A collection of several discourses against popery By William Wake, preacher to the honourable society of Grays-Inn.

Imprimatur.

Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis.

March. 1. 1685/6.

A COLLECTION OF SEVERAL DISCOURSES AGAINST POPERY.

By WILLIAM WAKE, Preacher to the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard. MDCLXXXVIII.

A TABLE OF The DISCOURSES contained in this COLLECTION.

I. AN Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c. in Answer to the Bishop of MEAUX.
II. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the Exceptions of Monsr. de MEAUX and his VINDICATOR.
III. A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsr. de MEAUX and his VINDICATOR.
- PART I.
- PART II.
- PART III.
[...] [Page] IV. A Discourse of the HOLY EUCHARIST, in the two great Points of the REAL PRESENCE, and of the ADORATION OF THE HOST.
V. An Historical Account of the Doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE profess'd in the Church of England, &c.
VI. Two Discourses of PURGATORY, and PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
VII. A Discourse of the Nature of IDOLATRY, in Answer to the Bishop of Oxon's Reasons for Abrogating the TEST.
VIII. The Present State of the Controversy between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome.
IX. A Continuation of the Present State of the Controversy, &c.

Other Treatises written by the same Author.

X. A Sermon on the xxxth of January, Preach'd at PARIS, Anno 1684/5.
XI. Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a Young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which She died.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE …

AN EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, IN THE Several ARTICLES proposed by Monsieur de MEAUX, Late Bishop of Condom, IN HIS EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Catholick Church.

To which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's Book.

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

THE PREFACE.

THE smalness of this Treatise would hardly justifie the solemnity of a Preface, but that it might be thought too great a rudeness to press without some Ceremony upon a Book, which both the Merit and Character of the Author, and the Quality of those Approbations he has prefix'd to it, may justly seem to have fenced from all vulgar attempts, as Sacred and inviolable. It may perhaps be some satisfaction to the Reader too to know, how it is come to pass that a Meer Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, pretending to contain nothing but what they have always professed, and in their Council of Trent plainly declared to be their Doctrine; should have become so considerable, as not only to be approved by many Persons of the greatest Eminency in that Church, but even to be recommended by the whole body of the Clergy of France in their Assembly 1682; Method. 10. and whereever it has come, done so many Miracles, as not only common report speaks, but even the Advertisement it self prefixed to it, takes care to tell us that it has.

[Page ii] The first design of Monsieur de Meaux's Book was either to satisfie or to seduce the late Mareschal de Turenne. How far it contributed thereunto I am not able to say; but am willing to believe that the change that honourable Person made of his Religion, was upon some better grounds than the bare Exposition of a few Articles of the Roman Faith; and that the Author supplied either in his personal Conferences with him, or by some other Papers to us unknown, what was wanting to the first draught which we have seen of this.

The Manuscript Copy which then appeared, and for about four Years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause, wanted all those Chapters of the Eucharist, Tradition, The Authority of the Church and Pope, which now make up the most considerable part of it; and in the other points which it handled, seemed so loosly and favourably to propose the Opinions of the Church of Rome, that not only many undesigning Persons of that Communion were offended at it, but the Protestants who saw it, generally believed that Monsieur de Meaux durst not publickly own, what in his Exposition he privately pretended to be their Doctrine.

And the Event shew'd that they were not altogether mistaken. For in the beginning of the Year 1671 the Exposition being with great care, and after the consideration of many years reduced into the form in which we now see it; and to secure all, fortified with the Approbation of the Archbishop of Reims and nine other Bishops, who profess that ‘Having examined it with all the Care which the importance of the matter required, they found it conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, and as such recommended it [Page iii] to the People which God had committed to their conduct,’ it was sent to the Press. The impression being finish'd and just ready to come abroad; the Author, who desired to appear with all the Advantage to himself and his Cause that was possible, sent it to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for their Approbation to be joyn'd to that of the Bishops, that so no Authority, ordinary or extraordinary might be wanting to assert the Doctrine contained in it, to be so far from the suspition the Protestants had conceived of it, that it was truly and without disguise Catholick, Apostolick, and Roman.

But to the great surprise of Monsieur de Meaux, and those who had so much cry'd up his Treatise before, the Doctors of the Sorbonne to whom it was communicated, instead of the Approbation that was expected, confirmed what the Protestants had said of it; and, as became their faculty, marked several of the most considerable parts of it, wherein the Exposition by the too great desire of palliating, had absolutely perverted the Doctrine of their Church.

To prevent the open Scandal which such a Censure might have caused, with great Industry, and all the Secrecy possible, the whole Edition was suppressed, and the several places which the Doctors had marked changed; and the Copy so speedily sent back to the Press again, that in the end of the same year another much altered was publickly exposed, as the first Impression that had at all been made of it.

Yet this could not be so privately carry'd, but that it soon came to a publick knowledge; insomuch that one of the first Answers that was made to it, charged Monsieur de Meaux with this change. I do not hear that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the Relation, either [Page iv] in the Advertisement prefixed to the later Editions of his Book, wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same Treatise, or in any other Vindication; Whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of, or that it was too true to be deny'd, let the Reader judge. But certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the Design and Genius of the whole Book; but to be a plain demonstration, how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would represent it, ‘ That it is not impossible for a Bishop of the Church of Rome, either not to be Advertisement Pag. 1. sufficiently instructed in his Religion to know what is the Doctrine of it; or not sufficiently sincere, as without disguise to represent it.’ And since a Copy of that very Book so marked, as has been said, by the Doctors of the Sorbonne is fallen into my hands, I shall gratifie the See the Collection at the end of the Preface. Readers curiosity with a particular View of some of the Changes that have been made, that so he may judge whether of the Two were the Cause of those great advances, which the Author in that first Edition had thought fit to make towards us.

It might perhaps appear a very pardonable curiosity in us, after the knowledge we have had of the first miscarriage of this Book at the Sorbonne, to enquire how it comes to pass, that among so many other Approbations as have with great Industry been procured to the later Editions of it, we do not yet see any subscription of theirs to it, even now. Monsieur de Meaux could not certainly be ignorant of what weight the Censure of that Learned Faculty is with us; and that such an Approbation might not only have been more easily obtained, but would also more effectually have wiped away the blot cast upon his Book by their former refusal, than all the Letters [Page v] and Complements that could come from the other side the Mountains, and which France it self hath taught us, in maters more considerable than this, not to have too high a Value for: Nor can we suppose any thing else, than that the fear of a further Correction kept it from being any more submitted to their Censure; and that the Author would rather pass without the Honour of their Approbation, than run the hazzard of a second Refusal.

But for this, because we cannot speak any thing certain, we will not pursue our Conjectures. Certain it is that whatever the judgment of the Sorbonne would now have been of it, many of the Church of Rome were still dissatisfied with it. See his Advertisement. And how improbable soever Monsieur de Meaux would have us think that one of his Answerers affirms, that a Papist should have written against him; Yet not only the confessed sincerity of Monsieur Conrart who often declared that he had seen it, but the undoubted integrity of some others by whom I have been assured that they had it, in their hands, obliges me to joyn in the assertion, that Monsieur M—,one of the Roman Communion had finish'd an Answer to it, before any of the Protestants were published, however upon some certain Considerations it was thought fit to suppress it.

It will perhaps be looked upon, that this confirmation of that Manuscript Answer deserves as little assent, as Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to give to Monsieur de la B—'s first Assertion of it. And therefore to shew that it is not impossible, nor indeed very improbable, that Papists should write one against another; and that the Method of the Exposition, how plausible soever to deceive Protestants, has nevertheless offended the sincere and Undesigning of the other Communion; [Page vi] I will beg leave to produce two or three undenyable Witnesses upon some of the first and chiefest Points of it; and which though not written purposely against it, yet I am perswaded, Monsieur de Meaux himself will be so just as to confess, that he cannot be altogether unconcerned in them.

For his first Point, The Invocation of Saints; The great moderation of the Exposition tells us only, ‘That it is useful to pray to them, and that we ought to do it in the same Spirit of Charity, and in the same Order of Brotherly Society with which we intreat our Friends on Earth to pray for us: that all the Prayers of the Church howsoever they may be worded, yet must still be understood to be reduced to this form, PRAY FOR US.’

Now what Monsieur de Meaux here says in general concerning the Invocation of Saints, another Tract Printed about the same time at Cologne, and intituled Salutary Advertisements of the Blessed Virgin, to her indiscreet Adorers; particularly applied to that Service, which with so much superstition [Avis salutaires de la bien heureuse Vierge à ses Devots indiscrets. This Tract was publish'd first at Gand in Latin, by Monsieur Widenselt a German, Intendant of the Affairs of the Prince of Suarzembergh; afterwards Translated into French.] is paid in the Church of Rome to the Mother of Christ.

The Book is every where full of Expressions of Honour and Respect for her; and only speaks against that Worship which Monsieur de Meaux here declares in the name of the Council of Trent to be none of theirs. It was sent abroad into the World with all the Advantage imaginable: It had the Approbation of the Bishop of Mysia, Suffragan to the Archbishop of Cologne; of the Vicar General of [Page vii] the place; of the Censure of Gant; of the Canons and Divines of Malines; of the University of Louvain; and Lastly of Monsieur the Bishop of Tournay, who recommended it as a Treatise ‘full of solid Piety, and very fit and necessary to draw people out of those Errours and Abuses into which their Superstition had led them.’

Yet notwithstanding all this Applause, if we enquire what success this Book had with others, Father Crasset the Jesuit, who wrote purposely against it, See his Book entituled La veritable devotion envers La St. Vierge. 4 ^o. his Book Printed at Paris 1679, Licensed by the Provincial, approved by the three Fathers of the Society appointed to examine it, and Lastly, authorized by the King's Permission, tells us, La Preface p. 1, 2. ‘ That for fear of giving Scandal to Hereticks, he had given a very great one to (those he calls) Catholicks: That the Learned Men of all Nations had written against him; that the Holy See had condemn'd him; Spain had banish'd him out of its Dominions, and forbid to Read or Print his Book, as containing Propositions suspected of Errour and Impiety, that abused the Holy Scripture, and imposed upon Catholicks, by taking them off from the Piety and Devotion due to the Mother of God; In a word, from the general Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images.’

I shall not need to say how far the Fathers Zeal carries him in the Answer it self: It is evident that what Monsieur de Meaux tells us, is only Useful, the Jesuit declares to be ‘ absolutely Necessary: Pag. 31. &c. That we are indispensably obliged to pray to her: That it is the intention of God, that we should obtain both Grace and Glory by her; That all Men should be saved by the Merits [Page viii] of the Son, and the Intercession of the Mother, and that forasmuch therefore as God has resolved not to give any Grace but what passes through the Hands of Mary; as we cannot be saved without Grace, so it must be confessed that we cannot be saved without her.’ This is I presume somewhat more than what Monsieur de Meaux expounds to us; and I shall leave it to any one to judge whether this Father who has shew'd himself so zealous against the Author of the Blessed Virgins Salutary Advertisements, could have been very well pleased with Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition.

The next Point which the Exposition advances, is concerning The Worship of Images, Monsieur de Meaux in the Edition suppressed, affirmed, ‘ That the See the Collection at the end of the Preface. Church of Rome does not so much honour the Image of the Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image. And though the Censure passed upon this new fancy, obliged him to speak a little more plainly, yet is it only thus, even now, that when the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, her intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image.’

Concerning which the Reader may please to observe, that Cardinal Capisucchi one of the Approvers of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, has lately set forth a Volume of Controversies at Rome, with all the most solemn Permissions and Approbations that can be desired, in which he formally contradicts the Doctrine of the same Exposition in this Point; and concludes, ‘ That the Church in the Councils of Art. 8. p. 647. Nice and Trent forbids only such a Divine Honour to Images as is Idolatrous, i. e. says he, [Page ix] which is paid to Images in and for themselves; and by which the Image is worshipped, as if some God or Divinity were contained in it. But for that Divine Worship which is paid to the Images of the Holy Trinity, of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Cross, upon the account of the things represented by them, and as they are in that respect one and the same with the thing which they represent, and ascribes not any Divinity to the Images, there never was, nor can be any dispute of it.’

Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider whether this be not sufficiently contrary to the Doctrine Expounded by Him; and how we are to reconcile the Controversies of the Cardinal Capisucchi, with the Letter and Approbation of the So he was when he wrote to Monsitur de Meaux. Master of the Sacred Palace. In the mean time I will beg leave to add one instance more, that is nigher home, and I think still at this time depending; and which the particular interest Monsieur de Meaux has more ways than one had in it, will I suppose undoubtedly satisfie him, that notwithstanding the Assembly of the Clergy have recommended so much both his Book and his Method, all nevertheless at this day are not very well satisfied, even in France it self, either with the one or other.

Monsieur The whole of this is taken out of the Factum which he printed of his Case. Imbert Priest and Doctor of Divinity in the Province of Bourdeaux was not long since accus'd, that upon Good Friday before he proceeded to the solemn service of that day, which consists chiefly in the Adoration of the Cross; He turned to the People, and taking occasion from the rashness of some of the Fathers of the Mission whom he had with grief heard maintain, That the Cross was to be adored after the very same manner as Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; profess'd to them that [Page x] he could not enter on the service of that day without declaring truly to them what the real Doctrine of the Church as to this point was. That the Church designed not that we should adore the Cross which we see, but that we should adore Jesus Christ whom we do not see. That there was a great difference between the Cross and the Holy Sacrament; That in this our Saviour Christ was really present, whereas that was only a simple figure or representation of him.

This was his Accusation, and he confessed that his Opinion was, That the Church adored not the Cross, and that the contrary Opinion was not only false but Idolatrous. That not only the Protestants made their advantage of those who maintain'd such Errours, but that he himself was scandalized to converse every day with the Missionaries and others, whom he had openly heard preach a hundred times, That we ought to adore the Cross with Jesus Christ, as the Humane nature of our Saviour with the Divine.

Being accused for this, he defended himself with all the strength of Argument that he was able; yet being still accounted a Heretick for it, he finally alledged in his defence, That the Exposition of Monsieur de Meaux defended the very same; that he went upon his principles, whose book was approved by the Pope and several Cardinals in Italy, by the Bishops and Clergy of France and others of the greatest note in the Church of Rome.

Nevertheless he was suspended in a manner grievous and extraordinary: He wrote to Monsieur de Meaux himself about it, who presently sent to the Archbishop of Bourdeaux in his behalf: He addressed himself [Page xi] besides to many other the most considerable Persons of the Kingdom; to Monsieur the Chancellour; Monsieur de Chatteau-neuf; to the Intendant of the Province, only that he might have justice in a cause, which according to Monsieur de Meaux's principles, was certainly very favourable;

But I do not hear that he has yet had any other Effect of all his supplications, and the interest of those Honourable persons in his behalf, than that they still draw more and severer menaces from his Judges, and threats either of perpetual Imprisonment, or even death it self for his Offence.

After this clear conviction I may reasonably hope it will appear no improbable matter to Monsieur de Meaux himself, either that one Papist should have written against his Book, or that many others should have expressed themselves to be of a mind very different from the principles and opinions of it. Had it pleased him to have gratified the World with the sight of Cardinal Buillon's and Monsieur l'Abbé de Dangeau's letters to Cardinal Bona and Cardinal Chigi, as well as of their answers to them, they would perhaps have shewn, that not only the Protestants pretended such oppositions of his own party to his Book, but that Monsieur de Meaux himself was not altogether unsensible of it.

No sooner was the first Impression of the Exposition See the Advertisement. which was permitted to pass abroad, finish'd, but presently a Copy was dispatch'd to Rome, with Letters and recommendations to prepare the way for its reception in that Court; and provide against those faults which Cardinal Bona' s Letter: V. E. mi accenna che alcuni lo, Accusano de qual che mancamento. And a little after, Ne mi maraviglio che gli habbino trovato à dire, perche tutte le Opere grande, e che Sormontano l'Ordinario sempre hanno Contradittori— Answer to Cardinal Buillon.] some it seems accused it of, if the Contradictors which [Page xii] opposed it at home, should think fit to pursue it thither.

It is not to be supposed that either the dignity of the Cardinal who sent the Book, or of him to whom it was address'd, would have permitted them in such a manner to take notice of the faults and the Contradictors which their Letters speak of, had they not been both things, and Persons worthy their consideration. But much less would Monsieur l'Abbé de Dangeau have used his interest with Cardinal Chigi to gain the See the Answer of Cardinal Chigi to Monsieur L'Abbé de Dangeau; [Parlai al Padre Maestro di S. Palazzo, & al Secretaris della congregatione dell Indice, e connobbi Veramente che non vi era stato chi havesse à questi padri parlato in disfavore del medesimo.] favour of the Master of the Sacred Palace, and of the Congregation del Indice, if any one had or should speak against it, had there been no cause to apprehend that any one would attempt either.

What other particular persons were employ'd upon the like Offices, is a secret too close for us to be able to penetrate. Only the Advertisement it self gives us cause to believe that great interest was made even by the French Ambassador himself to his Holiness about it; and that See Advertisement, &c. the few Letters we see set out with so much Industry both in the Originals and their Translation, and the long History of them in the Advertisement, were the effects of a labour and interest, great as the long term of eight years that were spent in the procuring of them.

The second Answer to Monsieur de Meaux has so fully examined every one of these Approbations, and so plainly shew'd how small account is to be made of them, that we do not find that in four years that it has been publish'd, any one has undertaken to reply to it. I will therefore only add in general a remark or two that may serve to inform those of our own Country who are unacquainted with such intrigues, what [Page xiii] the Method of the Approbations of the Church of Rome is, and how little stress is to be laid upon them.

It is a long time since it has been resolved by many of their Casuists, that it is lawful to disguise the sentiments of their Religion, not only in private Conferences, but in the very Pulpit it self, when there is a sufficient reason for the doing of it. But I cannot tell whether it be yet so generally known that it is lawful for them to set their hands to and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike, by an Art peculiar to themselves, and which Protestants, who are used to sincere dealing, will find it a little difficult to believe.

The instance of Cardinal Capisucchi before mentioned is an undeniable proof of this for Italy; Who about the same time that he sent his Letter and Approbation to Monsieur de Meaux of his Exposition, wrote, as we have seen, directly contrary to the Doctrine of it, and had his Book approved with no less solemnity at Rome, than Monsieur de Meaux can pretend his to have been. And for France, a Person very justly esteemed both for his great Quality and his own worth, Monsieur the Procureur General of the Parliament of Paris, having clearly revealed the mystery of it, I shall beg leave to represent it to the World, under the advantage of so great and unquestionable an Authority.

Father Thomassin about twenty years since printed a Book which he called Notae in Concilia; the design whereof was to set up the Authority of the Pope above all Councils, which he renders in a manner useless to the decision of Ecclesiastical matters. The Copies of this Book were all seized, and lock'd up in a Chamber of the Fathers Oratorians at Paris. [Page xiv] Ten or twelve years after, with some changes to fill up the Leaves that had been censured, and the Approbation of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, he again attempted to have it publish'd. But Monsieur the Procureur General opposed it, and told him that but in consideration of Father Harlay, his near Relation, who interposed for him, he would have had his Book burnt by the hand of the common Hangman.

The Father justified himself that his Book contained no other Principles than what were found in Cardinal Bellarmine's Controversies, which had been printed with authority, and were permitted to be every day publickly sold in France. The Procureur General replyed, ‘ That they suffered in France, that an Italian should write according to the Principles of his Country, and that this ought not to hinder but that a Book, otherwise good, might be publickly printed and sold with priviledge; but that for a Frenchman to do the same, was another matter, and would have different consequences: and that in short, The Italians used the same method towards them.’

And indeed the late change of the Jesuits in their Approbations plainly shews, that it is permitted to those of the Church of Rome to write and approve not so much according to their own Opinions, as to the Principles and Genius of the Country in which they live. For which reason the Fathers of the Society do no longer now, as formerly they were wont, take out their Licence from the General of their Order, but from their respective Provincials; who accommodate themselves to the current Doctrine of the place in which the Book is publish'd; without which it would be almost impossible for them to write in France, but they should be subject to the danger of a censure at Rome.

[Page xv] After this general account of the Nature of the Approbations of the Church of Rome, I shall spare both my self and Reader the trouble of examining the several Letters before the Exposition, though otherwise they lie open to many exceptions; only concerning his Holiness s Brief, which Monsieur de Meaux so much triumphs in, it may not be amiss to observe, that the last Pope, in whose time the Exposition came first to Rome with great Recommendation, yet never gave any Approbation to it; and that the present Pope did it ‘ upon occasion of L' Auteur—fit avec un tres profond respect ses tres humbles remercimens au Pape par une Lettre du 22. Nov. 1678. dont il recent reponse par un Bres de sa Sainteté du 4 Jan. 79. Avertiss. And in the Brief it self, Devotionem interim atque Observantiam quam erga sanctam hanc sedem nosque ipsos qui in eâ Catholicae Ecclesiae immerito praesidemus tuae ad Nos Literae luculenter declarant, mutuae charitatis affectu complectimur.] a submissive Letter of the Authors to him, and after the reports that he had heard of the great The Bishop of Strasburgh having accounted to his Holiness his design of Translating the Exposition into the German Language, Sa Sainteté lu [...] fit dire qu'il connoissoit ce livre, & qu'on luy raportoit de tous costez qu'il faisoit beaucoup de Conversions. Avertissement. Conversions that were every where made by it,’ to which such an Approbation would be likely to add a new force. So plain is the intrigue and design of this, that were the Popes Briefs otherwise of as great consideration, as the Papists themselves shew them to be of little value, yet this could not be regarded by us, as any other than a meer Artifice to deceive us, not a sincere, much less authoritative Approbation either of the Nature or Principles of Monsieur de Meaux's Book.

But whatever the Opinion either of the Pope or Papists has been of this Exposition, certain it is the Protestants have openly enough declared their thoughts concerning it; and the Exposition according [Page xvi] to the fate of all other great and extraordinary things, Card. Bona's Letter. has found enough on this side to oppose it.

It was but a very little time after the first Edition of it, that Monsieur Noguier and another Author well known, yet whose name I spare, because he has not thought fit himself to discover it, wrote against it; and with so much success, that the Papists themselves confest, 'That it was an ill Cause defended extremely well.

Monsieur de Turenne not long before that last Campagne in which he lost his Life, made great boasts of a Reply that was speedily to be publish'd to them; but after the long expectation of above eight Years, only an Advertisement was prefix'd to a new Edition of the Book, which neither touches at all the greatest part of the Exceptions that had been made against it, nor gives any satisfaction to those it do's take notice of.

It has been the constant method of Monsieur de Meaux, having once written, to leave his Tracts to the World, and take no care to defend them against those assaults, that seem with success enough to have been sometimes made upon them. We should think the great Employments, in which he has had the Honour to be engaged, might have been the cause of this, did not he who takes no care to defend his old Books, find still time enough to write new. Perhaps he looks upon his pieces to be of a Spirit and Force sufficient to despise whatever attempts can be made upon them; but sure he cannot be ignorant, that Protestants make another and far different Conclusion, and look upon those Opinions to be certainly indefensible, which so able and eminent an Author is content so openly, and, if I may be permitted to add it, so shamefully to forsake.

[Page xvii] What other Answers besides those I have now mentioned have been made to it, I cannot undertake to say; Two others only that I know of have been publish'd; the Author of the latter of which Monsieur de Brueys having in a very little time after his writing left his Religion, might have made a new instance of Monsieur de Meaux's Conquests, did not his inability to answer his own arguments against the Exposition, give us cause to believe, that some other Motives than those of that Book induced him so lightly to forsake a Cause, which he had so soundly and generously defended.

And now after so many Answers yet unreplied to, if any one desires to know what the design of the present undertaking is, they may please to understand, that having by a long Converse among the Papists of our own and other Countries perceived that either by the ignorance or malice of their Instructors, they have generally very false and imperfect Notions of our Opinions in the matters in Controversie between us, I have suffered my self to be perswaded to pursue the Method of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition as to the Doctrine of the Church of England; and oppose sincerely to what he pretends is the Opinion of the Roman Church, that form of Faith that is openly profess'd and taught without any disguise or dissimulation among us.

I was not unwilling to take the Method of Monsieur de Meaux for my direction, as well upon the account of the great Reputation both of the Book and of the Author, as because it is now some years that it has pass'd in our Language without any answer that I know of made to it. Besides, that the late new Impression made [Page xviii] of it, with all the advantages of the Advertisement and Approbations, which the later French Editions have added to it, seemed naturally to require some such Consideration.

I do not pretend by any thing of this to treat Monsieur de Meaux as an Enemy, but rather as both his great Learning, and that Character which I have ever learnt very highly to reverence, oblige me, to follow him as my Guide. To render an account to him and to the World what our differences are, and point out in passing some of those reasons that are the most usually given amongst us, wherefore we cannot totally assent to what he proposes.

I am perswaded the whole is done with that Charity and Moderation, that there is nothing in it that can justly offend the most zealous Enemy of our Church. If I knew of any thing in it that without dissembling the Truth might have been omitted, I sincerely profess I would most willingly have done it, being desirous to please all, that so, if it be the will of God, I may by any means gain some.

For this cause chiefly have I forborn to set my name to it, lest perhaps any prejudice against my Person, might chance to injure the Excellence of the Cause which I maintain.

This effect at least, if no other, I would willingly hope such a Treatise may have upon those of our Country that have been taught to believe very differently concerning us; That they would please no longer to form such horrible Ideas of our Profession as they have heretofore been wont to do; at least till it can be shewn that I have either palliated or prevaricated the [Page xix] Doctrine of the Church of England in this Exposition. Which I am yet so assured I have not done, that I here intirely submit both my self and it to her Censure; of whose Communion I esteem it my greatest Happiness that I am, and for whose preservation and Enlargement I shall never cease, as I ought, to pray.

[Page xxi]

A Collection of some of those Passages that were corrected in the first Edition of the EXPOSITION suppressed by Monsieur de Meaux: To which is added, the Censure of the Faculty of Louvain, upon some part of the Doctrine still remaining in it.

§ I.

MOnsieur de Meaux in the very beginning of his Book speaking of the design of it, had these Words:

1. Edit.

‘So that it seems then to be very proper to propose to them (the Protestants) the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, separating those Questions which the Church has decided, from those which do not belong to Faith. p. 1.’

It is evident, the meaning of Monsieur de Meaux in that passage must have been this; That whatsoever was either not at all contained in his Exposition, or was otherwise maintain'd by any particular Authors, beyond the Exposition he gives us of those Points which are here mentioned, was not to be look'd upon by us, as any of the Church's Decision, nor necessary to be received by us as matter of Faith.

I shall not need to say how many Doctrines and Decisions, not only of private Writers, but of the very Council of Trent it self, this would have at once cut off. It would perhaps have been one of the fairest [Page xxii] Advances towards an Union, that ever the Church of Rome yet offered. But it seems whatever Monsieur de Meaux supposed, this was thought too great a condescension by others: and he was therefore obliged, without changing any thing in his Book, to give us a quite other account of the design of it.

Later Editions.

‘So that it seems then we can do nothing better, than simply to propose to them (the Protestants) the sentiments of the Catholick Church, and distinguish them from those Opinions that have been falsely imputed to her.’

Which is but little to the Purpose.

II.

I Edit. p. 7, 8. ‘The same Church teaches, That all Religious Worship ought to terminate upon God, as its necessary End. So that the Honour which the Church gives to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints is religious, only because it gives them that Honour with relation to God, and for the love of him.’

‘So that then, so far ought one to be from blaming the Honour which we give to the Saints, as our Adversaries do, because it is Religious, that on the contrary it ought to be blamed if it were not Religious.’

There can be nothing more plain than that Monsieur de Meaux's Opinion, when he wrote this, was, That the Honour which the Church of Rome pays to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed is a Religious [Page xxiii] Honour; nay would deserve to be blamed if it were not Religious.

This was by others thought a little too ingenuous, and what would give too great an advantage to our objections against it. And therefore instead of that free, honest Confession, That the Church of Rome gives religious Honour to the Blessed Virgin and Saints departed, he now puts a doubt that insinuates the direct contrary, ‘The same Church teaches us, that all religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End; and if the Honour which she rendereth to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints, may in some sense be called Religious, it is for its necessary relation to God.’

So that really then the Honour they give their Saints in Monsieur de Meaux's opinion is Religious, but 'tis not fit that we should know it.

III.

Monsieur Daillé some years since wrote a Volume of the Tradition of the Primitive Church, concerning the Object of Religious Worship; in which he clearly shews that the first 300 years knew nothing of the Invocation of Saints, the Worship of Images, Crosses, and Reliques; of the Adoration of the Host, &c. Monsieur de Meaux in his first Exposition granted the whole, in these words since struck out, ‘For Monsieur Daillé, says he, he thinks fit to confine himself to the first three Centuries, in [Page xxiv] which it is certain that the Church more exercised in suffering than in writing, has left many things to be cleared afterwards both in its Doctrine and in its Practice. 1 Edit. p. 9.’

Now it being evident, notwithstanding this new thought, that the sufferings of the first 300 years have not hindred, but that we have very large accounts of its Doctrine and Practice from the Writings of those Fathers who lived in them; To confess that it is certain, that the Tradition of the Church of Rome fails in many things both in Doctrine and Practice for the first 300 years, is doubtless as fair a yielding up the Cause, as to the matter of Tradition, as we could desire; and therefore however known by Monsieur de Meaux to be most certainly true, was yet thought too much by others to be confessed to the World, by a person of so great Learning and Eminence in their Church.

IV.

As to the point of the Invocation of Saints, Monsieur de Meaux still shews us that he knows not what account to give of the grounds of it. He proposes several ways how the Saints may possibly know our Prayers, but cannot well tell us by which it is they do so.

But in the first Edition he shew'd yet more doubt: Not only which way the Saints hear them, but whether they hear them at all or no: Not only, whether they joyn with them in their Prayers, as they desire them to do, but whether it is not rather by some other means, yet more unknown to them, and not by their Intercession, that they receive the benefit of them. ‘The Church, says he, contents her self to teach with all Antiquity, these prayers to [Page xxv] be very profitable to such who make them; Whether it be the Saints know them by the Ministry and Communication of Angels, who according to the Testimony of Scripture know what passes amongst us; being established by Gods order as administring spirits to co-operate with us in the work of our salvation: Whether it be that God makes known to them our desires by a particular revelation: Or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his Divine Essence in which all truth is compriz'd.’

‘And that in the manner, and according to the measure which he pleases; or whether lastly by some other way yet more impenetrable and more unknown he causes us to receive the Fruit of those Prayers which we address to those blessed Souls. 1 Ed. p. 23.’

So that in effect, whether the Saints hear us or no, whether they joyn with us in our requests or no, according to Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, their Church knows not; which is sure a sufficient prejudice against their Invocation; and was, it seems, thought so by those who therefore caused all the latter part of this paragraph to be struck out, for fear of the advantage we might reasonably make of it.

V.

But if Monsieur de Meaux in his first Exposition freely confess'd how uncertain the grounds of this Invocation were, he no less freely left it to our choice whether we would practise it or not. He assured us there was no manner of obligation at all upon us so to [Page xxvi] do: And that the Church would not condemn us if we did it not, provided we refused it not out of contempt, or with a Spirit of dissension and Revolt. ‘Furthermore, says he, there is nothing so unjust as to accuse the Church of placing all her piety in these devotions to the Saints; since on the contrary she lays no obligation at all on particular persons to joyn in this Practice.’

By which it appears clearly that ‘ the Church condemns only those who refuse it out of contempt, and by a Spirit of dissension and revolt. 1 Ed. p. 33, 34.’

This was Monsieur de Meaux's first Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this point: But such as his Correctors it seems would not admit of: Who therefore obliged him wholly to strike out that passage, ‘That the Church imposes no obligation at all upon particular persons to practise this Invocation:’

And instead of condemning only those that refuse it out of contempt, or a Spirit of dissension and revolt, which had freed us wholly from their Anathema, to expound it now more severely. ‘That she condemns those who refuse this practice whether out of disrespect or Error.’

Which will be sure to bring us under it.

[Page xxvii]

VI.

In the article of Images Monsieur de Meaux having first laid down this foundation, ‘That the Church of Rome does not attribute to them any other virtue than that of exciting in us the remembrance of those whom they represent;’ added in his first Exposition which was suppressed, ‘'Tis in this consists the use and advantage of Images. 1 Edit. p. 25.’

And to assure us yet further how little Honour they had for them, concluded thus, ‘So that to speak properly, and according to the Ecclesiastical style, we do not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as we do honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image. 1 Edit. p. 26.’

Now though we do not doubt but that this is the real opinion of Monsieur de Meaux, and all which he himself does, yet to say that the Church of Rome does neither require, nor practise, nor intend any more, was to presume too much upon our Ignorance; and indeed to give too great a scandal to many of his own Communion, more zealous than himself for this service: And therefore we find it now expounded in a manner more conformable to the truth, though still exceedingly mollified, ‘ [Page xxviii]Tis upon this is founded the Honour which we give to Images: and again.’ ‘When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, our Intention is not so much to honour the Image, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image.’

VII.

In the Section of Justification Monsieur de Meaux has omitted this whole paragraph since his first Edition: ‘The Catholick Church, says he, is no where more invincible than in this point, and perhaps it would need no long discourse to shew, that the more one searches by the Scriptures into the design of the redemption. of Mankind, which was to make us Holy, the more one shall approach to our Doctrine, and the more depart from the opinions of Calvin, which are not maintainable, nay are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid piety. 1 Ed. p. 36, 37.’

Monsieur de Meaux may please some other time to expound to us, what those Opinions of Calvin in this matter are which the Church of Rome is so invincible in, and which all parties among them will agree to be so contradictory, and ruinous to all true and solid piety, as he then said.

[Page xxix] In the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on occasion of this Correction, that perhaps there are some in the Church of Rome of Mr. Calvin's mind in the worst of those Principles Monsieur de Meaux refers to, and to assure him that there are several Protestants in the World that are not; tho they dare not therefore so severely censure the Opinions of those that are.

IX.

Monsieur de Meaux having in a very few words explained the Doctrine of Justification, upon which the Council of Trent is so long and perplex'd, assured us in his first Exposition, That that was enough for any Man to know to make him a through Christian. ‘Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification; and our Adversaries would be extraordinarily contentious not to confess, that there is no need to know any more to be a solid Christian. 1 Ed. p. 47.’

This would have been of great advantage to us, and have freed us from the Anathema's of many other Particulars, of which we more doubt, than of any thing Monsieur de Meaux has expounded of it; but this others thought too great a Concession; and the Bishop therefore, without changing any thing in his Premises, was forced to draw a very different Conclusion from them. ‘Thus have you seen what is most necessary in the Doctrine of Justification, and our Adversaries [Page xxx] would be very unreasonable if they should not confess, that this Doctrine suffices to teach Christians, that they ought to refer all the Glory of their Salvation to God through Jesus Christ.’

X.

In the Article of Satisfaction, Monsieur de Meaux speaking of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin, and how the one may be retain'd when the other is forgiven, had this Paragraph in the first Edition, since struck out. ‘The Church has always acknowledged these two different manners of applying the Remission of Sins, which we have proposed; because she saw that in the Scriptures, besides the first Pardon, and which ought to be the only, if Men were not ungrateful, and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure Remission, there is another Absolution, and another Grace, that is proposed in form of a Judgment, where the Church ought not only to loose and remit, but also to bind and retain. 1 Edit. p. 54, 55.’

The Censure pass'd upon this, were enough to make one suspect, that either Monsieur de Meaux, or his Correctors, were sensible upon further Consideration, that they could not so easily find out these two forms, so distinguish'd in holy Scripture, or prove that the Church had always acknowledged them; and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it.

[Page xxxi]

XI.

In the Article of Confirmation, speaking of the Imposition of Hands, Monsieur de Meaux insinuated in his first Exposition, that it had always been accompanied with the use of Chrism ever since the Apostles. ‘Thus, says he, all Christian Churches have religiously retained this Practice, accompanying it (the Imposition of Hands) with holy Chrism. 1 Ed. p. 65.’

This was too clearly false to be suffer'd to pass, and therefore it is now more loose, so as to admit of an Equivocation, and yet seem to say still the same thing. ‘Thus all Christian Churches since the Apostles times have religiously retained it, making use also of holy Chrism.’

XII.

In the Article of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Monfieur de Meaux having expounded it according to our Principles, in his first Edition, concluded with us too. ‘So that it (the Mass) may, says he, be very reasonably called a Sacrifice: 1 Ed. p. 115.’

But since the Correction, the Conclusion is much strengthned, tho the Premises remain the same: ‘So that there is nothing wanting to it, to make it a true Sacrifice.’

[Page xxxii]

XIII.

As to the point of the Pope's Authority, the first Exposition ran much higher than it seems the Spirit of the Gallicane Church could bear. ‘So that our Profession of Faith obliges us as to this point, to believe the Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and to render a true Obedience to the Pope, the Successor of St. Peter, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. 1 Ed. p. 166.’ It is now more loose, and in general thus; ‘We acknowledg a Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles, to whom, for that cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful. 5 Ed. p. 210.’ But it may be what was struck out of the Exposition to please the Correctors, Monsieur de Meaux recompensed in his Letter to satisfy his Holiness.

XIV.

In the Conclusion, Monsieur de Meaux telling us that none of those Articles he had expounded, according to our own Principles, destroyed the Foundation of our Salvation, added in his first Exposition what that Foundation was, viz. ‘ [Page xxxiii]The Adoration of one only God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the Trust in one only Saviour. 1 Ed. p. 160.’

It is hard to say why this was not let pass, for we are unwilling to believe that the Church of Rome has any other Foundation for Salvation than this. But it may be to have put down this as the Foundation of Salvation, would have been too plainly to shew, that then we certainly have this, and that without mixture of any thing destructive thereunto.

XV.

Monsieur de Meaux go's on, in a very candid manner, since struck out; ‘In effect, says he, in all these Explications, which contain the very bottom of our Belief, there is not any one word repugnant to these two Principles, either directly, or by Consequence.’ ‘So that acknowledging then this, That the Church of Rome do's believe and profess all that is essential to preserve the substance of the Christian Religion, so that they cannot reasonably impute to us any Doctrine contrary thereunto, they must at the same time acknowledg, by their own Principles, that the Church of Rome is a true part of the Church of Christ, to which every Christian is obliged to unite himself in his Heart, and in effect as far as in him lies. 1 Ed.’

[Page xxxiv] Monsieur de Meaux may please to know, that we do confess the Church of Rome to be a part of the true Church, thô indeed we think one of the worst; and that we do with all our Hearts desire a Union with her; and in effect do shew it as far as we are able, by retaining whatever we can of the same Doctrines and Practices with her.

And if this were all they desired of us, as indeed it is all they ought, and all we can do: However an absolute Union would not thereby be obtained, yet might we live at least like Christians and Brethren, in a common Charity with one another, and so dispose our Minds, as by God's Grace to come in a little time to some better agreement in the rest too, than ever we are like to do without it.

These are some of those Passages that gave occasion to the correction we have spoken of at the Sorbon, and to the suppression of the whole first Edition, however authorized by the Bishops of France in the same words it now is. I might have added many more; but instead of it, will beg leave to offer the Reader one Correction made very lately by another Faculty, that of Louvain; if not immediatly of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, yet at least of a Doctrine which they were before-hand given to understand, was so explained in it.

Monsieur de Witte, Pastor and Dean of St. Maries, in the City of Mechlin, having, in a Discourse with some Persons of that City, on the 8th of July last, maintain'd the Authority of the Church and Pope, according to the manner of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition; complaint was made of him, first to the Inter-noaen, then to his Holiness himself, and four [Page xxxv] Propositions drawn up against him, as the Heads of his Heresy.

Monsieur de Witte maintain'd his Opinion in several Papers printed to that end; in the [Intituled, Prosecutio probationis locum Mat. 16. non recte refundi in Apostolorum principis successores.] 4th of which, after several other Authorities of Persons of their Church defending the same Doctrine; He tells them, ‘That the Golden Exposition of Faith of Nihil praeterea, ad sanam Catholicam, & Orthodoxam fidem deposcit aurea illa Expositio Catholicae fidei Jacobi Episcopi Condomensis, praeter Illustrissima Clarissimo [...]um Virorum Elogia, ipsius S. Patris Innocent. xi. peramantissimis literis comprebata. Monsieur the Bishop of Condom, required nothing more to the Sound, Catholic, and Orthodox Faith in this Matter; which Exposition, besides the Elogies of many other Eminent Persons, was also approved by our Holy Father Innocent the 11th himself, in his kind Letter to him.’

But all this could not prevail with them to respect his Doctrine ever the more for Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, or his Holinesses Brief. The Faculty of Divinity, at the command of the Nonce, and with the knowledg, no doubt, and assent of the Pope, to whom the whole Affair had been communicated, censured his Propositions, Nov. 3. 1685. and especially the second, in which Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition of the Catholick Faith was principally concerned, as scandalous and pernicious. ‘Judicamus eam censurari posse uti scandalosam & perniciosam.’

May those who insist so much on the Fidelity and Authority of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, please calmly to consider these things; and tell us how we [Page xxxvi] can rely on such an Exposition of their Doctrine, as notwithstanding so many formal Approbations; first, of the Bishops of France, was yet corrected in so many places by the Sorbon; and secondly, of the Pope, Cardinals, and others in Italy, and of the whole Body of the Clergy of France in their Assembly; has yet so lately been censured, at the command of the Nonce, and with the consent of his Holiness, by the Faculty of one of their most eminent Universities, to be scandalous and pernicious.

A TABLE OF THE ARTICLES Contained in this TREATISE.

I. THe Introduction. Page. 3
II. That Religious Worship is to be paid to God only. 6
III. Of the Invocation of Saints. 9
IV. Of Images and Relicks. 13
V. Of Justification. 19
VI. Of Merits. 21
VII. Of Satisfactions, Purgatory, and Indulgences. 24

PART II.

VIII. Of the Sacraments in general. 33
IX. Of Baptism. 35
X. Of Confirmation. 39
XI. Of Penance and Confession. 40
XII. Of Extream Unction. 44
XIII. Of Marriage. 45
XIV. Of Holy Orders. 46
XV. Of the Eucharist; and first of the Explication of those words, This is my Body. 47
XVI. Do this in remembrance of Me. 54
[Page] XVII. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning this holy Sacrament. 55
XVIII. Of Transubstantiation, and of the Adoration of the Host. 58
XIX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 62
XX. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 67
XXI. Reflections upon the foregoing Doctrine. 69
XXII. Of communicating under one kind. 72

PART III.

XXIII. Of the Word written and unwritten. 75
XXIV. Of the Authority of the Church. 76
XXV. The Opinion of the Church of England, as to the Authority of the Church. 80
XXVI. The Authority of the holy See and of Episcopacy. 81
XXVII. The Close. 82

ERRATA.

PReface] Page xxix the number of the Sections mistaken to the end. P. xxxii. l. 15. dele 5 Ed. p. 210. P. xxxiv. l. 28. r. Mechlin, ib. l. 33. r. Inter-nonce. Book.] P. 13. l. 10. r. Practise. P. 20. l. 5. r. works it in us. P. 22. in the Margin, l. 9. del. 16. P. 23. the same. P. 24. Marg. del. p. 66. P. 34. l. 18. r. Vertut. P. 36. l. 13. r. Mr. de Meaux. l. 14. Charity. P. 40. l. 13. r. Vertue. P. 69. Marg. ib. r. ver. 24.

[Page 3]

AN EXPOSITION OF THE Doctrine of the Church of England In the several Articles expounded by Monsieur de MEAUX.

I. The Introduction.

IT has always been esteemed more reasonable to doubt of Principles first, and then to deny the Conclusions that are drawn from them, than having granted the Foundation, afterwards to cavil at the clear and necessary Deductions from it.

To profess that ‘Religious Worship is due to God only;’ and at the same time to say that we ought to adore Men and Women, Crosses and Images, and all that infinite variety of Follies which these latter Ages have set forth under the pious name of Relicks. To declare, ‘That we are saved only by Christ's Merits;’ and yet still continue to teach us that we ought to set up our own. In a word, to say, ‘That the Death of Christ was a perfect Sacrifice, and one drop of his Blood more than sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind;’ [Page 4] and nevertheless go on to require our Satisfactions as necessary too, and oblige us to believe that other Propitiatory Sacrifices besides that of the Cross, ought to be offered up continually to God in his Church, for the Sins both of the Dead and the Living: This must certainly be the part of a Disputant, either too ignorant to understand, or too obstinate to submit to any Conviction.

Monsieur de Meaux, the design of whose Exposition seems rather to be an Apology for the Popish Religion, than a free Assertion and Vindication of its Errors, is above all things sensible of the Justice of this Reflection: and therefore endeavours by all means possible in the very entry of his Treatise to prepare his Reader against it, By shewing ‘ the Injustice of charging Consequences upon Men which they do not allow; and that therefore tho their Superstructure should chance to overthrow their Foundation, yet since they profess not to know that it does so, they ought not to be taxed with what they do not believe.’

It is not deny'd but that Consequences may be sometimes either so obscure, or so far distant, that a Person prejudicate for the Principle, may well be excused the charge of a Collection, which his Actions shew he neither believes nor approves. But when the Conclusions, as well as Principles, are plain and confess'd, and the Dispute is only about the Name, not the Thing; we must beg leave to profess, that we cannot chuse but say that he believes not as he ought the infinite Merits of Christ's Sacrifice, who requires any other Offering for Sin; and that no subtilty of Argument will ever perswade us that those destroy not their Principle of worshipping God only, whom we see, contrary to his express Command, prostrate every [Page 5] day before an Image, with Prayers and Hymns to Creatures that have been subject to like Infirmities with our selves, and that are perhaps at this very time in a worser Estate, than the most miserable of those that call upon them for their assistance.

Be it therefore allow'd to be as great a Calumny, as Monsieur de Meaux can suppose it, to accuse Men of Consequences obscure and disavow'd; the Opinions we charge the Church of Rome with, are plain and confess'd, the Practice and Prescription of the chiefest Authority in it. And to refuse our Charge of them, is in good earnest nothing else than to protest against a matter of Fact; a Plea, which even Justice it self has told us, may without Calumny be rejected as invalid.

However, thus much at least we have got by this Reflection, that it directs us to the true State of the Controversy between us; and shews, That we, who have been so often charged by the Church of Rome as Innovators in Religion, are at last by their own confession, allow'd to hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith; and that the Question between us therefore is not, Whether what we hold be true? which is on all hands agreed, 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 indeed overthrow that Truth which is on both sides allow'd to be Divine; and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them?

The Declaration of this, not so much by any new proof, as by clearing rather the true state of those Points which are the subject of our Difference, is the design of the following Articles; in which I shall [Page 6] endeavour to give a clear and free account of what we can approve, and what it is that we dislike in their Doctrine; and as far as the shortness of this Discourse will allow, touch also upon some of those Reasons that are the most usually given by us for both.

ARTICLE II. That Religious Worship is to be paid to God only.

THat Religious Worship is due to God only, how necessary soever those Practices of the Roman Church, which we are hereafter to consider, may have rendred it to Monsieur de Meaux to declare, yet is it, we suppose, but little necessary for us to say,

We firmly believe, that ‘the inward acknowledgment of his Divine Excellencies as the Creator and Lord of all things, is a part of the supream Worship that is due to him. We believe that all the Powers of our Soul ought to be tied to him by Faith, Hope, and Charity, as to that God who alone can establish and make us happy.’ And tho we do not think that there is now any sensible, or material Sacrifice to be offered to Him under the Gospel, as there was heretofore under the Law; yet do we with all Antiquity suppose the Sacrifice of Prayer and Thanksgiving to be so peculiarly his due, that it cannot, without derogation to his Honour, be applied to any other.

What our Opinion is of that Worship which the Roman Church pays to the Blessed Virgin, and Saints [Page 7] departed, we shall hereafter fully shew: But certainly great was the difference of those Holy Men whom Monsieur de Meaux mentions as their fore-runners in this practice, from the present manner of the Popish Invocation. Gregory Nazianzen in a Rhetorical Apostrophe, called to Constantius in one, to his Sister Gorgonia in another Oration, but he prayed to neither. St. Basil; St. Ambrose; St. J. Chrysostom; St. Hierom; St. Augustin; they desired sometimes that the Martyr or Saint would joyn with them in their requests, but they were rather Raptures and Wishes, than direct Prayers; and their formal Petitions, but especially those of the Church, were only to God Almighty. They doubted whether the Saints could hear them or no; and were rather inclined to believe that they could not. The Addresses of the Mind, which the Church of Rome allows no less than the others to them, they look'd upon to be so peculiarly God's due, that they supposed he did not communicate them to the very Angels that are in Heaven. They declared against all thoughts of being assisted by the Merits of their Saints, or that God would ever the more readily, or indeed so soon accept their Prayers coming by the Intercession of another, as if they had gone themselves directly to the Throne of Grace. In a word; they never imagined that this was an Honour due to them; but, on the contrary, constantly taught that it was a Service belonging only to God Almighty.

Well therefore might And that it is the most he does; See de Cult. Lat. l. 3. c. 18. Monsieur Daillé refer the beginnings of this Invocation to these Men, whose innocent Wishes, and Rhetorical Flights, being still increased by the Superstition of after-Ages, first gave birth to this Worship. But certainly the Romanists cannot with any reason alledge them in favour of [Page 8] their Error, till it be shewn either that we are mistaken in those differences we have here declared to be between what they did, and what the Church of Rome now practises; or that they are otherwise proved to be so inconsiderable, as not to make any notable alteration in it. And yet that the Ages before knew nothing, even of this, not only their confessed inability to produce any Proofs from them of this Superstition, but the contrary Testimonies of the undoubted Writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Novatian, and Others, so plainly shew, that it ought not to be esteemed at all rash at this distance to assert, that in this very small Change, the Fathers of the fourth Century, did certainly begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of those before them. And if that Reason of the Church of Rome be of any strength, why they pray'd not to the Holy Men under the Old Testament, viz. because they were not then admitted to the sight of God, and therefore ought not to be prayed to. It seems to us that not only the greater part of the Primitive Fathers, but even those very Men Monsieur de Meaux mentions, could not certainly have allowed such an Invocation as is now used in their Church; the most of them being notoriously known, and even by their own Writers freely confessed, to have believed the same, That neither do the Saints and Confessors of the Christian Church any more enjoy the Presence of God even now.

Thus much was thought fit to be said to remove that Prejudice Monsieur de Meaux had thrown in the way. We go on now with him to consider the Doctrine it self, and what our Church's Opinion is of it.

[Page 9]

ARTICLE III. Of the Invocation of Saints.

THE Invocation of Saints, as it is stated by Monsieur de Meaux, we look upon to be one of those Practices which our Church stiles, ‘fond things, vainly invented, and grounded upon no Warrant of Holy Scripture, but indeed repugnant to God's Word.’ Artic. xxii. Monsieur de Meaux himself dares not say that they do or can ordinarily by any ability in themselves, hear, see, or know, the Wants, State, or Prayers of Men upon Earth, to be mindfull of them unto God in Heaven. Nor can it ever be proved that by any of those ways which he proposes, but seems himself not to lay any great stress upon, they are certainly and particuly communicated to them.

We think therefore, that till this be cleared, it is too great a hazard to leave a Mediator, who both certainly knows our wants, and has promised to hear us; that has invited us, nay commanded us to come to him in all our Needs, to go to Intercessors which God has no where appointed, and which we can never be sure our Prayers shall come up to. It sufficeth not that they may know some things, in some places, at some times, and of some Men extraordinarily, unless we could tell what Saints, and what things, and in what places, and at what times, they do know them. When this is cleared, it may then be more reasonable to desire us to joyn with them in this Service. In the mean time, tho we should not charge [Page 10] them with Idolatry meerly for this, yet we must needs confess we cannot but think these Addresses to be too full of hazard and uncertainty to venture any Requests at all, much less so many as they do every day, upon them.

In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to defend the Innocence of this Invocation, whilst he forgets to shew us the Reasonableness of it. We should be pleased indeed to be assured of that; but we cannot be convinced that we ought to joyn in the Practice till we are satisfied of the other too. And yet we cannot but regret, that if their design be truly no more than this, to entreat the Saints to pray for them, we should find the greatest part of their Service addressing to them after so contrary a manner; that they would interpose not only their Intercessions, but their Merits too for their forgiveness: Not only that they would pray to God for them, but that they would themselves bless them. That the Angels and Saints ‘ would give them Strength, Grace, Health, and Power. That St. Peter would have Mercy upon them, and open to them the Gate of Heaven. That the Blessed Virgin would protect them from their Enemies, and receive them at their Death: In a word, that she would command her Son to forgive them by that Right, which as This Passage is often deny'd: See Cassander Consult. in Art. 21. a Mother she had over him.’ All which their very publick Rituals so far allow, that the Service which is paid to God in his Church by the Mediation of Christ, is infinitely exceeded by the Addresses of this nature, through the Merits of the Virgin Mary, and of the Saints.

Now if these Prayers signify no more than, as Monsieur de Meaux expounds them, to entreat the Saints to pray for them, why have we such Scandal given us in the Practice? If they intend really what [Page 11] we suppose, and what their words do certainly signify; what Ingenuity can it be to impose upon us in the Declaration? However at least they will please to excuse us that we have fallen at so just a stumbling Block; and charged them as derogating from the Merits of Christ, whilst they have thus cry'd up the Merits of their Saints, and of a Presumption unwarrantable, if not wholly Idolatrous, in desiring any but God alone to help, and succour, and give them those Blessings, which God only has power to dispense.

1. When therefore we shall be certainly assured that all that infinite number which the Church of Rome has canonized, are truly and infallibly Saints.

2. When we shall be assured that these Saints do already enjoy the Presence of God Almighty; a Circumstance which the Papists themselves confess necessary to warrant their Invocation.

3. When it shall be made undoubtedly appear, that either by their own Knowledg, or by some other Revelation, they do ordinarily and particularly understand all the Requests that are made to them; so that we can be as secure of their hearing us, as when we desire our Brethren upon Earth to pray for us.

4. When the Liturgies of their Church shall be reformed, and all those dangerous Insinuations of the Merit and Personal Assistance of their Saints be removed.

5. When those desperate Doctrines, and yet more desperate Addresses of their School-men and Controvertists, which scandalize the more moderate even of their own Party, shall be censured.

6. And Men taught to practise this Invocation with such Sobriety, as neither to make it so freely and publickly their Worship as they do, nor with any Opinion of being either sooner heard, or more effectually [Page 12] answered by this way of Address, than by going directly to God by our Saviour and only Mediator Jesus Christ.

