A DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, Against the EXCEPTIONS OF Monsieur de MEAƲX, Late Bishop of Condom, AND HIS VINDICATOR. The Contents are in the next Leaf.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVI.

THE CONTENTS.

  • I. THE Preface: containing a farther ac­count of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposi­tion, with an Answer to his Excep­tions against my former Preface.
  • II. The Defence of my Exposition; being a full Reply to whatsoever has been alledged against it by the Vindicator: particularly as to the false citations, he pretends, of Their Authors, and misrepresentation of their Tenets.
  • III. Appendix: Being a Collection of some pieces re­lating to this controversie, viz.
    • 1. The account of Monsieur de Meaux's Pa­storal Letter, taken out of the last Nou­velle, &c.
    • 2. A summary of Father Crassets Doctrine, of the Worship of the B. Virgin.
    • 3. The Opposition between Card. Bona and Monsieur de Meaux in the same point.
    • [Page]4. A Copy of Monsieur Imbert's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, giving him an ac­count of his beiong persecuted by the A. B. of Bourdeaux, for maintaining the Do­ctrine of his Exposition.
    • 5. The Letter of S. Chrysostom to Caesarius, suppress'd by some Doctors of the Sor­bonne, for being contrary to their Canon of Transubstantiation; with an Account of that whole transaction.
    • 6. An account of Authors cited by me, with their Editions, to prevent any new Ca­lumnies.

THE PREFACE.

MY former Treatise of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, has given so full an account of the Occasion and Design of Mon­sieur de Meaux's Book, as might supersede the Necessity of adding any more upon that subject. But being called to a necessary justification of what I there advanced, not so much by the weak de­fence of his Vindicator, embarqued with him in the same Cause; as by the flat denial of Monsieur de Meaux himself, of the principal foundation on which that Account was built; I hope I shall need no great Apologie, if upon this Occasion I enter somewhat far­ther upon a new History than might otherwise seem absolutely necessary for my defence, and by comparing this method of Expounding with some others of a different Nature, which have of late been sent abroad by those of the Roman Communion, endeavour to shew what the real intent of them all has been; and what the design of those who now pursue the same Me­thod among us, may reasonably be supposed to be.

It is I presume at this time not unknown to any, what great Endeavours have been used in our neigh­bour Nation, for the reducing of those of the Re­formed Religion to the Roman Communion. And [Page ii]it must be confess'd indeed, they have omitted no­thing that Language and Sophistry could be made to do, for the Attainment of so great an End.

The Jansenists were some of the first who began this work: and it is not to be doubted but that Persons of their avow'd reputation in point of Learning, and who seem'd to have had this means only left them to regain the favour of their King, whose design they pursu'd; would be sure to offer something worthy them­selves, and proportionable at once both to the Work it self, and to their Engagements to it.

The first Attempt they made was a little piece, that has since given Occasion to a very long Controversie between Monsieur Arnauld and Monsieur Claude; La perpetuité de la foy de l'Eglise Catho­lique, touchant l'Eucharistie. Ann. 1664. of the Perpetuity of the Faith as to the real Pre­fence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. A Tract which if we regard only the neatness and subtilty of the composure, it must be avow'd scarce any thing ever ap­pear'd more worthy that Applause it met with in the World: And the design, though express'd in one par­ticular only, yet so applicable to all the rest; that were the Argument good, the Church of Rome would have needed no other defence for all the corruptions that had, or could possibly creep into it.

But the Sophistry of this method has been suffici­ently exposed in the Volumes composed on this occa­sion. And indeed without entring on a particular Ex­amination, any Mans own reason will tell him at first sight, that a Logical subtilty advanced against mat­ter of Fact, may be worth the considering for the cu­riosity of the undertaking, but like the Philosopher's Argument against Motion, will never be able to con­vince any, but such as want Diogenes's demonstration to expose its Sophistry.

In effect, the design of this first Method amoun­ted to thus much; That Transubstantiation (and the same might have been said of any other point in dispute) was visibly once the common Doctrine of the Church: And 'tis impossible it should have been so then, had it ever been otherwise before. And this to be believed upon the strength of a sophistical Argument, Albertinus de Eucharistiae Sacramento. Fol. notwith­standing all the evident instances of matter of Fact, which Monsieur d'Aubertine and others have at large collected to the contrary.

The next Attempt, and that as useful and uni­versal as the former, was by another of the same par­ty, and with no less applause, whether we regard the novelty of the invention, or the neatness of the per­formance: And his Method was, Prejugez tegi­times contre les Calvinists. An. 1671.by advancing cer­tain matters of fact, which he calls just prejudices against the Calvinists, to shew that without entring into dispute about any of the points in debate, the bare external consideration of the Protestants in the man­ner of their Reformation, and some other particulars, was enough to 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, Examen du livre qui porte pour titre, Pre­jugez legitimes, &c. An. 1673. who undertook the defence of his Party against it, has shewn that in his proof he has not only advanced an Argument that might indifferently be brought against all sides, but which a Monsieur Ju­rieu Prejugez legitimes contre le Papisme An. 1685. late Author has since proved, to be ten times more strong against themselves, than it could ever be thought to be against us.

I shall not undertake an exact account of all the other Methods that have succeeded these, with less Applause, and as little Effect. One, as is said by [Page iv]the same Author, Les Pretendus Reformez con­vaincûs de Schisme. 1684. was published not long since to prove us guilty of Schism in separating from the Church of Rome, whether we had sufficient grounds or not for our so doing: And that for this reason, because however the learned Men of our party might have been convinced of the reasonableness of it, yet the generality being uncapable of forming such a 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 ill instructed in their Religion, but what will have enough to free them from the sin of Schism, if the knowledge of a sufficient reason of their Separation may be allow'd to do it.

Thus much only I will beg leave to observe on oc­casion of these several methods that have been pro­posed for our Conviction, That the great design of them all has been to prevent the entring on particu­lar Disputes, which had hithexto been the way, but such as experience had taught them to be the least favourable of any to them.

And the same is the design of the late peace­able method set forth by Monsieur Maimbourg; in which from the Authority of the Church in mat­ters of Faith, confess'd, as he says, by us, he proves, That the Church, in which both parties once were, must then have had this Authority over us all; and to whose decision in the Council of Trent, we all by consequence ought to submit.

It is not necessary that I should here say any thing to 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 plausi le shew 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 un­denyable, That as it came out at a time when these kind of Methods were all in repute, and with a design to help forward the same great business of Conversion then in agitation; so has it been cry'd up by those of that Communion as exceeding all others in or­der to that End; and if we may believe their re­ports, been above all others the most happy and suc­cessful in it.

It is not easie to conceive that a Person of Mon­sieur de Meaux's Learning, should seriously be­lieve, That a bare Exposition of their Doctrine should be sufficient to convince us of the truth of it. He could not but know that our first Reformers were Persons abundantly qualified to understand the real profession of a Church in which they had been born and bred; and in which many of them were admit­ted to holy Orders, Priests and professors of Divini­ty. Nor is the Council of Trent so rare or so ob­scure, that a meer Exposition of its Doctrine should work such effects, as neither the Council nor its Ca­techism [Page vi] were able to do. In a word Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses, His design was to represent his Church as favourably as he could; to take off that ‘hideous and terrible form in which the Mi­nisters, Advertisment Pag. 2, 4. he says, were wont to represent Popery in their Pulpits, and expose it in its natural dress, free from those frightful Idea's,’ in which it had so long been disguised by them.

One would imagine by this discourse that the whole business of the Ministers of the Reformed Religion, was to do nothing but invent new Monsters every day, and lay them to the Church of Rome: And that after all our pretences to Peace and Union, we were really such Enemies to it, that we did all we could, even by Lies and Calumnies, to keep both our selves and the people from it. But indeed these hideous Idea's Monsieur de Meaux speaks of, if they are such false representations as he pretends, they are not the Ministers that invent them; but their own greatest Zealots, their Schoolmen, their Bishops, their Cardinals; nay their very Popes themselves that have been the Authors of them.

How far Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition dif­fers from what they have delivered us as the Do­ctrine of their pretended Catholick 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 Elogies and Approbations, which these Men have received, no less than Monsieur de Meaux, will be forced to confess it to be at least a disputable point, Whether the Ministers, from these Authors, have represen­ted their Church in a hideous and terrible form; or whether Monsieur de Meaux rather has not, in­stead [Page vii]of removing the Visor to shew her in her na­tural dress, a little varnish'd over her Face to hide her defects, and make her appear more charming and attractive than her own natural deformity would otherwise permit her to do.

Now of this a more convincing proof cannot, I think, be desired, than what I before advanced, and see no reason yet to retract; viz. Exposit. Pag. 3. ‘That out of an extraordinary desire of palliating, he had pro­ceeded so far, as in several points wholly to per­vert the Doctrine of his Church. Insomuch that when his Book was sent to some of the Do­ctors of the Sorbonne for their approbation, they corrected so many places in it, that Monsieur de Meaux was forced to suppress the whole Editi­on, and change those places that had been mark'd by them, and put out a new and more correct Impression, as the first that had ever been made of it.’

This Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to deny as an utter falsity; Vindicat. Pag. 8, 9. ‘For that he never sent his Book to the Sorbonne; that their custom is not to Li­cense Books in Body; and that that Venerable company knows better what is due to Bishops, who are naturally and by their Character the true Doctors of the Church, than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors. In a word, that it is a manifest falsity to say that a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd, be­cause the Doctors of the Sorbonne had something to say against it. That he never did publish, not cause to be printed, any other Edition than that which is in the hands of every one, to which he never added nor diminish'd one syllable; [Page viii]nor ever fear'd that any Catholick Doctor could find any thing in it worthy of reprehension.’

This is indeed a severe charge against me, and such, as, if true, it cannot be doubted, but that I have been as great a Calumniator as his Vindicator has thought Fit to represent me; or, as for ought I know, Monsieur de Meaux himself will be in danger of be­ing reputed if it should be false. And therefore to satisfie the World in this main, fundamental point between us, I do hereby solemnly declare, ‘That there was an Impression of the Exposition, such as I 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 than the pure Invention of those passages I have cited from it. Vindicat. Pag. 12, 13. ‘As for those passages, says he, which they pretend I have corrected in a second Edition for fear of offending the Sorbonne, it is as you see a Chimerical Invention; and I do here once more re­peat it, That I neither publish'd, nor connived at, nor caused to be made, any Edition of my Book, but that which is well known, in which I never altered any thing.’ For answer to which I must beg leave once more to repeat it too; That these passages are for the most part Chimerical In­ventions indeed, but yet such as He once hoped to have put off as the Doctrine of his Church, and as [Page ix]such sent them into the World, in that first Edition we are speaking of; out of which I have transcribed them in as just and proper terms as I was able to put them in; and I appeal to any one, that shall please to examine them, for the truth and sincerity that I have used in it.

But here Monsieur de Meaux has got an Evasi­on, which, if not prevented, may in some Mens Opi­nion take off this seeming contradiction betwixt us, and leave us both at last for the main in the right! ‘'Tis true, says he, this little Treatise being at first given in Writing to some particular Persons for their Instruction, many Copies of it were dis­persed, and IT WAS PRINTED with­out my Order or Knowledge. No body found fault with the Doctrine contain'd in it; and I my self without changing any thing in it of Im­portance, and that only as to the Order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile,’ caused it to be printed as you now see. So that now then it is at last confess'd that an Edi­tion there was, such as I charged them with, dif­ferent very much from what we now have. But that it was an Edition printed without Monsieur de Meaux's Knowledge; and the changes which he made afterwards were only as to the Order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile.’

As to this last particular, the Reader will best judge of what kind the differences were, by that short Specimen I have given of them. If to say in One, Collect. n. [...]. ‘That the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is Religious, nay that it ought to be blamed if it were not [Page x] Religious; In the Other, to doubt whether it may even in some sence be called Religious: If to tell us in the One, Ibid. n. 12. That the Mass may very rea­sonably be called a Sacrifice; In the Other, that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true Sacrifice.’ If to strike out totally in several places, Positions that were absolutely of Doctrine, or other­wise very material to the Points that were so; as in several instances it appears he has done; If this were indeed only for the advantage of the Order, and for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile, I am contented. I accuse not Monsieur de Meaux of any other alterations than such as these.

And thus far we can go certainly in Reply to his Allegations, beyond a possibility of denial: For what remains, though I do not pretend to the like Evidence of Fact, yet I will offer some Reasons why I cannot assent to his pretences even there neither.

That the Impression was made with Monsieur de Meaux's Knowledge, if not by his express Order, whoever shall consider the circumstances of Monsieur Cramoisy who printed it, either as a Person of his Reputation and Estate; or as Directour 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 Kings Permission to it, which could hardly [Page xi]have been obtain'd without Monsieur de Meaux's knowledge. It was approved by the Bishops of France in the very same terms that the other Editions have been since; which seems more natural to have been pro­cured by Monsieur de Meaux himself, than by a Prin­ter, underhand, and without his knowledge and con­nivance. In a word, so far was Monsieur de Meaux from resenting this injury, of setting out his Book so uncorrectly, and without his leave; that the very same Cramoisy, the same Year, Printed the Exposition with his leave, and has continued to Print all his other Books ever since; and was never that I could hear of, censured, for such fraudulent dealing, till this time, by the Bishop or any other. All which put together, I must beg leave still to believe as I did before; that there was not on­ly a first impression, which is at length allow'd; but that this first impression was not made without Mon­sieur de Meaux's Order or Knowledge.

As for the other Point, and I think the only remain­ing in this matter, concerning the occasion I mentioned for the suppressing that first Edition; the Reader may please to know, That a Person by many relations very in­timate with one of the Mareshal de Turenne's Family, upon the publishing of the pretended first Edition of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, first discover'd to him the mystery of the former, and shew'd him out of the Mareshal's Library the very Book which, as he then assured him, had been mark'd 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 dispatch'd, that the most that could be done was to get so many scatter'd Sheets of it, as to make at last a perfect Book, ex­cept [Page xii]in some few places in which it was transcribed from the Original of the Mareshal, word for word, page for page, and examined by the Person himself, who was so kind as to bestow it on me.

This is the Book to which I refer the Reader; and for this I have the Attestation of the same Person un­der his hand, at the beginning of the Book; that it is in every part a perfect Copy of Monsieur de Tu­renne's mark'd 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, Vindicat. Pag. 8.who ever said or thought they did? That that venerable Company knows better what is due to Bishops, who are naturally and by their Character Doctors of the Church, than to think they have need of the Approbation of her Doctors.’ I doubt not but the Sorbonne very well knows the respect that is due to Bishops: but that it should be any argument of disrespect to approve a Bishop's Book, when it was sent to them for that pur­pose, I cannot conceive. In short, we understand the Reputation and Authority of that venerable Com­pany too well, to believe it at all improbable that Mon­sieur de Meaux should desire their Approbation; nor are we so little acquainted with their Books, as not to know, That it is no unheard of thing to see Doctors of the Sorbonne setting their approbation to a Book, ap­proved and authorized by Bishops before.

The next Exception Monsieur de Meaux makes, is, Vindicat. Pag. 9.That I should confirm what had before been urged against him, of a Papist's answering his Book; in the truth of which I am as little concern'd as himself can be. Only the assurance I have had of it from a Person of un­doubted sincerity, makes me still believe that it was so: and Monsieur de Meaux may remember that Monsi­sieur Conrart often profess'd that he had seen it in Manuscript; who was not only his old Friend, but as himself characteriseth him, M. de M's Advert. p. 3. ‘One endowed with all that the Catholics themselves could desire in a Man,’ excepting a better Religion.

For what relates to Father Crasset, it is not for me to contradict Monsieur de Meaux's Declaration, Vindicat. pag. 10.that he never read his Book; But that he never heard it mentioned that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition: this I must confess is admirable, whe­ther we consider the notoriety of the thing, as it related to the Salutary Advertisements and the Bishop of Tournay's Pastoral Letter, which made so great a noise in France; or that it was particularly proved, in the Answer to his own Advertisement dedicated to Mon­sieur de Ruvigny, above five Years since, Seconde Re­ponse. p. 79, &c.to be direct­ly opposite to his Exposition. And for the rest, For all this, see the Ap­pendix. num. 2.I must beg leave to believe, whatever Monsieur de Meaux flat­ters himself with; that that Father would be so far from being troubled that any Body should think his Prin­ciples contrary to Monsieur de Meaux's, that I dare say he would rather think his pains but ill spent in Wri­ting of so large a Book, did he not believe he had con­vinced the World that he looks upon them, nay and has proved them too, to be little less than Heretical.

As for Cardinal Capisucchi, Vindicat. pag. 10. Monsieur de Meaux tells us, he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine [Page xiv]of the Exposition, that his express Approbation has been prefix'd to it. This indeed were a good presum­ption that he should not have any Principles contrary to Monsieur de Meaux; See Appendix num. 3. where I have shew'd Cardinal Bona another of his approvers, to be neverthe­less in his own Writings con­trary to Monsieur de M's Exposi­tion. but if what I have alledged out of his Controversies be really repugnant to what he approved in the Exposition, it may indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be, but the contradiction will be never the less a con­tradiction for his so doing.

The next thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is, The relation of Monsieur Imbert and Monsieur de Witte. The Stories are matters of Fact, and the Papers from whence they were collected published by them­selves.Vindicat. p. 10, 11.If they alledged Monsieur de Meaux's Au­thority for Principles that he maintained not,For what con­cerns Mr. In­bert, see his own Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, Ap­pendix, num. 4. For Monsieur de Witte's case it has been al­ready printed, and I have no­thing new to add to it.this con­cerns not us; nor, whatever the little Comment on the Bishop's Letter pretends, was it at all needful to be shewn by me that they did not, in the recital of the pro­positions held by them. 'Tis sufficient that they both de­clared themselves to stand to Monsieur de Meaux's Ex­position; and were both condemned, without any re­gard had to Monsieur de Meaux's Authority; or being at all convinced, or so much as told, that they were mistaken in their pretences to it.

The last thing Monsieur de Meaux takes notice of is, Vindicat. p. 14.That I reflect upon him for being ‘fertile enough in producing new Labours, but steril in answer­ing what is brought against his Works.’ I do not at all envy Monsieur de Meaux's fertility; his pro­ductions have not been many, and those so short, and with such an ingenuous Character of temper and mo­deration as 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 [Page xv] that have been sent abroad not only against his Exposition, but even against the Advertisement it self, which he says can bear no Reply. See de la B's. Answer to the Advertise­ment p. 5. This we so much the rather wonder at, for that an Answer was openly promised by Monsieur de Turenne, and not without some kind of boasting too; And that several of his own Communion were so well satisfied with the pieces that had been publish'd against Him, as to ex­pect, no less than We, some such Vindication.

And here I shall take my leave of Monsieur de Meaux, for whom I must yet again profess, that I still retain all that respect that is due to a Person whose Character I honour, and whom I hope I have treated with all the caution and civility that the necessary de­fence of my self and of the truth would permit me to do. For what remains, my business now must be wholly with his Vindicator, who has been pleased to fix such an odious Character upon me, as I hope to make it appear I have as little deserved, as I shall desire to return it upon him.

Had he charged me with Ignorance, had he loaded me with mistakes arising from thence; or had he impu­ted to me the faults only of Carelesness and Incogitan­cy: All this might have pass'd without my Censure; and I should have been so far from vindicating my self, that I should have been ready, in great measure, to have acknowledged the Charge, and to have submitted to his reproof. I know how little fit I am for controversies of this kind; That neither my Age, nor Learning, nor Opportunities have qualified me for such under­takings, as the defence of my Religion and my duty to my Superiors have, without any design of mine, en­gaged me in. And I doubt not but a Censor less se­vere, than he who has thought fit to make himself my [Page xvi]Adversary, might have found out more real faults in my Book, than he has noted pretended Errors.

But for the Calumnies and Misrepresentations, Vindicat. pag. 22. for the unsincere dealings and falsifications, he ac­cuses me of, and that in almost every Article; here I must beg leave to justifie 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 look'd 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 sanctifie 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 learnt Christ. Ephes. 4.20. Rom. 3.8. I have been taught, and am perswaded, that no Evil may be done that good may come: I am assured by S. Paul that they who say it may, their damnation is just: And did I now know of any one instance of those crimes, whereof I am represented to the World as guilty in almost every Chapter, I should think my self indispensably obliged to made a publick acknowledgement of it, and thank the Vindicator that has called me to so necessary a duty.

But now that I am not conscious to my self of any thing of all this, all that I have to reply to this un­charitable way of proceeding is, to intreat him by the common name of Christian, and those hopes of Eter­nity, after which I believe we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend, to consider how dange­rous this way he has taken is; what mischief it will [Page xvii]bring, in the opinion of all good Men, of whatsoever per­swasion they be, to the very cause that is maintain'd by such means: in a word, what a sad purchace 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 my self of those Calumnies that are laid to my charge. And the first is, Vindicat. pag. 2. That I endeavour to represent Monsieur de Meaux's Expo­sition as a Book that palliates, and prevaricates the Doctrine of his Church; and the very Approbati­ons of it, as meer 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 latter Editions of his Book; though others I know have done it. But how­ever, if this be the greatest of those Calumnies I am guilty of, I am sure all that have ever lived among them, and seen their practices, and compared them with what he writes, will easily absolve me: and I shall here­after shew that either Monsieur de Meaux has palli­ated, or else the greatest of their Authors have strangely perverted the Doctrine of the Church.

As to the other part of the Accusation, that I should say that the Approbations were meer Artifices to de­ceive the World, it is not my Calumny, but the Vin­dicator's mistake. Expos. of the C. E. pag. 15. I never thought those Letters Monsieur de Meaux has published any authoritative Approbations of his Book at all; Indeed in the place which he cites, I have said somewhat like it of the Of which see more in the Appendix. n. 3. p. 120. Popes Brief, and am still of the same mind; and till he [Page xviii]shall think fit to answer the reasons that induced me to believe so, he will hardly perswade me that this is a Calumny.

But if I am so little satisfied with the Approba­tions of Monsieur de Meaux's Book, Vindicat. pag. 3.I should at least have had some more authentick testimonies of what I my self publish. And he thinks it won­derful, that my Book should have found such a reception as it did, only from my assuring the World that I had not palliated, nor prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of England; but submitted it to her Censure; and the sight of an Imprimatur; when the Approbations of so ma­ny Learned Men, and even of the Pope himself, are not thought sufficient to secure Monsieur de Meaux's Treatise.’

This indeed were somewhat, if the truth of the Ex­position were on either side to be taken from the num­ber of the Approvers, and not the nature of the Doctrine. If Monsieur de Meaux has really palli­ated the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, 'tis not any number of Approbations that will be able to render him a faithful Expositor. If my Exposition be conformable to the Doctrine of the Church of England; (and if not, let him shew us the prevarica­tions;) the want of a few Letters can at most argue only my interest not to have been so great as his, or my Vanity less; but will not render the Expositi­on ever the more unfaithful. And though an Im­primatur be all the Authority that is usual with us on such Occasions, yet the Vindicator may believe, by the reception he acknowledges the Book to have had, that it would have been no difficult matter to have obtain'd other Subscriptions than that of the Reverend Per­son [Page xix] 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 inferiour, whether in Authority or Reputation, to any Monsieur de Meaux has prefix'd to his Exposition.

For what remains of my Preface, two things there are which he supposes worthy his Animadversion: One, that whereas I accuse Cardinal Capisucchi to have con­tradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition, Vindicat. Pag. 17. we must take notice, that the Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets, but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church, which was necessarily and universally receiv'd; whereas Cardinal Capisucchi being obliged to no such strictness, would not, it may be, contradict the problematical niceties of those Schools in which he had been Educated.’

It is the Catholic distinction of this Author through­out his whole Vindication, if any thing be alledged con­trary to his liking, that it is presently a Scholastic Te­net, and not the necessary and universally to be receiv'd Doctrine of the Church. But that we may, if possible, discern what is the Doctrine, and what the Scholastic Tenet in the present case, we will take only what at first sight offers it self, viz. That Cardinal Capisucchi do's positively affirm, To satisfie the Vindicator what the Car­dinal's words are, I will give them at length. Ex his constat & in concilio Ni­caeno Secundo, & in Tridenti­no, aliisque, Latriam dun­taxat Idolola­tricam Sacris imaginibus denegari, qua­lem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde Latriam illam interdici quae Imaginibus in seip­sis & propter ipsas exhibeatur, quaque Imagines [...] Numina aut Divinitatem continentia more Gentilium celantur; de hujusmodi enim Latriâ controversia erat cum Judaeis & Haereticis, qui haec ratione nos Imagines colere ass [...]ebant. Caeterum de Latriâ illa quae Imaginibus S. Tri­nitatis, Christi D. aut Sacratissimae Crucis exhibetur, ratione rei per eas repraesenratae, & qua­tenus cum re repraesentat [...] unum sunt in esse repraesentativo, nullam (que) divinitatem Imaginibus [...]i­buit [...]aut supponit, nulla unquamfuit antesse potuit Controversia. Art. 8. p. 647. ‘That a Divine worship may be paid to Images, upon the account of the thing which they represent; and that this Doctrine was never doubted of in the Church, nor deny'd by the Council of Trent.

Does Monsieur de Meaux allow of this? Does he tells us that a Divine Worship may upon any account be paid to an Image? Or rather does he not plainly in­sinuate that he can hardly allow the Image any honour at all; Monsieur de Meaux's Ex­pos. pag 8. ‘We do not, says he, so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image.’ Let us then lay aside the barbarous distinctions by which he would excuse a foul Idolatry; Be it a School nicety, or what­ever you will else, Vindicat. pag. 19. ‘Whether the representative I­mage as representative, be representatively one and the same with the thing represented:’ Our Question without this Gibberish is plain and intelli­gible; Whether, upon any account whatsoever, the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross be to be worshipped with Divine Worship? This the Car­dinal affirms; and this if Monsieur de Meaux does allow, let him speak it out without mincing; If not, 'tis plain for all the pretences of a Scholastic nicety, that they differ in the Exposition of a very material point of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.

The other thing which the Vindicator thinks fit to take notice of in my Preface, Mindicat. p. 16, 17, 19. is the Consequence which I draw from this, and some other instances of the like kind, viz. ‘That the Papists think it law­ful to set their hands to, and approve those Books, whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike.’

In Answer to which, he again distinguishes between Scholastic Tenets, and matters of Faith: and then tells us, ‘Every one knows that the Doctrines of a Church or matters of Faith, being Tenets ne­cessarily and universally received, 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 [Page xxi]another the quite 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 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 affirm'd, and to which the Vindicator has answered never a word.

There is yet one thing more remaining before I close this; and that is the remark the Vindicator has made upon the passages collected by me out of Monsieur de Meaux's first Edition, Vindicat. pag. 20. which have either been al­tered or omitted in the following Impressions: viz. ‘That the Bishop in that Edition had been so far from proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, loosely and favourably, as I pretend; that on the contrary he rather proposed it with too much strictness: In a word, that he had been so far from perverting the Doctrine of the Church, that I was not able to propose one Doctrine so perver­ted, without a forced interpretation of my own, according to my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention.’

As to the first of which, no one ever charged the Bishop with proposing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome loosely and favourably in every point. We know well enough that in some, he has kept to the [Page xxii]plain Doctrine of his Church, as in that of the Eu­charist: in others proposed it rather with too much strictness, as in the case of Infants dying unbapti­zed: All we say is, that in some other Articles, such as the Invocation of Saints, Worshipping of Images, Sacrifice 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 Rome lay any Obligation on particular persons to joyn with her in the Invo­cation of Saints? Collect. n. 5. Does she condemn those only who refuse it out of Contempt, and with a spirit of dis­sention and revolt? This Monsieur de Meaux once affirmed, and I think there needs no comment to shew, that this is to palliate the Doctrine of their Church.

Has the Church of Rome ascribed no other vertue to Images, Ibid. n 6. than to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent? Is that all the use they make of them? Do they not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image? Or rather, did not Monsieur de Meaux here also mollifie the known Doctrine and practice of his Church?

In a word: Ibid. n. 12.Is the Church of Rome contented to teach only that the Mass may very reasonably be called a Sacrifice? Is that Exposition reconcileable to what we now read in him, ‘That there is nothing wanting to make it a true Sacrifice.’ May I not here at least, without my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention, beg leave to say, that either Monsieur de Meaux palliated the Doctrine of his Church in that, or he has otherwise perver­ted it in this?

Had Monsieur de Meaux only retrenched or al­tered some things in his Book, for the greater exact­ness of the Method or neatness of Stile; he must have been a very peevish Adversary indeed, that would have pretended to censure him for that. But to change not only the words but Doctrine too; to give us one Exposition of it in one Edition, and a quite contrary in another, this I think may, if not be represented as a heinous crime, Vindicat. pag. 21.22. yet at least deserve a remark; and let the Vindicator do what he can, will I doubt make the Author pass with all indifferent persons, for such as yet I had never re­presented him, had not he himself first made the di­lemma, viz. M. de M's Advert. p. 2. ‘One that either did not sufficiently understand the Doctrine of his Church, or that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright.’

I should now pass to the consideration of those Ex­ceptions that have been made against what I have ad­vanced in my Book it self; but before I do this, it will be requisite that I take notice of those directions, the Vindicator has thought fit to give me in his Post­script, in order thereunto.

And here, not to deceive either his, Vindicat. pag. 12 [...], 12 [...].or the Reader's expectation; I must beg leave to excuse my self from entring any farther into dispute with the Bishop of Condom, than I have already done. I never design­ed a direct answer to his Book; and the reflecti­ons I have made upon it in my former Treatise, were more to clear the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, than to argue against what he offered in behalf of the Romish Faith. This has been the underta­king of another Pen, from whom the Vindicator I suppose may expect, what is reasonably enough refused by me.

But for the other part of his desire, that I would take the pains to peruse my self the Authors cited by me, Vindicat. pag. 121. and not transcribe Quotations, nor take up things by halves;’ I have been so scru­pulous in observing it, that I doubt I shall re­ceive but little thanks from himself for it. It can­not be deny'd but that there have been faults enough committed on both sides for want of this care, and I do not desire to add to the number. I have done my best to take nothing of them without a serious Examination of their sense, Ibid. and a sincere applica­tion of it to the point in Question. How far I have attain'd 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's of the Press, I desire no favour if I am found faulty in that.

I should indeed stand in need of a large Apology to those, into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall, that I have in many places run them out into so great a length: But the Accusation that has been brought against me for want of doing this before, how unjust soever it be, has obliged me to this Caution now; and they are so ordered as to be no hindrance to those that are minded to pass them by.

