from you ; so that, though
your proselyte should begin to stagger, yet unless he utterly
abandon your party without ever consulting you in it (which
men of conscience will never do), he is alpaost under an
impossibility of ever doing, it at all.
77 . To all which I will add but this farther, which well
may, and, I am persuaded, does keep many from telling of
tales, and exposing (as you call it) your villany ; and that is,
that when you receive a new convert into your Church, you
require a terrible oath from him, never by any argument to
leave or to forsake you, upon pain of perjury and damnation
if he does. And to the end the reader may know what is the
last step he is to make, if he has any thoughts that way, and

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 413
to convince him what little force there is in your suggestion,
I will here transcribe it from your own Pontifical in its
full length : —
The Oath that is ordered by the Church of Rome to be
administered to a New Convert. {Pontif. Rom. Ord. ad
reconc. Apost. Schism, vel Hceret.)
" I, N., having found out the snare of division vrith which
I was held, after a long and diligent deliberation vrith myself,
am, by the grace of God, returned with a forward and ready
vrill, to the unity of the Apostolic See ; and lest I should be
thought to have returned not with a pure mind, but only in
show, I do-hereby promise, under the pain of falUng from my
order, and under the obligation of an anathema to thee, bishop
of such a place ; and by thee to Peter, prince of the Apostles,
and to the most holy Father in Christ, our lord N., Pope, and
to his successors, that I will never, through the persuasion of
any persons whatsoever, or by any other means, return to that
schism from which, by the grace of our Redeemer freeing
me, I am delivered ; but that I will always remain in all things
in the unity of the Catholic Church, and in the communion of
the Bishop of Rome ; and therefore I do say upon my oath,
by God Almighty, and these sacred Gospels, that I wUl,
without wavering, remain in the unity and communion afore
said ; and if (which God forbid) I shall, by any occasion or
argument, divide myself from this unity, may I, incurring the
guilt of perjury, be found condemned to eternal punish
ment, and have my portion with the author of schism in the
world to come. So help me God," &c.
Thus does your new proselyte swear himself firm to your
party ; at least I am sure he is here required to do it. And
now you may as well expect that a feUow conspirator should
discover the treason he is to commit, as a convert thus engaged
to you (though he should find it out) expose your villany.

END op VOL. XII.

u. NORMAN, PRINTER, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARDEN.

my"'