7. In a word, when even an Invocation so moderated, shall be shewn either to have been commanded by God Almighty, or to have been advised by his Apostles, or to have been practised ordinarily and directly by the most Primitive Christians: Or lastly, but to be no way injurious to the excellent Goodness of that Intercessor, who has so kindly invited, and even conjured us to come to Him in all our needs; Then will we not fail to joyn our Ora pro Nobis with them: But till then we must beg leave to conclude with a Charity and Moderation, which we suppose they themselves cannot but approve in us, That it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Holy Scripture, but rather indeed contrary thereunto.

And what we have now said of their Prayers, we must in the next place apply to their Sacrifices too. To mention the Names of the Holy Saints departed in the Communion; this we look upon to be a Practice as innocent as 'tis ancient. So far are we from condemning it in them, that we practise it our selves. We name them at our Altars, we give God thanks for their Excellencies, and pray to him for Grace to follow their Examples. But as we allow thus much to their Memories, so we cannot but condemn that Practice which Monsieur de Meaux seems to have omitted, tho yet the chief thing that offends us; that they recommend the Offerings which they make to God, through the Merits of their Saints which they commemorate, and desire that by their Merits they may become available to the Churches needs. As if Christ himself, whom they suppose to be the Sacrifice, needed the [Page 13] Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana, to recommend him to his Father: Or, that the Merits of an Offering, which they tell us is the very same with that of the Cross, should desire the joynt Deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our Forgiveness.

They who shall consider these things as they ought, will, we doubt not, confess that we have some reason to complain, both that they derogate herein from Christ's Merits, and attribute to their Saints more than they ought to do. If this Practice be reformed, our Complaint, as to this point, ceaseth. If it be not, in vain does Monsieur de Meaux endeavour to perswade us, that they only name their Saints to give God thanks for their Excellencies, whilst their publick Practice avows, that they desire both the pardon of their Sins, and even the acceptance of their very Sacrifices themselves, by their Mediation.

ARTICLE IV. Of Images and Relicks.

VVHat the Opinion of the Church of England is concerning the Worship of Images and Relicks, will need no long Declaration to shew, they being joyn'd by her in the same Article with that of the Invocation of Saints before-mentioned, and by Artic. XXII. consequence, submitted by her to the same Censure.

But then, as we before complained, that both the Practice of their Church in the publick Liturgies of it, and the approved Doctrine of their most reputed Writers, should so far contradict what Monsieur de [Page 14] Meaux would have us think is their only design in that Service; so we cannot but repeat the same Complaints in this: That if all the use their Church would have made of Images and Relicks, be only to excite the more lively in their Minds the remembrance of the Originals, not only the People should be suffered to fall into such gross Mistakes, as 'tis undeniably evident they do, in their Worship of them; but even their Teachers be permitted without any Reproof to confirm them in their Errors.

Has St. Thomas and his Followers, nay, and even their Pontifical it self, ever yet been censured by them, for maintaining in plain terms, that the Image of the Cross ought to be worshipped with the same Worship as that Saviour who suffered on it? Have the Jesuits been condemned for teaching Men to swear by it? Does not their whole Church upon Good-friday yet address her self to it in these very dangerous words, Behold the Wood of the Cross! Come, let us adore it. And do not their Actions agree with their Expressions, and the whole Solemnity of that day's Service plainly shew, that they do adore it in the utmost propriety of the Phrase? Does she not pray to it, that in this time of the Passion, it would strengthen the Righteous, and give Pardon to the Guilty? Is the Hymn for the day of the Invention corrected, wherein they profess that the Cross heals their Sicknesses, ties up the Devil, and gives them Newness of Life; and thereupon desire it to save its Assembly, gathered together in its honour? Is the manner of consecrating them changed, in which they intreat God to bless the Image of the Cross which they there sanctify, that it may be for the establishment of their Faith, an increase of their good Works, the Redemption of their Souls, and their Protection [Page 15] against the cruel Darts of the Enemy? That Christ would embrace this Cross, over which they pray, as he did that upon which he suffer'd: That as by that he delivered the whole World from its Guilt; so by the Merits of this, they who dedicate it may receive remission of their Sins. In a word, that as many as bow down before it, may find health both of their Souls and Bodies by it.

And is all this in good earnest no more than to excite more lively in our minds the remembrance of Him that loved us, and delivered himself to the Death for us, and to testifie by some outward marks our acknowledgment of that favour, by humbling our selves in presence of the Cross, to declare thereby our submission to Him that was crucified.

Is not this rather, if not absolutely to fall into, yet certainly too nearly to approach to that which Monsieur de Meaux himself confesses to be Idolatry, viz. to trust in the Images as if there were some divinity or virtue joyned to them, and for which they not only shew all imaginable marks of outward Worship, by Kissings, Prostrations, and the like Ceremonies; but make as formal Addresses to them, and that in the publick Service of the Church, as to God himself?

How this allow'd practice can be reconciled with the prohibition of the Council of Trent, ‘Not to believe any Divinity or Virtue tied to their Images for which they ought to be adored; nor to demand any Grace of them, nor place any Trust or Confidence in them;’Monsieur de Meaux may please to expound to us. In the mean time, as we are so far from condemning the making of all sorts of Images, that we think it not any Crime to have the Histories of the Gospel caryed or painted in our very Churches, which the [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] Walls and Windows of several of them do declare: As we publickly use the sign of the Cross in one of our very Sacraments, and censure no Man for practising it, only without Superstition, on any other occasion: so we cannot but avow the Scandal that is given us by those Doctrines and Practices before mentioned; and that we think that Worship justly to be abolished which the Primitive Church abhorred, and which at this day scandalizes not only so great a number of Christians, but even our common Enemy the Jew & Turk: In a word, which is so far from being commanded by God, that it needs many nice Distinctions to render it not directly opposite to an express Prohibition; and is therefore if not down-right Idolatry to those who know how to direct their Intention aright, yet to the Simple and Ignorant, that is, to the much greater number, and the most zealous practioners of this Service, so very near it, that the Generality of the wisest Papists, no less than We, complain of it.

For the honour that is due to Reliques, no Protestant will ever refuse what ever the Primitive Church paid them; or may be fit to express the Honour we ought to retain for those Bodies that by Martyrdom have been made Sacrifices to God Almighty. If this be all Mr. de Meaux desires of us, we are ready to profess our Opinion, that we judg it to be neither offensive to God, nor fit to be scrupled by any good Man.

We believe that according to the Circumstances of the Times, the Church may testify this Honour by more or less outward Signs and Marks of Respect. And we do with satisfaction read that Declaration of Mr. de Meaux, That we ought not to be servilely subjected to these outward Ceremonies, but to be invited by them to offer up to God that reasonable [Page 17] service, in Spirit and in Truth, which he requires of us. And if this be the State of the Question, we confess the Explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty.

But what then means the Council of Trent, to tell us, That we are not only to honour them, but to worship them too? That by doing so, we shall obtain many Benefits and Graces of God. That these sacred Monuments are not unprofitably revered, but are to be sought unto for the obtaining their help and assistance; to cure the Sick, to give Eyes to the Blind, Feet to the Lame, and even Life to the Dead. How comes it to pass that their Church not only honours them, which we could allow, but carries them in Processions, makes Offerings to them, gives Indulgences to such as shall go to visit them; prescribes Pilgrimages to them, swears by them, touches their Beads, or Hankerchiefs, with them to sanctify them; thinks to obtain one Blessing by virtue of this Relick, another from that; and the like superstitious usages, which we suppose we have good reason with our Church, to conclude to be ‘fond things, vainly invented, and grounded upon no Authority Art. xxii. of Holy Scripture, but indeed repugnant thereunto.’

When therefore all these Abuses which we have named, and which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to allow with us to be such, shall be corrected: When in the matter of Images, 1. The Hymns and Addresses that teach us, so contrary to the Spirit of Christianity, to demand Graces of them, and to put our Trust in them, shall be reformed; St. Thomas and his Abettors censured; and all other Marks of an unwarrantable Worship be forbidden. 2. When the Pictures of God the Father, and of the holy Trinity, so directly contrary both to the second Commandment, and to St. Paul's Doctrine, shall be taken away, and those of our Saviour, and the blessed Saints be by all necessary Cautions rendred truly the Books, not [Page 18] Snares of the Ignorant. When in points of Relicks, 3. they shall be declared to have no sanctifying Virtue in them: 4. Nor that they ought to be sought to for any Assistance Spiritual or Temporal to be expected from them. 5. When it shall be resolved to be no matter of Merit to go to visit them: 6. Nor any more extravagant Indulgences be set forth for Pilgrimages unto them: When all these things which Monsieur de Meaux passes over, and which yet are undeniably their Practice and our Scandal, shall be corrected; Then will we both believe and submit to the rest which he desires of us: We will honour the Relicks of the Saints as the Primitive Church did: we will respect the Images of our Saviour, and the Blessed Virgin: And as some of us now bow towards the Altar, and all of us are enjoyned to do so at the Name of the Lord Jesus; so will we not fail to testify all due Respect to his Representation. In the mean time, if the Outcries of their own Church at these Abuses cannot prevail with them to redress them, yet at least they will confirm us in the Reformation we have made of them; and whilst we find Hezekiah commended in the holy Scripture for destroying the Brazen Serpent, thô made by God's express Command, and in some sort deservedly honourable for that great Deliverance it brought to the Jews, Because the Children of Israel 2 King. 18. offered Incense unto it. We shall conclude our selves to be by so much the more justifiable, in that the Images we have removed were due only to the Folly and Superstition of Men, and have been more scandalously abused, to a worser and greater dishonour of God.

[Page 19]

ARTIC. V. Of Justification.

THE Doctrine of Justification is one of those Points that deserves our careful Consideration; as being not only one of the chiefest of those Points wherein we suppose the Church of Rome to have prevaricated the Faith, but as Monsieur de Meaux remarks, one of the first that gave occasion to that Reformation that was made from it.

It is not necessary to say to what an Extravagance the business of Pardons, Indulgences, and other means of satisfying the Divine Justice, was arrived; and how much more confidence the People generally put in the Inventions of Men, than in the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ. If they have been somewhat better instructed since, they may thank the Reformation for it: tho we fear all the difference is, that they are somewhat more reserved in exposing these Follies now, but yet still retain the Foundation of that Doctrine upon which they are built.

We willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux this honour, that he has reduced the long Decrees of the Council of Trent to a short and easie Debate; and proposed the things which contain our Difference with such tenderness, as might invite us to close with a great part of it, did not the Decrees of the Council seem too plainly to refuse Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition of them.

We believe with him, ‘That our Sins are freely forgiven by God's Mercy through Christ; and that none of those things which precede our Justification, whether our Faith, or our good Works, could merit this Grace.’

‘We are perswaded that our Sins are not only covered, but are entirely done away by the Blood of Jesus Christ.’

‘We confess that the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only imputed, but actually communicated to the Faithful, through the operation of the holy Spirit, in [Page 20] so much that they are not only reputed, but made just by his Grace’

‘We deny not that this Righteousness is a true Righteousness, even in the sight of God; because that it is God who by Charity works in us:’only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our Sins, which Monsieur de Meaux seems content to confess with us.

‘We willingly acknowledg that our Righteousness is not perfect in this Life. Whilst we are in the Body, the Flesh will lust against the Spirit, and in many things we shall offend all.’ The Life of a Christian is a continued state of Repentance: and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with St. Augustine; ‘That our Righteousness in this Life, consisteth rather in the Remission of our Sins, than in the Perfection of our Vertue.’

In a word; the sum of our Difference as to this Point, seems to be this. Our Church by Justification, understands only the Remission of our Sins: We distinguish it from Sanctification, which consists in the production of the Habit of Righteousness in us. We believe our Sins are pardoned only through the Merits of Christ imputed to us. And for the rest, we say, that this Remission of Sins is given only to those that repent; that is, in whom the holy Spirit produces the Grace of Sanctification, for a true Righteousness and Holiness of Life.

The Church of Rome comprehends under the notion of Justification, not only the Remission of Sins, but also the production of that inherent Righteousness, which we call Sanctification. They suppose with us, that our Sins are forgiven only by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. But then as they make that inward Righteousness a part of Justification too; so by consequence, they say our Justification it self is wrought also by our own good Works.

[Page 21] It appears by this, that were these things clearly stated, and distinguish'd the one from the other, the difference between us, considered only in the Idea, would not be very great: And that we might safely allow whatsoever Monsieur de Meaux has advanced upon this point, provided it be but well and rightly explained; tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us; and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the Expressions of holy Scripture.

The sum of all is this. Christ died, and by that Death satisfied the Justice of God for us. God therefore through the Merits of his Son, freely forgives us all our Sins, and offers us a Covenant of Mercy and Grace. By this Covenant, founded only upon the Death and Merits of Christ, he sends us his Holy Spirit, and calls us powerfully to Repentance. If we awake and answer this Call, then God by his free Goodness justifies us; that is, he pardons our Sins past, gives us Grace more and more to fulfil his Commands for the time to come; and if we persevere in this Covenant, crowns us finally with Eternal Life. And all this he is pleased to do, not for any thing which we have, or can perform, but only through the Merits and Satisfaction of his Son by Faith applied to us.

This is the Foundation wherein Monsieur de Meaux seems content to agree with us. We go on to see how the following Doctrine will stand upon this Foundation.

ARTIC. VI. Of Merits.

FOR what concerns the Merits of Good Works, we are content to accept of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition; ‘That eternal life ought to be proposed to Man as the Grace of God mercifully bestow'd upon us through Jesus Christ, and as a recompence that is faithfully rendred [Page 22] to their good Works, and to the merits of them by vertue of Gods Promise.’

The word Merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the Church; and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made on occasion of that expression, we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the Merit, and press more strongly the Necessity of good Works: Yet if it be understood so as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it, That all our Merit derives its force only from the Merits of Jesus Christ, who works in us both to will and to do; and when we have done, renders by the same Merits our good Works acceptable to God, and available to our Eternal Life, we shall not be difficult to allow of it.

If this be All the Church of Rome ascribes to Good works, that our Justification proceeds absolutely from God's Bounty and Mercy, and but accidentally only (in as much as God has tied himself by his Word and Promise to reward them) from our own Performances; We need no long exhortations to receive a Doctrine which we have always defended against such of the Church of Rome as have opposed it, and are not yet, that we know of, censured for their so doing.

That which we reject is, ‘That we do as truly and properly merit Rewards when we do well, as we do merit Punishment when we do ill: so says the Jesuit Maldonate. That our Good Works do merit Eternal Life Ezek. 18. 20. condignly, not only by reason of God's Covenant and Acceptation, but also by reason of the Work it self;’ so says Cardinal Bellarmine. All which Vasquez sums up in the three De Justif. l. 5. c. 17. Vasqu [...]z in D. Th. 1, 2ae [...] 114. d. [...]14. c. 5. following Conclusions; ‘1. That the Good Works of just Persons are of themselves, without any Covenant or Acceptation, worthy of the reward of Eternal Life, and have an equal value of Condignity to the obtaining of Eternal Glory. [...]. That there comes no accession of Dignity to 16. c. 7. [Page 23] the Works of just Persons by the Merits or Person of Christ, which the same would not otherwise have, if they had been done by the same Grace bestowed freely by God alone without Christ. 3. That God's Promise is 16. c. 8. indeed annex'd to the Works of just Men, but yet belongs no way to the Merit of them, but cometh rather to the Works themselves, which are already not only worthy, but meritorious also.’From all which he draws this remarkable Corallary; ‘Seeing the Works of just Disp. 222. c. 3. n. 30, 31. Men do merit Eternal Life, as an Equal Recompence and Reward, there is no need that any other condign Merit, such as that of Christ, should interpose, to the end that Eternal Life might be rendred to them.—Wherefore we never pray to God that by the Merits of Christ, the Reward of Eternal Life may be given to our worthy and meritorious Works; but that Christ's Grace may be given to us, whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this Reward.’

This is that Doctrine of good Works which we most justly do detest: And if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be so directly opposite to it as Monsieur de Meaux professes, we are a little surprised that no Index Expurgatorius, no authentick Censure, has ever taken notice of so dangerous a Prevarication. But contrary-wise, these are the great Authors of their Party, approved, embraced, and almost adored, by the Greatest and most Learned of that Communion.

These are the Principles which we suppose to have been an unwarrantable derogation to the Grace of God, and directly opposite to the nature of Justification by Faith in Christ, before established. And tho this point was far from being the only cause of our Separation from their Communion, yet let Mr. de Meaux himself please to say, whether such a Doctrine of Merits as this were not sufficient, if not to engage us wholly to leave a [Page 24] Church that taught such things, yet at least to dissent from her in these Particulars.

ARTIC. VII, &c. Of Satisfactions, Purgatory, and Indulgences.

THE whole of this Point we think to be the advancement of a Doctrine grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture, but on the contrary, derogatory to God's Mercy in Jesus Christ, and, as the Doctrine of Merits before considered, inconsistent with the nature of that Justification we before establish'd.

Monsieur de Meaux was pleased there to tell us, of God's justifying us freely for Christ's Merits: That our Sins are not only covered, but entirely done away by his Mercy; and the Sinner not only reputed, but made just by his Grace. We cannot but be troubled to see our selves so soon deprived of this excellent Hope; and required our selves to satisfy God's Justice here, which he assured us was entirely done for us by Christ before.

‘When Christ, says Monsieur de Meaux, who alone was able to make a sufficient Satisfaction for our Sins, died for us; having by his Death abundantly satisfied for See aboue p. 66. them, he became capable of applying that Satisfaction to us after two very different manners; Either by giving us an entire Forgiveness of our Sins, without reserving any Pains for us to undergo for them; or in changing only a greater Pain into a lesser, the Eternal Torments of Hell into a Temporal Punishment.’

‘The former of these being the more entire, and the more agreeable to the Divine Goodness, he accordingly makes use of it at our Baptism:’But we suppose he gives the second only to them who after [Page 25] Baptism fall again into sin; being in a manner forced to it through the Ingratitude whereby they have abused his former Gifts, so that they are to suffer some Temporal pain, tho the eternal be remitted to them.

This is a very great Doctrine, and ought certainly to have some better Proof of it, than barely We suppose. However it be, our Church has declared its self of an opinion directly contrary: That since the absolute forgiving of sin is Confessed to be the more perfect way, and more becoming the Divine Goodness; and that God has never, that we know of, revealed any other; but rather has constantly encouraged us to expect his Pardon after the largest and most ample manner that it is possible for words to set forth; We are persuaded that accordingly whenever God do's pardon, it is in that way which is the most suitable to his Divine goodness, and which alone he hath declared to us, that he do's it intirely for Christs merits, not for any Works or Sufferings of our own.

In vain therefore does Monsieur de Meaux labour to reconcile this Doctrine with Christ's absolute Satisfaction. We confess ‘that we ought not to dispute with God the manner of his Dispensations; Nor think it at all strange if he who shews himself so easie at our Baptism, is afterwards more difficult for those sins which we commit being Baptized.’ There is nothing in all this but what we could most readily allow of, were there but any tollerable Arguments to establish the Doctrine that requires it.

But whilst this is so destitute of all Proof, that it is acknowledged to introduce a manner of forgiveness neither so intire, nor so befitting Gods mercy as a total remission of the Punishment, together with the Guilt; whilst we have the Sufferings of Christ to rely [Page 26] upon, which are so far from needing any addition of our own, that they are Confessed to have been Super-abundant to whatever the divine Justice could require of us; Tho we can and do practice the same Discipline for the other benefits of it, viz. To shew our Indignation against our selves that we have offended, and to keep us from sinning for the future; yet we cannot be so forgetful of our dear Master, as to pretend to any part in that Redemption, but only to enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness, which by his alone Merits he has intirely purchased for us; nor do we see any reason to believe that Gods Justice will require any more, than what has been Super-abundantly paid upon the Cross for the Iniquities of mankind.

'Tis true, Monsieur de Meaux tells us, ‘That the necessity of this Payment does not arise from any defect in Christ's Satisfaction, but from a certain Order which God has establish'd for a salutary Discipline, and to keep us from offending.’

This indeed were something, would either Monsieur de Meaux have been pleased to shew us this Establistment, or had not the Council of Trent declared more, viz. ‘ That the Justice of God requires it; Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 8. and that therefore the Confessors should be charged to Proportion the Satisfaction to the Crime.’ From whence Cardinal Bellarmine concludes, ‘That it is L. 1. de purg. c. 14. We who properly satisfie for our own sins, and that Christs Satisfaction serves only to make ours Valid.’ This is an Exposition somewhat different from Monsieur de Meaux's, who will have the Church of Rome believe, ‘That we do not our selves satisfie in the least for our sins, but only apply the infinite Satisfaction of Christ to them.’

Upon the whole it appears, 1. That these Penances [Page 27] are not only a Salutary discipline, but a Satisfaction too. 2. They change the Mercy of God into a forgiveness, that is confessed neither to be in its self Perfect, nor so becoming the Divine goodness as an intire remission of sin, the Punishment as well as Guilt, would be. 3. Their Establishment depends only upon a humane Supposition of its fitness; and derogates from the very Foundation of that Covenant God has entred into with us by Christ, ‘That he will be merciful to our unrighteousness, and our Sins and our Iniquites Hebr. c. 8. v. 12. he will remember no more.’ Upon all which accounts, tho we Practise this Discipline for many other benefits of it, and wish it were universally Established, not only in a more perfect manner than either in Ours or Their Church it is, but even in a strictness equal to what they tell us it is fallen from; Catech, conc. Trid. yet we cannot believe, that by any of these things we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for sin; which he only could do, ‘who Himself bore our sins in his own Body upon the Cross, and by that one suffering, for ever perfected them that are Hebr. 10. 14. Sanctified.’

ARTICLE VII. Of INDULGENCES.

THE Doctrine of Indulgences the Council of Trent has asserted only, not explained: Mon [...]ieur de Meaux has stated it after a manner so favou [...]able to us, that I am persuaded he will find more in [...]is own Church than in ours to oppose his Doctrine.

[Page 28] It was the discipline of the Primitive Church, when the Bishops imposed severe Penances on the Offenders, and that they were almost quite performed, if some great cause of pity chanced to arrive, or an excellent Repentance, or danger of death, or that some Martyr pleaded in behalf of the Penitent, the Bishop did sometimes Indulge him, that is, Did relax the remaining part of his Penance, and give him Absolution.

Monsieur de Meaux having this Pattern before his Eyes, frames the Indulgences now used in the Church of Rome exactly according to it. ‘When the Church, says he, imposes upon sinners hard and laborious Penances, and that with Humility they undergo them, this we call satisfaction; and when having regard either to the fervour of the Penitents, or to some other good works which she prescribes, she relaxes some part of the Punishment yet remaining; This is called Indulgence.’

But to pass by for the present those abuses that are every day made of these Indulgences, and which both the Council and Monsieur de Meaux seem willing to have redressed; such essential differences we conceive there are between the Indulgences of the Primitive, and those of the Roman Church, that tho we readily enough embrace the One, yet we cannot but renounce and condemn the Other.

In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were matters of meer discipline, as the Penances also were; the One to correct the sinner, and to give others caution that they might not easily offend; the Other to encourage the Penitent to honour the Martyr that interposed for his Forgiveness, or to prevent his dying without Absolution. In the Church of Rome they are founded upon an Errour in Doctrine; that as their Penance is not matter of Discipline, only to correct [Page 29] the sinner, but to be undergone as a satisfaction to be made to God for the sin; so their Indulgence is not given as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it, upon any consideration had of the fervour of the Penitent, to admit him to Absolution which he has already received, but by the application of the Merits of their Saints who they suppose have undergone more temporal punishments than their sins have deserved, to take off that pain, which notwithstanding their Absolution, the sinner should otherwise have remained liable to.

In the Primitive Church the Bishop received the Penitent to Absolution, and the exemplariness of his Repentance, or the intercession of the Martyr that supplicated for him, was the only consideration they had for the Indulgence. In the Church of Rome the Indulgence is to be had from the Pope only, in whose hands the merits of their Saints lye, the overplus of which are, they say, the Treasure of the Church, to be dispensed upon all occasions to such as want, and upon such terms as his Holiness shall think fit to propose.

In the Primitive Church these Indulgences were very rare, given only upon some special occasions, and the Bishop never relaxed the remainder of the Penance he had imposed, till the Penitent had performed a considerable part of it, and shew'd by his contrition that it had obtained the effect of bringing him to a sense of his sin, and a hearty repentance for it, which was the end they designed by all. In the Roman Church they are cry'd about the Streets, hung up in Tables over every Church Door, prostituted for Money, offer'd to all Customers, for themselves or for their Friends; for the dead as well as the living; and to visit three Churches, say a Prayer before this Altar, at the other Saints Monument, in a third Chappel, is without more [Page 30] ado, through the extraordinary Charity that Church hath for sinners, declared sufficient to take off whatever such Punishment is due for all the sins of a whole Life.

And here then let Monsieur de Meaux in conscience tell us; ‘ Is all this no more than to release some part of the remaining Penance, in consideration of the fervour of the Penitent in performing the rest?’Such Pardons as these we do certainly with Reason conclude, ‘ To be fond things, vainly invented, and grounded upon no Authority of Holy Scripture, but indeed repugnant See our 22d Artic. to Gods Word.’But for the rest, We profess our selves so far from being enemies to the Ancient Discipline of the Church, that we heartily wish to see it revived; And whenever the Penances shall be reduced to their former practice, we shall be ready to give or receive such an Indulgence as Monsieur de Meaux has described, and as the Primitive Ages of the Church allow'd of.

ARTICLE VIII. Of PURGATORY.

BUT the Temporal Pains which they suppose due to sin, has yet another Error consequent upon it. That since every man must undergo them according to the proportion of his sins, if any one chance to dye before he has so done, he cannot pass directly into Heaven, but must undergo these punishments first in the other Life, and the place where these Punishments are undergone, they call Purgatory.

[Page 31] So that the Doctrine then of Purgatory, relies upon that Satisfaction which we our selves are to make for our sins, besides what Christ has done for us: And according to the measure that that is either true or false, certain or uncertain, this must be so too: Since therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us only, that the Church of Rome supposes the former to be true, they can only suppose the latter in like manner; and therefore till they are able certainly to assure us of that, we shall still have reason to doubt of this.

That the Primitive Church from the very second Century, made Prayers for the dead, we do not deny; But that these Prayers were to deliver them out of Purgatory, this we suppose Monsieur de Meaux himself will not avow; it being certain that they were made for the best Men, for the Holy Apostles, the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church, nay for the Blessed Virgin her self, all which at the same time they thought in happiness, and who the Papists themselves tell us never toucht at Purgatory.

Many were the private Opinions which the particular Christians of old had concerning the Reason and Benefit of Praying for the dead. Some then, as we do at this day, only gave thanks to God for their Faith and their Examples. Others prayed for them, either for the Bodies Resurrection, or for their acquitting at the final Judgment, as supposing it to be no way unfit to pray to God for those very Blessings which he has absolutely promised and resolved to give. Some thought an Increase of Glory might be obtained to the Righteous by their Prayers. All believed this, that it testified their hope of them, and manifested their Faith of that Future Resurrection which they waited for; and in the mean time maintained a kind of Fellowship [Page 32] and Communion between the Members of Christ yet alive, and those who were departed only, not lost by death.

But then it is to be observed, that when they most ordinarily prayed for the dead, yet was there nothing determined as to this Point; all was left to the Piety and Opinion of particular men, nor durst they absolutely resolve whether the dead received any benefit by them; as both the learned of the Church of Rome themselves Confess, and the Writings of Primitive Antiquity, even to St. Augustine himself, undoubtedly shew.

Now as there is none of us that will condemn the Charity of any man, to pray, or fast, or afflict himself for the Pardon and Forgiveness of his Friends, his Country, or his Church, so it be done without any fond Opinion of Merit or Satisfaction, and to hope too by such Prayers to obtain God's mercy for them: So if any one will put up his particular Requests for the dead too, for any of those ends for which the Primitive Christians did, we shall not condemn him. Only let not that be made an Article of our Faith which we can never be assured of, and which when it was most Practised, was received only as a private Opinion, and in a Sense far different from what is now asserted; And for the rest We shall not refuse to Consent to any Liberty whereby Peace may be obtained, and our free Justification by Faith in Christ not injured.

[Page 33]

PART II. OF THE SACRAMENTS.

ARTICLE IX. Of the Sacraments in General.

THE Doctrine of the Sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable obstacles to our union with the Church of Rome. We cannot imagine why Monsieur de Meaux should insinuate as if our disputes about these, except it be in the point of the Eucharist, were not so great as about other matters, unless it be to serve for an excuse for his own passing so lightly over them, or to make us less careful in examining their Doctrine.

The Sacraments of the New Testament, in that proper sense in which we now take the word, we have always look'd upon to be not only ‘Holy Signs to represent and confirm to us the Grace of God, but also effectual Tokens of his good Will to us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.’

To obtain the benefit of the Holy Sacraments, we cannot believe it to be enough that we have no ill [Page 34] disposition, but do suppose that it is a sufficient Obstacle if we have not a good one. We confess that the Faith Artic. 25. of the Ch. of En. of the Church, and those who present them to Baptism, is all that is required to prepare Infants to receive the spiritual Regeneration which that Sacrament confers. But for those who by age are capable of it, we suppose both in Baptism and in the holy Eucharist, an actual faith of Gods Promise annexed to the outward signs which we receive, to be indispensably necessary for the partaking of their effects.

And tho if the rest be agreed, we shall not desire to determine any mans belief, as to the manner how the Sacraments confer that Grace which God has promised by them; yet we judg it more agreeable to the Analogy of our Faith to say, That upon the performance of the outward Ceremony, God bestows the inward Blessing; than that the Blessing is conferr'd by Virtue of the Words which are pronounced, and the action which is done to us, as Monsieur de Meaux has expounded it.

We do not by this at all take off from the necessity of the outward signs. We confess, ‘That besides the inward Preparation, there is required for our Sanctification a special operation of the holy Spirit, and an application of Christs Merits by the means of the holy Sacraments.’ This we are so perswaded of, that we profess them to be So our Chu. Catechism. necessary to Salvation, insomuch that whosoever either carelesly neglects, or presumptuously despises the use of them, will in vain expect it by any other means.

For the number of the Sacraments, we acknowledg only two as generally necessary to Salvation; and are surprized to see the Council of Trent damning all such as will not receive a number, which neither has the Scripture [Page 35] any where declared; nor was it, that we know of, till the very 12th Century ever heard of in the Church. De Cerm. Ec. &c. l. 1. c. 12. Hugo de St. Victor is the first that we can find it in, 1130 Years after Christ; Lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 2. Lombard and the Schoolmen follow'd him. Pope Ann. 1439. in Conc. Flor. Eugenius in his instructions to the Armenians gave yet more countenance to it; but that all those Ceremonies which the Church of Rome now receives are truly and properly Sacraments, and that there be neither more nor less than Seven, never any one absolutely determined, till the Council of Trent first Canonically decreed it, and commanded the Church under an Anathema to receive it.

The special consideration of their five pretended Sacraments, will give us an opportunity more particularly to establish that number we our selves propose.

This presumption of the truth we must not omit here, That not only the Ancient Fathers of the Church when they speak of the Sacraments properly as we now do, mention only Baptism and the Lords Supper; but even the Papists themselves who establish more, yet confess these to be so far the Principal, that our own Article says but little more, than what their greatest Schoolmen have voluntarily confessed.

ARTICLE X. Of BAPTISM.

HOW strict our Church is in maintaining the necessity of Baptism, the very Office by which we do administer it, sufficiently shews. We declare that ‘all men are conceived and born in sin, and that See our Office Of Pub. Bapt [Page 36] none can enter into the Kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water, and of the Spirit.’ This is the Law of Christ which the Eternal Truth has established; and whosoever shall presume to oppose it, let him be Anathema.

But now as all other Laws, so this of Christ, must, we think, be interpreted according to the rules of natural Equity. The Ancient Church constantly professed her belief, that Martyrdom excused the defect of Baptism. Many of the Papists themselves suppose, that the desire of it, when by some unavoidable necessity the Sacrament its self cannot be obtained, shall be reputed for it. Monsieur de Meaux insinuates that the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, may supply the want of it. Ep. 70. if it be indeed his. St. Bernard plainly concludes the same, ‘If, says he, a man desirous of Baptism be suddenly cut off by Death, in whom there wanted neither found Faith, nor devout Hope, nor sincere Charity; God be Merciful unto me, and pardon me if I err, but verily of such a Ones Salvation in whom there is no other defect but his faultless lack of Baptism, despair I cannot, nor induce my mind to think his Faith void, his Hope confounded, and his Charity fallen to nothing, only because he hath not that which not contempt, but impossibility with-holdeth.’

When therefore so many ways have been allowed to excuse the defect of Baptism, tho our Church has rather taken all imaginable care that Infants shall not die without it, than presumed rashly to determine what shall become of them if they do; yet we cannot but condemn the uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in ‘Excluding them from all Part in Jesus Christ,’ and denying that Mercy to a tender and impotent Age, which they so liberally extend to those of Riper years.

[Page 37] If not the Want but the Contempt of this Sacrament be the only thing that is damnable, to be sure no Contempt of Baptism can be in them. If the desire of Baptism in those that are capable of it, is by many of the Church confessed to be reputed for Baptism; why shall we not hope that God who is all merciful, will accept the Desire of the Church and of their Parents in their behalf, who by their Age are not capable to have any of their own. By Monsieur de Meaux, see before. If Faith, Hope and Charity, as Monsieur de Meaux himself implies, may excuse them who actually have these Graces, tho they want this Sacrament; why may not that Faith, that Hope, that Charity of the Church, which being imputed to them renders them capable of Baptism, be as effectual to stand instead of it to them, as their own proper Faith for Others, if a necessity which could not be avoided prevents it?

In a word, Since such is the Mercy of God, that to things altogether impossible he bindeth no man; but where what he Commands cannot be performed, accepteth of our Will to do it instead of the Deed. 2. Seeing God's Grace is not so absolutely tyed to the Sacraments, but that many exceptions have been, and are still Confessed to be sufficient to obtain it, without the external Application of them: Seeing, 3. St. Paul has told us that the Seed of faithfull Parentage is Holy 1 Cor. 7. from the very Birth, as being born within the Covenant of Grace; Tho we determine nothing, yet we think it the part of Charity, not only to take all the Care we can to Present our Infants to Baptism whilst they live, but if by any unavoidable necessity they should die without it, See Cassan. Consult. Art. 9. & de Bapt. Infant. Where he cites many others of the C. of R. of the same Opinion. to Hope well of them: Remembring that Judgment of God, Exod. 4. who when Moses neglected to Circumcise his Son, spared the Child in [Page 38] that he was innocent, but sought to kill Moses for his Carelesness in the Omission.

A necessity therefore of Baptism we constantly maintain; but absolutely to determine that all those who die without it, are excluded from the Grace of Christ, neither will Monsieur de Meaux presume to do of Men, nor dare we much less to affirm it of Infants. The Lutherans condem the Anabaptists for refusing Baptism altogether to Children, which we also condemn in them. But that therefore they make no allowance for extraordinary Cases, where both the Church and the Parents desired to have Baptized them, only that some unavoidable Accident prevented it, neither did Cassander believe, nor do the terms of their Confession at all require. For the Calvinists, so far were Consult. Art. 9. they from being the Authors of this charitable opinion towards Infants dying unbaptized, That many of the most Eminent men of the Church of Gerson. Gabriel Biel, Cajetan, and others. Rome have long before them maintained the same.

To conclude, If Monsieur de Meaux himself do's in good earnest believe the danger so great as he pretends; may he then please to consider, What we are to Judge of those who in so many places have not left any Ministers at all to confer this Sacrament. For our parts we freely declare their hazard to be infinitely greater than either the Childrens or their Parents; who are so far from that indifference Monsieur de Meaux most injuriously charges them with, that in places where publick Ministers reside, that they have the opportunity to do it, they fail not with all imaginable Care to Present them in the Ambassadors Chappels to Baptism, if they have but the least apprehension that they are not in a Condition to be carried to their own Temples.

[Page 39]

ARTICLE XI. Of CONFIRMATION.

TO clear our way to that particular Examination that is necessary of the following pretended Sacraments of the Roman Church, it will be necessary to observe, that by their own Confession these three things are absolutely required to the Essence of a true Sacrament. 1. Christ's Institution. 2. An outward and visible Sign. 3. An inward and spiritual Grace by Christ's promise annexed to that Sign.

We cannot but admire, that neither in the Council of Trent, or in the Catechism made by its Order, is there any Attempt to prove either of these from the Holy Scripture as to the Point of Confirmation. It was so much the more necessary to have done this, in that Many of the greatest Note in the Roman Church had denied the Divine Institution of it; and some of them were approved by the Holy See its self that did it. The outward Sign had been none of the least Controversies that have exercised their own Pens: and indeed since they have laid aside that of Imposition of hands which they confess the Apostles used; it was but reasonable to have shewn us some Authority for that other they have established in its stead. What Monsieur de Meaux expounds, is a clear Vindication of our Practice, but defends nothing of their own Doctrine.

That we think it to have been an Ancient custom in the Church, and which the very Apostles themselves [Page 40] Practised, to lay hands on those that had been Baptized; and in imitation whereof we our selves at this day do the like, the Practise of our Church sufficiently declares.

We Confess that the use of Chrism in Confirmation was very Ancient, yet such as we deny to have been Apostolical. We do not our selves use it, yet were that all the difference between us, we should be far from judging those that did.

The Discipline of our Church allows none that is not of the Episcopal Order to Confirm. And for the benefit of it, as the Bishop prays to God for his Holy Spirit to assist us in the way of Virtue and Religion, to Arm us against Temptation, and to enable us to keep our Baptismal Covenant which we then (our selves repeat, and) in the Presence of the Church-openly ratifie and confirm: So we Piously hope that the Blessing of the Holy Spirit descends upon us, through his Prayer, for all these great Ends; both to strengthen the Grace we already have, and to increase it in us to a more plentiful degree.

ARTICLE XII. Of Penance and Confession.

FOR Penance and Confession, we wish our Discipline were both more strictly required, and more duly observed than it is. The Canons of our Church do perhaps require as much as the Primitive Christians themselves did: and it is more the decay of Piety in the People, than any want of Care in her, that they are not as well and regularly Practised.

[Page 41] We do not believe Penance to be a Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are; because neither do we find any Divine Command for it, nor is there any Sign in it established by Christ, to which his Grace is annexed. We suppose that if the Ancient Church had esteemed it any thing more than a part of Christian Discipline, they would not have presumed to make such changes in it, as in the several Ages it is evident they did.

The Primitive Christians interpreting those places of Mat. 18. 18. John 20. 23. St. Matthew and St. John which Monsieur de Meaux mentions, of publick Discipine, and to which we suppose with them they principally at least, if not only refer, at first Practised no other. For private faults, they exhorted their Penitents to Confess them to God, and unless some particular Circumstances required the Communication of them to the Priest, plainly signified that that Confession was not only in its self sufficient, but in effect was more agreeable to Holy Scripture, than any other.

If the Conscience indeed were too much burdened by some Great fault; or that the Crime committed was notoriously Scandalous, then they advised a Confession to the Priest too. But this was not to every Priest, nor for him just to hear the Confession, and then without more ado to say I absolve thee; They prescribed in every Church some Wise Physician of the Soul on purpose for this great Charge, that might pray with the Penitent; might direct him what to do to obtain Gods favour; might assist him in it; and finally, after a long Experience, and a severe Judgment, give him Absolution.

This was the Practise of the Eastern Church; till upon occasion of a certain scandal, Nectarius first began to weaken it in his Church at Constantinople; and St. J. Chrysostome his Successor seconded him in it. They reduced the Practise to what it had been in the Beginning; that open and scandalous Sins should be openly punished by the publick Discipline of the Church, and the private be Confessed only to God Almighty.

[Page 42] Yet still the publick Confession remained in the Practise of the Western Church. Pope Leo I. to take away the occasions of Fear and Shame that kept many from the exercise of it, first ordered, that it should be sufficient to Confess to God and the Priest only; which is the first plausible Pretence offered by them for Auricular Confession.

Thus this Practise, now set up for a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour, and absolutely necessary to obtain God's pardon, first began. But the Performance of it was yet left to every Mans liberty. About 1215 Years after Christ, the Council of Lateran first Commanded it to be of necessary observance: But we do not find that till the Council of Trent in the last Age, it was ever required to be received absolutely as a Sacrament of Divine Institution, and necessary to Salvation.

This short View of the Practise of Antiquity in this point, may be sufficient to shew, that unless it were the publick power of the Church to censure open and scandalous Offenders, which was the Key of Discipline our Blessed Saviour left to it; for the rest, several Churches and Ages had their several Practises. They advised private Confession as upon many accounts which Monsieur de Meaux Remarks, and which we willingly allow, very useful to the Penitent: but it was not for above a 1000 Years ever looked upon as absolutely necessary, nor by Consequence as Sacramental.

The Church of England refuses no sort of Confession either publick or private, which may be any way necessary to the quieting of mens Consciences; or to the exercising of that Power of binding and loosing, which our Saviour Christ has left to his Church.

We have our Penitential Canons for publick Offenders: We exhort men if they have any the least doubt or scruple, nay sometimes tho they have none, but especially before they receive the Holy Sacrament, to Confess their sins. We propose to them the benefit not only of Ghostly [Page 43] Advice how to manage their Repentance, but the great comfort of Absolution too, as soon as they shall have compleated it.

Our form of Absolution after the manner of the Eastern Church at this day, and of the Universal Church for above 1200 Years, is Declarative rather than Absolute. Whilst we are unable to search the Hearts of men, and thereby infallibly to discern the sincerely contrite, from those that are not; we think it Rashness to pronounce a definitive Sentence in God's Name, which we cannot be sure that God will always confirm.

When we visit our Sick, we never fail to exhort them to make a special Confession of their sins to him that Ministers to them: And when they have done it, the Absolution is so full, that the Church of Rome its self could not desire to add any thing to it.

For the rest; We think it an unnecessary Rack to mens Consciences to oblige them where there is no scruple, to reveal to their Confessor every the most secret fault, even of Wish or Desire, which the Church of Rome exacts: Nor dare we pronounce this Discipline Sacramental, and necessary to Salvation; so that a contrite Sinner, who has made his Confession to God Almighty, shall not receive a Pardon, unless he repeat it to the Priest too.

This we must beg leave with assurance to say is directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church, and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture. And if this be all our Reformation be guilty of, That we advise not that which may Torment and Distract, but is no way apt to settle mens Consciences; nor require that as indispensably necessary to Salvation, which we find no where commanded by God as such, we assure Monsieur de Meaux we see no cause at all either to regret the Loss, or to be ashamed of the Change.

[Page 44]

ARTICLE XIII. Of Extreme Unction.

OF all those pretended Sacraments of the Roman Church that have no foundation in holy Scripture, this seems to stand the fairest for it. Here is both an outward and visible Sign, and an inward and spiritual Grace tied to it. Insomuch that Monsieur de Meaux himself, who never attempted to say any thing of it in the two foregoing Instances, yet fails not to put us in mind of it in this.

To interpret rightly that place of St. James which is 1 James 5. 6, 14. 13. alledged to prove it, we must remark, that anointing with Oyl was one of those Ceremonies used by the Apostles in working their miraculous Cures, Mark 6. 13. They cast out devils, says the Evangelist, and anointed many sick persons with Oyl, and cured them. Sometimes they used only Imposition of hands, and sometimes they did it without either.

Together with these outward signs they usually added Prayer too, some Invocation at least in the name of Jesus Christ, as the more substantial and more effectual Assistance.

So that St. Jame's Direction there, ‘If any man be sick let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oyl in the name of the Lord, and the Prayer of Faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; ’ referring as is evident to those miraculous cures which the Apostles and their Successors in the Primitive Church wrought by such anointing: We look upon it, that the advice, in as much as it belonged to that, could neither have been the Institution of a Sacrament at all; and that together with the miraculous power of healing, it is now long since ceased in the Church.

Monsieur de Meaux ought not to refuse this Interpretation: [...] Vid. Sacram. Grge. p. 66 Et Rursus 251. & serqq. Menard. annot. 3 MSS. [...] alia ejusd. opin. The Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above 800 Years after Christ, shew that they esteemed this to be the meaning of it; they understand it plainly of [Page 45] bodily Cures, and Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses Cajet. Annot. in loc. that it can belong to no other.

Our Saviour and his Apostles, when they thus miraculously healed the infirmity of the Body, at the same time forgave the sin of the soul too; For this cause St James adds, ‘And if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.’

Tho this extraordinary Power be now ceased both in the One and the other kind, yet we still endeavour to perform whatever we are capable of on these occasions; We send for the Elders of the Church when we are sick, they pray over us; if we stand charged with any private sins, or publick Censures, we confess them to them, and they fail not by their Absolution, as far as in them lies, to forgive us.

This is all, we think, is now remaining for us to fulfil of what this Text requires; We anoint not our sick for the recovery of their bodily health, as St. James here prescribed, because the miraculous power of healing, to which that Ceremony ministred, is ceased in the Church. We pray over them if it please God for the recovery of their present Health, but especially for their Eternal Salvation: We exercise the power of the Keys to the forgiveness of their sins, because the benefit of this is the same now that ever it was; Christ's Promise remains, and whilst we piously make use of the same means, we doubt not but it shall be to the like Effect.

ARTICLE XIV. Of MARRIAGE.

FOR the point of Marriage, Monsieur de Meaux says nothing but what we willingly allow of: We deny that it is a Lomb. of our side. See Cassand. Con. Sacrament after the same manner that Baptism and the holy Eucharist are, because it both wants an outward [Page 46] sign to which by Christs Promise a Blessing is annex'd; and is so far from being generally necessary to Salvation, as they are, and as we suppose all true and proper Sacraments ought to be, that the Church of Rome has thought fit to deny one of the most considerable parts of their Communion altogether the use of it.

ARTICLE XV. Of Holy Orders.

THE Imposition of Hands in holy Orders, being accompanied with a Blessing of the Holy Spirit, may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of Particular Sacrament. Yet since that Grace which is thereby conferr'd, whatever it be, is not common to all Christians, nor by consequence any part of that foederal Blessing which our Blessed Saviour has purchased for us; but only a separation of him who receives it to a special Employ; we think it ought not to be esteemed a common Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptism and the Lords Supper are.

The outward sign of it we confess to have been usually Imposition of hands, and as such we our selves observe it; Yet as we do not read that Christ himself instituted that sign, much less tied the promise of any certain Grace to it; so Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider, that there are many of his own Communion, that do not think it to be essential to holy Orders, nor by consequence the outward sign of a Sacrament in them.

We confess that no man ought to exercise the Ministerial Office till he be first consecrated to it. We believe that it is the Bishops part only to Ordain. We maintain the distinction of the several Orders in the Church; and tho we have none of those below a Deacon, because we do not read that the Apostles had any, yet we acknowledg the rest to have been anciently received in the Church, and shall not therefore raise any controversie about them.

[Page 47]

ARTICLE XVI. Of the EUCHARIST.

And first of the Explication of those Words, This is my Body.

IN our entry upon this Point, we cannot but testifie our just regret, That this holy Sacrament which was designed by our Blessed Saviour not only to be the greatest assurance of his love to us, but the strongest Engagement of our Charity to one another, should have become the chiefest subject of our contentions, and widened that breach which it ought to have closed.

Monsieur de Meaux who grounds his opinion of the Corporeal presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist, upon the words of Institution, which he contends ought to be litterally understood, yet proposes two Cases wherein he seems to allow it might have been lawful to forsake the Letter. We will join issue with him upon his own terms, and shew, ‘1. That there are such grounds in those words for a figurative interpretation, as naturally lead to it. 2. That when we come to consider the Intention of our Saviour in this holy Sacrament, we are yet more strongly confirmed in it.’

It is confessed by the greatest Authors of the Church of Rome, that if the relative This in that proposition, This is my Body, refers to that Bread which our Saviour Christ held in his hand at the time when he spoke those Words, the natural repugnancy there is between the two things affirmed of one another, Bread and Christs Body, will necessarily require the figurative interpretation. For ‘this is impossible, says Gratian de Consecrat. d. 2. c. 55. Gratian, That Bread should be the Body of Christ. It cannot be, says L. 3. de Euch. c. 19. SS. Primum. Card. Bellarmine, That that proposition should be true, the former part whereof designeth Bread, the latter the Body of Christ. Id. ib. l. 1. c. 1. So that if the Sense be, This Bread is the Body of Christ, either it must be taken Figuratively thus, This Bread signifies the Body of Christ, or it is plainly absurd and Impossible.’ The whole difficulty therefore as to our first point consists [Page 48] in this, Whether our Saviour Christ when he said, This is my Body, meant any thing else to be his Body, than that Bread which was before him.

Now for this, the Connexion of his discourse seems to us an evident Demonstration. ‘Our Saviour Christ took Bread, and gave Thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take, Eat, This is my Body which is given for you; do this in Remembrance of me.’ Luk. [...]2. 19.

For what did he demonstrate here, and say was his Body, but that which he gave to his Disciples? What did he give to his Disciples, but that which He brake? What brake he, but that which he took? And St. Luke says expresly he took Bread.

What Jesus took in his hands, that He blessed: what He blessed, the same He brake and gave to his Disciples: What he gave to his Disciples, of that he said, This is my Body: But Jesus, says the Text, took Bread; of the Bread therefore he said, This is my Body.

In a word; Forasmuch as the Papists themselves believe the Bread to be turned into the substance of Christ's Body, because Christ said This is my Body: Either those words refer to the Bread, and then by their own Confession they will require our Interpretation; or if they do not, it is evident that then from these words they can have no Grounds to conclude their own pretended change.

So necessarily do both the words themselves and their own Confession, lead us to the Exposition which we make of them. And what these prepare us to receive, the same, 2dly. ‘The Intention of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament, do's yet more strongly confirm to us.’

When God delivered the Children of Israel out of Egypt, he instituted the Passover to be a continual Remembrance Exod 12. of that great deliverance. In like manner our Blessed Saviour being now about to work out a much greater deliverance for us, by offering up himself upon the Cross for our Redemption, he design'd by this Sacrament [Page 49] to continue the memory of this Blessing, That ‘as often 1 Cor. 11. 26 as we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, we might shew forth the Lords Death till his Coming.’

That this Sacrament instituted for the like end which the Passover had been, and now for ever to succeed in its place, might be both the better understood, and the easier received by them, it pleased our Blessed Lord to accommodate himself as near as was possible to the Ceremonies and Phrases they had before been used to. He retain'd the Symbols, and even the Expressions they had so long been acquainted with; only he changed the application of them to a new and more excellent Remembrance.

In the Jewish Passover, the Master of the House took Bread, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is the Bread of Affliction, which our Fathers eat in Egypt.’ In this holy Sacrament, our Saviour after the very same manner, took Bread, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my Body which is broken for you; Do this in remembrance of Me.’

Now as it is evident, that that Bread which the Jews every Year took, and brake, and said, ‘This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt,’ was not that very Bread which their Ancestors so many Generations before had eaten there; but was design'd only to be the Type or Figure of it: so neither could our Saviours Disciples to whom he spake, and who, as being Jews, had so long been acquainted with that Phrase, ever believe, That the Bread which he held in his hand, which he brake and gave them, saying, ‘This is my Body which is broken for you, Do this in remembrance of me, ’was the very, actual, real Body of Christ which they saw before them at the Table. They understood it, no doubt, to be the Type and Figure of that Body which was now about to be broken for them; as that Bread which the Master of the Feast, after the very same manner, was wont to break to them, was the Type of that Bread of Affliction which their Fathers had eaten in Egypt.

[Page 50] Nor does the Phrase, My Body, at all weaken, but rather confirm this Idea, as being the ordinary expression among the Jews, whereby they called the Passover, The body of the Passover, The body of the Paschal Lamb. It was therefore used here by our Saviour with that allusion, the more expresly to signifie, that he was the true Passover now to be sacrificed for us, by whose Blood we were to be delivered 1 Cor. 5. 7. from the destroying Angel, and for the Remembrance whereof, we were therefore to keep this Ceremony, as the Jews had done their Passover for the other.

This we suppose to be the undoubted Interpretation of this place. Monsieur de Meaux ought the less to except against it, in that it was the original remark, not of any Protestant, or of any other Party of Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this matter, but was objected to them by the verv Jews themselves long before the Reformation, upon the same account. They shew'd by it, that in the Doctrine of this pretended Change, the Church of Rome had evidently opposed the design of our Saviours Institution, and advanced an Interpretation, which no one accustomed to the Jewish Notions, as the Apostles were, could ever have understood to be his meaning.

The design of this discourse permits me not to proceed to any more particular vindication of this Exposition, nor to mention many other Arguments more usually proposed; and wherein it has clearly been shewn, that they have not only the holy Scripture, and the design of our Blessed Saviour in this Sacrament, but Sense, Reason, Antiquity, whatsoever is able to furnish an Argument, all unanimously against them: It remains only to examine whether what Monsieur de Meaux has proposed, be any thing more reasonable, that so we may go on to the Consequences established upon this foundation.

Where first we cannot conceive why Monsieur de Meaux designing to establish the Exposition of the holy Eucharist upon the Analogy which it has to the Jewish Sacrifices, should flie off to the natureof their Sacrifices in general, where [Page 51] the parallel is neither so clear, nor so uncontroverted, as to produce any necessary consequence from the allusion. It would certainly have been more reasonable to compare it, as we have done, with that particular Sacrifice of the Passover to which it succeeded, and from which therefore, if any, must be shewed the design of it. But we will clear the whole difficulty in a reflection or two, and prove, that what has been offered to us as a convincing Argument, is, upon a nearer view, a meer fallacy.

And 1. We desire it may be observed, That the Peace-Offerings under the Law were designed as an acknowledgment on the peoples part, for those temporal blessings which it pleased God to bestow upon them. And because after the sacrifice of Isaac, God first entred into the Covenant with Abraham, and promised him his Blessing, and to be his God, Gen. 22. 16, &c. and the God of his Seed after him; it seems to have been further their intention in all these Sacrifices, to call to remembrance that Offering of Isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these Sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their Gratitude.

2. That tho the Passover, like the Sacrifice of the Cross, was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the firstborn in the land of Egypt; yet that yearly remembrance of it, which God afterwards establish'd, was always esteemed a Peace-offering; and indeed, the perpetual order of their Sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other.

So that the Parallel therefore, for the explaining the nature of the holy Eucharist, must be this:

1. That as the Jews ate of their Peace-offerings in General, to call to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac, and give God thanks for those blessings which they received by it, and of that of the Passover in particular, in memory of Gods delivering them out of Egypt; So the Christians partake of this blessed Sacrament, in memory of that deliverance which the Sacrifice of the Cross of Christ, whom both Isaac and the Paschal Lamb slain in Egypt typified, has purchased for them.