This benefit at least I shall attain by them, with those who please to compare them with what the Vindicator alledges; that they will find he might have spared him­self the troublesome, Vindicat. pag. 122. and ungentile Office indeed of undertaking what he could not effect, to demonstrate to the World the unsincerity which I have shewn in my Quotations,’ and the falsifications of them; His endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccess­ful, that I know not whether himself or his Religion will suffer more by the weakness of his attempt.

A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in the following TREATISE.

PART I.
  • I. INtroduction. Page 1
  • II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God. Page 6
  • III. Invocation of Saints. ibid.
  • IV. Images and Reliques. Page 14
  • V. Justification. Page 25
  • VI. Merits. Page 28
  • VII.
    • 1. Satisfactions. Page 32
    • 2. Indulgences. Page 35
    • 3. Purgatory. Page 36
PART II.
  • VIII. Sacraments in General. Page 37
  • IX. Baptism. ibid.
  • X. Confirmation. Page 39
  • XI. Penance. Page 41
  • XII. Extreme Ʋnction. Page 42
  • XIII. Marriage. Page 52
  • XIV. Holy Orders. Page 53
  • XV. &c. Eucharist. Page 54
  • XIX. Sacrifice of the Mass. Page 67
  • XX. Epistle to the Hebrews. Page 69
  • XXI. Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine. Page 70
  • XXII. Communion under both kinds. Page 71
PART III.
  • XXIII. Of the written and unwritten Word. 75
  • XXIV. &c. Authority of the Church. 77
  • XXVI. Authority of the Holy See. 82
  • XXVII. The Close. 83

THE EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England, Vindicated, &c.

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 Vindication thought fit to govern himself by this rule, he would have spared a great part of that odious Character he has been pleased to draw of me, in the beginning of this Article. But it is not my business to recriminate, nor need I fly to such arts for my justification. Only as to the advantage he proposes to himself from these endeavours, Vindicat. pag. 22. viz. to shew that all those Books to which an Imprimatur is prefix'd, will not hereaf­ter be concluded free from Errour; He needed not sure have taken such pains for that: For I be­lieve no one before him ever imagined that a per­mission to print a Book, was a mark of its Infal­libility; ‘Nor that every nameless Author, Vindicat. pag. 22.who pro­fesses [Page 2] 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 priviledge; 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 will in the end appear, that an Im­primatur Car. Alston, is at least as good a mark of Infallibility as a Permissu Superiorum; and a Church of England Expositor, as fit to pass for an Oracle, as a Popish Vindicator.

But Calumny and Ʋnsincerity are now the Catholick cry: And to make it good against me, I am charged in this one Article to have been guilty of both. Vindicat. pag. 23. My Introduction is Calumny in a high degree, and my state of the Question, drawn from thence, as unsincere.

I tell them, he says, of adoring Men and Women, Crosses, Images, and Reliques; of setting up their own Merits, and making other propitiatory sacrifices for sin than that of the Cross: And that these are all contrary to their pretended principles, that Religious worship is due to God only; That we are to be saved only by Christ's Merits, and that the death of Christ was a perfect sacrifice. The Logick of which he is content to own, that the Consequence is good, but the Accusation, he says, is false, and the charge, Calum­niatory.

But if in the following Articles it be made ap­pear, that their own Authors do allow of all this: If they do give a divine Worship to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed; If their very Missab and Pontifical do command them to adore the Cross; If it appear that their Council of Trent damns all those who deny the Mass to be a propitiatory sa­crifice for the sins of the Dead and Living, and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the [Page 3] Cross: If, finally, their greatest Writers do allow a Merit of Condignity, and that not as a Scholastick Tenet, but as the Doctrine of their Church, and agreeable to the intention of their Council they so much talk of; Then I hope the premises may be as clear of the Calumny they are charged with, as my inference is allow'd to be just, for the consequence I would establish.

In the mean time, Expos. p. 5. pass we on to the state of the Question, which I propose in these terms; That we who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion, are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the antient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith; And that the Question therefore between us is not, Whether what we hold, be true? But whether those things which the Roman Church has added as superstructures to it and which as such we reject, be not so far from being necessary Ar­ticles of Religion, as they pretend, that they do indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine, and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them?

‘This the Vindicator says, Vindicat. pag. 24. is to state the Que­stion after a new Mode, and represent them as con­senting to it. Let us see therefore what the Old way of stating it is, and wherein the insincerity he charges me with, consists.

The true state of the Question betwixt us, Ibid. p. 25. he says, is, Whether the Protestants or Papists do in­novate? The Protestants in refusing to believe those Doctrines which the Church of Rome pro­fesses to have received with the grounds of Chri­stianity, or the Papists in maintaining their pos­session: And the dispute is, Whether Roman Ca­tholicks [Page 4]ought to maintain their possession, for which, he says, many Protestants themselves grant they have a prescription of above 1000 Years? Or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholick Doctrine be so weigh­ty,Ibid. p. 26.that every Roman Catholick 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 Controversie to be Superstructures which they have added to the Faith; He, that they are Doctrines re­ceived with the grounds of Christianity. In short, the point we both put upon the issue is precisely the same; viz. Whether the Roman Catholicks ought to maintain their possessions of these Doctrines, or to quit them as Erroneous? Whether Protestants to embrace the belief and practice of them as true and lawful, or to continue, as they are, separate from the Roman Communion upon the account of them?

But where then is my unsincerity? In this I suppose, that I seem to insinuate as if the Ro­man Church granted that we held the ancient and undoubted foundation of the Christian Faith. What others of that Communion will grant, I cannot tell; but whoso shall please to consider Monsieur de Meaux's arguing from Monsieur Daillè's con­cessions as to this Point, See his Ex­pos. §. 2. p. 2. will find it clear enough that he did; if the Foundation consists of Funda­mental Articles, and that we are on both sides agreed in these, as his discourse manifestly im­plies. But the Vindicator, jealous for the Autho­rity of his Church, and to have whatever she pro­poses [Page 5]pass for Fundamental, confesses that we do indeed hold a part, but not all those Articles that are Fundamental. This therefore we must put upon the issue, in which we shall not doubt to 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, Vindicat. Pag. 23. de­stroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be Fundamental.

But if I have not mistaken the Question be­tween the Papists and Protestants, Vindicat. pag. 26. I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me. ‘He tells us our present Question, which we are to examine in the following Articles, is, Whether Monsieur de Meaux has faithfully proposed the sense of the Church declared in the Council of Trent? And thereupon asks me, What it do's avail me to tell them, That I will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Ac­count of what we can approve, and what we dislike in their Doctrine? To which I reply, That it avails very much to the end I propounded in my Book, viz. To give a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the seve­ral Points proposed by Monsieur de Meaux.’ So that in reality the Question between us is this, Not whether Monsieur de Meaux has given a true Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which it has been the business of others to examine; but whether I have given a just account of the Doctrine of the Church of England. This was what I undertook to do, and what this Author ought, if he could, to have shewn I had not done.

ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is terminated only in God.

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

ARTICLE III. Invocation of Saints.

I Might well have pass'd over this Point alto­gether, which has been so learnedly and fully managed, but very lately, in a particular Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin and the Saints, in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Ap­peal to the fourth Age. Dis­course on this Subject. Yet since the Vindicator de­sires to know what Authority I have for my As­sertion, ‘That the Addresses which Monsieur Daillé allows to have been used by the Fathers of the fourth Century, were rather innocent wishes and rhetorical flights, than direct Prayers; but especially for that Accusation which he says I bring against them, viz. That they did herein begin to de­part [Page 7]from the Practice and Tradition of those before them, I am content to give him that satisfaction.’

For the First then: That Monsieur Daillé him­self look'd upon them as no other than such Ad­dresses as I have characterized, because Expos. Mon­sieur de Meaux, pag. 4. §. 3. It will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the P. Re­formation begin to acknowledge, that the custom of Praying to Saints was established even in the fourth Age of the Church. Monsieur Daillé grants thus much in that Book he publish'd against the Tradition of the Latin Church, about the Object of Religious Worship. Monsieur de Meaux has represented him as if he allow'd that the custom of praying to Saints was establish'd in the Church in the fourth Century; I then cited his Opinion to the contrary, and have now subjoyn'd it in his own words Monsieur Daille's words are these: Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum pato, qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud Christianos primum ad Sanctos invocandos gradum, cum calefacti at (que) inar­descentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione, praedicatione, atque exaggeratione animi, ad eos denique Invocandos prorumperent. Certè quae de 4o Seculo prima hujus Invocationis afferuntur Exempla, ea ferè sunt hujus generis. Ex Encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum & Eruditione Seculari florentissimorum hominum in Sanctos Orationibus desumpta, Gregorii Nazi­anzeni in Cyprianum; in Athanasium, in Basilium; Gregorii Nysseni in Theodorum, qui ambo 4o sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, &c. Adv. Lat. Tradit. de cultas relig. Objecto, l. 3. c. 18. pag. 454..

Secondly: That these Addresses were really of this kind, the several passages that are usually brought from these Fathers, plainly shew: And both the The Exam­ples I gave were from Greg. Naz. and they are these: 1. Invectiv. in Julian. pag. 2. He thus bespeaks Constantius. [...], ( [...]) [...]. Upon which the Greek Scholiast observes [...]. 2dly. Orat. 11. in Gorgon. p. 189. l D. He thus addresses to his Sister. [...]. Examples I gave, and the differences I assigned, do abundantly prove it.

That they could not have allow'd of such an Invocation as is now practised in the Church of Rome, I proved from this plain Argument, The opini­on that the souls of just men do not go staright to Heaven, seems to owe its rise to the Verses of the Sibylls; which being very ancient (within 140 years after Christ) and by the most primitive Fathers taken for A thentick, drew the whole stream of the Writers of those times into the same mistake. Blondel in his Book of the Sibylline Oracles affirms l. 2. c. 9. p. 103. That all the Authors we have left us of the Second, and as far as the middle of the Third Age, were of that Opinion: And adds that even in the following Ages ma­ny of those very men Monsieur de Meaux has alledged for the Invocation of Saints, were involved very far in the same Error; viz. S. Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and S. Augustine. This is yet more fully shewn by Monsieur Daillè in his Book de Cult. rel. Obj. l. 3. c. 22. p. 474. & seq. and in another of his Rooks de Poenis & Satisfact. where to the Fathers last mentioned He adds S. Jerom l. 5 cap. 4, 5, 6. All which Sixtus Senensis himself con­firms, Bib. l. 6. annot. 345. p. 569. and particularly as to the Fathers in question, S. Am­brose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine. p. 571, 572. That they believed that the Saints departed, were not admitted to the sight of God immediately upon their decease; [Page 8]and therefore, by the Papists own Bellarm de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2044. l. D. Not. est; quia ante Christi adventum Sancti qui moricbantur non intrabant in Coelum, nec Deum videbant, vec cognoscere poterant ordinarie preces supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in T. V. ut diceretur S. Abraham Ora pro me. See again c. 20. p. 2060. l. B. Sect. atque ex his duabus, collat. cum pag. 2059. l. D. Sect. alii dicunt. The same is Sua­rez's Opinion T. 2. in 3. D. Th. disp. 42. Sect. 1. p. 435. col. 1. l. E. Quod autem aliquis direct [...] oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quo sancti videntes Deum possant etiam in Eo videre Orationes quae ad ipsos funduntur. And this the common Doctrine of their Writers. Confession, ought to have believed that they could not be pray'd 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 before them, I proved from this, This I be­fore chal­leng'd the Answerer to do, and he has not at­tempted it. Bellarmin has but two within the first 300 Years. One of Irenaeus mis-in­terpreted, and one of Hilary, as little to the purpose. De Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. p. 2047, 2043. That they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first Centuries of any such Invocation; but rather have So Cardinal Perron himself Repl. à la rep. du Roy de la grande Eretagre, liv. 5. cap 11, 19. Where he is forced to Monsieur de Meaux's shift of con­cluding from the following Ages what he could not prove from the preceding; and at last to confess freely, p. 1009. Quant aux Autheurs plus proches du siecle Apostolique, des quels la persecution neusra ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme [...] ill [...]ffit [...] qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repug­nant a l'Eglise de 4. premiers Conciles, pour ce regard. Which is no more than Monsieur de Meaux himself insinuates, where to this very Assertion of Monsieur Daillé's I have made use of, he has only this to say, That 'tis not likely that Monsieur Daillé should at this distance understand the sentiments of the Fathers of the first three Centuries better than those of the next Age did, Expos. Sect. 3. p. 4. All which he allow'd in express terms in his suppressed Edition. See my Collect. n. 3 p. xxiii.been forced to con­fess that nothing of that kind was to be found among [Page 9]them. Besides that the Maxims of those Fathers con­cerning I shall men­tion but two; 1st, That they constantly de­fined Prayer, as due to God only: [...], says Basil. [...], Greg. Nyssen. [...], Chrysostom. [...], Damascen &c. And, 2dly, That it was the great Argument used by S. Athanasius, and the other Fathers of these Times, to prove our Saviour to be God, that he was prayed to. Prayer were such, as are utterly repugnant to such an Invocation.

These were the Arguments I then offer'd; to which the Vindicator would have done more justly to have try'd if he could have made some Reply, than after all this to cry out, as if nothing had been said, What Authority does he bring for his Assertion? Vindicat. p. 29.By what Authority does he condemn these Prayers, these innocent Wishes and holy Raptures, as he calls them, as fond things, vainly invented? &c.’

And now that I have satisfied his demand, may I in my turn ask him, Where it is that I condemn those innocent Wishes, and holy Raptures, of these Fathers, as fond things, vainly invented? That I do, with our Church, censure their Invocation of Saints as such, is confess'd; but that I pretend to pass any judgment at all upon these holy Men, is false; nor was it any way necessary that I should do it.

As for the Authority he requires for our refusal of this Invocation, it were very easy to shew it, Vindicat. p. 30. had I nothing to do but to repeat things, that have been so often said already, that the World grows weary of them; and is abundantly satisfied that they have no­thing to reply to them. Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a de­monstration against them; and that one Passage of St. Paul, Rom. 10.14. How shall they call upon him [Page 10]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 mention'd, and which may well excuse me that I say no more about it. Only because this was one of the Points, in which I promised to 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 available to them; I will subjoin a short Specimen of every one of these out of their Publick Rituals, to shew that there was neither Falshood nor Calumny in my Accusation of them.

Appendix to ARTIC. III. A Specimen of the Church of Rome's Service to Saints, taken out of their Publick Litur­gies.

AS to the Prayers they make to them; we find them thus addressing to the Blessed Virgin: Sub tum praesidium con­fugimus S. Dei Genetrix; no­stras depreca­tiones ne de­spicias in ne­cessitatibus, sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa & benedicta.We fly to thy Protection, O Holy Mother of God, despise not our Prayers which we make to thee in our Ne­cessities, but deliver us from all Dangers, O Ever-glo­rious and Blessed Virgin. Offic. B. V. p. 84. And in one of their Antiphona's; Dignare me laudare Te Virgo Sacra­ta; Da mihi Virtutem con­tra hostes tu­os.Vouchsafe me that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin; Grant me strength and Power against thine Enemies. Ibid. p. 103. Nos cum prole pia, be­nedicat Virgo Maria. They desire her conjunctly with our Savi­our, to bless them. Ibid. p. 105. And in their Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia Coeli Porta manes, & stella maris, succurre cadenti Surgere qui curat populo; tu quae genuisti Naturâ mirante ruum Sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab Ore Sumens illud Ave, Peccatorum miserere. Offic. B. V p. 122. Hymns, they address to her in the most formal manner; that she would help them that fall; that she would have pity upon Sinners; Maria Mater gratiae, Mater miserecordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, & horâ mortis suscipe. Ib. p. 123. that she would protect them against the Enemy, and receive them at the Hour of Death. I shall add only one Prayer more, part of which I before mention'd, and will [Page 12]now repeat it, because Bellarm. I. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words. Quinto ibidem dicit, nos ro­gare Virginem ut filium Ju­beat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? I before ob­served that Cassander owns the Prayer, Consult. Art. 21. And Monsieur Daillé assures us, that in the Missal printed at Paris but in the Year 1634. in libr. Extrem. p. 81. It is still extant in these words; Cardinal Bellarmine, and some others are so ashamed of it, as totally to deny they have any such Prayer, O foelix Puerpera, nostra pians scelera, Jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI. Da fidei foedera, Da salutis Opera, Da in vitae vesperâ Benè mori. And in­deed however scrupulous Bellarmine is of this Matter, yet others among them make no doubt to say, that she does not only intreat her Son as a Suppliant, but COMMAND him as a Mother. So Peter Damien, Serm. 1. de Nat. Mariae, speaking to the Virgin, tells her, Accedis ante aureum illud humanae reconciliationis Altare, non solùm rogans sed IMPERANS. For so Fa­ther Crasset, who both cites and approves it, translates the Passage; Thou comest before the Golden Altar of our Reconciliation, not only as a Servant that Prays, but as a Mother that COMMANDS. And Albertus Magnus, Serm. 2. de laud. Virg. Pro salute famulantium sibi, non solùm petest filio supplicare, sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ cidem IMPERARE. That for the Salvation of those that serve Her, the Virgin cannot only Intreat Her Son, but by the Authority of a Mother can COMMAND Him. This Father Crasset proves from more of the like stuff, in his 1. Part. Trait. 1. Qu. 8. p. 60, 61. concluding the whole with this ad­mirable Sentence; ‘Eadem potestas est Matris & Filii, quae ab omni po­tente Filio omnipotens facta est: The Power of the Mother and the Son is the same, who by her OMNIPOTENT Son, is made her self OM­NIPOTENT. This is the last French Divinity, approved by the Society of the Jesuits, published with the King's Permission; and espoused at a venture by Monsieur de Meaux in his Epistle.O Happy Mother, expia­ting our Sins, By the right of a Mother COMMAND our Redeemer. Grant us the—of Faith, Grant us the good Works of Salvation; Grant us in the End of Lives that we may die well.

Nor is it the Blessed Virgin only to whom they thus address: The Prayer to St. John is in the same strain: Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, Mira gestorum fa­muli tuorum, Solve pollati labii reatwn, Sancte Johannes. 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 [Page 13]the Apostles and Evangelists: Vos saecli justi Judices & vera Mundi lu­mina, votis pre­camur cordium, audite preces supplicum. Qui Coelum verbo clauditis, se­ras (que) ejus sol­vitis, Nos à peccatis omnibus solvite Jussu quaesumus. Quo­rum praecepto subditur salus & languor omnium, Sanate Aegros moribus, Nos reddentes Virtutibus. Ut cum judex advenerit Christus in fine saeculi, Nos sempiterni gaudii, Faciat esse compotes. ibid. p. 497. O ye just Judges, and true Lights of the World, we pray unto you with the Requests of our Hearts; That you would hear the Prayers of your Suppliants. Ye, that by your Word shut and open Heaven, We beseech you deliver us, by your Command, from all our Sins. You, to whose Command is subjected the Health and Sickness of all Men, Heal us who are sick in our Manners, and restore us to Vertue; that so when in the end of the World Christ the Judg shall come, He may make us partakers of Everlasting Joy.

For the next Point, the Merits of their Saints, 'twere infinite to repeat the Prayers they make of this kind. I will subjoyn two or three. In the Feast of St. Nicholas, Dec. 6th: Deus qui B. Nicolaum Pon­tificem innu­meris decora­sti miraculis, tribue quaesu­mus ut ejus Meritis & Pre­cibus à Gehen­nae incendiis liberemur. O God who hast adorned thy Bishop, St. Nicholas, with innumerable Miracles, grant we beseech thee, that by his Merits and Prayers, we may be delivered from the Fire of Hell. Offic. B. Virg. p. 561. And many there are of this nature all along their Office.

But since the main question is about their recom­mending to God their Offerings, and Sacraments, by the Merits of their Saints; we will see that too. And for an instance of these we need go no farther than their very first Saint, Sacrifici­um nostrum tibi Domine quaesumus B. Andraei Apostoli precatio sancta conciliet, ut in cujus honore solemniter ex­hibetur Ejus Meritis efficia­tur acceptum. Per. Missale Rom. Fest. Nov. p. 513. St. Andrew, to whom in their Secretum they thus address. We beseech thee, O Lord, that the Holy Prayer of the Blessed Apostle, St. Andrew, may procure thy Favour to our Sacrifice; that as it is solemnly offer'd in his Honour, so it may be rendred acceptable by his Merits,’ through our Lord. He that shall survey the following Festivals, will [Page 14]find either the Secretum, or Post-communio, to run in the same strain: I shall instance only in the Saints I formerly mentioned. Ut haec Munera tibi Domine ac­cepta sint S. Bathildis ob­tineant Merita; quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam, sanctam & beneplacen­tem exhibuit. Let the Merits of St. Ba­thildis, O Lord, prevail, that our Gifts may be accepted by thee: Praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta Sacramenta praesidium salutare, & interve­nientibus B. Martini Confessoris tui at (que) Pontificis Meritis ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis. See Missale in usum Sarum fol. 9. & 68. in Fest. Nov.Let the Sacraments which we have received, we beseech thee, be our saving Defence, and through the Merits of thy Blessed Martyr, St. Martin interposing, absolve us from all Sin.

Such is their Service of the Saints; How agreeable to that Duty we owe to God, or to the very pretences of Monsieur de Meaux, and the Vindicator, let the World judg.

ARTICLE IV. Images and Reliques.

IN this Article the Vindicator takes notice, Vindicat. p. 31. and that truly, of my complaining that the approved Do­ctrine ‘of their most reputed Writers, should so much contradict what Monsieur de Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service. He tells us that properly speaking, according to the Bishop of Meaux's sense, and that of the Council; The Image of the Cross is to be lookt upon only as a representa­tive,Ibid. p. 32.or memorative Sign, which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESƲS CHRIST, who suffered [Page 15]upon the Cross for us; and the Honour which we there shew, precisely speaking, and according to the Ecclesiasti­cal Stile, is not properly to the Cross, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Cross.

To this I opposed the Doctrine of St. Thomas, and the Authority of their own Rituals, to shew that they ‘expresly adored the Cross of Christ, and not only Jesus Christ represented by that Cross.

In answer to the former of which, Vindicat. p. 38. the Doctrine of ‘St. Thomas, he tells me, that he is not to maintain every Opinion held by the Schools: That had I been sincere, I ought to have taken notice of the reason brought by St. Thomas, and his Followers; which shews, that it is purely upon the account of Jesus Christ represented, and not upon the account of the Cross it self, that he allows Adoration to it. In short, He concludes the Doctrine of St. Thomas to be in effect the same with Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, That it is an Adoration of Jesus Christ represented by the Crucifix, but not an Adoration of the Crucifix it self. And the same is the account he gives of the Ponti­fical, which he confesses admits of an Adoration in the same sense.

For the business of the Pontifical, we shall see more particularly hereafter: In the mean time this short instance may serve to shew that his Destinction is purely arbitrary. Pontific. Ord. ad recip. proces­sionaliter Impe­rat. p. 205. col. 2 si verò Legatus Apostolicus Im­peratorem reci­peret, aut cum eo Urbem intraret, vel alias secum iret vel equitaret, ille qui Gladium Im­peratori praefert, & alius Crucem Legati portans simul ire debent. Crux Legati, Quia debetur ei La­erla, erit à dextris, & Gladius Imperatoris à sinistris. In the Order of receiving an Em­perour, it is appointed, that if there be a Legat pre­sent, his Cross shall take the upper hand of the Em­perors Sword, because a Divine Worship is due to it.

Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. Utrum Crux Christi sit ado­randa adoratio­ni LATRLAE? Conclus. Crux Christi in quà Christus cruci­fixus est, tum propter re­praesentatio­nem, tum propter mem­brorum Chri­sti contactum, LATRIA ADORANDA EST: Crucis verò Effigies in aliâ quâvis materià, prio­ri tantùm ra­tione LATRIA ADORANDA EST. And in the body, Unde utro (que) modo adoratur eâdem adoratione cum Christo, scil. ADORATIONE LATRIA. As to St. Thomas, he tells us only this, ‘That the Cross is not to be adored upon its own acccount, but either as it is the figure of Christ crucified, or be­cause it toucht his Members when he was crucified upon it: That the Wood of the true Cross is to be wor­shipped with Divine Adoration upon both these ac­counts, but any other Crucifix only upon the former. What does all this avail to the pretences of the Vin­dicator? It shews indeed St. Thomas's grounds for his Conclusion, but we are little concerned in them; nor was it any unsincerity in me not to transcribe all his Reveries. The Conclusion he makes is plain and positive, and neither to be reconciled with the Vindi­cator's Fancy, nor to be eluded by his Sophistry; ‘That the CROSS of Christ is to be ADORED with DIVINE ADORATION. What his reason is, we matter not;’ sure we are, that no good one can be brought by him, or any body else, for it.

The next Argument I made use of was, That in the Office of the Benediction of a new Cross, there are seve­ral Passages which clearly shew, that they attribute such things to the Cross, Vindicat. p. 39. 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 explain'd all, viz. Page 39. Propter Deum, for the sake of God. It is very certain that I did leave out these words, as I did seve­ral others, I believe, as much to the purpose as these. But that I may shew how little reason there [Page 17]was for my expressing them, and to convince the World how clearly this passage charges them with Adoring the Cross, I will now propose it in its full length.

In the form of consecrating a new Cross; Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis. pag. 161. col. 2. First the Bishop makes several prayers; Rogamus Te Domine pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut dig­neris benedi­cere hoc lignum Crucis tuae, ut fit remedium salutare generi humano; sit soliditas fidei, bonorum Operum profe­ctus, & redemptio Animarum; sit solamen & protectio, & tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum. Per. That God would bless this Wood of the Cross, that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind; An Establishemnt of the Faith; for the Increase of good Works, and the Redemption of Souls; a Comfort and Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy.

After some other Prayers to the same purpose; the Bishop blesses the Incense, sprinkles the Cross with Ho­ly Water, and incenses it; and then Consecrates it in these words:

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

Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM, genibus ipsam devotè ADORAT & osculatur. Then the Bishop 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 [Page 18]to say another: I shall transcribe only some part of it.

After a long preamble, they beseech God, Ut Sancti [...]fi­ces tibi hoc signum Crucis at (que) cons.†cres: —Illis ergo manibus hanc Crucem accipe, quibus illam amplexus es; & de sanctita­te illius, hanc sancti†sica: & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu, ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae, hu­jus CRUCIS merito, omní careant perpetrato peccato. P. 162.That he would sanc†tify to himself this Cross, and bless it; That our Saviour Christ would embrace this Cross, [which they consecrate] as he did that [on which he suf­fered;] and by the holiness of that, sanc†tify This: That as by that the World was redeemed from guilt, so the devout Souls who offer it, may by the Merits of this Cross be freed from all the Sins they have committed.

Tum Ponti­fex flexis ante CRƲCEM genibus EAM devotè ADO­RAT & oscu­latur: Idem faciunt qui­cun (que) alii vo­luerint. Then the Bishop as before, Kneeling down before the CROSS, devoutly ADORES it, and kisses it.

I hope this length will not seem tedious to any who desire a true information of the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church in this Matter. And I shall leave it to any one to judge what benefit those two words I omitted, could have brought to excuse such foul and notorious Idolatry. For the rest of my Citations, he passes them over so triflingly, as plain­ly shews he had nothing to say to them; Vindicat. p. 39. All the rest of his Expressions, says he, drawn from the Pon­tifical, are of the same nature; either lame, or patch'd up from several places, and therefore if they make any thing against us, are not worthy our regarding.

For Monsieur de Meaux, I shall only beg leave to remark this One thing; that if the Church of Rome looks upon the Cross only as a memorative Sign; to what End is all this Consecration; so many Prayers shall I say, or rather magical Incantations? And how [Page 19]comes it to pass that a Cross, without all this ado, is not as fit to call to mind Jesus Christ who suffered upon the Cross, as after all this superstition, not to say any worse, in the dedication of it?

My third Argument to prove that they Adored the Cross, was from their Good Fryday's Service: Vindicat. p. 40. And here I am again accused for not giving All the words of the Church, and of adding somewhat that was not there, to make it speak my own sense. The words I cited are these, Behold the Wood of the Cross, Come, let us Adore it. Whereas their Church intends not that we should Adore it, i.e. The Cross; but come, Let us Adore, i.e. The Saviour of the World thathung upon it.

To judge aright of this Cavil, and yet more expose their Idolatry, I shall here give a just account from the Missal, of the whole Service of that Day as to this Point. Note first, That in the Office of the Holy Week, printed in Latin & Eng­lish at Paris, 1670, The Ti­tle of this Ce­remony is, THE ADORA­TION OF THE CROSS. pag. 342.

Missale Rom. feria VI. in Pa­rasceve. p. 247. Completis O­rationibus Sacerdos depositâ Casulâ accedit ad cornu Epistolae, & ibi in posteriori parte Anguli altaris, accipit à Diacono Crucem jam in altari praeparatam; quam versâ facie ad po­pulum à summitate parùm disco-operit, incipiens solus Antiphonam, Ecce lignum Crucis, ac de­inceps in reliquis juvatur in Cantu à Ministris us (que) ad Venite Adoremus. Choro autem cantante, Venite Adoremus, omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante. Deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu Epistolae, & disco-operiens brachium dextrum Crucis, elevans­que eam paulisper, altiùs quàm primò incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis; aliis cantantibus & ado­rantibus, ut supra. The Morning Prayers being finished, the Preist 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.

[Page 20]

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, Deinde Sacer­dos procedit ad medium al­taris, & disco­operiens Cru­cem totaliter, ac elevans eam, tertiò altiùs incipit, Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo salus mundi pependit, Venite Adoremus: ali­is cantantibus & adorantibus ut supra. Postea Sacer­dos solus por­tat Crucem ad locum ante Al­tare praepa­ratum, & genu flexus ibidem eam locat: Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRƲCEM; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur. Hoc facto revertitur, & accipit calceamenta & casulam. Postmodum ministri Altaris, deinde alii Clerici & Laici, bini & bini, ter genibus flexis, ut dictum est, CRUCEM ADORANT. Interim dum fit ADO­EATIO CRUCIS cantantur, &c.—Deinde cantatur com muniter Annā: CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine. P. 209. and wholly uncovering the Cross, and lifting it up, begins yet higher, Behold the Wood of the Cross on which the Saviour of the World hung, come, let us adore: the rest singing and adoring as before.

This done, the Priest alone carries the Cross to a place prepared for it before the Altar, and kneeling down, leaves it there. Then he puts off his Shoes, and draws near to ADORE the CROSS, bowing his Knees three times before he kisses it: which done, he retires and puts on his Shoes. After him the Ministers of the Altar, 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 Quire sings several Hymns; one of which begins with these words, We adore thy Cross, O Lord.