2. That as the Peace-offering which the Jews eat, was not [Page 52] changed into the Substance of that first Sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance, but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it; so the Christians in their Sacrament are not to think the Bread and Wine which Christ has appointed to be our Peace-offering, should be changed into the very substance of that Body which was offered for us upon the Cross, but to be received only as Types of it. For thus was the Peace-offering in general, a Type of Isaac, and the Passover in particular, the Type of that first Lamb, which was slain for their deliverance in the Land of Egypt.

When therefore Monsieur de Meaux tells us, that the Jews ate the proper flesh of their Peace-offering; we answer, that so do we the proper substance of ours; we eat the Bread which Christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us, as the body of the Lamb was commanded by God to be the remembrance of theirs.

Monsieur de Meaux adds, That the Jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their Sin-offering, and of the Blood, because that a perfect Remission was not then obtain'd, and that therefore by the rule of contraries, we ought now to eat of Ours, because a full satisfaction is now made by Christ.

For Reply to which, it might suffice to say, that this rule of contraries, should we follow it according to the Letter, would lead Monsieur de Meaux into so many absurdities, that he would be forced himself to abjure his own Principle. According to this rule, the Apostles could not have eaten the flesh of Christ before his Resurrection; the Priests under the Law being commanded not to eat of the Sin-offering after the third day, and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before.

Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this Conclusion: In the mean time as to his Objection, we have before said, that the remembrance we make in the holy Eucharist, like that of the Paschal Feast among the Jews, shews it to be a Peace-offering; and for the rest, if, as Monsieur de Meaux pretends, this Blood [Page 53] was mystically forbid under the Law, to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd; It will follow, that for the contrary reason, Christ appointed the Cup to be received in this holy Sacrament, to testifie that full remission which his blood has purchased for us. The Church of Rome therefore in refusing the Cup to the people, not only violates the express command of our Blessed Saviour; but according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles, teaches them by it, that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd, even by the precious Blood of Christ himself.

It may by this appear what little advantage Monsieur de Meaux can get to justifie their Doctrine of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, from the Analogie of the ancient Sacrifices, which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary. For what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it.

We Confess this Sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer Figure; but we deny that therefore it must be his very Body. We acknowledge the power of God, to do whatever he pleases: Yet Monsieur de Meaux may please to consider, that Contradictions, such as to be and not to be at the same time, are even in their own Schools usually excepted. Monsieur de Meaux supposes, that because Christ did not explain his words in the figurative Sense, the Apostles must needs have understood them in the Literal. But we have before shewed, that the Jews, who are certainly the best Judges, are of a quite contrary opinion, viz. That his Apostles knowing his allusion, could never have understood them otherwise than in a Figure. In a word, for his last Remark, ‘That the Laws of discourse, which perm [...], that where there is a just Proportion between the Sign and the thing signified, the one may be put for the other; Yet suffer it not to be so, when a Morsel of Bread, for instance, is set to represent the Body of a Man:’We must beg leave to say, that neither is the Proportion so small betwixt the Bread broken and Christs Body broken, as Monsieur de Meaux would suggest; Or, that if there were, yet since our Saviours institution has set the one [Page 54] to represent to us the other; we think that designation ought to be of more Authority with us, than all their new Laws of Discourse; invented purposely only to set the fairer Gloss upon so great and apparent an Error.

ARTICLE XVII. Do this in Remembrance of Me.

THE Explication of the preceding Article, having engaged us to a length extraordinary, we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this.

We are entirely agreed, that the Intention of the Son of God was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our Salvation. We Confess, that that real Presence which we suppose in the Communion, do's not at all contradict the Nature of this Commemoration. We are persuaded, that as the Jews eating of their Peace-Offering, which was the remembrance of God's Covenant, and particularly of the Passover, the Type of that Paschal Lamb that was offered for them in Egypt, called to mind the Sacrifice of Isaac, and that great Deliverance God had wrought for them, in bringing them up out of the Land of Bondage: So whilst we Eat of those Holy Elements which our Saviour Christ has instituted like the Peace-Offering aamong the Jews, to perpetuate the Memory of his death, We call to mind the more lively, that great deliverance which He has wrought for us, and render thanks for it, and by faith and repentance apply to our selves the Merits of it.

Thus whilst we receive these Holy signs which he has instituted for our Memorial, we need no real descent of the Son of God from Heaven; no new Crucifying of the Lord of Glory to raise in our Souls those just resentments we ought to have of so excellent a Blessing. But as a Child cannot but recollect the kindness and affection of a dear Father, as often as he beholds the Monument where his dead Body lies interred: So we much more, cannot chuse but excite our Love to our blessed Redeemer, as often as we see before our eyes these Sacred Elements under which he is vailed. Nor is it necessary for this, that this [Page 55] Mystick Tomb, as Monsieur de Meaux phrases it, should any more be changed into the very real Body of our Saviour to raise this remembrance, than that natural One into the dead Corps of the Father, to recall the tender Affections of his Child at the sight of it.

In a word; As we will not now move any Argument from the nature of this remembrance, to oppose that substantial change, which we have before combated on more solid grounds; so we suppose muchless ought Monsieur de Meaux from the sole opinion of that more lively remembrance, which he imagines the actual eating of the very Flesh of Christ would raise in us, then only to do it in a figure, to conclude him to be substantially there. It is evident, that they who believe this change, and they who believe it not, receive him entirely alike. They see, and taste, and feel the same thing: It is Faith alone which works in both, and makes the one believing him spirituarlly present, to remember him with the same love, to honour him with the same reverence, and embrace him with the same hope, as the other, who thinks him corporeally, but yet after a manner altogether unperceivable, contain'd under the sacred Elements that are presented to him.

ARTICLE XVIII. The Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning this Holy Sacrament.

THe sum of our belief as to the nature of this holy Sacrament is this:

We esteem it designed by Christ to be a perpetual memorial of his suffering for us: ‘That so often as we eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Cup, we might shew forth the 1 Cor. 11. 26. Lords Death, till his coming.’

We believe that in this Communion, we do not only remember, but effectually partake our Blessed Saviour, and all the benefits of his passion; Insomuch that to ‘ such as rightly, See our 28. Article. and worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of the blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ.’

For the manner of this Participation, ‘We believe that the [Page 56] Body and Blood of Christ, are given, taken, and eaten in this See t he same Article. Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and that the means whereby this is done, is Faith.’

‘We believe that the wicked and such as are void of Faith, tho they may visibly and carnally press with their teeth, as St. The same Article. Augustin saith, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet are no way partakers of Christ, but rather as St. Paul tells us, eat and drink their own damnation, not discerning the Lords body.’ 1 Cor. 11.

In a word, ‘We believe that Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of The same Article. Christs Body and Blood, can never be proved by Holy Scripture, but is repugnant thereunto; contrary to the intention of our Blessed Saviour, and to the nature of this Holy Sacrament; and has given cause to many great abuses,’ As in the following Article, we shall have occasion more particularly to shew.

This is our Faith of this holy Eucharist: And in this Faith we are confirmed not only by those unanswerable proofs, which our Writers have given, and some of which we have before touch'd upon; but also from those irreconcilable differences, which this Error has thrown the Writers of the Church of Rome into. In effect we find every party exposing the falseness and impossibility of every ones Hypothesis but his own. Their greatest men confess the uncertainty of their own proofs. ‘That there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation:’ So Lomb. 4. sent. dist. 10. Lombard, Scotus 4. dist. 2. q. 11. Scotus, and many others, ‘That there is not any, that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it: Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. ss. secundo dicit. Where he cites many others of the same Opinion.’ So Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesses. ‘ That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words, the other might with as good warrant have been received: So says In 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. Cardinal Cajetan. That if the words of Consecration refer to the Bread, which is changed by them, then they must be taken in our sense:’So the generality of that Communion confess. In a word, See Scotus cited by Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Unum tamen. So also Gabriel cited by Suarez, T. 3. disp. 50. sect. 1. So Lombard. l. 4. sent. dist. [...]. lit. A. ‘ That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran, 1200 years after Christ, and that had not that and the Council of Trent since interposed, it would not have been so to this very day.’

[Page 57] And here who can chuse but admire the Power of Truth? That after so many Outcries against us, for Opposing a Doctrine which they would make the World believe it is as clear as if it were written with a Ray of the Sun; after so many Anathema's against us for Hereticks, and Schismaticks, and ten thousand repetitions of their great Scriptum est, ‘This is my Body:’ they should at last be forced to confess, ‘That they are not, cannot, nor are ever like to be agreed in the Explication of them. That they contain nothing in them necessary to prove this change. That had not the Church declared its self for the Litteral meaning; the Figurative interpretation might with as good Reason have been received. That for 1200 years this Doctrine was no matter of Faith, and but for the Council of Lateran had not been then. In short, that if the words of Institution refer to the Bread, then are we doubtless in the right;’ and if they do not, how will they ever prove the change which they pretend is made of the Bread into the Body of Christ by them?

Certainly confessions, such as these, ought to awake every Papist careful of his own Salvation, into an unprejudiced Examination at least of these things. To consider what Foundation there really is for this Doctrine, and what desperate Consequences, unknown to Antiquity, contrary to the formal words of Holy Scripture, and without Gods infinite Mercy, absolutely destructive of their eternal Salvation, have been built upon it.

As we hope that these declarations have been permitted by God to fall from the greatest, and most Esteemed of their Church, not only to confirm us in our Faith, but also to prepare the way for their return [Page 58] to that Catholick truth, from which they have so long erred; so we doubt not, by Gods blessing, but that they will in time attain to it, when being sensible of that Tyrannical usurpation that has been made over their Consciences, and resolved to use that Knowledg God has given them, to search the Scriptures, and examine their Faith, and not servily follow every Guide that will but pretend to lead them: They shall seriously and indifferently weigh all these things, and find that therefore only they have thought us in darkness, because their own Eyes were shut that they might not discern the light.

ARTICLE XIX. Of Transubstantiation, and of the Adoration of the Host.

WHat remains of this Subject of the Holy Eucharist, being wholly consequent upon the foregoing mistaken interpretation of the Words of our Blessed Saviour before considered; we should have passed them over as things we have in effect already declared, that the Church of England receives not; but that we are perswaded the particular consideration of them will yet more fully shew the falsness of that Foundation upon which they are built.

Monsieur de Meaux in proving the Corporeal presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, from the Words of institution, ‘This is my Body:’ had something that at least seemed to favour his mistake; but to produce them here for Transubstantiation, that is, not only to argue the presence of Christ's substance, but [Page 59] also the change of the substance of the Bread and Wine into it, he has not the least appearance of the Text for him.

Indeed were there no other way for Christ to be present in the Eucharist, but only by this change; it might then be allowed that having, as he imagines, proved the one, he had in effect established the other. But the number of those who interpret the Words in like manner according to the Letter, yet are as great enemies as our selves to this change; and suppose Christs Body to be present by a Union of it to the Bread, rather then by a Conversion of the Bread into it; not only shews that there is no necessary consequence at all between the real presence, and Transubstantiation, but that there is another manner of Christs presence, both more agreeable to Holy Scripture, than that which they advance; and that takes off infinite difficulties which their Transubstantiation involves them in.

That the Substance of the Sacred Figures remains in this Sacrament after the Consecration, those clear expressions of St. Paul, wherein he so often calls them 1 Cor. 10. 16. &c.—11. 26. Bread and Wine after it, seem to us plainly to shew: Acts 2. 46. &c. To break Bread, the Holy Scripture tells us was the usual Phrase all the time of the Apostles, for receiving the Holy Communion; and which the Blessed Spirit himself dictated. These passages Monsieur de Meaux certainly ought not to put off with a Figurative meaning, unless he can give us some good reason why he follows the High road of the Literal interpretation in the one, to establish the Substance of Christs Body in the Sacrament; and forsakes it in the other, to take away the Presence of the Bread from it.

[Page 60] For the Adoration of the Host, The Church of England consequently to her Principles of the Bread and Wine's remaining in their natural substances, professes that she thinks it ‘to be Idolatry, and to be See her Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office. abhorred of all faithful Christians.’

Monsieur de Meaux, in Conformity to theirs, tells us, ‘That the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ought to carry all such as believe it without all scruple to the Adoration of it.’ This therefore being taken as a Principle acknowledged by them; it may not be amiss to observe, that since it is certain, that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed or practised, nor the Church for above 1000 Years required or taught any Adoration of this Holy Sacrament; neither could they, according to Monsieur de Meaux's Principles, have believed the Corporeal Presence of our Blessed Saviour in it.

Is there any of the Evangelists that mentions it? They all tell us, Take, Eat; Do this in remembrance of me. But does any one add, This is my Body, fall down and Worship it?

When St. Paul reproved the Corinthians for violating 1 Cor. 11. 20, &c. this Holy Sacrament; is it possible he could have omitted so obvious a Remark, and so much to his purpose; That in profaning this Holy Sacrament, they were not only guilty of the Body and Bloud of Christ, which it was instituted to represent to us; but even directly affronted their Blessed Master corporally present there; and whom instead of profaning, they ought, as they had been taught, to Adore in it?

With what simplicity do the Ancient Fathers speak of this Communion in all their Writings? The Elevation of the Sacred Symbols was not heard of till the [Page 61] Seventh Century; and then used only to represent the lifting up of Christ upon the Cross, not to expose it to the People to adore it. The Bell, the Feast of the St. Sacrament, the Pomp of carrying it through the Streets, all the other Circumstances of this Worship, are inventions of yesterday. The exposing of it upon the Altar to make their Prayers before it; their Addresses to it in times and cases of Necessity; their performing the chiefest acts of Religion in its presence, never mentioned in Antiquity.

Nay, instead of this Worship, they did many things utterly inconsistent with it. They disputed with the Heathens for worshipping Gods their own Hands had made. Was it ever objected to them, that they themselves did the same: Worship a Deity whose substance they first formed, and then spoke it into a God? They burnt in some Churches what remained of the Holy Sacrament. They permitted the People to carry it home, that had Communicated: They sent it abroad by Sea, by Land, without any the least regard that we can find had to its Worship: They buried it with their Dead; they made Plaisters of the Bread, they mix'd the Wine with their Ink. These certainly were no instances of Adoration: Nor can we ever suppose that they who did such things as these, ever believed that it was the very Body and Bloud of their dear Master, whom they so much loved; and whom doubtless they would have been as ready to have worshipped, had they so believed; as both Monsieur de Meaux supposes they ought to have been, and as we see others for the rest no more pious than those Primitive Christians were, now to do it.

[Page 62]

ARTICLE XX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

A Third Consequence of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, is the Sacrifice of the Mass: In which we ought to proceed with all the Caution such a Point requires, as both makes up the chiefest part of the Popish Worship, and is justly esteem'd one of the greatest and most dangerous Errors that offends us.

Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with so much tenderness, that except perhaps it be his Foundation of the Corporeal Presence, on which he builds, and his Consequence that this Service is a true and real Propitiatory Sacrifice, which his manner of expounding it we are perswaded will never bear; there is little in it besides but what we could readily assent to.

We distinguish the two Acts, which he mentions, from one another. By the Consecration we apply the Elements, before common, to a Sacred use; by the Manducation, we fulfil our Saviour's Command; ‘We take, and eat, and Do this in remembrance of Him.’

This Consecration being separately made of his Body broken, his Blood spilt for our Redemption, we suppose represents to us our Blessed Lord in the figure of his Death, which these holy Symbols were instituted to continue the memory of. And whilst thus with Faith we represent to God the Death of his Son, for the pardon of our sins; we are perswaded, [Page 63] that we incline his Mercy the more readily to forgive them.

We do not therefore doubt, but that this presenting to God Almighty the Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord, is a most effectual manner of applying his Merits to us. Were this all the Church of Rome meant by her Propitiatory Sacrifice, there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it.

Where is that Christian that does not by Faith unite himself to his Saviour in this holy Communion? That does not present him to God as his only Sacrifice and Propitiation? That does not protest that he has nothing to offer him but Jesus Christ, and the Merits of his Death? That consecrates not all his prayers by this Divine Offering; and whilst he thus presents to God the Sacrifice of his Son, does not learn thereby to present also himself a lively Sacrifice, holy, and acceptable in his sight?

This is, no doubt, a Sacrifice worthy a Christian, infinitely exceeding all the Sacrifices of the Law. Where the Knife is the Word, the Blood shed not but in a figure, nor is there any Death but in Representation. A Sacrifice so far from taking us off from that of the Cross, that it unites us the more closely to it; represents it to us, and derives all its Vertue and Efficacy from it.

This is, if any other, truly The Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and such as the Church of England has never refused: and except it be our doubt of the Corporeal Presence, Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to expect, that there was nothing in this we could justly except against.

But now that all this is sufficient to prove the Mass to be a ‘True and Proper Sacrifice, truly and properly Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. [Page 64] propitiatory for the sins and punishments, the satisfactions and necessities of the dead and the living; and that to offer this true and proper Sacrifice, our Saviour Christ instituted a true and proper Priesthood, when he said, Do this in Remembrance of Me:’This is what we cannot yet understand, and what we think we ought not ever to allow of.

We know indeed, that the Primitive Church, called the holy Eucharist a Sacrifice, in that large extent of the Expression, whereby the holy Scripture stiles every religious performance, our Prayers, our Thanksgivings, our Vertues, our very Selves, Sacrifices to God: And accordingly in our own Liturgy, we do, without all scruple, do the same. But when it comes to be set in Opposition to a Sacrament, and to be considered in the true and proper signification of the Word; we must, with all Antiquity, needs profess, That we neither have, nor can we after that of Christ admit of any.

Hence it is, that our Church following the Doctrine of the Holy Apostles and Primitive Christians, teaches, ‘That the Offering of Christ once made, is See Article 31. that proper Redemption, Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole World; and that there is no other Satisfaction for sin but that alone.’ That the Application of Christs Death by Faith in the Holy Eucharist, is made to all such as with true Repentance receive the same, we undoubtedly believe. We are perswaded, that by our Prayers, which in this holy Solemnity we never fail to offer for the wants and necessities, the pardon and forgiveness not of our selves only, but of all Mankind; of those who have not yet known the Faith of Christ; or that knowing it, have prevaricated from the right way, we incline [Page 65] Gods Mercy to become propitious unto them. Only we deny, that by this holy Eucharist, as by a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice, we can appease Gods Wrath for the sins of the whole World; can fulfil the satisfactions, and supply the necessities of other men; of the dead and the living; of them that are absent, and partake not of it. This we attribute to the Sacrifice of the Cross only; and are perswaded that it cannot, without derogation to the Merits of that most absolute Redemption which was there purchased for us, be applied to any other.

When we examine the first Institution of this holy Communion, we cannot perceive either in the words or action of our Blessed Saviour, any Sacrifical Act or Expression. ‘He took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take, Eat, This is my Body which is given for you: Do this in Remembrance of Me.’

Monsieur de Meaux seems to imply, that the Consecration made it a Sacrifice. But this Vasquez tells us, that others think to be only a preparation to it, because In. 3. D. Th. disp. 222. c. 1. till after the Consecration Christ is not there, and by Consequence cannot be offered.

The Council of Trent seems to refer it to the Oblation: This Bellarmine opposes, because neither Christ L. 1. de Miss. c. 27. nor his Apostles used any.

Bellarmine is positive, that either Christ sacrificed in Eating, or there is no other action in which he can Ibid. be said to have done it. Yet even this the greatest part of that Communion reject; because Eating is not Offering: and in the Ordination where the Priest receives the power of Sacrificing, not any mention is made of it. In Effect, Reason will tell us, That this is to partake of the Offering, not to offer it; and Monsieur [Page 66] de Meaux himself accordingly distinguishes the Two Acts of Consecration and Manducation from one another, and refers the Sacrifice wholly to the former.

If we consider the Nature of a true and proper Sacrifice, they universally agree, that these Four Things are necessarily required to it: 1. That what is Offered be something that is Visible: 2. That of prophane, which it was before, it be now made sacred: 3. That it be offered to God: And 4. by that offering suffer an essential destruction.

Now we suppose, that the greatest part of these Conditions are evidently wanting to this pretended Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Mass. 1. It is Invisible: They confess it. 2. It was never prophane, that it should be made sacred: They will not presume to say that it was. 3. It suffers no Essential destruction: ‘The Blood is not spilt but in a Mystery, says Monsieur de Meaux, nor is there any Death but in Representation.’

As therefore none of these things truly and properly agree to this holy Eucharist, so we suppose, that neither can it be truly and properly a Sacrifice. We are perswaded, that the Offering its self, like the necessary and essential Properties of it, must be only in Figure and Representation. This is what we willingly allow Monsieur de Meaux, and what their own Principles do undoubtedly prove.

For what our Saviour adds, ‘Do this in Remembrance of Me:’ However the Council of Trent has Canonically resolved it to be the Institution of a true and proper Priesthood, to offer this Sacrifice; yet that it has no such Proof, the preceding Discourse See Sess. 22. cap. 1. evidently shews. Our Saviour Christ commanding [Page 67] his Apostles to Do this, commanded them to Do no more than what himself had done: So that if he therefore did not Sacrifice himself, neither did he give any Authority to them, or to their Successors to Sacrifice.

ARTICLE XXI. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

THE Epistle to the Hebrews so clearly establishes our Doctrine, in Opposition to the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass, that Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to enter on a particular consideration of it. We will, after his Example, follow the same Method, and shew the whole Design of that Sacred Book to be directly contrary to the Principles of the Roman Church.

Monsieur de Meaux observes, that the Author of this Epistle concludes, that there ought not only no other Victim to be offered for sin after that of Christ, but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered. Now, the reason which the Apostle gives, is this; Because that otherwise, says he, Christ must often Heb. 9. 25, 26. have suffered: Plainly implying, that there can be no true Offering without Suffering. So that in the Mass then, either Christ must Suffer, which Monsieur de Meaux denies, or he is not Offered, which we affirm.

This is so evidently the meaning of that place, and so often repeated, ‘That without Bloud, there is Heb. 9. 22. no Remission;’ that Monsieur de Meaux is forced [Page 68] freely to declare, that if we take the word Offer as it is used in that Epistle, they must profess to the whole World, that Christ is no more Offered, either in the Mass, or any other way. Now, how these things can stand together, that the Epistle to the Hebrews contradicts not the Offering of the Mass, and yet that the same Epistle absolutely declares, that Christ can no more be Offered, because he can no more Suffer; nor any more become a Propitiatory Sacrifice, because without Bloud there is no Propitiation: All which Monsieur de Meaux allows, and professes to the whole World, that in the Notion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is not offered in the Mass, nor can be any where else, we are not very well able to comprehend.

But that Epistle goes yet further. It tells us, that Christ ought to be but once offered, because ‘ by that one Offering he has fully satisfied for our sins, and Heb. 10. 14. has perfected for ever them that are Sanctified.’ If therefore by that first Offering he hath fully satisfied for our sins, there is then ‘ no more need of any Offering for sin: If by that first Sacrifice he hath perfected Ibid. v. 18. for ever them that are Sanctified,’the Mass certainly must be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is already perfect. In a word, if Ibid. v. 2. the Sacrifices of the Law were therefore repeated, as this Epistle tells us, because they were imperfect; and had they been otherwise, they should have ceased to have been offered. What can we conclude, but the Church of Rome then, in every Mass she Offers, does violence to the Cross of Christ; and in more than one sense, Crucifies to her self the Lord of Glory.

Lastly, The Council of Trent declares, that because there is a new and proper Sacrifice to be offered, [Page 69] it was necessary that our Saviour Christ should institute a new and proper Priesthood to offer it. And so they say he did, after the Order of Melchisedeck, in Hebr. 7. 3. opposition to that after the order of Aaron under the Law. Now certainly nothing can be more contrary to this Epistle than such an assertion: Both whose description of this Priesthood shews it can agree only to our Blessed Lord; and which indeed in express terms declares it to be peculiar to him. It calls it an unchangeble Ibid. v. 2 [...]. Priesthood, that passes not to any other, as that of Aaron did from Father to Son, but continues in him only, because that he also himself continues for evermore.

ARTICLE XXII. Reflections on the foregoing Doctrine.

ANd here then let us conjure our Brethren of the Church of Rome seriously to consider these things; and into what desperate consequences that great Errour of the Corporeal presence has insensibly led them.

Can any thing be more rash or more uncharitable, even the Literal interpretation of this Holy Eucharist being allow'd, than their Canon of Trāsubstantiation? To cut off from their Communion the greatest and most Orthodox part of the Christian Church, only for a Nicety; a manner of presence, which neither has the Scripture any where revealed, and which they themselves never understood.

[Page 70] Is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dangerous Error, than to set up a Wafer for their God, and pay a divine Worship to a Morsel of Bread? Shall their good Intentions secure them? Had not the Israelites a good Intention to ‘hold a feast unto Exod. 32. 5. the Lord,’ when they Worshipped the Molten Calf? Were they therefore not Idolaters for it? Had this been a sufficient excuse, Nadab and Abihu had not been punished: Their intention was certainly good to burn Incence to the Lord. The Jews had a good Lev. 10. intention even in Crucifying the Lord of glory: St. Paul thought it Zeal to presecute his Disciples. Our Blessed Saviour has foretold, and we live to see it accomplished, that the time should come when Men should kill their Brethren, and think they did God good service. The Church of Rome may do well to Joh. 16. 2. consider whether their good intention will justifie them that do it; and whether both in this, and that, they do not run a desperate hazard, if it appear that they have no other plea than a well meant mistake to excuse them.

For our parts we must needs profess that these things give us not only a scandal but a horrour for their Religion. Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to say, that this is the Chiefest and most important of all our controversies, and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another. And would to God they had only offended us by these Errours; and had not exposed our common Name to the reproach of the very Heathen; who have been confirmed by them in their Idolatry, and thought it more rational to adore a Stock or a Stone, than with the Christians to Worship this moment what they Eat the very next.

[Page 71] But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them, who declare our selves so favourably towards the Lutherans, who yet are involved in the same Error. Tis true we believe the Lutherans mistaken in their Literal interpretation of this Holy Sacrament. But we are perswaded they are infinitely less so, and less dangerously than the Papists.

They confess that there is no change made in the Substance of the Sacred Elements. They believe that the Bread and Wine continue in their proper Natures, and that Christs Body is present only when he is received. They adore not the Holy Eucharist: They found no Propitiatory Sacrifices upon it: They say no Masses for the sins and satisfactions, for the wants and necessities of the Dead and the Living: They deny not the Cup to the People; their Errour in one word, whatsoever it be, is only a matter of simple belief; has no ill consequences attending it, nor do they damn us for not receiving it.

Let the Church of Rome do all this: Let them raze their Anathema's out of their Councils, and banish their Masses and Adorations out of their Churches; Let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices, nor desire to enslave our Consciences by submitting them to their own inventions; and though we shall still think Transubstantiation to be the greater Error, yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the Lutherans: We will pray to God to give them a better understanding, but will not drive them from our Communion, for matters of simple belief, and which are only to themselves, tho' they be wrong.

[Page 72] But till then, in vain do's Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a Union, which God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth. In the mean time if the Church of Rome in good earnest thinks, that as we tolerate the foundation of all these Errours, the Corporeal presence in the Lutherans, so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them: Let them at least do what the Lutherans have done; let them embrace our Communion; let them leave off to persecute us where they have power, and damn us where they have not; let them receive us as Brethren, not Lord it over us as our Masters. This will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them, and they may justly then accuse us of partiality, if we continue to repute them as Enemies, when they will be thus content to love, and receive, and deal with us as friends.

ARTICLE. XXIII. Of Communicating only under one kind.

THis is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great Errour of the Corporeal presence on which they are founded. It is so plainly contrary to the express command of our Blessed Saviour, that we are perswaded it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it, on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an Opinion of Infallibility: That whilst they Lord it over mens Consciences, and will not so much [Page 73] as give them leave to ask them a Reason of what they do, they might here at last be surprised in an Error which the most vulgar Eye is able to discern.

The Church of England conformably to all Antiquity declares, ‘That the Cup ought not to be deny'd to the See our 30th Article. Lay-people; forasmuch as both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike.’

For indeed, Did not he who said of the Bread, ‘Take, Eat, this is my Body,’ say also of the Wine, with the same expressness, ‘Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins?’

Did not he who commanded them, ‘Do this in Remembrance of Me,’ for the Bread, even according to their own Construction, Take and Consecrate, and give to Others, as I have done to you; command them for the Cup in like manner, ‘Do this;’ i. e. consecrate, and give it to Others, as I have done to you, ‘in remembrance of Me?’

We confess, That the Grace of God is not tied to the outward signs: Yet we think withal, that without taking the outward and visible signs, we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual Grace of that holy Sacrament; which deriving all its Effect from our Saviour's Promise, we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them, who do not receive it according to his Institution.

Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the Blood in the body, we suppose he would not have consecrated the Cup afterwards. But if it was our Saviour's pleasure, that to commemorate the more lively his Passion, we should take his Blood as it was spilt for our Redemption, separate from his Body; we think [Page 74] it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than God, and say, that it is sufficient to participate of Both in One.

Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an Answer upon this point, from the Reply made to his Treatise written purposely on this Subject, that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here, what has been so fully and so successfully handled there.

Only as to that Negligence of these latter Ages, which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change; We must needs say, that God be thanked, we cannot observe any such Negligence of this holy Communion in our Churches, where yet this holy Sacrament is administred to as large Congregations, and with as great frequency as any where among Them. Both our Priests and the People, give and receive it with that Care and Reverence, that we find as little grounds for any such pretence, as there is reason in it, were it never so true, to justifie so great and unwarrantable a Change.

[Page 75]

PART III. OF THE CHURCH.

ARTICLE XXIV. Of the Word Written and Unwritten.

OUR Blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the Word which He preached, we confess, that the unwritten Word, as to that Gospel which he preached, was the first Rule of Christians. But God Almighty foreseeing how liable such a Rule must have been to infinite Inconveniencies, thought fit to have that Word which was first spoken by Mouth, afterwards consigned to Writing. By which means the Word written and unwritten were not Two different Rules, but as to all necessary matters of Faith, one and the same: And the unwritten Word so far from losing its Authority, that it was indeed the more firmly Establish'd, by being thus delivered to us by the holy Apostles and Evangelists.

[Page 76] We receive with the same Veneration whatsoever comes from the Apostles, whether by Scripture or Tradition, provided that we can be assured that it comes from them. And if it can be made appear, that any Tradition which the Written Word contains not, has been received by All Churches, and in All Ages, we are ready to embrace it, as coming from the Apostles.

Monsieur de Meaux therefore ought not to charge us as Enemies to Tradition, or obstinate, to receive what is so delivered. Our Church rejects not Tradition, but only those things which they pretend to have received by it: But which we suppose to be so far from being the Doctrine of the Apostles, or of All Churches in All Ages, that we are perswaded they are many of them directly contrary to the Written Word, which is by Themselves confessed to be the Apostles Doctrine, and which the best and purest Ages of the Church adhered to.

ARTICLE XXV. Of the Churches Authority.

THE Church; i. e. The Universal Church in All Ages, having been Establish'd by God, the Guardian of the Holy Scriptures, and of Tradition, we receive from her the Canonical Books of Scripture. It is upon this Authority, that we receive principally the Song of Solomon as Canonical, and reject other Books as Apochryphal, which we might perhaps with as much readiness otherwise receive. By this Authority [Page 77] we reverence these Books, even before by our own reading of them, we perceive the Spirit of God in them: And when by our reading them, we find all things conformable to so Excellent a Spirit, we are yet more confirmed in the belief and reverence we before had of them.

This Authority therefore we freely allow the Church, that by her hands in the succession of the several Ages, we have received the Holy Scriptures. And if as universal and uncontroverted a Tradition had descended for the Interpretation of the Scriptures, as for the receiving of them, we should have been as ready to accept of that too. Such a declaration of the sense of Holy Scripture as had been received by all Churches, and in all Ages, the Church of England would never refuse: But then as we profess not to receive the Scriptures themselves only, or perhaps principally upon the Authority of the Roman Church, which has in all Ages made up but a part, and that not always the greatest neither, of this Tradition; so neither can we think it reasonable to receive the sense of them only from her, though she profess never so much, to invent nothing of her self, but only to declare, the Divine Revelation made to her by the Holy Ghost, which she supposes has been given to her for her direction: Whilst we are perswaded, that neither has any Promise at all been made to any particular Church of such an infallible direction; and have such good cause to believe that this particular Church too often, instead of the divine Revelations, declares only her own Inventions.

When the dispute arose about the Ceremonies of the Law, Acts 15. the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem, for the determination of it. When any Doubts arise [Page 78] in the Church now, we always esteem it the best Method to decide them after the same manner. That the Church has Authority not only in matters of Order and Discipline, but even of Faith too, we never deny'd: But that therefore any Church so assembled, can with the same Authority say now, as the Apostles did then, ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to Acts 15. 28. Us:’ This we think not only an unwarrantable presumption, for which there is not any sufficient ground in Holy Scripture, but evidently in its self untrue, seeing that many such Councils are by the Papists themselves confessed to have erred.

Hence it is that we cannot suppose it reasonable to forbid Men the Examination of the Churches Decisions, which may err, when the Holy Apostles, nay our Saviour Christ himself, not only permitted, but exhorted their Disciples to search the Truth of their Doctrine, which was certainly Infallible. Yet if the determination be matter of Order or Government, as not to Eat of things offered to Idols, &c. or of plain and undoubted Precept, as ‘to abstain from Fornication,’ and the like: Here we fail not after the Example of Paul and Silas, to declare to the faithful what her decision has been; and instead of permitting them to judg of what has been so resolved, teach them throughout all places ‘to keep the Ordinances of the Apostles.’ Acts 16. 4.

Thus is it that we acquiesce in the judgment of the Church; and professing in our Creed a Holy Catholick Church, we profess to believe not only that there was a Church planted by our Saviour at the beginning, that has hitherto been preserved by him, and ever shall be to the end of the World; but do by consequence undoubtedly believe too, that this Universal Church is so secured by the Promises of Christ, that there shall always [Page 79] be retain'd so much Truth in it, the want of which would argue that there could be no such Church. We do not fear that ever the Catholick Church should fall into this entire Infidelity: But that any particular Church, such as that of Rome, may not either by Error lose, or by other means prevaricate the Faith, even in the necessary Points of it; this we suppose not to be at all contrary to the Promise of God Almighty, and we wish we had not too great cause to fear, that the Church of Rome has in effect done both.

It is not therefore of the Catholick Church truly such, that we either fear this infidelity, or complain that she hath endeavoured to render her self Mistress of our Faith. But for that particular Communion, to which Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to give the Name, tho she professes never so much to submit her self to the Holy Scripture, and to follow the Tradition of the Fathers in all Ages; yet whilst she usurps the absolute Interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers, and forbids us to examine whether she does it rightly or no, we must needs complain that her Protestations are invalid, whilst her Actions speak the contrary: For that if this be not to render her self Mistress of our Faith, we cannot conceive what is.

In a word, tho we suppose the Scriptures are so clearly written, that it can very hardly happen, that in the necessary Articles of Faith any one man should be found opposite to the whole Church in his Opinion: Yet if such a one were evidently convinced that his Belief was founded upon the undoubted Authority of Gods Holy Word, so far would it be from any Horror to support it, that it is at this day the greatest [Page 80] glory of S. Athanasius, that he stood up alone against the whole World in defence of Christs Divinity, when the Pope, the Councils, the whole Church fell away.

Conclude we therefore, that God, who has made us, and knows what is best and most proper for us, as he has subjected us to the Government and Direction of his Church for our Peace and Welfare, so to secure our Faith, he has given us his Holy Word, to be the last resort, the final, infallible Rule, by which both we and the Church its self must be directed: And from this therefore if any one shall endeavour to turn us aside, or preach any other Gospel unto us than what we have therein received, tho he were an Apostle from Gal. 1. 8, 9. the Grave, or even an Angel from Heaven, let him be Anathema.

ARTICLE XXVI. The Opinion of the Church of England, as to the Authority of the Church.

FOR the two last Articles of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, I might very well have pass'd them by. The Church of England, whose Doctrine I pretend to explain, is but very little concerned in them. Therefore only in a word, That we allow the Church a just Authority in matters of Faith, both the declaration of our xxth. Article, and the subscription we make to the whole 39 shew: Such a deference we allow to her decisions, that we make them our directions what Doctrine we may, or may [Page 81] not, publickly maintain and teach in her Communion: In effect, we shew whatever Submission we can to her Authority, without violating that of God, declared to us in his Holy Scriptures.

Whatsoever deference we allow to a National Church or Council, the same we think in a much greater degree due to a General. And whensoever such a one, which we much desire, shall be freely and lawfully assembled, to determine the Differences of the Catholick Church, none shall be more ready both to assist in it, and submit to it.

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

FOR the Pope's Authority, tho' we suppose no good Consequence can be drawn from that Primacy we are content to allow St. Peter among the Apostles, for that exorbitant Power which has of late been pretended to: Yet when other Differences shall be agreed, and the true Bounds set to his Pretences, we shall be content to yield him whatsoever ‘Authority the Ancient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged, and the Holy Fathers have always taught the faithful to give him.’

This Monsieur de Meaux ought to be contented with; who himself absolves us from yielding to those pretences, that have indeed very justly rendred this Authority, not only odious, but intolerable to the World.

[Page 82] Let those who are Enemies to Episcopacy, and who deny any due respect to the Chair of St. Peter, answer for themselves. The Church of England has both retain'd the one, and will be ready according to what we have before declared, when ever it shall be requisite, to acknowledge the other.

THE CLOSE.

SUCH is the Doctrine of the Church of England in those points which Monsieur de Meaux has thought fit to propose, as the principal matters in debate betwixt us. May it please the unprejudiced Papist to say, what he can find in All these, to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceived against us. To cut us off, as much as in them lies, from the Communion of Christs Church on Earth, and to deny us all part of his promises in Heaven.

We firmly believe the Holy Scriptures, and whatsoever they teach or command, we receive and submit to, as to the Word of God. We embrace all the ancient Creeds, and in them all that Faith which the Primitive Christians supposed, and which the Religious Emperors, by their Advice, decreed should be sufficient to intitle us to the common name of Catholicks.

What new Donatists, Gentlemen, are you, to presume to exclude us from this Character? And may we not justly demand of you, what S. Augustin once did of them on the same occasion; ‘You say that Christ is Heir of no Lands, but where Donatus is Co-heir. De unitate Eclesiae, c. 6. Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel, out of the Sacred Epistles: Read it to us, and we will believe.’

[Page 83] We accept the Tradition of Primitive Antiquity truly such, with a Veneration we dare confidently say greater than your selves. We have shew'd, that the very grounds of our difference is, that you require us to believe and practise such things as the Holy Scripture forbids us, and the Primitive Church never knew.

You command us to worship Images: Is it not evident See Article 4. that both the Law and the Gospel have forbid it? and is it not confess'd, that both the Apostles and their Successors abhorred the very name?

You command us to communicate only under one Article 23. kind: That is in our Opinion, nay, it is in yours too, to contradict the Institution of our Blessed Saviour, and the practice of the very Roman Church for above a Thousand years, and of all other Christians to this very day.

You command us to pray to Saints and Angels: Does Article 3. Col. 2. v. 18. Rev. 19. 10.—22. 9. not St. Paul forbid it? Did not the holy Angel twice refuse it from St. John? And many Centuries pass without One probable Instance of any that did it?

You command us under pain of your Anathema to Article 19. believe Transubstantiation? Do you your selves understand what you mean by it? Is it any where written? Was it ever mention'd for above a Thousand years?

You bid us Adore the Holy Sacrament: Has Christ Article 19. prescribed it? Have his holy Apostles written it? Did not here also above a Thousand years pass before any one attempted it?

You require us to believe the blessed Eucharist to be a true and real Propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins and satisfactions Article 20. both of the Dead and of the Living. Have ye any probable proof of it? Are ye yet, or ever like to be agreed among your selves about it? Do not your own principles evidently shew the contrary?

[Page 84] Men and Brethren: Consider, we conjure you, these things: And if you please, consider us too, what we are, and what our Manners and Conversation among you has been: Believe us, at least, that we have no other End but Truth in these Enquiries: No other Interest but to save our souls, and go the surest and directest way to Heaven.

The Proofs we offer, they are not vain Conjectures; they are clear, we think, convincing Arguments. And though the design of this little Treatise has been rather to shew you what our Doctrine is, than to give a just account of those Reasons that detain us in it: Yet perhaps even in this there may be somewhat to shew, that we do not altogether build in the Air; but deserve certainly to have our Articles and our Canons, both better understood, and better answer'd, if it may be, than they have ever hitherto been.

For to resume yet once more some few of our differences.

You think you ought to invocate the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Saints. Now not to repeat what we have Article 3. before said of the Unlawfulness of it, This we suppose to be first needless, because we know we have a more excellent and powerful Media or, that has commanded us to come to him; and next Uncertain, because you are not able to tell us how, nay, not to secure us that by whatever way it be, our Prayers do always and certainly come up to them. If we are mistaken, at least we run no hazard in it: We address our selves continually to the Throne of Grace, where we are secure that we shall be both heard and answer'd. But now should you err, consider we beseech you how many Prayers you every day lose, and what a dishonour you put upon your divine Mediator. And if you please, consider too how [Page 85] unjust you are to damn us for not joyning with you in a practice, that has so great danger, so little assurance, and not any advantage.

You suppose we ought to fall down before your Images. Article 4. Not to do this is to be sure no sin, you dare not say it is. To do it may be, and you can never secure us it is not abominable Idolatry, odious to God, and contrary to that holy Faith into which we have been Baptized.

You damn us for doubting of the number of your seven Article 10. Sacraments. Has God revealed it to you? Have the Holy Scriptures defined it? Or even Tradition its self delivered it to you. If it be true; Can you yet escape the charge of rashness and uncharitableness, to damn whole Churches for so needless a matter? should it be false, how will you escape that Anathema your selves; you have then so falsely as well as uncharitably denounced against us?

You require us to believe that children dying unbaptized, Article 10. are excluded the Grace of Christ for ever. To what purpose this? For what benefit? Were it as evident as it is indeed uncertain, and we are perswaded false; our modesty is safe in deciding nothing; the Errour of such among us as believe it not is charitable; founded upon the sure Mercies and Goodness of God, who never inflicts any punishment where there is no fault; and in a word, has not any the least ill consequence upon it. We take as great care to Baptize our Infants, as you can do who most believe it. But now if your Opinion should be false; What answer will you ever be able to make to God, for peremptorily defining what was so uncertain and uncharitable? and for damning us, only because we dare not venture to cut off those from Christ for whom he died, and whom we hope he will in mercy receive to him?

[Page 86] Lastly, You deny us the entire Communion; you Article 23. pronounce an Anathema against us, because we will not confess that one part alone is sufficient. Is it not certain that if we err, we have yet both Christs Institution, and the practice and Opinion of many Ages to absolve us? But have you any thing to excuse you, if you are mistaken? To take it as we do, you confess can have no danger, are you sure that to deny it as you do, may not be a Sacriledge?

And what shall I say more? For the time would fail me to speak of every one of those other points Monsieur de Meaux mentions, much more to add many others, and of no less consequence, which he has thought fit to pass by. In all which we have at least this undenyable advantage over you; that besides the clearest Arguments that we are in the right, the hazard we run is not very great if we should not be: Whereas for you, neither is there any tolerable proof of the contrary Errours, and an infinite danger should you chance to be mistaken.

These things, as both the Character of the Book we have now examined, and the Style of many other your latter most considerable Authors, give us cause to hope, begin to be no longer totally hid from your Eyes; so shall we never cease in all our Prayers to make mention of you, that you may be perfectly enlightned to discern, and impartially disposed, to receive and to embrace the Truth.

In the mean time, whilst both you and we mutually address our selves to the Eternal Truth for his assistance; whilst as we ought, we implore his mercy, that he would give us a right understanding in all things; remembring this that we are all but Men, and that it is not therefore impossible for either of us to err: That it may be strength of Passion, or prejudice of Education, [Page 87] or even vehemency of affection, more than the light of Reason, has hitherto kept us in a too fond partiality for our own Opinions: Let us at least, we beseech you, agree in that mutual Charity which alone can secure us amidst all our Errours; which will both best dispose Gods mercy to shew us what is right, and will best incline our Minds to that sincerity which we all pretend to, and I hope all really have to embrace it.

If we cannot yet agree in all the points of our Religion; let us consider, that neither are the dearest friends entirely of the same opinion in every thing. Let us wait Gods pleasure; if it be his will to ‘reveal even this also unto us: Nevertheless whereunto we have already Philip. 3. 15, 16. attain'd, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.’

We believe in the same God; we rely on the same Redeemer; we embrace the same Creeds; we attend the same hopes of an Everlasting Salvation: And in all these, amidst all our other Differences, have at least an entire agreement in what is most necessary, and shall we hope to the Honest and sincere among us, be sufficient for our Eternal Security.

Let these things engage us to have the same love too: to be more sparing in our Anathema's, and more zealous in our Prayers for one another, to seek and to maintain the Truth, but to do it so as not to violate our Charity. In a word, whether we write, or speak, to do both as Men who in a little time expect to be brought before a divine Tribunal, where we must render a severe account for all these things; and one Word spoken with this excellent spirit, to close those Divisions that so long have seperated us, shall be preferred to ten thousand Volumes of endless and uncharitable controversies, that serve only to widen our breaches, and heigthen our Animosities.

FINIS.

AN ADVERTISEMENT Of Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.

THE APOLOGY of the Church of England; And an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Sarisbury. Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop; Collected and Written by the same Hand. 8 ^o.

The LETTER writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion. Together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction. Translated into English, and Examined by GILBEBT BURNET, D. D. 8 ^o.

The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland; Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition in Sevil,) in matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. 8 ^o.

The Decree made at Rome the second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists.

A Discourse concerning the necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. 4 ^o.

A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. 4 ^o.

A PAPIST not Misrepresented by PROTESTANTS. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented.] 4 ^o.

…

[Page] Imprimatur.

Carolus Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis.

Aug. 6. 1686.

A DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, Against the EXCEPTIONS OF Monsieur de MEAUX, Late Bishop of Condom, AND HIS VINDICATOR.

The Contents are in the next Leaf.

LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's 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 being 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. …

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 Presence 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.

[Page iii] 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, notwithstanding Albertinus de Eucharistiae Sacramento. Fol. 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, by advancing certain matters of fact, which he calls just prejudices Prejugez legitimes contre▪ [...]es Calvinists. An. 1671. 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, who undertook the defence Examen du livre qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes, &c. An. 1673. 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 contr [...] 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, was published not long since to prove us guilty of Schism in separating from the Les Pretendus Reformez convaineûs de Schisme. 1684. 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 hitherto 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.

[Page v] 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 plausible 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, he says, were wont to represent Popery Advertisment Pag. 2, 4. 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. ‘That out of an Exposit. Pag. 3. 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; ‘For that he never sent his Book Vindicat. Pag. 8, 9. 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, nor 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. ‘As for those passages, says he, which Vindicat. Pag. 12, 13. 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, ‘That the Honour which the Church gives to Collect. n. [...] 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, ‘ That the Mass may very reasonably Ibid. n. 12. 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, who ever said or thought Vindicat. Pag. 8. 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.

[Page xiii] 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, ‘One endowed with all M. de M's Advert. p. 3. 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, that Vindicat. pag. 10. 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 Seconde Reponse. p. 79, &c. de Ruvigny, above five Years since, to be directly opposite to his Exposition. And for the rest, I must For all this, see the Appendix. num. 2. 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, Monsieur de Meaux Vindicat. pag. 10. 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; but if what I have alledged out 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. 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, this concerns For what concerns Mr. Imbert, 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. 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, That I reflect upon him for being ‘fertile enough Vindicat. p. 14. 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. This we so much See de la B's. Answer to the Advertisement. p. 5. 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 ascuses 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. I have been taught, and am Ephes. 4. 20. Rom. 3. 8. 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 [...]nstance 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 Vindicat. pag. 2. that are laid to my charge. And the first is, ‘ 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. I never thought those Letters Expos. of the C. E. pag. 15. 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, I should at Vindicat. pag. 3. 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 Vindicat. Pag. 17. the Doctrine of the Exposition, 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, quoque Imagines seu Numina aut Divinitatem continentia more Gentilium colantur; de hujusmodi enim Latriâ controversia erat cum Judaeis & Haereticis, qui h [...]c ratione nos Imagines colere asserebant. Caeterum de Latriâ illâ quae Imaginibus S. Trinitatis, Christi D. aut Sacratissimae Crucis exhibetur, ratione rei per eas repraesentatae, & quatenus eum re repraesentatâ unum sunt in esse repraesentativo, nullam (que) divinitatem Imaginibus tribuit aut supponit, nulla unquam fuit aut esse 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.’

[Page xx] 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; ‘We do not, says he, so much honour the Monsieur de Meaux' s Expos. pag. 8. 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, ‘Whether the representative Image Vindicat. pag. 19. 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 Virdicat. p. 16, 17, 19. take notice of in my Preface, is the Consequence which I draw from this, and some other instances of the like kind, viz. ‘That the Papists think it lawful to set their hands to, and approve those Books, whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike.’

In Answer to which, he again distinguishes between Scholastic Tenets, and matters of Faith: and then tells us, ‘Every one knows that the Doctrines of a Church or matters of Faith, being Tenets necessarily and universally received, ought upon no account to be dissembled or disguised; but as for Scholastic Opinions, we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught, and [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, which have either been altered Vindicat. pag. 20. 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 Collect. n. 5. of Saints? 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 Ibid. n 6. to Images, than to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent? Is that all the use they make of them? Do they not so much honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, as the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image? Or rather, did not Monsieur de Meaux here also mollifie the known Doctrine and practice of his Church?

In a word: Is the Church of Rome contented to Ibid. n. 12. 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?

[Page xxxiii] 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, yet at Vindicat. pag. 21. 22. 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. ‘One that either did not sufficiently M. de M's Advert. p. 2. 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, or the Reader's Vindicat. pag. 120, 121. 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.

[Page xxiv] ‘ But for the other part of his desire, that I would take the pains to peruse my self the Authors cited Vindicat. pag. 121. by me, and not transcribe Quotations, nor take up things by halves;’ I have been so scrupulous in observing it, that I doubt I shall receive but little thanks from himself for it. It cannot be 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, and a sincere application Ibid. 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, and ungentile Office indeed of Vindicat. pag. 122. 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.

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

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. 6
III. Invocation of Saints. ibid.
IV. Images and Reliques. 14
V. Justification. 25
VI. Merits. 28
VII. 1. Satisfactions. 32
—2. Indulgences. 35
—3. Purgatory. 36

PART II.

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

[Page 1]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 these 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, viz. to shew that all those Books to Vindicat. pag. 22. 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, who professes Vindicat. pag. 22. [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 Unsincerity 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. ‘My Vindicat. pag. 23. 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 Missal 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, pass we on to the state of Expos. p. 5. 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, is to state the Question Vindicat. pag. 24. after a new Mode, and represent them as consenting to it.’Let us see therefore what the Old way of stating it is, and wherein the insincerity he charges me with, consists.

The true state of the Question betwixt us, he Ibid. p. 25. 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 Ibid. p. 26. against the Roman Catholick Doctrine be so weighty, 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, will find it clear enough See his Expos. §. 2. p. 2. 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, destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed Vindicat. Pag. 23. to be Fundamental.

But if I have not mistaken the Question between the Papists and Protestants, I am sure the Vindicator has that between Him and Me. ‘He Vindicat. pag. 26. 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.

[Page 6]

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 Vindicat. Pag. 29. 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, becuase 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 Daillé's words are these: Neque eum à vero longè aberraturum puto, 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 4 ^o 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 4 ^o sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur, &c. Adv. Lat. Tradit. de cultûs 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, Bibl. 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 moriebantur non intrabant in Coelum, nec Deum videbant, nec 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 directè oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent, nusquam legimus. Hic enim modus Orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quosancti videntes Deum passunt etiam in Eo videre Orationes que 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, 2048. 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 Bretagne, 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 nous a ravis la pluspart des ecrits, encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des Vestiges de cette coutûme— ill suffit—qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs Ecrits de repugnant à 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 Vindicat. p. 30. of this Invocation, it were very easy to shew it, had I nothing to do but to repeat things, that have been so often said already, that the World grows weary of them; and is abundantly satisfied that they have nothing to reply to them. Every Text of Scripture that appropriates Divine Worship to God alone, is a 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.

[Page 11]

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 tuum praesidium consugimus 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 miran [...]e tuum 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. l. 1. de Sanct. beat. c. 16. p. 2036. l. A. reflects upon Calvin in these words. Quintò 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 potest filio supplicare, sed etiam potest Authoritate Maternâ eidem 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 our Lives that we may die well.

Nor is it the Blessed Virgin only to whom they thus address: The Prayer to St. John is in the same strain: Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, Mira gestorum famuli tuorum, Solve polluti labii reatum, 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 adveneric 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 Sacrament a 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, and that truly, of my complaining that the approved Doctrine Vindicat. p. 31. ‘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 JESUS 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, the Doctrine of Vindicat. p. 38. 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. Cr [...] Legati, Quia debetur [...]i Latria, erit à dextris, & Gladius Imperatoris à [...]inistria. 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.

[Page 16] Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art. 4. Utrum Crux Christi sit adoranda adoratione LATRIAE? Conclus. Crux Christi in quâ Christus crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum propter membrorum Christi contactum, LATRIA ADORANDA EST: Crucis verò Effigies in aliâ quâvis materiâ, 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 account, 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, as are directly contrary to Vindicat. p. 39. 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. Propter Deum, for the sake of God. It is very Page 39. 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; First the Pontificale de benedictione novae Crucis. pag. 161. col. 2. Bishop makes several prayers; ‘ Rogamus Te Domine pater omnipotens sempiterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae, ut sit remedium salutare generi humane; 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) conse†cres:— Illis ergo manibus hanc Crucem accipe, quibus illam amplexus es; & de sanctitate illius, hanc sancti†fica: & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu, ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae, hujus CRUCIS merito, omni careant perpetrato peccato. P. 162. That he would sanc†tify to himself this Cross, and bless it; That our Saviour Christ would embrace this Cross, [which they consecrate] as he did that [on which he suffered;] and by the holiness of that, sanc†tify This: That as by that the World was redeemed from guilt, so the devout Souls who offer it, may by the Merits of this Cross be freed from all the Sins they have committed.