This 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 days Service plainly shews, that the Roman Church does adore the Cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase.

As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Church, he acknowledges the Fact, but tells us, Vindicat. p. 40. That these are Poetical Expressions; and that the word CROSS, by a Figure, sufficiently known to Poets, fignifies JESƲS 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 Churches Hymns: But if he pleases to inform us what that Figure is which in the same place makes the Cross to signify Christ, in which it distinguishes Christ from the Cross; and who those Poets are to whom this Figure is sufficiently known, he will ob­lige us. For that this is the case in very many of those Hymns, is apparent: I shall instance only in One, and that so noted, that St. 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. p. 53. thus argues: Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo poni­mus spem salutis, sed in Cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis, Cantat enim Ecclesia, O Crux ave, &c. Thomas, unacquainted it seems, as well as we, with this Figure, concluded the Adoration of the Cross, to be the sense of their Church from it. Vexilla Regis prodeunt,Fulget Crucis mysterium,Quo carne carnis ConditorSuspensus est patibulo. Arbor decora & fulgida,Ornata Regis purpurâ,Electa digno stipite,Tam Sancta membra tangere. Beata cujus brachiisSoecli pependit pretium.Statera facta Corporis,Praedam (que) tulit Tartari. O Crux Ave spes unica!Hoc passionis tempore,Auge piis Justitiam,Reis (que) dona Veniam. Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis. p. 295, 296. The Banner of our King ap­pears, The Mystery of the Cross shines, Ʋpon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh. Beautiful and bright Tree! Adorn'd 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, Encrease the Righteousness of the Just, and give Pardon to the Guilty. Now by what Figure to make the Banner and the King the same; the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung, not dif­ferent from that Flesh that hung upon it; the Tree chosen of a Stock worthy to touch [Page 22]Christ's Sacred Members, the same with his Sacred Members; What noted Figure this is which is so well known to the Poets, and yet has been so long concealed from us, that we are amazed at the very report of such a Figure, The English Translation in the Office of the Holy Week, is this: O lovely and refulgent Tree, Adorned with purpled Majestie; Cull'd from a worthy Stock, to bear Those Limbs which sanctified were. Blest Tree, whose happy Branches bore The Wealth that did the World restore: Hail Cross of Hopes the most sublime, Now in this mourning Passion Time, Improve Religious Souls in Grace, The Sins of Criminals efface. Pag. 355, 356. and believe it next a kin to Transubstantiation, the Vindicator may please hereaf­ter to inform us.

In the Point of Reliques, OF RELIQƲES. the Council of Trent pro­ceeded so equivocally, that the Vindicator ought not to think it at all strange, if I endeavour'd more plainly to distinguish, what the ambiguity of their Expressions had so much confounded. Con. Tr. Sess. 25. Affirmantes Sanctorum Re­liquiis venera­tionem at (que) ho­norem non de­beri, damnan­dos esse. They, says the Council, are to be condemned, who affirm that no Veneration or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints. To this I replied, that honour them we do; but that the Council of Trent requires more, not only to ho­nour, but worship them too: so I render their Venerari, whether well or ill is now the question.

And first I observe, that in the very Point before us, Thom. 3. p. q. 25. art. 6. pag. 54. their own St. Thomas gives the very same inter­pretation to the same word. For having proposed the Question in these terms, Whether the Reliques of Saints are to be ADORED? Utrum Reli­quiae Sancto­rum sint A­DORANDAE? He concludes it in the terms of the Council, ‘Seeing we VENERATE the Saints of God, we must also VENERATE their Bodies and Reliques.

And again, In his second Objection against this Conclusion, Conclus: Cum Sanctos Dei Veneremur, co­rum quoque corpora & Reliquias Ve­nerari opor­ter. Sec. Obj. Stultum vide­tur rem insen­sibilem VENERARI. Resp. Ad secund. dicend. Quod Corpus illud insensibile non ADO­RAMUS propter scipsum; sed, &c. he argues against the Adoration of Reliques thus; It seems very foolish to VENERATE an insen­sible Thing. To which he replies thus; We do not ADORE the insensible Thing for it self, &c.’ From all which it is beyond dispute evident, that by the VENERATION, Thomas understood ADORATION of Reliques.

Secondly, That it is the Doctrine of their Church, that RELIQƲES are to be ADORED, their greatest Authors render it beyond denial evident. Vasquez in 3. p. D. Th. disp. 112. p. 808. pro­poses this Que­stion: An Cor­pora & aliae Sanctorum Re­liquiae VENE­RANDAE sint? To this he an­swers, c. 2. p. 809. Apud Catholicos ve­ritas indubita­ta est, Reliqui­as Sanctorum, sive fuerint partes ipsorum, ut Ossa, Carnes, & Cineres; five res aliae quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ip­sos pertineant, ADORANDAS & in honort Sacro habendas esse. And again, Disp. 113. c. 1. p. 816. Cum ergo jam contra Haereticos constitutum sit, Reliquias esse ADORANDAS, super­est explicare quo genere cultûs & honoris eas VENERARI debeanius. Vasquez in his Disputations upon Thomas, tell us, It is, says he, among the [pretended] Catholicks, a Truth not to be doubted of, that the RELIQƲES of Saints, whether they be any parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, or Ashes; or any other Things that have touched them, or belonged to them, ought to be ADORED. And in conclu­sion says, That he has proved against Hereticks, that Reliques are to be ADORED: And this too in Answer to the Question proposed in the very terms of the Council, Whether the Bodies, and other RE­LIQƲES of Saints ought to be VENERATED?

Nor is this a Scholastic Tenet, or to be put off with an impropriety of Speech. The Messieurs du Port Roy­al, are by all allow'd to have been some of the most learned Men of their Church, that this last Age has produced; and too great Criticks in the French [Page 24]Tongue, to use any Expressions subject to ambi­guity, which, that Language so particularly avoids. The word ADORE in French is much more rarely used to signify in general any Honour or Veneration, than in the Latine; Yet these very Men, in one of their Treatises publish'd by them, Response à un ecrit pub­lié sur les Mi­racles de la Sainte Espine. Pag. 15, 18, —22, &c. Cited by Mon­sieur Daillé. Of the Miracles of the Holy Thorne, use this word to express the Venera­tion they thought due to them. Thus speaking of ‘one of the Religious that was troubled with the Palsie,’ She was carry'd, say they, to the Port Royal to ADORE the Holy Thorne. Of another, that having ADORED the Holy Thorne, she was relieved of her In­firmity. They boast of the great multitudes that fre­quented their Church to ADORE the Holy Thorne. And in one of their Prayers which they teach their Votaries to say before it, We ADORE thy Crown, O Lord.

And now I suppose it is from all these Instances sufficiently evident, Vindicat. p. 42. that I had reason to interpret Ʋe­nerari in the Council, by Worship in my Exposition. As for the other thing he charges me with; That re­ferring to the words of the Council I should make it say, That these Sacred Monuments are not unprofita­bly revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtain­ing of their Help and Assistance: whereas indeed the Council's meaning is, to obtain the Help and assi­stance of the Saints, not the Reliques: 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 Reliques of Saints, or that those Reliques and other Sacred Monu­ments are unprofitably honoured by the Faithful; or [Page 25]that they do in vain frequent the Memories of the Saints, to the end they may obtain their Aid (the Aid of the Saints, Eorum) are to be condemned. He has indeed transposed the Latin, on purpose to raise a Dust, and deceive his Reader; the true Order be­ing plainly as I before rendred it; Ita ut Affir­mantes San­ctorum Reli­quiis Venera­tionem atque Honorem non deberi, vel eas aliá (que) sacra Mo­numenta inuti­liter honorari, at (que) Eorum o­pis impetran­dae Causâ me­morias Sancto­rum frustra frequentari, omnino dam­nandos esse. So that they who shall Affirm, that no Worship or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints; or that these and the like Sacred Monuments, are unprofitably honoured; and that for the obtaining of their help (the help of these Sacred Monuments, Eorum) the Memories of the Saints are unprofitably frequented, are to be condemned. This is the true sense of the Council; and for the In­stances I added for the Explication of it, they are the same by which their own Catechism excites them to this Worship, and every Day's Experience shews how zealously the People follow these Reliques, in or­der to these Ends.

ARTICLE V. Of Justification.

HOW far the true Doctrine of Justification was over-run with such Abuses, as I mention'd, Vindicat. p. 46. at the beginning of the Reformation, he must be very ignorant in the Histories of those Times that needs to be informed. I do not at all wonder that the Vindicator denies these things, who knows very well how far the Interest of his Church is concerned in it. But sure I am, a confident denial, which is [Page 26]all the proof he brings, will satisfy none but those, who think themselves obliged to receive the Tradition of their Church, with the same blindness in Matters of Fact, that they are required to do it in Points of Faith.

As to the present Article before us, two things there are that he doubts I shall be hardly put to prove. Vindicat. p. 47. One, That it is the Doctrine of our Church to distin­guish between Justification and Sanctification; tho the 11th and 12th Articles of our Church do clearly im­ply it; and our Pag. 12. The very beginning of the Homily: Because all Men be Sin­ners and Of­fenders against God, &c. no Man can by his own Acts, &c. be justified or made righteous before God: but every Man is constrain'd to seek for another Righteousness or Justification to be received at God's Hands, i. e. the For­giveness of his Sins and Trespasses in such Things as he hath offended. Edit. Oxon. 1683. Homily of Salvation, in express words interpret Justification, to be the Forgiveness of Sins. The Other, ‘That I impose upon them, as if they made their inward Righteousness a part of Justi­fication, and so by consequence said, that their Justifi­cation it self was wrought by their own Good Works.

As to the former part of which Imposition, as he calls it, 'tis the very definition of the Council of Trent; Justificatio, non est sola peccatorum re­missio, sed & san­ctificatio & re­novatio interi­oris hominis. C. Tr. Sess. vi. c. 7. p. 31. By Justification is to be understood, not only remission of Sins, but Sanctification, and the renewing of the in­ward Man: Insomuch that in their 11th Canon they damn all such as dare to deny it: Siquis dixe­rit, homines Just ficari vel solâ imputa­tione justitiae Christi, vel solâ peecatorum remissione ex­clusâ gratiâ & charitate quae in cordibus Eorum per Spiritum S. diffundatur, at (que) illis inhae­reat; aut etiam gratiam qui justificamur esse tantùm favorem Dei, Anathema sit. Can. 11. Sess. vi. If any one shall say that Men are justified, either by the alone Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, or only by the remission of Sins, excluding Grace and Charity, which is diffused in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inheres in them, or that the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God; let him be Anathema.

And for the other Point, that they esteem their Justification to be wrought, not only by Christ's Me­rits, but also by their own good Works; The 32 Can. of the same Session, is a sufficient proof, where an Anathema is denounced against him who shall assert, Siquis dixe­rit hominis ju­stificati bona Opera ita esse Dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justi­ficati Merita; aut ipsum Ju­stificatum bo­nis Operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam, & Jesu Christi Meritum, cujus vivum Membrum est, fuerit, non verè mereri augmentum gratiae, Vitam aeternam, & ipsius Vitae Aeternae, si tamen in gratiâ decesserit, consecutionem, at (que) etiam gloriae Augmentum, Anathema sit. the good Works of a justified Person to be so the Gift of God, that they are not also the Merits of the same justified Person; or that He being justified by the good Works which are performed by him through the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, does not truly merit increase of Grace and Eternal Life.

Now if those words truly merit, do signify that our good Works do in their own nature merit a Reward, then it must be confess'd, that our Justification is wrought by them. If they say that they are there­fore only meritorious, because accompanied with the infinite Merits of Christ; What can be more impro­per than to affirm, that that which in its own nature has nothing of Merit, should truly merit only because something which has infinite Merit goes along with it.

It would certainly be more reasonable in the Church of Rome, if they do indeed believe what these Men seem to grant, that Good Works are not in themselves meritorious, instead of affirming that they do truly merit Eternal Life, to confess with us that they have no Merit at all in them; but yet through the infinite Merits of our Blessed Redeemer, shall, according to God's Promises, have a most ample Reward bestowed on them.

ARTICLE VI. Of Merits.

IT ought not to be wondred at, Vindicat. p. 48. if to shew the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to the Point of Merits, I recurr'd, not to the Niceties of the Schools, but the Exposition of their greatest Men; and whose Names were neither less, nor less deservedly celebra­ted in their Generations, than Monsieur de Meaux's, or the Vindicators 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 unwilling that others should. Let the Vindicator think what he pleases of these Men, and their Opinions, we shall still believe them as able Expositors of the Council of Trent, as any that have ever undertaken it: And whoso shall compare what they say, with what the Council has defined, will find it at least as agreeable to it, as any of those new Inventions that have been started since.

The Doctrine of Merits, establish'd by the Coun­cil, in the Canon I but now cited, is clearly this; That the Good Works of a justified Person are not so the Gift of God, Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. Can. 32.that they are not also the Merits of the same Justified Person; That being justified by the Grace of God, and Merits of Jesus Christ, he do's then truly merit both encrease of Grace, and Eternal Life: In a word, the Point of Merit, as we now consider it, amounts to this, Whether we do truly and [Page 29] properly merit by our own Good Works? or, Whether whatsoever we receive, be not a Reward that is given us only through God's Acceptance, and promise in Christ Jesus?

This We affirm, they the Other; and whether the Testimonies I produced for the further clearing of their Doctrine do prove it or no, is now to be enqui­red by us.

1st, Maldon. in Ezek. 18.20. p. 425. Ex hoc loco perspicu­um est ali­quam esse no­stram, ut vo­cant, inheren­tem propri­ám (que) justiti­am, quamvis ex Dei gratiâ, & largitate profectam: & nos tam proprie & verè, cum gratiâ Dei benè agentes praemia mereri, quàm sine illâ malè Agentes supplicia mereamur. Maldonate is Express, and the Vindicator's Exception utterly impertinent to us, who dispute not the Principle, but Merit of Good Works: It is very clear, says he, that there is in us an inherent, as they call it, and proper justice of our own, tho proceeding from the Grace and Bounty of God; and that we do as truly and properly when we do well, through God's Grace, merit Rewards, as we do deserve Punishment when, without this Grace, we do Ill.

2dly, for Bellarmine: De Justif. l. 5. c. 17. Opera bona justorum me­ritoria esse ex condigno, non solùm ratione pacti, sed eti­am ratione Operum. The title of his Chapter, cited by me, the Vindicator says is something towards the sence I give it: He would more honestly have said, is word for word the translation of it: viz. That our Good Works do Merit [Eternal Life] con­dignly, not only by reason of God's Covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the Work it self.

Meritum ex Condigno tri­bus modis va­riari potest. Nam si fortè opus aliquod sit multò inferius mercede ex conventione promissâ, ut si dominus Vineae conduceret Opera­rios, & non denarium diurnum, sed centum aureos promercede promitteret, esset ejusmodi. meritum ex condigne ratione pacti, non Operis. P. 1299. l. B. This is his Position: For the explication of it, he tells us, that a Merit of Condignity may be vary'd three ways. For, 1st, if the work to be performed should be very much less than the hire promised by [Page 30]the Agreement; as if the Lord of the Vineyard instead of a Penny, should have promised the Labourers a hun­dred pound a day for their work: this would be a merit of condignity upon the Account of the Agreement, or Covenant. And this he thinks too little for our Good Works, and condemns Scotus for holding, Opera justo­rum esse Bona vtrè & propriè, sed non tam excellentia ut proportionem ha­beant cum vitâ aeternâ. Et ideò acceptari qui­dem à Deo ad justam & dig­nam mercedē vitae aeterflae, sed ex pacto & promissione non ex Operis digni­tate. p. 1300. l. A That the Works of Just Men are truly and properly good, but not so excellent as to bear a proportion to Eternal Life: and therefore that they are indeed accepted of God to a just and worthy Reward of Eternal Life, but only by the Covenant and Promise of God, not for the dignity of the Work it self.’

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

Si & Pactum intercedat, & Opus sit verè par Mercedi; ut cum operarii ad vi­neam condu­cuntur pro de­nario diurno, id meritum e­rit ex Condigno ratione Operis & ratione pacti: And he explains it thus, p. 1300. l. B. Non quidem quòd sine pacto, vel Acceptatione non habeat Opus bonum proportionem ad Vitam aeternam; sed quia non te­netur Deus acceptare ad illam mercedem Opus bonum, quamvis par & aequale Mercedi nisi conventio interveniat. Quam sententiam Conformem esse non dubitamus Concilio Tridentino, &c. A third sort of Condignity is, If there be both a Covenant, and that the Work be truly equal to the Re­ward: as when the Labourers were hired for the Vineyard at a Penny a day. And thus it is with our Good Works; not that, without any Covenant, the Good Work does not bear a proportion to the Reward of Eternal Life; but because, without the Covenant, God would not be bound to accept the Good Work, in or­der to that Reward, tho otherwise even or equal to it.

This is so plain an account of their Doctrine of Merits, and so clearly given us as the sense of the Council of Trent, that I hope the length of it will be excused by every one but the Vindicator; who possi­bly does not desire that the Council should be so freely expounded, as Bellarmine here has done it.

But Vasquez goes yet further: Vasquez in 1, 2dae. q. 114. d. 214. c. 3. p. 802. Jam verò hâc no­strâ Aetate non pauci Theologiae Professores mediam quan­dam Viam ele­gerunt, inter Scoti Opinio­nem quam primo Cap. memoravi­mus, & alio­rum sententi­am quam nos ut Veram infe­rius probabi­mus. Dicunt­ergo rationem Meriti perfecti & condigni, quod simpliciter Meritum dicitur, duobus compleri, nempe & digni­tate Operis, & promissione mercedis: which was Bellarmine's Opinion. 1st, He rejects the Opinion of Bellarmine, as too little for their Good Works: and then proposes his own in the Pag. 803. The first is that of c. 5. p. 804. Bona Opera Justorum, abs (que) ullà Acceptatione & pacto, ex se habere dignitatem Vitae Aeternae. This is against Scotus and the Hereticks, whose Doctrine he thus represents: Opera bona necessaria esse ad Vitam Aeternam; ita tamen ut Ip­sa Justorum Opera non sint digna remuneratione Vitae Aeternae, nisi Deus benignitate suâ dignaretur illa remunerare. Scotus's Opinion he puts down thus, c. 1. p. 800. Opera Justorum ex se spectata, quatenus procedunt ex auxilio gratiae Dei, & positâ Sanctitate Animae, per quam Spiritus S. in justis habitat, non habere condignitatem & rationem meriti Vitae Aeternae, sed totam dignitatem, & totam rationem meriti habere petitam ex promissione & pacto Dei. The second Con­clusion, c. 7. p. 809. is this: Operibus justorum nullum dignitatis Accrementum provenire ex Meritis aut Personâ Christi, quod alias eadem non haberent, si fierent ex eâdem gratiâ à solo Deo li­beraliter sine Christo collata. The third; which the Vindicator pretends he could not find, tho the Title and Subject of the very next, c. 8. p. 811. is; Operibus justorum aecessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem Meriti, sed potius advenire Operi­bus, non tantum sam dignis, sed etiam jam meritoriis. As for the Conclusion, wherein the Vindicator endeavours to excuse him, it is this: First he supposes the Merits of Christ to have obtain'd Grace for us, whereby we may be enabled to work out our Salvation; and then this supposed, he affirms, That we have no more need of Christ's Merits to supply our Defects, but that our own good Works are of themselves sufficient, without any more imputation of his Righteousness. See this at large, q. 114. art. 8. d. 222. c. 3. n. 30, 31. p. 917. three Conclusions mentioned by me; to which I must refer the Reader, and leave him to judg, 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 See disp. 214. c. 11, 12. p. 819, &c. Trent, but rather a true and natural Exposition of it.

ARTICLE VII. §. 1. Of Satisfactions.

IF the Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. cap. 8. Can. 73. Council of Trent has express'd it self in such terms, Vindicat. pag. 54, 55. as do plainly ascribe to our Endeavours a true and proper Satisfaction, whatever Monsieur de Meaux or his Vindicator expound to the contrary, we are not to be blamed for charging them with it.

'Tis not enough to say, that they believe Christ to have made an intire satisfaction for Sin, and that the necessity of that paiment which they require us to make for our selves, does not arise from any defect in that, but from a certain Order which God has esta­blished for a salutary Discipline, and to keep us from offending. If Christ has made an intire 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 establish'd any such Order as they pretend, let them shew it to us in Scripture: Otherwise we shall never believe that God's Justice does at all require it, since for the infi­nite Merits of a crucified Saviour, that has made an infinite Satisfaction to his Justice, he may as well for­give Temporal as Eternal Punishment.

That Lib. 1. de purg. c. 10. to this Objection, Si applicatur nobis per no­stra Opera Christi satis­factio, vel sunt duae satisfactio­nes simul jun­ctae, una Chri­sti, altera nostra, vel una tantùm. Resp. p. 1899. After two other manners of Explication, he adds; Tertius tamen modus videtur probabilior, quòd una tantùm sit actualis satisfactio, eá (que) nostra. Ne (que) hinc excluditur Christus, vel satisfactio ejus; nam per ejus satisfactionem habemus gratiam unde satisfactiamus; & hoc modo dicitur applicari nobis Christi satisfa­ctio; non quòd Immediatè ipsa ejus satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam, sed quòd Mediatè eam tollat, quatenus, viz. ab eâ gratiam habemus sine quâ nibil Valeret nostra sa­tisfactio. Bellarmine has taught, That it is we who properly satisfy for our own Sins, and that Christ's Satisfaction serves only to make ours valid. Had the Vindicator been ingenuous, he would not have thought it sufficient to answer with the Error of the Press, but have look'd into the place where it indeed was, C. 10. of that Book.

That both As to the Point of Satis­faction, Belar­mine distin­guishes be­tween a Satis­faction to Ju­stice, and a Sa­tisfaction to Friendship: And then concludes; Cum homines peccant in Deum, Amicitiam simul & Justitiam Violant. As to the former, Non potest homo Deo satisfacere, &c. p. 1675. the Question is, De satisfactione quâ Justitiae restauretur Aequalitas. And because he supposes that the Guilt being remitted, and we received into Friendship with God, the Eternity is thereby taken from the Pain, the Question amounts to thus much; An satisfacere possint homines pro expiando reatu illius Poenae qui interdum remanet post remissionem culpae? And whether those Works by which it is done; Sint dicenda propriè satisfactoria ita ut nos dicamur Verè ac propriè domino satisfacere. Now both these he affirms, and explicates the latter from the Council thus, C. 7. de poenit. lib. 4. p. 1694. l. C. Per opera illa poenalia de quibus hàctenus locuti sumus verè ac propriè Domino satisfieri pro reatu poenae, qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus. He and I shall instance only in Vasquez, in 3 p. d. 2. c. 1. p. 11. First he lays down the Opinion of several of the Schoolmen, Alex. d'Ales, Ricardus, Ruardus Tapperus, &c. who held, That a meer Man might condignly satisfy for his own Sins. This he rejects, because he supposes it cannot be done without God's assisting Grace, to which we forfeited all right by Sin: And so it will follow; Nostram satisfactionem pro peccato proprio perfectam non esse, ex eo quòd fiat non ex propriis sed ex Acceptis, p. 21. c. 5. n. 53. But now, Secondly, God's Grace being supposed, he concludes as to Mortal Sins, c. 6. p. 22. n. 58. Nos reipsa nunc satisfacere Deo pro nostro Peccato & Offensâ. He tells us, that some indeed allow that our Contrition may be called a Satisfaction, tho not a sufficient One, n. 59. Nam qui pro compensatione exhiber id quod potest; licet minus sufficiens illud sit, dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere. This Reason Vasquez dislikes; he is content this Satisfa­ction should be called Minus sufficiens; but then only upon the account before mentioned, o its proceeding from the Grace of God: So that, Si Contritio praecederet infusionem Gratia habitualis ex parte Efficientis, non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè, sed etian condignè mereretur Gratiae habitualis infusionem. And this he Expounds as the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, N. 62, 63, p. 23. As for Venial Sins, Disp. 3. c. 3. p. 27. Ita concedi mus (says he) homini justo pro suo peccato Veniali condignam & perfectam satisfactionem, u ea non indigeat favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel aliquid illius, aut acceptantis satisfactionem, sed talis sit ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam & poenam peccati Venialis. Others of their Communion, have taught it as the Doctrine of their Church, That we can make a true and proper Satisfaction for Sin, is beyond denial evident; and it has before been said, that the Council of Trent approves their Doctrine.

But that Protestants ever assigned this, Vindicat. p. 57. or any o­ther single Point as the cause of our separating fron their Communion; That we ever taught that any thing at all should be given to a Sinner, for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon me; much less more than they pretend to give by all the Plenary Indulgences of their Church; this is so shameful a Calumny, that I am con­fident the Vindicator himself never believed it.

For his last Remark, if it deserves any Answer, That I reflect upon the Bishop of Meaux, for bringing only, we suppose, to establish this Doctrine, when yet very often I do no more my self; I have only this to say, that I believe he can hardly find any one Instance wherein that is the only Argument I bring for our Doctrine: Not to add, that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient, not to receive their Innovations, till they can bring us some better Arguments to prove that we ought to quit our Supposition. They who pretend to impose such things as these, are the Persons on whom the Proof will lie; 'tis enough for us to reject them, that we cannot find any footsteps of them, either in Scrip­ture or Antiquity; and have good reason to believe, by the weakness of their Attempts, that there are not any.

ARTICLE VII. §. 2. Of Indulgences.

FOR Indulgences, Vindicat. p. 58. the Vindicator thinks it suffi­cient to answer all the Difficulties I proposed, to confess that some Abuses have crept in; that there are indeed many Practices in the Church of Rome, diffe­rent from that of the Primitive Church; but these being neither necessary, nor universally received, he will not quarrel with us about them.

But are not these Abuses still cherish'd in his Church? Does not the Pope still dispatch them abroad, and his Missionaries 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 temporal Pain of Sin? Do they not put up Bills over their Church Doors and Al­tars, almost every Sunday, to vend them on this Ac­count? Is not his Holiness still esteem'd the Churches Treasurer? And has he not but very lately sent a This Bull is dated August 11. 1683. and it runs thus: We give and grant, by virtue of the Presents, a Plenary Indulgence, and intire remission of all Sins. And that the Confessors absolve them in the Court of Conscience of all Sins, Excesses, Crimes and Faults, how grievous or enormous soever they have been, and in what fashion soever they were reserved. And for all this, The Condition proposed is, To visit some one of the Churches appointed by the Ordi­nary, to fast the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; to confess their Sins, and receive the Sacrament, and give somewhat to the Poor. And this the A. B. of Paris promises the People, in his Instructions for the Jubilee, shall restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism. Instructions pour Gagner le Jubilé, pag. 11. Paris, 1683. par Ordre de Monseigneur l'Archeveque. Ʋ ­niversal Indulgence throughout their whole Church?

When these things are considered, I doubt it will little avail the Vindicator to put me in mind of my Promise, That whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their Primitive Practice, we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as those first Ages of the Church allow'd of.

Purgatory. §. 3.

WHat I have said as to the Design of the Pri­mitive Christians in praying for the Dead, Vindicat. p. 59. would have deserved either an ingenuous acknow­ledgment of the truth of it, or some reasonable proof of its falseness or impertinence. We cannot but su­spect that he was hard put to it for Arguments, when all the reason he brings us for the belief of Purgato­ry, is built upon the Authority of two Councils, nei­ther of which are very much esteemed by Us; and the eldest of them 1400 Years after Christ.

If the Vindicator has any thing of moment to offer for it, he shall not fail of a just Consideration. Other­wise 'twill be as foolish as it is false, to pretend to tell the World, That we make a Breach in the Church, and condemn Antiquity upon no other grounds, than a bare supposition that it is injurious to the Merits of Jesus Christ; and which has no other Proof than our own Presumption.

PART II.

ARTICLE VIII. Of the Sacraments in General.

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

ARTICLE IX. Of Baptism.

WE do not complain of the Church of Rome, Vindicat. p. 61. for not believing that Infants dying unbaptised are certainly Saved: But we must, and do complain of Monsiur de Meaux, for declaring so positively, what we judge to be at least as uncertain as it is uncha­ritable, that they have not any part in Christ.

If I argued for the more favourable side, I confess'd at least that the Church of England had determined nothing concerning it; But that I went about to justify a Breach with the Church of Rome on this Account, is a Calumny as great, as the little reflection of Huguenot or Puritan, before was ridiculous.

That he should be astonish'd 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 much more strongly than ever I could have done for it: One the venerable and judicious Pag. 275, &c. Mr. Hooker in his Eccles. Polity. Lib. 5. Sect. 60. The Other the learned Arch-Bishop Bramhall in a set Discourse, which he thus concludes, A. Bp Bram­hall's Works, Tom. 4. Disc. 5. p. 983. This I take to be the Doctrine of the foundest English Divines, and which I believe to be the Truth: Saving always my Canonical Obedi­ence to my Spiritual Mother the Church of England, and in a higher degree to the Catholick Church, when it shall declare it self in a true and free Oeco­menical Council. But neither I, nor any Prote­stants, do believe that the Church of Rome, including all Other Churches of that Patriarchate, or of its Communion, is that Catholick Church.’

For the rest, whether his Arguments or mine on this Point are the better, I am but little concerned, tho 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 persume he will not say were Puritans or Huguenots for their so doing.

But that the World may see with what rashness these Men talk, I will now be yet more Express; [Page 39]That whereas Mr. de Meaux, M. de Meaux's Exp. p. 16. affirms that this deny­al 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. This is so notoriously false, that not only the most Learned of their own First we have Cassander, libr. de Baptismo In­fant. p. 762. and he there cites of his side Jo. Ger­son, Serm. in Nat. B. Mariae, par. 3. preached be­fore the Coun­cil of Constance, and all the Fathers there assembled, p. 769. Gabriel Biel in 4. dist. 4. q. 2. Cajetan in 3. p. D. Th. q. 68. art. 1, 2, 3. Tilmannus Segebergensis de 7 Sacram. c. 1. art. 3. Church as I proved before, but the very Grot. Via ad pacem, p. 290. in art. 9. Consult. Cassandr. adds to these, Inter Veteres, Scriptorem quaestionum ad Antiochum quae Athanasio tribuuntur; Nazianzenum de S. Bap­tismate, duobus locis; & Scholiastem ejus Nicetam: Fathers themselves, have many of them declared for this Do­ctrine; even St. sed & ipsum Augustinum antequam in certamine cum Pelagio incalesceret, l. 3. de lib. arb. c. 23. locum Joan. 3. intelligendum de iis qui possunt & contemnunt baptizari, asserit Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4.Augustine himself not excepted, till his Dispute with Pelagius provoked him to deny that, which in his cooler thoughts, he had more rea­sonably allow'd before.