Tum Pontifex flexis ante CRUCEM genibus EAM devotè ADORAT, & osculatur: Idem faciunt 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; ‘ All the Vindicat. p. 39. 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: And Vindicat. p. 40. here I am again accused for not giving All the words of the Church, and of adding somewhat that was not there, to make it speak my own sense. The words I cited are these, ‘Behold the Wood of the Cross, Come, let us Adore it. ’Whereas their Church intends not that we should Adore it, i. e. The Cross; but come, Let us Adore, i. e. The Saviour of the World that hung upon it.

To judge aright of this Cavil, and yet more expose their Idolatry, I shall here give a just account from the Missal, of the whole Service of 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, and wholly uncovering the Cross, and lifting it up, begins yet higher, Behold the Wood of the Cross 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 folus portat Crucem ad locum ante Altare praeparatum, & genu flexus ibidem eam locat: Mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad ADORANDAM CRUCEM; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur. Hoc facto revertitur, & accipit calceamenta & casulam. Postmodum ministri Altaris, deinde alii Clerici & Laici, bini & bini, ter genibus flexis, ut dictum est, CRUCEM ADORANT. Interim dum fit ADORATIO CRUCIS cantantur, &c.—Deinde cantatur communiter Annā: CRUCEM tuam ADORAMUS Domine. P. 209. 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.’

[Page 21] As for my last Argument from the Hymns of the Vindicat. p. 40. Church, he acknowledges the Fact, but tells us, ‘ That these are Poetical Expressions; and that the word CROSS, by a Figure, sufficiently known to Poets, fignifies JESUS CHRIST, to whom they pray in those Hymns.’I shall not ask the Vindicator by what Authority he sends us to the Poets for interpreting the 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 Condito [...] Suspensus est patibulo. The Banner of our King appears, The Mystery of the Cross shines, Upon which the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh. Beautiful and bright Tree! Adorn'd with the Purple of a King, Chosen of a Stock worthy to touch Arbor decora & fulgida, Ornata Regis purpurâ, Electa digno stipite, Tam Sancta membra tangere. such Holy Members: Blessed, upon whose Arms, The Price of the World hung. Hail, O Cross, our only Hope! In this time of Beata cujus brachiis Soecli pependit pretium. Statera facta Corporis, Praedam (que) tulit Tartari. the Passion, Encrease the Righteousness of the Just, and give Pardon to the Guilty.’ Now by what Figure to make the Banner O Crux Ave spes unica! Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis Justitiam, Reis (que) dona Veniam. and the King the same; the Cross upon which the maker of our Flesh hung, not different from that Flesh that hung upon it; Vid. Breviar. Rom. Dom. Passionis. p. 295, 296. 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, and believe it next a kin to 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. Transubstantiation, the Vindicator may please hereafter to inform us.

In the Point of Reliques, the Council of Trent proceeded OF RELIQUES. 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, their own St. Thomas gives the very same interpretation Thom. 3. p. q. 25. art. 6. pag. 54. to the same word. For having proposed the Question in these terms, Whether the Reliques of Saints are to be ADORED? He concludes it in the terms of the Council, ‘Seeing we VENERATE Utrum Reliquiae Sanctorum sint ADORANDAE? Conclus: Cum Sanctos Dei Veneremur, eorum quoque corpora & Reliquias Venerari oportet. Sec. Obj. Stultum videtur rem insensibilem VENERARI. Resp. Ad secund. dicend. Quod Corpus illud insensibile non ADORAMUS propter seipsum; sed, &c. the Saints of God, we must also VENERATE their Bodies and Reliques.’

[Page 23] And again, In his second Objection against this Conclusion, 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 RELIQUES 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; sive res aliae, quae ipsos tetigerunt, vel ad ipsos pertineant, ADORANDAS & in honore Sacra 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 debeamus. 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 RELIQUES 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 RELIQUES 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 Vindicat. p. 42. sufficiently evident, that I had reason to interpret Uenerari 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 Vindicat. p. 46. over-run with such Abuses, as I mention'd, 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 Justificari vel solâ imputatione justitiae Christi, vel solâ peccatorum remissione exclusâ gratiâ & charitate quae in cordibus Eorum per Spiritum S. diffundatur, at (que) illis inhaereat; aut etiam gratiam quâ 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.’

[Page 27] 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.

[Page 28]

ARTICLE VI. Of Merits.

IT ought not to be wondred at, if to shew the true Vindicat. p. 48. 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, that they are not also the Merits Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. Can. 32. 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 Justis. 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 Bonae verè & propriè, sed non tan excellentia ut proportionem habeant cum vitâ aeternâ. Et ideò acceptari quidem à Deo ad justam & dignam mercedē vitae aeternae, 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 sit revera aequale mercedi, 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, etiamsi 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.

[Page 31] 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. Dicunt ergo 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) ull [...] 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 benignitute 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 sobo 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 aocessisse quidem divinam promissionem, eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem Meriti, sed potiùs advenire Operibus, non tantum jam dignis, sed etiam jam meritoriis. As for the Conclusion, wherein the Vindicator endeavours to excuse him, it is this: First he 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.

[Page 32]

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 Vindicat. pag. 54, 55. terms, 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 insinite Merits of a crucified Saviour, that has made an infinite Satisfaction to his Justice, he may as well forgive Temporal as Eternal Punishment.

[Page 33] 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 satisfaciamus; & 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 nihil 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 exhibet id quod potest; licet minus sufficiens illud sit, dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere. This Reason Vasqutz dislikes; he is content this Satisfaction should be called Minus sufficiens; but then only upon the account before mentioned, of its proceeding from the Grace of God: So that, Si Contritio praecederet infusionem Gratiae habitualis ex parte Efficientis, non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè, sed etiam 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 concedimus (says he) homini justo pro suo peccato Veniali condignam & perfectam satisfactionem, ut 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.

[Page 34] But that Protestants ever assigned this, or any other Vindicat. p. 57. single Point as the cause of our separating from their Communion; That we ever taught that any thing at all should be given to a Sinner, for saying a bare Lord have mercy upon me; much less more than they pretend to give by all the Plenary Indulgences of their Church; this is so shameful a Calumny, that I am confident the Vindicator himself never believed it.

For his last Remark, if it deserves any Answer, ‘ That I reflect upon the Bishop of Meaux, for bringing only, we suppose, to establish this Doctrine, when yet very often I do no more 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.

[Page 35]

ARTICLE VII.
§. 2. Of Indulgences.

FOR Indulgences, the Vindicator thinks it sufficient Vindicat. p. 58. 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. Universal Indulgence throughout their whole Church?

[Page 36] 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 Vindicat. p. 59. Christians in praying for the Dead, 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.’

[Page 37]

PART II.

ARTICLE VIII. Of the Sacraments in General.

AS to the number of the Sacraments, the Vindicator Vindicat. p. 59. 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, for Vindicat. p. 61. 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.

[Page 38] 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, ‘ This I take to be the Doctrine of the soundest English Divines, and which I believe A. Bp Bramhall' s Works, Tom. 4. Disc. 5. p. 983. 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, affirms that this ‘ denyal M. de Meaux' s Exp. p. 16. 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, I affirm'd that several Vindicat. p. 63. 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 Ecclesiâ 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.

[Page 41]

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 Ibid. p. 65. of Discipline only, and alterable at pleasure; 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. James brought for Vindicat. p. 68. 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 Unction only: ’But yet since we find in St. Mark that this Mark 6. 13. 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, and cannot be maintain'd without dishonour to that Spirit by which they acted: ‘Neither Vindicat. p. 69. 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 promises, 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. That this Gift of Healing 2 Tim. 4. 20. was in the Church at this time, is not to be doubted, though this place should not belong to it. Will the Vindicator argue against this, that then none died till it went out of the Church, but such as refused the benefit of it, or died suddenly before they had time to do it?

It may appear by this, how little they have to object against the true Design and Interpretation of Vindicat. p. 69,—70. thi [...] passage: For Cardinal Cajetan's Authority, the Vindicator tells us, That ‘ had I said only, that he 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. thought it could not be proved, neither from the Words, nor the Effect, that St. James speaks of the Sacramental Unction of Extreme Unction; but rather [Page 45] of that Unction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the Sick, I had been a faithful Quoter of his Sense: But to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to impose upon him and the Readers.’As if when two Things only are in controversy for the Cardinal, absolutely to exclude the one, and apply it to the other, were not in effect (for I 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 Unction to belong primarily to bodily Cures, and but secondarily only to the sickness of the Soul. And because these Rituals are not in every 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. 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.

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.

[Page 45]

That by this Blessing it might become the Defence both of the Mind and Body; to cure all Pains and Infirmities, and sickness of the Body: nothing else mentioned.

[Page 46]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 visit and. 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 Life of thy Servant Hezekiah fifteen Years, let thy Power in like manner raise up this thy Servant from his Bed of Sickness. Through &c.

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

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 exteriús (que) sanitatem miserecorditer redde: ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus & Sanatus, ad pristina Pietatis tuae reparetur Officia; Per &c.

[Page 46]

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.

[Page 47]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.

[Page 47]

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.

[Page 49]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, & Spiritùs 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 Unctionem, at (que) nostram deprecationem, virtute Sanctae Trinitatis medicatus sive fotus, pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem: Per eundem.

I anoint thee with this 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. Unct. p. 394. And the Prayers in the Office of the Euchelaion are all exactly conformable, to what I have here observed. Holy Oil, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that no unclean Spirit may 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 Unction 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.

[Page 50]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, viscerúm (que) ac cordium interna Medica: Medullorum quo (que) & Cogitationum: Sana discrimina ulcerum, vanitatum (que) putredines evacua, Conscientiarum (que) at (que) plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres, immensás (que) remove passiones: Carnis ac Sanguinis materiam reforma, delictorúm (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.

[Page 50]

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 Unction of this Oil be the Expulsion of his present Sickness and Infirmity, and the remission of all his Sins: Through.

[Page 51] 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 I F 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, Cassandr 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 Unction 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.

[Page 52]

ARTICLE XIII. Of Marriage.

THat Marriage is not a Sacrament truly and properly Vindicat. p. 70. so called, as the Council of Trent has defined it, their own Authors sufficiently shew. Cassand. 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 ex traditionibus Ecclesiae non Scriptis, & ad Verbum 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.

[Page 53]

ARTICLE XIV. Of Holy Orders.

IF the Vindicator be truly agreed with Me in this Vindicat. p. 71. Article, 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.

[Page 54]

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

AS to the Business of the Eucharist, I had not Vindicat. p. 72. 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, first, Of the ‘ insincerity Ibid. of my Attacque; That the Bishop declared there was nothing in the words of Institution OBLIGING Pag. 73, 74. them to take them in a figurative sense; to which I oppose only, That there are such Grounds in them for a figurative Interpretation, as NATURALLY lead to it.’'Tis true, I have not here used the very word OBLIGED, but yet in my proof I proceed upon such Grounds as I said would Expos. Ch. of Eng. p. 47. NECESSARILY REQUIRE a figurative [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, that Vindicat. p. 73. 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 REQUIRE 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 sit propositio in qui Subjectum supponit pro Pane, praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi, &c. Bellarmine, Hoc est impossibile quòd Panis sit 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 panem, 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.’

[Page 58] 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, and tells us, ‘ That it will all argue nothing Vind. p. 75. 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?

[Page 59] 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; Before he enters Vindicat. p. 77, 78, 79, 80. on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to [Page 60] shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trans-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. Our Catechism affirms, ‘That the inward part, or thing signified in this Holy Supper, is the BODY See the Church Catechism. 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 SPIRITUAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER; and the means by which this is done, is FAITH. So that to such as rightly, and worthily, and with Faith receive the same, The Bread which we break, is, as St. Paul declares it, The Communion of the Body of Christ, and the Cup of Blessing which we bless, The Communion of the Blood of Christ.’ In a word; We say, that the faithful do really partake of 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, i. e. Corporal) but as to the nature of the thing it 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 Cosins, in his History of Transubstantiation, cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large, p. 6. &c. 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 Vind. p. 80, 81. them in order to our understanding of it. And for Antiquity, he desires us to observe, ‘ Ist, That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon, defined the Ibid. p. 82. true, real, and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament, brings this Transubstantiation, or Conversion of one Substance Sess. 13. Can. 2. 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, says he, that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion, but only Vindic. p. 83. 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, as the Council not only determines See Suarez cited below. the Presence of Christ's Body, and Absence of the Substance of the Bread, but also the true Conversion of the one into the other; thus establishing, not only the two former, but this last also as an Article of Faith.’

Our dispute therefore, is not only, as this Author pretends, about the real Presence of Christ's Body, and Vindic. p. 83. 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, viz. What kind of 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, definire non sustineo: Quibusdam esse videtur substantialis, &c. 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 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE; but for his part, he will not undertake to determine it.

But 2dly, SCOTUS is yet more free Dicendum, says Scotus, quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei. Si quaeras, quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus Articuli, cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem, & veriorem 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. Vind. p. 88. 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, 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,. 1. 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 priora, sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet. SUAREZ 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 Vind. p. 86. other might with as good reason have been received. This he says, is false; for that Cajetan says no such thing; nay, rather the contrary, as will appear to any one who reads that Article:’And then with wonderful assurance, begins a rabble of Citations nothing to the purpose, in the very next Words to those in which mine end.

‘For the better clearing of this Doctrine, says 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 Metaphorice; 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. 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, that is not Vind. p. 222. 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, ‘ That Transubstantiation Vindic. p. 88. was no matter of Faith, till the Council of Lateran, 1200 years after Christ:’They are the very words of Scotus cited by Bellarmine, and all his Sophistry will See p. 64. 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. For what remains Vind. p. 92, 93. 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.

[Page 67]

ARTICLE XIX. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

IF I affirmed, The Sacrifice of the Mass to be one of those Errors that most offends us; I said no more Vindic. p. 94. 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 sit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari, Anathema sit. 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, poenis, satisfactionibus, & aliis necessitatibus offerri debere, Anathema sit. The Council of Trent affirms, ‘That the Mass is Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. p. 196. de Missa. 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, as understood Vindicat. ib. 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, be 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, If with the Council of Trent, he indeed Vindic. p. 95. 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, the Vindicator, after Monsieur de Meaux, thinks it sufficient Vindicat. p. 96, 97. to tell us, ‘That they understand the word Offer when they apply it to the Mass, in a larger signification than what the Apostle there gives it; as Mr. de M's Expos. p. 31. when we are said to offer up to God whatever we present before him: And that 'tis thus they pretend to offer up the Blessed JESUS to his Father in the Mass, in which he vouchsafes to render himself Vind. p. 96. 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.

[Page 70] 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 indeed it still seems most reasonable to us, that either this Sacrifice is no true and proper Sacrifice, as they say it is; or it is truly and properly 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, as Vindicat. p. 97. 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, Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; nor will such a Rubrick about kneeling at the end of the Communion. 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 Vindicat. p. 98. to the Laity, 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. ‘The Cup of the Lord is not to be See Art. 30. Sparrow' s Collect. pag. 102, and 219. 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.’

[Page 72] This, as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator, is both False and Unreasonable: FALSE, for that Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, but only says, That ‘ Forasmuch as in his See Sparrow' s Collect. p. 17. 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 UNREASONABLE, 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.

[Page 73] His 3d Argument is not only Unreasonable upon the account we have now said; but were it never so proper, is absolutely nothing to the purpose. In the Rubrick, at the end of the same Order of the Communion, there is this Remark:

‘Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated, shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed; Sparrow' s Collect. p. 24. 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; and damn all those that will not believe ‘they had not Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1, 2. 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?

[Page 75]

PART III.

ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Written and Unwritten Word.

AS to this Article, there is indeed an Agreement between Monsieur de Meaux and Me, Vindic. p. 100. 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 Universal?

He tells us, ‘they rely upon the judgment of the present Vind. ibid. 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:

[Page 76] 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 Universality of Church-Traditions. But

2. There is yet a more cogent Reason against this Method, which is, that it is apt to set up Tradition in competition with the Scriptures, and to give this Unwritten Word the upper hand of the Written.

For, according to this Method, if the Church in any Age, does but decree in Council, or does generally Teach and 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 [...] lively Oracles of God.

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

IN the two next Articles, concerning the Authority Vind. p. 101: 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: The 1. of these, he calls an Argument to Vind. p. 103. 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 Universal Church.

But now, should we allow the Church of Rome as great an extent as the Vindicator speaks of, and that it were proper to understand by that name, all those other Churches which are in Communion with her; yet all this would not make her the whole or 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 Universal, 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, That the gates of Hell should not prevail against Matt. 16. 18. 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, ‘is yet more intollerable than all the rest: That it should be left to every Vind. p. 102. [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. This, Ibid. p. 103. 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, but allows See Article 20. 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, he Sozomen Eccl. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 15. 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 Vindic. p. 106. that he has nothing to say against the Opinion of the Church of England; 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 Universal 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, ‘ Whether the first four General Councils Vindic. p. 106. 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 Usurpation, 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, that I have gone through the several Vindic. p. 106. 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 Unsincere 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 Vind. p. 120. can be so clearly expressed, or so firmly established,’ let me add, or so kindly and charitably performed, ‘but that a person who intends to cavil, may either form a seeming Objection against it, or wrest it into a different sense.’

I never had the vanity to fancy my Exposition to be 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 Moderation 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, as a late Author has Amicable Accommodation. 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.

[Page 87] For what remains of the Vindication, I shall say but Vindicat. p. 106, 107. 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 Vindicat. p. 111. loaded them with; 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 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [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.

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.

New Popery.

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. Note: Vind. p. 27, 28.

Invocation of Saints.

Old 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 A 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. Note: * 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 at (que) Utile esse suppliciter eos invocare; & ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per fi [...]ium 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: That it is good A 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. Note: Concil. Trid. Self. 25. c. de Invocatione, &c. ss.

Upon 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, They Reign in Heaven: So that if 'tis necessary A to go to Church, 'tis necessary to pray to them. They confess their Sins to them; Ord. Commend. Animae. p. 120. they dismiss departing Souls out of this World in their Names; they make direct Addresses to them as the Council speaks, not only for their Prayers, but also for their Help and Assistance; they desire for their Merits to be heard by B 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.

[Page 91]

New Popery.

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. Note: Monsieur de Meaux, p. 5.

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

As to the recommending C 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. Note: Vindicat. p. 30.

Worship of Images.

Old Popery.

A THE Images of Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solùm per accidens vel improprie, sed etiam per se & proprie; Ita ut ipsae terminent Venerationem ut in se considerantur, & non solum ut vicem gerunt Exemplaris. 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, Note: Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. p. 2148.

Pont. Rom. p. 205. See above, p. 15, 16, 17. The Wood of the A 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,’ Note: Pontific. See above, art 4. p. 15.

Missal. Rom. feria VI. in Parascev. p. 247. This Adoration is A 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. Note: See Article 4. above, ib.

Pontificale de Benedictione novae Crucis, p. 161. The Church of Rome B 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. Note: See above in the Consecration of a new Cross. Art. 4. p. 16, 17.

[Page 92]

New Popery.

THe use we make of A Pictures or Images, is purely as representatives, or memorative Signs, which call the Originals to our Remembrance. Note: Vindicat. p. 35.

[Page 93]When the Church pays an Honour to the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, her A Intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image. Note: Expos. M. de M. p. 8.

Nor do we attribute to B them any other Vertue, but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent. Note: 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; which A exterior Signs are not paid to the Image, but to Jesus Christ represented by that Image. Note: Vindicat. ib. p. 31. Mons. de Meaux Expos. p. 8, 9.

[Page 94]

Of Reliques.

Old Popery.

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

This is an undoubted A truth amongst Catholicks, That the Reliques of the Saints, whether they be any Vasquez in 3 part. D. Tho. disp. 112. p. 808. parts of them, as Bones, Flesh, Ashes, or some other things that have toucht them, or belonged to them, are to be adored. Note: Vasques, See above, Art. 4. p. 50.

New Popery.

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

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

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

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

[Page 95]

Of Justification.

Old Popery.

Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. p. 31. BY Justification is to be understood, not only Remission of Sins, but Sanctification, and renewing of the inward A Man. Note: 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. Note: Concil. Trid. ib. See above, Art. 5. p. 53.

See above, Art. 5. p. 27. If any one shall affirm the works of a justified man B 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. Note: Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 32.

New Popery.

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 Note: Vind. p. 47.

[Page 96]

Of Merits.

Old Popery.

WE do as truly A Maldonat. in Ezek. 18, 20. p. 425. and properly, 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. are truly equal to A 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. Note: Bellarmin. see art. 6. above.

They, therefore, are to be condemned who think our Works of themselves, not to be worthy of Eternal A Vasquez in D. Th. 12ae. q. 114. disp. 214. p. 800. 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 Note: Art. 7. p. 31, 32.

Christ indeed, first obtain'd Grace for us, whereby we might be enabled to work out our own Salvation; Vasquez ibid. p. 917. &c. 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. Note: Vasquez, See above l. c.

[Page 96]

New Popery.

ETernal Life ought to A 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, in Vertue of this A Promise. Note: 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. Note: Ib. p. 12.

[Page 97]

Of Satisfactions.

Old Popery.

TO this Question whether our Works are A 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. Note: 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. Note: Id. ib. Art. 7.

As to mortal Sins, Gods Grace being supposed to be Vasquez in 3 part disp. 2. See above, Art. 7. 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. Note: 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 B satisfie, but do somewhat for the sake of which God applies to us Christs Satisfaction; This Opinion seems to me to be Erroneous. Bellarm.

[Page 97]

New Popery.

THey impose upon us, A who say that we believe that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper Satisfaction to God for Sin. Note: 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. Note: M. de M. Expos. p. 15.

[Page 98]

Of Indulgences.

Old Popery.

THere being in all Sins a temporal Punishment Bellarm. de Indulgentiis lib. 1. cap. 1. p. 3. to be undergone after the Eternal, 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, is the Treasure Ibid. cap. 2. 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 Ibid. c. 3. p. 19, 27. the power of granting Indulgences, and dispensing of the Merits of Christ, and the Saints, for this end, out of the Sacraments.

The Punishments remitted by these Indulgences, 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.

[Page 98]

New Popery.

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

[Page 99]

Of the Mass.

Old Popery.

THe Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 1. &c. p. 196. & ibid. c. 2. p. 191. Mass is a true A 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. Note: Conc. Trent. Art. 16.

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 Sacrificium 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. I. D. Sect. Tertio. Every true and real Sacrifice requires a B true and real Death or Destruction of the thing sacrificed: So that if in the Mass there be not a true and real Destruction, [Page 100] there is not a true and real Sacrifice. Note: 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. Note: Bellarmin.

[Page 99]

New Popery.

THe Sacrifice of the Mass A 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. Note: Vindicat. pag. 95.

When we say, That B 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. Note: Vindicat. ibid. p. 96.

Of the Popes Authority.

Old 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. Note: Concil. Trid. Jur. Pii 4ti p. xliv. in fine.

The Pope has Power to 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. depose Princes, 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.’ Note: Concil. Later. 4. Can. 3. de Haeret. p. 147.

New Popery.

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. Note: Expos. Monsieur de Meaux. p. 40.

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

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 Vindic. p. 112, &c. amuse us. 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. God is faithful 1 Cor. 10. 13. who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able: And he who for any of these things denies Christ Matt. 10. 33. or his Religion on Earth, shall be denied by Christ before his Father which is in Heaven.

[Page 104] 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.

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.

[Page 107]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.

[Page 109] 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.

[Page 107] 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 never seen his Pastoral Letter, I only know this, that thus they write from Paris.

The design of this Prelate in his Letter, was to prepare his new Diocesans to communicate at Easter. What they did, I cannot tell, but in other parts when they presented the 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 Page 31. to God for us, be not only profitable, but necessary to our Salvation?

Resp. I do not find the Father positive in his assertion here, but at least he recounts abundance of 1 P [...]. trait. 1. q. 4. 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 Page 39. the Blessed Virgin, 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, explain'd Page 39, 40. by the Fathers, and confirmed by Reason.’

[Page 111]Qu. 3. Whether a Christian that is devout towards the Page 54. Blessed Virgin can be damned?

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

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

ANSWER 1. The Prayers of a Mother so humble Page 60, 61. 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 Page 91. Servants.

ANSWER 1. She preserves them from Error and Page 92. Heresie, if they are in danger to fall into it; and recovers them out of it, if they are fallen. 2. She Page 93. [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. 3. She comforts them Page 94. in their Distresses, assists them in their Dangers, counsels them in their Doubts, eases them in their Ib. 95. 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, that they be not surprised. She Ib. 96. sends the Angels to assist them in it, and sometimes comes her own self in Person. 5. She obtains Ib. 97. them the Grace of Repentance if they are in Sin, and of Perseverance, if they be in a State of Page 98. 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. 'Tis certain she has fetcht many out of Hell, i. e. Page 100. 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; which the Father proves at large, for the Establishment of our FAITH and of our HOPE. Page 102.

[Page 113] Qu. 7. What Honour ought we to render to the Blessed 2 Part. Pag. 73. Virgin?

ANSWER. We ought to render to her a Religious Pag. 79. 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, which many grave Pag. 92. Authors do assure us was done, before her Birth, during her Life, and since her Death and Coronation Pag. 99. in Heaven.

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

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, shall be moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their Pag. 316. 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 Pag. 322. means, than to enrol himself into these Companies.

[Page 114] 3. To devote ones self more immediately to Her Pag. 339. Service: 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. Article 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.

[Page 115]

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; and he assures him that he did particolarmente See Card. Bona's Answer to Card. Buillon. 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 Oper. Tom. 2. of DIVINE PSALMODY to the Blessed Virgin, 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 Hers. 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 Her. 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 Her Protection; not only by instituting a special Office to Her, but by addressing to Her in the end of all her Offices, according as the reason of the times should require.’

This is a short Specimen of what is scattered up and down in all the Parts of his Book; I need not say how extravagant his Verses are, when the Prose is See especially c. 12. p. 304. &c. 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 thee also, O Blessed Virgin MARY, Mother of See his Will in the beginning of the 3. Tome. 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 for 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 tutelary 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.

[Page 120] 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 Procéz verbal de [...] Assembleé extraordinaire des Messeigneurs l' Archevêques & Evêques 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.

[Page 121]

NUM. IV.

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

Au Port de St. Marie ce 13. Juin 1683.

Monseigneur,

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

[Page 124]

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

Port St. Mary, June 13th. 1683.

My Lord,

YOur Lordship, without doubt, will better call to mind my Name, when I shall have told you, that I am the Person for whom you had the goodness, about 16 years since, to speak to Madam de Chaune, to obtain her consent, as 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.

[Page 127] Such was the Account which Monsieur Imbert gave of his Case to M. de Meaux; I was the more willing to publish it, that those who have never seen the Factum which he printed of it, and which is 42 pages in 4 ^to. 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.

APOLLINARIUS the younger, from whom this Heresie derives its name, was Son [Page 130] to the elder Apollinarius, a very learned Man, and never, that we read of, charged with any Heresie. Godefry vie de S. Athanase, livre II. cap. 13. Ex Basil. Ep. 74. 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, repaired in great measure this Disadvantage, by opening of two Schools: The Father Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap 16. Calvisii Chronol. pag. 525. an. 362. 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; eminent for his Learning, and particularly cherished by St. Athanasius, as one of the 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 diceretur. 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. Ruffin. 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: Certain it is, that his loss was a very sensible Blow to the Church, and is as such, exceedingly lamented Epiphan. Haer. 77. 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. Oec. 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, or being unwilling to exasperate One, whom he so earnestly desired to reduce See this Letter in Epiphan. Haeres. 77. 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, among other things, we find the Heresie See this Council in Labbe's Collection, T. 2. p. 816. 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, or that, as some think, he sent a Renuntiation of his Vid. Binnii not. loc. cit. 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.

[Page 133] 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, to take it in his own words as they Photii bibl. in Eulogio p. 850. are reported by Photius from Eulogius, was, That [...], That God and flesh make up but one Nature, which Balsamon and Zonaras Comment. in Conc. 2. Oecumen. can. 1. 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; [...], saies Theodoret, Theodoret. Haeres. Fab. l. 4. c. 1. & Epist. 104. de Arrio, & Eu [...]. [...]. 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. [...], saies Socrates, [...] Socrates Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 46. [...]. 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, they sometimes joyned together, saying, In ipsa Salvatoris nostri carne, Vincent. Lirinens. adv. Haeres. c. 17. 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, but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Epiphan. Haeres. 77. Theodoret. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. cap. 3. Greg. Naz. Orat. 46. p. 722. &c. 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, but that the very Logos, the Word it self being, as Theodoret Theodoret. Haeretic. Fab. l. 4. c. 13. [...], Eutyches, [...]. 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, our Saviour was even before he descended, the Son of Naz. orat. 46. supr. dict. [...], Apollinarius, [...]. Pag. 722. 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 Union 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, that they both agreed in this, That after the Union of the Word See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3. 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 134] [...] [Page 135] [...] [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. Chrysostome in this Epistle See below. ☜ 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 esteemed worthy to be called the LORD's BODY, although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it; and we do not say there be TWO BODIES, but ONE BODY of the Son: So here, the DIVINE NATURE being 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 Chrysostomo, 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, not See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude, Rep. à Pere Nouet. Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. 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 al 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 Union, they were two distinct things, yet by being united, the humane Nature became converted, or if you will, transubstantiated into the Divine.

IX. Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom, 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.

[Page 141] 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 Union, though there be two distinct Natures, God and Man, yet there is but one Person, one Son made up of both. So in the Holy Eucharist, though there be two different things united, the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY, yet we do not say there be two Bodies, but one mystical Body of Christ, made up of both; as the King and his Image, to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers, are not two, but one King: Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself, Christ [...] [...] [...]y.

[Page 142]

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. It is now above 100 years, since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr, in his Dispute Ann. 1548. 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, and de Valentia, proves it too, that Vasquez dis. 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub. cap. 7. §. Similiter. 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, quòd nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita & explicata fuerat, sicut hodiè. 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 [...] 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. And in this I speak no more than what he himself declared to his Friends, insomuch that he Expostulatio. pag. iii. 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, and in the Book; and it was publickly S. Anastasii in Hexaëmeron lib. 12. Cui praemissia est expostulatio &c. Lond. 1682. 4 ¹⁰. 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.

[Page 145] 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: That learned Man having neither given Tom. 1. 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.

[Page 146]

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

HAnc Orationem sequitur Epistola ad Caesarium, Praefat. lit i, ij. pag. prior. inter lin. 22, & 23. Monachum, quae licet nitore suo nativo, id est, Graeco eloquio, destituta, nihilominus sub velo veteris Latinae Interpretationis mirificos eloquentiae disertissimi doctoris radios exhibet. Primus qui ultimis temporibus hujus meminit Epistolae, fuit Petrus Martyr, Florentinus, qui ex eâ locum quendam protulit in locis communibus. Insolitus loquendi de EUCHARISTIA modus, qui ex eâ referebatur, à Johannis Chrysostomi phrasi Lit. i, ij. pag. altera. ac genio prorfus alienus lectores in diversas traxit sententias. Aliis supposititiam esse affirmantibus, aliis pro virili contendentibus, veram esse as genuinam; omnes integram videre summe concupivêre; dolueruntque Petrum Martyrem, qui primus de eâ mentionem injecerat, minime indicâsse quae 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 mode 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 vulgo praedicatur. Dixi Petrum Martyrem primum postremis temporibus hujus Epistolae meminisse, quae antea Graecis Patribus notissima fuerat, utpote qui multa testimonia ex ea adversus Monophysitas & Acephalos adduxerunt, ut observare licet in Notis, quas margini apposui, indicando codices ex quibus Textum Graecum apud illos patres à me inventum descripst. Caeterum ubi deficiebant verba Graeca, vacua Columnarum spatia reliqui, nec passus sum ea punctis, aut lineolis, sicut librariorum mos est, repleri, ut possint inibi viri eruditi verba Graeca adscribere Lit. i. iij. siquando ea invenerint. Cum enim experimento noverim, quo casu, quâve fortunâ in ea quae attexui testimonia, inciderim, non despero ab aliis alia posse inveniri. Quisque experiatur cui fortuna erit faventior; & si cui ea obsecundaverit, is ne publico invideat, 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 une 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 verba Lit. i. iij. pag. altera. scripta sunt? In eâ porro Epistolâ 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 Epistolâ molitus est. Quantum vero Apollinaris Haeresis tunc grassaretur, & quàm multos invafisset, ex eo colligere licet, quod contra Apollinaristas & Synusiastas scripserunt Diodorus, Tarsensis Episcopus, quem supra memoravi, 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 personâ confitetur, Epistolâ 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. Ips: 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 menum, obediamus, & credamus, & oculis intellectûs id perspiciamus.’ Integrum librum consicerem, 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 151] [...] Anastas. in MS. Colleg. Clarom. Nicephor. C. P. in Antirrhet. MS. Bibl. Colbert. [...] ^* [...] ³

[Page 152] ^† [...] Pag. 237. edit. Paris. Gg. iij. [...]. ⁵

[Page 154] [...] Anastas. in MS. Clarom. [...]

[Page] [...] Nicephor. Anastas. Joan. Damascen. To. IV. Var. lect. Canisii. p. 211. [...] [...] [...] Theorianus in legatione ad Armenios. p. 74. [...]; ⁶ ⁷

[Page 161] [...] [...]. [...] Anast. Nicephorus. [...]. ^* [...] ^† [...] ^⸫ [...], ^⸫ [...]

[Page 162] [...] ^‖ [...] ^† [...], ^* [...]. ^⸫ [...] In MS collect. Biblioth. reg. Gall. n. 1026. p. 247. [...] ^‖ [...] Edit. Paris. p. 244. [...].

[Page 150]

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

[Page 151]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. ‘Et dicas forsitan ab errore ad id quod melius est venis, se 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, 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 invisible, 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, 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, & [ ^g susceptibilia duarum] Essentiarum nomina sunt;’quarum conjunctio in haereticis ⁵⁰ [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 iam non est Templum. Et forsitan dicunt, & quomodo ^g Dominus dixit, Vt quid me Joan. 8. 40. vultis occidere hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum quam audivi à ^h Deo? Ben& egrave; & omninò ⁶¹ [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: ^b 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 ⁷⁵ ⁷⁶ [Page]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 [...], id est inundante corporis naturâ, ‘unum filium, unam personam, utraque haec fecerunt. Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solùm naturâ, 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, sed Verbum Caro Joan. 1. 24. 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 ^h Dominum 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, ⁹⁹ [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 & non ⁱ immutor. Caro infirma ^k Spiritus Malac. 3. 6. Mat. xxvi. 41. ¹¹⁰ [Page 161] autem promptus Ibid. 39. Pater si possibile est transeat à me calix iste. —Ibid. 38. Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Luk. 24. 39. Palpate & videte, quia ^a Spiritus carnem & 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. 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, ¹¹⁵ 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, & 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, in unâ filiationis confitenda personâ, & una ^k substantia. Fugiamus qui unam naturam post unitionem prodigaliter dicunt; unius enim cogitatione impassibili Deo passionem adjungere impelluntur, difpensationem abnegantes, & Diaboli Gehennam arripientes. Ista propter mensuram Epistolae sufficere arbitror, ad confirmationem tuae dilectionis, ô magnifice.’ ¹²²

[Page 163] 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 laudarum quendam Ambrosii locum, subdit, Chrysostomus ad Caesarium Monachum. Haec est haeresis ipsissima introduceritium Mixtionem & Compositionem. Vid. Expostulationem p. X.

↵

Var. lect. MS. M.

↵

†

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.

↵

MS. M.

↵

MS. M.

↵

MS. M.

↵

[...] deest in MS. A.

↵

†

[...], MS. C.

↵

⸫

[...]. MS. A.

↵

⸫

[...], ib. deest.

↵

‖

[...] deest in A.

↵

†

[...], ib.

↵

[...]. ib.

↵

⸫

[...] pro [...], ib.

↵

‖

[...] ib.

↵

pter.

↵

lachrymas: lachrymabimur.

↵

lachrymas: lachrymabimur.

↵

[...].

↵

Haeredicorum.

↵

Ammirabilem.

↵

Proculerit.

↵

Optime.

↵

Concursum essentialem sacrum facta ex Divinitate & Carnis unam autem ex hoc perfici naturam.

↵

Contemplationem.

↵

[...].

↵

Intentioque.

↵

Et deest.

↵

Et deest.

↵

emaginatur.

↵

[...].

↵

Opinionem & qua Apollinaris & eorum qui Synusiaste dicuntur ipsa cogitatio assiduae puris, &c.

↵

MS. M. Doctoris.

↵

Dico, abest.

↵

Et si.

↵

Misterium.

↵

Male.

↵

Ereticum.

↵

Dominum.

↵

Nature.

↵

In firmum.

↵

Meum.

↵

ē Xūm dn]

↵

Im-passibilis, deficit i [...], spatio tamen relicto ubi olim fuerit.

↵

XPO. & Inū. & dnō.

↵

Susceptibili avarum]

↵

MS. M.

↵

XP [...] unos autem.]

↵

Uti oportet, deest.

↵

dm.

↵

Cogitationem.

↵

Et immane sed.]

↵

Sic videtur legendum; & in Manetis, & in aliorum Haeresum declinâsti impietatem. Si iterum, &c.

↵

Haeresum.

↵

†

Forte melius carnis. MS. D. le Moyne.

↵

Dns.

↵

dō.

↵

MS. M.

↵

Neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitare]

↵

ds.

↵

Est Christus, Martyrl. c. in tract. de Euchar. Oxon. MS. M.

↵

ds.

↵

dns.

↵

Etiam si.

↵

Consubstantialiter Martyr.

↵

MS M. Et unaquae (que) in quo mixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo.]

↵

Incommixta. Martyr. ib.

↵

Inconfusa sint duo. Id.

↵

MS. M. Scificetur.

↵

Scificante grā. Id.

↵

Ab Appellatiōne. Ibid.

↵

MS M

↵

XPS.

↵

Dominicae.

↵

Unus,

↵

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.

↵

[...].

↵

Sibimet ipsi unirique.]

↵

XPO.

↵

Nam.

↵

Dicunt que.

↵

Omni modo.

↵

Ds.

↵

Volunt XPI.

↵

Vituperari.

↵

XPS.

↵

Ds.

↵

Unitatem.

↵

Prenientes.

↵

Speculaneorum.

↵

Qui.

↵

Dnm.

↵

Significat.

↵

Di.

↵

MS. D. le Moyne.

↵

Piae.

↵

Ea deest.

↵

Unum corpus.

↵

Eti.

↵

Invenientes.

↵

Pmissis.

↵

contremescent.

↵

dni.

↵

Inmutor.

↵

Sps.

↵

110

MS. M.

↵

Sps.

↵

XPO.

↵

Charissimae.

↵

XPm.

↵

115

XPS.

↵

Dnm.

↵

Ihm.

↵

dm.

↵

Apollinarius.

↵

Nam etsi enim.

↵

Subsistantia.

↵

122

MS. M.

↵

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.

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 Eglise Catholique touchant l'Eucharistie, 5 Edit. 8vo. Paris 1672.
Amicable Accommodation, &c.

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.

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 Réponse 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.

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

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.

Forbesii instructiones Historico-Theologicae, Amst. 1645.

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.

[Page 165]Hookers Ecclesiastical Polity, Fol. Lond. 1676.
Book of Homilies, Oxford 1683.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 fur l' Exposition de Monsieur de Meaux, 8vo. à Cologne de Brandebourg 1685.

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.

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

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.

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 Jurien 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, which is very improbable, Vindicat. p. 10. 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.

A SECOND DEFENCE Aga …

A SECOND DEFENCE Against the BISHOP of CONDOM.

Imprimatur,

Liber cui titulus [A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England, &c Part I]

Novemb. 16. 1687.

H. Maurice, Reverendissimo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. à Sacris.

A SECOND DEFENCE OF …

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England: Against the New EXCEPTIONS OF Monsieur de MEAUX, Late Bishop of CONDOM, AND HIS VINDICATOR.

The First Part.

In which the ACCOUNT that has been given of the Bishop of MEAUX's Exposition, is fully vindicated; the Distinction of OLD and NEW POPERY Historically asserted; and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of IMAGE-WORSHIP more particularly consider'd.

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

THE TABLE OF THIS FIRST PART.

I. AN ADDRESS to the Vindicator, laying down the Method of the following Defence.
II. The PREFACE; in which is contain'd,
- 1. An Historical Vindication of the Distinction of Old and New Popery. p. iii.
- 2. An Enquiry, how far we may judge of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, from the PRACTICES and OPINIONS of the Particular Members of it. p. xii
III. The DEFENCE: divided into Three General SECTIONS. p. I

SECT. I.

[Page] After a short Introduction, considers the Bishop of MEAUX'S second Letter, in an Address to the said Bishop. p. 5
The Bishop of MEAUX's Exposition written for the Conversion of the Mareshall de Turenne. p. 8
The several parts of the Letter examined. p. 9
- 1. That there was an Edition of the Exposition suppressd, different from what we now see. p. 9
- 2. That these Differences were in Points considerable, and not only for the greater neatness of the Stile, as the Bishop pretends. p. 15
- 3. Of St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius. p. 20
- 4. That MONSIEUR M—did answer the Bishop of CONDOM's Exposition. ib.
- 5.
  - 1. That Father CRASSET's Principles are not to be reconciled with the Bishop of CONDOM's Exposition, as is pretended. p. 21
  - 2. Concerning the Persecution in the Diocess of MEAUX, and the Bishop's repeated DENIAL of it shewn to be a wretched Prevarication. p. 24
- [Page] 6. Cardinal CAPISUCCHI's Doctrine in point of Image worship, utterly inconsistent with the Bishop of CONDOM's Exposition. p. 31
  - His Opinion at large considered, and compared with the Principles of Monsieur de MEAUX and his VINDICATOR. p. 34
- 7. Monsieur IMBERT's Case examined. That he was prosecuted by the Archbishop of BOURDEAUX, for maintaining the Doctrine of the Bishop of CONDOM and the VINDICATOR. p. 39
- 8.
  - Of Cardinal BONA—p. 45
  - Monsieur de WITTE, and— p. 46
  - The POPE's Brief—ibid.
- The CLOSE. p. 47

SECT. II.

Being an Answer to those false Imputations which the VINDICATOR has cast upon me, and the rest of my Brethren of the Church of England. p. 49
The Reasonableness of this Consideration. ib.
The Summ of this Section divided into Three Parts.

[...]

[...]

PART I.

[Page]In which it is shewn with what Spirit and Design the VINDICATOR took this Course to defame us. p. 51
- 1. That the Principles of many of the Casuists of the Roman Church do allow the defaming of an Adversary by such Accusations as they KNOW to be FALSE. p. 51
- 2. That we have just Cause to believe, that the VINDICATOR has proceeded according to these Principles, Shewn.
  - 1. From the Accusations themselves, which he brings against me; of which several Instances are collected by way of Specimen, whereby to judge of the rest. p. 54
  - 2. From his laying hold on the lightest, and most pitiful occasions to run out into the most grievous Accusations against me. p. 56
  - 3. For that the Allegations he advances, are many of them such as he can never be sure are TRUE. p. 59
  - 4. And some such as he certainly knew were FALSE. p. 61

PART II.

[Page]In which his Reflections are particularly consider'd, and refuted: in Two Points. p. 62
- 1. A Refutation of those scandalous Reflections which he has cast upon the Generality of the Church of England. p. 63
  A Summary of them.
  - 1. That we have misrepresented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, reviled, blackened, and calumniated its Members, and ridicul'd its Ceremonies. Answered. p. 65
  - 2. That we have done this out of Malice and Interest, and kept the People by Ignorance to our Party. p. 66
  - This Calumny answer'd, in its several parts, of
    - Malice—p. 67
    - Interest—ibid.
    - Ignorance. p. 69
  - 3. That we have been estranged from Devotion, and are therefore scandaliz'd at their Ceremonies, because we have not the Zeal that those of their Church have. Answered. p. 70
  - [Page] 4. That many of our Church are so byassed in their Affections to us, that they will scarce allow themselves their common Senses in the Examen of things, but pass their Votes against any thing that tends towards Popery, tho against JUSTICE, EQUITY, and CONSCIENCE. Answered. p. 74
  - 5. That some factious Spirits have animated the Pulpits Zeal; and that by this means the Parliament was hindred from proceeding in its Loyalty as it began. Answered. p. 75
  - 6. That we manage things against them upon politick Motives; that we have Designs, and leading-men, and certain persons to gratifie by what we do; and that this will bring ill CONSEQUENCES upon the KINGDOM, &c. p. 76
- II. An Answer to those Imputations that he has laid upon my self in particular. p. 78
  - 1. To the ill Names that he gives me. ib.
  - 2. To his charges of wilful Faults committed by me in the Defence. p. 79
  - 3. To his Reflections that have no manner of reference to the Subject of our Dispute; but were brought in meerly for Reflection-sake. p. 80
    - As to my Preaching. p. 80
    - — Popularity. 81
  - [Page] 4. To His CATALOGUE of Faults drawn up against Me at the beginning of His Reply. p. 82
  - 5. To His Charge of Ill Language, with reference
    - 1. To the Bishop of MEAUX. p. 84
    - 2. To Others, in which are Justified those 3 Expressions so much cavill'd at; of
      - 1. St. Thomas's Reveries. p. 86
      - 2. Of some of their new Saints horrid Blasphemies. p. 89
      - 3. Of some of their Churches Addresses, being more like Magical Incantations, than Christian Prayers. p. 92

PART III.

In which is shewn by above XL Instances of Books yet unanswered, that we have fully obviated all their Arguments beyond the possibility of a fair Reply; which might justly excuse me from entring any more on a particular review of the several Articles in debate; tho' I shall nevertheless in a SECOND PART of my DEFENCE, pass through All again with him. p. 94

TO The Reverend the AUTHOR OF THE VINDICATION Of the Bishop of MEAUX's EXPOSITION, &c.

SIR,

AFTER two such obliging Addresses, Vindication p. 120. The Reply, p. 171. as I have now had the honour to receive from you, I should be very much wanting in my Respects to a Person who has shewn so near a Concern for my Salvation, should I any longer neglect my Return to you; and might reasonably expect to have my Rudeness and Incivility muster'd up to increase [Page] my Damnation in the next Catalogue your Charity shall prompt you to publish of my Sins. Reply at the end of the Preface.

I cannot indeed tell whether I may not be defective in my Gratitude, by sending my Thanks to your self alone; and your great Caution in the Close of your Vindication made me once think that Vindic. p. 120. I ought to have return'd you your own Inscription, ‘ To the Author, or Authors’of those excellent Vindic. p. 120. Pieces you have been pleased to oblige the World with on my account. For I have some reason to believe, that whatever you were as to the first, yet you are not the only Person concern'd in the second Reply. But yet since your Books run altogether in the singular Number, and that whoever gather'd your Materials first, or supervised them after, yet I doubt not but you were the only Architect your self, and alone concern'd in those immediate Addresses to Me; I am confident I shall not be much mistaken in my particular Return to you, or at least that you will have the goodness to excuse so easie, and so involuntary an Error.

And first, Sir, I desire to return you my Acknowledgments for your great Care of my future Reply p. 171. State. I do beseech you to believe, that it is exceeding dear to Me; and that I am sensible that [Page] your Advice is very just and reasonable that you give Me for it. And tho' I shall shew you in what follows, that for what concerns either your self or your Church, I had no great need of it; yet it pleases me very much to hope that when I shall have fully proved by Gods Grace, where the Fault lies, one who is so forward to preach to others, 1 Cor IX. 27. will certainly take great heed that he does not in the mean time himself become a CAST-AWAY.

It were perhaps too much to expect that Condescension from you, which you are pleased to recommend to Me, viz. ‘To make a publick Acknowledgment Reply p. 172. of the Calumnies you have thrown’ not upon my self alone, but upon the Generality of our Church, and ‘to retract the false witness you have Ib. p. 173. born against your Neighbours;’especially since this, Sir, cannot, you know, be done without acknowledging the Insincerity (for I am willing to give all things the softest Names I am able) of your late Attempts in the new Methods of Conversion. And indeed some Experience makes me think I may without uncharitableness presume, that ‘ the Pride of Nature’ is as powerful on your side to Ib. p. 174▪ hinder Persons from retracting what they have once advanced, as it is on ours: And the Principles of your Church do much more indispose you to confess your Errors, than, God be thanked, ours [Page] do us. But sure, if any one, you, Sir, who so much consider that ‘ Eternity is at stake, and that an Injustice which will render us miserable for that Eternity, Ibid. cannot be expiated without making satisfaction, will not find it so difficult to acknowledge your mistake; no, not tho it should have been WILFUL; (which I dare not yet say of yours, however you, in Charity no doubt to my Soul, judge mine to be so;) rather than run into inevitable Damnation. And I pray God give you this serious Thought and Resolution.’

Having thus perform'd this first Duty, I must in the next place, Sir, thank you for what, next to my Salvation, has always been most dear to Me, the Care you have had of my REPUTATION. It may perhaps be thought by some that are not sensible how great my Obligations in this particular are to you, that I might well enough have spared this Complement; especially since your Modesty makes Reply p. 4. 172. &c. you utterly disavow any such Tenderness of it. Indeed, Sir, as to your Expressions, it must be confess d you are very free with Me. You not only still adhere to your first Charge of Calumnies, Vindic. p 22. Reply p. 172. Misrepresentations, unsincere Dealings, Falsifications, every thing that you could think of that might serve to bespatter Me, but only false Quotations, which I do not now find you so ready to insist upon; but that your Reader might be sure to take [Page] notice of them, you draw them up into a Catalogue at the beginning of your Reply, and all along Reply at the end of the Preface. in your Margin you put him in mind to remark them: But yet, Sir, after all this, I cannot but own to you, that your Books have done more to secure my Reputation among all those whose Esteem I value, viz. the honest and judicious Readers, than any thing my best Friends could have done for Me.

I need not, Sir, tell you, that my Exposition first, and then my Defence, made some noise among very great numbers of both Churches. I had discovered such Secrets as perhaps few could have done besides; such as startled many worthy Persons of your own Communion; and which some even of our own side, who did not know what Evidence I had ready to produce for them, could hardly almost believe. Whilst great enquiry was made about them, some of your Religion knew not what to think, others flatly deny'd all that had been said; you, Sir, more kind, procure Me a Letter from that worthy Person the Bishop of Meaux himself; pretending indeed to disavow, but really acknowledging all that I had said with reference to his Exposition. A Favour for which, now I am discharging these kind of Debts, I shall not fail to publish to the World my Engagements to him.

[Page] It was not long before my Defence made a new noise, and but little inferiour to that of my Exposition. For besides that, it confirm'd all my former Allegations with new Proofs; it gave me opportunity moreover to make some further Discoveries, both of your Church's Worship, and of your own Sincerity.

And this, Sir, you tell me ‘did induce many others Reply, p. 173. to an imitation of those Calumnies’ I there threw upon you; but I must beg leave to mind you of another Inducement too, and that is, That it did induce the Generality of your side to calumniate Me, as one who had uttered nothing but downright Untruths, and charged you with such things as were not to be found either in your Books, or in your Practice. But I may now reasonably presume that they will from henceforth retract this Calumny too, (if at least you will allow it to be a Calumny to accuse falsely one of our Religion;) since you have here satisfied the World, that these things you do write and practise, tho' indeed for want of an Infallible Interpreter, we who judge according to the Principles of Reason, are not able rightly to understand the meaning of them. And therefore, Sir, tho' your Words still stile me Criminal, yet your Allegations every where protest against them; and I desire no other Advocate than your self to plead my Innocence.

[Page] There is, Sir, yet a Favour which I ought not to pass by, tho' I could not a long time divine the meaning of it; and it is your great Self-denial, which prompted you, I suppose, through all your Book, as well as in that single place, where you your self have been pleased to remark it, not ‘to Reply, p. 172. take too much satisfaction in having your Adversary at an Advantage.’It was indeed generously done of you; tho' some (considering the Nature of your Church,) will be apt to think it was not merely an Excess of Charity that made you treat your Adversary with so much Favour, but either the insuperable ilness of the Cause you had to maintain, or some other Defect, which I shall beg leave not to name. However it puts me in mind of the supererrogating Merits of many of your Saints, to whose Honour the prudent VVriters of their Lives, have remember'd it, that they were wont to counterfeit themselves mad or foolish, and do a thousand ridiculous and extravagant things, that being laught at, and despised by all the World for them, they might thereby have the better Opportunity of exercising their Christian Humility and Self-denial. But, Sir, I fear by this time my Civility may begin to grow more troublesome to you than my Rudeness would have been, should I have dispensed with my self, as to this Point of Ceremony. And indeed [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] I have so much to say in order to yours and the Worlds satisfaction, that I ought not to spend too much time in unnecessary Preliminaries. Three things there are, which I would willingly do in the following Defence, and which I think will comprise all that can reasonably be desired of Me, viz.

I. To discharge my Obligations to the Bishop of Meaux.
II. To vindicate my self against such Imputations as do immediately concern my own particular, but do not at all affect the Cause I am to maintain.
III. To consider what you have further offer'd to clear your Church of those great Exceptions I had brought against it.

And in all these I should be heartily glad I might acquit my self to yours; but however I hope I shall do it to my Readers Satisfaction, and to whom therefore I must now beg leave to address my self, as to whose Examen (if I may presume to borrow your own Phrase) I freely commit Reply, p. 1. it to judge betwixt us.

THE PREFACE.

WHEN I consider the Nature of those Methods that have of late been made use of by many of the Church of Rome to propagate their Errors; with what Industry they conceal the Real Doctrine of their Church, and by complaining loudly against others for misrepresenting their Opinions, endeavour to keep Men from suspecting that the Juggle indeed lies at their own Doors. I cannot but call to mind the Complaint of an ancient Father against the Heathen Philosophers, and in Apology for the Christian Religion: ‘ Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. vi. p. 197. Utinam liceret introspicere sensus vestros, recessusque ipsos mentis, quibus varias volvitis atque initis obscurissimas cogitationes! Reperiremus & vos ipsos eadem sentire, quae nos—Sed studiis facere quid pervicacibus possumus? Quid intentantibus Gladios, novasque excogitantibus [...]poenas? [Animantis.] Would to God, says he, we could but look into your own Opinions, into the secret Recesses of your Mind in which you turn and devise various and hidden Thoughts. We should find that you your selves think the very same with us. But what can be done to Men that are obstinately bent to serve a Cause?— A [...]eritis malam scientissimi Causam, & quod semel sine ratione fecistis, ne videamini aliquando nescisse, defenditis; meliusque putatis non vinci, quàm confessae cedere atque annuere veritati—Lugd. Batav. 1651. Ye know that ye maintain an ill Cause, [Page ii] and what ye have once done without reason, that ye defend, lest ye should otherwise seem to have been once mistaken, and think it better not to be overcome, than to assent to that which you cannot but confess to be the Truth.’