ARTICLE X. Of Confirmation.

IN the Article of Confirmation, Vindicat. p. 63. I affirm'd that se­veral of their own Party had deny'd the Divine Institution of this pretended Sacrament; and that neither the Council of Trent, or their Catechism, had offered any thing to prove it.

The Vindicator replies, ‘That my Confession that the Apostles used Imposition of Hands, and that when our Bishops after their Examples do the like, and pray for the Blessing of the Holy Spirit upon us, we piously hope that their Prayers are heard; is a suffici­ent [Page 40]proof of an outward Visible Sign, of an inward and Spiritul Grace.

Had I indeed affirm'd that the Apostles had insti­tuted this Imposition of Hands, to be continu'd in the Church, and promised that the Grace of the Holy Ghost should certainly descend at their doing of it, for all those great Ends our Prayers design; this might have made Confirmation look somewhat like a Sacrament to Us. But to argue from a meer indif­ferent Ceremony, continued only in imitation of the Apostles, and to which no blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any Other the like Prayer; and then cry out that this must needs argue the Divine Institution of it, because none but God can promise Grace to an outward Sign, this is in effect to confess that there is nothing at all to be said for it.

It is wonderful to see with what confidence those of the Church of Rome, urge the Apostles Imposition of Hands for proof of Confirmation, as it is now pra­ctised amongst them; in which there is not any the least resemblance. Our Bishops lay on Hands after their Example: But for theirs, they anoint, make Crosses in the Forehead, tie a Fillet about their Heads, give them a box on the Ear, &c. for which there is neither Promise, Precept, nor Example of the Apostles: but for Imposition of Hands, the only thing they did, this they have resolved to be but an So Estius in 4. Sent. dist. 7. §. 7. p. 81. Accidental Ceremony, and accordingly have in their So the same Estius proves from the Council of Florence; In quo, says he, legitur quòd loco illius manùs impositionis per quam Apostoli dabant Spiritum S. in Ecclefiâ datur Confirmatio, cujus materia est Chrisma. Ex quibus verbis utrum (que) colligitur, & initio necessariam fuisse manuum impositionem Sacramenti necessitate, & eandem ejus necessitatem, signaculo Chrismatis introducto, cessâsse. practice wholly laid it by.

ARTICLE XI. Of Penance.

THat Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament, Vindicat. p. 64. nor was ever esteemed so by the Primitive Church, I at large proved in my Exposition of it: and the Vindicator has not in his Reply advanced any one thing to answer the Objections that were brought against it.

He allows Publick Confession to have been a part of Discipline only, and alterable at pleasure; Ibid. p. 65. but then affirms that either Publick or Private was always necessary; and this we are to take of him upon his own word.

In short, he repeats the Sum of their Doctrine to us; Ibid. p. 67. and then, as if he had done his Business, This, says he, we have always held and practised, and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Antient and Orthodox Churches; and adds, that He is asto­nish'd at our rejection of it.’ All which Stuff is ea­sily said, and may with the same ease and reasona­bleness be deny'd.

And therefore to conclude this in a word; If ever he gets so well out of his Astonishment, as to come to his Reason again, and will then undertake to prove Penance to be truly and properly a Sacrament, institu­ted by Christ, and necessary to Salvation, either in Act or Desire, he shall not fail of an ingenuous Reply to his Arguments. In the mean time, I have before shewn, that we do practise it, as far as is either necessary or [Page 42]convenient; and farther than this we shall not think our selves bound to go, till we are somewhat better convinced of our Obligations to it, than the Vindica­tor has hitherto been willing or able to do.

ARTICLE XII. Of Extreme Unction.

IN explaining the words of St. Vindicat. p. 68. James brought for this pretended Sacrament, I follow'd the Interpreta­tion which both the practice of the Primitive Church naturally leads to; and which Cardinal Cajetan con­fesses, and their own publick Liturgies shew, was for above 800 Years esteem'd the undoubted meaning of them.

The Vindicator, from Bellarmine, advances many Things, as he supposes, contrary to this Exposition; but the greatest part of which are utterly false, the rest impertinent.

The Grace of curing the Sick, he says, was not given to all Priests and Elders alike, but only to some select Persons. If this be true, it was then best like St. James'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 taken notice of these two. He [Page 43]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 [...] an­swers to the Hebrew [...] and signifies all sorts of IN­firmities: and [...], is no un­heard of phrase for be­ing Lame. general, and may very well be extended to all these? Yet since these Gifts were but rare in the Church, in respect of that the Apostle here speaks of, and did evidently be­long to a greater Power, We deny his Supposition, that those who ordinarily cured the Sick by anoint­ing, had also the Power to heal the Lame and the Blind.

Their Power of Miracles was not tied to Ʋnction only: Mark 6.13. But yet since we find in St. Mark that this was the ordinary Sign, what wonder if St. James describe it by that which was the most common and frequent amongst them?

All those that were anointed, were not cured. This is false, Vindicat. p. 69. and cannot be maintain'd without disho­nour to that Spirit by which they acted: Neither had all they that were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing, any assurance by that Cure of the For­giveness of their Sins. This again is false: The Sin here promised to be forgiven is that for which the Sickness was sent, if it was sent for any: Now St. James expresly promise, that in this case, whenever the Health of the Body was restored, this Sin should be forgiven too; and therefore it must be false to say it was not.

He adds, lastly, That St. James promises, that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: Which if it had been meant of bodily Health, those only would have died in the Apostle's Time, who either neglected this Advice, or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of this Ceremo­ny. And if it must be understood of the Soul's [Page 44]Health, then it will follow that none were damned, either then or now, but what neglect this Advice, or whose Deaths prevent the accomplishment of this Cere­mony; concerning the Truth of which the Vindicator may please to give us his Opinion.

But the Vanity of this Objection proceeds from the want of a true Notion of the Nature of these Gifts. They who had the greatest measure of them, could not yet exercise them when they would. The same Spirit that helped them to perform the Mira­cle, instructed them also when they should do it. So that they never attempted it, but when they saw the sick Person had Faith to be healed, and that it would be for the greater Glory of God to do it. St. Paul had doubtless this Gift of Healing; and yet he neither cured Timothy of the weakness of his Sto­mach,1 Tim. 5.22.and his other frequent Infirmities; and left Trophimus at Miletum sick. 2 Tim. 4.20. That this Gift of Heal­ing was in the Church at this time, is not to be doub­ted, though this place should not belong to it. Will the Vindicator argue against this, that then none died till it went out of the Church, but such as refused the benefit of it, or died suddenly before they had time to do it?

It may appear by this, Vindicat. p. 69, — 70. how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of this passage: Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba haec lo­quuntur de Sacramentali Unctione Ex­tremae Unctio­nis: sed magis de Unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus, à Discipulis exercendam in aegro­tis. Cajet. Annot. in Loc. For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority, the Vindicator tells us, That had I said only, that he thought it could not be proved, neither from the Words, nor the Effect, that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Ʋnction of Extreme Ʋnction; but rather [Page 45]of that Ʋnction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick, I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense: But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to im­pose upon him and the Readers. As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal, ab­solutely to exclude the one, and apply it to the o­ther, were not in effect (for I design'd not to tran­slate his words) to confess, that it could belong only to that.

But that which is most considerable is, that the Antient Liturgies of the Church, and the publick practice of it, for above 800 Years, shew, that they esteemed this Ʋnction to belong primarily to bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul. And because these Rituals are not in every bodies 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.

Fer. 5. post Palm. E­mitte domine Spiritum S. tuum paraclitum de Coelis in hanc pinguedi­dem Olivae, quem de Vi­ridi ligno producere dig­natus es; ad refectionem Corporis; ut tuâ sanctâ [Page 46]benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tu­tamen Mentis & Corporis, ad Evacuandos omnes Dolores, omnes (que) infirmitates, omnem aegritudinem corporis.

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

In the Office of Visiting the Sick, several Introdu­ctory Prayers, all for the Bodies Recovery, are first said: such as this, pag. 251, &c.

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

O God, who didst add ‘to the [...] thy Ser­vant Hezekiah fifteen Years, let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness. Through &c.’

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

‘Domine Deus, qui per Apostolum locutus es, Infirmatur quis in Vobis, S. James 5.14, 15.inducat Presbyteros Ec­clesiae & orent super eum ungentes eum oleo Sancto in Nomine Domini, &c. Cura quaesumus Re­demptor noster gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti languores istius Infirmi: & sua sa­na vulnera, ejus (que) dimit­te [Page 47]peccata, at (que) dolores cunctos cordis & corpo­ris expelle, plenam (que) & interius exterius (que) sa­nitatem miserecorditer redde: ut ope misere­cordiae tuae restitutus & Sanatus, ad pristina Pie­tatis tuae 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 [Page 47]Person: Heal his Wounds, and forgive his Sins, and expel all the Pains, both of his Heart, and of his Body; and restore him mercifully to full health, both inward and out­ward: that being by thy merciful Aid Recovered and Healed, he may be strengthned 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, & super Infirmos manus vestras imponite & bene habebunt. Psalm. Deus Deorum Dominus locutus est: Et repetit, In Nomine meo &c.’

‘The Lord said unto his Disciples, In my Name cast out Devils; and lay your hands upon the Sick and they shall Recover. Then the 49 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, & cum omni sup­plicatione [Page 48]rogemus, ut hunc famulum suum N. per Angelum Sanctum suum visitare, laetificare, & confortare dignetur.

‘Let us pray unto our Lord Jesus Christ, and beseech him with all [Page 48]supplication, that he would vouchsafe, by his Holy Angel, to visit, make glad, and comfort this his Servant.’

Afterwards this Antiphona.

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

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

Then follows another Psalm, and after it this An­tiphona:

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

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

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

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

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

Then follows this Prayer.

‘Domine Deus Salva­tor noster, qui es vera salus & Medicina, à quo omnis Sanitas & Medi­camentum venit, qui (que) nos Apostoli documento instruis ut languentes O­lei liquore Orantes tan­geremus, respice propi­tius super hunc famu­lum tuum N. & quem languor curvat ad exi­tum, & virium defectus trahit ad Occasum, me­dela tuae gratiae restituat in Salutem. Sana quo (que) quaesumus omnium me­dicator ejus febrium, & cunctorum languorum Cruciatus, aegritudinem­que, & dolorum omni­um dissolve tormenta, viscerum (que) ac cordium interna Medica: Me­dullorum quo (que) & Co­gitationum: Sana dis­crimina ulcerum, vani­tatum (que) putredines e­vacua, Conscientiarum (que) at (que) plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres, immensas (que) remove passiones: Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma, delictorum (que) [Page 51]cunctorum veniam tribue; sic (que) illum tua pietas jugiter custodiat, ut nec ad Correptionem aliquando Sanitas, nec ad perditionem nunc, Te auxiliante, perducat Infirmitas; sed fiat illi haec Olei Sacri per­unctio, morbi & languoris praesentis expulsio, at (que) pecca­torum omnium optata remissio: Per Dominum nostrum.’

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

Then let the Priest give him the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ: and if occasion be, let them repeat this seven days; And the Lord shall raise him up; and IF he be in Sins, they shall be remitted.

The Priest ought also to say the Morning and Even­ing Service every day to the Sick Person, adding the Hymn; See the Hymn, Cassaadr Oper. p. 287. Christe Coelestis Medicina Patris; which is a Prayer entirely for the recovery of the Bodily Health.

This was the method of their Ʋnction in Pope Gregory's Missal; and which I suppose shews that it had somewhat more than a bare respect to bodily Cures; indeed was, as I before affirm'd, 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 Arcud. de Sa­cram. Extr. Unct. l. 5. c. 5. de formâ hu­jus Sacramen­ti. Arcudius himself could not dissemble it: But I shall close this with one Obser­vation more which Cassander. Oper. p. 289. where he also cites Cusanus for the same Remark. Cassander has given us, that it was anciently the custom to anoint, not only the El­der Persons, but even Infants, after the same man­ner; not sure for the forgiveness of those remains of Sin which the former Sacraments had not sufficiently cleared, but for the same End for which they then did all others, the Recovery of their bodily Health.

ARTICLE XIII. Of Marriage.

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

4 Sent. d. 26. q. 3. Durandus in express terms declares, that foras­much as it neither confers Grace where it is not, nor encreases it where it is, it cannot be a Sacrament tru­ly and properly so called.

It is therefore evidently false to say, that Lombard is against me in this Matter; and for the torrent of Fathers and For his tor­rent of Fathers, Bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven, of which not one to the purpose, nor any very ancient: And for the Scriptures, Estius one of the wisest of their own Party, is forced to confess; Cum igitur hujus Doctrinae non poffit ex Scripturis haberi probatio, saltem aperta & evidens; consequens est articulum hunc, Matrimonii Sacramento gratiam conferri, unum esse extraditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis, & ad Virbum Dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere. 4 Sent. d. 26. §. 7. p. 61.Scriptures which he talks of, it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their Authorities, than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform.

ARTICLE XIV. Of Holy Orders.

IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Article, Vindicat. p. 71. He must then renounce the number of his seven Sacraments. I deny'd that there was any Sign instituted by Christ, to which his Grace is annexed: All the Authority Imposition of Hands has in Scripture, being only the Example of three or four places, where it was practised indeed, but no where com­manded. I affirm'd 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 conferr'd was no Justifying Grace, nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper Sacrament: To all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in Answer.

ARTICLE 15, 16, 17, 18. Of the Eucharist.

AS to the Business of the Eucharist, Vindicat. p. 72. I had not entred on any Argument about it, had not Monsieur de Meaux here thought fit to lay aside the Character of an Expositor, to assume that of a Dis­putant.

For the words of Institution, which are the prin­cipal part of this Controversy, I proposed two Ar­guments to confirm the Interpretation which our Church gives of them: One from the the natural im­port of the words themselves; the Other from the in­tention of our Saviour in the institution of this Holy Sacrament. To the former of these the Vindicator thought he could answer somewhat; but for the latter, it has been urged chiefly since Bellarmine's time, and so our Author had nothing to say to it.

For the former then he tells us, Ibid. first, Of the in­sincerity of my Attacque; Pag. 73, 74.That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIG­ING them to take them in a figurative sense; to which I oppose only, That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation, as NATƲ ­RALLY lead to it. 'Tis true, I have not here used the very word OBLIGED, but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would NECESSARILY REQƲIRE a figurative Expos. Ch. of Eng. p. 47.[Page 55]Interpretation; which is much the same thing. And though I cannot tell what will Oblige Him to take those words in their true, i. e. figurative sense; yet if I have proved, That there are such Grounds in those words as Naturally, indeed necessarily lead to it; any reasonable Man would think, that joyn'd with the Other proof from the Reason of the thing it self, might be sufficient to Oblige him to acquiesce in it.

But we will examine his Process, which whether it argues more my unsincerity, or the falseness of their Interpretation, I shall leave it to the Reader to judg.

First; He confesses, as to my first Position, Vindicat. p. 73. that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative Interpretation. ‘No-Body, says he, ever deny'd but the words as they lie (without considering the Circumstances and Practice of the Church, deliver­ing the Interpretation of them down to us) might possibly lead to a figurative Interpretation: Seeing the like Expressions are frequently found in Scripture: As for Example, I am a Door, I am a Vine, &c. Which being always taken by the Church in a figu­rative sense, we should esteem him a Mad-man that should think it possible after this, to perswade all the World they ought to be taken in a literal. And as it would be a madness to suppose all Man­kind might in future Ages be so sottish, as to re­nounce this figurative Interpretation of Jesus Christ's being a Dore, and a Vine, and fall so far into the literal sense, as to believe him to be sub­stantially present in them, and pay the utmost ado­rations [Page 56]to him there, set them up in Temples to be Adored, and celebrate Feasts in honour of them; This is the Pretence of Mr. Arnauld, and at large refuted by Mr. Claude in his answer to him; whose Works being in Eng­lish, I shall re­fer the Reader, who desires to see the vanity of this Argu­ment exposed, to what he has there said. So we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine, that if the Disciples and whole Church in all Nations, had been once taught these words, This is my Body, were to be taken in a figurative sense, it could ever have happen'd that the Visible Church in all Nations, should agree to teach their Children the literal, &c.’

The meaning of which Discourse, if I understand it aright, is this Concession, that the words of In­stitution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figu­rative Interpretation, as those other Expressions, I am a Vine, I am a Door: And the only thing which makes the difference is, that the Church, as he sup­poses, has from the beginning interpreted the One according to the Letter, the Other in a figurative Acceptation.

‘Secondly, As to my Argument, That if the Re­lative This, in that Proposition, this is my Body, re­ferr'd to the Bread which our Saviour held in his Hand, the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another, Bread and Christ's Body will NECESSARILY RE­QƲIRE the figurative Interpretation. This De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. p. 462. l. D. speaking of Carol­strad's Opinion of the Eucharist; Scripsit, says he, Verba Evangelistae, Hoc est Corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, Hic Panis est Corpus meum, quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicè, ut Pa­nis sit Corpus Christi significativè, aut est planè absurda & Impossibilis, nec enim fieri potest, ut Panis sit Corpus Christi. Et l. 3. c. 19. p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane, praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi, &c. Bellarmine, Hoc est impos­sibile quod Panis fit Corpus Chri­sti: de Conse­crat. d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss.Gratian, and others do confess, and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it: Only he [Page 57]believes, That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to (Panis) In the Aethio­pian Church they give the Holy Eucha­rist with this Explication, Hic Panis est Corpus meum. Ludolphi Hist. l. 3. c. 5. n. 56. Bread, and not to (Corpus) Body. How far my Logic has been able to do this, I must leave it to others to determine; but for the Vindicator's satisfacti­on, I do assure him, that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to, and which he has almost in­tirely transcribed, excepting only the part I am now speaking of, I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission, but I must needs say 'twas indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed: Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. p. 746. Lit. D. Domi­nus accepit in manibus pa­nom, eum (que) benedixit, & dedit discipu­lis & de eo ait, Hoc est Corpus meum. Ita (que) panem acce­pit, panem be­nedixit, panem dedit, & de Pane dixit, Hoc est corpus meum. The Lord, says he, took Bread in his hands, and blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said of it, This is my Body: Therefore he took BREAD, and blessed BREAD, and gave BREAD to his Disciples, and said of BREAD, This is my Body. And in Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digi­to aliquid o­stendat, dum Pronomen effert, valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non de­monstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit Panem, & Illum porrigens ait, Hoc est Corpus meum; videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem. Ne (que) obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis. Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Ora­tio quaedam, tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam an­tequam sequantur caeterae voces. Et sanè in illis verbis, Bibite ex hoc omnes, valdè du­rum est non demonstrari, I D. quod Erat, sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat. another place, arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator, That THIS in that proposi­tion belongs to BODY, not the BREAD which he held in his hand; says, That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative, 'twere absurd to say that any thing else should be refer­red to, but that thing. Our Lord took Bread, and reaching it out to them, said, Take, Eat, THIS is my Body; He seems to have pointed to the BREAD; and therefore must have shewn some certain thing, even be­fore the other words were pronounced.

From which put together, I think we may frame this Argument:

If the Relative THIS, in that Proposition, This is my Body, belong to the Bread, so that the meaning is, This Bread is my Body, then it must be understood Figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and impossible:

But the relative This in that proposition, This is my Body, does belong to the Bread, forasmuch as Christ took Bread, and blessed Bread, and gave Bread to his Disciples, and therefore said of Bread, This is my Body: Therefore

That proposition, This is my Body, must be un­derstood figuratively, or 'tis plainly absurd and im­possible.

How far the Vindicator will approve this Logick, I cannot tell; but the first proposition is their common concession, and he himself seems contented with it. The second is Bellarmine's own grant, nay what he contends for, and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require: And then for the conclu­sion, I believe a very little Logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it.

But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this, Vind. p. 75. and tells us, That it will all argue nothing against them, unless I beg the Question, and suppose that no real change was made by those words. I pre­sume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was, as for me that there was not. We do not now enquire how to expound the Proposition, supposing there were such a change made as they ima­gine; but the Question is, Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change, nay, rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none?

However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first, and then prove it, tho' I must not. We will suppose, says he, and that not incongruously, That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine, might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE, or LET THIS BE WINE. I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same. But in short, If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine, the meaning must have been, Let this which is now Water become Wine. If he had said, This is Wine, and the conversion not yet made, it would have been false: If after the conversion, no more than this, This that is contained in these Pots is Wine; or, This which before was Water, now is Wine.

And so in the point before us; Had our Blessed Savi­our said, LET THIS BE MY BODY, and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made, as of the Water into Wine, we should have made no doubt, but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to be­come his Body. If we take the Words as they are, THIS IS MY BODY, and no conversion made before they were pronounced, the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false. If a real conversion had first been made, as when the Water was turned into Wine, then would it signifie no more than this, This which be­fore was Bread, is now my Body. So that all this will as little avail him, as he says the other did us, unless he also beg the Question, and suppose a real change made by these words, which he knows is the very thing which we deny; as we shall have reason to do, till they can prove that what, we are sure, was Bread, is converted into the Body of Christ.

And thus much for his disputing; Vindicat. p. 77, 78, 79, 80. Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to [Page 60]shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantia­tion, he is willing to state the Case, and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say, that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament: Or how that which is not the thing it self, is yet more than a meer figure of it. In answer to which, I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to sa­tisfie him. See the Church Catechism. Our Catechism affirms, That the inward part, or thing signified in this Holy Supper, is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, which are VE­RILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper: And the meaning of it our 28th Article 28. Article expounds thus; The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper, ONLY AFTER A SPIRITƲAL 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 Christs Body after such a manner, as those who are void of Faith cannot, tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike; Whom therefore our Church declares, Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but to be no way partakers of Christ; but rather as St. Paul again says, to Eat and Drink their own Damnation, not discerning the Lords Body.

See the Appendix. N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it. These are the Words of our Church; and the meaning is clearly this: Christ is really present in this Sacrament, inasmuch as they who worthily receive it, have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ, [Page 61]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 be more than a meer Fi­gure; yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine, Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office. Christ's Body being in Heaven, and not on the holy Table; and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.

The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance; nor is there any corpo­ral Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the ho­ly Altar. The Presence we allow, is Spiritual, and that not only as to the manner of the Existence Vindicat. p. 77, 78., which the Vindicator seems to insinuate (for we sup­pose it to be a plain Contradiction, that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Bo­dy, That this Ex­position is a­greeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of Eng­land, the Au­thorities alrea­dy cited, shew. See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament, part 1. p. 283. &c. and the same is the Explication, which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it; as is evident by the Colla­tion of them made by Bishop Cofins, in his History of Transubstantiation, cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large, p. 6. &c. i. e. Corporal) but as to the nature of the thing it self; and yet it is Real too: The Bread which we re­ceive, being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body, in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of, and in which the Faithful, by their Faith are made partakers of it.

Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence, and yet Vindic. p. 80., neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense Ibid. p. 79., and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with: As to the Authorities of their own Writers, which I alledged 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, [Page 62]but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it. Vind. p. 80, 81. And for Antiquity, he desires us to observe, 1st, That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon, Ibid. p. 82.defined the. true, real, and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament, brings this Transubstantiation, Sess. 13. Can. 2.or Conversion of one Substance into another, as the natural Consequence of it. Can. 2. If any one shall say, That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, to­gether with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular Con­version of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood, the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining; which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation, let him be Anathema.

The design of the Council in which Canon is evi­dently this, To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, against the Sacra­mentaries, which before was done Can. 1.; but also the man­ner or mode of his Presence, against the Lutherans, in two Particulars; 1st, Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine. 2ly, Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ, the Species only remaining. But this the Vindicator will not allow, but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council, and Doctrine of his Church, that it is won­derful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself, or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion.

It is manifest, Vindic. p. 83. says he, that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion, but only to declare the matter, viz. That the Body and Blood [Page 63]of Jesus Christ becomes truly, really, and substantially Present; the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly, really, and substantially Present, tho the Appearances thereof remain. Now this is so evidently false, that Suarez doubts not to say 'tis HEREST to affirm it, Forasmuch, says he, See Suarez ci­ted below. as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, but also the true Con­version of the one into the other; thus establishing, not only the two former, but this last also as an Article of Faith.

Our dispute therefore, is not only, as this Author pretends, about the real Presence of Christ's Body, Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, which he calls the thing it self; but also about the Manner, how Jesus Christ is Present; viz. Whether it be by that WON­DERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTI­ATION?’ Now this being that we are to enquire 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 Vind. p. 92. Vindicator is pleased to call a Scholastick Nicety; and it was indeed at that time no other, tho since become a matter of Faith, Lombard. l. 4. d. 11. lit. A. p. 736. De modis Conversionis. Si autem quae­ritur qualis sit illa Conversio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, desinire non susti­neo: Quibusdam esse videtur substantia is, &c. viz. What kind of Conversion is there made? Whether formal or substan­tial, or what else? And for this, he tells us freely, He is not able to define it: That some have thought it to be [Page 64]a SƲBSTANTIAL CHANGE; but for his part, he will not undertake to determine it.

But 2dly, SCOTƲS is yet more free Dicendum, says Scotus, quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intelle­ctum esse de veritate fidei. Si quaeras, qua­re voluit Ec­clesia eligere istum intelle­ctum ita dif­ficilem hujus Articuli, cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem, & veric­rem secundum apparentiam; Dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae, quo condi­tae. See 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 63.. He de­clares our Interpretation contrary to Transubstanti­ation, to be the more easie, and to all appearance the more true: Insomuch, that the Churches Authority is the And before, in Sect. Quantum ergo, He profess'd, Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet Romana Ecclesia. In a Word, Bellarmine himself cites Scotus for this Opinion: Non extare locum ul­lum Scripturae, tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transub­stantiationem admittere, Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767. L. D.’ Principal thing that moved him to receive their Doctrine. And again, p. 768 L. A. Unum tamen addit Scotus, quod minime probandum est, Ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem. He tells us that this Doctrine of Tran­substantiation was not very Ancient, nor any matter of Faith before the Council of Lateran; all which the Vin­dicator himself does in effect confess.

The same is, Vind. p. 88. 3ly, affirmed by Suarez in 3 part. D. Th. vol. 3 disp. 50. § 1. p. 593. Sa­cramentum Eucharistiae conficitur per veram conver­sionem Panis & Vini in Cor­pus & Sangui­nem Christi. Haec assertio est de fide: Nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in Scrip­tura, ea tamen docet Ecclesia ab Apostolis edocta; docens simul ita esse intelligenda Verba formae, & in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri. And then p. 594. col. 2. adds, 1mo, Ex hac Fidei Doctrina, colligitur corrigendos esse Scholasticos qui hanc Doctrinam de Conversione hac, seu de Transubstantiatione, non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt, inter quos sunt Scotus & Gabriel Biel, lect. 41. in Can. &c. And then, 2do infero, Siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Christi, & absentiam Panis, neget ta­men veram Conversionem unius in aliud, in HAERESIN labi, quia Ecclesia Catho­lica, non solum duo priera, sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet. SƲAREZ of GABRIEL, and confess'd by the Vindicator; who also, contrary to his pretences, calls this manner of Con­version, an Assertion, that is, of Faith; tho he confes­ses, it is not expresly 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, [Page 65]which our good Author examined; but amidst all his sincerity, overlook'd 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 HEREST; forasmuch as the Church has defined, not only the two former, but also the third likewise. But,

4thly, The Prevarication of our Author in the next Citation is yet more unpardonable. I affirmed, ‘That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledged, that had not the Church declared her self for the proper Sense of the Words, the other might with as good reason have been received. This he says, is false; Vind. p. 86. for that Cajetan says no such thing; nay, rather the contrary, as will appear to any one who reads that Article: And then with won­derful assurance, 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, Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. p. 130. Col. 1. In com­ment. circa praesentis & sequentium Articulorum Doctrinam, pro claritate & ampliori in­tellectu diffi­cultatum, sci­endum est ex Autoritate S. Scripturae de Existentia Corporis Christi in Sacramento Eu­charistiae, nihil aliud haberi 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 Metapherice; Primus Error circa hoc fuit Interpretan­tium haec Domini Verba Metaphorice; quem magister Sent. l. 4. d. 10. Tractat. Qui & hoc Articulo reprobatur. Et consistit VIS Reprobationis in HOC, Quod verba Domini intel­lecta sunt ab ECCLESIA Proprie, & PROPTEREA oportet illa verificari proprie Habe­mus igitur ex veritate verborum Domini in sensu proprio, &c. Cited by the Vindicator. says Cajetan, we must know, That as to the Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, there is nothing to be had expresly from the Authority of the holy Scripture, but the words of our Saviour, saying, This is my Body. For it must needs be that these words are true; and because the Words of Scripture may be expounded two ways, either Properly, or Metapho­rically; the first Error was of those who interpret [Page 66]these words Metaphorically, which is rejected in this Article. And the force of the Rejection consists in this, That the words of our Saviour have been understood in their proper Sence by the Church, and therefore must be properly true.

This the Vindicator was pleased to pass by, tho' the very next words to those he 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 believe, have found out a great many hard Names for him, to testi­fie his Zeal against Falshood and Unsincerity, and shew what a kind of Religion that must be, Vind. p. 222. that is not maintainable 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, Vindic. p. 88. That Transubstantiation was no matter of Faith, till the Council of Lateran, 1200 years after Christ: They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine, See p. 64. and all his Sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose.

Thus, notwithstanding all the little Endeavours of the Vindicator, to evade the truth of those Concessions made by the greatest of his own Communion in fa­vour of our Doctrine, my Argument still stands good against them; and Transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous Birth of these last Ages, unknown in the Church for almost 1200 years. Vind. p. 92, 93. For what remains concerning the Adoration of the Host, since he has thought fit to leave my Arguments in their full force; I shall not need say any thing in defence of that, which he has not so much as attempted to destroy.

ARTICLE XIX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

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

Canon. 1. Siquis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo ve­rum & propri­um Sacrifici­um, aut quod offerri non fit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducan­dum dari, A­nathema fit. Canon. 3. Siquis dixerit Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis & gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem Sacrificii in Cruce peracti, non autem Propitiatorium, vel solipro­desse sumenti, neque pro Vivis & Defunctis, pro peccatis, paenis, satisfactionibus, & aliis necessitatibus offerri debere, Anathema sit. The Council of Trent affirms, Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. p. 196. de Missa. ‘That the Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice offered to God, a Sacrifice not only of Praise and Thanksgiving, nor yet a bare Commemoration of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, but truly Propitiatory for the Dead and the Living, and for the Sins, Punishments, Satisfactions, and other Ne­cessities of both of them. Ibid. Cap. 2. p. 191. Una eademque est Hostia, idem nunc offerens Sacerdotum Ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa. A Sacrifice wherein the same Christ is now offered without Blood, that once offer'd himself in that bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, the same Sacrifice, the same Offerer; Christ by his Priests now, who then did it by himself, offering himself, only differing in the manner of Oblation.

This is in short, what their Council has defined as to this Mass-Sacrifice, and what we think we have good reason to be offended at. That there should be any true and proper Sacrifice, truly and properly Propitiato­ry, after that of the Cross; that Christ who once of­fer'd [Page 68]up himself upon the Tree for us, should again be brought down every day from Heaven, to be Sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their Altars: And by all these things so great a dishonour done to our Blessed Lord, as most evidently there is, and our Writers have unanswerably proved, in the whole de­sign, Practice, and Pretences of it.

How little the Doctrine of the real Presence, Vindicat. ib. as un­derstood by the Church of England, will serve to sup­port this Innovation, is at first sight evident from the Exposition I before gave of it. That those who are ordained Priests, 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 In the order­ing of Priests, when the Bi­shop imposes his hands, he bids him be a faithful Di­spenser of the Word of God, and of his Ho­ly Sacraments: And again, when he deli­vers him the Bible, Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments, &c. Sparrow Collect. p. 158. Rituals shew that our Priests accordingly have such a Power, by Imposition of Hands, conferred on them. But that it is necessary to the Evangelical Priesthood, that they should have power to offer up Christ truly and properly, as the Council of Trent defines, this we deny; and shall have reason to do so, till it can be proved to us, that their Mass is indeed such a Sacrifice as they pretend, and that our Saviour left it as an Essential part of their Priesthood to offer it.

For the rest, Vindic. p. 95. If with the Council of Trent, he indeed believes the Mass to be a true and proper Sacrifice, he ought not to blame us for taking it in that Sence in which they themselves understand it: For certainly, it is impossible for words to represent a Sacrifice more [Page 69]strictly and properly, than the Council of Trent has defined this.

ARTICLE XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

TO elude the authority of this Epistle, Vindicat. p. 96, 97. the Vin­dicator, after Monsieur de Meaux, thinks it suf­ficient to tell us, ‘That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass, Mr. de M's Ex­pos. p 31. in a larger sig­nification than what the Apostle there gives it; as when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him: And that 'tis thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESƲS to his Father in the Mass,Vind. p. 96.in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him.

That this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase, the Doctrine of the foregoing Article plainly 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 properly sacrificed: Sacrificium verum & rea­le, veram & realem Occisi­onem exigit, quando in Oc­cisione ponitur Essentia Sacri­ficii. Bellarm. de Miss. l. 1. cap. 27. p. 1663. A. And one essential Propriety, and which they tell us distinguishes a Sacrifice from any other Offering, being the true and real destruction of what is offered; inso­much that where there is not a true and proper destru­ction, neither can there be, as they themselves ac­knowledg, a true and proper Sacrifice: It must be evi­dently false in these men to pretend, that by Offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of Christ be­fore God, and not a real change and destruction of his Body offered by them.

If in this Exposition of their Doctrine we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it, we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake, that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us: And inded it still seems most reason­able to us, that either this Sacrifice is no true and pro­per Sacrifice, as they say it is; or it is truly and pro­perly offer'd, as we affirm they understand it to be.

ARTICLE XXI. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine.

IF my Reflections in this Article be but as good, Vindicat. p. 97. as my Exceptions in the foregoing have been just, against their Doctrine; what the Vindicator has said to these here, will I believe be found as little to the purpose, as what he endeavoured to reply to those be­fore.

Tho' Christ be acknowledged to be really present after a Divine and Heavenly manner in this Holy Eu­charist, yet will not this warrant the Adoration of the Host, which is still nevertheless only Bread and Wine, from being what our Church censures it, Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion. Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; nor will such a real presenting of our Blessed Lord to his Father, to render him propitious to us, make the Eucharist any more than a metaphorical, not a true and proper pro­pitiatory Sacrifice.

If these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said, and which alone our Church allows of; we are neither con­cerned [Page 71]in the Doctrine, nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it.

ARTICLE XXII. Communion under both Species.

TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity, Vindicat. p 98.the Vindicator advances three Ar­guments from the publick Acts of our own Church: The 1st. false; The 2d. both false and unreasonable: The 3d. nothing to the purpose.

1st. He says, the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Ne­cessity: Art. 30. This is FALSE: The Article esta­blishes both Kinds; and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity, or what may, or may not be done on that account. See Art. 30. Sparrow's Col­lect. pag. 102, and 219. The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Command­ment, ought to be administred to all Christian men alike.

2dly. ‘Edward the sixth, he says, in his Procla­mation before the order of Communion, ordains, That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, should from thenceforth be commonly de­livered and administred unto all Persons within our Realms of England and Ireland, and other our Domi­nions, under both kinds, That is to say of Bread and Wine, except necessity otherwise require.

This, as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator, is both False and Ʋnreasonable: FALSE, for that Ed­ward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, See Sparrow's Collect. p. 17. but only says, That Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westmin­ster this was ordain'd, viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, should from thence­forth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds, &c. He for the greater Decency, and Uni­formity of this Sacred Eucharist, now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Admi­nistration of it.

Note, That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation; The Mass was yet left remaining; and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books, in which were considerable Alterations, and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind. It is in the next place ƲNREASONABLE, to argue as to the present state of the Church of Eng­land, from what was allow'd only, and that in case of necessity too, in the very first beginning of the Refor­mation.

It was indeed the singular Providence of God, That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince, things were so far 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.

His 3d Argument is not only Ʋnreasonable upon the account we have now said; but were it never so pro­per, is absolutely nothing to the purpose. In the Rubrick, at the end of the same Order of the Communion, there is this Remark: Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated, Sparrow's Col­lect. p. 24.shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed; and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least, or more by the discretion of the Minister, and so distribu­ted. And men must not think less to be recei­ved in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ. The meaning of which Rubrick 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 mis-conceits 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 denyal of the Cup to the Laity, I can­not very well apprehend.

And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist, in case of necessity, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge. Tho' after all, did we indeed, as some others do, believe [Page 74]that the Church had power to do this; How will this excuse them, who without any necessary or but rea­sonable cause deny it to the people altogether; Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1, 2. and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power, but just cause and reason so to do? And why will it not as well follow, that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them, and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too; since even that in Case of Necessity may be dispensed with; and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it, prove neither damnable nor dangerous?

PART III.

ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Written and Ʋnwritten Word.

AS to this Article, Vindic. p. 100. there is indeed an Agree­ment between Monsieur de Meaux and Me, so far as We handle the Question, and keep to those general terms, Of the Traditions be­ing universally received by all Churches, and in all Ages; for in this Case We of the Church of England are per­fectly of the same Opinion with them, and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the Apostles, with a like Veneration to that we pay to the written Word it self. But, after all this, there is, as the Vindicator observes, a very material difference betwixt us, viz. Who shall be judge when this Tradition is Ʋniversal?

He tells us, Vind, ibid. 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. And this is that to which he conceives every private person and Church ought to submit, without presuming to examine how ancient that Tra­dition does appear to be, or how agreeable it is to the Written Word of God.

Now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of Traditions, for these two reasons:

1. Because whether there were any such particular Doctrine or Practice received by the Primitive Church; is a matter of fact, and as such is in many cases di­stinctly set down by such Writers as lived in or near that first Age of the Church. Now where the case is thus, the Accounts that are given by these Writers, are certainly to those who are able to search into them, a better Rule whereby to judge what was an Ancient Doctrine and Tradition, than either the Decree of a Council of a latter Age, or the Voice and Practice of its Pastors and People. For let these agree as much as they will in voting any Doctrine or Practice to have been Primitive, yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing Men, if the authentick Histories and Records of those times shew it to have been otherwise. And this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the Councils, and practised by the Pastors and People in the Roman Church; we cannot look upon her late Decrees and Practices to be a good or a safe Rule for judging of the Antiquity, or Ʋniversality 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 Ʋn­written 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 Practice any thing as an ancient Tradition, then this must obtain and be of force with all its Members, tho' many of them should be perswaded 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 [Page 77] Church, We cannot allow that any particular Church or Person, should be obliged upon these grounds to re­ceive that as a matter of Faith or Doctrine, which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in, nay, to be contrary to the written Word of God. In this Case we think it reasonable that the Church's Sentence should be made void; and the Voice of her pretended Traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of the lively Oracles of God.

ARTICLE XXIV, XXV. Of the Authority of the Church.

IN the two next Articles, Vind. p. 101. concering the Authority of the Church, I was willing to allow as much, and come up as near to Mons. de Meaux, as Truth and Rea­son would permit. This it seems made the Vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my Concessions. But these his hopes are soon dasht, when he finds me putting in some Exceptions, and not willing to swallow the whole Doctrine, as it is laid down in the Exposition.

Now the Exceptions that seem most to offend him, are these,

1. That the Church of Rome should be taken for a particular, and not the Catholick 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 allow'd to exa­mine and judg 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 [Page 78] Church, if they are evidently convinced that their pri­vate belief is founded upon the Authority of God's Ho­ly Word.

These are the Exceptions, at which he is the most offended: Vind. p. 103. The 1. of these, he calls an Argument to elude the Authority of the Church of Rome; and to shew the Fallacy of it, he thinks it sufficient to say, ‘That they do not take the Church of Rome, as it is the Suburbican Diocess, to be the Catholick 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 stile the Church of Rome the Catholick Church, then surely every other National Church which is of that Communion, has as good a title to the name of Catholick, as that of Rome it self. For seeing it is the Purity or Orthodoxness of the Faith, which is the bond of this Communion, this renders every distinct Church professing this Faith, equally Catholick with the rest; and reduces the Church of Rome, as well as others, within its own Suburbican Diocess, and so makes it on­ly a particular, not the Ʋniversal Church.

But now, should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of, and that it were proper to understand by that name, all those other Churches which are in Communion with her; yet all this would not make her the whole or Catholick Church, un­less it could be proved, that there was no other Christi­an Church in the World besides those in Communion with her; and that all Christian Churches have in all Ages profess'd just the same Faith, and continued just in the same Worship as She hath done. And this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the Gre­cian, Armenian, Abassine Churches; all which have plainly for several Ages differed from the Church of Rome, and those in her Communion, in points relating [Page 79]both to Faith and Worship: So that in respect of these and the like Christian Churches, which were not of her Communion, She could not be looked upon as a Ʋniver­sal, but only as a Particular Church.

Now if this be so, then the Vindicator himself allows, Vind. p. 102. 2dly, That a Particular Church, may either by Error lose, or by other means prevaricate the Faith, even in the necessary points of it. Indeed that promise of our Saviour, Matt. 16.18. That the gates of Hell should not prevail against his Church; seems on all hands acknowledged, to refer to his whole Church, not to any one particular Branch or Portion. And therefore, tho' the particular Church of Rome should have fallen into gross Errors both in matters of Faith and Practice; yet the Catholick Church of Christ may still, as to other of its members, retain so much Truth and Purity, as to keep it from falling away, or being guilty of an intire Infidelity. And then for the

3d. Exception, The allowing any other Particular Church to examine and judg of the Decisions of this Church of Rome: If She her self 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 im­pow'red to judg for her self, 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 Gods Grace directing her, She Judges to agree or disa­gree with his Holy Word. Nor do's one Branch of Christ's Church in this respect invade the Prerogative of another; since they do herein only follow the Apostles Rule, in trying all things, and holding fast that which is good.

But the 4th Exception, he says, Vind. p. 102. ‘is yet more intol­lerable than all the rest: That it should be left to every [Page 80]individual Person, not only to examine the Decisions of the whole Church, but also to glory in opposing them, if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted Authority of God's Holy Word.Ibid. p. 103.This, he says, is a Doctrine, which if admitted, will main­tain all Dissenters that are, or can be from a Church, and establish as many Religions as there are Persons in the World.

These indeed, are very ill Consequences, but such as do not directly follow from this Doctrine as laid down in my Exposition. For 1st, I allow of this Dissent or Opposition, only in necessary Articles of Faith, where it is every Mans concern and duty, both to judg for himself, and to make as sound and sincere a Judgment as he is able: And 2dly, 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 Enquirer, "should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion.

Now these two things being supposed, that in mat­ters of Faith, a man is to judg for himself, and that the Scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by; it will plainly follow, That if a man be evi­dently convinced, upon the best Enquiry he can make, that his particular Belief is founded upon the Word of God, and that of the Church is not; he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in Opposition to that of the Church. And the Reason of this must be very evident to all those who own, not the Church, but the Scriptures, to be the ultimate rule and guide of their Faith. For if this be so, then individual Persons, as well as Churches, must judg of their Faith, according to what they find in Scripture. And tho it be highly [Page 81]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 that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of Faith, between the Voice of the Church and that of the Scripture, they must stick to the latter rather than the former, they must follow the superior, not inferior Guide.

And however this method may through the Igno­rance or Malice of some men, be liable to some Abuse; yet certainly, in the main, it is most Just and Reason­able, and most agreeable to the Constitutions of the Church of England, which do's not take upon her to be Absolute Mistress of the Faith of her Members, See Article 20. but al­lows a higher Place and Authority to the guidance of the Holy Scripture, than to that of her own Decisions.

As to the Authority, by which I back'd this Asser­tion, viz. that of St. Athanasius, tho' it is not doubted but that that Expression, of his being against the whole World, and the whole World against him, did refer 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 Liberius himself, tho' he refused to subscribe the form of Faith, sent to him from Ariminum, and was for that reason deposed from his Bishoprick, and banished out of Italy; yet afterwards, when the Emperor Constantius sent for him to Sirmium, and required his assent to a form of Faith, in which the word [...], was purposely omitted, Sozomen Eccl. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 15. he yielded thus far, and was thereupon restored to his Bishoprick; I say, if we consider these and the like Particulars related by the Church Historians, we shall have little reason to believe that the Western Bishops, or even the Pope himself, did throughly adhere to the [Page 82]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 Christs Divinity, when the Pope, the Councils, and almost the whole Church fell away.

ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Authority of the Holy See, and of Episcopacy.

IN this Article the Vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England; Vindic. p. 106. only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire, What that Authority is which the Anci­ent Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledg­ed, and the holy Fathers have always taught the faith­ful to give the Pope. Indeed, a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see, that their Pope do's at this day, lay claim to a great deal more than those Councils or Fathers did ever allow him. And we should be glad he would direct us to those places, either in the first Councils or the Primitive Fathers, where the Pope is stiled the Ʋniversal Bishop, or the Supreme Head on Earth of the whole Christian Church; where it is said, That he is Christs immediate Vicar; and that all other Bishops must derive their Authority from him. These are things which he do's now pretend to, but we can find no Footsteps of them in the first Councils or Fa­thers of the Church. On the contrary, we find innu­merable passages which plainly shew, that no such Ti­tle or Authority was anciently claimed by, or allow'd to the Bishop of Rome: And therefore we say, That [Page 83]these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside, before we can be content to yield him that Honour, which has been sometimes given to his Predecessors.

As to that new Question he has hookt in at the end of this Article, Vindic. p. 106. Whether the first four General Councils might not be term'd neither General nor Free, with as much reason as the Council of Trent;’ I suppose it may easily be answer'd in the Negative.

1st, It was not so General, because it was not call'd by so great and just an Authority as those were: That was an Authority to which Christians of all Places, and all Ranks, acknowledged themselves bound to sub­mit, and attend where they were summon'd by it; whereas this was a meer Ʋsurpation, and being so, was not regarded by a great part of the Christian World, who were sensible that they ow'd no Subjection to it.

2dly, It was not so Free, because those who had most to say in defence of the Truth, durst not appear at Trent, being sufficiently forewarn'd by what others had lately suffered in a like case at Constance: Add to this, That those who being present, did set themselves most to oppose Error and Corruption, were perpetu­ally run down, and outvoted by Shoals of new made Bishops, sent out of Italy for that purpose. So that such a Council as this, could not with any shew of Reason be termed, either Free or General, much less ought it to be compared with those first four Councils, which were in all these Respects most opposite to it.

CLOSE XXVII.

AND now, Vindic. p. 106. that I have gone through the several Articles of the Vindication, and found the Pre­tensions of this Author against me as false, as I think I [Page 84]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 Expo­position.

Have I Calumniated them in any thing? Have I Mis­represented their Doctrines? I have already said, I do not know that I have; I think I may now add, I have made it appear that I have not.

Where are the Ʋnsincere dealings, the Falsifications, the Authors Miscited, or Misapplied? Excepting only an Error or two, that's the most, of the Press; has he given any one Example of this? Some words now and then I omitted, because I thought them impertinent, and was unwilling to burden a short Treatise with te­dious Citations. And I am still perswaded 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, Vind. p. 120. or so firmly established, let me add, or so kindly and charitably performed, but that a person who intends to cavil, may either form a seeming Objection against it, or wrest it into a diffe­rent sense.

I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be Infiallible, or that the sight of an Imprimatur should make me pass for an Oracle. But yet I was willing to hope, that amidst the late pretences to Moderation, [Page 85]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 civi­lity also.

This I had so much the greater reason to expect, for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of Monsieur de Meaux, not only to mollifie 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 Stile, insinuate into his Reader a good Opinion of his Do­ctrine.

But this is an Artifice that our late Controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to appre­hend. Who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the Modenation of this Prelate; but have in some of their last Pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility, as if their Zeal for their Church had made them forget that Religion is the Subject, and Christians and Scholars, to say no more of them, their Antagonists.

I am ashamed to say, what mean Reflections, and tri­vial 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 FANATICK Sermon; done indeed so naturally, as if the once Protestant Author had dropt not out of the Church of England; but a Conventicle into Popery. His late Majesties Papers Answered with Reason, and (whatever is pretended) with respect too by Us; instead of being Vindicated, ridiculed in the Reply: In which it is hard to say, whether the Au­thor has least shewn his charity to us, or his respect to [Page 86]the Persons and Church that he defends. These are the new Methods that are now taken up; but sure such as neither Church I suppose will be very well satisfied with: And which seem more accommodated to the Ge­nius of those Sceptics who divert themselves at the expence of All Religion on both sides, than designed to satisfie 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 publish'd; to call me a few ill names, pass a droll or two upon the Cause, tell the World how ma­ny Sheets there were in my Defence, and put the cu­rious to another Shilling expence, Amicab'e Ac­commodation. as a late Author has very gravely observed. If this be the Case, I hope I shall need no Apology to men of sense and sobriety, if I here end both their trouble and my own together. Let those who have been always used to it, rally on still with Holy things if they think good; for my part I esteem the Salvation of mens Souls, and the Truth of Re­ligion, to be a more serious Subject than to be exposed to the levity of a Jest, and made the subject of a Contro­versial Lampoon. And if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak, I profess I can­not but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those men, who in the midst of such unhappy dif­ferences as the Church now labours under; whilst our common Mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her Children, and her dutiful Sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their in­dustry to close them; like an unnatural 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 Religion, they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest Blood be so happy as to redress.

For what remains of the Vindication, Vindicat. p. 106, 107. I shall say but very little to it. ‘He enters upon his Conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffer'd, both by, and ever since our Reformation; and how well we deserve their Excommunication upon that ac­count. And 'tis no hard matter when men so well disposed, as this Author seems to be, to speak evil of us, are to draw our Character, to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire.

Were I minded to recriminate, I need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true Hi­story of these things, what a fair field I should have for a requital. The corruptions of the Church when this Reformation begun; the unchristian lives of those Religious Inhabitants that, he says, were turn'd by us into the wide world; the Cheats and Ignorance of the Clergy; the Tricks and Artifices of their Popes to prevent that Reformation, which many of their own Party, no less than the Protestants, desired both in the Head and the Members; And since he mentions Cruel­ties, the barbarous Butcheries executed on the Re­formed in Savoy, Bohemia, Germany, Ireland; and to say no more, the proceedings at this day in one of our Neighbour Countries, whereof we have been our selves Eye-witnesses, and of which, the noble Charity of our Royal Soveraign towards these poor distressed Christians, See the words of His Maje­sty's Brief. 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 satisfie the World, that were the Reformed as bad as Hell it self could represent them, the Romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to com­plain of them.

But I desire not to heighten those Animosities, which I so heartily wish were closed; and would rather such [Page 88]things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion, than brought forth to prevent that Union, we had never more cause to hope for than at this time. And for our Laws which, he says, have been made against them, he knows well enough what occasion was given to Queen Elizabeth and King James the 1st to establish them; and I shall rather refer him to the See that and a Vindication of it by the Secular Priests An. 1601. pub­lished with some other pieces in a Collection, called, The Jesuits Loyalty. 4to. Answer which my Lord Burleigh made above 100 years since to this complaint, than take the opportu­nity, he has so fairly given me, to revive the Reasons.

As for those injuries he tells us that Perjury and Fa­ction loaded them with; Vindicat. p. 111. we are not concerned in them. It is well known that the Church of England was no less, if not more, struck at in those times than them­selves: If their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries, nor desire to re­venge them, it 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 mens apprehensions, be esteemed an injury.

The peace and liberty which we enjoy, we do not ascribe to their Civility; it is Gods Providence and our Soveraign's bounty, whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served; whose Rights She asserted in the worst of times, when to use our Authors own words, Perjury and Faction for this very cause, load­ed her with all the injuries Hell it self could invent. But we gloried to suffer for our duty to Him then, and shall not fail, should there ever be occasion, to do it [Page 89]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 Controversie, the foregoing Articles are but one con­tinued confutation of his vain pretences: And I shall only add this more to them, that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us, either in his Book or Conclusion; I will not fail to prove what I now affirm, That there is not a word of truth in either of them.

In the mean time, before I close this, I cannot but take notice, how much the state of our controversie with these men has of late been changed; and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence, as to the sober part of their Communion, that those Errors shall in time be reformed, which they already seem not only to have discovered, but to be ashamed of.

When our Fathers disputed against Popery, the Que­stion then was, Whether it were lawful to Worship I­mages; to Invocate Saints; to Adore Reliques; to de­pend upon our own Merits for Salvation; and satisfie for the pain of our own Sins. This was their task; and they abundantly discharged it, in proving these things to be unlawful, contrary to our duty towards God, and to the Authority of Holy Scripture.

But now in these our days, there is started up a new Generation of men, too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions, that in blind and barbarous Ages had led the Church into so much Error and Superstition. These see too clearly, that such things as these must, if possible, be deny'd, for that they cannot be maintain'd. [Page 90]And they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task, by subtile distinctions, and palliating expressions, to wrest the definitions of their Councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these Er­rors; rather than to go on in vain with their Prede­cessors, to draw the Scripture and Fathers into the Party to defend them.

And that it may not be said I speak this at all ad­ventures, I will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing Articles, to offer a general view of it.

Of Religious Worship.
Old Popery.New Popery.
A 'TIS a wicked and foolish Error of the Lutherans and Calvinists, to attribute
Impius & Imperitus Lu­theranorum & Calvinistarum Error est, nul­lum nisi Deo Religionis ho­norem tribuen­tium. Maldo­nat in Matt. 5.34. pag. 126. B. Index Ex­purgat. in A­thanas. Adora­ri solius Dei est; Creatura nulla Adoranda est. Dele. pag. 52.
Religious ho­nour ONLY to God. And therefore such Sentences as these, That God only is to be adored: That no creature is to be adored,’ must be put into the Index Expurgatorius, to be blot­ted out of S. Athanasius and other Authors in which they do occurr.
A REligious honour or wor­ship if taken strictly and properly is due only to God: Soli Deo honor & glo­ria. We ought not to de­prive God of any thing that is due to him alone; neither honour, nor worship, nor prayer, nor thanksgi­ving, nor sacrifice. We may honour those whom God has honoured; but so as not to e­levate them above the state of creatures. And this may be called a Religious love or honour, when it is done for God's sake, yet it is but an [Page 91]Extrinsecal Denomination from the cause and motive, not from the nature of the Act. Vind. p. 27, 28.
Invocation of Saints.
Old Popery.New Popery.
Speaking of S. Bernard, he concludes, C'est de cettegrande Verité qu'il conclut que nous sommes obligez indi­spensablement de l'honorer & de la prier; Quia sic est Voluntas dei, qui Totum nos habere voluit per Mariam. Il veut que Nous ayons par Marie la Grace & la Gloire: And p. 33. Il veut que tous les hommes soient sauvéz par les merites du fils & par l'intercession de la Mere; d'autant que Dieu a resolu de ne nous faire aucune Grace qui ne passe par les maines de Marie. Comme on ne peut estre sauvé sans Grace, il faut dire qu'on ne le peut estre que par Marie, qui est le canal de toutes les Graces qui descendent du Ciel en Terre.
IT is necessary to pray to the Blessed Virgin. It is the intention of God that we should ob­tain both Grace and Glo­ry by her: That all men might be saved by the Merits of the Son, and the Intercession of the Mother.
Crasset. p. 30, 31.

Mandat S Synodus omnibus Episcopis, & caeteris docendi munus curam (que) sustinen­tibus, ut—de Sanctorum—Invocatione fideles diligenter instruant; Docentes eos, Sanctos una cum Christo Regnantes Orationes suas pro Hominibus Deo offerre; Bonum atq, Ʋtile esse suppliciter eos invocare; & ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per filium ejus Jesum Christum, ad eorum Orationes, Opem, Auxilium (que) confugere. p. 291, 292. The Curates there­fore shall diligently in­struct the people, That the Saints who reign toge­gether with Christ, do offer to God their Prayers for Men: A That it is good and profitable in a sup­pliant manner to invo­cate them; and recur to [Page 92]their Prayers, Help, and Assistance, for the obtain­ing Blessing of God by his Son.

Concil. Trid. Sess 25. c. de Invocatione, &c. ss.

Ʋpon this account in all their publick 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, A They Reign in Heaven: So that if 'tis neces­sary to go to Church, 'tis necessary to pray to them. They confess their Sins to them; Ord. Com­mend. Animae. p. 120.they dismiss de­parting Souls out of this World in their Names; they make direct Addresses to them as the Council speaks, not only for their Prayers, but also for their Help and Assistance; B they desire for their Merits to be heard by God; and that he would accept their Sacrifices them­selves for the sake of the Saints they Commemorate; C as in the 3d Article of this Treatise is fully to be seen.

FOr Invocation of Saints, A 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 intreat our Friends on Earth to Pray for us.

Monsieur de Meaux, p. 5.

If we mention their Merits, 'tis only those Vi­ctories they had obtained by his favours, which we beseech him to look upon, and not regard our un­worthiness. Vind. ib.

As to the recommend­ing our Sacrifices to God by [Page 92]their Prayers, as if Christ who is the Sacrifice, need­ed any other to recom­mend him to his Father, we detest such Thoughts, we abominate such Do­ctrines.

Vinicat. p. 30.

Worship of Images.
Old Popery.New Popery.

A Imagines Christi & San­ctorum vene­randae sunt non solùm per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se & proprie; Ita ut ipsae terminent Ve­nerationem ut in se consider antur, & non solum ut vicem gerunt Exemplaris. THE Images of Christ and the Saints, are to be venera­ted, not only by accident and improperly, but pro­perly and by themselves, so as to terminate the [Page 93]Worship upon them, and that as consider'd in themselves, and upon their own account, not only as they are the Re­presentatives of the Ori­ginal, Bellarin. de Imag. l. 2. p. 2148.

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

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

B Pontificale de Benedicti­one no [...] [...] The Church of Rome in praying to God, that se­veral Vertues may proceed from the Cross, shew it to [Page 94]be their Opinion, that it has other Vertues, than bare­ly to excite the remembrance of those they represent.

See above in the Consecration of a new Cross. Art. 4. p. 16, 17.

A THe use we make of Pictures or Images, is purely as representatives, or memorative Signs, which call the Originals to our Remembrance.

Vindicat. p. 35.

[Page 93]

When the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, A her Intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image. Expos. M. de M. p. 8.

B Nor do we attribute to them any other Vertue, but that of exciting in us the re­membrance of those they re­present. Id. p. 8. Vind. p. 31.

The Honour we render them, is grounded upon this, that the very seeing of Jesus Christ crucified, can­not but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him, who died upon the Cross for our Redemption: Now whilst this Image be­fore our Eyes, causes this precious Remembrance in our Souls, we are naturally moved to testifie by some exterior Signs, how far our Gratitude bears us; A which exterior Signs are not paid to the Image, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image. Vindicat. ib. p. 31.

Mons. de Meaux Expos. p. 8, 9.

Of Reliques.
Old Popery.New Popery.

A Thom. 3. par. qu. 25. Art. 6. p. 54. See above p. 22, 23. SEeing we Adore the Saints of God, we must also Adore their Re­liques. Thomas.

A This is an undoubted truth amongst Catholicks, That the Reliques of the Saints, Vasquez in 3 part. D. Tho. disp. 112. p. 808. whether they be a­ny parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, Ashes, or some o­ther things that have toucht them, or belonged to them, are to be ado­red.

Vasques, See above, Art. 4. p. 50.

Ita ut affir­mantes Sancto­rum Reliquiis Venerationem atque Hono­rem non debe­ri, vel eas ali­aque sacra Monumenta à fidelibus inutilitier honorari, atque eorum opis impetrandae causa, Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari, omnino damnandi sunt, p. 292, 293. Those are to be condemned, who assirm that no Wor­ship or Honour is due to the Reliques of Saints; or that those sacred Monuments are unprofitably reve­red by the Faithful; or that for obtaining their Help, men ought not to frequent the Memories of the Saints. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. c. de Invocat. &c.

WE honour Reliques as we do Images, for those whom they be­long'd to. Vind. p. 40.

A We will not quarrel how we ought to call this Respect and Honour, p. 43. Vind. but it is not Wor­ship, Ib. p. 42.

B We seek not to them for any Aid and Assistance, to cure the Blind, &c. and are therefore falsly char­ged with so doing, Vind. p. 41.

Of Justification.
Old Popery.New Popery.

Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. p. 31. BY Justification is to be understood, not only Remission of Sins, but Sanctification, A and renewing of the in­ward Man.

Concil. Trid.

If any one shall say that men are Justified, either by the alone Im­putation of Christs Righteousness, or only by the Remission of Sins, excluding Grace and Charity, which is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inheres in them; or that the Grace by which we are Justified is only the Favour of God, Let him be Anathema.

Concil. Trid. ib. See above, Art. 5. p. 53.

B See above, Art. 5. p. 27. If any one shall affirm the works of a justified man to be so the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself; or that he being justified by the good Works which are perform'd by him, through the Grace of God, and Merit of Jesus Christ, whose living Member he is, do's not truly me­rit increase of Grace and Eternal Life; let him be Anathema. Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32.