I shall perhaps be thought by some to assume too great a Liberty, in applying this to those with whom I have now to do. But yet when I see Men so industrious in expounding the Doctrine of their Church into a Sense that may come as near the Reformation as is possible; when for the doing of this they are forced to so many Shifts as plainly shew there is something of Violence in the Undertaking: Bp. Meaux's Expos. p. 5. § IV. Words forced from their natural Signification to speak that which they call the Church's Sense; Vind. p. 42. Rep. p. 43. the Order of Sentences inverted; Vind. p. 40. Repl. p. 39, 41. Figures pretended that were never heard of in the World; the Irrefragable, Angelical, Subtil, Seraphical, Invincible, Illuminate, Illustrious Doctors, whose Sentences and Summs our Fathers so much admired, now laid aside, as containing only Vind. p. 19, 38. Reply, p. 3. 29, &c. Scholastick Opinions, and not the necessary and universally received Doctrine of the Church; the rest of their Writers thrown off as private Men, and for whose Opinions the Church is not to be responsible: I cannot then but think, that these Men Reply, p. 3, 4. are certainly conscious to themselves, that they have been in the wrong, and that there was reason in our Reformation; tho' 'tis neither safe nor convenient for the Members of a Church that has so long been used to damn us as Hereticks on this account, and would be thought infallible in her Decisions, to own it to the World.

It is one of my chiefest Crimes, and for which I perceive there is no Indulgence to be expected, that I have in some measure endeavoured to bring these Designs to light; to shew that all this is indeed but a Lure to draw Men in, and that when once they are ensnared, they will then find things to be far otherwise than they are made at first to believe: Or [Page iii] that if they are in good earnest in their present Pretences, then they herein plainly depart from what their Church once held, and are upon that very account esteem'd by others of their Communion at this day, to be little better than Protestant Hereticks.

How far the Allegations I have heretofore brought to prove this, have been invalidated by what our Author has endeavour'd this second time to return to them, I shall then consider, when I come particularly to examine the several Articles of his Reply. In the mean time I cannot but observe, that how much soever the Vindicator may dislike Reply, p. 171. the distinction I made of OLD and NEW POPERY, it is yet no other than what I found in effect made to my hand in some of the Bishop of Meaux' s own Converts, and in Books which are said to have undergone his particular perusal before they were permitted to come into the World.

'Tis this which we find in plain terms avow'd by Monsieur Brueys, in his Examen des raisons qui ont donnè lieu à la Separation des Protestants. A la Haye, 1683. Examination of the Reasons which occasion'd the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome. For having expounded his new Faith so scrupulously according to Monsieur de Meaux' s Principles, that as himself tells us, ‘ Aussi je ne dis rien dans cet Examen qu'il (Monsieur l'Evêque de Meaux) ne m'ait inspirè: je ne fais presque que copier ses Sentimens, & redire au public ce qu'il m'a dit en particulier, ou ce que ces Ouvrages m'oat persuadè. Avertissement. He says nothing but what that Bishop had inspired into him; so that he did in a manner but copy his Sentiments, and repeat in publick what he had learnt in private from him;’ he finally exhorts the Protestants to return now from their odious Separation, since the Doctrine of the Church was so expounded, as none of their Forefathers had ever understood it; nor, if they had, would ever have separated from it. ‘ [Page iv] I say return now, (they are Monsieur La Raison, la Charitè, la Gloire de Dieu, la Paix de l'Eglise, le Bien de l'Etat, & l'Interest de leur Salut demandent qu'ils reviennent aujourd'huy de cette Separation odieuse, en remettant les choses en l'Estat ou elles estoient auparavant. Je dis aujourd'huy: car on doit avoûer sincerement qu'on n'avoit jamais si nettement exposè les dogmes & les cultes de l'Eglise Catholique qu'on l'a fait de nos jours. Et je ne sçaurois m'empescher de croire que si nos Peres avoient crû les choses telles qu'elles sont en Eff [...]t, & qu'on nous les propose aujourd'huy, ils ne se seroient jamais separez de sa Communion. Ibid. p. 106. Brueys' s own words) for it must be sincerely confess'd that the Doctrine and Worship of the Roman Church was never so cleanly expounded as in these our days. And I cannot but think, that had our Fathers believed things to be, as in Effect they are, and as they are now proposed to us, they would never have separated from its Communion.’

I do not at all question, but that our Fathers, who undoubtedly understood the Doctrine and Worship of a Church in which they had been born and bred, and were many of them admitted to Places of chiefest Honour and Dignity in it, could they now rise up from their Graves, would stand amazed to see with what Insincerity it is now expounded to us in these days. And tho' it has been so fully shewn, that no one has cared to give us an Answer to it, that even taking the First Answer to the Papist misrepres. Answer to the Conclus. But especially in the Answer to the Papists protesting against Protectant Popery. Roman Doctrine according to their own Exposition, we are not yet able to embrace it; yet it must be acknowledged we should have much less to say to justifie our Separation, had it been always such us 'tis now represented to us.

But this is not the only Person that has given us grounds for this Distinction; for however we confess that Popery is more cleanly expounded now than it was heretofore; yet even in these happy expounding days of ours, there are still some who repine to see the good Old Popery so much run down, and give us very different Interpretations both of the Doctrine and Worship of their pretended Catholick Church.

And of this the Author of the wholesome Advices of [Page v] the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers will afford us a notable Example; who having given such a cleanly Exposition of the Church's Doctrine in the Points of the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images, as the Bishop of Meaux, and his Vindicator now do; tho' approved with all the Solemnity I have heretofore shewn, and Expos. of the C. E. Pref. pag. VI, VII. may now more fully be seen in the Edition that has since been made of it in our own Language, was nevertheless condemn'd in the most violent manner that can well be imagined, and that by the Authority of the Pope himself; and drew the Zeal of Father Crasset to overwhelm him with a whole Volume of Doctors and Saints that lived in the former days of Superstition and Sincerity, before these new Expositors had by pretending to interpret, indeed corrupted their Faith.

Father Crasset having thus defended the Honour of the Blessed Virgin, and justified the Old Popery to be the true and standing Doctrine of his Church, his Authority was soon alledged by the Preservatif. p. 97, &c. Protestants in Opposition to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition. Reflexions sur le Preservatif. A Anvers. 1682. Monsieur Arnaud, who undertook the Defence of the Bishop, and it seems could not foresee how by the metamorphosing Power of a cleanly Exposition, even this Father's Book should come one day to be perfectly reconciled to Monsieur de Meaux' s, freely gives up the Author for a P. 19. V. Reflex. le livre d'un pitoiable Jesuite, nommè le Pere Crasset. pitiful Jesuit, and whose Authotity was not fit to be compared with that of a Bishop, supported with the Approbations of so many other Bishops and Cardinals, and in short, of the Pope himself.

It is not then only in our Calumnies that this reflecting Distinction of Old and New Popery is to be found, but Reply, p. 171. in the real Disagreement of those of their own Communion, who all equally pretend to understand the Doctrine of their Church, and the Decisions of the Council of Trent. But to put this matter, if it be possible, out of all doubt, I will [Page vi] here subjoyn the Copy of a Letter written by an eminent Convert upon his Change, in which this Distinction is plainly express'd, and the Bishop of Condom's Popery evidently distinguish'd from that of the People, and of the Bigots, or (as he calls them) the Tartuffes of that Church. The Person who wrote it was Monsieur Ranchin, a Counsellor of the Parliament of Tholouse, to Monsieur Ranchin his Kinsman, and Counsellor in the Court of Accounts, Aids, and Finances of Montpellier.

Tholouse, April 27. 1680.

I Am not much concern'd, my dear Cousin, to think that my Conversion has caused so general a Joy, as you are willing to make me believe it has. It is sufficient to me that our Family, and particularly your self, has taken some part in my Change: And I most humbly thank you for the obliging Testimony you have given me of it in the Letter which you have done me the Honour to write to me. But, Sir, I ought a little to complain of your accusing me to have tarried so long out of Interest in the P. R. Religion. This might indeed be said in Enggland or in Holland, but that in France one should be of the P. R. Religion out of Interest, is what I never heard before. As for my own particular, I can truly say, that my professing that Religion has been the ruine of my Family. But I am become a Catholick, because I thought that I might obtain Salvation in that Communion.

It is the Book of Monsieur the Bishop of Condom that has convinced me; that admirable Book approv'd of late by the Pope. If you have not yet seen it, I advise you to get it, and read it all your life. I do also in part owe my Conversion to another little Book composed by one in Flanders, intituled, Wholesome Advices of the blessed Virgin to [Page vii] her indiscreet Worshippers; and to the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Tournay, in form of an Apology, dedicated to the People of his Diocess, and which is also truly a Golden Book. For were the Faith of the Church such as the People and the Tartuffes practise it, I would never have gone where I am; and I have learnt from these Books, that the pure Belief of the Church is quite different from their practise. You will comprehend by this, my dear Cousin, that these Books are no less necessary to the Catholicks, than to the P. R. But I consider too late, that instead of a Letter I am writing a Treatise of Religion. I hasten to conclude, and to assure you that I am, &c.

Were I minded to indulge my self the liberty of commenting upon this Letter, I should not want Occasions from a piece so very extraordinary, to make some rare and useful Remarks. But I shall confine my self to the particular for which I alledged it. Monsieur Ranchin was one of the Counsellors of the Chamber of the Edict of Languedoc, whilst it subsisted. The King having suppress'd that Chamber, and incorporated the Officers into the Parliament, Monsieur Ranchin soon perceived that things would not stop there, but that those of the reform'd Religion must expect in a little time to be turn'd out of all their Places. He had a great Family, and but a small Estate for a Person of his Quality. And now it was that the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux began first to open his Eyes: He perceived the Roman Religion to be quite different from what he had hitherto thought it; insomuch that from henceforth he became disposed to embrace it, not by way of ABJURATION of what he held before, but by way of ADDITION, i. e. by adding the Roman Superstitions to it.

This was easily consented to by those of the other Party; he insisted upon having the Communion in both [Page viii] kinds, but that was deny'd him; but the principal matters were agreed to, viz. That for the Change he was to make, he should have 10000 Crowns in hand, and a Pension of a 1000 more per Annum, together with the assurance of his Place to himself and his Son after him, besides the hopes of higher Advancement.

And thus our new Convert enters into the Bosom of the Catholick Church, not that the disliked his own Religion, or thought the other better; no, his Letter evidently implies the contrary; but he thought that by the help of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition he might make a shift to be saved in it. He saw the Abuses that were in that Church, and he loudly declares against them: He professes he was so far from being of the Religion of the People, and of the Tartuffes of the Church of Rome, that nothing, no not ready money in hand, and a good Place and Pension for the future, should have been able to carry him to it. He advises his Kinsman to read those golden Books (He had indeed reason to call them so, for so they were to Him) that had so well expounded the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; and were no less necessary for the Roman Catholicks than for the Protestants instruction: that according to these he did hope he might be saved in the Church of Rome; but for the People and the Tartuffes, that are not yet so happy as to understand these Expositions, there is no Salvation to be had for them.

And here at least I think it cannot be deny'd, but that we have two sorts of Popery very openly and freely avow'd: One such as that a man may be saved in the profession of it, viz. That of the Bishops of Meaux and Tournay, and of the wholesome Advices of the blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers: the other of the People and the Tartuffes, or Zealots of that Church, and for whom Monsieur Ranchin it seems had no great hopes. Nor let it be thought so very extraordinary in this Person that he entred into the [Page ix] Roman Communion at the same time that he saw and condemn'd the Excesses of it. This has been but too common in those parts. Dial. entre Photin & Ireneè. A Mayence. 1685. And my Author from whom I have borrowed the foregoing Account, gives us a notable instance of another, one Part. 2. Dial. iii. pag. 105. Monsieur Pawlet, a Minister of his own Acquaintance; how being convicted in one of their Synods of such Crimes as rendred him unworthy of his Charge, he endeavour'd to cover his Infamy by changing his Religion; and was wont afterwards frequently to declare, when he came among those of his former Profession, ‘ That he could not but very much blame such as follow'd his Example; that for his own part, he knew the Secret how to save himself, notwithstanding his Change; but for the other Revolters who were ignorant of it, they would all infallibly be damned.’

But the Resolution of the Inhabitants of Montauban is yet more extraordinary; who being by the missionary Dragoons convinced that it was their Duty to obey their Prince in changing their Religion, did it with this Declaration; ‘ We acknowledge that the Abuses which are imputed to the Ibid. part. 2. page 352. ‘Nous reconnoissons, que les Abus qu'on impute à l'Eglise, ne sufisoient pas pour obliger nos Peres à s'en separer: C'est pourquoi nous nous re [...]nissons à l'Eglise; sans prejudice de Remonstrances qu'il nous sera permis de faire au Clergé pour repurger l'Eglise. Romaine de beaucoup d'Abus.’ Church, were not sufficient to oblige our Ancestors to separate from it: Wherefore we do now reunite our selves to the Church, but yet so as not to prejudice thereby those Remonstrances which we shall be permitted to make to the Clergy to purge the Roman Church from many Abuses.’

I need not sure repeat what I have already said with reference to Monsieur Imbert's Case. For however the Bishop of Meaux may endeavour to lessen the Reputation of that Man, yet since he cannot deny the truth of my relation (which is indeed no other than what he himself publish'd both in his Letter and Factum of it) we may thereby plainly see how his Exposition of the Faith agreed neither with the Missionaries [Page x] Preaching, nor with the Peoples Practice. And let the Vindicator cry out Reply, p. 35, 36, 37. See in the Margin. CALUMNY as much as he pleases in his Answer to my Account of their Good-Friday-Service, and tell the World that I Defence of the Expos. of the C. E. pag. 121, 124. Append. FALSIFY their Words, because I render their Venite Adoremus, Behold the Wood of the Cross, come let us adore IT; the Dispute between that unfortunate Man and the Curate upon that very occasion, Monsieur Imbert insisting upon the same Exposition the Vindicator does now; whilst the other cry'd out, THE WOOD, THE WOOD, Come let us adore IT, sufficiently shews that all were not agreed on the New Popery Interpretation: and the hard usage he has met with from his Diocesan since, for supporting that Exposition the Vindicator so much contends for, may satisfie the World, that not only the Curè, but even the Archbishop of Bourdeaux himself thought there was neither CALUMNY nor FALSIFICATION in the Application I made of that day's Service. I am sure poor Monsieur Imbert has been made but too sensible of it, and I shall rather be content the Vindicator should still esteem me a Falsifier and a Calumniator, than be so uncharitable as to wish him the like Conviction.

It may perhaps be thought a little too late, since the new Alliance struck up between Father Crasset and the Bishop of Meaux, to remember the Quarrel between the ‘Wholesome Advices of the Blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers, and the true Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin establish'd and defended;’ that is to say in other Words, between the New Popery and the Old. But tho' Father Crasset be now become an Expounder too, yet may I not beg leave to remark from the Subject of those Advices against which he wrote, That there are, it seems, some in the Church of Rome, ‘ Who perswade themselves that tho' they See the Advices of the B. Virgin. Adv. I. live sinful lives, yet they may be assured of their Salvation, [Page xi] if they do but perform some Devotion to the Blessed Virgin?— nay, that think that tho' they have no Advice V. love for God, yet they may be saved by supplicating our Lady:— Who pray to the holy Virgin, as if she had Advice VII. more Goodness and Mercy than Jesus Christ, and so put more confidence in her Intercession, than in the Merits of her Son:— Who pay their homage to the holy Virgin, Advice VIII. as to some inferiour Divinity, and believe that without her there is no approaching God, even through Jesus Christ himself:—Who make the Virgin Mary Mediatrix Advice IX. between Men and Jesus Christ, as if she had some Merit in her self which she had not received from her Son:— Who give the same Titles of Honour to the Advice X. Virgin Mary, which ought to be given to God only;— nay, and even make her equal with God and Jesus Christ:— Who Advice XI. Advice XII. Advice XIV. depend so much on the Virgin Mary, that they never have recourse to Jesus Christ;— preferring their Devotion to the Virgin, before their love to God:’ Who as to the point of Images ‘ put their trust in them, as if there Advice XVII. were some divine Power in them; imagining that there is a great difference between some of the Images of the Virgin, and that some are better than others; and that it is no longer ago than See Father Crasset's Devotion, envers la S [...]inte Vierge. Pref. Paris 1679. 1679. that it was thought a Crime to be condemn'd, not only by a Pope and a King, but by the Learned of all Nations, a Crime worthy of Banishment in this Life, and of Damnation in the other, but only to advise them better.’

It may be the Vindicator will here cry out, ‘ That these are only private men, and that the Church is not to answer Reply. p. 3. 29. for their Extravagancies:’ but yet still this at least shews that there is an Old and New Popery amongst them, and that 'twas none of my fiction to oppose them to one another.

But however, because he is concern'd that I took no notice of his Admonition, and may otherwise in his next Reply Reply, p 3, 4. [Page xii] clap a new Note of CALUMNY in his Margin, to prevent, if it may be, not so much my own Defamation as his Sin, may I humbly beg leave to enquire what at last this thing called the Church's Sense is, and how we may come to the Knowledge of it.

If the Pope and all the States of the Church, if the large Dominions of his Catholick Majesty, if the Learned of all Nations, if not the simple People only, but the most holy Bishops and most learned Doctors, nay, and even the Fathers themselves be sufficient to declare a Doctrine of the Church, See his Preface. all these Father Crasset has assured us do maintain that Honour of the Blessed Virgin, which this Adviser writes against, and which is utterly destructive of the Bishop of Meaux' s Pretences.

But if all these be but private mens Opinions, and the Church is not concern'd to answer for them, how then comes the Bishop of Condom to be so Catholick an Expositor, that whatsoever he delivers, must presently pass for the Sense of the Church, but what all others say, only for Scholastick Niceties, or the Doctrines of particular Persons, and which the Church is not obliged to maintain?

Now this I so much the rather desire to be inform'd of for that,

I. As to Number; 'tis certain that the Patrons of Old Popery in Italy, Spain, Flanders, and Germany, among the Tartuffes and common People in general, as Monsieur Ranchin is pleased to assure us, do very much exceed both the French Expositors, and their late Disciples, the English Representers and Vindicators.

II. As to the Expressions, not only of the publick Service and Rituals of their Church, but even of the Council of Trent its self; they are so plain on their side, that it needs a great deal of Artifice in these new Undertakers to reduce them to what they call the Church' s, but is indeed their own Sense.

[Page xiii] The Council of Trent directs them with reference to the Sess. XXV.—ad eorum Orationes, Opem, Auxilium (que) confugere. Saints themselves, to fly not only to their Prayers, but to their Aid and Assistance too; that is, says our Advertisement, pag. 11. Infallible Expositor and his Reply, p. 22. Vindicator, to the Aid and Assistance of their Prayers: But others, with less Art indeed, but with more Sincerity, and in the very words of the Council, to their Prayers, Aid, and Assistance.

As to their Reliques; the Council of Trent declares, That ‘ those who affirm that Veneration and Honour is not due to the Reliques of Saints, or that the said Reliques, and other sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured by the faithful; or that for the imploring of their Aid, the Memories of the Saints are in vain frequented, are to be condemned.’ This the Council decrees; and the Old Popery men accordingly do go to these Reliques, these sacred Monuments, to receive the benefit of them: Some, to sanctifie their Handkerchiefs, or Beads, or Rings; some to procure Health and Strength by Virtue of them; others for other benefits which they hope to obtain by them: All which is so undoubtedly their Practice, that the Papist repres. &c. Part. I. ch. IV. Representer himself is content to allow of it: ‘Since, as he expresses it, God has made them the Instruments of many evident Miracles which he has visibly work'd by them, as is manifest upon undeniable Record: But this, says the Reply, p. 42. Vindicator, is a FALSE TRANSLATION; for we do not seek to those sacred Monuments for the obtaining of their Help and Assistance, no, that's not the Council' s Ibid. meaning; but we seek for the help of the Saints at their Monuments:’ and be either the Words of the Council, or the Practice and Belief of the People never so against it, yet our Infallible Interpreter assures us upon his word, that the SENSE OF THE CHURCH is what he expounds to us.

Concerning Images; Conc. Trent. Sess. 25. The Council of Trent determines, ‘ That the Images of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, should be bad, and retain'd in Temples, and that [Page xiv] due Honour and Veneration be given to them.’ Upon this the Old Popery-men dispute what this due Honour and Veneration is: Some will have it only an inferiour Cult, but more to be the same, whatever it is, that's given to the Proto-type: And these are so positive, that theirs is the Church's Sense, that Cardinal Capisucchi however approving Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, yet can hardly forbear passing very severe Censures on those who deny it. I shall hereafter more fully shew his Opinion as to this Point; suffice it to add here that Instance which he gives us of Capisucchi Controv. Theol. p. 649. Aegidius Magistralis, Canon of Sevil in Spain, who was forced to abjure, among others, these two Propositions as Heretical, viz. 1st. ‘ That the Images of Saints are not to be adored with the same Adoration with which the Proto-types are adored. 2ly. That the Cross is to be worshipped only with an inferior Worship; which Proposition, says he, is heretical, and I retract it. Then he declares with S. Thomas, that the Cross is to be worshipped with a supreme Adoration.’ So that this, it seems, is not thought a meer Scholastick Nicety in Spain, whatever it be in France or Reply, p. 29. England; but so much the Church's Sense, that it was declared to be Heresie to oppose it.

But what now does our Catholick Expositor say to all this? why, truly, that these men quarrel with one another to very little purpose, seeing that after all their Disputings, ‘to speak Bishop of Meaux's Expos. §. V. p. 8. precisely, and according to the Ecclesiastical stile, when we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, our intention is not so much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of the Image.’ Which his Reverend Vindicator thus paraphrases: ‘ The Vindic. p. 32. Cross, whether taken as Wood or Stone, or moreover as the Image of Jesus Christ crucified, is not properly the Object of our Worship, but is a help to recal our wandring Thoughts back to a Consideratirn of the benefits we have received by his dying for us: and whilst we have these good [Page xv] Thoughts in our minds, our Affections are inflamed, and we in presence of that Image, which occasion'd these pious Affections, shew by some exteriour act what are our inward Sentiments, and pay our Adorations to our Redeemer, but NOT TO THE IMAGE that represents him. This is the pure and innocent Doctrine of the Church, without the mixture of Scholastick Niceties.’

That here are two very different Expositions of the same Council, is not to be deny'd; and whether is most agreeable to its decision, and by consequence to be esteem'd the Church's Sense; whether that due Honour is to be given them, as St. Thomas and the Schools say; or that See before. And Reply. Preface. none at all, as the Vindicator, or none in effect, as Monsieur de Meaux says, 'tis, I think, easie to determine. And the Abjuration of Aegidius Magistralis who favour'd this new Doctrine, but was forced to retract it as heretical; not to remember the hard fortune of poor Monsieur Imbert any more, may in Ib. p. 649. Cardinal Capisucchi' s Phrase, be at once both a Caution and a Conviction to them.

As to the Service of the Church; and which one would think should certainly speak the Church's Sense, that is so clear against our new Expositors, that the Vindicator is put to great shifts to reconcile its Offices to their Interpretations. In those the Saints are pray'd to, to help and deliver them, ‘ to open to them the Gates of Heaven; to command that See the Defence of my Expos. App. ad Art. 3. they be loosed from their sins; to loose their polluted Lips, that they may pray as they ought to do; to receive them at the dreadful hour of death, and by their Merits to pardon their Transgressions.’ And all this the People and the Tartuffes, i. e. the false Zealots of their Church in ‘ the Simplicity of their hearts believe that they do for them.’ But our new Expositors assure us they are all grosly mistaken; for however the words do indeed in their own natures signifie all this, yet the Sense of the Church is but one; and be the Expressions what they will, yet after all, we must understand [Page xvi] by them no more than this, PRAY FOR US. But wherefore this extravagan [...]t Exposition must pass for the Church's Sense, or how their Declaration makes it become so, when that of so many others that interpret all these Phrases according to their proper meaning, is to be look'd upon only as the Opinion of private men, we are yet to learn.

In their Addresses to the CROSS, they cry out, ‘We adore thy Cross, O Lord;’ they fall down before it, and adore it; and this, not only the People and the whole Church does, but for endeavouring to mollifie the design of it, one man is imprison'd another banish'd, a third recants and abjures his Opinion as heretical; yet still 'tis CALUMNY, 'tis FALSIFICATION, MISINTERPRETATION, and what Reply, p. 37. not, for us to presume to say that they do adore the Cross, or that the Church's Sense is any other than to adore, not the Cross, but Jesus Christ represented by that Image. Let us add to all this,

III. That not only the Expressions of their Councils and Rituals more visibly favour the Old Popery, but the allow'd Practice of the Church, most evidently confirms it. 'Tis well known that a great part of the Devotion of Italy and some other Countries, consists in these things. With what Zeal they enrol themselves under the more immediate Protection of the blessed Virgin, to love, honour, and serve her all their lives; and what Confidence they repose in her, as I have before observed; how every Place, and Person, and Trade, and Company, have their tutelary Saints to guard, and to defend them; every Disease for Man and Beast, its proper Physician above to cure it. How they flock to such Images as have been eminent, whether for some pretended Miracles, or any other Vertues above others; and with what ardor they accompany them, if they chance at any time to be carried abroad in Procession; what a Value extraordinary they put upon any thing that has but touch'd the Shrines in which are kept the Reliques of their Saints, as being sanctified thereby; [Page xvii] and how much Devotion they esteem it to go [...]o the places where they are kept to visit and adore them: How many excellent things they are taught an Agnus Dei is good for, not only to secure them against Thunder and Lightning at land, against Storms and Tempests at Sea, but if Pope Urban the Vth. may be believed, even to break sin, as if it were the Blood of Christ; not to mention any more of their Superstitions. Now as this cannot be deny'd to be their Practice, so we desire to be informed how it comes to pass, That if the Church's Sense be indeed so contrary to it, these things are not only thus universally tolerated, but encouraged, and there especially where one would think the Roman Religion should best be understood; I mean in those places where there has been the least mixture of Protestant Heresie to corrupt it; where the vigilant Eye of Christ's Vicar does more immediately watch over it; and above all, the sacred Authority of the holy Inquisition, that Rock upon which the Church is built, has hitherto defended it against such reforming Expositors as we have here to do with.

It may, I think, by this time appear how unwarrantable a Presumption it is in these upstart Interpreters to run down all others of their Church that do differ from them as only private men, and at the same time to forget that themselves are no more. And he must certainly be very willing to be deceived, who knows any thing of these matters, that can believe that after all the Disputes of so many learned Men on both sides, as have heretofore labour'd in this Controversie, nevertheless the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome was never rightly understood till these new Cato's dropp'd down from Heaven to publish to the World their Expositions of it. It is, doubtless, much more reasonable to expound the Doctrine of any Church according to the general and allow'd Practice of it, than according to the singular notions of a few private men, tho pretending to deliver nothing but the Church's Sense. A neat Turn, and a happy Invention may [Page xviii] palliate the foulest things, and make them appear in the Idea exceeding innocent; but what a general Practice confirms, no Colour can disguise; and let men say never so many fine things in their defence, yet all reasonable Persons will still believe, that the Church of Rome does certainly approve that which its most zealous Votaries so universally follow.

And indeed after all, Monsieur de Meaux himself must acknowledge this to be most reasonable: so that if his Exposition does differ from what is generally practis'd in his Church, all his Pretences of its agreement with the Council of Trent, will not suffice to justifie his sincerity. It is upon this very Principle, that himself in his Discourse of universal History attacks the Heathens. He presses them with the publick Practice of the People towards their Gods, and values not what the Poets or Philosophers said with great pomp of words concerning the Divine Nature, whilst he saw the others involved in such gross Superstitions. Nor is this my Reflection, it was made by one of his own Communion, not long since, upon this very Occasion. And because it may serve at once, both to clear what I am now shewing, and more fully satisfie the World, that this Bishop's Exposition, how much soever pretending to deliver to us the true Doctrine of the Catholick Church, yet was not thought at all conformable, even by those of his own Religion, to the general Practice of it, I will beg leave to offer it in his own Words.

As for what I have said, that we must judge of the Pagan Lettre a Monsieur L. A. D. C. touchant les Cometes. pag. 372. & seqq. de l'Edition de Rotterdam. 1683. And in the considerations sur le livre de Monfieur Brueys. pag. 65. &c. Rotterdam. 1684. Religion not from the Impertinencies of the Poets, or the specious Discourses of the Philosophers, but from the Worship which was practised by publick Authority, I do not see what any one can reasonably except against it. For it is most certain, that 'tis this alone which must justifie or condemn any Religion. And 'tis from this that the ancient Fathers heretofore run down the Heathens. Monsieur de Condom himself, who seems not to approve this Method, but pretends that we ought to impute nothing to the Catholick [Page xix] Religion, but the meer decisions of Councils, has nevertheless thought sit to impute to the Pagan Religion those Abuses that were publickly committed amongst them. He decries it upon this Principle, That its Mysteries, its Feasts, its Sacrifices, the Hymns which they sung to their Gods, their Paintings, which they consecrated in their Temples; all these had relation to the Loves, and Cruelties, and Jealousies of their Gods.

The same Monsieur de Condom (says he) decries Paganism upon this account, That they consecrated to their Gods the Impurities of the Theatres, and the bloody Spectacles of their Gladiators; that is to say, whatever can be imagined most corrupt, and most barbarous; and he laughs at the EXPOSITIONS and SOFTNINGS which the Philosophers brought to all this, when they were to encounter the Objections of the Christians.

He has reason (continues our Author) so to do; but yet this shews, that the Method which himself has taken to render the Catholick Religion fair and agreeable to the Protestants, is not to be maintain'd. For what is it to us, may they say, whether the Abuses and Superstitions that offend us in the Church of Rome, be to be found in the Decisions of their Councils, or not? As long as we see them publickly and solemnly authorized by it, and that their Worship consists in them, it is enough for us to keep our selves from its Communion. For might not the Heathens have defended themselves the very same way? Might they not have said, that those things which we reproach'd them with, were indeed Abuses into which the People was insensibly fallen by the connivance of the Magistrates, and by the Ignorance or Avarice of the Priests; but that we could never be able to prove, that the College of Pontifs, and of the Church duly assembled, had decided these things?

There is no doubt but the Heathens might have made these Excuses, had they been as subtile and ingenious as [Page xx] Monsieur de Condom, But what should we have answered? that certainly they must take us to be very Fools to defend themselves after such a manner. Suppose a man should invite another to settle himself in a City where Robbery and Murder should be evidently and publickly tolerated, by shewing him that there was not to be found among all the Laws of that City, any one Statute that order'd men either to kill or rob, would he not have reason to laugh at him? What is it to me, would he say, whether there be any Law that commands you to murder or rob, or no? 'Tis sufficient to me to keep me from dwelling there, that they do without Contradiction rob and kill. Confess we then (says he) that the Hereticks may make the same answer to Monsieur de Condom, and that therefore the true and only means to free our Religion from their Exceptions, is to shew that it does not tolerate any thing but what is good: And that not only the Decisions of its Councils are orthodox, but also that the publick Worship, the Customs and Doctrines authorized in it, are just and holy.

And here then let us fix our selves: Upon this Principle be it resolved, whether I have FALSIFIED and CALUMNIATED; or whether Monsieur de Meaux and his Vindicator have not rather palliated and prevaricated the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. If what these men EXPOUND to us be indeed, in our Vindicator' s Phrase, ‘ the Universally RECEIVED Doctrine of that Communion;’ if 'tis according to these Softnings, not that a few Converts, whose very Character carries a design in it; but the Pope himself proceeds; the Inquisition judges; the most Catholick Countries (where there is no design to be served by these Mollifyings) Italy and Spain believe, the People practise, and their chiefest Saints have gone to Heaven, and are now honour'd there: If this be the Exposition which their Books of Controversie follow in stating of the Points in difference between us (and where one would think they [Page xxi] should certainly deliver the Church's Sense against us) which their publick Rituals in their natural and most proper meaning speak; which their Treatises of Devotion recommend; and which by all these several ways the Church publickly authorises; be it then confess'd that we do indeed misrepresent them to the World.

But if otherwise these Softnings be only the Inventions of some few Persons, who, 'tis much to be feared, see well enough the Errors of their Church, but want either the Courage or the Honesty to avow it; if they are so far from being universally received, that as we have seen they are openly opposed, nay, condemned; and those who have endeavour'd to support them, imprison'd, banish'd, forced to recant, and abjure their Opinions as Heretical, I hope it will not be thought at all unreasonable in us to let the World know wherefore we suspect these Expositors, who, by whatsoever Name we shall distinguish them, whether they be Condomists, Representers, or what else you will, they are indeed all of them but a sort of Half-Reformers, seeing the others have so much a more just pretence both for Number and Authority, to be esteem'd, what in truth they are, the Old Romanists.

I shall close all with that Reflection which Monsieur Maimbourg makes in general upon these kind of Expositions, on the occasion of that Paper which Monsieur Granvelle, by order of the Emperor Charles the V ^th. did present to Cardinal Contarini, the Pope's Legate in the Diet of Ratisbone, 1541. and which was by him afterwards, with some little Alterations, sent to Rome, as a Model of Union between the Romanists and Protestants. ‘ It may be observed, says he, that in all times these pretended Accommodations and Managements of Religion, which have been contrived to re-unite the Hereticks with the Catholicks, Histoire de Lutheranisme, liv. III. pag. 253. in these PRETENDED EXPOSITIONS OF THE FAITH, which either suppress, or dissemble, or [Page xxii] express in doubtful terms, or too much soften some part of the Doctrine of the Church, have never satisfied either the one or other Party: But they have both equally complain'd, that men should not deal sincerely in a matter so delicate as the Faith is, where 'tis impossible to fail in one Point, without being defective in the whole.’

How far not only I may beg leave to apply all this to the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, but even Monsieur Maimbourg himself designed hereby to reflect upon it, I shall leave it to those to judge, who know how far that Author took all occasions, under the pretence of writing the Histories of past-times, to make particular Reflections upon the Men and Actions of the present. I am perswaded that at least, it is the true Character of it; and I hope, before I have done, to satisfie the unprejudiced Reader, that I have good reason to think so. But if after all, some there shall be, whom no Reason can prevail with, who in Monsieur de Meaux's own Phrase, ‘take pains to blind themselves, and will not see the light at Noon-day; ’ I shall only say to them, [...]eply, P. 178. what Tertullian once did to some Hereticks in his time; That 'tis not so much for want of Evidence that they are not satisfied, as because their Cause requires that they should not: For if men once resolve not to be perswaded, ‘ 'tis then necessary for them not to acknowledge those [...]ariò [...] agno [...]a per [...] Tertull. de Praescrip. Haer. cap. XVII. pag. 208. Ed. Paris. 1675. things by which they are confuted.’

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND, AGAINST The New Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux and his VINDICATOR. Addressed to the Reverend Vindicator.

AND thus far have I cleared the way to my Defence, and shewn both that there is at this day an Old and New Popery in the Church of Rome, and how we are to proceed in order to the finding out which is the true and genuine Sense of that Church. I must now remember the Method I before laid down, and shall from henceforth carefully pursue.

Two things there are, which I shall chiefly aim at in this Undertaking, viz. Clearness and Sincerity; and in either of which, but especially in the latter, if I prove defective, I shall neither be able to satisfie my own Conscience, nor my Reader's Expectation.

As for the former of these, I have made such a Division of my Discourse, as seem'd to me most proper for this end. I have resolved to give every thing its due [Page 2] weight, by separating what belongs to my self alone, from what concerns the Cause I am to maintain. And to the end that nothing of Passion or Frowardness may arise to hinder me from weighing all things with that indifference I desire, I shall first distinctly consider what is fit to be replied to those severe, for I will not yet call them unjust, Reflections you have so industriously made upon me, that so I may afterwards have nothing to do, but freely to examine the force of your Arguments; without being diverted by the Reproaches that accompany them.

And for the latter, I do here promise you to make it sincerely my Endeavour, not only that what I defend be the Truth, but to defend it only with Truth. You may think of me as hardly as you please, or as your furious Zeal shall prompt you to do; but I assure you I never will endeavour to perswade that to others, of Truth, of which I am not first my self convinced. So that, if then you have indeed discover'd in my Book any of those ill Things you charge me with in your Reply, you shall not fail to find me as ready to acknowledge my Faults, as, I bless God, I always have been; and if I may be allow'd to know my own Heart, still am unwilling to commit them: Or if this will not satisfie you, I will add, As you have been to discover them. Believe me, good Sir, my desire is to go the right way to Eternal Happiness: but whether this Way lie on the right-hand, or on the left, or Mr. Chill. Pref. straight-forward, to me it is indifferent. And however you have thought fit, according to your usual Charity towards those that differ from you, to assume to your self the Prerogative of God in judging the Secrets of my Soul, and to affirm, as you most rashly and unchristianly do, what you can never be sure is true, and what I am sure is undoubtedly otherwise, ‘ That if I would Reply, p. 21. [Page 3] speak my Conscience, I KNOW that what I say is false;’ yet give me leave to tell you that my Conscience is so far from accusing me in this matter, that I have hitherto felt no other motions at the reading of these bitter Reproaches, than what fill me with Wonder and Indignation at your Presumption; at the same time that they engage me not only to forgive you my self, but earnestly to beseech God to forgive you too.

And for your other Reflections, wherein you seem to have taken a particular satisfaction to blacken me all you can; (you being, as I shall hereafter shew, much more sollicitous about your Calumnies than your Arguments:) Tho' you have been so scrupulously careful not to allow, no, not for the smallest Errors, that you have often taken the liberty to invent there where you could not otherwise find whereof to accuse me; yet so far shall I be from returning any thing of this upon you, that on the contrary, I will shew you that your Example is not contagious where your Principles do not prevail; and that I am therefore as far from being moved by your Calumnies, as I hitherto see any reason to be convinced by your Arguments.

But of these things more particularly hereafter. I must now pass to the first thing I proposed to do which was to discharge my Obligations to the Bishop of Meaux, whom, you tell me, ‘ I have endeavoured to Reply, Pref. expose, by my contemptible Raillery, to my own Confusion among thinking Men.’To which all that I shall say at present, is, That for the contemptible Raillery you speak of, it is none of my Talent. I have heretofore shewn you some of your own Friends, who have Defence, p. 85, 86. indeed attain'd to a Perfection in it, and 'tis pity they should lose that Reputation, seeing they have so very little to pretend to besides. I have treated the Bishop [Page 4] of Meaux, and by the help of God always will treat him as his Character requires me to do. I have neither laugh'd at him, nor mocked him, nor sharpened what I have said with any light, Satyrical Pleasantry, to render either his Person, or his Exposition ridiculous: And these are the only Notions of Raillery that I know of, or that I believe your better Attainments in the French Language will be able to discover. No, Sir, be assured that what I have said, was serious Truth, and deliver'd in such a manner, as I believe no one but your self ever mistook it for Raillery. And if from what I shall now further remark it does appear, that even by that Bishop's own Confession I have spoken nothing without good grounds for it, I shall then leave it to any of your thinking Men, be their Faith what it will, freely to judge where the Confusion ought to lie.

[Page 5]

SECT. I.

An Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Second Letter; addressed to the said Bishop.

My Lord;

THO I do not see any such great Difference between your former Letter and this, I am now about to consider, but that the Answer I had given to that, might have excused me from saying any thing to this; yet my respect to your Character, which I cannot but reverence, be the Person what he will that bears it, engages me to pay that to the Dignity of your Place, which I should not have thought due to the weight of your Arguments.

I could wish that our Controversie had been so managed from the beginning, that I might have addressed my self to you without an Interpreter, either in your own Tongue, or in the Language of the Church: But it being now become the Subject of a popular Debate, I must leave it to those from whom you received the former, to send you an Account of my present Defence; tho' I cannot but apprehend that they who have committed so many Mistakes in communicating your Letter to the World, will not be infallible Interpreters of mine to you.

Your Vindicator accuses me in his Reply to my Defence, Reply, Pref. ‘of having endeavour'd to expose you by my contemptible Raillery. ’It is not improbable but that he who has the Confidence to lay so unseemly a Behaviour to my charge, in the face of so many Persons [Page 6] as have read my Books, and must therefore know it to be a false and groundless Imputation, may also have represented my Demeanour to your Lordship much otherwise than indeed it has been. But, my Lord, I know better what I owe to your Character, than to fail in any due Reverence towards it; and if I may be permitted to add it, am too sensible how you ought to have respected it your self, to be guilty of any Rudeness that may seem farther to lessen it. I believe indeed, I may have said things that have been very ungrateful to you, but I am perswaded I have done it in such a manner, that you your self cannot justly complain of any want of Civility in me. And I will now, as I have hitherto done, be by so much the more careful not to offend you in my Expressions, by how much the more I apprehend that I must displease you in my Allegations.

It is indeed a thing to be lamented, that one, whom God has called to so high a Dignity in his Church; whom he has endow'd with all the Accomplishments of Nature and Art, that might fit him to do some eminent Good in his Generation; to whom he has given Favour in the sight of one of the greatest Princes of Christendom, and whose Eyes he has opened to see many of those Errors, to which others of his Communion are still blind, should not attempt something worthy both his own Character, and all these great Opportunities: That the Knowledge he has of some at least of those Superstitions which his Church is involved in, should not yet provoke his Zeal to do somewhat that might effectually deliver it from them.

[Page 7] I have heard, my Lord, of the Endeavours you use to reform these things in your own Diocess; and I am perswaded you would be glad to see your Exposition establish'd, not by a few vain Complements, which you know signifie nothing; but by the effectual Practice and Decision of your Church to become indeed an Exposition of the Faith of it. And though, were it as Authentically ratified as it is now pompously approved, we should not even so be in a Condition of returning to you; yet we should then despair, but that being once sensible you could Err, God Almighty who disposed you to go thus far, He would not suffer you to stop there; but would incline your Hearts totally to embrace that truly Catholick Faith, from whence you have departed, and to which you now seem willing again to return.

Think I beseech you what an Honour it would be to your See, if as the last Reformation in France began there, so now a new and more lasting One might spring up, not from a poor Trades-man as before, but from whence it ought to come; the supream Pastour of it. And if any secular Hopes or Fears have hitherto kept you from employing those Advantages, I before mentioned, to this great End; and for which perhaps it was that God has given them to you; be perswaded at least yet to consider your Dignity; and what your People, your Religion, your own Soul requires of you? 'Tis yet in your power to redeem all, and by your Courage and sincerity now at the last, not only to blot out all that Scandal you have hitherto given us; but if it shall please God to bless your Endeavours, to render your Name Honourable to the present, and your Memory precious to all future Generations.

But if none of these Considerations shall be able to stir you up to so glorious an enterprize; If you are [Page 8] still so tender of the Credit of your Exposition, that you will not be perswaded to pursue any Reformation, but by a Method which you ought by this time to see will never accomplish it: You must then excuse us if we endeavour to lay open your Designs to the World; and keep you from doing any hurt, if you will not be perswaded to do all the Good that you ought.

The first thing I said concerning your Exposition was, ‘ That it was designed either to satisfie or to seduce the Mareschal Expos. C. E. II. de Turenne.’This your Vindicator confirms with an Authority which shall to me remain unquestionable. And though when I consider how many Points Reply, pref. were wanting to that first draught which appear'd of it, I must still believe that either ‘ your personal Conferences Expos. C. E. ib. with Him, or some other Papers to us unknown did perfect his Conversion;’yet I will not doubt, but that it was the Exposition that prepared the way to it. Nor do I hereby at all pretend to undervalue the Efficacy of your Book: It is certainly neither for your Lordship's nor the Mareschal's Reputation, to have it thought that He parted so easily with His Religion, as He must have done, if the meer reading of an Exposition of some few matters, and those none of the most considerable in debate betwixt us, were all the care that He took about it. But it may be the Vindicator judges of your Lordship's pains in converting Hereticks, by the little they take who now labour in this design among us: and which I cannot more nearly compare with any thing than that Method Tertul Adv. Valent. c. II. p. 250. N [...] discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt, quàm suos fecerint. Habent Artificium quo prius persuadent quàm [...]ant. Veritas autem docendo persuedet, non suadendo docet. C. whereby Tertullian tells us, the Valentinians were wont heretofore to make Proselytes to their Faction: ‘ They trust not, says he, their own Disciples, before they have made sure of them: They have an Artifice by which [Page 9] they perswade them before they instruct them: But Truth perswades by teaching, not teaches by perswading.’

I. But I return to your Lordship's Letter: Where the Reply p. 185. first thing you except against is what I mentioned in my Expos. C. E. p. III. Exposition, ‘ Concerning a private Edition of your Book which was suppress'd, because the Sorbonne Doctors, to whom it was sent for their Approbation, excepted against some things in it.’

Now this, as it was none of my Invention, but communicated to me by a Person of undoubted integrity, and who came to the knowledge of it by the means Defence of the Expos. p. XI. I have heretofore said; so I thought I had the more reason to credit the Relation, because in your Advertisement wherein you take notice of the other Objections of Monsieur de la B—, you pass over in profound silence all that he had charged you with concerning this suppressed Edition; though a Point certainly considerable enough to have had some notice taken of it, had it not been a little too hazardous, especially in your own Countrey, so soon to deny it. And I must confess I was inclined to conclude, as I formerly told you, that you Expos. C. E. p. III, IV. therefore took no notice of it, because you were sensible it would not have then been safe to disown it.

But now it seems you thought you might securely disavow it. And therefore in your former Letter you solemnly declare, ‘ that you never did publish nor cause to be printed Vindic. p. 9. 12, 13. any other Edition than that which is in the hands of every One, to which you never added nor diminish'd one Syllable.’

In return to which I have also declared, ‘that there was Def. p. VIII. an Edition, such as I spake of, differing in many particulars from what we now see; that a Copy of this Edition [Page 10] was in my own Hands, and free for any One that pleased to examine it.’

But it seems you durst not trust to your first Denyal, and therefore you were pleased upon second thoughts to confess in effect what you had twice before deny'd; That Vindis. p. 13. ‘ tis true indeed there was such an Impression, as I said; but that it was made without your Order or Knowledge.’

To this I answered, ‘ That it was Printed by your own Def. p. X, XI. Bookseller, a Person of great Credit and Estate; with the King's permission and Approbation; all which could not well be done without your knowledge, nor would Monsieur Cramoisy have presumed to do it without your Order.’

And what has your Lordship now to except against this? Can you say that these Presumptions are not reasonable against you? No, that you do not pretend. Can you deny the Fact? Neither dare you put it upon that issue. But how then will you clear your self? Why, you persist to affirm, ‘ that there never was any such Edition own'd and avow'd by you:’No, my Lord, that we Reply, p. 185. know; you were so far from owning and avowing it, that you endeavoured with all possible Care to suppress it. But did you never make such an impression, though you did not, nor do not yet care to own it? ‘And if Some-body (you say) has been pleased to tack the King's Ibid. Approbation and priviledge with the Name of Cramoisy to some other Edition, it is but a weak Argument to give the lie to what you say.’

Behold the vain presumption that is brought to oppose so plain a matter of Fact. Here is a Book printed, Cramoisy's name, and the King's Approbation to it: This Edition is collected from Monsieur Cramoisy's own Printing House; collated with another of Monsieur de Turenne's [Page 11] that cannot be doubted to be Authentick; attested by the person that compared them, to be the very same; and if this be so, the Bishop of Meaux remains actually convinced of being privy to the Impression which he confesses was made, but, as he pretends, without his Order or Knowledge; and to all this, he has only this to say, That it may be some body has tack'd Cramoisy' s name, and the King's Approbation to an Edition that they do not of right belong to.

Judge, my Lord, your self, if you can but for one moment sequester your thoughts from your own concern in this matter, whether so poor a supposal be sufficient to overthrow such positive evidence against you: and do not force me to appeal to any other to judge betwixt us. I shall be thought perhaps to undervalue my better Authorities in this matter, should I say that those who are acquainted with Monsieur Cramoisy's Letter, will soon discern whether my Book came not out of his Imprimerie. But if it be not sufficient to confound your supposal, that it was gathered up from your own Printers; Collated with Monsieur de Turenne's Copy; to which I am sure you will not say these things were falsly tack'd; and Attested to be the same: I will then add only this more; ‘ That whenever your Lordship will help us to a Copy of that Impression you speak of, made without your Knowledge or Order; that we may compare it with what we have; and give us some good Assurance, that neither did Cramoisy Print it, nor any other with your Consent; if it does upon collation appear that ours is one of that stollen Edition, I will no longer insist upon the Authority of it.’

In the mean time, your Lordship, subjoyns two suppositions, which very much confirm me in all that I have said of this matter. ‘ But what if I had Reply, p. 185. taken out some Leaves and put in others in the room [Page 12] of them (for so the French signifies) after the Book Mais quand l'aurois adjousté des Cartons à unè impression deja faite? p. 179. Translated, p. 185. But what if I had made some Additions to a printed Impressions? was printed, before it was made publick; what if I had corrected in it what I thought fit, or if they please altogether changed it? What consequence can they draw from thence against me upon account of those Alterations? Let us put the case also, if they please, that some body should have been so vainly curious as to take the trouble to find out THIS IMPRESSION, before I had thus Corrected it?’

O, my Lord! may I not here at least beg leave to think, that out of the abundance of your heart, your hand wrote this? Would your Lordship have made such supposals in our favour, had not your Conscience here got the better of your Reason? ‘ Suppose, you say, before the Book was publish'd, some Leaves had been cut out, and you had corrected what you thought fit, or it may be altogether changed it.’Is not this the very thing we charge you with, and which you have been so weakly endeavouring to perswade the World you did not do? And if I may be allow'd to answer one supposal with another; ‘ What if you did do this upon the Corrections that were made by those Sorbonne Doctors, to whom it was sent for their Approbation? Again: Suppose, you say, some one was so vainly curious, as to take the trouble to find out THIS IMPRESSION before you had Corrected it.’I reply, That then 'tis very possible, that the person from whom I obtain'd my Copy was One of these; and if so, then both Monsieur Cramoisy's name, and the King's Priviledge may honestly belong to it; and my Book be one of those that was FIRST PRINTED, and that with your Knowledge and Approbation; before these Leaves you speak of were changed in it.

[Page 13] You see, my Lord, of what advantage these supposals are to us; and I doubt not but this will make you hereafter assure us that they were only Cases put, for discourse sake, not that you really did this. And to this you may be sure there is no Reply; all I shall desire is, that if you intended no more by them than so, why you could not have as well made the supposal in the very terms of our Charge; which would have been much more proper than to alter them to another very like it; For my part I cannot but think, that as I said before, your Heart here guided your Hand, and the conscience of what you knew you had done, led you to make this supposal of it.

But here the Vindicator desires to come in with his supposal too; and that is yet nearer to what we say. ‘ Suppose, says he, the Bishop had permitted an Impression Reply, Pref. to be made, or (WHICH IT MAY BE WAS ALL HE DID) had caused a dozen or fourteen Copies to be printed off; to shew them to his Friends, before he would put the last hand to his Book: nay (if you will) let us suppose, that some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne were of the number of those Friends to whom he communicated these Copies, and that they had made some Corrections, Observations, or Additions.’Why truly, Sir, I say then, that supposing you had the Bishop's Authority to write this, you have fairly given away his Cause and Credit together; by confessing that there was, as we affirm, a private Edition made, that it was communicated to some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne; that these Doctors did Correct it, and that then it was reprinted as we now see it.

But I have more to observe from this passage, and it may be that which will unriddle this whole Intrigue. 1. Whereas the Vindicator having supposed that the Bishop [Page 14] caused a few Copies to be printed for his Friends, he then immediately changes his stile from a supposal to a kind of affirmation of it; ‘ Which, says he, it may be WAS ALL THAT THE BISHOP DID.’2. He supposes that some of the Sorbonne Doctors might be of the number of those Friends, and might have made some Corrections and Observations in it. 3. He doubts, ‘ whether a few such Copies could be PROPERLY CALLED AN IMPRESSION:’And now to add my supposal to all the rest, What if this were the Case? The Bishop Ibid. prints a few Copies of his Book; but they being but a very few, and designed only for his Friends, not the publick; He does not think that this could PROPERLY be called an IMPRESSION: And therefore whereas we charge him with a private Impression, he readily denys that he had made any. For so few Copies cannot PROPERLY BE CALLED AN IMPRESSION.

He sends it to some Doctors of the Sorbonne, and they make Corrections in it. But these Doctors he sent it to as Friends not Doctors, and therefore when we charge him with sending it to the Sorbonne for their Approbation; He assures us he never did any such thing, because he designed only their private judgment as his Friends, not to prefix their publick Approbation as Doctors to it.

I do not say that this is the Case; but however I thought I might make such a supposal of it upon the grounds that were so fairly offered to me; and I shall submit it to the Reader to think what probability there may be in it.

But to return from this digression, to the Vindicator: You will tell me, it may be, that you did not intend I should make this Use of your Suppositions; that which you would know, is, ‘ What all this signifies to the Book Reply, Pref. [Page 15] as it is at present?’ And this, my Lord, is your Lordships Question too.

I answer; That this shews, as I said in that place where I first produced this Allegation, that those Protestants were not mistaken, who thought the Doctrine of Expos. C. E. p. [...]. your Exposition as it was first drawn up by you, would never pass among th [...]se of your own party. And when your Lordship considers how you insult over them in your Advertisement for this belief, you will see some reason to own that it was neither to Ceux qui de bitent avec tant de soin des Choses si vaines, cherchent des chicanes & non pas la Verite. Reply, p. 175. cavil with you, as you express your self; nor ‘ to juggle and perplex the World with tricks,’as your Translator makes you speak, that I mentioned these things; but to seek and shew the Truth, and let the World see how this new Mystery wrought. And this, my Lord, to the first point: I go on with you to the

II. Second; where you say, ‘ You do really acknowledge, Reply, p. 186. that the Edition of your Book which you publish'd, differs in some things from your, MS.—And for the same reason you doubt not but we may find in the Edition (or as the Bishop's Letter has it, the Dans les Editions. Reply, p. 179. Editions; for I know not whether the Vindicator has corrupted the One, or false-translated the Other;) which you did not approve, some things not agreeing word for word with the true One: But that a little justice must needs make us acknowledge the difference to regard only the Beauty or Conciseness of the stile, and not at all the substance of the Faith.’

In all which I find nothing more than what you had before said, in your former Letter; and the Examples of some of your Changes which I offered in answer to this Defence, p. IX, X. pretence then, may still serve to satisfie the World what Credit is to be given to the same Assertion now.