THey impose upon us who say that we make our inward righteous­ness a part of Justification; A and by Consequence hold that our Justification it self is also wrought by our good Works. B

Vind. p. 47.

Of Merits.
Old Popery.New Popery.

A WE do as truly and properly, Maldonat. in Ezek. 18, 20. p. 425. when we do well by Gods Grace merit Rewards, as we do deserve Punish­ment, when without his Grace, we do ill. Mal­donat.

The Works of just Per­sons,Bellarmin. de Justificatione lib. 5. cap. 17.A are truly equal to the Reward of Eternal Life; as the Work of those who labour'd in the Vineyard to the peny which they earned: And God by his Covenant is bound to accept it for the reward of Eternal Life. This is the Doctrine of the Council of Trent. Bellarmin. see art. 6. above.

They, AVasquez in D. Th. 12ae. q. 114. disp. 214. p. 800.therefore, are to be condemned who think our Works of themselves, not to be worthy of Eternal Life, but to have the whole nature of Merit that is in them, from the Covenant and Promise of God. This was the Opinion of Scotus, condemn'd above Art. 7. p. 31, 31.

Christ indeed, Vasquez ibid. p. 917. &c.first obtain'd 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 [Page 97]Merits to supply our defects: But our own good Works are of themselves sufficient to Salvation, without any Imputation of his righteousness.

Vasquez, See above l. c.

A ETernal Life ought to be proposed to the Children of God, as a Grace that is mercifully promi­sed to them, by the Medi­tion of our Lord Jesus Christ; and a recompence that is faithfully render'd to their good Works, and Merits, A in Vertue of this Promise.

Expos. M. de M. p. 11.

We ask all things, we hope all things, we ren­der thanks for all things, through our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess that we are not acceptable to God., but in and by him. Ib. p. 12.

Of Satisfactions.
Old Popery.New Popery.

A TO this Question whe­ther our Works are to be called truly and properly Satisfactory? Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Bellarmin replies, That they are; so that we may be said truly and pro­perly to satisfie the Lord.

See above, Art. 7.

Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purgat. cap. 10. It is immediately our Satisfaction, and Christs only, in as much as we re­ceive Grace from him, whereby we our selves may be able to satisfie.

Id. ib. Art. 7.

As to mortal Sins, Vasquez in 3 part disp. 2. See above, Art. 7. Gods Grace being supposed to be given to us in Christ, Vasquez declares, We do truly satisfie God for our Sins and Offences. As for venial Sins, we do so satisfie, as not to need any Grace or Favour of God to forgive our Sins, or accept our Satis­faction; but our Satisfaction is such, as doth in its own nature blot out both the stain and punishment of Sin. Vasquez above, l.c.

[Page 98]

Quidam as­serunt, Nos proprie non sa­tisfacere, sed solum facere aliquid cujus intuitu Deus applicat nobis Christi Satisfactionem: Quae sententia erronea mihi videtur. Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 1899. A. B. There are some who say, That we do not properly satisfie, but do somewhat for the sake of which God ap­plies to us Christs Satisfaction; This Opinion seems to me to be Erroneous. Bellarm.

A THey impose upon us, who say that we be­lieve that by our own en­deavours we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for Sin.

Vindicat. p. 54, 55.

That which we call Sa­tisfaction, B following the Example of the Primitive Church, is nothing but the Application of the infi­nite Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.

M. de M. Expos. p. 15.

Of Indulgences.
Old Popery.New Popery.

THere being in all Sins a temporal Punish­ment to be undergone af­ter the Eternal, Bellarm. de Indulgentiis lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 3. by the Sacrament of Penance, is remitted; We call In­dulgence the Remission of those Punishments that re­main to be undergone af­ter the forgiveness of the Fault, and Reconci­liation obtain'd by the Sa­crament of Penance.

The Foundation of these Indulgences, Ibid. cap. 2. is the Trea­sure of the Church, con­sisting partly of the Me­rits of Christ, and part­ly of the superabundant Sufferings of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, who have suffer'd more than their Sins required.

[Page 99]

The Pastors of the Church have obtain'd from God the power of granting Indulgences, Ibid. c. 3. p. 19, 27. and dispensing of the Merits of Christ, and the Saints, for this end, out of the Sacraments.

The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences, Ibid. c. 7. p. 47. are all those which are, or might have been enjoyn'd for Sins; and that whether the Persons be alive or dead.

WE believe there is a Power in the Church of granting Indul­gences; which concern not at all the Remission of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of some temporal Punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted. So that they are nothing else but a Mitigation, or Relaxation, upon just Causes of Canonical Pe­nances, which are, or may be enjoyn'd by the Pastors of the Church, on Peni­tent Sinners, according to their several degrees of demerit.

Papist Represent, n. viii. p. 10. M. de M. Expos. § 8. p. 14.

Of the Mass.
Old Popery.New Popery.

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

B Verum & reale Sacrifici­um. veram & realem mor­tem aut de­structionem rei immolatae de­siderat. Bell. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. p. 1062. C. Vel in Missa fit vera & realis Christi mactatio, & occisio, vel non fit: Si non fit, non est verum & reale Sacrificum Missa: Sacrificium enim verum & reale, veram & realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia Sacrificii. 1063. A. And again, Per consecrationem res quae offertur, ad veram, realem, & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur, quod erat necessarium ad rationem Sacrificii. ib. l. D. Sect. Tertio. Every true and re­al Sacrifice requires a true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed: So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destructi­on, on, [Page 100] there is not a true and real Sacrifice.

Bellarmin.

To offer up Christ then in the Eucharist, is not only to present him before God on the Altar, but really and truly to Sacrifice, i. e. destroy him.

Bellarmin.

A THe Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplish'd on the Cross, to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the World, and apply to us the saving Vertue of it, for those Sins which we com­mit every day.

Vindicat. pag. 95.

When we say, That Christ is offered in the Mass, we do not under­stand the word Offer in the strictest Sense, but as we [Page 100]are said to Offer to God what we present before him. And thus the Church does not doubt to say, That She offers up our Blessed Jesus to his Father in the Eucharist, in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him.

Vindicat. ibid. p. 96.

Of the Popes Authority.
Old Popery.New Popery.

WE acknowledg the Holy Catholick, and Roman Church, to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and we Promise and Swear to the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Pe­ter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, a true Obedience.

Concil. Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv. in fine.

The Pope has Power to depose Princes, Si dominus temporatis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit, ab Haeretica foeditate. Excommu­nicationis Vinculo innodetur Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc, Ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, & ter­ram exponat Catholicis occupandam. — Salvo jure Domini Principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat: Eadem ni­hil ominus lege servata circa EOS qui NON HABENT DOMINOS PRIN­CIPALES. and ab­solve [Page 101]Subjects from their Allegiance: So the Coun­cil of Lateran: If the Temporal Lord shall neg­lect to purge his Land of Heresie, let him be Ex­communicated; and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the Church, let it be signified to the Pope, that from thenceforth, He may de­clare his Vassals absolved from their Allegiance; and expose his Land to be seised by Catholicks—yet so as not to injure the right of the Principal Lord. Pro­vided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this: And the same Law is to be observed with reference to those who have no Principal Lords.’

Concil. Later. 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147.

This is no Scholastick Tenet, but the Canon of a Council received by the Church of Rome as Ge­neral.

WE acknowledg 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 Councils and Fathers have always taught the faith­ful.

As for those things which we know are dis­puted of in the Schools, it is not necessary we speak [Page 101]of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Ca­tholick Faith.

It is sufficient we ac­knowledg a Head Esta­blish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, which those who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiasti­cal Unanimity, will most willingly acknowledg.

Expos. Monsieur de Meaux. p. 40.

Such is the difference of the present Controversies between us from what they were, when it pleased God to discover to our Fathers the Errors they had so long been involved in. Were I minded to 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 these Points, [Page 102]than any I have now remark'd. 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 mis-apprehended to be. This is popular, and may I believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction; tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be Monsieur de 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 seriously weigh this Method, there could be nothing more strong for our Reformation than this one thing, That the wisest and best men of the Roman Church esteem it the greatest honour and advantage they can do to their Religion, to represent it as like ours as is possible; and that their strongest argu­ment to make Proselytes is this, That were things but rightly understood, there is but very little or no difference at all betwixt us.

And would to God indeed this were truly so! that these differences were not only as small as they pre­tend, but wholly taken away: With what joy should we [Page 103]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 discover'd, and, what is more, disavow'd: And wherefore should we then distrust the Mercy of Heaven to hear our Prayers, which we ne­ver make with more real zeal and fervour than in their behalf; to shew them the Truth, and open their Eyes to a perfect Conviction?

Till this be accomplish'd, Let us, who by God's Grace are already Members of the Church of England, that is, of the best reform'd, and best establish'd 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 of the Excellence of it.

Let not any fond pretences of Antiquity or Possession amuse us. Vindic. p. 112, &c. Against God and Truth there lies no pre­scription; nor ought we to be at all concern'd to for­sake Errors, tho' never so Ancient, for more Ancient Truths.

Let no prospect or temptation, whether of worldly evils on the one hand, or worldly advantages on the other, draw us from our stedfastness. 1 Cor. 10.13.God is faithful who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able: Matt. 10.33. And he who for any of these things denies Christ or his Religion on Earth, shall be denied by Christ before his Father which is in Heaven.

But let us be firm and sincere to God and our own Souls; careful to search out, and ready to embrace the Truth whereever we find it. So shall our lives be Orthodox, tho' perhaps our faith should not; and if in any thing we do err, for we pretend not to Infal­libility, nor is it therefore impossible for us to be mi­staken, yet at least we shall not be HERETICKS.

FINIS.

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 Imbert's Letter to Monsieur de Meaux, proving that his Persecution was truly for maintaining the Doctrine of that Bishop's Exposition.
  • V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostome to Caesari­us, suppress'd by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, for being contrary to the Roman Canon of Transubstantiation.
  • VI. A Catalogue of the Editions made use of by me in my Quotations, to prevent, if it may be, all future Calumnies.

LONDON, Printed MDCLXXXVI.

ADVERTISEMENT.

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

APPENDIX.

NUM. I. The Extract of a Letter written from Paris con­cerning Monsieur de Meaux's Pastoral Let­ter.

TO shew that Monsieur de Meaux does not always so write at first, as not to stand in need of any Correction afterwards, I will beg leave to subjoyn the Extract of a Letter dated from Paris, concerning his late Pa­storal Letter; which, 'tis there said, he is about to change somewhat in; whether only for the better ad­vantage of the Method, and greater neatness of Stile (as in his Exposition) we shall be better able here­after to judge.

It is in the last Nouvelle Juin 1686. Pag. 736, 737.

ON ecrit de Paris, que M. de Meaux retranchera de la 2 Edi­tion de sa Lettre Pasto­rale l'endroit où il dit [Page 108]aux nouveaux Catho­liques de son Dioceze, Qu' ils n'ont point souf­fert de Violence en leurs Biens, ni en leurs Person­nes, & qu'il a oui dire la même chose aux autres Eveques.

Je ne sçaurois dire pre­cisement si ce sont ces propres mots, car je n'ay point veû cette Lettre Pastorale, je sçai seulement que c'est ce qu'on ecrit de Paris.

Ce Prelat a eu en vûe dans sa Lettre, de prepa­rer à la Communion Pas­chale ces nouveaux Dio­cezains. Je ne sçai pas ce qu'ils ont fait, mais ailleurs quand on a pre­senti les Convertis, on leur a trouvé si peu de disposition à communier à Pâques, qu'on n'a pas jugé à propos de pous­ser l'affair.

Dans la dernier Fête-Dieu plusieurs ont mieux aimé payer une Amende, que de tendre devant leurs Maisons.

Apres cela, il est ap­parent que M. de Meaux retranchera l'endroit ci­dessus marqué, & que les Gens d'honneur se plaindront in petto de ce qu'on se tue de leur sou­tenir, que les Huguenots ont signé le Formulaire le plus volontairement du monde. Bien entendu, que ces gens d'honneur n'auront pas le tour d'Esprit & de Conscience, du quel nous avons parlé ci-dessus, pag. 471.

They write from Pa­ris, that Monsieur de Meaux will retrench in the second Edition of his Pastoral Letter the [Page 108]place where he tells the new Converts of his Dio­cess, That they have not suffer'd any Violence ei­ther in their Goods, or in their Persons, and that he heard the other Bishops say the same.

I cannot say precisely whether these were his very words, having ne­ber seen his Pastoral Let­ter, I only know this, that thus they 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 Converts in order to receive it, they found them so little di­sposed to communicate at Easter, that they have not thought fit to force them to it.

Upon Corpus Christi day last, many of them chose rather to pay a Fine, than put up Hang­ings before their houses for the Procession.

After this, 'tis more than probable that M. de Meaux will strike out the passage above-mention'd, and that men of sense will complain in their minds to be thus eter­nally wearied with their pretences, that the Hu­gonots have signed the Formulary with all the readiness in the world. Always provided, that these men of sense be not endow'd with that turn of Wit and Conscience, of which we have spoken heretofore, pag. 471. a­bove.

NUM. II. An Extract of Father Crasset's Doctrine concern­ing the Worship which the Roman Church allows to the Blessed Virgin.

MOnsieur de Meaux is very much of opinion, that Father Crasset has nothing in his Book contrary to the Principles of his Exposition. I must transcribe his whole Book, would I insist upon every thing in it opposite to this Pretence: But I shall content my self for the present to propose only to [Page 110] Monsieur de Meaux some of this Fathers Questions; that he may please to tell us whether he be indeed of the same Opinion with the Father in them. 'Twill be an admirable Vindication of his Exposition, and we shall not doubt, after that, of its being a true Representation of the Doctrine of the Roman Church.

Question 1. Whether the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin to God for us, Page 31.be not only profitable, but necessary to our Salvation?

Resp. 1 Pt. trait. 1. q. 4. I do not find the Father positive in his as­sertion here, but at least he recounts abundance of their Saints that are so: St. Germain, St. Anselme, St. Bernard, the Abbè de Celles, St. Antonine, and St. Bernardine; whose horrid Blasphemies see at large repeated and approved.

Qu. 2. Whether a tender and constant Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin, Page 39. be not a mark of Pre­destination?

‘ANSWER. This is what we read in all Books; hear from all Pulpits: There are but few Catho­licks but what are of this Opinion, and that this Devotion towards the Mother of God, is a mark of Salvation, the good Father undertakes to prove by the Authority of the Scripture, Page 39, 40. explain'd by the Fathers, and confirmed by Reason.

Qu. 3. Whether a Christian that is devout towards the Blessed Virgin can be damned? Page 54.

‘ANSWER 1. Page 57. The Servants of the Blessed Virgin have an Assurance, morally infallible, that they shall be saved.’

Qu. 4. Whether God ever refuses any thing to the Bles­sed Virgin? Ibid.

‘ANSWER 1. Page 60, 61. The Prayers of a Mother so hum­ble and respectful, are esteemed a Command by a Son so sweet and so obedient. 2. Being truly our Saviour's Mother as well in Heaven as she was on Earth, she still retains a kind of natural Authority over his PERSON, over his GOODS, and over his OMNIPOTENCE: So that as Albertus Magnus says, she cannot only intreat 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 HER SELF OM­NIPOTENT.’

Qu. 5. What Blessings the Virgin procures for her Servants. Page 91.

ANSWER 1. Page 92. ‘She preserves them from Error and Heresie, if they are in danger to fall into it; and recovers them out of it, if they are fallen. 2. Page 98. She [Page 112] defends and protects them in their Temptations against their Enemy; and this not only Men, but other Creatures; insomuch that a Bird which a young Lady had taught to say his Ave Maria, be­ing one day seized by a Hawk, whilst he was in his Claws, said only his Ave Maria, and the Hawk terrified with the Salutation, let him go, and so he return'd to his Mistress. Page 94. 3. She comforts them in their Distresses, assists them in their Dangers, counsels them in their Doubts, Ib. 95.eases them in their Pains, animates them in their Combats, and final­ly, procures them a good Death. To this end, 4. She gives them a timely foreknowledge of their Death, Ib. 96. that they be not surprised. She sends the Angels to assist them in it, and sometimes comes her own self in Person. Ib. 97. 5. She obtains them the Grace of Repentance if they are in Sin, and of Perseverance, Page 98. if they be in a State of Grace.

Qu. 6. Whether the Blessed Virgin has ever fetcht any out of Hell.’ Page 99.

‘ANSWER 1. As to Purgatory, 'tis certain that the Virgin has brought several Souls from thence, as well as refreshed them whilst they were there. 2. Page 100. 'Tis certain she has fetcht many out of Hell, i. e. from a State of Damnation before they were dead. 3. The Virgin can, and has fetcht men that were dead in mortal Sin out of Hell, by re­storing them to Life again, that they might re­pent; Page 102. which the Father proves at large, for the Establishment of our FAITH and of our HOPE.’

Qu. 7. What Honour ought we to render to the Bles­sed Virgin? 2 Part. Pag. 73.

‘ANSWER. Pag. 79. We ought to render to her a Religi­ous Honour. 2. To honour her Images also with a Religious Honour, as sacred things; and this the many Miracles done by them do require. 3. To build Temples to her, Pag. 92. which many grave Authors do assure us was done, before her Birth, Pag. 99. during her Life, and since her Death and Corona­tion in Heaven.

Qu. 8. Whether it be good to make Vows and Pilgri­mages to the Honour of the Virgin? Pag. 138.

‘ANSWER. It is good to make Vows, and under­take Pilgrimages to the places where she is special­ly honoured. Ibid.

The Practice of Devotion towards Her.

1. ‘To wear her Scapulary: which whoso does, Pag. 315. shall not be damned, but this Habit shall be for them a Mark of Salvation, a Safeguard in Dangers, and a Sign of Peace and eternal Alliance.

‘They that wear this Habit, Pag. 316. shall be moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their death.’

2. To enter into her Congregations. Pag. 321.

‘And if any man be minded to save himself, 'tis im­possible for him to find out any more advantageous means, than to enrol himself into these Companies.’ Pag. 322.

3. To devote ones self more immediately to Her Service: Pag. 339. For which the Father gives several very grave Forms. Ib. & seq.

These are some of the Heads of Father Crasset's Book. It were infinite to recount his particular Fol­lies, with which every Page and Sentence is croud­ed. And however Monsieur de Meaux is pleased at a Venture to espouse all this, yet I must still beg leave to believe, that he neither approves this Practice, nor will receive these Principles. And these things, not only Monsieur de la B— in his Answer, but the Author of the Pre­servative at large alledged against him; which be­ing a Book so well known in France, and mentioned to Monsieur de Meaux in a particular manner by In his Letter below N. 4. Monsieur Imbert in his Letter to him, and having caused such Contests between Reflexions sur le Preser­vatif, &c. Monsieur Arnauld and the Le Janse­niste con­vaincu de vai­rie Sophisti­querie. Ar­tiele 7. pag 72. &c. Vindicator of the Preservative, upon this very account, still increases my Wonder, that for all this, Monsieur de Meaux should never hear there was any thing in this Book of Father Crasset's, contra­ry to his Exposition, nor believe the Father to be of any Opinion repugnant to his Principles therein esta­blished.

The Reader may please to remember, that this Book of Father Crasset's was licensed by the Pro­vincial, approved by the Fathers of the Society, per­mitted, and priviledged by the King, and printed by the Archbishop of Paris's Printer, 1679.

NUM. III. Cardinal BONA's Doctrine and Practice of this Worship.

IN my Preface to my former Treatise, to shew with how little Sincerity many times those of the Church of Rome will approve Books, whose Principles they dislike; I observed that Cardinal Ca­pisucchi had in his Controversies plainly contradicted, in the point of worshipping Images, what he approved in Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition. This, Monsieur de Meaux saies, cannot be, for this admirable Rea­son, qu'on trouvera son approbation expresse parmi celles que j'ai rapportées; that his express Appro­bation has been given to his Book.

I have already said what I thought sufficient to the Consequence of this Answer: But now to satis­fie the Reader that Cardinal Capisucchi is not the only Person that has thus complemented Monsieur de Meaux contrary to his own Principles and Con­science, I will here offer another plain Instance in M. de Meaux's learned and holy Cardinal BONA, Avertissement de l'5 Edit. Françoise, 12mo. Paris 1681. pag. 21. whose memory, he saies, shall be for ever blessed in the Church. This learned Cardinal was desired by Card. Buillon to examine the Exposition with all rigour, because that some persons accused it of certain De­fects; See Card. Bo­na's Answer to Card. Buillen. and he assures him that he did particolar­mente osservare in che potesse esser ripreso; particular­ly observe whether there were any Fault in it. The effect of this particular Observation was very [Page 116]favourable to Monsieur de Meaux: The Cardinal found nothing but matter of great Satisfaction to himself, and Praise to the Author; and yet has this man as flatly opposed Monsieur de Meaux's Prin­ciples in the Point of Invocation of Saints, before­mention'd, both in his Doctrine and Practice, as 'tis well possible for words to do it.

For Monsieur de Meaux's Doctrine, I shall not need say any thing here, after what I have so fully accounted above: The Reader may please to com­pare it with the Extract I shall now offer him out of Cardinal Bona's Works.

In his Dedication which he makes of his Book of DIVINE PSALMODY to the Blessed Virgin, Oper. Tom. 2. thus he concludes to her:

Possess me as your own, O Soveraign QUEEN of Heaven! and seeing it has pleased you in this Ora­tory dedicated to your Service, to bestow so many Favours upon distressed Mortals, suffer not me to go hence without some mark of it. Renew your Tokens, change your Miracles. As you are wont to open the Eyes of the blind, that they might be­hold the light, now open the Eyes of my Mind, and fill them with your brightest light, that I may with a pure Contemplation, behold the Light of God's Countenance that is impressed upon us. If ever you have cleared the stopp'd Ears of the Deaf; Give Joy and Gladness to my inward Hearing, that I may hear the Voice of the Bridegroom speaking in silence to the Heart of Jerusalem. If you have here broken the Chains of dumb Tongues, Give to my Mouth a right and well-sounding Speech, that when I sing the Praises of God, my Words may be pleasing in the presence of the eternal King. If [Page 117]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 intire, 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 rendred venera­ble to us.

Such is the Entrance he makes upon this Book, and indeed the work that follows is all of a piece. In his 16. Chapter, Page 551. He gives this account, Tom. 2. Pag. 551. why in all their OFFICES they conclude with a Prayer, or some Complement at least, to the Blessed Virgin. It is to this end, that if by humane frailty they have committed any Errour 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 Ders. Her the Heavenly Host Worship, Hell it self Ob­serves, the World Adores. Her Majesty the chief­est of the Blessed Spirits tremble at. By Her Order the World is Govern'd; the Stars give Light, the Sun shines, the Winds blow, the Gardens spring, the Woods grow, the Seasons keep their constant re­volutions, the Elements serve our needs. The Orna­ment of our Manners, the brightness of our Works, all this we receive from Her Favour, when we Worship and Uenerate Der. The Church knows of how great danger it is to have her exiled Chil­dren divorced from the Care of their most indulgent [Page 118]Mother, and therefore by a most wise Counsel has decreed, that they should by a frequent Observance fly to Der Protection; not only by instituting a special Office to Der, but by addressing to Her in the end of all her Offices, according as the reason of the times should require.

This is a short Specimen of what is scattered up and down in all the Parts of his Book; I need not say how extravagant his Verses are, See especially c. 12. p. 304. [...] when the Prose is thus high flown: I will give but one Instance more, which one would think should contain, if any, a certain account of his Perswasion, taken out of his Last Will; in which, having commended himself to our Blessed Saviour, he comes in the next place, as is most fit, to the Virgin, and so on to the rest of his Friends and Patrons above. Page 37. Tom. 3.

And to the also, See his Will in the begin­ning of the 3. Tom.O Blessed Virgin MARY, Mother of Mercy, Queen of the World, Comforter of the Afflict­ed, Refuge of Sinners, Salvation of those that perish, to thee, O Fountain of Piety, in this dread­ful Hour, I commend my Soul. Help me now that am afraid; Lift me up that am falling; Direct me that am in Error, Comfort my Soul that is desolate, and Obtain of thy beloved Son for me, the Mercy which I have desired. You have always mercifully Assisted me in all my Dangers; O Forsake me not in this last, on which Eternity depends.

Holy Michaël! Archangel! who camest to help the People of God, Prince of the Heavenly Host— Deliver me from the Snare of unclean Spirits, and bring my Soul into a Place of comfort and refresh­ment.

And thou, Holy Angel, to whose Safeguard and Protection I unworthy Sinner have been committed, [Page 119] Assist me in this moment, Drive far from me all the Power of Satan; Save me from the Mouth of the Lion.—Draw me out of the Snare which they have laid for me, and Preserve my soul from their evil designs.

Assist me you also, O my Patrons, and turelary Saints! Thou first of all, O St. JOHN, forerunner of Christ,—Make my Paths 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 unfruitful Tree in this your Vineyard.—O Forsake me not in this Hour! But Remember that I am your Son, tho' unworthy the Name.—

The Cardinal goes still further on with the rest of his Patrons; (for he had taken care to provide enough of them) but I fear I have tired the Reader with these I have already transcribed. Monsieur de Meaux, I know, will tell us, that all this is no more than if he had desired as many of the good Company that were about him at this time, to have done the same; and for his Expressions, though they are some of them a little Extraordinary, yet the Cardinal's intention, no doubt, like that of the Church, was to have them all reduced to this one and the same Catholick 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 Do­ctrine so derogatory to their Power and Honour, as that of the Exposition in his Opinion undoubtedly was.

But I shall say no more to shew the un­sincerity of Cardinal BONA in this matter: I might have added a yet greater instance, than either of these Cardinals, of the same pious Fraud, in the Approbation of the POPE himself; See the Pro­cez verbal de l'Assembleé eatraordinaire des Messeig­neurs l'Arche­veques & Eveques en Mars & May 1681. Mr. de Me­aux himself was one of this Assembly, and signed with the rest the Report of the A. B. of Reims, in which there is abundantly sufficient to shew how re­pugnant his Holiness's Pro­ceedings were to the Doctrine of the Exposi­tion, approv­ed by him at the very same time that he was engaged in these at­tempts so contrary to it. I know not whether it be worth the ob­serving, that the very same day the Pope sent his com­plementing Brief to Monsieur de Meaux, in approbation of his Exposition; he sent another to the Bi­shop of Pamiéz, to approve his defending the Rights of his Church, against the King: which was judg'd in the Assembly, of which Mr. de Meaux was one, to be an interpo­sing in an Affair, which neither the Holy Councils nor Fathers had given him any Authority to meddle with. whose Briefs, with reference to the Affairs of France, and which this Bishop, who has had so great a part in them, could not be ignorant of, however publish'd at the same time that he sent his Complement to Mr. 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 Will, he would soon convince the World, that not this Mans 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 Catholick Church.

And of this I am ready to make an ample proof, from the several pieces set out by publick Authority in France, when ever Mr. de Meaux or his Vindicator shall think fit to question the truth of what I now say.

NUM. IV. Copie d'une Lettre ecrite à Monsieur l'E­vêque de Meaux, cy devant Evêque de Condom.

Monseigneur,

VOtre Grandeur rapellera, sans doute, mieux l'Ideé de mon nom, lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle a eu la bonté de parler il y a environ 16 ans à Madame de Chaune pour avoir son consente­ment d'une Chapelle, comme tutrice de Monsieur de— & j' eûs l'Honneur de la voir plusieurs fois à St. Tho­mas du Louvre, avec Messeigneurs de Perigueux & de Xainte.

Depuis ce tems la, j'ai souffert la Persecution, & particulierement depuis l'Exposition de la Foi, que vôtre grandeur a publiée. Ses Enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer contre Elle, se declarent contre ceux qui disent la même chose. Et aujourdui Monseig­neur l' Archevêque de Bourdeaux me fait faire le Proces, pour avoir expliqué à l' Epargne le jour de Vendredi Saint, ‘Que nous adorions Jesus Christ crucifié en presence de la Croix, & que nous n'adorions rien de ce que nous voyons. Et parce que le Curé dit sur le champ assez haut Le Bois, Le Bois; j' ajoutai, Non, non, C'est Jesus Christ, & non pas le Bois. Et comme il ajouta, Ecce Lignum,’ Venite, Adoremus; je le relevai [Page 122]en luy disant, ‘Auquel le Salut du Monde a eté ataché.’ Venez, adorons ce Salut de Monde.

J' ajoutai que le sentiment de l'Eglise etoit, que si par impossible nous pouvions separer la Divinité da Fils de Dieu d'avec son humanité, nous n' adorerions pas l'humanité, puis qu'il est certain qu'il n' y a rien d'adorable que Dieu; & qu' ainsi nous devions nous persuader que nous allions au Calvaire adorer Je­sus Christ, sans nous arreter au Crucifix. Que l'Eglise, comme une bonne Mere, nous l'avoit donné par une sainte Invention pour aider à nôtre Foi, & pour fraper plus vivement nôtre imagination, & non pour etre l'Objet de nôtre Culte, [...] se ter­mine à Jesus Christ.

Voila, Monseigneur, tout mon crime, & ce que l'on me reproche. J'ai ecrit au Promoteur & au Vicaire General, & à Monseigneur l'Archevêque. Je leur expose, que j' ofre à me dedire, si j'ai mal parlé; j' ofre à me justifier. Au prejudice de cela il persiste dans l'interdiction qu' il lacha verbalement sur le champ. Je me suis pourvû par apel comme d'abus au Parlement de Guienne; j'ai fait assigner le Pro­moteur, & bien que j'ay fait toutes les honetetes possibles à la Justice Ecclesiastique, & rendu toutes les deferences, le dit Seigneur Archevêque me menace, comme ceux qui luy ont rendu ma Lettre me le mandent, de Prison perpetuelle, & de Fers aux Pieds.

Vôtre Grandeur peut connoitre par ce procedé com­bien il y a de Personnes qui detournent nos Freres separéz de rentrer dans l'Eglise. L'on m'objecte, ce que l'on dit contre vôtre livre, que j'adoucis, mais que le sentiment de l'Eglise est contraire. On le verra mieux dans le Proces que me sera fait, car [Page 123]je defie mes Enemis de pouvoir faire des reproches contre ma vie & moeurs, & de me reprocher d'autre Doctrine que celle de vôtre Grandeur, que je tache d'exprimer dans les mêmes termes, la trouvant tres conforme aux sentimens de l' Eglise Romaine, & ainsi si je suis convaincu d'Heresie, j'ose dire à vôtre Grandeur qu' elle doit etre à ma Garentie. Jose pourtant l'assurer, que j'ay as­sez de lumiere pour bien defendre cette Doctrine, & pour detruire le Preservatif, si l'on ne me fait point de Violence. Je defie tous les Docteurs du Monde de toutes les Religions.

La Grace que je demande à V. G. est que si l' Ar­chevêque se servoit de toute son Authorité pour m' opprimer, qu' Elle daigne interposer la sienne pour m' obtenir la liberté de me defendre. Elle voit combien l'honneur de Dieu yest interessé, dans un tems ou toute la Province est remplie de Missionaires, de Capucins, & de Jesuites ignorans, qui prechent l' Adoration de la Croix, & la font faire dans une Province ou tout est remplie de Religionaires, & ou j'ose promettre 10000 Conversions, si la Religion etoit pratiquée conformément à vôtre Exposition. Les Messieurs de la Religion P. R. n'ont autre Objection à me faire si ce n'est que l'Eglise Romaine Vous traite & Me traite d'Heretique. Je demande Pardon à Vôtre Grandeur, Monseigneur, si j'ai crû etre obligé de luy faire connoitre mon Procedé, apres quoi je l'assureray de la Soumission,

De son tres humble & tres obeissant Serviteur, IMBERT, Prieur.

The Copy of a Letter sent to Monsieur the Bi­shop of Meaux, formerly Bishop of Con­dom.

My Lord,

YOur Lordship, without doubt, will better call to mind my Name, when I shall have told you, that I am the Person for whom you had the goodness, about 16 years since, to speak to Madam de Chaune, to obtain her consent, as Tutress to Monsieur de — for a certain Chappel; since which I have had the honour to see you several times at St. Thomas in the Louvre, with my Lords of Peri­gueux and Xainte.

Since that I have suffered Persecution, and especial­ly since the time that your Lordship has published your Exposition of the Faith. Your Enemies, who dare not declare themselves against your Lordship, declare themselves against those who say the same things. And at this instant, the Archbishop of Bour­deaux has caused a Process to be made against me for having explain'd upon Good-Friday, That we adore JESUS CHRIST crucified in presence of the Cross, and that we do not adore any thing of what we see. And forasmuch as the Curé replied upon the place aloud, "The WOOD, the WOOD; I added, No, no, 'tis JESUS CHRIST, and not the WOOD. And when he added, Ecce Lignum, venite, adoremus; I took him up, saying, On which the Saviour of the World [Page 125]hung, come let us adore this Saviour of the World.

I said further, that the Doctrine of the Church was, That if by an impossible Supposition we could separate the Divinity of the Son of God from his Humanity, we should not adore his Humanity; for­asmuch as 'tis certain, that there is nothing adorable but God; and that therefore we ought to think, that we are now going out of Mount Calvary to adore JESUS CHRIST, without stopping at the Crucifix. That the Church, like a good Mother, had given that to us by a holy Invention, to assist our Faith, and make the livelier Impression upon our Imagina­tion, but not to be the Object of our Worship, which must terminate upon JESUS CHRIST.

Behold, my Lord, all my Crime, and what I am reproached with, I have writ to the Promoter, and to the Vicar General, and to the Archbishop himself. I have offered, if I have spoken any thing amiss, that I will recant it: I have offered to justifie my self: Notwithstanding all this, his Grace still persists in the verbal Interdict, which he immediately pro­nounced against me. I have transferr'd my Cause by Appeal, as of Abuse, to the Parliament of Guienne: I have caused the Proctor to be summon'd; and though I have used all imaginable fairness, with re­ference to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, paid them all possible deference, nevertheless the said Arch­bishop threatens me, as I am informed by those who gave him my Letter, with perpetual Imprisonment and Chains, for my Offence.

Your Lordship may see by this Proceeding, how many there are that hinder our separating Brethren from returning to our Communion. They object to me, that which is also said against your Lordship's [Page 126]Book, That I do mollifie, but that the Doctrine of the Church is quite the contrary. This will more plainly appear by the Process against me; for I defie my Ene­mies to reproach me for my Life and Manners, or for any other Doctrine than that of your Lordship, which I endeavour to express in the self same Terms, as finding them most agreeable to the Sentiments of the Roman Church: so that if I am convicted of He­resie, I am bold to say, your Lordship must be my Surety. But I dare assure you, my Lord, that I have Knowledge enough to defend this Doctrine, and destroy the An Answer to Monsieur de Maux's Expo­sition, intitu­led, Preserva­tif contre le changement de Religion. Preservative, might I be but secure from Violence: I defie all the Doctors of the World, of whatsoever Religion they be.

The Favour which I have to beg of your Lord­ship, is, That if the Archbishop should make use of his Authority to oppress me, you will please to in­terpose yours so far, as to procure me only the Li­berty to defend my self. You see how far the Ho­nour of God is concerned in it, and especially at a time when the whole Province is filled with Mis­sionaries, Capuchins, ignorant Jesuits, and others, who preach up the Adoration of the Cross, and cause it to be done in a Country full of Protestants, and among whom I durst promise 10000 Converts, were the Practice of our Religion conformable to your Ex­position. The Protestants have hardly any other Ob­jection to make to me, than this, That the Church of Rome treats both your Lordship and me as Hereticks.

I beg your Lordship's Pardon for this; I thought my self obliged to acquaint you with my Case; after which, I have only remaining to assure you of the Submission of,

My LORD,
Your Lordship's most humble and obedient Servant,IMBERT.

Such was the Account which Monsieur Imbert gave of his Case to M. de Meaux; I was the more wil­ling to publish it, 42 pages in 4to. that those who have never seen the Factum which he printed of it, and which is too long to be inserted here, may at least by this perceive that his Crime was truly his adhering to M. 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 Heresie, M. de Meaux ought to be his warrant for it.

And because the Bishop has been pleased to en­deavour to take off the force of this great Allegation, Vindicat. p. 116. Cet Im­bert est un homme sans sçavoir, qui crût justifier ses extrava­gances. en nommant mon Exposi­tion, &c. by lessening the Character of the Person, I shall leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge, whether this Letter carries any thing of the Stile of an extra­vagant, a man of no learning, as well as of no Re­nown, such as M. de Meaux in his Answer pretends him to be.

NUM. V. The Epistle of St. Chrysostome to Caesarius, cut by some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, out of the Greek Edition of Palladius, pub­lished by Monsieur Bigot, 1680. with a Dissertation premised, containing an Histori­cal Account of the whole Affair.

IT will perhaps be look'd upon by some, as a little unseasonable, to joyn a piece of Antiquity so considerable as this Epistle, to a Treatise of so little [Page 128]Importance as the foregoing Defence may justly be esteem'd to be. But since the main thing I charge M. de Meaux with, is, That a first Edition of his Book was suppress'd 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 Occasions; I was willing to communicate to the World one Instance more of the like nature, espe­cially since the Original Leaves, rased out, and sup­press'd by them, have here also fallen into my Hands, and may at any time be seen with the sup­press'd 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 for­tune than what is common to him with the great St. Chrysostome: And possibly the Reader too will from hence begin to find it no difficult matter to believe, that those who made no scruple to suppress a whole Epistle of St. Chrysostome, 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, tho' a Bishop's, that had prevaricated their Faith in so many.

Nor was I less engaged on the Vindicator's ac­count to this Publication; 'tis one of his greatest difficulties, and which he seems the most desirous to be resolv'd 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 [Page 129]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 Exposition, and manifestly supposing a Union be­twixt the Bread and Christ's Body in the holy Eu­charist, and yet stifly contending at the same time, that the Nature of the Bread is not changed in it.

All the danger is, that this holy Father, who, as Monsieur See Mr Bi­got's Preface below. Bigot observes, has hitherto pass'd for the great Doctor of the Eucharist, as St. Austin of Grace, may possibly by this run the hazard of losing his Credit amongst them; and as it has fared but very lately with Theodoret upon the same ac­count, that they will henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation, since they cannot any longer sup­press his Doctrine.

But before I offer the Epistle it self, it is fit that I premise something for the better understanding of it. It was written to Caesarius, a Monk, that had a little before fallen into the Apollinarian He­resie, to reduce him to the Catholick 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 HERESIE.

APOLLINARIƲS the younger, from whom this Heresie derives its name, was Son [Page 130]to the elder Apollinarius, Godefry vie de S. Athanase, livre II. cap. 13. Ex Basil. Ep 74. a very learned Man, and never, that we read of, charged with any Heresie. He was of Alexandria, where he was ordain'd a Priest, and became deservedly eminent for this, That when Julian forbad the Christians the read­ing of human Writers, being envious of that Re­putation which many of the Fathers of the Church had so justly acquired in that sort of Learning; he with his Son, Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap 16. Calvisii Chro­nol. pag. 525. an. 362. repaired in great measure this Dis­advantage, by opening of two Schools: The Fa­ther turning the Writings of the Old Testament into Heroick Verse, and composing several Tragedies of the Historical Parts of them: The Son explaining the New in Dialogues, after the Platonick manner; and by this means preserving the Church from that Ignorance, which the Apostate Emperor thought to have reduced it to.

II. As for the younger Apollinarius, he is on all hands acknowledged to have been a very extraor­dinary Man; Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. lib. 6. c. 25. See Epiphan. Haer. 77. Theo­philus l. 1. pas­chal. Vincen. Lirin. lib. adv. prof. novatio­nes. Quid illo praestantius acumine, ex­ercitatione, doctrinâ? Quam multas ille Haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit, quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores, indicio est opus illud 30 non minus librorum, nobilissimum & maximum, quo insanas Porphyrii calumnias, magnâ probationum mole confudit. Lon­gum est universa ipsius opera commemorare, quibus profectò summis Aedificatoribus Ecclesiae par esse potuisset, nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curiositatis libidine, novum nescio quod adinvenisset, quo & cunctos labores suos, velut cujusdam leprae admixtione, foedaret, & committeret, ut doctrina ejus non tam aedificatio, quam tentatio potiùs ecclesiastica di­ [...]eretur. eminent for his Learning, and parti­cularly cherished by St. Athanasius, as one of the most zealous Defenders of the Nicene Faith, whilst he was yet but Reader in the Church of La­odicea. He wrote against Porphyry in 30 Books; a­gainst the Arrians, Eunomians, Origen, and the o­ther Hereticks 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 [Page 131]left of him, had he not fallen into Heresie, he might justly have been equall'd to the chiefest Builders of the Church.

III. The Occasion of his Heresie is diversely report­ed by Ecclesiastical Writers. Russin. lib. 2. cap. 20. Ruffinus tells us, that his extraordinary Facility to write upon all sorts of Subjects, and his great Understanding in all kinds of Learning, raised in him a love of Dis­putation; and that the desire of refuting whatever others said, made him at last himself become a He­retick. Sozomen lib. 6. c. 25. Sozomen relates, that St. Athanasius in his Passage through Laodicea, where Apollinarius then was, contracted so intimate a Friendship with him, that George, Bishop of that place, and who detested the Communion of St. Athanasius, as the other Arrians did, excommunicated Petavius saies it was for keeping too much compa­ny with the Heathen Epi­phanius. See dogm. Theol. T. 4. l. 1. p. 25. c. 6. Apollinarius upon this account, and would never be perswaded to receive him, whatever Instances he could make to that purpose; and that upon this he conceived so great a discontent, that it carried him in the end to form himself a new Heresie. And lastly, Theodoret: Eccles. Hist. l. 5 c. 4. Theodoret differing from both these, tells us, That being rejected from the Government of the Church, to which in the Contest between Meletius and Paulinus, he also, as Head of a third Party, aspired; he thereupon began to spread openly that Heresie he had before invented, and to set himself up for chief of it.

IV. Whether any, or all these Causes concurr'd to ruine one of the greatest Ornaments of the Church, and who had till then been the Admiration of the best Men, not only St. Athanasius, Basil, &c. who were his Friends, but all the others, as ma­ny as have left us any account of the History of [Page 132]those times, having constantly represented him in the most advantageous manner that could be ex­pected: Epiphan. Haer. 77. Certain it is, that his loss was a very sensible Blow to the Church, and is as such, exceedingly la­mented by Epiphanius in the account of his Here­sie.

V. He had now been some time made Godefry pla­ces it An. 361. See Bals. Zon com. in Can 1. Concil. O [...]c. secundi. Bishop of Laodicea; whether of the great Laodicea in Syria, or of the other in Phoenicia of Libanus, is not certainly known. It was not long after this Promotion that he became a Heretick. Athanasius, who died within 10 years after, having written a long Letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, against his Errors; tho' either his respect to a Person he had so much esteem'd, See this Letter in Epiphan. Haeres. 77. or being unwilling to ex­asperate One, whom he so earnestly desired to re­duce to the Catholick 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 return'd from Banishment, held a Council at Alexandria; in which, See this Coun­cil in Labbe's Collection, T. 2 p. 816. among other things, we find the Heresie of Apollinarius expresly condemned, tho' no men­tion made of his Name; whether it were that he was not yet known as chief of those Hereticks, Vid. Binnii not. loc. cit. or that, as some think, he sent a Renuntiation of his Heresie to the Council by the Monks that went thi­ther. About ten years after, Anno 373. the same Heresie 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 Here­ticks, Can. 1. of that Synod.

VII. As to the Heresie it self, I shall not enter any farther into the search of it, than may serve for the Explication of that Capital Error, which gave Occasion to this Epistle of St. Chrysostome. Now this, Photii bibl. in Eulogio p 850. to take it in his own words as they are reported by Photius from Eulogius was, That [...]. That God and flesh make up but one Nature, Comment. in Conc. 2. Oc­cumen. can. 1. which Balsamon and Zona­ras thus explain, [...]. That he said, that the Son of God took indeed an animate Body of the blessed Virgin, but without the Rational Soul, the Divinity serving instead of that.

VIII. And the same is the account which the other Ecclesiastical Writers have left of him; Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, Epiphanius, Theori­anus, &c. all which unanimously agree in this point of his asserting, Theodoret. Hae­res. Fabul. l 5. c. 11. [...] That the Body of our Saviour was animated, but that he had not the Rational Soul; for that that Soul was superfluous, where the Divine [...] or Word was present.

IX. But tho' this were the last Resolution of his Heresie as to this point, yet was it not his first Er­ror. It was a part of the Doctrine maintained by Arrius and Eunomius, That Christ took a Body de­stitute not only of the Rational Soul, but altogether inanimate; [...], saie; Theodoret, Theodoret. Hae­res. Fab. l. 4. c. 1. & Epist. 124. de Arrio. & Eunomio. [...]. That God the Word took a meer Body, and that himself supplied the want of the Soul. And the same was the beginning of Apollinarius's He­resie [Page 134]too. Socrates Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 46. [...], saies Socrates, [...]. They first asserted, That God at his Incarnation took upon him Man without any Soul. Afterwards, as if they repented, and meant to correct their Error, they held, That he took in­deed the animal Soul, but was destitute of the Ratio­nal, God the Word being instead of that. Both which Vincentius Lirinensis tells us, Vincent. Liri­nens. adv. Hae­res. c. 17. they sometimes joyn­ed together, saying, In ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne, aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse, aut certe talem fuisse cui mens & ratio non esset; That in the Body of our Saviour there was either no Human Soul at all, or at least such as was not rational.

X. I shall not now enter on any other Points of their Heresie, such as their making this Flesh not to have been assum'd by Christ at his Conception, Epiphan. Hae­res. 77. Theodoret. Ec­cles. Hist. l. 5. cap. 3. Greg. Naz. O­rat. 46. p. 722. &c.but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Divinity; which Divinity therefore by consequence suf­fer'd, and was mortal; which Epiphanius, Theodoret, but especially Gregor. Nazianzen has at large re­lated. Only since, some, for the more distinct con­ception of the Apollinarian Heresie, have thus di­stinguish'd it from that of Eutyches afterwards; that the Eutychian affirm'd, That our blessed Savi­our took nothing from the blessed Virgin, Theodoret. Hae­retic. Fab. l. 4. c. 13. [...]. Eutyches, [...]. but that the very Logos, the Word it self being, as Theodoret expresses it, immutably converted, and made Flesh, [Page 135]only passed through the Virgin; whereas Apollinarius supposed the Flesh of Christ, which he took of the Virgin, to be converted into the Divine Nature: It appears by Gregory Nazianzen, that this was no certain distinction, forasmuch as the Apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing; that, as the Father expresses it in the place I before cited, Naz. orat. 46. supr. dict. [...], Apollinarius, [...]. Pag. 722. our Saviour was even before he descended, the Son of Man, and descending, brought his Flesh along with him, which he had whilst he was in Heaven, before all Ages, and consubstantial with his Essence. Which is what Theodoret long since observed, when in his 3. Dialogue, speaking with relation to them both, he says, [...]. They who have patcht together this various and many-form'd Heresie, sometimes say, that the Word is become Flesh, sometimes that the Flesh is changed into the Word.

Wherefore laying aside these subtleties, this we may undoubtedly conclude, That whatever their other differences were, whether as to his Body, which we see is uncertain, or to his Soul, in which the variety was more constant and more discerna­ble, the Eutychian affirming the Ʋnion of the two intire Natures, the Humane and Divine; whereas the Apollinarian deny'd that our Saviour ever assu­med the reasonable Soul at all: certain it is, for what concerns our present purpose, See Petav, Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3. that they both a­greed in this, That after the Ʋnion of the Word and Flesh, there was but one only Nature common to both, the Substance of the two, that were before, be­ing now confused and permixt; from whence they [Page 136]were both of them afterwards called by Apollinarius by St. Chryso­stom, Eutyches by others. St. Chry­sostom and others [...], from their confusion of the two Natures into one, and making not only one Person, as the Catholick Church did, but one Nature too alone in Christ.

REFLECTION II. St. Chrysostme's Argument from the Eucharist against the Apollinarians, consider'd and explain'd.

SUch is the Account which the antient Fathers have left us of the Apollinarian Heresie, and the same we find to have been the Notion which St. J. Chrysostom in this Epistle had of it. He ‘proves the divine and humane Natures to be distinct in Christ; that the Properties of the one, ought 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 Errours. Wherefore, dearly beloved, says he, laying aside the novel Phrases, and vain Speeches of these men, let us return to what we have before said; that it is pious, most pious indeed, that we should confess our Saviour Christ, who died for us, to be perfect in the Godhead, perfect in the Man­hood; one only begotten Son, not divided into two, [Page 137]but bearing in himself together the unmixt proprie­ties of two distinct Natures. Not two different Persons, God forbid! But one and the same Lord Jesus, God, Word; cloathed with our Flesh, and that not inanimate, without the rational Soul, as the wicked Apollinarius pretends. Let us then assent to these things, let us fly those who would divide him; for though the Natures be distinct, yet is there but one undivided and indivisible Union to be acknow­ledged in the same one Person and Substance of the Son.’

II. And now if this be the Catholick Doctrine which this Holy Father here designs to bring Caesa­rius to; such the Errours, which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was involved in: It will be very easie to conceive the Allusion he here makes between the two Natures united in Christ, and the two Parts, which the Catholick Church has ever ac­knowledged in the Holy Eucharist; to the destructi­on of the Romanists Pretences of Transubstantiation, and to the solid Establishment of the real Presence of Christ in this sacred Mystery, such as the Church of England believes, and has been established by me in the foregoing Discourse.

III. The Words of St. See below. ☜ Chrysostome in this Epistle are these: Christ is both GOD and MAN; GOD, in that he is impassible; MAN, for that he suffer'd. yet but one SON, one LORD; He the same without doubt, having one Dominion, one Power of two uni­ted Natures. Not that these Natures are consub­stantial, forasmuch as either of them, does without confusion retain its own Properties, and being two, are yet inconfused in him.

For as [in the Eucharist] before the BREAD [Page 138]is Consecrated, we call it BREAD, but when the Grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it, it is no longer called BREAD, but is esseemed wor­thy to be called the LORD's BODY, although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it; and we do not say there be TWO BODIES, but ONE BODY of the Son: So here, the DIVINE NATURE being joyned with the [Humane] BODY, they both together make up but one Son, one Person. But yet they must be confess'd to remain without confusion, after an indivisible manner, not in ONE NATURE, but in TWO PERFECT NATURES.’

IV. In which Passage, whether we consider the Expressions themselves, or the Application of them, they are utterly destructive of Transubstantiation.

First, as to the Expressions themselves.

They tell us plainly, That the Nature of BREAD remains in the Eucharist after the Con­secration: That our not calling it BREAD, but CHRIST's BODY, does not therefore intend to signi­fie that the Nature of BREAD is at all chang­ed; for that the BREAD by Consecration becomes indeed worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY, but yet still retains its own Nature of BREAD.

V. These are such plain expressions of the Bread's continuing in its own Nature after Consecra­tion, that the Papists themselves have not been able to deny it. So that their only Refuge is, that by the BREAD'S retaining still its own Nature, we are, they say, to understand only this, that its Accidents remain, but for its Substance, that is changed into the BODY OF CHRIST. See most of these cited by Albertinus, de Eucharist. l. 2. pag. 533. in Chrysostome, c. 1. Thus [Page 139] Gardiner, Turrian, Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Vasquez, Suares, Perron, Gamachaeus, and last of all, Father Nouet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sa­crement, liv. 4. c. 5. art. 3 p. 285. Nouet, in his Controversie against Monsieur Claude.

VI. This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied; and makes St. Chrysostome in effect to say thus much, That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration, still remains, though indeed the Nature be changed, and only the Accidents con­tinue. And would it not have been an admirable Similitude, to shew that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine, as the Ap­pollinarian pretended, to alledge the Example of the Eucharist, in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body, as the Papists believe.

VII. But S. Chrysostome was not so absurd, as these men would represent him; and his other Expressi­ons utterly overthrow this Evasion. 1. He tells us plainly, that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration, was in the Name, See this Ar­gument ma­naged by Monsieur Claude, Rep. à Pere Nouet. Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. not the Substance: That whereas before it was called BREAD, by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY. 2. Had St. Chrysostome believed the BREAD to have been truly changed, and become the very Body of Christ, would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ? and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ? Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven? The Sun, worthy to be called the Sun? And why shall we think St. Chrysostome the only ridiculous man, to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did, or would have done [Page 140]besides? But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt: When St. Chrysostome here speaks of the Nature of BREAD, in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST; if we will have him consistent with himself, we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both, in the same sense. As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after, by Nature, with reference to CHRIST, he does not mean the Properties only, but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity; so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD, he must still mean the same, the Sub­stance of the BREAD, and not barely the Pro­perties, or Accidents of it; and of this I am per­swaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt.

Secondly, As to the design of this Allusion,

VIII. The Apollinarians, as we have seen, affirm'd the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other; That however, before the Ʋnion, they were two distinct things, yet by being united, the humane Na­ture became converted, or if you will, transubstanti­ated into the Divine.

IX. Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom, shews by the Example of the Eucharist. That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY, yet do's not lose its own Nature, but continues the same BREAD, as to its Substance, that it was before: So here, the Humane Nature of Christ, be­ing by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Di­vine, did not cease to be a Humane Nature, but still continued what it was before, however united with the other in one Person.

X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Na­ture of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature, notwithstanding that Incarnation; so cer­tainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist conti­nue BREAD after this Consecration. As certain­ly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead; so certainly is the Papist deceiv­ed in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallow'd up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY, in this Holy Sacrament.

XI. Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine, became worthy thereby to be called, toge­ther with it, by the same common Name of Christ, Lord, Jesus, the Word, the Son of God; the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY, becomes worthy to be called, toge­ther with it, THE LORD's BODY; but that is all, the Humane Nature still continues what it was before; in the one, the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other, and there is no Transubstantiation made in either.

XII. In a word, in the Hypostatick Ʋnion, though there be two distinct Natures, God and Man, yet there is but one Person, one Son made up of both. So in the Holy Eucharist, though there be two dif­ferent things united, the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY, yet we do not say there be two Bodies, but one mystical Body of Christ, made up of both; as the King and his Image, to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers, are not two, but one King: Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself, Christ and the Church, are not two, but one Body.

REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle it self, and the Attempts that have been made against it.

I. ANd now when such is the force of this E­pistle, that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery: It is not at all to be wondred at, if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves, have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not.

II. Ann. 1548. It is now above 100 years, since this pas­sage was first produced by Peter Martyr, in his Dis­pute with Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, con­cerning the Eucharist. He then profess'd that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Library. Lovanii Confutatio Ca­villationum, &c ad Obj. 201. This Gardiner could not deny, who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endea­vour'd 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 follow'd him.

III. Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18. Turrian, 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, Vasquez dis. 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub. cap. 7. §. Similiter. and de Valentia, proves it too, that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's, but the o­ther John's, to whom the Bishop of Winchester had [Page 143]before ascribed it. But yet still the Argument re­curr'd 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 Gamachaeus is not very unwil­ling to acknowledge this: for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John, he tells us, Excusari posse, quod nec Tran­substantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita & ex­plicata fuerat, sicut bodiè. See Albertinus de Euch. p. 533. l. 2. supr. cit. he is to be excused, for that Transubstantiation was not so plainly delivered and explain'd in those days as it is now.

V. But this Perron de l'Eucharistie. p. 381, 382, 383. Cardinal Perron could not bear, he neither thought fit to rely upon an Evasion, which he saw would not do their business, nor could he endure to allow so antient 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 perswade 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 ruine all the Endeavours of these Men, by publishing the very Epistle, which the Cardinal had so loudly pro­claimed to be a Forgery, and proving it to be in­deed the Genuine Off-Spring of St. Chrysostome, con­trary to what the rest had in vain pretended.

VII. And this he accordingly, with great sin­cerity performed, Ann. 1680. For in his Edition of Palladius that year, among the other Pieces which he added to it, this Epistle of St. Chrysostome had [Page 144]one of the first places, and was strengthned by him with such Attestations, as shew it to be beyond all doubt authentick. 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 fear'd at least that his Censors would not esteem it to be so.

VIII. Expostulatio. pag. iii. And in this I speak no more than what he himself declared to his Friends, insomuch that he resolved to reserve privately some few Copies, for fear the rest should run that risque, which indeed they accordingly did. For being now quite finish'd, and just ready to come abroad, some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, whereof Monsieur Grandin and Mr. Faure have been charged as the Principal, caused it to be suppressed, and the printed Leaves cut out of the Book, without any thing to supply the place of them.

IX. And of this the Edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing Monument, both in the Preface, S. Anastasii in Hexaëme­ron lib. 12. Cui praemissia est expostulatio &c. Lond. 1682. 4to. and in the Book; and it was publickly complain'd of by a very learned Man, in an Expostu­lation prefixed to a piece of Anastasius, publish'd by him about two years after.

X. But what that Reverend Person could not then obtain, being since fallen into my hands, I mean the very Leaves cut out by these Doctors, of Mr. Bigot's Preface, and the Epistle 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 publick view.

XI. I hope the learned World, whom I princi­pally design to gratifie in this matter, will accept this never the worse, for that Mr. le Moyne the last year published this Epistle among his Varia Sacra: Tom. 1. That learned Man having neither given the Greek Fragments, which I now publish from Monsieur Bigots own Impression; nor Monsieur Bi­gots account of it, in the part of the Preface which was suppress'd. Not to add, that the Latine Copy of Mr. le Moyne is so very false, that it renders the Epistle utterly unintelligible. I do not pretend to anticipate his design, which he appears so jealous of: that is too vast to be injured by any thing I can offer; and I shall be glad if what I now publish may be any way serviceable to it.

XII. As to the Authority of this Piece, I shall need say no more than what Monsieur Bigot has already done to prove it to be Genuine. So many ancient Authors have cited it, as St. Chrysostom's E­pistle to Caesarius; such Fragments of it remain in the most antient Writers as Authentick, that he who after all these shall call this Piece in question, may with the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works, which, perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allow'd as true and undoubted.

But it is time now to see what account Monsieur Bigot himself gives of it.

Suppressa in Praefatione Emerici Bigotii, de Epistolâ Chrysostomi ad Caesarium, Mona­chum.