[Page 16] But because you desire your Reverend Father to remember the Occasion of this Difference, we ought not by any means to forget it: Viz. ‘ That it was made for the instruction of some particular Persons, and NOT TO Reply, ibid. BE PRINTED:’I shall take it for granted, that these particular Persons for whom it was made, were either your new Converts, or such as you desired to have so. Now the Exposition being framed for their Instruction, and NOT TO BE PRINTED; is it not very natural to believe that you might have soften'd things in it to serve that design, somewhat more than you could afterwards justifie when you came to publish it; and that the Alterations therefore might be such as our Copy shews in things that ‘ concern the substance of the Faith as well as the Beauty and Conciseness of the stile?’

And for this I have yet another presumption. The † MS. Copy which at first went abroad, and was that Rep. de Monsieur de la B—Avertissement, p. 5. which I suppose you drew up for the particular Persons you speak of, ended at the Article of the Eucharist. Now. I cannot but observe that the most considerable Alterations do end there too: For however indeed in the point of the Eucharist you had omitted the name of Transubstantiation, yet in effect you asserted the thing; In the Adoration of the Host, Communion in One kind, and the following Articles, we find Changes indeed, but rather in the stile, than, as you say, in the substance of the Faith: The business of the Mass was the only considerable instance in which you prevaricated. From whence I conclude, that those first Articles were written, as you say, for the instruction of particular Persons, and NOT TO BE PRINTED; and therefore you thought you might take the liberty to write them as you pleased, and as your design led you to do: but when you came to add the others in order [Page 17] to the publishing your Exposition, though you were still exceedingly careful to mollifie things all you could, and sometimes more than was thought fitting, yet you were forced to proceed with greater Circumspection.

But your Lordship desires to have our ‘pretended Reply, p. 186. Edition put into the hands of some Person of Credit; where you may have it seen by some of your Friends; and you do then engage your self either to shew the manifest falsity of it, or if it has been truly printed after your MS. to make appear as clear as the day, that the differences we so much magnisie deserve not even to be thought upon.’

This indeed, my Lord, is an extraordinary favour, considering that you have suffered an Extract made out of this very Book by Monsieur de la B—of twenty Changes to pass now almost this xv. years without any Reply. And because I would not be too importunate, be pleased only at your leisure to shew us in them, whether it may be worth our while to put you to the trouble of Considering any more. But if you succeed no better in the other xix. than you have done in this One, wherein you have first made the Experiment, it will be neither for your Credit nor our Satisfaction to disturb your self about it. The point is, concerning the Honouring the Blessed Virgin and the Saints: The Case lies thus,

In both your Editions you lay down this Principle; ‘ That all Religious Worship ought to terminate upon God, as its necessary End.—’From this you infer:

I. Edit. ‘Therefore the Honour which the Church Expos. C. E. p. XXII. gives to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints I S RELIGIOUS, because it gives them that Honour with relation to God, and for the love of Him;’

[Page 18] And therefore again,

I. Edit. ‘ So far ought one to be from blaming the Ibid, p. XXIII Honour which we give to the Saints, as our Adversaries do, because it IS RELIGIOUS, that on the contrary, it ought to be blamed if it were NOT RELIGIOUS.’

I am not now to question the reasonableness of this Consequence; but to observe the New turn that you give it in your Second Edition: where the Principle remaining the same, you infer thus, directly Opposite to the former Conclusion.

II. Edit. ‘ Therefore IF the Honour which it (the Church) renders to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints may in some sense be called RELIGIOUS, it is for its necessary Relation to God.’

This is the Case; let us see how you Answer it. You tell us ‘ that at the bottom what you said at first was true:’Very likely, but that is not our Question: Reply, p. 186. that which we expect is that you shew us, as clear as the day, that the difference is only in the Stile, not the Substance of Faith. You add therefore; ‘ That if afterwards you gave it Another turn, it was only that you might speak with more Brevity, and avoid the pittiful Equivocations which are every day made upon the Word Religious. And this is all you have to say to it.’

To which I answer: First, Though it be not Material, yet that it is not true, that your New turn was that you might speak with more Brevity; for whereas you had before said, that this Honour was Religious, you now put in a few other words, which do not indeed add much to the length, but makes a great deal of difference [Page 19] as to the Sense, If it may in some Sense be called Religious. But, 2dly, The reason you give do's not at all satisfie us: We come not now to hear the distinctions of the Schools, but to read an Exposition of the necessary Doctrine of the Church; and in which you tell us, that One word ill rendred would spoil all.

What then is the Churches sense concerning that Honour Advertisement to your Expos. p. 5, 6. which it renders to the Saints departed? You pronounce Dogmatically: First, It is A RELIGIOUS HONOUR, and were to BE BLAMED if it were NOT RELIGIOUS. Then comes out a new Edition, and having considered better of the matter, you doubt whether it may even in SOME SENSE be called a RELIGIOUS HONOUR. Reply, p. 9. Your Vindicator comes after you, and with another Turn sets all right again, that it cannot be called a Civil Honour, and therefore it must be a Religious. And which of these, or whether they be all of them the Churches sense, we are yet to learn.

Had you, my Lord, distinguish'd in your Exposition as you would be thought to do now: Had you told us, that this Honour as it refers to God, and is done out of Love to Him, is Religious, but in any Other respect (if there be any other) you could not well tell what it was; we had then understood yours, if we had not the Churches sense of it. But to tell us without any distinction in One Edition that it is Religious, and in Another to doubt, whether it may in any Sense be called Religious, this is such a kind of turn as He once gave to the Canon Law, who being to Expound a certain Decree which began WE COMMAND; that is, says the Gloss, WE FORBID: and I think plainly shews, that either here you did not well know the Sense of your Church, or you did not care that we should.

[Page 20] And thus much to your Second Remark. As for the

III. Point; I shall not need to insist upon it. It neither Reply, p. 186. belongs to your Lordship, nor is there any difference between us concerning it. Since you freely confess that the Epistle of St. Chrysostome ought not to have been stifled; and See this Epistle reprinted by Monsieur Bas [...]age, Rotterdam, 1687. p. 34. Reply, p. 187. Monsieur de le Faure himself, who gave the Advice by which it was suppressed, afterwards repented of it. As to the

IV. Objection; concerning Monsieur M—s writing against your Exposition, I am not at all concerned whether your Lordship will believe it or no: Though for the sake of truth I will add thus much, that Monsieur M—has again own'd it, since the publishing of my Defence, to a Person of great worth, who at my desire enquired about it. And for the Conclusion we would draw from it, your Lordship must needs have seen it, had the Person who inform'd you of these things given you so full an account of these things as He ought to have done; viz. to shew that all even of your own Communion were not satisfied with your Exposition; and to confirm by the Testimony of a second Witness what Monsieur Conrart had before declared concerning it.

And now I mention the Name of your old Friend Monsieur Conrart, I could wish for the sake of that good Opinion you have so worthily testified of Him in your Advertisement, you had given some other character of Him in your Letter. For however I am perswaded you meant no more by your Monsieur de Meaux's expression is, entesté de la Religion: Hotheaded of his Religion: Reply, p. 181. 187. Expression than to signifie that firm perswasion He had of the truth of his Religion; yet your Translator has from thence taken Occasion to represent Him to the World as a Hot-headed Man, which [Page 21] you know to have been far from the true Character of a Person so Sober, however opiniated of his Faith, as Monsieur Conrart was. The

V. Objection is this. In the Preface to my Expositi [...]n, Reply, p. 187. I had observed, How Father Crasset in his Answer to the Wholesome Advices of the Blessed Virgin to Her indisereet Worshippers, had in that opposed your Lordship's Expos. C. E. p. VI, VII. Exposition. To this you return this Answer in your former Letter. ‘I have not read that Book, but neither Vindicat. p. 10. did I EVER HEAR IT MENTIONED, there was any thing in it contrary to mine.’

This in my Defence, I told you was very strange, considering Def. p. XIII. & 114. that not only Monsieur de la B—in his Answer to your Advertisement, and Monsieur Arnauld in Defence of your Exposition, had taken notice of it; but even Monsieur Jurieux in his Preservative had Objected it to you: Which Book I supposed you must have read, because you Answer a part of it in your Treatise of Communion in One Kind.

What do's your Lordship now offer to excuse your Prevarication in so clear a matter? ‘ Reply, 187. I still continue to say that I never read Father Crasset' s Book which they bring against Me. I KNOW well indeed that Monsieur Jurieux objected it to Me.’So your Translator renders you; I suppose that the Charitable Reader might believe, that you do now know it, since I put you in mind of it; and not believe a Person of your Lordship's Character, would so openly confess that you did know that, which you so utterly deny'd to have ever heard mention'd before. But alas! This is no such great matter with your Lordship; and therefore to set things right as they ought to be, and shew at once both yours and your Translator's sincerity, I must desire the Reader to cast his Eye upon the French [Page 22] Original, where he will find your Words to be these; J'ay bien sçeu, à la Verite, que Mr. Jurieux [...] opposoit. Reply, p. 181. Reply, p. 181. Tis true, indeed, ‘I KNEW WELL ENOUGH that Monsieur Jurieux objected it to Me:’ And therefore in Conscience, my Lord, what did you do when you told us in your Other Letter, ‘ that you NEVER HEARD IT MENTION'D, that there was any thing in it Contrary to your Exposition.’

O my Lord! think a little upon these things: and do not imagine that a trifling flourish will secure you either against Gods judgment, or the Worlds Censure. For what if Monsieur Jurieux were such a One as you pretend? Ibid. That was ‘ wont to mingle true, false, and doubtful things together:’Yet since you confess you did read in Him that Father Crasset had contradicted your Exposition, will that excuse you from being guilty of an Offence against Truth, in saying that ‘ you had never heard any such thing mention'd?’But, my Lord, I must go farther with you; He did not barely say it, He proved it too, and that by a very large extract out of his Book: And be Monsieur Jurieux's credit never so small with your Lordship, yet your own reason could not but tell you when you read those passages, that in this at least He was certainly in the right. And I once more Appeal to your own Conscience, whether you never read in Monsieur de la B's? Answer to your Advertisement, nor in Monsieur Arnaud's Defence of your Exposition, the very same: And whether these also will not One day rise up in Judgment against you, for so positively denying that you had ever heard of any such thing?

But you go on: ‘ Father Crasset Himself troubled Ibid. ( Le Pere Crasset touchè de ce, &c. Father Crasset touch'd or troubled, &c. Reply, p. 181. as for the Offended, that is a piece of the Translator's liberality) That any One should report his Doctrine to be different from mine, has made his Complaints to me; and in a Preface to the second Edition of his Book, has [Page 23] declared that he varied in nothing from Me, unless perhaps in the manner of Expression: And this you say you leave to them to Examine, who shall please to give themselves the trouble.’ The truth is you saw by what Monsieur Jurieux had copied from Him, that should you read his Book you must give him up for a pitiful Jesuit: and therefore thought it the best way to stand Neuter, and not be engaged to say any thing about Him. Think not, my Lord, Reflections sur le Preservatif: le livre d'an pitiable Jesuit nommé le Pere Crasset. V. Reflex. p. 19. le miserable livre d'un Pere Crasset, p. 44. Pourquoy veut il que nous sassions de difficulté de dire q'un Pere Crasset [...]'est trompé p. 47. the Expression too slighting: Your own Defender is my precedent for it; who finding it impossible to reconcile the Extravagancies of his Book with the Doctrine of your Exposition, utterly disclaims both it and the Author in the very terms I have mentioned, and with greater contempt than I am willing to transcribe from Him.

But since you are resolved you will not interest your self in this matter, I must here address to Father Crasset Himself; and since his Doctrine is, He says, the same with that of your Exposition, desire Him that he will please to inform us wherein it is that that Heretical, banish [...]d, condemn'd Author of the Wholsome Advices, against whom he writes, differs from it. ‘Is it that He blames those who pay their Homage to the Blessed Virgin as to some inferiour Divinity, and believe that without Her there is no approaching to God even by Jesus Christ?’But this, Reverend Father, the Bishop of Meaux blames no less than He.

Is it that He advises the Worshippers of the Holy Virgin, ‘ not to think that she has any Merit but what she received from her Son?— that they ought not to give the same Titles to Her as to God;— nor make her Equal with God and Jesus Christ? * Is it that He condemns Those who depend so much on the Blessed Virgin that they have no recourse to Christ; and prefer their devotion to Her before [Page 24] the Love of God? * Is it that He advises the people not to put any trust in Images, as if there were any Divine power in them, and it were not in Effect all One to worship the Blessed Virgin in any place or before any Image?’ This, my Father, is that Authors Doctrine whom you oppose, and if the Bishop of Meaux will disown all, or any part of this Doctrine as contrary to his Exposition too, I shall for my part be content that then your True devotion toward the Blessed Virgin pass as agreeable to the Principles of it.

You will, it may be, tell us, that though you oppose His Book, yet you are not his Enemy in Every One of these Particulars: Nor will I affirm that you are. But yet since you charge Him as an Enemy to the Honour of the Blessed Virgin, and to the Worship of Images, you ought to shew us what those Principles are, in which you esteem Him as such; and then we shall soon see whether the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition do's not maintain the very same Doctrine.

Good God! To what a state are we arrived? That men can presume in the Face of the World to deliver such falsities? Judge, Reader, whoever thou art, Are these men fit to be trusted to deliver to us the Principles of Faith, that in the plainest matters of Fact, shew so little a concern for Truth; even when they know 'tis impossible for them to hide their Confusion?

And here, my Lord, I could have wish'd I might have finish'd these Remarks: Sorrow and Anguish are in the next Consideration, more than in all I have yet delivered: And I cannot without confusion repeat, what you would be thought to have written without blushing. But I must follow whither your self have led Me; and speak those things which if you have yet any regard to your own Dignity, any Sense even of common Christianity it self, [Page 25] will certainly bring upon you the most sensible perplexity of mind, and great confusion of Face.

In your Pastoral Letter to the New Converts of your Past. Letter, p. 3, 4. Diocess, you tell them, ‘ I do not marvel, my dearest Brethren, that you are returned in Troops and with so great Ease to the Church where your Ancestors served God. NOT ONE OF YOU HATH SUFFER'D VIOLENCE EITHER IN HIS PERSON OR GOODS. Let them not bring you these deceitful Letters which are Address'd from Strangers transform'd into Pastours, under the Title of Pastoral Letters to the Protestants of France that are fallen by the force of Torments. So far have you been from suffering Torments, that you have not so much as heard them Mention'd. YOU ARE RETURNED PEACEABLY TO US, YOU KNOW IT.’

This you now again confirm, as to what has ‘ pass'd Reply, 187, 188. in the Diocess of Meaux, and several Others, as you were informed by the Bishops your Brethren and your Friends: [ Dont les Eveques, mes Confreres & mes amis, m'avoient fait le recit, p. 181. for so your words are, not and Other your Friends, as your Translator renders you.] And you do again assert in the Presence of God who is to judge the living and the dead, that YOU SPOKE NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.’

And believe Me, my Lord, that God whom you call to Witness has heard you; and will One day bring you to Judgment for it.

For tell me, Good my Lord; Have those Edicts which the See all this in the Collection made by the Kings Authority, and dedicated to Him by Monsieur le Fevre Dr. of Sorbon; Called Nouveau Re [...]il de tout ce qui [...]'est fait pour & contre les Protestants ea France. à Paris, 1686. King has publish'd against the Protestants of France; and in which He involves not only his own Subjects, but as far as He can all the Other Protestants of Europe, made any Exception for the Diocess of Meaux? Have not their [Page 26] Churches been pull'd down, their Ministers banish'd; their Children ravish'd out of their Bosoms; their Sick forced into your Hospitals, exposed to the rudeness of the Magistrates and Clergy; their Shops shut up; their Offices and Employs taken from them; and all Opportunities of the publick service of God been precluded there as well as in Other places?

See, my Lord, that black Collection which Monsieur le Fevre has lately publish'd with the King's Priviledge of those Edicts, whereby, as he confesses, the Reformed have in effect been persecuted for these xxx. years. Has your Diocess escaped the rigour but of any one of these? Or is there nothing of Violence either to Mens Persons or Goods in them?

Your Lordship, I perceive by some of your private Letters, is not a stranger to Monsieur le Suër, and to whom I have had the Honour for some Years to be particularly known. Was not he driven from la Ferté even before the Edict of Nantes was revoked? And was there nothing of Violence in all this? Was that poor Man forced to forsake all that he had, and seek for refuge in foreign Countrys, first in England, then in Holland, and did he yet (with his numerous Family) suffer nothing neither in his Person nor Goods? And might I not say the same of the other Ministers his Brethren in your Diocess, were I as well acquainted with their Conditions?

But it may be you will Expound your self of those who remained behind, and changed their Religion. And can you in Conscience say that they RETURN'D PEACEABLY TO YOU? Does a Town that holds out as long as it can, and when it is just ready to be carried by Storm, then capitulates, yield it self up peaceably to the Will of the Conqueror? They saw Desolation [Page 27] every where surround them; the Fire was come even to their very Doors. The Dragoons were arrived at your own City of Meaux. Before they were quarter'd upon the poor People, you call them for the last Tryal to a Conference. Here you appear moderate even beyond your own Exposition; and ready to receive them upon any terms. What should they now do? Change they must; the deliberation was only whether they should do it a few days sooner, and prevent their ruine, or be exposed to the merciless fury of these new Converters. Upon this follows the effect you mention; The Holy Spirit operated upon your preaching, as it heretofore wrought in the Council of Trents Decision. When the Courrier arrived from Rome, then presently the Fathers became enlightned; and ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and them. ’ When the Dragoons stood arm'd to ruine them if they did not yield; ‘ then they return'd in Troops, and WITH GREAT Ibid. EASE, to the Church, where their Ancestors served God.’

And yet after all, ‘Has no one, my Lord, even of these, suffered Violence either in his Person or Goods?’ Judge, I pray you, by the Extract I will here give you of a Letter which I received in Answer to my particular desires of being informed How things pass'd in your Diocess.

‘It is true that the Dragoons were not lodged in Extract of a Letter concerning the State of the Protestants in the Diocess off Meaux. the Diocess of Meaux; but they came to their Doors, and the People being just ready to be ruined, yielded to their fears. Insomuch that seeing afterwards the Pastoral Letter, they would not give any heed to it; saying, That seeing it was so VISIBLY FALSE in an Article of such importance, it did not deserve to be believed by them in the rest. One only Gentleman [Page 28] of the Bishoprick of Meaux, Louis Seguier, Lord of Charmois, a Relation of the late Chancellors of the same name; had the Dragoons. 'Tis true that after he had signed, he was repair'd in some part of the loss he had sustained. But it happened that he did not afterwards discharge the part of a Good Catholick. He was therefore put in Prison, first in his own Country; but it being impossible there to deprive him of all sort of commerce, to take him absolutely from it, He has since been transferr'd to the Tour of Guise, where he is at present. Two other Gentlemen of the same Country, are also Prisoners on the same Account.’

But there is an answer to your Pastoral Letter Reponse à la Lettre pastorale de Monsi [...]ur de Meaux: à Amsterdam, chez pierre Savoret. 1686. pag. 20, &c. which goes yet farther. He tells you of Monsieur Monceau, a Man of 77. Years of Age, shut up in a Convent: of the cruelties exercised upon two Orphan Children of Monsieur Mirat, the one but of 9. the other 10. Years old, at la Ferté sous Jouarre: Nay, my Lord, he adds how even your Lordship who in the Conference appear'd so moderate, in the Visitation of your Diocess, 3. Months after threatned those who would not go to Mass; that continued to read their Protestant Books, or to sing their Psalms. And will you yet say there has been nothing of Violence in your Diocess? ‘You are returned peaceably to us, you know it.’ Pastor. Letter. Ibid. La seduction eludeé: ou Lettres de Monsieur [...] Eveque de Meaux à un de ses Diocésains, qui [...] est sauvé de la persecution.

I must then descend to the last sort of conviction, and out of your own Mouth you shall be judged. Your Lordship will easily see what it is I mean. The Copies of your own Letters to Monsieur U—who was forced to flie from his Country, and out of your Diocess upon the account of the Persecution you now deny, and which were Printed the last year at Bearne in Switzerland, have sufficiently satisfied the World of your sincerity in this point.

[Page 29] Your first Letter is dated at Meaux, October 17. 1685. In this, after having exhorted him to return to you, by assuring him, ‘ That he should find your Arms open to receive him; and again, Vous me trouverez toujours les bras ouverts:—Je ne ce [...]seray de vous rapeller par mes Voeux & par mes prieres; etant cordialement, & av [...]c [...] Esprit d' un Veritable pasteur, Votre, &c. p. 10. that he should meet in you the Spirit of a true Pastor;’among other things you tell him, ‘ That we ought not to please our selves that we suffer persecution, Songez qu'il ne [...]aut point se complaire quand on souffre persecution, si [...] on n'est bien asseuré que ce soit pour la. justice. p. 11. unless we are well assured that it is for righteousness sake.’It was too much to deny the persecution to one who was just escaped out of it, and therefore you thought it better to flourish upon it.

Ibid. p. 16, 17. To this he replies, Jan. 28. 1685. ‘ That he pleased himself so little in the Persecution, that it was to avoid those places where it reigned, that according to the precept of the Gospel, he was fled into another.’ And then goes on to testifie the just Scandal which the Persecution had given him against your Religion.

Your Answer to this was of April 3. 1686. or rather not so much to this, as to one he had sent about the same time to his Lady, and wherein he had it seems again declared how scandalized he was at the Persecution. And here you enter in good earnest on the Argument. Instead of denying the Persecution, you defend it. And though you seem to testifie in your reasons as little regard to the truth of the ancient History of the Church, as in your Pastoral Letter to the condition of the present; yet you sufficiently shew of what manner of Spirit you are of; since for your part Ibid. pag. 22, 23, 24. Dites moi en quel endroit de l' Ecriture les Here iques & les Schismatiq [...]es sont exceptez du nombre de ces malsaiteurs contre lesquels St. Paul a dit que Dieu m [...] a armé les Princes. p. 24. ‘ you cannot, you say, find where Hereticks and Schismaticks are excepted out of the number of those Evil doers, against whom St. Paul tells us, That God has Armed Christian Princes.’

[Page 30] And here, my Lord, I shall stop, and not multiply proofs in a matter so clear as this. Only let me remember you that there is but Lettre Pastorale March 24. Lettre à Monsieur de U. April 3. 10. days difference between the date of this and of your Pastoral Letter; too little a while to have made so great a Change. But I suppose we ought to remember here, what you told us before of the MS. Copy of your Exposition: that these private letters were design'd only for the Instruction of a particular Person, and NOT TO BE PRINTED; whereas that other which you Reply, p. 186. Address'd to your Diocess was intended to be published, and therefore required ANOTHER TURN.

As for the Bishops your Brethren and Friends, who have, you say, affirmed the same thing; your Lordship would do us a singular pleasure to let us know whether they were not some of those that approved your Exposition. It was pity they did not set their Reverend Names to your Pastoral Letter too. We should then have been abundantly convinced of their integrity; and that they are as fit to approve such Tracts, as your Lordship to write them. And he must be very unreasonable that would not have been convinced by their Authority, that your Exposition gives as true an account of the Doctrine of your Church, as your Pastoral Letter does of the state of your Diocess.

You will excuse me, my Lord, that I have insisted thus long upon these reflections. If you are indeed sensible of what you have done, no shame that can from hence arise to you will seem too much; and if you are not, I am sure none can be enough. I beseech God, whom you call to witness against your own Soul, to give you a due sense of all these things; and then I may hope that you will read this with the same resentiments [Page 31] of sorrow and regret, as I can truly assure you I have written it. This to the 5th. Objection.

The Occasion of the next was this.

VI. In the Preface to my Exposition I had observed, that Cardinal Capisucchi, one of the Approvers of your Expos. C. E. VIII, IX. Exposition, ‘had in his own writings contradicted your Doctrine as to the point of Image-Worship.’To this you reply in your former Letter, ‘ That he is so far from being contrary to the Doctrine you have Vindic. p. 10. taught, that he had on the contrary expresly approved your Book. I answer'd in my Defence, That this Defence, p. XIV. was a good presumption that he should not have any principles contrary to yours; but yet that if what I had alledged out of his Controversies were really repugnant to what you taught in your Exposition, it might indeed speak the Cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be, but that the Contradiction would be never the less a Contradiction for his so doing.’

To this therefore you now rejoyn, ‘That it is a Reply, p. 188. weak Objection, which runs upon the Equivocation of the word Latria; concerning an Absolute and Relative Worship. And falls so visibly into a dispute about words, that you cannot imagine how Men of sense, can amuse themselves about it. That for your part, you never engaged your self to defend the Expressions of the School, though never so easie to be explicated, but only the Language of the Church in her decisions of Faith. In short; That Cardinal Capisucchi has written an express Treatise about Images, and SAID NOTHING IN THE WHOLE THAT CONTRADICTS YOU.’

[Page 32] I am very glad, my Lord, you refer us to the Treatise of Cardinal Capisucchi that you mention; though I am apt to believe you did it out of a presumption that I could not procure it to examine your pretences. For indeed the whole design of it is so expresly against you, that one would stand amazed to think that a Christian and a Bishop, and what is perhaps yet more to you, an Expounder of the Catholick Faith, that would pass with the World for a person of Honesty and Integrity, should venture his, reputation on such self-evident falsities.

For to examine the Comparison:

I. The Doctrine of your Exposition concerning Images is this:

‘That all the Honour which is given to them should Exposition, Sect. V. p. 8, 9. be referred to the Saints themselves who are Represented by them.’

‘The Honour we render Images is grounded upon this. No Man, for Example, can deny but that when we look upon the figure of Jesus Christ Crucified, it excites in us a more lively remembrance of him who loved us so as to deliver himself up to Death for us. Whilst this Image being present before our Eyes causes so precious a Remembrance in our Souls, we are moved to testifie by some exteriour signs, how far our Gratitude bears us; and by humbling our selves before the Image, we shew what is our submission to our Saviour. So that to speak precisely, and according to the Ecclesiastical stile, when we Honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr, our intention is not so much to Honour the Image, as to Honour the Apostle or the Martyr in presence of the Image.’

[Page 33] ‘In fine, One may know with what Intention the Church Honours Images, by that Honour which she renders to the Cross and to the Bible. All the World sees very well that before the Cross she Adores him who bore our Iniquities upon the Wood: and that if her Children bow the head before the Bible, if they rise up out of respect when it is carried before them, and if they Kiss it reverently, all this Honour is referred to the Eternal verity which it proposeth to us.’

‘We do not Worship Images, God forbid: but we Advertisement, p. 12. make Use of Images to put us in Mind of the Originals. Our Council teaches us no other use of them.’

All which your Vindicator thus plainly and Dogmatically delivers to us, in the four following Propositions, Reply: Preface, p. 17, 18. in the Preface to his Reply:

1. ‘We have a Veneration for Images as for sacred Utensils dedicated to God and the Churches Service; and that too in a lesser Degree than for our Chalices, &c.’

2. ‘In the Presence of them, we pay our Respect to the P. 18. Persons whom they represent: Honour to whom Honour, Adoration to whom Adoration; but NOT TO THE IMAGES THEMSELVES, who can claim nothing of that Nature, viz. Honour or Adoration, from us.’

3. ‘That the hard Expressions of the Schools, as of Absolute Ibid. and Relative Latria, MAY PERHAPS BE DEFENDED in the Sense meant by them;’(it seems 'tis a doubtful Case whether these Men can be excused from being guilty of Idolatry or not; and one of these is Cardinal Capisucchi; ‘but ought not to be the Subject of our present Controversie, because they are not Points that are universally and necessarily received.’

4. In Answer to my demand, ‘ Whether upon ANY ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER the Image of our Saviour and [Page 34] of the Holy Cross were to be worshipped with Divine Worship?’He replies freely and plainly without any of the School Errantry; ‘That the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross, is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be WORSHIPPED with DIVINE WORSHIP.’

This is the Doctrine of your Exposition, and your Vindicator's Interpretation of it. Let us see

IIdly; Whether Cardinal Capisucchi in that Treatise to which you Appeal, has nothing that contradicts this: That so we may from hence too learn how far we are to credit your Alegations: And

First, Whereas your Lordship affirms, ‘that all the Honour which is given to Images should be referr'd to the Saints themselves;’that is as your Vindicator expounds, it, ‘ that in the presence of them you pay your Respect to the Persons whom they represent, but NOT TO the IMAGES themselves who can challenge nothing of that Nature from us; Card. Capisucchi Controversiae Theologicae Selectae, [...]ol. Romae, 1677. Controver. XXVI. Quest. 1. Paragraph, 9. p. 605.’ Cardinal Capisucchi on the contrary lays down this express Position, That ‘the Holy Images are to be Worshipped, and are rightly worshipped by the Faithful; nay, so as that the Worship should Pag. 627. 648. TERMINATE upon them.— Paragr. 9. 606. For as inanimate things, though in themselves they are not Holy, yet in Order to Another to which Holiness does primarily agree, they are called Holy, and in relation to that Other thing, may and ought justly to be Adored with it: So Images, though of themselves they are not Holy, yet they See above. are Holy in Order to the Exemplar which they represent, and They may and ought to be ADORED in Order to that, and together with it.’

[Page 35] Secondly, Having thus resolved against your first foundation, that Images are to be Adored; He next enquires, Ibid. Quest. II. Pag. 624. what Worship is to be paid to them?

Your Lordship's position is this: ‘We do not Worship Images, God forbid: But we make use of Images to put us in mind of the Originals. Our Council teaches us No other use of them. Which your Vindicator thus more plainly delivers; That the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross, is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be WORSHIPPED with Divine Worship.’

Let us see if there be nothing in the Cardinal's Treatise that contradicts this. And here,

First, He rejects the Opinion of Durandus, ‘That properly Paragr. I. pag. 625. speaking, Images are NOT TO be ADORED, but because they resemble things worthy of Adoration, which by remembrance are Adored in presence of the Images; therefore the Images themselves improperly are, and are said to be Adored.’Are not these, my Lord, almost the very words of your Exposition? Hear then what the Cardinal says to them. ‘This Opinion, says he, is to be rejected.’And I beseech you consider the reason He gives for it. ‘Because, says He, in truth it takes away the Worship of Images; and teaches that they ought only improperly to be Adored.’But if we must hearken to your Exposition, this can be no reason, unless it be to establish the Opinion which He pretends to Combat. For according to your Lordship, ‘The Church does not Worship Images; God forbid.’But to go on with the Cardinal;

‘Whence Raphael de Turre says, that this Opinion is DANGEROUS, RASH, and savouring the HERESIE of those who oppose Images.’An admirable Character of your Lordships Exposition. ‘For several Councils, says He, have defined, and the Holy Fathers taught, that [Page 36] Images are to be Adored, by a Tradition kept from the times of the Apostles unto our days; But now if Images should be Venerated only Improperly, as this Opinion (let me add, and your Exposition) asserts; then the Images would not be truly Adored; And therefore this Opinion does truly savour the HERESIE of the Enemies of Images.—The same is asserted by Ferdinandus Velosillus; who therefore concludes this Opinion to be not only FALSE, but RASH and ERRONEOUS, especially since the Definition of the Council of Trent.’

Behold, my Lord, the wonderful Concord between the Cardinal and your Lordship; for tell me now I beseech you, is there nothing in all this that contradicts you? Or rather, do you not here see what you deliver so Magisterially as the Churches Sense, condemned as Dangerous, Rash, Erroneous, and savouring of Heresie, and contrary to the Definition of the Council of Trent? But [...]. 2dly, In the next Paragraph, he lays down the Opinion of Vasquez: and if the Other did not allow Images Ibid. Paragr. II. pag. 625. as much Honour as you pretend to, I hope this Man did. ‘The Opinion, says He, of Vasquez is, that Images are no otherwise to be Adored, but because in the Presence of them, and about them are exhibited those External signs of Honour, as Kneeling, Kissing, uncovering the Head, and the like:’(I think this, my Lord, will come up to your instance of the respect that you pay to the Bible, and from which you explicate your Doctrine;) But that ‘the inward Veneration is by no means to be directed to the Image, but only to the thing represented by the Image.—This Opinion, says the Cardinal, is in effect Ibid. p. 626. the same with the foregoing; for since Vasquez does assert that the Inward A [...]t of the Adorer terminates ONLY on the thing represented by the Image,’ He does by consequence affirm, (what your Lordship and your [Page 37] Vindicator would have us believe to be the Doctrine of the Church) ‘that the Images themselves are not truly and properly to be Adored.’

You see, my Lord, the Cardinal still sticks to his Principle, that ‘ The IMAGES THEMSELVES ARE TRULY AND PROPERLY TO BE ADORED.—’ But let us hear Him out. Ibid. p. 627. ‘ Vazquez tells us that the Council [of Trent] do's not much care how the Adoration of Images is called, whether Salutation, or Embracing; or Adoration, provided We do but grant that out of Affection to what they represent (see my Lord your own Principle) the Images themselves are to be kiss'd, the Head to be bared to them, and Other Signs of Submission to be paid, concerning which the Controversie was with the Enemies of Images.—In which, says the Cardinal, he involves many Falsities. For it is both DEFINED in our COUNCILS that the HOLY IMAGES are truly and PROPERLY to be ADORED, and therefore that even the INWARD ACT OF ADORATION is to be TERMINATED upon the Images; and the Controversie with the Opposers of Images, was not only about giving to Images the External signs of Honour, but concerning the true and proper Adoration, which therefore concerns the inward Act of Veneration.’

And a little lower, He repeats and commends these words of Lorca; ‘This Proposition, That Honour and Adoration is due to the Image, is so certain and firm Ibid. p. 627. among All the Faithful’ (and I hope your Lordship would be thought at least, one of them) that ‘the contrary cannot without SCANDAL be admitted. Nor is it Lawful for any One to deny this Proposition, and hold the Opposite at pleasure, though He does add, that Images are to be kiss'd; because from the Doctrine of the Councils and Fathers it appears, not only that Images are to be kiss'd, but we are taught expresly, that they are to be Venerated and Adored.’

[Page 38] Behold, my Lord, another instance, of the the Admirable agreement between the Cardinals Treatise and your Exposition; whose Doctrine he is so far from admitting as the Churches sense, that He tells you plainly, 'tis contrary to your Councils Decrees, and therefore may not be held at pleasure; indeed that it is such as cannot without SCANDAL be Admitted.

Thirdly, Having thus refuted these New Popery Expositions Paragr. VII. p. 639. of your Churches Doctrine, he now comes to lay down the true Opinion, and which therefore I suppose must be the Churches, as he shews it to be the Council of Trents Sense. And it is this: ‘That the worship of the Image and of the Exemplar is one and the same—So that the Image of Christ (contrary to the Vindicators 4th. position) is to be Adored with the supreme worship that Christ himself is—’That for the Images considered in themselves, ‘as they are Gold, Silver, Ibid. 640. Brass, Iron, Stone, Wood, &c. no reverence is to be given to them: But as they are the Images of Christ or some Saint, so they are to be worshipped with the same Adoration as the Person whose Image it is. Nay, he adds, That this supreme worship TERMINATES upon the Image,’ whereas your Lordship lays it down as Ibid. 648. a fundamental principle, ‘That all religious worship terminates in GOD ALONE. 'Tis true he adds, That this is not for any Excellence in the Image, but upon the account of Christ represented in it; and from hence he thinks to free your Church from Idolatry.’ But as to this, I do still say I am not at present concerned; my business being not to examine the reasons that are offer'd to justifie this worship, but to clear the Matter of Fact, viz. Whether the Church of Rome (whatever her reason be) does hold that Images are truly and properly to be worshipped? And [Page 39] to this I think the Cardinal has spoken very honestly and plainly. And I shall leave it to your Lordship and to the World to consider, whether there was either Conscience or Truth in that Assertion, which has occasioned this search, ‘ That Cardinal Capisucchi Reply, p. 188. has said nothing in all this Treatise that contradicts you.’

But of these things more particularly when I come to the Article it self to which they belong. I go on in the mean time to the

VII. Objection: In my Exposition I told you that Expos. C. E. p. IX, X. ‘ Monsieur Imbert, a Doctor of Divinity, of the Province of Bourdeaux, was clapt in Prison by order of the Archbishop for having instructed the People in the Good Fryday service, that they ought to apply their Adoration to Christ, and not to the Cross which was there exposed to them. And that although he alledged your Exposition in his Defence, and upon that account your self had written to the Archbishop in his behalf, yet was not all this sufficient to avail for his deliverance.’

To this you reply in your former Letter, ‘That this Vindic. p. 11. Imbert was a Man of no renown as well as of no Learning, who thought to justifie his Extravagancies before the Archbishop of Bourdeaux his Superiour, by alledging your Exposition to this Prelate. But that all Mankind saw very well that Heaven and Earth was not more Opposite than your Doctrine, from that which this daring Person had presumed to broach.’

It would have been, my Lord, more for your own Honour as well as the Worlds satisfaction in this matter, to have told us a little what this Extravagant Doctrine was, which this daring Person had presumed to broach, [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40] so contrary to your Exposition. At least you should have given us some Evidence to let us see that he had been convinced by his Superiour of having abused your Authority; that your Exposition did by no means favour any such Extravagancies as he alledged it for, and that it was a daring presumption in him by such pretences to abuse so Catholick an Exposition of the Churches Faith. That he produced your Exposition for his Warrant of what he had taught, you do not, cannot deny. That he was ever convinced of pretending falsly to the Authority of it, we never heard: and if your Lordship means to have it believed, you must really begin to produce some better Authority now a days, than your bare word to assure us of it.

And indeed, my Lord, I am apt to think you will never be able to do this. The Factum of his Case was too long to be Printed, and is too well known to need a new publication. Instead of that I chose rather to communicate to the World the Letter he wrote to your Lordship on this Occasion. And here we have a full account what that daring Doctrine he had broached was; and how little reason you had to disclaim it as contrary to your Exposition. ‘The Archbishop of Bourdeaux, Def. p. 124, 125. says he, has caused a process to be made against me, for having explained upon Good Fryday, That we adore Jesus Christ Crucified in presence of the Cross, and that we do not Adore any thing of what we see:—That therefore we ought to think that we are now going out to Mount Calvary, to Adore Jesus Christ, without stopping at the Crucifix. That the Church 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 [Page 41] Christ.’ And this, he tells you, is all his Crime; He defies his Enemies to reproach, if they can, his Life and Manners, or to tax him with any other Doctrine than that of your Lordship, and which he endeavoured to express in the self same Terms.

And is this then in your Opinion such daring Doctrine? Or can you with any shadow of sincerity say, ‘that this is as opposite to your Exposition, as Heaven and Earth to one another?’ Your Lordship may pretend what you please, but I doubt your Vindicator will hardly allow that there is any Heresie in the Explication he here gives of your Good Frydays service. But let us see what you now say further to this. You confess the Letter and the Contents of it: Only you say, ‘ You did not believe him, because you were too well acquainted with my Lord the Archbishop of Bourdeaux his Diocesan, of whom he made his complaint.’ And in this you had certainly reason: For it is not easily to be believed that so great a Prelate, who, as you observe, had not very long before himself Approved your Exposition, should now prosecute a poor Man with such Violence only for teaching the Doctrine of it.

‘But as you had always lived in a strict Correspondence and Friendship with that Archbishop, you wrote to him on this Subject, and understood that this Monsieur Imbert was an odd kind of Man (the translator calls him Une teste malfaite, Reply, p. 182. Hot-headed) who had done even in the Church very remarkable Extravagancies, which he was more Cautious than to boast of to you. His conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities, which indeed hindred you from interesting your self for him any farther in the business, or to intercede for one in whom at first Ou d'Abord je n'avois cru que de la foi [...]lesse & de l' Ignoraace. Reply, p. 182. In whom I had found nothing but weakness mixed with Ignorance. p. 188. you thought [Page 42] there had been nothing but weakness and ignorance: (for so I chuse to transcribe you, and not to follow your Translator's blunders.)’

Concerning Monsieur Imbert's other faults I am wholly ignorant, and therefore cannot pretend to answer for them. But as we are by nature exceedingly apt to pitty the Miserable, so I cannot but compassionate this poor Mans misfortunes, and till I see the contrary made out by some better Evidence than your Lordship has yet given us, I must beg leave to believe him to have been an Honest Worthy Man. In the mean time I do not find that in all this you deny the cause of his Prosecution and Imprisonment to have been what he declared to your self and to the whole World, viz. that he maintained the Doctrine before mentioned. If his Diocesan indeed persecuted him, not for asserting this Doctrine, but for those other Irregularities you pretend he was guilty of, prove this and you do something. But else, were the Man as bad as you represent him, yet if he suffered for teaching that Faith which you expound to us; If he produced your Book for his warrant, and yet still was persecuted; all his other faults will not hinder but that your Lordship's Doctrine was condemned and punished in him.

And though I am an utter stranger to his Conduct; yet if this matter did pass so as it appears to have done, I will be bold to say the worst of his Irregularities was a Venial Sin in comparison of the Archbishop his Diocesan's insincerity; to prosecute one of his Clergy for teaching that Doctrine, which in the General Assembly of 1682. he had, as you tell us, himself Approved.

[Page 43] And here I cannot but observe the Progress you make in lessening this poor Man. At first you only say, and that nothing to your purpose, that He was a Man of no Learning nor Renown. When I had published his Letter, and which I will again say was not written by a Fool or an Idiot; so that this was not found sufficient to take off the force of a Matter of Fact of such importance; next, His Conduct is question'd; You charge him with irregularities, but prove none; nor can you say that he was prosecuted for any Other Crime but this One, that he relied too much upon your Authority, and so taught that for the Catholick Faith, which he has since to his cost learnt not to be Universal. Judge, my Lord, if this be a Generous way of Defence; much less becoming the Charity of a Christian, and the Dignity of a Bishop.

But there is One Presumption against all this in your former Letter, and which ought therefore to be considered. Monfieur Imbert had said in his Factum, Expos. C. E.] p. X. ‘That His Opinion was that the Church Adored not the Cross; and that the Contrary Opinion was not only false but Idolatrous. That not only the Protestants made their Advantage of those who maintain'd such Errours, but that He Himself was scandalized to converse every day with the Missionaries and Others, whom He had heard openly preach a Hundred times, That we ought to Adore the Cross with Jesus Christ, as the humane Nature of our Saviour with the Divine.’

From hence your Lordship raises this Argument to Vindic. p. 11 [...] 12. lessen his Credit. ‘That it never entred into the Mind of any Catholick, that the Cross was to be Adored with Jesus Christ, as the Humane Nature of our Saviour with the Divine in the Person of the Son of [Page 44] God: And if this Man, say you, gives out, he is condemned for denying those Errors, which No body ever maintained. sustained, he shews his Malice to be as great as his Ignorance.’

Now certainly, my Lord, it is a very bold undertaking to Answer for all the Catholicks of the World, that such or such a thing never enter'd into their Heads, especially when a Person here positively declares, that He had heard it openly preach'd above a hundred times: Unless it may be, you esteem this to be an Assertion of such Malignity, that a Man cannot have it enter into his mind without the Forfeiture of his Catholicism. I do indeed confess it is a most Extravagant Notion; and such as, One would think, should never enter into any Christians thoughts; but we know too well what excesses those whom you call Catholicks are capable of falling into, and especially your Missionaries, to look upon this Assertion to be at all incredible.

But since you are so sure that this never entred into the Mind of any Catholick, what does your Lordship think of your Friend Cardinal Capisucchi. I suppose a Cardinal and Master of the Sacred Palace may be allow'd to pass with you for a good Catholick; and yet in the very Tract to which your Lordship appealed, behold the very thing you here so confidently deny: ‘As the humane Nature of Christ, though it be Capisucchi, libr. cit. pag. [...]48. a Creature, is Adored with supream Adoration, because 'tis united to the Person of the Word, and with the Person of the Word makes up One Christ: So the Image of Christ being in its representative Essence one and the same with Christ, is Adored with the same Adoration with which Christ is Adored.’ Here, my Lord, is One Catholick into whose Mind this Error has entred; and I may presume to say, I know another [Page 45] Catholick of the same mind, even the Bishop of Meaux himself; unless you will retract here what you before asserted, ‘That there is nothing in this Treatise of Cardinal Capisucchi, that contradicts your Sentiments.’ Thus you see how rash you were in your presumption against Monsieur Imbert's Assertion; and were I minded to retort your own Conclusion upon you, it would, I believe, be hard to say whether of those two very ill things you impute to Him were greater in this reflection.

And now, Reverend Father, to close this Objection almost in your own Words, ‘let your heart be truly grieved to see such Objections brought against you;’ and consider, if you yet can, in the Anguish of your Soul, how by your own fault you have suffer'd your self to be brought into such Snares, as too much shew to what weak and miserable shifts, wise Men will sometimes be reduced, when they do not act by a steady Principle of Truth and Integrity.

Your next Point concerns those Extracts I made Reply, p. 189. from Cardinal Bona about praying to Saints; ‘the common difficulty so often Tant rebat [...]e Reply, p. 182. repeated (not, as your Translator has it, proposed) by Protestants.’ You give us some pretended Evasions of the difficulty raised by them; and then, according to your wonted tenderness, conclude, ‘that it troubles a Christians heart to see, though the Sense of the Church be made never so evident in her Decisions, people should still continue thus to cavil’ (and as your Translator adds, no doubt, for the greater, Beauty of the stile, to juggle) with you about Words.

But all this I shall rather consider in its proper place, where your Vindicator objects the same things, than enter into any Disputes here. I will only observe, that my Extracts from Cardinal Bona, were neither [Page 46] out of his Hymns, nor any Other Poetical Works; but out of his Discourse upon your Offices, out of his last Will and Testament, and in which certainly, if any where, one would think, He should have written with the greatest Exactness. And yet are they so irreconcileable with your pretended Exposition of the Catholick Faith, that I shall leave it to any One that has ever read them, to be deluded by you if he can.

You tell me, you will say nothing about Monsieur de Witte, ‘because you find nothing in that objection that Ibid. concerns You in particular.’ Nor will I say any more of it than to re-mind you, that if your Exposition does concern you, then his Case does so too: for He alledged your Exposition, as I have shewn in his Defence, and Expos. C. E. p. XXXIV. yet was censur'd by the Faculty of Louvain, without ever being shewed that He alledged it wrongfully.

And because I doubt not, but you would have your General Expressions concerning the Pope's Authority expounded by the IV. Propositions of the Clergy of France, 1682. in which your Lordship, with the Bishops of Tournay, S. Mal [...], de la Vaur, de Chalons, and d' Alet, had the chief hand; I must put you in mind that the Archbishop of Strigonia with His Clergy has censured these Propositions, and in them, your Lordships Exposition, as to that Point too, as not delivering the true Doctrine of the Catholick Church.

Concerning the Pope's Brief to your Lordship, I observed Reply. Ibid. this: That the very same day, that he dated his Brief to you in Approbation of your Exposition, he dated another to the late Bishop of Pamier in Approbation of the Defence he made of his Authority in the business of the Regale. Now if your Exposition gives his Holiness all that Power he pretends to over the Gallicane Church, he had as much reason to approve your Book, [Page 47] as Monsieur de Pamier's Actions. But if in expounding the point of his Authority you give him no such power as he pretends to; nay if you your self at that very time actually joyned with the other Bishops of France in opposition to it, what insincerity must it be in the Head of the Church, Christ's Vicar upon Earth, at the same time to claim an Authority which neither your Book allows, and you your self opposed, and yet with the same Pen sign one Brief to you in Approbation of your Doctrine, and another to Monsieur de Pamier, to thank him for his opposing of it.

And thus have I passed through the several parts of your Lordships Letter. I could have been very well pleased I might have been freed of so ungrateful an undertaking, had not your new reviving of all these things forced me once more to lay open those faults, which I am both sorry and ashamed, that any one of your Dignity should ever have committed.

I have only remaining here in the Close of all, earnestly to beseech you by the bowels and mercy of Christ Jesus our Saviour, seriously to consider these things. Think on that account which both you and I must shortly give of what we are now doing before the Eternal Tribunal.

If I have willingly and knowingly varied in the least tittle from the Truth; If I have standred your Lordship in any thing; Nay, if I have but taken any pleasure in discovering the weakness of a Person of your place and Character in the Church; Be I then responsible for it to God, and let mine Enemies triumph in my Confusion.

But if I have spoken nothing but in the necessary Defence of the Truth, and in a Spirit of Charity remonstrated to you your prevarications: If [Page 48] your own Conscience be a thousand Witnesses, to tell you that these things are indeed so, as I have now exposed them to yours and the Worlds Consideration; O, my Lord, think then upon these things. Whilst you have yet the time, give God the glory. Take that shame and Confusion to your self now, which may prevent an Eternal Confusion hereafter.

Consult, consider, and be wise; and take it not in scorn that I have shewn you the way to surmount all these reproaches. To exchange that Scandal which you have given to the Church, for a Name that shall never be forgotten. Declare only what in truth you are. Put off those disguises you have hitherto walked in, and confess once for all that your Church has erred, and stands in need of a Reformation. 'Tis in vain to palliate, what your Books, your practice, all declare to us. Your Errors, in short, may be reformed, but they are too notorious to be denyed, too gross to be justified.

[Page 49]

SECT. II.

Wherein are considered those false Imputations which the Vindicator has cast upon me, and upon the rest of my Brethren of the Church of England.

HItherto I have been considering the weak defences of an insincere yet moderate Adversary. I must now shift the Scene, and prepare from henceforth to encounter nothing but Rudeness and Incivility. So much easier is it esteemed by some Men to blacken an Enemy, than to Answer him; and what they cannot do by confuting his Reasons, they hope to make up by lessening his Reputation.

It was the consideration of St. Cyprian in his answer to such another Antagonist as I have now to do with, ‘That though he had before thought it better Ad Dem [...]rianum, p. 185, 186. Ed. Oxon. with silence to despise his Ignorance, than by speaking to provoke his Madness, remembring that Advice of Solomon, Prov. XXIII. 9. Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the Wisdom of thy words: and again Chap. XXVI. 4. Answer not a Fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him; Yet when he began to Calumniate the Christians, as the Authors of [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] all the Evils that befell the World; he then esteemed himself obliged to speak; lest his silence should now be imputed not so much to his Modesty, as to his diffidence, and whilst he scorned to refute his false Accusations, he should seem to acknowledge the faults with which they had been charged.’

Had this Gentleman, who has thought fit to make himself my Adversary, so laid his Reproaches upon me, as not to have wounded through my sides the common interests of the Church of England; I should have judged it as unnecessary to take notice of his Revilings, as I esteem it to be unchristian to return them: And have contented my self with that general Answer which the Archangel once gave to the Father of Lies, ‘ The LORD rebuke thee.’ But now St. Jude 9. that I am marked out not so much as a private person, as the Defender of a publick Cause; now that the rest of my Brethren are all represented, as guilty of the same Ills that I am charged with; and our very Religion it self impeached as needing SUCH DEFENCES, as both That and We detest and condemn; It would be want of Charity to the Church I am of, rather than any breach of it towards such an Enemy, to decline a just defence; I shall therefore take up the example of this Holy Father, as mine Adversary has done that of his Antagonist; ‘Lest if I scorn to refute his false Accusations,’ I should seem to acknowledge the faults See St. Cypr. before. with which we are charged.

[Page 51]

§. I.

IT has ever been esteemed the first step to invalidate the Credit of such kind of imputations, to shew a Calumniating Spirit in the Author of them. Here therefore I will begin my Defence; And were I to prove this to him only who has been the Author of these reproaches, I am perswaded I need only appeal to his own Conscience to bear witness against him. But since I can expect but little justice from one from whom I have already received so great an injury, and am now by a publick Scandal, called forth (against my will) to as publick a Vindication; you must excuse me, Sir, if I take all the Christian ways of a fair Defence which Charity allows me; and shew your Testimony in this matter to be so very suspicious, that ‘ though the Jury be not pack'd, nor the Vulgar call'd Reply, p. 37. in to give their Verdict,’ yet I doubt not but all reasonable Men will confess that you are a very unfit Witness to be credited against me.

And first; Though I perceive I shall displease you in the Allegation, yet I must beg leave to repeat what I before said in my Defence, ‘ That some men do think that any thing Defence, p. XVI. may be done against a Heretick; and that lying and Calumny are but venial Sins, when committed with a good intention to serve the Church, and to blacken an Adversary.’ You are pleased indeed with great assurance to deny this; and tell us, with your usual sincerity, ‘ That you Reply, p. 43. have heard some Roman Catholicks accused as if they taught such Doctrines; but that you always found the Calumny to stand at the Accuser's Doors, whose art was only (according to your, gentile way of expressing things) to cry WHORE first.’

[Page 52] I could wish that not only for the sake of your Old Casuists, but of some at least of your New Converts, you had not been so very positive in this particular. For believe me, Sir, I could tell you the Men who are not ashamed at this day publickly to own what you so confidently deny. And indeed it were better that you your self believed it too, unless you would resolve to leave off to practise it. It being more tolerable to do evil by following the guidance of an Erroneous Conscience, than to know a thing to be sinful, and yet to commit it.

But you deny that any of your Church have ever held any such Doctrine? I pray, Sir, of what Church were those who in their solemn Theses publickly defended, (and that in the most formal terms;) ‘ That it is but a venial Sin by false Accusations to lessen the Authority of one that detracts from us, if it be like to prove hurtful to us.’ This was openly maintained in the University of Louvain, in the Year 1645. And I Provincial Letter, XV. cannot chuse but think, that in your Opinion at least, I may be one of those that are meant by it. You tell me often that I have detracted from you, and my Authority therefore, if it be not lessened, may be hurtful to you; And how shall I be sure that you esteem it more than a venial Sin, by false Accusations to detract from me? I shall not need to multiply Authorities from your particular Casuists to prove this; since the condemnation that was made of this very Doctrine in the Decree of the present Pope, no longer ago than 1679, will satisfie the World that such things have been taught in your Church; and a Man must have a great deal of Charity to suppose, that after so solemn an Act as this, you could indeed be ignorant of it. You may consult at your [Page 53] leisure the 43d. and 44th. Opinions there mentioned, and consider the meaning of this Doctrine contained in them. ‘ That it is only a Venial Sin in any to lessen the great Authority of another which is hurtful to himself, by charging him with some false Crime— It is probable that he does not sin Mortally who fastens a false Crime upon another that he may defend his own Justice and Honour: and if this be not probable, there is scarce any Opinion probable in Divinity.’