HAnc Orationem sequitur Epistola ad Caesarium, Praefat. lit i, ij. pag. prior. inter lin. 22, & 23. Monachum, quae licet nitore suo nativo, id est, Graeco eloquio, destituta, nihilominus sub velo veteris Latinae Interpretationis mirificos eloquentiae disertissimi doctoris radios exhibet. Primus qui ultimis temporibus hujus meminit Epistolae, fuit Petrus Martyr, Floren­tinus, qui ex eâ locum quendam protulit in locis com­munibus. Insolitus loquendi de EUCHARISTIA modus, qui ex eâ referebatur, à Johannis Chrysostomi phra­siLit. i, ii. pag. altera.ac genio prorsus alienus lectores in diversas traxit sententias. Aliis supposititiam esse affirmantibus, aliis pro virili contendentibus, veram esse ac genuinam; omnes integram videre summe concupivêre; doluerunt­que Petrum Martyrem, qui primus de eâ mentionem injecerat, minime indicâsse qua in Bibliotheca exta­ret codex MS. Florentiae delitescere omnium erat sus­picio, quia Florentinus fuit Petrus Martyr, sed ubi, ab omnibus nesciebatur. Mihi quae fortuna faverat in reperiendo contextu Graeco vitae St. Johannis Chry­sostomi, hic etiam non defuit. Ejus exemplar re­peri apud R.R. P.P. Dominicanos, in monasterio S. Marci. Cujus te in partem [...] venire libens pa­tior; nec expecto ut mihi succlames in commune, [...], si modo exorari te sinas, ut benignâ in­terpretatione emollias, quae duriuscule sonant de Eu­charistiae Sacramento, & in memoriam revoces tot & tam insignes locos, in quibus adeo luculenter de hoc sa­cro-sancto Mysterio loquitur Joannes noster, ut Doctor [Page 147]Eucharistiae vocari meruerit, sicut S. Augustinus Doctor Gratiae vulgò praedicatur. Dixi Petrum Mar­tyrem primum postremis temporibus hujus Epistolae meminisse, quae antea Graecis Patribus notissima fuerat, utpote qui multa testimonia ex ea adversus Monophy­sitas & Acephalos adduxerunt, ut observare licet in Notis, quas margini apposui, indicando codices ex qui­bus Textum Graecum apud illos patres à me inventum descripsi. Caeterum ubi deficiebant verba Graeca, vacua Columnarum spatia reliqui, nec passus sum ea punctis, aut lineolis, sicut librariorum mos est, repleri, ut pos­sint inibi viri eruditi verba Graeca adscribereLit. i. iij.si­quando ea invenerint. Cum enim experimento nove­rim, quo casu, quâve fortunâ in ea quae attexui testi­monia, inciderim, non despero ab aliis alia posse inve­niri. Quisque experiatur cui fortuna erit faventior; & si cui ea obsecundaverit, is ne publico invideat, ne (que) apud se inventa privatim detineat. Qui veteres li­bros tractant, norunt nullam veteris cujuscunque libri editionem, quae ex unico exemplari fuerit eruta, huc­usque prodiisse, omni ex parte perfectam. Manu ex­arati codices mutuas aliorum exposcunt operas, ut quod in uno corruptum est, ab alio sanetur; quod in uno vetustas obliteraverit, ab alio lucem accipiat. Hoc verum esse de codice hujus Epistolae fateri cogor, qui licet annorum sit 500, parum tamen emendatè scrip­tus est, & opem à Graeco praecipuè codice, aut ab alio saltem Latino, postulat. In eo quem vidi, aliquando voces continuae sunt, aliquando simplex vocalis E pro diphthongo Ae scripta fuit; T pro D, & vice versa D pro T; verbis aliquando ita corruptis, ut ad sa­nitatem reduci minimè possint absque subsidio aliorum codicum. Quae scribarum incuria deterruit, opinor, Petrum Martyrem ab eâ edendâ. Taceo interpreta­tionem, [Page 148]quae minus accurata, imo planè barbara vide­tur. Ego his omnibus naevis Lectores benevolos ne­quaquam offensum iri arbitratus sum; imo eam li­benter excepturos puto quam damus Epistolam, La­tinè quoquo modo versam, cujus fragmentum à Petro Martyre editum, eruditorum animos pridem sollicita­vit. Quis enim illud cum legerit, Joannis Chry­sostomi mentem percipere possit, ex eoque animad­vertere, quâ occasione, quo animo ejus verbaLit. i. iij. pag. altera.scripta sunt? In eâ porro Epistolà mirari licet summam & insolitam Dei amantissimi viri charitatem, qui licet innumeris aerumnis oppressus esset, atque continuis ter­roribus ob Isaurorum Incursiones, ut ipse scribit in E­pistolis ad Olympiadem, paenè exanimaretur; nihil­ominus cum audisset Caesarium, Monachum, amicum suum in Apollinaris & [...] Haeresim incidisse, eum pro incredibili suâ bonitate ab Haeresi avertere, atque in sincerae pietatis viam revocare hâc Epistolà molitus est. Quantum vero Apollinaris Haeresis tunc grassaretur, & quàm multos invasisset, ex eo colligere li­cet, quod contra Apollinaristas & Synusiastas scrip­serunt Diodorus, Tarsensis Episcopus, quem suprame­moravi, Gregorius Nyssenus, Cyrillus Alexandri­nus, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Theophilus Antio­chensis, ut alios plures omittam. Atque ut ab eo errore Caesarium revocaret Joannes, eumque ad catholicam fidem, quae duas in Christo naturas inconfusas sub unâ personà confitetur, Epistolà reduceret, comparationem ab Eucharistiae Sacramento mutuatur, in quo PANIS post consecrationem, non jam PANIS, sed CORPUS CHRISTI APPELLARE DIGNUS EFFICITUR; Etiamsi natura panis, in­quit, in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicatur. Quibus verbis san­ctus Doctor veram ac realem, ut vocant, corporis [Page 149]Christi in Eucharistia presentiam supponit, & agnoscit; alias certe nulla esset cum humanâ ac divinâ in Christo naturâ Eucharistiae comparatio. Ipse Chrysostomus Homil. 2. ad Populum Antiochensem: [...]. Elias enim pallium reliquit discipu­lo suo; Dei autem Filius ascendens in coelum, nobis carnem suam reliquit: sed Elias se exuit, Christus vero & carnem suam nobis reliquit, ipsamque habens, ascendit.’ Et Hom. 83. in Mat­thaeum: [...]. ‘Sic etiam in mysteriis faciamus, non illa quae ante nos jacent, solummodo aspici­entes, sed verba quoque ejus tenentes. Nam ver­bis ejus defraudari non possumus, sensus vero no­ster deceptu facillimus est: illa falsa esse non possunt, hic saepius atque saepius fallitur. Quo­niam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, obedia­mus, & credamus, & oculis intellectûs id perspi­ciamus.’ Integrum librum conficerem, si ex Chry­sostomo locos omnes excerperem, in quibus de sacra­tissima Eucharistia similiter loquitur; sed laetius ac sa­lubrius tibi erit, eos in fonte legisse.

Thus far Bigotius's Preface: As to the Epistle it self, I have publish'd it exactly as it was in the Pa­ris Edition, whose Pages I have retain'd, that those who please, may see the Defect in that part of [Page 150] Palladius, out of which it was rased. For the little Notes which I have added, they contain a Collati­on, 1. Of the Latin of Bigotius, with the Latin of Mr. le Moyne's Copy, in which I do not know that I have omitted the least variation, even of a single Letter. 2. Of the Greek Fragments collected by Bi­gotius, with some other MSS. that have been com­municated to me. In which, A denotes the Arundel MS. cited by Dr. Cave in his Chartophylax Eccles. C. one of Monsieur Colbert's Library, examined by the learned Monsieur Allix. M. the Latin Copy publish'd by Monsieur le Moyne.

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

* [...].

[...] * [...] [Page 152] [...].

[...].

[...], f. [...]. [...];

[...] [...]. [...]. * [...] [...] [...], [...] [Page 162] [...] [...] [...], * [...]. [...] [...].

INCIPIT Epistola B Johannis Episcopi Constantinopolitani, ad Caesarium, Monachum, tempore secundi exilii sui.

INSPEXIMUS li­teras tuae Reverentiae: inspeximus autem b non a praeter c lachrymas. Quomodo enim b non c lachrymabimur, & ani­mam ipsam dolore con­ficimus, videntes fratrem singularem vitam à pue­ritiâ eligentem, & d [...], id est, consum­matè circa pietatem se habentem, subitò autem e haereticorum jactibus pulsum. Anastas. in MS. Colleg. Clarom. Nicephor. C. P. in Antirr­het. MS. Bibl. Colbert. ‘Et dicas forsi­tan ab errore ad id quod melius est venis­se Te, & gratiam con­fiteri his, qui f admira­bilem illum g protule­rint librum, quem magnum esse h optima tua nominant scripta, qui splendidè praedicat i concursum essentia­lem & commixtionem sacram factam ex Divi­nitate [Page 152]& Carne, unam autem ex hâc perfici naturam.] Istud mira­bitur insipientis Apol­linarii inconsideratio, Pag. 237. edir. Paris. G g. iij. ista eorum qui intro­ducunt a contempera­tionem & b [...], id est, commixti­onem impiissima [ c in­tentio, quae] proce­dens immutat quidem Arrii, Apollinarii, d & Sabellii, d & Manetis ni­hil. Passionem autem excogitari & adponi secundum illos Uni­geniti e imaginatur De­itati, quod à f Christi­anis alienum est.’

Posside igitur Temet­ipsum iterum, Dilectis­sime, & ad priorem re­gredere ordinem ab abo­minabili illâ abstinens g opinione, quae est A­pollinaris, & eorum qui Synusiastae dicuntur. Im­pia [Page 153]cogitatio assidua è puris] influens nocere novit, qui secundum nos sunt simplicitati convi­ventes. a Ductoris enim eorum est liber, Apolli­narii b dico; c etsi hunc sibi tua Reverentia non rectè faciens negotiata est. Verum tamen nos recordantes tuae nobis­cum conversationis, sen­tientes autem ex his quae scripsistis, errorem sub­sistere erga tuam dilecti­onem ex illorum insipi­entiâ non solum erga dis­pensationis d mysterium, magis autem & erga No­minum conjunctionem, excogitavimus Deo co­operante nostrae infirmi­tati de omnibus mani­festam ostentationem fa­cere, ad redargutionem quidem e malae opinio­nis eorum qui f haereti­cum Tibi protulerunt li­brum, Edit. Paris. pag. 238. correctionem au­tem tuae venerationis.

g Deum ergo quando dicis, Dilectissime, ag­novisti [Page 154]id quod simplex est a naturae, quod in­compositum, quod in­convertibile, quod invi­sibile, quod immortale, quod incircumscriptibile, quod incomprehensibi­le, & istis similia. Ho­minem autem dicens, sig­nificâsti id quod natu­rae est b infirmum, esuri­tionem, sitim, super La­zarum lachrymas, c me­tum, Anastas. in MS. Clarom. sudoris ejectionem, & his similia, quibus id quod divinum est extra [est. d Christum au­tem] quando dicis conjunxisti utrumque, unde & passibilis di­catur idem ipse & e im­passibilis, passibilis qui­dem carne, impassibi­lis autem Deitate. Ea­dem ipsa & de Filio, & f Christo, & Jesu, & Domino praedicantur. Communia enim ista, Edit. Paris. 239. lit. Gg. 4. & [ g susceptibilia dua­rum] Essentiarum no­mina sunt;’ quarum conjunctio in haereticis [Page 155]quidem errorem facit, proprio pro communi u­tentes nomine [ a Christi uno. His autem] com­munibus istis b uti opor­tet Nominibus quando dispensationis confiten­dum est mysterium. Si enim c Deum dixeris per­tulisse, qualicunque d co­gitatione quod Edit. Paris. pag. 239. impossi­bile est, dixisti, id quod Blasphemum est, e & in * Manetis, &] in alio­rum f haeresim declinâsti. Impietatem, si iterum hominem dixeris qui pertulit, inveniris purum aedificans templum. Tem­plum Crucis extra in­habitantem nunquam di­citur, quia jam non est Templum. Joan. 8.40. Et forsitan dicunt, & quomodo g Do­minus dixit, Ʋt quid me vultis occidere hominem qui veritatem vobis locu­tus sum quam audivi àhDeo? Benè & omninò [Page 156]sapienter hoc dicendum est. [ a Neque enim ex hoc ab Inhabitanti de­fraudabatur:] sed signifi­care volens patientem naturam hominis memo­riam fecit, propter quod & b Deus & Homo c Chri­stus: c Deus propter impassibilitatem, Homo propter Passionem. U­nus filius, unus d Domi­nus, idem ipse proculdu­bus unitarum naturarum, unam dominationem, u­nam potestatem possi­dens, e etiamsi non f con­substantiales existunt, [ g & unaquaeque h in­commixtam Proprietatis conservat agnitionem, propter hoc quod i in­confusa sunt, dico.] Si­cut enim antequam k san­ctificetur PANIS PA­NEM nominamus, divi­nâ autem illum Edit. Paris. pag. 240. l Sancti­ficante Gratiâ, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem m APPELLATI­ONE [Page 157]PANIS, dignus autem habitus est a DO­MINICI CORPORIS APPELLATIONE, eti­amsi NATURA PANIS in ipso permansit, & non duo Corpora sed b unum Corpus filii c praedicatur: sic & * hic Divinâ d [...], Nicephor. Anastas. Joan. Da­mascen. To. IV. Var. lect. Canibi. p. 211. id est inun­dante corporis naturâ, ‘unum filium, unam personam, utraque haec fecerunt. Agnoscen­dum tamen inconfu­sam & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solùm naturâ, Theorianus in legatione ad Armenios. p. 74. sed in duabus perfectis. Si enim unius, quomodo idquod inconfusum est, quomodo quod indivi­sibile, quomodo uni­tio dicitur aliquando? [ e Sibimet ipsi enim uni­ri quae] una est, aut con­fundi, aut dividi im­possibile est. Quod ergo infernum evomu­it, [Page 158]unam in a Christo naturam dicere puta­mus Quae se­quuntur ex­tant apud Jo. Damascenum. divinam solam nominantes, non om­ni modo unam negant, b nostram, dico, salutem aut humanan retinen­tes, non divinae abne­gationem faciunt, c di­cuntque perdidit quod proprium erat. Si e­nim unus est, salva no­bis est unitio d omni­modo, & ea quae uni­tioni sunt propria, sal­vari necesse est: Si Edit. Paris. pag. 241. lit. Hh. e­nim non, nec unitio, sed confusio & abolitio.’ Mox autem ad Interro­gationis fluctuantes re­sposionem, ad aliquid a­liud exiliunt, quod non sit proprium ad Interro­gationem: & inconstan­tes emittunt Voces; Pertulit e Deus & non pertulit, & si petantur modum dicere, ad igno­rantiam recedunt, prose­rentes; Quomodo f vo­luit Christi apud ipsos memoria fugiente post­haec [Page 159] a vituperari in hoc? Mox dicunt, & b Christus non est c Deus sed & Ho­mo. Et iterum dicunt, Post d Unitionem non o­portet dicere duas natu­ras. Attende significa­tionem dicti. Unitio­nem dixisti: unius uni­tionem non invenis fieri, quomodo e praevenientes diximus, Joan. 1.24. sed Verbum Caro factum est & f speculare eorum querentur subtili­tatem. Intulit enim, & inhabitavit in nobis. Nun­quid non ibi videtur, g quia aliud est quod in­habitat praeter habitatio­nem. Si cognovissent, 1 Cor. 11.8.nunquam hDominum glo­ria crucifixissent. Domi­num iterum quando dix­eris, non proprium sed Commune i significatur nomen, Passionis & Im­passibilitatis susceptibile. Consueverant autem & istud Edit. Paris. pag. 242. praetendere puta­mus: Non Corpus k dei & sanguinem accipimus, [Page 160]fideliter ac a piè suscipi­endum, non quia Cor­pus & sanguinem possi­det id quod divinum est naturâ, sed quià b ea quae Carnis sunt, propria fa­cit. O inconsideratio! O impia Cogitatio! pe­riclitatur enim apud ip­sos dispensationis Myste­rium, & iterum Domi­nicum corpus, sicut c ve­rum corpus confiteri non patiuntur: per cogitati­onem enim dici conver­sum d esse hoc in deita­tem imaginantur, unam hinc construentes natu­ram, & ipsam cujus sit non e juvantes dicere, ut passionem divinitati; un­dique secundum Apolli­narium excogitantes, de­cidant à f praemissis bonis putamus non g contre­miscent ista dicere audi­entes. Non cogitant ae­ternum judicium, & h Do­mini vocem dicentis, E­go sum & noniimmutor. Malac. 3.6. Mat. xxvi. 41.Caro infirma kSpiritus [Page 161]autem promptusIbid. 39.Pater si possibile est transeat à me calix iste. —Ibid. 38.Tristis est ani­ma mea usque ad mortem.Luk. 24.39.Palpate & videte, quia aSpiritus [...]arnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere. Putamus Deita­ti ista apta sunt. Audi­ant & Petrum dicentem Edit. Paris. pag. 243. Lit. Hh. ij. Mat. 16.16. b Christo pro nobis pas­so carne, & non dixit Deitate. Et iterum, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi: Viventis dixit, non mo­rientis. Et quaecunque his similia divina nos e­docet Scriptura, cui vio­lenti esse Haeretici non desistunt. Anast. Nicephorus. Horum istas novitates * vocum decli­nantes, d Charissime, ad id quod praejacet, re­vertamur; pium & val­de pium, e Christum qui morte circumdatus est, confiteri in divini­tate perfectum, & in humanitate perfectum, unum filium unigeni­tum, non dividendum in filiorum dualitatem, c [Page 162]portantem tamen in semetipso indivisarum duarum naturarum in­convertibiliter propri­etates, non alterum & alterum, absit, sed u­num & eundem e Do­minum, f Jesum, g De­um, Verbum, carne nostrâ amictum, In MS collect. Biblioth. reg. Gall. n. 1026. p. 247. & ipsâ non inanimatâ, aut irrationabili, sicut impius h Apollinaris dixit. Istis mentem in­tendamus, fugiamus eos qui dividunt. i Nam etsi duplex natura, ve­runtamen indivisibilis & indissipabilis unitio, Edit. Paris. p. 244. in unâ filiationis conf­tenda personâ, & una k substantia. Fugiamus qui unam naturam post unitionem prodigali­ter dicunt; unius enim cogitatione impassibi­li Deo passionem ad­jungere impelluntur, dispensationem abnegantes, & Diaboli Gehennam arripientes. Ista propter mensuram Epistolae suf­ficere arbitror, ad confirmationem tuae dilectionis, ô magnifice.’

Explicit a Epistola B. Joannis Episcopi Constantino­politani ad Caesarium, Monachum, tempore secun­di exilii sui. Amen.

*
Praeter Authores à Bigotio laudatos, unde fragmenta Graeca hujus Epistolae colle­git vir eruditissimus; extat alius Nicephori liber MS. in Biblioth. Colbert. continens quinque diversos tractatus. Ex secundo eorum contra Mamonas quaedam collegit, & mecum communicavit reverendus D. P. Alix. Titulus autem in illo MS. ita se habet, pag. 222. [...]. Paulò aliter legitur hic titulus in antiquo codice Bibliothecae Arundelianae à R. D. D. Cave in Chartoph. Eccles. nuper edito, p. 69. [...], &c. uti in MS. Colbert.
*
Alludit ad hunc locum vetus Author contra Severianos & Acephalos, à Tur­riano editus, Bibl. Patr. Edit. 4. Tom. 4. ad fin. ubi post laudatum quendam Ambrosii locum, subdit, Chrysostomus ad Caesarium Monachum. Haec est haeresis ipsissima introdu­centium Mixtionem & Compositionem. Vid. Expostulationem p. X.
Locus hic corruptus videtur: Quid si legamus [...] vel [...], ut sensus sit, istud admiraberis, vel potius, istud admirari debuisses insani Apollinaris absurdum; haec quippe est Haeresis ipsissima, &c. ...
*
[...] deest in MS. A.
[...], MS. C.
[...]. MS A.
[...], ib. deest.
[...] deest in A.
[...], ib.
*
[...]. ib.
[...] pro [...], ib.
[...] ib.
b
Var. lect. MS. M. N.
a
Var. lect. MS. M. pter.
c
Var. lect. MS. M. lachrymas: lachrymabimur.
b
Var. lect. MS. M. N.
c
Var. lect. MS. M. lachrymas: lachrymabimur.
d
Var. lect. MS. M. α [...]
e
Var. lect. MS. M. Hae­redicorum.
f
Var. lect. MS. M. Ammirabilem.
g
Var. lect. MS. M. Protulerit.
h
Var. lect. MS. M. Optime.
i
Var. lect. MS. M. [Concursum essentialem sacrum facta ex Divinitate & Carnis unam autem ex hoc perfici naturam.]
a
MS. M. Contemplationem.
b
MS. M. [...]
c
MS. M. [Intentioque.]
d
MS. M. Et deest.
d
MS. M. Et deest.
e
MS. M. ema­ginatur.
f
MS. M. X [...]anis.
g
MS. M. [Opinionem & qua Apollinaris & eorum qui Synusiaste di­cuntur ipsa cogitatio assiduae puris, &c.]
a
MS. M. Doctoris.
b
Dico, abest.
c
Et fi.
d
Misterium.
e
Male.
f
Ereticum.
g
Dominum.
a
MS. M. Nature.
b
MS. M. In firmum.
c
MS. M. Meum.
d
MS. M. [ē Xūm dn]
e
MS. M. Im-passibilis, deficit im, spatio tamen relicto ubi olim fuerit,
f
MS. M. XPO. & Inū. & dnō.
g
MS. M. [Susceptibili avarum]
a
MS. M. [XPt unos autem.]
b
MS. M. Uti oportet, deest.
c
MS. M. dm.
d
MS. M. Cogitationem.
e
MS. M. [Et immane sed.]
*
Sic videtur legendum; & in Manetis, & in aliorum Haeresum declinâsti impietatem. Si iterum, &c.
f
MS. M. Haeresum.
Forte melius carnis.
g
MS. D. le Moyne. Dns.
h
MS. M. le Moyne. dō.
a
MS M [Neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitate]
b
MS M ds.
c
MS M Est Christus, Mar­tyr l. c. in tract. de Euchar. Oxon. MS. M.
c
MS M XPS.
d
MS M dns.
e
MS M Etiam si.
f
MS M Consubstantia­liter Martyr.
g
MS M [MS.M. Et unaquae (que) in quo mixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem prop­ter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo.]
h
MS M Incommixta. Martyr. ib.
i
MS M Inconfusa sint duo. Id.
k
MS M MS. M. Scīsicetur,
l
MS M Scīficante grā. Id.
m
MS M Ab Appellatīōne. Ibid.
a
MS. M. Dominicae.
b
MS. M. Unus,
c
MS. M. Praedicamus.
*
Hic Martyr loc. cit. Haec. Totum hunc locum post Turrianum in Edit. Damasceni, sic citat Albertinus de Euch. l. 2. p. 532. Sic & hic divinâ [...] insidente cor­pori natura, &c.
d
MS. M. [...]
e
MS. M. [Sibimet ipsi unirique.]
a
XPO.
b
Nam.
c
Dicunt que.
d
Omni modo.
e
Ds.
f
Volunt XPI.
a
MS. D. le Moyne. Vituperati.
b
MS. D. le Moyne. XPS.
c
MS. D. le Moyne. Ds.
d
MS. D. le Moyne. Unitatem.
e
MS. D. le Moyne. Prenientes.
f
MS. D. le Moyne. Specula­neorum.
g
MS. D. le Moyne. Qui.
h
MS. D. le Moyne. D nm.
i
MS. D. le Moyne. Significat.
k
MS. D. le Moyne. Di.
a
MS.M. Piae.
b
MS.M. Ea deest.
c
MS.M. Unum corpus.
d
MS.M. Eti.
e
MS.M. Invenientes.
f
MS.M. Pmissis.
g
MS.M. con­tremescent.
h
MS.M. dni.
i
MS.M. Inmutor.
k
MS.M. Sps.
a
Sps.
b
XPO.
*
[...] deest in MS. A.
d
Charissimae.
e
XPm.
c
XPS.
e
MS. M. Dnm.
f
MS. M. Ihm.
g
MS. M. dm.
h
MS. M. Apollinarius.
i
MS. M. Nam etsi enim.
k
MS. M. Subsistantia.
a
Epistula.

NUM. VI. Having, to satisfie 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 subjoyn this following Account of the Editions made use of by me.

A.
  • AQuinatis summa Theologiae, Fol. Colon. 1662.
  • Articles of the Church of England. See Sparrow.
  • Arcudius de concordiâ Ecclesiae Occidentalis & Orienta­lis, Fol. Paris 1626.
  • Albertinus de Eucharistia, Fol. Daventriae 1654.
  • Arnauld Perpetuité de la Foy de l'Eglise Catholique touchant l'Eucharistie, 5 Edit. 8vo. Paris 1672.
  • Amicable Accommodation, &c.
B.
  • Bellarmini Controversiae 3 Vol. Ingolstadii 1586.
  • Idem de Indulgentiis, 8vo. Coloniae 1599.
  • Blondel of the Sybilline Oracles, Engl. Fol. Lond. 1661.
  • Breviarium Romanum, 8vo. Antverpiae 1572.
  • Bramhal's Works, Fol. Dublin 1677.
  • Bigotius vita Chrysostomi per Palladium, G. L. 4to. Paris 1680.
  • Balsamon in Concilia in Synodico, Oxonii 1672.
  • Bonae Card. opera 3 Vol. 8vo. Paris 1676, 1677.
  • [Page 164]Nouvelles dela repub. de Lettres Mr. B—Juin 1686.
C.
  • 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 Nouet, 8vo. Amsterdam 1668.
  • Cosins History of Popish Transubstantiation, 8vo. Lond. 1679.
  • Cassandri opera, Paris 1616.
  • Ejusd. Consultatio, 8vo. Vid. Grotii via ad pacem.
  • Cajetanus Card. in D. Thomam, Venetiis 1612.
  • Ejusd. Comment. in S. Scr. Lugduni.
  • Canones, &c. Concil. Trident. 12mo. Coloniae 1679.
  • Calvisii Chronologia, Fol. Francofurti 1650.
  • Cave, Chartophylax Ecclesiasticus, 8vo. Lond. 1685.
D.
  • Dallaeus adversus Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto Traditionem. 4to. Genevae. 1664.
  • Idem de Poenis & Satisfactionibus Amstael. 1649.
  • Durandus in sententias, Lugduni 1569.
E.
  • Estius in Sententias, Paris 1672.
  • Euchologium cum Notis Goar. Paris 1647.
  • Expostulatio de Joan. Chrysost. Epist. suppressa, Lond. 1682. 4to.
  • Epiphanii opera Gr. Lat. Coloniae 1682.
  • L' Esprit de Mr. Arnauld 2 Vol. 8vo. Deventer. 1684.
F.
  • Forbesii instructiones Historico-Theologicae, Amst. 1645.
G.
  • Grotius via ad pacem, cum consult. Cassandri, 8vo. 1642.
  • Gregorii Nazianzeni opera, Gr. Lat. Paris 1609.
  • —Invectiva in Julianum, 4to. Etonae 1610.
  • Gregorii Papae liber Sacrament. Menardi, 4to. Edit. Paris 1642.
  • Gratiani decretum, Fol. Paris 1585.
  • Gamachaeus:
  • Godefry vie de S. Athanase 2 Vol. 4. Paris 1679.
  • Idem vie de S. Basile 2 Vol. 4. Paris 1679.
H.
  • Hookers Ecclesiastical Polity, Fol. Lond. 1676.
  • Book of Homilies, Oxford 1683.
I.
  • Index ex purgatorius, Fol. Madriti 1667.
  • Jesuits Loyalty collect. of several Treatises, 4to. Lond. 1677
  • Instruction pour gagner le Jubilé, 12mo. Paris 1683.
  • Jurieux Preservatif contre le Changement de Religion. 8vo.
  • — Le Janseniste convaincu de vaine Sophstiquerie, Amst. 1683.
  • —Prejuger legitimes contre le Papisme, 4to. 1685.
  • Innocent the XI. Bull for an universal Jubile upon the re­lief of Vienna, August 11th. 1683.
L.
  • Ludolphi Historia Aethiopica Lat. Fol. Francofurti. 1681.
  • Lombardi sententiarum libri 4. 8vo. Moguntiae 1632.
M.
  • Maldonate in Prophetas majores, 4to. Moguntiae 1611.
  • —In Evangelia, Fol. Moguntiae 1611.
  • Missale Romanum, 8vo. Paris 1616.
  • Missale in usum Sarum, Fol. 1527.
  • Stephani le Moyne varia sacra, 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1685.
  • Petri Martyris de Eucharistiâ.
  • Monsieur Maimbourg peaceable Method, Engl. 4to.
  • Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, Engl. 4to. 1685.
  • French 5 Edition, 12mo. à Paris 1681.
  • Traité de la Communion sous les deux Especes, 12mo. Paris 1682.
  • —Pastoral Letter, Engl. 4to. 1686.
N.
  • Noüet de la presence de J. C. dans le tres saint Sacra­ment, 4to. Paris 1666.
  • Nicole, Prejuges legitimes contre les Calvinistes. Paris 1679
  • —Les P. R. convaincus de schisme, 8vo. Paris 1684
O.
  • Officium B. Virginis, 8vo. Antverpiae 1631.
  • Office of the holy Week, Lat. English, 8vo. Paris 1670.
P.
  • Pontificale Romanum, Fol. Venetiis 1561.
  • La Politique du Clergé de France, 12mo. Amst. 1682.
  • [Page 166]Du Perron Replique à la reponse du Roy de la Grande Bretagne, Fol. Paris 1620.
  • Du Perron de l'Eucharistie, Fol. Paris 1629.
  • Petavius Dogmata Theologica, Fol. Paris 1650.
  • Papist represented and misrepresented, 1st. Edition. 1685
  • Pajon Examen du livre qui portepourtitre Prejugez le­gitimes contre les Calvinistes, 2 Vol. 12mo. à Bion­ne 1673.
R.
  • Reponse à un ecrit publie contre les Miracles de la Sainte Espine.
  • Seconde Reponse à Monsieur de Condom, 8vo. 1680.
  • Ruffinus.
  • Rituale Romanum, 4to. Antverpiae 1620.
  • Reflexions Generales sur l'Exposition de Monsieur de Meaux, 8vo. à Cologne de Brandebourg 1685.
S.
  • Sparrow's Collection of Canons, &c. 4to. Lond. 1684.
  • Sexti Senensis Bibliotheca, Fol. Coloniae 1586.
  • Suarez opera, Fol. Moguntiae 1604. in 3 p. D. Th. 1610.
  • Scotus in sententias, primitive Letter, Fol.
  • Socrates, Sozomen, Fol. Paris Edit. Valesii.
T.
  • Thomasi codex Sacramentorum, 4to. Romae 1680.
  • Theodoret. opera 5 Vol. G. L. Fol. Paris 1642.
  • Theophilus, Turrianus, citati ab Albertino.
V.
  • Vasquez in D. Thomam, Ingolstadii 1606. in 3 part. Ve­netiis 1610.
  • Vindication of the B. of Condom's Exposition.
  • Vincentius Lirinensis. Gregorius de Valentia, apud Al­bertinum.
Z.
  • Zonaras in Concilia: In synodico Oxoniensi. 1672.

ERRATA.

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

Add to pag. 114. lin. 24.

But why do I thus long insist upon Probabilities? Monsieur de Meaux himself owns that he hath both seen and read the Preservative; and in his Treatise of Communion, does particularly encounter what Monsieur Jurieu had therein advanced against his Exposition: And yet has this man, after all, the Confidence to tell the World not only that he never read Father Crasset's Book, Vindicat. p. 10. which is very improba­ble, but that he never so much as heard it men­tioned, that there was any thing in it contrary to his Exposition;’ tho' that Author, in that very Book, has spent no less than Pag. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103. six or seven Pages on pur­pose to prove it; not to say any thing of the Such are among others. M. la B. an­swer to his Advertisement p 79. Reflexions Generales sur l'Exposition de M de Meaux, p 121, 144. M. Arnaud reponse au Preser­vatif. M. Jurieu's Vindication: le Janseniste convaincu de vaine Sophistiquerie, p 72, &c. L' Esprit de M. Arnauld, Vol 2. p. 174. Politique du Clergé de France, p. 67. ma­ny other Treatises, and some of them Answers to his Exposition too, but all of them well known in France, that have done the same.

He that can believe this, let him also believe, that M. de Meaux had no hand in the first Edition of his Exposition; That the Sorbonne Doctors never corrected it, nor he suppress'd it upon that account; That that whole Edition was condemned only to make some little Alterations for the benefit of the [Page]Method, and the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile. In a word, That what he has so shame­fully asserted in his late Pastoral Let­ter, p. 3, 4. Pastoral Letter, as to a certain Point, which I shall beg leave not to name, but which we can at any time bring him thou­sands to contradict, he either ever believed him­self, or ever heard any other Bishops say; all which, as they have been shewn to be equally credible, so no doubt are they equally true too.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.