And now, Sir, I am pretty confident that, if not for my sake, yet in duty to his Holiness's Decree you will a little mollifie your charge of Calumny against me for this assertion: and if you desire any farther conviction, you may please when you write next to the Bishop of Meaux, to engage him to enquire of his new Disciple Father Crasset, whether he never heard of one who for practising this Doctrine in the very Pulpit, was by Ordinance of the Bishop of Orleans, Sept. 9. 1656. forbid to preach in his Diocess, and Provincial Letters, L. XV. the People to hear him under the pain of a Mortal Disobedience. Really, Sir, when I consider with what assurance you deny a matter so well known to all the World, and compare it with the Maximes by which you have proceeded against me in your Reply, I cannot but fear that after all your pretences this Doctrine may have had some influence upon you: However, seeing it is plain, that you make so little scruple to practise it, you should not have been so very positive in denying it.

But this is only a general presumption: and I shall be content that it be no farther remember'd against you, than I shall hereafter make it appear your Actions do deserve. I must now come more closely to you; and because I would [Page 54] not trespass too much upon either yours or the Reader's patience by making any tedious Proof of that which I am confident you know, and the other will soon see, does not need any: I will offer only three or four Considerations, out of many that occur to Me, to invalidate your Authority.

And here not to mention, 1st, That great Care you seem industriously to have taken that your Reproa [...]hes might not be lost, (whatever became of your Arguments) by summing them up into a Catalogue at the beginning of your Reply, and afterwards filling all along your Margin with the like scandalous Reflections: To pass by, 2ly. Your nauseous Repetitions of the very same Charges not only in the same place, but almost in the very same Words; as if my faults were to increase in Proportion to your Repetitions of them: To say nothing, 3dly, of those general Accusations, you often bring not against my self alone, but the rest of my Brethren of the Church of England, without so much as the least shadow of a Proof of them; What less than an unquestionable Argument of a detracting Spirit can arise.

1st. From those obliging Titles you every where bestow upon me, even where you have not so much as a pretence for it; and that scandalous Idea you would from thence give your Reader of Me.

Shall I gratifie your Ear with a Repetition of some few of them: Hear then those Strains of Rhetorick you so delight in. ‘ A Doctor of the Populace:’ p. 31. A pretended ‘ Son of Peace, p. 76. A pretended Lover of Peace and Unity, but indeed a Multiplier of Accusations to hinder such good Effects, p. 60. One that courts the Applause of the Vulgar, p. 25. and has learnt a Machiavilian Trick to keep them from seeing what [Page 55] is as clear as the Sun, by casting a thick mist of Calumnies before their Eyes, p. 36. One who is willing to let Himself be perswaded of any thing that but renders the Papists odious, p. 28. That has a willingness to shew at least some kind of Opposition to every thing that is said, p. 61. Rash and Bold in his Assertions, p. 64. Far from agreeing to any thing that has once been esteemed a Difficulty, p. 81. Having no intention to contribute any thing to the Healing of the Church in any Punctilio, ib. Whose whole business is nothing but Shifts, p. 82. One that is loth to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace, p. 126. That is Conscious to himself that He cannot defend his Cause, and yet has not SINCERITY enough to REPENT, p. 155. One that says such things as would he speak his CONSCIENCE he KNOWS not to be True, p. 21. One that is WILFUL in his MISTAKES, and KNOWS them well enough if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge it, p. 22. In short, One that do's not believe himself what He writes, though He is willing that Others should believe him, p. 54, 55.’ I pass by your more common Appellations; of Falsifier; Caviller; Unchristian and Unscholar-like Calumniator; Perverter of the Churches Sense; Wilfully blind; Wilful prevaricator; Wilful mistaker of your Doctrine; Unsincere, &c. All which you either in express terms call me, or at least plainly insinuate me to be; and of which we must discourse a little by and by. For indeed I think what I have already mentioned may be sufficient to satisfie any sober Man how well versed you are in the Controversial Dialect of your Party: And whether you were not exceedingly desirous that something should stick, when you took all this pains, Reply, p. 4. in your own Phrase, to Cast so much Dirt upon Me.

[Page 56] 2dly, Nor do's it less betray the true Nature of your Spirit to consider what pittiful, light Occasions you lay hold on, to run out into the most terrible Out-crys against Me.

Thus in the Article of Satisfactions, the Bishop of Meaux distinguishes between two sorts of Remission of sins; the One, wherein God intirely forgives us, without reserving any punishment; the Other a partial Remission Expos. Sect. VIII. p. 14. Only, wherein He changes a greater Punishment into a Less, that is, an Eternal pain into a Temporal. ‘This first manner, says the Bishop, being more compleat, and more conformable to his GOODNESS, he makes use of it immediately in Baptism: but WE SUPPOSE He makes use of the second in the Pardon he grants to those that fall after Baptism.’

In my Exposition, I tell him, ‘That this is a very great Doctrine, and ought to be tender'd to us with some better Argument, than a bare, WE SUPPOSE.’

Upon this you make a Tragical Out-cry against me Reply, p. 54. for an incorrigible FALSIFIER, that though you had before told me of my prevaricating, yet I still take no Notice of it; for that the Bishop of Meaux says no such thing. What not as WE SUPPOSE? No; But what then do's He say; Consider, Reader, the FALSIFICATION; and be astonished at His Cavil; He says only, WE BELIEVE. And now let any One from henceforth trust me that can: that am so plainly caught in so important a Cheat.

But pray, Sir, bating that it serves to fill up your Catalogue and Margin with a hard word against me; what is the great difference now between saying WE SUPPOSE that God does not remit the whole punishment, and WE BELIEVE that he does not. You tell us ‘ this latter phrase was conformable to his design of an Exposition, not a [Page 57] Proof.’ And is not, WE SUPPOSE, as conformable to the design of an Exposition, and as little fit for a proof, as WE BELIEVE? Really, Sir, I am perswaded the Reader will think that had you marked this observation with A CAVIL in your Margin, you would have expressed your self more properly, than by putting a FALSIFICATION to it. And yet, though it be hardly worth the while, I will tell you what I presume might be the occasion of this little difference; for really I am not yet convinced that it deserves to be called a mistake.

In my Edition of Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition, which I have so often had occasion to speak of, the word is neither exactly as you, or I, render it; but another to the same sense, WE ESTEEM. Now this being no very proper English phrase, and having not yet set Eyes on your Translation, when I wrote my Exposition, I chose rather the word WE SUPPOSE, as bearing the same sense, and being on this Occasion more generally used amongst us. This, Sir, I believe was the grounds of our difference; and one that had not a huge mind to find faults, would have been ashamed to inscribe so great a Crime as FALSIFICATION, to a trifle that all Men of sense will despise, and that I ought to Apologize but only for taking notice of. Though yet perhaps I have taken the only way to make it considerable, by observing from it, what Spirit and Disposition you are of.

Another opportunity of clamor that you lay hold on is this; and for meaness Cousin German to the foregoing. In the point of the Mass, the Bishop of Meaux willing to take off the Argument which the Epistle to the Hebrews raises against it; observes that ‘the Apostle concludes, That we ought not only to offer up no more [Page 58] Victims after Jesus Christ, but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once offered up to Death for us.’

In my Exposition I thus quote him: ‘ Monsieur de Meaux observes, that the Author of this Epistle concludes, Pag. 67. Art. xxi. That there ought not only no other victim to be offered for sin after that of Christ, but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more offered. Now the reason which the Apostle gives is this, Because that otherwise (says he) Christ must often have suffered, Hebr. IX. 25. Plainly implying that there can be no TRUE OFFERING without SUFFERING; so that in the Mass then, either Christ must SUFFER, which Monsieur de Meaux denys, or he is not OFFER'D, which we affirm.’

But where now is the FALSIFICATION; ‘why I make advantage, you say, of the Bishop's words by Reply, p. 126. an imperfect Quotation; For had I added but the next words, that would have solved the difficulty.’ The next words you mean are these; ‘ That Christ ought to be but once OFFER'D UP TO DEATH FOR US.’ The difficulty was this; Christ can be but ONCE OFFER'D, because he can no more SUFFER: Monsieur de Meaux confesses that Christ can no MORE SUFFER; (which I think is the meaning of his words, that he can be but once offered up TO DEATH FOR US;) therefore he ought to confess, that he can be no more OFFER'D. Good Sir, enlighten us a little in this matter: for I assure you By OFFERING I meant OFFERING TO DEATH, the only kind of offering that I know of a true and proper Sacrifice; and the interposing of those words are so far from clearing the difficulty, as you pretend, that without either them, or some other equivalent to them, my Argument is utterly lost. And [Page 59] now, let the Reader judge, whether that Man be not fond of Calumniating his Adversary, that can have the face to call this A FALSIFICATION.

And hitherto I have offered some presumptions to shew with what Spirit you write against us: I will now come to such proofs as shall put it beyond all doubt; and shew you to be, what I am sure ought to lessen your Credit against us, a most false and unjust Accuser of your Brethren. For,

3dly. What else can be said of those Charges you bring against me, of such Crimes as without some Divine revelation you can never be sure of. And though I think Enthusiasm no more than Miracles is not yet ceased in your Church, yet you tell me that you do Reply, Pref. p. 24. not your self pretend to be inspired, and I do not hear that you have at this time any Hypochondriack Lady amongst you, to deliver Oracles to you upon these Occasions.

You reflect upon Me as one, ‘ who am conscious that I cannot defend my Cause, yet have not the sincerity to REPENT: That I speak such things, as would I deliver my Conscience I KNOW to be FALSE: that I am willful in my mistakes, and do not my self believe what I write, though I am willing that others should.’ Thus you charge me with a sin somewhat like the sin against the Holy Ghost; that knowing the way of Truth, I not only refuse to embrace it my self, but (as you sometimes insinuate too) keep as many others as I can out of it.

But this, Sir, I take it, is to divine, not to reason; should I tell you in return, that I have some cause to believe, that if you do indeed credit your own Calumnies, it is because you measure my insincerity by the sense you have of your own Hypocrisie, I should [Page 60] not perhaps be altogether out in my conjecture. But, Sir, I shall leave you rather to the Judgment of God, to whom alone these secrets are known: And to return to my own Defence; Tell me I beseech you, Sir, (if you can) what occasion my Life and Manners have given you for such reflections? Are my interests in the Church of England so great, or my expectations otherwise so low in the World; as to prompt me to such Villany? Is Conversion so certain a way to ruine, that a Man should rather damn himself for ever, than follow the Dictates of his Conscience, at this time of day especially, to embrace your Religion?

It is well known to several of your own Church (and whose Civilities to me I shall always most thankfully acknowledge) with what readiness I have at all times pursued the means of Instruction. Let them tell you, Sir, if ever they found me inclined to such Perverseness or Hypocrisie, as you here most unchristianly suggest against me. They know my Conduct whilst I was amongst them; and from what some of them very honourably have done, I ought not to doubt but that the rest will at any time justifie Me against such scandalous insinuations. So free I was in my enquiries, so desirous of understanding both your Religion and your Reasons to the bottom; that many of your Church were inclined to think, what I hear others did not stick confidently to report, That I designed to come over to you. And though after a most impartial examination of your Arguments I remained more convinced than ever, both of the purity of my own, and of the dangerous corruptions of your Church; yet I assure you, Sir, I am the same indifferent person I ever was. Not willing indeed to be deluded with Sophistry, nor to follow every Guide that will without any reason pretend to lead me; [Page 61] but most willing to yield to Truth whereever I find it. And however you may uncharitably represent me to the World; yet I faithfully promise you that if even in this reproachful Book of yours, there should be any thing to convince me that I have been mistaken, I will not fail ingenuously to acknowledge it; and where I am not convinced, you may suddainly expect to receive my reasons of it.

There is now but one thing more remaining to make a Demonstrative proof of a calumniating Spirit and Design in you; and that is,

Lastly; To shew, that you accuse me not only of such things as you can never be sure are True; but of such as you know to be evidently false; nay of such as I have shewn you already to be so, and that so clearly, that you have nothing to return to it, and yet still you persist in your Calumny against Me.

This I think is the last degree of proof; and I shall leave it to your self to judge whether I do not make it good against you.

In the Article of Extreme Unction, I expounded those words of St. James, c. v. 14, 15. Of the Miraculous Cures which were in those days common in the Church; and added in confirmation of it ‘That Card. Cajetane Expos. C. E. p. 44. Art. xiii. Vindic. p. 70. himself freely confess'd they could belong to no other.—To this you reply in your Vindication, that Had I said that Card. Cajetane thought it could not be proved neither from the Words, nor from the effect, that the Words of St. James speak of the Sacramental Unction of Extreme Unction, but rather of that Unction which our Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be exercised by his Disciples upon the sick; I had been a faithful Quoter of his sense; But to say that he freely confesses it can belong to no other, is to impose upon my Readers.’

[Page 62] In my Defence I shew the Vanity of this Cavil: That seeing there were but two interpretations proposed of these Words, either to refer them to Extreme Unction, or to Miraculous Cures, for the Cardinal utterly to exclude the former, and apply them to the latter, was certainly in effect (for I pretended not to give his words) to confess that they could belong to no Other.

Instead of answering this, you again charge me both in your Catalogue and in your Margin with FALSIFICATION as to this Point. ‘ I told Him, say you, that Cardinal Cajetane did not positively say as He affirmed He did:’ And then presently, as if your Conscience had given your Reflection the Lie; you go on, ‘ But what if He Had?’ Why truly, Sir, then any one may see that it was not any concern for Truth, but a meer desire to defame Me, that here inspired you to lay so great a Crime to my Charge; and your own Conscience at the same time seems to have told you, that you did not your self believe me to be guilty of it.

§. II.

AND thus have I shewn from the very Nature of your Reply, with what Design it is that you write against Us. I might now go on to consider your Arguments, without troubling my self to return any more particular Answer to your Reproaches. But it is fit the World should be fully satisfied of your Character: and indeed the Reasonings of your Reply are not so dangerous, but that we may venture to let them lie, whilst we go on to consider your Revilings.

[Page 63] I shall need no other Apology for this undertaking than what your selfhave already made for Me. It is I confess an ungrateful employment to expose the Vices even of an Enemy. But where a publick Challenge is made, and the greatest of Crimes charged upon those who abhor such Villainies: In your own Words, ‘ Where so great a concern as the Reputation of an Innocent Reply, p. 4. Church is join'd with the single Honour of such an Adversary as you are; I think I may be excused if I let the Dirt fall where it ought, when by wiping it off from the One, it must necessarily stick upon the Other.’

Your Reflections are of two kinds: Either such as strike at the Generality of our Church; or such as concern my self only, I shall take a View of both in their Order. And,

Ist. Your Reflections on the Generality of the Church of England,

Are such as these. ‘ That they are Men whose Interest Reply, Preface. and Malice prompt them to defame you. I. VI. Who, whenever any Argument pinches them, fall to reviling; and make it their business to Misrepresent your Doctrines; to Calumniate your Practices, and to Ridicule your Ceremonies. V. From whom nothing is to be expected but Clamour, Insincerity, and Misrepresentation. XII. Who seem to have no other End in all their Controversial Books or Sermons, but to cry down Popery at any rate, least they should suffer prejudice by its increase. XXIII. Who keep their People in Ignorance, and pretending to be their Guides, shew themselves by their Writing to be Blind, or which is worse, Malicious. XXV. Men, who from [Page 64] their very Pulpits second the Common cry. XIII. Least Reply. people should open their Eyes, and see the Truth; and so whilst they pretend to be Lovers of Peace and Unity, yet resolve to multiply Accusations to hinder such good Effects, p. 60. Men who cannot endure that any of their Party should seem to Close with Rome, as those who live by breaking the Churches peace, 80. Men who have been estranged from Devotion, 37. And are so far byass'd, many of them, in their Affections to their Party, that they will scarce allow themselves their Common Senses in the Examen of things, but pass their Votes against any thing that leads towards Popery; tho against JUSTICE EQUITY, and CONSCIENCE, 115. 155. Factious Spirits, who have animated the Pulpits Zeal, to hinder the Parliament from going on to testifie its Loyalty as it had begun, by throwing Fears and Jealousies into the Minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion. XI. Men, in short, who manage things upon POLITICK MOTIVES to gratifie SOME PERSONS at this Juncture, least there should appear a possibility of Union with the Church of Rome. 46. Who have something more in the bottom, than what appears at first sight, in being thus Zealous against Popery. As Q. Elizabeth had, who being Conscious of Her Mother's Marriage, and Her own Birth, run out against the Pope, to secure her TITLE to the CROWN OF ENGLAND; not foreseeing the ILL CONSEQUENCES that WILL FOLLOW in the NATION, 5. By keeping open our bleeding Divisions to the RUINE both of CHURCH and STATE, 123.’

This, Sir, is your Charge; and such as either They or You must resolve to sink under the burden of it. The truth is, I cannot but wonder, that a Person who so gravely exhorts others, ‘ To consider what rash Judgment Reply, p. 28. [Page 65] is, and what Punishment God has reserved for those that are guilty of it,’ should be able to speak of so excellent a Body of Men, in so infamous a manner. For certainly greater Crimes than these can hardly be imputed to the Devil himself; and I am verily perswaded that in all this Scandalous Catalogue there is not one single Allegation either in its self true; or which (now, Sir, that you are hereby publickly Challenged to it) you shall ever be able to make good against us. But I must be more particular. And,

1st. The first Charge against us is, ‘ That whenever your Arguments pinch us, we fall to Revilings, and make it our business to Blacken and Calumniate you; to Misrepresent your Doctrines, and to Ridicule your Ceremonies.’

I will not here in return to this Clamour, desire the World to consider how unfit a Preacher you are of Honesty and Civility, who have shewn your self in this Reply to have observed but very little any Measures of either. I will rather intreat you to reflect, how unfortunately this Charge has been managed by the first Undertaker The Misrepresenter. of it; who having advanced such a Charge against us in 37 Particulars, and being fully answer'd to every one, never durst vindicate his Calumny against the first Attack, tho' the Challenge still lies against him to do See below. Close. it. And methinks whilst those large Defences remain yet without a Vindication it is a great Assurance and Indiscretion too in you, by reviving the Calumny, to put the World in Mind where it has been shewn to lie. I know not what Opinions you may have of your Church and of your Arguments. But we have always found so much to censure in the One, and so little to press us in the Others, that we have never had the least Temptation to run to such Shifts, as you here accuse [Page 66] us of. But what can be done, when Men dissemble their Doctrines, misrepresent their Practices, and outface the plainest Matters of Fact; and then cry out nothing but Calumny and Falsification, if any one goes about to discover their Hypcorisie. But,

IIdly. your next charge is yet more grievous; ‘ You tax us with Malice and Interest to defame you; and say, That by the Methods by which we carry on Disputes, we give you cause to think, that we have no other end in all our Controversial Books or Sermons but to cry down Popery at any rate, LEAST WE SHOULD SUFFER PREJUDICE BY ITS INCREASE.’

That is, in other Words, that those of the Church of England, who oppose your Designs, are all of them a pack of Atheists and Hypocrites; who value nothing but their Temporal Interests; and therefore seem resolved at any rate to run down Popery, least they should suffer prejudice by its increase. A Character so Vile and Scandalous; so void of all appearance of Truth as well as of Modesty, as sufficiently shews what manner of Spirit it was that assisted you in the Writing it. And whosoever he be to whom it belongs; Tros Rutulusve fuat; Let him be Anathema.

But I reply to this Calumny: 1. That this is a charge which you can no otherwise pretend to make good than by our outward Actions; for I am confident you never received any assurances of this kind in Confession from us. Now then, tell me, I beseech you; or rather, Sir, tell the World, before which you have traduced us, from which of our Actions is it that you presume to pass so uncharitable a Censure against us? Are our Lives so scandalous, or our Writings so destitute of all sense of Religion, as to speak us to be govern'd only by Malice and Int [...] rest? [Page 67] Do we no longer preach up the Doctrines of Piety in our Sermons; nor profess in our Assemblies the belief of a future Judgment, and an Eternal State of Life or Death after this? Either make good this Charge against us, or resolve to fall under the weight of that Infamy you thought to have cast upon us. And remember what you tell Me (and what I know not any one in the World on whom I can more properly bestow it than your self) of a certain necessary Duty both to God and Men; viz. ‘ of making a Reply, p [...]. publick Acknowledgment of those Calumnies you have thrown upon us, and without which, according to your own Sentence, you cannot expect your Sin should be forgiven you.’ But,

2dly, You affirm that 'tis out of Malice and Interest that we oppose you. As to the former of these, I confess indeed your Principles and your Actions too, against those you call Hereticks, are such, as might almost tempt a Good Man to Malice against you. But, Sir, those Principles and those Practices are so contrary to Christianity too, that no man need be acted by Malice, whilst 'tis so much his Duty to Oppose you. You may call our firmness, (as you do our Religion) what you please: 'Tis easie to give ill Names to the best Things. But whilst our Arguments stand good against you, no Man can, without great Uncharitableness, say, That 'tis out of Malice that we Oppose you; seeing those shew, that 'tis a well-grounded Zeal for the Truth and Purity of the Gospel, that moves us against such Corrupters of it as you are, and which shall, I trust, make us steady even to the death against you.

For the other part of your Charge, Interest: Were a Christian capable of being led by so base a Motive, yet how comes this to inspire us against you? 1st. Is [Page 68] there so much less of Interest to be carried on in the Church of Rome than in the Church of England? Have not the Clergy on your side as great a Command over the Consciences and over the Purses too of their Flock, as on Ours? Where would our Interests suffer by preaching up the Golden Doctrines of Satisfactions, Purgatory, Indulgences, Masses, and Prayers for the Dead; of the necessity of Auricular Confession, and of the Priests Power to forgive Sins? Certainly, Sir, you forgot your self when you imputed our Firmness to this Motive. It has indeed been an Objection against you, that in most of those Points wherein you differ from us, you have Secular Interests to serve by them: But I never yet heard that the Divines of the Church of England had any such Interest to oppose these Corruptions.

2. Again; Those who have been so Honest, (in your Opinion at least) as to lay aside their Malice and follow a Good Conscience in embracing of your Religion, have their Temporal Interests sustain'd any Loss by it? Much more would All those who now write or speak against you, come over to you, wherein I pray would their Worldly Concerns lose by their so doing?

3. But it may be we gain something by being firm to our Principles: As to the Other World no doubt we do; but will you say, Sir, that they who are the most stedfast against Popery, do take the readiest Course to advance their Fortunes by it in this? In short, Were we so wicked as to be govern'd by so mean a Consideration, I do assure you we are not so blind as not to see whither Interest would lead us. And I shall leave it to the World to judge, whether it has not pleased God here to direct your Malice to your own Confusion, in chusing out such a Topick as this, whereby to Calumniate our Stedfastness. But,

[Page 69] 3dly, There is yet a third thing which you insinuate as another means, we use to keep our Party firm against Reply, Pref. you, and that is Ignorance. ‘ You desire them to read your Book, that they may see how much they have been kept in Ignorance by Us: Pref.’ you mean, I suppose, as to the Points wherein we differ from you, and which are many of them very Considerable. Now were this indeed so, yet methinks it is not very decent for a Guide of the Church of Rome to complain of it. The truth is, we do give our People all the Instruction that we can: We put the Holy Scriptures into their Hands in their own Tongue; we exhort them to read them; and we know who they are, that not only do not do this, but blame us for doing it. We instruct them with all diligence, by Writing, Preaching, Catechizing, &c. And as ignorant as they are, yet we find them (and so do you too) too wise to be deluded by such Seducers as would fain draw them away from us. There is no one so Ignorant, but what can at least give you an Orthodox Summary of his Belief; can say Amen, with understanding, to the Publick Service; and in short, can tell you, Sir, that which all your Learning; or, because that is not much, I may add, and all the Learning of your Church will never be able to answer; ‘ That God spake these Words and said 1. Thou shalt have none OTHER GODS but Me, 2. Thou shalt not make to thy self any GRAVEN IMAGE nor the LIKENESS of any thing in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Water under the Earth; Thou shalt not BOW DOWN to them nor WORSHIP them.’

As for those rare Mysteries of Ave Maria's and Pater Noster's; of the extraordinary Virtues of Holy Water, and Agnus dei's; of St. Francis's Girdle, St. Dominick's [Page 70] Beads, and Simon Stock's Scapulary; Of the Reply, p. 66. great significancy of Oil and Balsam, of White Fillets and Boxes on the Ear; of Ashes and Incense; of lighted Tapers, and naked Images; of the several ways of lifting up Hands, and Crossing and Knocking Breasts; of standing, bowing, creeping, &c. in these I confess our people have (for us) been kept in Ignorance; and I hope they will never have Occasion of being instructed in them. But for any Ignorance of any thing that is worth their knowledge even in your Religion, (which I suppose you here especially aim at) for any designed Concealment of your true Doctrine from them; much more for any thing generally necessary, or but profitable to their Salvation, we must beg leave to justifie our selves in the Words of St. Paul, ‘ That we have not Act. 20. 29, 27. shunn'd to declare unto them all the Counsel of God.’

III. Your next Charge is, ‘That we have been Reply, p. 37. estranged from Devotion.’ And indeed, what wonder is it, if Men, who, as you say, are acted only by the influences of Malice and Interest, are not much acquainted with the Ardours of Devotion? But, Sir, setting Calumny apart, Whence is it that you derive this Charge against us? Have we no Service of God in our Churches? Or is our Liturgy so unapt to excite Devotion in those who duly attend upon its Offices? Have you never, Sir, your self heard us recommend with all Earnestness, the practice of this Piety to our Congregations? Should we put our Prayers into an unknown Tongue, that if not the Zeal, yet at least the Wonder and Astonishment of the People might be increased? Instead of reading our [Page 71] Service aloud, would you have us turn our backs to the Assembly, and whisper they know not what between our Hands into a Corner, that no body may hear us? Or what is it, Sir, that we must do to satisfie you, that we are not utterly estranged from Devotion? In short, all the pretence I find you have for this Charge, is, ‘ That we think many of your Ceremonies uncouth;’ and you tell us Reply, p. 3 [...]. it is because we are unacquainted with Devotion: But we will take your own words, for indeed they are very extraordinary, and 'tis pity they should be lost, The case you say is this, ‘ As the Church of England in general Ib. 38. for Gravity and Reverend Behaviour exceeds the Conventicles, or other Reformed Churches; so the Cathedrals of the Church, we confess, are more solemn than the Country Churches; the Catholicks, as 'tis fit, far beyond the English Cathedrals; and what is the issue? The Churches of England are censured as superstitious by the Kirkmen and Conventiclers; the Cathedrals are censured as such by the Parish Churches; and the Catholick is censured also by the Reformed Cathedral: Still the more solemn and devout Church is censured by the less.’

So that here now is a Religious War; and the Conventicles, the Parish Churches, the Cathedrals, and the Mass-Houses are in their respective Synods assembled to Damn and Anathematize one another; and you as a Catholick Moderator thus decide the Controversie: There is a little Devotion (and but very little) in the Conventicles; there is somewhat more in the Parish Churches; there is a pretty deal more in the Cathedrals; only in the Mass-House is to be found the perfection of Piety, the ne plus ultra of Devotion upon Earth.

Is not this rare stuff? And will not the world, think you, be strangely edified at so demonstrative a proof that we are (God be thanked not totally, but yet, especially [Page 72] when we go to our Parish Churches, very much) estranged from Devotion?

But pray, Sir, where is the necessity, that because we have not so much Ceremony as you, we must be further estranged from Devotion too? If you will allow our Saviour and his Apostles; if you will grant that the Primitive Christians were devout without all this Ceremony, why may not we be so too? And if we may, how will you justifie your self from being grosly uncharitable in thus insinuating upon so slender a ground, that we are not? We want nothing that may serve for Decency and Order in Gods Service; the Ceremonies we have cast off are only those useless ones, of whose burden, St. Austin even in his time complain'd, who was yet I hope no stranger to Devotion.

To go no further than those Ceremonies upon which you thus traduce us. In your Good Friday Service, ‘ The Priest takes a Cross, and standing on one side of the Altar Missale Rom. uncovers a little of it from the top, and then sings, Behold the Wood of the Cross, the people answering, Come, let us Adore, and at the same time falling down upon their faces; then he goes to the other side of the Altar, and uncovers the right arm of it, and sings, whilst the people answer and fall down, as before; then he comes to the middle of the Altar, and quite uncovers it, and so they all fall down and sing as before; then he sets it up on a place before the Altar, and pulls off his Shooes, and comes up to Adore the Cross, bending his Knee three times before he kisses it; after this the rest of the Priests, and the People two and two do the like.’

This is the manner of that Service; and to say the truth, it does seem to us very uncouth, and to have but little of the true Spirit of Devotion in it; but however, let us for one moment suppose it to be a reasonable Service; [Page 73] pray, Sir, why might not there have been as much Piety, tho there had been less Ceremony? For instance; What if the Priest had uncovered the Cross all at once? What if he had stood all the while in the same place, and not uncovered one part at one end of the Altar, a second at the other, the rest in the middle? Might not the people have had the same zeal by beholding the Cross, to adore him that suffered upon it? Suppose the Priest and the Congregation had gone with their Shooes on to the place where the Cross stood (as I believe verily they might have done, for all Gods command to Moses to put his Shooes Reply, p. 37. from off his feet, because the place on which he stood, was by Gods Presence made Holy Ground). Nay, what if instead of bending their Knees three times before they kiss'd it, they had done it but once, or not at all? I confess in this case a great deal of the state of the business had been lost, and the people would not have been half so agreeably entertained; but I cannot see why they might not have had the same true, inward Devotion towards our Saviour for all any such defect.

To conclude this: If you can prove that we have no regard to Decency or Order in Gods Service; if you can shew that we despise Prayer, or neglect to exhort our People to the practice of it; if we do, like you, amuse them only with noise and shew, instead of a reasonable, intelligible Service; sometimes whisper the Prayers, that they cannot always speak them in such a language that the ignorant among you do not know how to improve their zeal by them; then on Gods name continue to revile us; but if you cannot say we do any thing of this kind, I must then plainly tell you that you have most unchristianly judged us; and I beseech you, as ever you would free your self from being thought a Calumniator, give us but any one Argument that an honest man shall not [Page 74] blush to read, to prove us, as you say, estranged from Devotion.

IV. And hitherto you have aimed especially at the Clergy of the Church of England; your next Reflection is upon the Laity; and indeed it was but fit that having set forth the Guides as men of no Religion, you should represent the Flock to have neither Justice, Equity, nor Conscience. But we will take it in your Reply, p. 115. own words.

You tell us then of some among us, ‘ That are so biassed in their Affections to our Party, that they will scarce allow themselves their common Senses in the Examen, but pass their Votes against any thing that tends towards Popery, tho against JUSTICE, EQUITY, and CONSCIENCE.’

This, Sir, is another of those severe Reproaches, which without the least shadow of a Proof you cast on many of our Church; and for which, till you shall think fit by some very good Arguments to clear your self, I must again beg leave to esteem you a Calumniator.

In the mean time, till you shall think fit to remove that Reproach, you may please to know, that men so prejudiced and obstinate, as you speak of, whatever they may pretend, yet really are none of our Disciples: We direct all men, as you very well know, to use both their Senses and their Reason in examining their Religion: And you can sometimes alter your note, and inveigh against us for our so doing. And we should be heartily sorry that any of our friends should be so nigh to a perversion, as to have abandon'd the use of any of these faculties.

They pass their votes, you say, against any thing that tends towards Popery, tho against JUSTICE, EQUITY, and CONSCIENCE. This I am sure they never learnt of us. We have always directed Men to act according to Justice, Equity and Conscience: and not [Page 75] to be afraid of any thing that is good, because a Papist does it. Indeed, Sir, I have heard of some who when they receive a Proselyte into their Church, make him swear, ‘ That he will never by ANY PERSWASIONS, Pontific. Ord. reconc. Haeret. vel Schismat. p. 200. Ed. Venet. Ann. 1561. or by ANY OTHER MEANS be drawn off from it: And if by ANY OCCASION or ARGUMENT he shall fall away, he wishes that incurring the Guilt of his Perjury, he may be found obliged to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT:’ And this we have always blamed in them as most Unwarrantable and Unchristian. But the Truth is, you have here, as in most of your other Reflections, taken up our Objectious against you; and what we with Truth lay to your Charge, you most detractingly, because most falsely, return upon us. But,

V. You have yet more to accuse us of. You tell us Reply, Pref. ‘ of certain factious spirits that have animated the Pulpits Zeal, to throw fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their Religion, to the hindring of the Parliament from proceeding in its Loyalty as it had begun.’

I do not very well understand, what liberty this is you take to censure the Loyalty of so. Great a Body as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Members of the Honourable House of Commons amount to: But sure I am, it is not such a Pen as yours that can blast their Reputation. As for the factious spirits that animated the Pulpits Zeal, when you dare speak openly what you mean by it, you may be sure of an Answer either from Them or Me. In the mean time, God be thanked the Pulpits Zeal has ever been employed to keep up in the Subjects that Duty which by Gods command they owe to their Prince; and nothing is at this day, next to our Zeal for our Religion, more our desire and our endeavour, than to make men Loyal to their Soveraign. Our Pulpits still speak the [Page 76] same principles of Subjection they ever did. We are neither ashamed of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, nor afraid of its Practise; tho some of your Acquaintance have endeavoured to laugh both that and us out of Countenance for its sake. Our steadiness to our Religion, shall never make us fail in our Duty to our King. In one word, we will both by our Preaching and Actions make it our business to fulfill that great Evangelieal precept, Of rendring unto Coesar the things that are Coesars; and unto God the things that are Gods. Mat. XXII. 21.

But, Sir, since you mention fears and jealousies, I will shew you who they are that have alarm'd the Nation with them: For,

VI. Thus finally, you reflect upon us, ‘ That we are men who manage things upon POLITICK MOTIVES to gratifie some Persons at this juncture. You insinuate as if Reply, p. 45. there were something more in the bottom of our Opposing Pag. 5. you, than what appears at first sight: You tell us a very dangerous Story of Q. Elizabeth, how that doubting the Goodness of HER TITLE to the CROWN OF ENGLAND, Books were filled with revilings against the Church of Rome, the better to secure it. Then you speak again of Designs, and of leading-men; and of ill consequences that will follow in the Nation, to the ruin Pag. 123. both of Church and State, if we keep open these Divisions.’

I would willingly believe that you had no other meaning in all this, but only to insinuate once more to the World that we are a sort of Mercenary Creatures that have indeed no Religion, but are acted only by Politick Motives, to gratifie I know not whom at this juncture. And that the Hints that follow, ‘ Of something more being in the bottom than at first sight appears; of Q. Elizabeth's Title to the Crown; Of designs, and leading Men;’ Of ill consequences [Page 77] to the Nation, &c. are but words put together, without any other intention than to render your little Reflection the more considerable. But, Sir, all Men do not make so favourable a construction; they think there is somewhat alluded to in that History, which if you dare justifie, we need not be ashamed of giving you an Answer. They desire you to speak out, How you apply all these things: Whether there be any body now living to answer to Queen Elizabeth; Whether those words of her ‘ Mothers Marriage, and Her own Birth, making her Title doubtful to the Crown of England,’ have any signification; How our zeal against Popery is to bring such ill consequences upon the Nation; and whether here you threaten or prognosticate only these things to us; and who gave you authority to do either? When you shall have explain'd your self as to all these Particulars, you may then expect a further Answer: In the mean time give me leave to tell you, that whether you have any meaning in it or no, the very mention of these things is dishonest; and may raise such fears and jealousies in the people, as all our zeal for peace shall not be able to allay: And I know not well what I ought to think of those Men who at the same time that his Sacred Majesty proclaims a publick Peace to his Subjects, whatever their Perswasions be; and particularly declares in favour of the Church of England, ‘ That he will protect and maintain it in the free exercise King's Indulgence. of our Religion, as by Law establish'd; and in the quiet and full enjoyment of all our Possessions, without any Molestation or Disturbance whatsoever;’ nevertheless dare threaten us with ruin and destruction.

Reply, p. 3, 123. You speak of the ILL CONSEQUENCES that will follow in the Nation by our opposing you; p. 3. of keeping open divisions to the RUIN both of CHURCH and STATE, p. 123. New Test of the C. of E. Loyalty, p. 8. Another tells us of His Majesties [Page 78] withdrawing his ROYAL PROTECTION from us. Answer to the Conferences about the Eucharist. A third in plain words declares that the ‘ Church of Rome will TRIUMPH, when perchance a certain Divine of the Church of England MAY SMART for having attempted its destruction.’These are such insinuations as the Pulpits zeal would never have presumed to throw into the minds of their Auditors; and they certainly deserve to be some other way taken notice of than I am authorized to do it. But 'tis well that having shewn how small your charity is to us, you now let us see, that your Duty is not much greater to your Prince. And before you shall next think fit to charge us with raising of fears and jealousies in Men's minds, I desire you to consider how you will be able to purge your selves, from being by these kind of insinuations, indeed the greatest Incendiaries.

And thus have I offer'd what seems to Me to be sufficient to vindicate those of our Church from your false and scandalous Aspersions. I shall detain you but a very little while in the other Part: wherein I am

II. To consider those Imputations you have brought against my self in Particular.

For indeed it was not for these that I enter'd at all on this ungrateful Employment of laying you open to the World; and if my Church, and its more worthy Members be but clear of your censures, it is no great matter how much such an inconsiderable part of it as I am, suffer by them. Something yet I will add, that I may not seem wanting to my own Defence, and give credit to your Censures, by neglecting to refute them.

And first, to all the hard names you have so liberally bestow'd upon Me, and the Crimes for which you have not offer'd the least shadow of a proof; I shall only say, [Page 79] The Lord forgive you. Call me, if you please, a Doctor of See before. the Populace; tell the World that ‘ I court the applause of the vulgar: That I am but a pretended Son of Peace: That my business is nothing but shifts: Say that I am wilfully blind, a wilful prevaricator, a wilful mistaker of your Doctrine:’ Call me Unsincere, Caviller, and as many other Names of the like kind as I have either now forgot, or you shall be able hereafter to invent: My Answer shall still be the same to them all, Lord lay not this sin to your charge.

Secondly, To your several Reflections, whereby you represent me to the World as a Wilful prevaricator in many instances, I have already said that this is what you can never be sure is true, and what I am sure is utterly false: And I do not know by which of my Actions I have ever given you a cause for so unchristian and slanderous an Imputation. Believe me, Sir, it is not a light matter that you here lay to my charge: ‘ To be conscious to my self that I cannot DEFEND my CAUSE, and yet not to have the SINCERITY to REPENT,’ must imply a most incorrigible spirit in Me; and if I may guess by your Reply, you have not found my Defence so weak as to justifie such an Imputation To mistake is Humane, and I shall be far from pretending an exemption from that to which we are all by Nature subject; but to do it wilfully, and being admonish'd of it, nevertheless still to persevere, and put such things upon the World, as in my conscience I know not to be true: To endeavour to make others believe what I do not believe my self; these are Crimes for which no Apology is to be made, nor therefore ought any one, without very convincing Reasons, to be presumed guilty of them. But to undertake positively to charge another with them, as you have done Me; and upon such slender proofs, and with such repeated assertitions: [Page 80] This Sir, must proceed from an uncharitable spirit; and will, I am perswaded, much more prejudice you than me, in the opinion of all considering Men. However, as I shall in my Reflections upon your Reply, particularly answer your pretences (where you have any) for these Censures; so I do now assure you, that whatever mistakes you may think you have discover'd either in my Exposition, or my Defence, they are sins of Ignorance, and not voluntary Errors, as you most rashly pronounce them to be.

Thirdly, For those Reflections which have no relation to the Cause in Hand, but are drawn in meerly to defame Me without the least provocation; tho I might pass them by as foreign to my present design, yet I will stop so long as to give some Answer to them. Two of these especially there are; and of neither of which (excuse me, Sir, this little vanity which your Reflections force me to) I think I need to be ashamed. The

1. Concerns my Preaching; in which not only I my self, but all those whom you call by way of scoff, (and with more disrespect than so Honourable an Assembly deserves) my LEARNED AUDITORY are involved together Reply, p. 20. Ibid. 21. with Me. ‘You say that you hear, and in that you speak properly,’ (for I'm told that you your self have vouchsafed sometimes to make up a Part of my then, I hope, truly LEARNED AUDITORY,) that I tell my Congregation, that you ‘give Divine Worship to Saints; that Pag. 56. I speak many things ad faciendum Populum, and my LEARNED AUDITORS admire my Learning, and applaud my Eloquence.’ Other Reflections of this kind you have, and to which I shall only say, That I have never delivered any thing on those Occasions, but what I have firmly believed to be the Truth; and which, had I not been so perswaded, I should never have durst to utter in that Holy place. And if this be all the effect of those Critical Sunday-nights [Page 81] Conferences, in which (if I am rightly informed) my Sermons have sometimes been put upon the rack by you; I may now conclude that I have not much transgress'd, in those few things I have therein spoken against you.

2. The other thing for which you sometimes reflect upon Me, is Popularity. You call me a Doctor of the Populacy, p. 31. you tell the World, ‘ That I court the Applause of the Vulgar, p. 25.’ And it seems have had the good fortune to obtain it, p. 36. Now this, Sir, may be a fault, if you can say that I have done any thing that is ill for it; or that in any of my Actions I have managed my self otherwise than I ought to have done in consideration of it. But if it should chance to be only your Envy or Concern at any thing of a Reputation you may think I have got in the World, that prompts you to give it so invidious a Name, I must then tell you that whilst I know my Innocence of any wicked designs in it, or Endeavours after it; I shall be no more ashamed of, that I pretend to what you call Popularity; and I will endeavour, Sir, if I can, to be still more Popular; that so I may have the greater influence upon mens Minds, to perswade them to their Duty, and confirm them in that steadiness, from which such false Teachers as you are, would endeavour to draw them off. But for the rest, I have neither Courted any ones applanse, nor gone one step out of the way in which my Duty and my Conscience have led me, to gain an esteem or interest in the World. In this Method by Gods Grace I shall always walk; and I make no doubt but my Learned Auditors, and my Friends the Vulgar, will approve my resolutions. And as I have nothing but this Integrity whereby to deserve their Regard, so whilst I keep firm to it, I shall not fear to lose their Esteem. The approbation that is founded on any other [Page 82] bottom often changes: But where Good men value, and Honesty is the only Ground of the Esteem, there it is impossible it should ever fail, till either the one or the other fall from their principles.

Fourthly, For those Reflections which are involved in the course of your Reply, and cannot well be separated from it, I shall examine them as they lie in their several places there, and not follow the Catalogue into which you have collected them against Me. There I shall shew you, that what you call CALUMNIES, are indeed most undoubted TRUTHS: The FALSIFICATIONS you tax me with, either your Mistake, if you indeed thought them so, or your crime if you did not. That in my whole Defence there is but one thing that can any ways be call'd an Error in the TRANSLATION of all those numerous passages I have brought against you, and that such as no one else would, and you (who are so obnoxious to such mistakes as to commit above a dozen in the Translation of a short Letter) ought certainly the least of any to have censured. There you shall see the UNSINCERITIES shewn to lie at your own door: The UNCHARITABLE ACCUSATIONS, proved to be, if not the New, yet the Old Doctrine of your Church. The WILFUL MISTAKES, and AFFECTED MISAPPLICATIONS of EQUIVOCAL WORDS to be no Mistakes, nor Misapplications at all: What you call a FALSE IMPOSITION in Me, to be indeed a bold denial of your own Words: The AUTHORS you pretend to be MISAPPLIED, if there be any such, (for I have yet found them no where but in your Catalogue) speaking properly what they were brought for: And the PLAIN CONTRADICTIONS no where to be found but in your own undistinguishing Brain. In the mean time I have this only with you to intreat the ‘ Judicious Reader, [Page 83] That he will suspend his Judgment till these things are Reply, Pref. i. examined, and not take all for Gospel, that is said with Confidence.’

There is now only one Charge more remaining, and from which I ought, before I proceed farther, to defend my self against your Reflections; and that is,

V. Concerning the Ill Language you pretend I have used in my Defence; a fault which I assure you no man more disapproves, nor is more scrupulously careful to avoid than my self; but then I must confess that perhaps I do not think all to be Ill Language that you shall please to call so; for tho I esteem it generally the best to use the softest Expressions that may be, yet there is a necessity in some cases of speaking plain, and of calling evil things by their proper names; and really Sir, when we have to do with such a Cause as yours, and such Vindicators of it as your self, let us do what we can, we must appear to write a Satyr.

You are, for instance, very much offended that I should charge your Church with Idolatry; that I should represent some of your Saints as speaking Horrid Blasphemies; that I call St. Thomas's Notions in defence of Image-Worship, Reveries; and the Addresses with which you consecrate them, rather Magical Incantations, than Christian Prayers; These, Sir, are hard words, I do confess; and if I have no Grounds for them, Unjust Reproaches, Calumnies, or what else you please of the like kind; but yet till you answer my Reasons, and convince me of my Error, that these things are indeed not such as I suppose, I cannot imagine how I should change my stile; or what other words to find out that might express my sense, and yet not offend your Ears.

[Page 84] Again: 'Tis possible, you will hereafter say, that in these very Reflections wherein I complain of you for calling us Falsifiers, Calumniatars, Cavillers, Misrepresenters, and the like, I do yet sometimes my self return the very same language upon you; this indeed is true, but then here is the difference, you accuse us of these things without Reason, often without any Occasion, and therefore do CALUMNIATE, whereas I never (that I know of) return them upon you, till I have first shewn a just Cause for the doing it; and tho it be Calumny to call an Honest man, a Knave, or a dishonest man, yet I know not what other kind of Name we can give to him that is truly so.

This, Sir, is my Notion of these things; and if I am out, I shall be most willing to stand corrected by you; in the mean time let us see whereon it is that you ground this Charge against me. Two places there are in which you accuse me of it. The

I. Refers to the Rishop of Meaux, whom as you pretend, ‘ I have endeavoured to expose by my Contemptible Reply, Pref. Raillery.’ To this I have already replied, That I know not wherein I have been guilty of any thing that looks like Raillery in all my treatment of that Bishop, having always been mindful of his Character in every thing I have written against him: That I am sorry the necessary Defence of Truth has forced me to speak what I have done concerning him; and if after all, I should chance in my pursuit of his Unsincerities, (let not that word offend you, I have proved before, what I now say, and much more) to have dropt any Expression that looks like Raillery, as I cannot yet find upon a diligent Examination, that I have done it, so neither will I justifie my self in it, whenever you shall be able to prove your Allegation: But, Sir, this is not the only Instance in which you give me occasion [Page 85] to complain (in a very mild Word), of your Groundless Accusations.

II. The other place in which you charge me with this Fault, is more considerable, because there you do (what you have seldom done any where else) bring some Instances of it; and out of respect to so extraordinary a piece of Justice, I will neither call them by any hard name, nor any further insist upon your undue Repetition of them. The Expressions you accuse me of are these Three.

I. That I call St. Thomas's Opinions, Reveries.
II. The Rhetorical Expressions of the Greatest Saints, Horrid Blasphemies: And
III. The pious and significant Ceremonies of the Church, Magical Incantations.

In every part of which Charge you are a little Mistaken.

For 1. They are not S. Thomas's Opinions, but the Arguments and Distinctions with which he endeavours to defend your Churches Opinions, that I called Reveries. 2. Nor are there any of the Greatest Saints, tho some of them I confess were pious men, whose Expressions I stiled Horrid Blasphemies. Nor 3. Are they the Pious and significant Ceremonies of Christs Holy Catholick Church; but the Prayers of a Church, usurping those Titles of Holy and Catholick, that can the least belong to her of any Church in the Christian World; they are, I say, the Prayers of that Church, which in just indignation to so great a Superstition as the consecrating Stocks and Stones, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I said, looked more like Magical Incantations than Prayers. It may be you will think these Remarks might well have been spared; but we live in a critical Age, wherein men, you know, cannot [Page 86] endure to have things Misrepresented; and when you charge me with speaking reproachfully of your Church, you should have been very careful to see that in the charge of it you did not speak (tho but a little) Falsely of me. But

I. It displeases you that I should call some of Thomas Aquinas's Notions, REVERIES.

It was indeed a bold thing in me to fail in my Respects to a Doctor, who as you tell me former times have stiled Angelical; I wonder you did not add out of your Breviary, that he was one too who attained to all his Knowledg, not by Study and Labour, but by Divine Inspiration; Brev. Rom. in Fest. vii. Martii. for this would have added much to my offence; nay, to whom (if all that is there said, be true) a certain Crucifix once upon a time declared, That all he had written concerning him was well; and one part of that was this very thing before us, ‘That the Wood of the Crucifix was to be Adored with the same Adoration as Christ himself;’ and after the attestation of it by so notable a Miracle, I cannot but wonder how you dare to question it. But then, Sir, you ought to have considered whether you were sure there was any dis-respect in my Expression: Now had you not been too little acqainted with the French Tongue, (as I shall hereafter shew you are with some others) to turn Critique in it; you would have known that Reverie is not necessarily a word of Reproach, but used very innocently to signifie a deep thought, a profound Meditation, and from thence secondarily, the Productions themselves that come from such Reflections: And therefore you ought not, without all distinction, to say that I affront St. Thomas in calling his Notions Reveries, for so the best mens works may without Affrout be called; but since [Page 87] this displeases you, whatever I may do to others, yet I assure you I never will so far Affront you, as even in my thoughts to suppose you to be a Reverie, i. e. a man of profound thought, and deep meditation.

And thus were I minded to Cavil, I might end this Objection. But, Sir, to satisfie your little Remark, I do confess, I did not mean that Expression in this best sense; no, the Subject upon which I spoke it, was too bad, not to reflect some of its illness upon the very words that are used about it; and when I said, That I did not think my self obliged to transcribe all St. Thomas's Reveries; I did indeed mean, what I now call them in plainer words, his Vain and Trifling Reasons, which he brings to justifie that wicked Doctrine of your Church, ‘ That the CROSS of Christ is to be ADORED with a SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP.’ This I understood by that Expression, and such I take his Discourse there to be; and I will now leave it to the world to judg, what else they can make of such Profound Nonsense as this.

‘ Honour or Reverence is not (primarily) due to any Aquinas sum. 3. part. Q. xxv. Art. 4. but a rational Nature; but to an insensible Creature, Honour or Reverence is not due, but with respect to a rational Nature: And this may happen two ways; One, Upon the account of its Representing a rational Nature: The Other, because it is some way joined to it: By the First Means, we Worship the Image of a King; by the Second, his Garments; and we Venerate both with the same Veneration, with which we Venerate the King himself.—’

Is not this, think you, wonderful Reasoning? And was I not horribly to blame, to call such fine Notions, Reveries? But now for the Application.

‘—If therefore we speak of that Cross upon which Christ was Crucified, it is to be Adored upon both [Page 88] Accounts by us, both as it represents Christ, and as it touch'd his Members, and was sprinkled with his Blood; and upon both these Accounts with the same supreme Worship with which Christ is Adored; and hence it is that we SPEAK to the CROSS, and PRAY to IT as if it were CHRIST.—’

I doubt, Sir, you will think this last looks something like a REVERIE, because (as I remember) it crosses your Notions. But we will go on:

‘But if we speak of the Image of Christ in any other Matter, so we Adore the Cross only as the Image of Christ, which we Adore with Divine Adoration.’

These are Aquinas's Notions on this Point; and these I called his Reveries, i. e. His vain Fancies and Imaginations; and so I still esteem them to be; if you think otherwise, and that these Dreams and Shadows of Reason, are indeed Conclusive Proofs, why then do you reject this Doctrine, Reply, pref. p. xviii. and tell us, that ‘ perhaps it MAYBE defended;’ and not speak out boldly that it is good and Orthodox, and what we ought to follow; but if you like this arguing really no better than I do, wherefore do you expose me for calling that a vain Fancy, which, after all, you your self look upon as no other?

To conclude; I am perswaded that no one among you has a juster respect for St. Thomas than I have; I have always esteemed him an excellent Doctor, and profited by his Works; but what can the best man do, when he has not Truth on his side? Error may be palliated, and a greatdeal of Thought be spent, and Wit shewn to give it the Appearance of Truth, but when all is done 'tis Error still; and the Arguments that are brought to support it, how fine and subtil soever they may seem, are yet but Reveries, i. e. Visions, Shadows of Reason, not Rational and Conclusive Proofs; and upon this Ground, tho not only [Page 89] an Angelical Doctor, or a Crucifix from a Wall, but even an Angel from Heaven, should argue in this sort, I should not be ashamed of the Expression, if I had called it Ra [...]ing. But

II. The next Thing you find fault with, is; That I call some of the Expressions of your Saints, with reference to the Virgin Mary, HORRID BLASPHEMIES.

And here you put me upon a very ungrateful work, to rake into the Ashes of Good, but Superstitious Men, and who falling into Corrupt Times, were by their Piety carried into Vain and Extravagant Expressions of it: But as I hope God has pardoned their well-meant, tho very indiscreet Zeal; so I desire that what I here repeat in my Defence, may not be a means to lead any one to Triumph in their Weakness, whose Vertues otherwise we few of us perhaps shall be able to come up to; and this I say of some of those I am to mention; for however your Church has thought fit indifferently to Canonize them, yet I hope Saints as well as Stars, may differ from one another both in their Goodness and in their Glory.

The 1. you mention is St. Germain, Whose Expressions to the Blessed Virgin, or as you call them, Rhetorical Flights, will I think justifie the worst that can be said of them: ‘O Mother of God, says he, your Defence is Immortal; your Intercession is the Life; your Protection Crasset veritable Devotion p. 31. is Security; if you do not teach us the Way, no one can become Spiritual, nor Adore God in Spirit.—O Most Holy Virgin! No one can have the Knowledg of God but by you: O Mother of God! No one can be saved but by you: O Virgin Mother! No one can be delivered from Dangers but by you: O Favoured of God! No one can obtain any Gift or Grace, but by you.’

[Page 88]

[...]

[Page 89]

[...]

[Page 90] The second is St. Anselm. His Expressions of this kind are numerous; and I will mention only some of them: ‘ O Blessed Virgin! says he, as it is necessary that every Crasset. p. 49. one who is hated and despised by you, should perish, so is it impossible that he whom you regard should be lost.—Only be it your will that we should be saved, and then we cannot but be saved.—’ Ibid. 56. Hence he elsewhere calls Her, ‘The Repairer of the lost Ibid. 234. World: and adds, that as God creating all things by his power, is become God and Father of all; so Mary Ibid. 235. the Blessed Mother of God by restoring all things, is become the Mother and Lady of all. In one of his Addresses to her, he says, That God has given this to Her in common with Himself, that with Her all things Ibid. should be possible.’ And to go yet one step farther, he tells us in plain terms, ‘That a man is sometimes sooner saved in calling upon the name of Mary, than by calling upon the name of Christ.’ Ibid. 112.

3ly, Your next Saint is St. Bernard: And he too is Voluminous in his Expressions. Thus he also makes her Redemptrix of the World: ‘We have, says he, sent before Crasser, p. 30. us from Earth to Heaven an Advocate, who being Mother of our Judg, and Mother of Mercy, will treat sincerely and with efficacy the business of our Salvation? 'Tis She that hath obtain'd the Reparation of the whole World, and the Salvation of all men.—It must be confess'd Ibid. p. 31. that one man, and one woman have done us a great deal of harm; but another man, and another woman, have repaired with advantage all the ill which the former had done us. I acknowledg that Jesus Christ is sufficient to save us; but it was not expedient that Man should be alone; it was more congruous, that both the one and the other sex should come in to our Reparation, seeing neither of them was wanting to our destruction.—Consider Ibid. 32. [Page 91] then more deeply with how great an affection of piety God would have us adore Her, who has put the whole fulness of Good in Mary: so that if there be any hope in us, if any Grace, if any salvation, we should know that it proceeds from Her.—And therefore he elsewhere Ibid. 74. calls Her, The Ladder of Sinners; His Great Trust, and the whole foundation of his Hope.’ But I must not insist too largely.

The next you name is, Fourthly, The Abbot of Celles; Crasset, p. 33, 34. I will produce but one passage from him: ‘Approach, says he, by a devout contemplation of spirit towards the Blessed Virgin, because through Her, and with Her, and in Her, and from Her, the world both hath, and will have all that is Good.—She is our Advocate to Her Son, as the Son to the Father. She sollicites for us both the Father and the Son. Oftentimes those whom the Justice of the Son might condemn, the Mercy of the Mother delivers.—In short, As our Saviour once said, That no one could come unto him (whilst he was on Earth) unless the Father drew him; so dare I (says he) in some sort affirm, that no one comes now to thy Glorified Son, unless thou by thy Holy assistance drawest him.’

5thly, ‘As it is impossible (says St. Antonine, from St. Crasset, Ib. Anselm) that those from whom the V. Mary turns the Eyes of her Mercy should be saved; so is it necessary that those towards whom she turns Her eyes, interceding for them, should be justified and Glorified.’

6thly, ‘From the time, says St. Bernardine, that the Crasset. 37. Virgin Mother conceived in her Womb the Word of God, She obtained, as I may say, a certain jurisdiction and authority over all the Temporal processions of the Holy Ghost. So that no creature has obtain'd any Grace or vertue of God, but according to the dispensation of his Holy Mother.’

[Page 92] He that desires more of this, may see in Dr. J. C's Apology for his Contemplations on the Life and Glory of Holy Lond. 1687. Mary; who tho he be not yet a Saint, yet may for his zeal deserve hereafter to be Canonized; and make as great a figure one day in the Church, as any that I have named.

These, Sir, are some of the Expressions to which I referred: You may think as you please of them, and give what dexterous Expositions your Wit shall enable you, to free them from Censure: But I dare venture it to all sober Men now to judg, Whether I was much out in my Expression, when I said in my Defence, that they were HORRID BLASPHEMIES.

3dly, Your last Censure is, That I said of those Collects which you use in the Consecration of a Cross, that they seemed to be MAGICAL INCANTATIONS rather than Prayers.

And I would to God, Sir, we had not too good Grounds for such a Censure: I should most willingly retract my Expression. But in the mean time, till you will learn to be ashamed of doing such things, I see no cause wherefore I should be confounded for giving them their proper Names.

‘You pray to God, that he would bless the Wood of the Cross;’ to what purpose, I pray, give a blessing to the Stock of a Tree? ‘That it may be a saving Remedy to mankind; an Establishment of the Faith; for the encrease of good Works; and the Redemption of Souls; for a Comfort and Protection against the cruel Darts of the Enemy.’ Is not this, Sir, a most edifying Prayer for a Church, calling her self Catholick, to use? To desire the blessing of God upon that which he has expresly forbidden us to make, [Page 93] for any such purpose as that, for which it is here consecrated? But to go on with the Ceremony:

‘You incense it, you sprinkle it with holy Water; you Consecrate it, In the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST: You pray again, that as by the Cross upon which Christ suffer'd, the World was redeemed from Guilt; so by the Merits of this Cross, the Souls of those who offer it, may be freed from all the Sins which they have committed. And now the work is done; and it is fit for you to FALL DOWN before it, and WORSHIP it.’

Consider, Sir, I beseech you, in the Spirit of a Christian, what it is about which these Prayers are bestow'd; and what it is you beg in them. And seeing you desire that such Benefits may be derived to you from a senseless, inanimate Creature; think what the import of Magical Incantations is, and tell me if these requests do not look more like Charms, than Prayers; and whether I was very much out, when in a just Indignation at so wretched an Abuse of the Name of the Holy Trinity, I said, they seem'd rather the one than the other.

But if my Expression still offends you, consider then, how much more justly these Practices scandalize us. Do not tell the World that I reproach Christs Holy Catholick Church, as guilty of Magical Incantations: No, 'tis your Church, the corrupted Roman Church alone, that I charge as coming in these things too nearly to the Practices of the Heathens: God be thanked, Christ has other Churches that are freed from such Abuses, as all his faithful Servants lament in you, and earnestly desire you would your selves learn at last to be ashamed of.

I will add but one Word more, and it is this: That before you Censure me any farther for this Expression, you will please to remember, that there is another Practice [Page 94] in your Church, which I might have mentioned in my Defence, called Exorcizing; but far distant from the Ancient Ceremony designed by that word. This your Ritual Authorizes; and for the fuller Practice of it, directs us to your approved Authors; such as Mengus, and some others. The plain English of that hard word, you know is Conjuring, and the thing does not at all belie the Name. You may force me to speak of this if you think fit; and to add to this, your other Ceremonies of Christening of Bells, Consecrating Water; Agnus Dei's, and the like; and what wonderful Benefits you pretend to derive from thence. But I had rather if you please be prevented in this design, than vindicate my self so much to your Churches scandal.

SECT. III.

AND here I shall finish my present Reflections; and might, I think, have concluded my whole Defence. For having justified the Distinction I had advanced of Old and New Popery; having shewn you, that it is not meerly from the Decrees of your Councils, but from your private Authors and common Practice, that we are to interpret your Churches Doctrine: Having particularly answer'd all the Bishop of Meaux's Pretences, and I hope sufficiently Vindicated (even in your Opinion) my Self and Brethren from your unjust and scandalous Imputations; nothing now remains, but to consider the Doctrine of your Reply; and that has been already so fully done, that neither can you Answer it, nor am I able to add any thing to it. But you have always had a particular Gift, to advance again without Blushing, those Objections to day, which but yesterday were confuted beyond a possibility of Reply.

[Page 95] 1. You charge us with Misrepresenting your Doctrines Reply pref.; you speak largely of a certain Book that undertook to prove this to the World; but you forget to tell us, that a learned The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented. Never Answer'd. See the View of the whole Controversy, which has plainly shewn that the business of the Reflections was to decline an Answer. Man of our Church, went along with this Book through all the several particulars, and shew'd you the contrary. And thus the Calumny goes on; but the Defence we have made, is never like to be consider'd.

2. You seem concerned, that I Reply, Art. ii. p. 6. took so little notice of your second Article about the Nature and Object of Religious Worship; but you do not acknowledg that my Reason was, because it had been fully done in several A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship. Unanswer'd. Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery, &c. Unanswer'd. See for this, also the View of the whole Controversy, which the Representer ha [...] now shewn, is never like to be fairly Answer'd. Treatises on that very Subject, and which lie still unreplied to.

3. You run out into a great length Reply Art. iii. p. 10. about the Invocation of Saints: But is it to Answer any thing we had replied to your Arguments on that Subject? No, tho I directed you to a Speculum B. Virginis. Unanswer'd. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the B. Virgin, and the Saints, in Answer to Mons. de Meaux's Appeal to the 4th Age. Unanswer'd. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints. Unanswer'd. Book purposely written on this Subject, wherein all your Objections are obviated, and from which I have reason to believe you borrow'd some of your Quotations against me; yet you neither take care to prevent the same Replies that have been there [Page 96] made, nor have the Ingenuity so much as once to confess by whom you have profited.

4. Concerning Images, much has pass'd since my Defence came out; the Catholick Representer, 1st and 2d, 5th and 6th Sheets. Representer tri'd all his strength to defend them, but was content to leave the Field: What do you now do? You take his Arguments, you follow his Evasions; but make no new Advance, nor seem at all concern'd to own, that they have been fully Answer to these Sheets; the last yet Unanswer'd. Three Letters to a Person of Quality, about Images; the last Unanswer'd. The Fallibility of the Roman Church, out of the second Nicene and Trent Councils about Images. Unanswer'd. Answer'd some Months since.

5. In the Article of Purgatory, you talk with great assurance about Reply, Art. vii. p. 59. the Intention of the Primitive Church in Praying for the Dead: Which I said in my Exposition, was no proof that they believed a Purgatory. You reply, that those who have been Abused by Me, and others of my Coat, need only read the Fathers, or look into the Nubes Testium for Satisfaction. But, Sir, what must I call this, to be sent to a Book, that has been on that very point Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. Unanswer'd. An Answer is lately publish'd to the whole Book; and we fear will remain like the rest, Unanswer'd. answer'd in every one of his Pretences; and no one has yet appear'd in his Vindication?

6. In the Article of Extreme Unction, you have a A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Unanswer'd. Challenge sent you; and which I am commission'd [Page 97] once more to desire that you will be pleased to accept. In consideration whereof you will not be dissatisfied if I return but little on that subject to you.

7. An Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, by one of the C. R. Defence of the Dublin Letter. Veteres Vindicati, in Answer to Mr. Sclater. Plain Representation of Transubstantiation. Dialogues concerning the Trinity and Transubstantiation. Answer to the Oxford Discourses. Paraphrase upon the VI. of St. John. Six Conferences publisht by Dr. Tenison. The Holy Eucharist has in every respect been fully consider'd. Scripture, Antiquity, Sense, and Reason, all produced against you. What have you here done? You have put together the common Arguments we have a hundred times baffled; and improved nothing to obviate the same Replies. But you, Sir, may expect All Unanswered. from Me, what some others will suddenly have from a much better Hand, a full satisfaction to your pretences; tho in truth neither you nor they could reasonably expect it.

8. For the Pag. 122. Reply. Adoration of the Host, you refer us to the two Oxford Discourses; but you never observe that there have been A Reply to Two Discourses concerning, &c. from Oxford. Unanswered. A Discourse concerning the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host. Unanswered. two Answers made to them. And a A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host, &c. Unanswered. Particular Discourse has past now some time upon this Subject, in which most of your Allegations are prevented, and yet you take no notice of it, but bait us eternally with the same repeated Crambe!

[Page 98] 9. As to the Point of the Mass, you may expect a full A Discourse concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Unanswered. Answer before you receive this. And,

10. A Discourse of Communion in one kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux. For Communion in one kind, when you can either bring some other Arguments than what the Bishop of Meaux has done, or Unanswered. Vindicate those from our Answer to him, you may expect to be consider'd; but else it is a great confidence in you to expect it.

11. A Discourse about Tradition. The Catholick Balance. Unanswered. As to the Point of Tradition, I do not find that any one has yet confuted a particular Treatise about it.

12. Of a Guide in matters of Faith. The Protestant Resolution of Faith. Answer to Reason and Authority, &c. A Discourse concerning a Judg in Controversies. A Plain Discourse concerning the Catholick Church. Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. Two Discourses of Schism and Heresie. The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Vindication of the Answer to certain Papers. All Unanswered. For the Authority of the Church to which you seem particularly to desire my Reply, I do promise you that in due time you shall have it. But because I would not deceive your Expectations, I must tell you freely, I can say nothing but what you have had already in those Excellent Discourses to which I refer you; and which we are apt to think you have found to be more than enough.

3. Sermon upon St. Peter's Day. Sure and Honest means for the Conversion of all Hereticks. The Catholick Balance. For the remaining Points, The Authority of the Holy See, and of the Council of Trent; [Page 99] methinks you should be ashamed Summary of the Controversies between the C. of E. and the R. C. Dr. Barrow of the Popes Supremacy. The Necessity of Reformation, par. 2. to desire any Answer to them, till you first return some Reply to those Learned Men that have so lately written upon them. All Unanswered

14. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession. The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented. For the other Articles which I have passed by, it is not because there has not been enough said to them, but because what has been said, is to be found in those Unanswered. other Treatises to which I have already referred; and I believe when I come to examine your Discourse more particularly, I shall not find any one thing, except a few Cavils, (which indeed are all your own) that will need my Consideration; and those do not deserve it.

You see, Sir, how reasonable a Pretence I might here have to take my leave of you, and not insist any longer on these Points, till you shall think fit, by giving us a Substantial Answer to what has been already offered, to encourage us to make some new Advances against you. But I will not insist upon any of these Things; nor give you cause by my declining a particular Examination of your Reply, to think any better of your Arguments, than I hope by this time you may do of your Reproaches. I will travel with you once more through every Article; and tho in Confideration of these Excellent Treatises I have now mentioned, and which are almost in every bodies hand, I shall only reflect upon your Arguments, and not insist so as if I were particularly to state every Point again; yet I [Page 100] will do it in such a Manner as you shall have no cause to say, I either declined your Difficulties, or was unwilling, if you have any Strength, to Examine it to the Bottom.

And of this you may expect an Account in a little Time. In the mean while, I commend my present Reflections to yours, and both them and you to the Reader's Consideration.

ERRATA.

PAGE xx. l. 27. r. Converters. p. 2. l. 17. r. the Truth. p. 7. l. 10. r. should not then. p. 15. l. 17. r. readily. p. 22. marg. l. 5. r. me l'. p. 27. l. 14. r. decisions. p. 81. l. 19. r. than. p. 85. l. 19. r. than. p. 85. l. 19. r. they. p. 87. l. 3. r. Rever. Qu. Besides a few literal Faults which the Reader is desired to excuse.

FINIS.

POSTSCRIPT.
Being a Full Answer to a Pamphlet Published the Last Night, called, A Third Part of a Papist Misrepresented.

Ecce Iterum Crispinus—

I Little thought when this Last Sheet was sent to the Press, that I should have deprived the World of a more useful Advertisement of the late Tracts that have been Published, for the inglorious Undertaking of Refuting so trifling a Book. But since it is now become the Mode to draw up Full Answers to the most solid Discourses in Single Half-Sheets, I know not why an Author that has nothing in him, may not be exposed in much less Room.

The Sum of his Defence is this, ‘ That we do without all Grounds advance against them a Distinction of Old Pref. p. 14, &c. and New Popery, to make the World believe that 'tis they who Dissemble their Doctrine, not we that Misrepresent it.’ Now this I have at large Answered in the foregoing Discourse, and thereby destroyed the whole Foundation both of his and his Parties present Pretences; and since he observes the Ill Luck his last Adversary had to suppose they had forsaken their Charge, when at that very time the Vindicator was Printing his Reply in Defence Ib. p. 19. of it; I cannot but take notice, that himself is not much more fortunate, to establish the whole stress of his [Page] Cause upon the denial of a Distinction, which is at the same instant shewn by undoubted matter of Fact, to be most just and well-grounded.

For his beloved Elegancies of Bartholomewfair-Booths; false Cards; and Cogging-Dice; of the pretty slights of Legerdemain; of Skrewing Mouths, Distorting Noses, and Ib. p. 1. drawing in Cheeks; for the wonderful tricks of his Friend the Posture-Master in the Pall-Mall, &c. whereby he here, as usually, embellishes his Periods; they sufficiently Pag. 13. shew how very serious this Gentleman esteems the matter of Religion to be, and how well the fineness of a Merry-Andrew's Wit, agrees with the profoundness of a Representers reasoning.

And tho such a Character-maker as this, (who never yet knew what it was to answer an Adversary with good sense, and but seldom with good manners; and has here (I know not how) fallen even below his own self), be more fit to be despised than confuted; yet to satisfie him that his Adversary design'd not any retreat at all by the Method he took of dealing with him, and therefore not Pref. p. 22. an Honourable one (as he pretends:) I do hereby promise him, that he shall not pass, as he deserves, without a consideration: But may expect that which shall abundantly satisfie the World, that he ought, tho there be no great reason to expect that he will at this time of day begin to be ashamed of his Undertaking.

…

[Page] IMPRIMATUR.

Liber cui Titulus, A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England.

H. Maurice R ^mo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Arciepiscopo Cant. a Sacris.

Jan. 24. 1687.

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, Against the New EXCEPTIONS Of Monsieur de MEAUX, AND HIS VINDICATOR.

The Second Part.

LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, MDCLXXXVIII.

THE CONTENTS.

THE ANSWER to the PREFACE.

What little Cause those of the Church of Rome have to complain of the Evils of Heresie and Schism? num. 2, 3.
Whether Papists or Protestants have sought the most advantagious Means for the redressing of them? n. 4.
The Holy Scripture the only sure Foundation whereon to build our Faith, n. 6.
How vain the Attempts of those of the Church of Rome have been in their Disputes against us? n. 9.
Of the several Methods that they have taken in them. n. 10.
Their Complaints of our Misrepresenting their Doctrines and Practices, groundless, n. 18.
Of the first CONVERSION of the English by AUSTIN the Monk, n. 22. 47.
That neither did Austin teach, nor the British Churches believe or Practise as the Church of Rome do's now. n. 24.
That for a long time after Austin, both their Belief and Practice was different from that of the Church of Rome at this day, n. 28.
Of King HENRY VIIIth, EDWARD VIth, Q. MARY, Q. ELIZABETH, and the State of Religion in their days, n. 35.
That the Papists have been under-hand the Causes of our Divisions, n. 42.
Of the State of Religion under K. CHARLES Ist, n. 45.
How far we allow that Salvation is to be had in the Church of Rome? n. 48.
Of the Original of our CIVIL WARS in K. CHARLES Ist's time, n. 51.
[Page] Of the State of Religion under K. CHARLES IId, and K. JAMES IId, and what was the occasion, of our present Controversies and how they have been carried on? n. 52.
What use our READERS ought to make of these Discourses, n. 60. And the Method of my present DEFENCE, n. 64.
The Vindicators Apology for their NEW FRIENDS, n. 67. And his Presumption why they cannot be supposed to palliate their Doctrine, considered, and refuted, n. 68.
The OATH to be taken by a NEW CONVERT, at his admission into the Church of Rome, n. 77.

Introduction.

THat our Adversaries advance nothing New against us, but repeat the same things over and over, without taking the least notice of the Answers that have been given to them.

The ANSWER TO THE First ARTICLE.

THe VINDICATOR an Instance of this. His first Article entirely stolen out of T. G. and confuted by Dr. Stillingfleet above 11 Years since; pag. 45. num. 1.
That the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England, have constantly charged those of the Church of Rome with IDOLATRY, n. 3.
In particular those whom he quotes to the contrary, viz. Dr. Jackson, n. 5. Dr. Field. A. B. Laud. Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndyke, n. 7, 8. and Dr. Hammond, n. 9.
His other little Cavils as to this Point consider'd, n. 12. And the Authority of the Book of HOMILIES asserted, n. 13.
His particular Exceptions against my DEFENCE as to this Article answered: And his shuffling exposed, n. 19, &c.

The ANSWER TO THE Second ARTICLE.

[Page]COncerning the Object of Religious VVorship. p. 55.
That the VINDICATOR has in vain new modelled the B. of MEAUX' s Position, n. 2.
The Scheme which he has laid down to justify the Doctrine and Practice of the Ch. of Rome in giving Religious Worship to others besides God consider'd, in some short Reflections upon the several Parts of it.

The ANSWER TO THE Fourth ARTICLE.

OF the INVOCATION of SAINTS.
Of the State of the Question between us, and the VINDICATOR' s, three Positions for the clearing of it, pag. 65. n. 1, 2.
The Sum of this Article reduced to II. General Points.

I. POINT.

Whether it be lawful to pray to the Saints to PRAY FOR US?
Our Adversaries confess it not to be necessary, n. 4.
That it is unlawful upon the VINDICATOR' s, own Principle so to do, viz. That we may not give any religious Service strictly and properly so called, to any other than God ONLY, n. 5, 6.
That the Act of invoking the Saints is strictly and properly a Religious Act: shewn,
Ist, From the very Nature of the Act it self, n. 7.
It is not an Act of the same kind with that of desiring of our living Brethren to pray for us, n. 8. But attributes to the Creature the Perfections proper to God. ib.
The Bp of Meaux' s shuffling upon this occasion more particularly laid open, n. 11.
[Page] 2dly, From the Circumstances of it, n. 15.
Of the Time, Place, and Manner in which the Romanists invoke their Saints, n. 16.
Of their offering up the Mass to their HONOUR; and desiring its Acceptance through their MERITS, n. 17, &c.
Of their making VOWS to the Saints, n. 19, &c.

II. POINT.

What the true Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, as to the Point of INVOCATION of SAINTS.
The Sum of this Part reduced to IV Considerations.

SECT. I.

Whether all the Prayers that are made to the Saints by those of the Church of Rome, can fairly be reduced to this One Sense, PRAY FOR US?
That they cannot, shewn;
1st, From the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and of its Catechism, n. 25.
2dly, From the Opinion which those of the Church of Rome have, of the State and Power of the Saints departed, n. 30.
3dly, From the neglect of the Council of Trent, and of the Governours of the Church of Rome, either to establish any such Interpretation, or to Censure those that have taught otherwise. n. 33.
4thly, From the words of the Prayers themselves, which utterly refuse such an Exposition. n. 35.
And from the other Service which the Church of Rome allows to the Saints, and which cannot be reconciled with these Pretences. n. 39.
5thly. From the Opinions and Practice of some of the greatest Saints in the Roman Calendar; and of other Persons of especial Note amongst them. n. 40.
Examples of all this. n. 41, &c.
[Page] That the Holy Scripture is in vain alledged to countenance this Superstition. n. 46.

SECT. II.

After what manner it is that the Church of Rome prays to God through the Merits of her SAINTS.
The VINDICATOR's Pretences. n. 49.
That the Church of Rome do's truly pray to God for Mercies, through the Merits of her Saints, n. 51.
The VINDICATOR's Excuses for this, considered and exploded. n. 53.
That the Holy Scripture do's by no meanes countenance any such Practice. n. 54.

SECT. III.

In which the VINDICATOR's Arguments for the Establishing of this Worship are particularly consider'd, and their Weakness laid open. pag. 102.
That the practice of Invocation of Saints, [...]s not to be proved by Holy Scripture. n. 55.
Nor has it the Antiquity that is pretended: shewn in two periods.

1st PERIOD.

That the Custome of Praying to Saints, had no being in the Church for the first 300 Years. v. 57.
The VINDICATOR's Proofs particularly examined, and shewn to be either False, or Ridiculous n. 59.
That the Fathers of the first three Centuries pray'd to God ONLY. n. 66.
My presumption heretofore alledged for this; viz. That those Fathers did not believe that the souls of the Just went immediately to Heaven; justified: and the VINDCATOR's Answer shewn to be insufficient. n. 73.
Sixt [...] Senensis in vain Misrepres [...]d by Him. n. 76.
That this practice did not pass quietly in the following Ages. n. 82.
His pretence that the Fourth General Council pray'd to Flavian both false and impertinent. n. 80.
His little exception of the few Writings that remain of the Primitive Fathers, neither true, [Page] nor to the purpose. n. 78, 85.
How this Practice by degrees crept into the Church? n. 89.

IId. PERIOD.

What Grounds this Superstition had in the Fourth Century?
That most of the Addresses of this Age were rather Rhetorical Flights, than formal Invocations. n. 92.
Eight differences, proposed between what the Fathers of the Fourth Age did, and what those of the Church of Rome do now, as to this Matter. n. 96.
That the Invocation of Saints was never salemnly establish'd in the Church before the latter End of the 8th Century. n. 97. &c.

SECT. IV.

What our Reasons are against this Service.
The true state of the difference betwixt us as to this matter. n. 105.
That the Church of Rome do's exact a complyance in this Practice, & ANATHEMATIZE those who Oppose it. n. 106.
That this is,
1st, Repugnant to God's Holy Word. n. 111.
2dly, Contrary to Antiquity. n. 119.
3dly, Unreasonable in the Constitution. n. 126.
Because,
They are neither certain that the Saints hear their Prayers. n. 127.
Nor that those whom they Pray to are indeed Saints. n. 128.
And Pray to many as such, that never lived in the World. n. 130.
Such were,
S. George. n. 130.
S. Lazarus.
S. Longinus.
S. Christopher.
S. Ursula, &c.
A brief Account of whose Acts is offer'd, and their falseness observed.
A pleasant Relation of a Bishop and Martyr, made out of two words of an ancient Inscription; and the great Miracles that were wrought at his Monument. n. 134.
[Page] That the wiser Papists complain of this Extravagance.
4thly. That it is unprofitable and Impious in the Practise. n. 139.
That it is Unprofitable. n. 139. That it is Impious. n. 143.
Several remakable Instances of Impiety in this practice. n. 147, &c.
The whole conluded with an account of the PROCESSION of the JESUITS of LUXEMBOURG, May 20. 1685. n. 157, &c.

The ANSWER TO THE Fourth ARTICLE. Of IMAGES and RELIQUES.

THE Sum of this Chapter reduced to three General Considerations.

SECT. I.

Of the Benefit of Pictures and Images. n. 4.
Concerning which it is observed:
1st, That the VINDICATOR ought not at this time to confound PICTURES and IMAGES together. n. 6.
2dly, Nor single Figures, and Historical Representations. Ibid. §. 2.
3dly, That it is impertinent to this Point to discourse of the BENEFIT, where the Dispute is concerning the WORSHIP of Images. Ibid. §. 3.
For that,
4thly, No Benefit, were it ever so great, would be able to excuse this. Ibid. §. 4.
5thly, That Images are not useful to the Ignorant, as is pretended. Ibid. §. 5.
6thly, But on the contrary, very pernicious and injurious. Ibid. §. 9.
An Account of Horrible Abuses in many of their Images and Pictures; Viz.
Of GOD the FATHER. n. 7, 8.
Of the HOLY TRINITY. n. 9.
[Page] Of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. n. 10. And of the B. VIRGIN. Ibid. &c.
The Pretence, that there is now no danger of IDOLATRY in all this, proposed; and the way open'd to the refuting of it. n. 15, 16.

SECT. II.

The Charge of Image-Worship made Good; and the Evasions answer'd, by which the VINDICATOR endeavours to excuse his Church from the Guilt of it. n. 17.
This is done in three Particulars.
Ist, The Voice of the Ch. of Rome proposed, in Her Definitions as to this Matter. n. 18, 19.
IIdly, This Voice interpreted by Card. CAPISUCCHI, who approved Monsieur de MEAUX' s Exposition; and to whose Book Mr. de MEAUX himself appeals. n. 20.
After rejecting several Opinions, which in the Cardinal's Judgment did not allow sufficient Honour to Images. n. 21, &c.
He concludes it to be the CHURCHES SENSE, that the SAME Worship is to be given to the IMAGES, as is given to the THINGS represented by them. n. 26.
That Aquinas allow'd Supreme Divine Worship to the CROSS; contrary to the VINDICATOR's Pretences. n. 27.
Some Reflections upon what this Cardinal has said, with reference to the Point before us. n. 28, &c.
An Account of one of the Roman Church lately put into the INQUISITION, for denying the Worship of Images, recommended to the VINDICATOR's Consideration. n. 32, 33.
IIIdly, This farther shewn to be the Sense of the Church of Rome, from those Authorized Practices I alledged in my DEFENCE.
1. The Instance from the Order of Receiving an Emperor, justified. n. 35.
2dly, The Argument from the Office of CONSECRATING [Page] A NEW CROSS made Good; and the VINDICATOR's Evasions shewn to be inconsistent with the Design of it. n. 36.
Of their AGNUS DEI's; and the Superstition that is committed in the Design and Consecration of them. n. 44, 45.
Of HOLY WATER; and the Superstition committed in the Design and Use of it. n. 47.
Of INCENSE. n. 51.
That the Primitive Church used Incense. n. 51. But that this is no Plea for what the Church of Rome do's now.
The Consecrating and Burning of Incense in that Church;
Superstitious. n. 52. Idolatrous. n. 54.
3dly, The Instance of the GOOD-FRIDAY Service farther vindicated: And the Exceptions made against it shewn to be frivolous. n. 56.
That those of the Church of Rome do suppose this to be a good Proof of their paying Divine Worship to the CROSS. n. 60.
Two extravagant Proofs to excuse this Worship from being Idolatrous, proposed and answered. n. 61, 62, 63, &c.
4thly, The Argument taken from the HYMNS of the Church of Rome justified. n. 65.
And the VINDICATOR's Interpretation of them, shewn to be absurd. n. 69.

SECT. III.

That the Church of Rome thus worshipping of Images, is truly and properly guilty of IDOLATRY.
This made good in two Points, n. 76.

I. POINT.

Of the true Nature of IDOLATRY.
The late Notion of IDOLATRY proposed; and that in this sense we do not charge the Church of Rome with it, n. 77.
[Page] What IDOLATRY, according, to the Scripture is; shewn in two Particulars:
Ist, Q. Whether according to the Scripture-Notion of IDOLATRY, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both know and worship the One True GOD? n. 78.
That they may, made manifest from the Instances;
1st, Of the Golden Calf; n. 80.
2dly, Of the Calves of Dan and Bethel, n. 86.
Other Arguments to make good the Affirmative of this Question: n. 93.
That this was the Notion of the Primitive Fathers, n. 94.
And is confess'd by the principal Authors of the Church of Rome it self, n. 97.
IIdly, Q. How this may be done by them?
Two ways proposed from what has before been said, viz.
1st, By worshipping the true God after an Idolatrous manner, n. 101.
2dly, By giving Divine Worship to any other besides Him, n. 103.

II. POINT.

That the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images is truly and properly guilty of IDOLATRY.
This shewn according to the VINDICATOR's desire in two different respects:
Ist, With reference to those who hold that Images are to be worshipped with the same Worship as the things which they represent, n. 108.
IIdly, As it concerns their Opinions, who denying, this, yet allow an inferiour, Honour to them, n. 113.

OF RELIQUES.

Two things proposed to be proved in answer to the VINDICATOR's Exceptions:
Ist, That those of the Church of Rome do truly and properly worship the RELIQUES of their Saints.
[Page] For their Expressions it is undeniable, n. 121.
That their Practice is agreeable to their Words; shewn,
1st, In the instance of that Worship which they give to the Wood of the true Cross, n. 122.
2dly, To all the other RELIQUES that have ever touch'd our Saviour Christ, n. 124.
3dly, From their allow'd practice of swearing by them, n. 125.
A famous Story of S. GURIA for the illustrating of this matter, n. 126.
4thly, From their other Practices; especially their carrying of them in Procession, an instance whereof is given from the Roman Pontifical, n. 127, &c.
IIdly, That they do seek to them for Help and Assistance.
My Interpretation of the Council of Trent in reference to this Point made good, against the new Pretences of the VINDICATOR, n. 129.
The thing it self justified from the Publick Prayers of that Church, n. 130.
And from a memorable Instance of a Prince of the Family of the Dukes of Radzevil; with which the whole is concluded.

ERRATA.

PAge 3. of the Contents, for Fourth Article, read Third Article. P. 6. num. 9. line 4. r. our Schism. P. 8. n. 14. l. 5. r. Err. P. 11. n. 21. l. 3. uncertain, r. unsincere. P. 18. n. 35. l. 17. r. Their Usurpations. P. 25. l. 9. r. were now. P. 32. n. 57. l. 7. del. after all. P. 48. n. 9. l. 6. Images, r. Angels. P. 87. l. 1. r. recising. P. 114. Marg. Expos. r. Def. of the Expos. P. 120. Marg. r. lib. Carol. P. 127. Marg. r. Reg. Moral. 80. P. 133. l. 27. For and I, del. and. P. 137. n. 154. l. 5. r. Moliri. Pervicaciâ. P. 138. l. 4. r. Curarum. P. 167. l. ult. for V. r. Vlth Cent. P. 187. n. 119. l. 3. r. upon a verbal. P. 190. n. 124. l. 15. Cloth with which. P. 194. l. 25. and only, del. and. P. 196. n. 132. l. 1. r. Radzevil.

The Pages are interrupted in two places, pag. 60. and p. 160.

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

THE Design of your Preface seems reducible to these two Points, viz.

I. Of the State of the Controversy between the Papists and Protestants in general. And,
II. Of the Disputes that have heretofore been, and are at this day managed against you, by Us of this Church in particular.

2. Ad pag. 1.] The former of these you introduce with a short harangue of ‘ the Mischief which Heresie and Schism bring along with them, not only to the individual Persons that are guilty of them, but also to the Nations in which they are propagated. You represent to us the miserable Broils, and other worse Consequences that have attended these Controversies of Religion in this and the last Age:’ And from thence you conclude, ‘ how much they are to be commended who labour to establish Truth and Unity, and those to be condemned, who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other.’

3. Answ.] To all which I have only this to reply; that we need no Arguments to convince us of these things. There are none more sensible of the Mischiefs of Schism and Heresie than we are; or that do more truly lament the Divisions that are in [Page 2] the Church, or would more heartily contribute, what in us lies, to the closing of them. But then as we have good cause to believe both from the Authority of Holy Scripture, and from the Nature of Mankind, that whilst there is a Devil in Hell, and Men of Interest and Designs upon Earth, there shall also be Heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest: So we 1 Cor. xi. 19. cannot but complain that those should be the most forward to charge us both with the Guilt and Mischief of them, at whose doors the Crime, and therefore the Evil Consequences of it, will one day be found to lie. The former of these, it will be the business of the following Discourse to make good: And for the latter, whosoever shall impartially consider the Origen of those Broils with which the World has, you say, been agitated in this and the last Age upon the account of Religion; not to mention those other Mischiefs of Treasons, Plots, Massacres, Persecutions, and the like, will soon be convinced who they are that have cause to complain of these Evils. For what you add,

4. Ibid.] ‘ That they who will but impartially consider matters, will find that Catholicks have upon all occasions sought the most Advantageous Means to procure this Christian Peace; tho to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this Good Work.’

Answ.] I do not well know what you design by it. If by the most Advantageous Means, you understand those Means of Knowledg which God has given us whereby to come to discern the Truth of Religion; such as, 1. A diligent reading of the Holy Scriptures, the using of all imaginable Assistances for the understanding the sense of them, by studying the Original Languages in which they were written, searching of Antiquity, collating parallel places, and the like. 2. The divesting of our selves of our Prejudices, and forming in our Minds an impartial desire to find out the Truth, with an honest readiness to embrace it, on what side soever it lies. And lastly, to all this add our earnest Prayer to God for his Grace to bless and prosper our Endeavours; these I confess are the best Means to discover Christian Truth; and to exhort all others to the use of them, the most advantageous way to promote it. But then I cannot imagine why you should seem to appropriate these Means to your [Page 3] selves, as if you only sought Truth and Peace by them; seeing it cannot be deny'd but that We have employ'd all these with as great diligence as you can pretend to have done it. But now some other Means indeed there are, which you have pursu'd, and which it may be you understand by this Expression: and then We neither deny your Assertion, nor envy you the Glory of being singular in your Endeavours of procuring Peace by them. Such are, 1. The Means of Force and Violence; your Holy Leagues, and private Treacheries, your Inquisitions, Plots, Persecutions, and such like. 2. The Means of Fraud and Deceit, your false Expositions and Misrepresentations of your Doctrine to deceive the ignorant and unwary, till you get them into your Nets. 3. The Means of Confidence and Uncharitableness, your bold Anathema's and vain thundrings of Damnation against all that differ from you, your assuming the Name and Priviledges of the Church Catholick to your single Communion, and excluding all others out of it, as Schismaticks and Hereticks. And lastly, to mention no more, the Means of gross Ignorance, and blind Obedience; by depriving Men of their liberty of reading the Holy Scripture, by keeping your Service in an unknown Tongue, by teaching Men to depend intirely upon your Churches Dictates, and not to depart from them, tho Sense, Reason, Scripture, all be contrary to them. These are, I confess, some of those peculiar Means whereby you have sought to procure Christian Peace; and Experience tells you, that they are indeed the most advantageous of any to the Cause you have to defend. And if these be the Means which you say we have opposed, I hope we shall always continue so to do, and rather bear all the Evils of these Divisions, than either buy Peace upon such Terms, or pursue it by such Means as these.

5. Ad p. 2, 3.] To what I observed from the late Methods that had been taken up in our Neighbour Country to avoid the entring upon particular Disputes, which I said you were sensible had been the least favourable of any to your Cause, you reply, ‘ That you have never declined fighting with us at any Weapon:’ which how true it is, the account before given of your managing the present Controversie with us sufficiently declares. And indeed you seem in some sort to have been sensible of it; and therefore recur to your Antient Authors for proof of your Assertion. The Sum of what you say is this:

[Page 4] 6. Reply.] ‘ That there have been three sorts of Protestants since the Reformation; 1. Some who appealed to Scripture only, neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils. 2. Others who perceived that they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture, and despairing of Fathers and Councils of latter Ages, pretended at least to admit of the first four General Councils, and of the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years. 3. Others finally who ventured to name Tradition as a useful Means to arrive at the true Faith.’ And all these you say you have convinced of their Errors.

7. Answ.] It has always been your way to multiply Sects and Divisions among Protestants as much as ever you were able, and then to complain against us upon the account of them; and here you have given us a notable Instance of it. The three Opinions you have drawn out as so many different Parties amongst us, do all resolve into the very same Principle: ‘ That the Holy Scripture is the only, perfect, and sufficient Rule of Faith:’ So that all other Authorities, whether of Fathers, or Councils, or unwritten Tradition, are to be examined by it, and no farther to be admitted by us than they agree with it. This is in effect the common belief of all Protestants whatsoever, as appears from their several Confessions, and might easily be shewn out of the Writings of our first Reformers, and the most eminent of those who have lived since, and built their Faith upon the same Foundation. It is true indeed, there have been some who, the better to maintain their Separation from the Church of England, have from this sound Principle, That nothing is to be received by us as a Matter of Faith, but what is either plainly expressed in the Holy Scripture, or can Evidently be proved by it, drawn a very ill Consequence, viz. That nothing might lawfully be done or used in the Worship of God, unless there were some Command or Example for it in Scripture; and have by this means run themselves into great Inconveniences. But the Rule of Faith, which an uninterrupted Tradition, by the common consent of all Parties of Christians; however otherwise disagreeing in other Points, has brought down to us, and delivered into our hands as the Word of God, this has among all Protestants been ever the [Page 5] same, viz. The Holy Scripture. And if for the farther proof of the Truth of our Doctrine, we have at any time put the issue of our Cause to the decision of the Church of the first three or four hundred Years, it is not because we suppose that those Fathers who then lived; have any more right to judg us, or determine our Faith, than those that follow'd after; but because upon examination we find them to have yet continued (at least as to the common Belief received and establish'd amongst them) in their Purity; and that what was generally establish'd and practised by them, was indeed conformable both to their and our Rule, the Word of God.

8. This then is our Common Principle, and this you cannot deny to be most reasonable. For whatsoever Authority you would have us give to those Holy Fathers, yet it cannot be doubted, but that,

1st, Being Durandus. l. 4. Sent. d. 7. q. 4. de S. Gregorio; Nescio cur non possit dici quòd Gregorius cum fuerit Homo, non Deus, potuerit Errare. Men subject to the same Infirmities with our selves, they were by consequence obnoxious to Errors as well as we; and therefore may not without all examination be securely follow'd by us.

Especially if we consider, 2dly, That we are expresly forbid in Holy Scripture, to rely on any Persons whatsoever without enquiry, whether what they teach be true or not: ‘ Dearly Beloved, (says St. John) believe not every Spirit, but 1 John 4. 1. try the Spirits whether they be of God or no.’ The same is St. Paul's Doctrine, To prove all things, and then hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5. 21. St. Peter exhorts all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the 1 Pet. 3. 15. Hope that is in them: And our Blessed Saviour himself once gave the same encouragement, of examining even his own Doctrine; And why (says he) of your selves do you not judg that which is Luke 12. 57. right?

Nay but, 3dly, these Holy Fathers were not only capable of Erring, but in many things they actually did Err, and are forsaken by you upon that account. The Millenary Opinion was generally received in the first Ages of the Church. They derived it from St. John to Papias, from him to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melito, Tertullian, &c. Yet is this Opinion now rejected by you. The Doctrine of the necessity of Communicating Infants, was the Common Doctrine of the Fathers in S. Austin's Time; and is confess'd by your most Learned Men, Cardinal Perron and Others to have been generally practised in the [Page 6] Church for the first six hundred Years: Yet have you Anathematized Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 4. those who shall now assert, with those Fathers, that there is any necessity at all of communicating Children before they come to Years of discretion. I need not say what Heats arose between One of your own Popes and St. Cyprian about rebaptizing of Hereticks; and both of them in the wrong. The Ancient Fathers generally believed, that the Souls of the Blessed do not yet enjoy the Vision of God: But from the time of Pope John the XXII. the contrary is become the Catholick Doctrine among you. The necessity of communicating in both kinds, was believed in the Time of Pope Gelasius, and the Council of Constance, De Consecr. Dist. 2. Sess. 13. in that very Canon in which it took away the Cup from the Laity, yet confess'd that Christ had establish'd it in both kinds, and the Church constantly administred and received in both kinds, Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1. in obedience to his Institution: but 'tis now no less than damnation to say, that one kind alone is not sufficient. In the primitive Church it was generally received, that the Souls of the Faithful, after they are deliver'd from the burden of the Flesh, are in Joy and Felicity. Now you teach that they go first to Purgatory, a place of Pain and Sorrow, inferior in nothing but the duration, to Hell it self.

Other Instances I might add to shew, that you your selves do no otherwise follow the Fathers, than as you esteem them to have follow'd the Truth, and therefore have thought fit to forsake them in the several Points I before mentioned: And therefore certainly you ought not to condemn us, if we pay no other deference to them: nor appeal to them but only as Witnesses of the Doctrine of the Church in those Times, not as Judges and Masters of our Faith.

9. Ad Pag. IV.] Reply. ‘ And in all these several ways you say you have shewn us to be Mistaken, insomuch that there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against your Faith, or to justify your Schism, but what has been abundantly Answer'd and Refuted.’

10. Answ.] This, Sir, is a Boast which I believe the World will think you might very well have spared at this time. I need not send you back, as you have done us, to our Ancient Authors; and desire you once more to consider what has been offer'd, both from Scripture and Antiquity, by Monsieur de Mornay, [Page 7] Aubertine, Chamiere, Blondell, Daillé, Larrogue, and Others abroad; by Bishop Jewel, Bishop Morton, A. B. Usher, Dr. J. Forbes, Dr. White, Dr. Barrow, and many more of our own Country: and whose Names among the wisest even of your own Church are much more valued, than for a Coccius or a Brerely to be able to obscure them. I appeal only to the present Times to witness against you; and would intreat you, before you tell us any more of your Performances, to give some good Reply to that Catalogue I have sent you of above fourty Treatises lately published in all these kinds of Arguments that you speak of; and your declining of which do's not very well suit with such vain Pretences.

11. Ibid.] You add; ‘ That you have so far complied with the Infirmities of your Adversaries, that you have left no Stone unturn'd to reduce them to the Unity of the Faith, and that by meekness as well as powerful Reasoning.’

12. Answ.] It must be confess'd indeed that you have not been wanting in your Endeavours to convert us. Your Zeal has even equall'd that which our Saviour Christ once remark'd, or rather reproved in your Predecessors the Scribes and Pharisees: and I would to God it had not too often produced the same Effect also. As for the Means that you have made use of for the carrying on of this Work, I have already in part recounted them to you. And shall only now add, that if your Meekness has been no greater, than your Arguments have been powerful, we shall have as little cause to applaud the One, as we have hitherto had to be convinced by the Other. And indeed whosoever shall consider your behaviour towards those you call Hereticks; will find that some Other word would better have suited your Character than that of Meekness. If there be any, who deluded by your present pretences of Moderation doubt this, let them look only upon the Actions of a neighbour Kingdom, and whose Clergy has ever been esteemed the most moderate of your Church. For if such a deportment as theirs towards our Brethren, be the Meekness you boast of; I shall only beg leave to say with Solomon, that then the tender Mercies of some Prov. 12. 10. Men are Cruel. But you go on to shew us wherein you have [Page 8] made a testimony of this Meekness: You say,

13. Ibid.] ‘ You have not only condescended to satisfy the curiousity of them that have more leisure by writing large Volumes upon every particular Controversy—but you have gone a shorter way to work; and to some have manifested the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ, against which he had promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail. Others you have shew'd it from the nature of Truth and Error, and the Impossibility that a Universal Tradition could fail, especially when God had promised that the Words He would put into their Mouths, should not depart out of their mouths, nor out of the Mouths of their Seed, nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds seed, from hence forth and for Ever. To others you have proved the Innocence and Antiquity of your Doctrine from the testimony of learned Protestants themselves.’

14. Answ.] This indeed was a great Condeseension; that being so well satisfied on all these accounts that you had the Truth your selves, you should so far vouchsafe, as for our sakes, to prove that you had so. But truly, unless you can produce some better proof that your Church cannot Error than this, that our Saviour once said of his Church, That the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, you will never satisfy any reasonable Man of it. How often, Sir, have you been told, that here is something indeed to establish the Perpetuity of the Church, but nothing of its Infallibility. Unless you will suppose (what you know we utterly deny) that the Church cannot subfist except it be infallible in every Point. The Church may fall into many Errors, and yet continue a Church still. A Man is never the less a Man, because he has an Ague, or some other Distemper upon Him. And whilst the Church thus subsists, Christ's Promise is made good, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it. Though now, 2dly, Were the Infallibility of the Church in this Text clear to a Demonstration, yet still the main Thing would be wanting, how to prove your Church to be the Catholick Church, and to have alone the right to this Promise, which for ought appears from this Passage any Other may pretend to upon as good grounds as She.

[Page 9] 15. Again; As to the Point of Tradition, With what confidence can you say it is impossible that should fail, seeing the Instances I have before given of your departure from the Tradition of the Primitive Fathers in so many particulars, plainly show that it has fail'd? For your argument which you alledge from Isa. 59. 20. It has the same Faults with the foregoing, and one more. For that passage; 1st, If it speaks any thing at All of these Matters, it is for the Perpetuity, not Infallibility of the Church. 2dly, That there is not One word in it of any priviledg, either in the One or the Other kind bestow'd upon your Church in particular; and the Greek, or any other Church may as reasonably argue from it as your selves. Nay, 3dly, 'Tis plain from the Context that it do's not belong to any of us, ‘the Covenant here spoken of being made with Zion, and those that turn from Transgression in Jacob;’ that is (as St. Paul himself applies it, Rom. 11.) to the Covert Jews, when they shall come in and embrace the Gospel of Christ.

16. And for your last Method, the Concessions of Protestants themselves, this will but little avail you: seeing if it could be proved that any of our particular Writers had said some things in favour of your Doctrine, this would be of no force against any but themselves, any farther than their Arguments shall upon Examination be found to warrant their Assertions. We have often told you, that our Faith depends not on any Humane Authority. Such Concessions may shew the weakness or Error of him that made them, but they are nothing available to prescribe against the Truth of the Gospel. And this, I say, supposing that you could produce the Opinions of Protestants (as you pretend) in favour of your Doctrines! But now let me tell you, the Collection to which you refer us, has been found so very insincere by those who have had occasion to examine it, that should we allow these kind of Authorities to be as conclusive against us as you can desire, you would not yet be able either to advantage your selves, or to convince any others by them.

17. Ad Pag. 5.] You see, Sir, what little reason we have to expect very much from these Methods, which in your great Humility you have condescended to make use of in order to our Conversion. And we cannot but congratulate our good Fortune, that you seem to tell us you have yet some better Arguments [Page 10] in reserve; those which you say MIGHT have been brought to prove the Authority of your Church. And though you think us so fond of flying off to particular Disputes, that no Arguments can keep us from them; yet I do hereby promise you, that when-ever you shall have clearly made out this Proposition, That the Church of Rome is Infallible, and whatsoever she proposes to be received by us is the truly Catholick Faith, without which there is no Salvation; and then shew me, How I shall infallibly know, amidst so many different Proposals of her Doctrine, what that Faith is which this Church teaches as necessary to that End; I will from thenceforth become as blindly obedient a Disciple, as the most implicit Believer whose Credulity you have ever yet imposed upon with these Pretences.

18. Ibid.] For your next Allegation, That you could never get us to take your Doctrine aright, if what I have heretofore said be not sufficient; I will once more put you in mind that you must first resolve to answer from Point to Point, the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented, before you can expect to be credited by us. And if from what we have truly said concerning you, you are indeed grown to be look'd upon (in your own words) to be as bad as Devils, and your Doctrines as the Dictates of Hell it self; though I believe in this excess you do something misrepresent both your selves and us; you may attribute it if you please to our Calumnies against you, but I believe all indifferent Persons will be able to find out some better Reasons for it.

19. Ad Pag. 6.] As for your Expositions which you from hence thought fit to publish to the World, as your last reserve for our Conversion; the World is sufficiently satisfied with what sincerity you have proceeded in them. And for what you add, in the close of this first Point, concerning the Character of the Times that we are fallen into, such as you say S. Paul foretold, in which Men will not endure sound Doctrine; it is indeed too true, but withal it is such a Complaint as is equally made on all hands, whilst every one thinks his own way the best. But I will, in return, send you to another Character of the same Apostle concerning these Days, which is all your own, 2 Thess. 2. vers. 3, to the 13th; and I think it is so plain, that you may without an infallible Interpreter understand the meaning of it.

[Page 11] 20. And thus far you pursue the former Consideration, of the state of the Controversy between the Papists and Protestants in general. Your next work is to give some accounts of your Disputes with us of this Church in particular.

21. You begin with the History of the first Conversion of the English by Augustine the Monk, sent hither by Pope Gregory the Great. But your account of it is so very uncertain, that I would willingly hope, however you quote Bede for it, yet that you never read one word of him, but took it upon the Credit of one of your New Converts, whose Errors in this Point you Reason and Authority. have as blindly embraced, as his Book testifies him to have most implicitly taken up your Prevarications.

22. Ad Pag. 7.] Reply. You tell us, That ‘ notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome, and the Members of that Communion, occasion'd by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the reign of Pagan Kings, yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation. For S. Augustine found only two Customs amongst them which he could not tolerate, the One their keeping Easter at a wrong time, and the Other some Errors in the Ceremonies in Administring Baptism. These two he earnestly sollicited them to Amend, but they were Obstinate, and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points, TILL God was pleased to testify his Mission, and the Authority he came with, by the Authentick Seal of Miracles.’

22. Answ.] In which Relation you are many ways mistaken. For, 1st, As to the intercourse that you say was a long time lost between Rome and the British Churches, by reason of the Persecutions of Pagan Kings; this is not easy to be credited: It being the middle of the 5th Century e're the Romans left this Island, and the Saxons were called into it. It was near the middle of the 6th before the Britains were disposses'd of the rest of their Country, and forced to retrench themselves within the Mountains of Wales. During all this time their intercourse with Rome, if they had any, might well have continued; and it was not fifty Years after, that Austin the Monk came into England. 2dly, you say, that Austin found only two [Page 12] Customs among the Christians here that he could not tollerate. 'Tis true indeed, upon the second meeting that he had with the Brittish Bishops, he told them, ‘ That though in many things they were contrary to the custom of his Church, yet if in those two mentioned Eede Lib. 2. c. 2. they would obey him, and joyn with him in preaching the Gospel to the Saxons, he would bear with them in the rest:’ But did they therefore acknowledg his Authority in complying with his Desires? so you would make us believe. ‘ They were Obstinate, say you, TILL God was pleased to testify his Mission, and the Authority he came with by the Authentick Seal of Miracles.’ As for his Miracles, we have no great Opinion of their Authority, since we read in the passage to which I just now referr'd you, that Antichrist himself shall come with this Attestation. It is the Doctrine that must give credit to the Miracles, not these to the Doctrine. Should an Angel from Heaven Gal. [...]. 9. preach any other Gospel than that which we have received, St. Paul has commanded us, for all the Wonder, to bid him be Anathema. But I return to the History, in which you so notoriously prevaricate, that I cannot imagine how one that pretends in this inquisitive Age to deliver the Antiquities of his own Country, durst betray himself so notoriously ignorant of it. See, Sir, the words of your own Author Bede, expresly contrary to Bede. Loc. cit. your Allegation. ‘ But they answer'd, that they would do nothing of all this, nor receive him for an Arch-Bishop.’ Insomuch that Austin came to high words with them, threatning them with that Destruction which they afterwards, to their cost, met with from his new Saxon Converts. And your illustrious Annalist Card. Baronius, cannot forbear making some severe Reflections upon the State of our Island at that Time, as if God Baron. Annal. Tom. 8. An. 604. had therefore given it into the hands of the Barbarians, because of the refractory and schismatical Minds of these Bishops.

23. Ibid.] Reply. ‘ Your Adversaries (you say) acknowledg, that when St. Austin came into England, he taught most, if not all the same Doctrines the Roman Catholick Church now teaches, &c.’

24. Answ.] If S. Austin (as you call him) taught the same Doctrine which Pope Gregory the Great taught, who sent him [Page 13] hither, and whose Disciple we are told he was, I must then put you in Mind that a very Learned Man has lately shew'd you (and I may reasonably presume you could not but know it) that he did not teach most, much less all the Doctrines which you now teach. No, Sir, the Mystery of Iniquity was not yet come to Perfection; and tho your Church had even then in many things declined from its first Faith, yet was it much more pure than now it is. Had you when you took this Pretence from Protestants Apology, p. 57, &c. 2d Edit. your Friend Mr. Brerely, look'd into the Answer that was at large made to it; I am perswaded you would have been asham'd to have again advanced so false and trifling an Objection. Look, Sir, I beseech you into the Protestants Appeal, or if that Prot. Appeal, lib. 1. cap. 2. be too much for one of your Employments, look into the Treatise to which I refer you: There you will find, 1. That the Vind. of the Answ. of some late Pape [...]s, p. 72, &c. Scripture was yet received as a perfect Rule of Faith. 2. The Books of the Maccabees, which you now put into your Canon, rejected then as Apochryphal. 3. That Good Works were not yet esteem'd meritorious: Nor, 4. Auricular Confession a Sacrament. That, 5. Solitary Masses were disallow'd by him: And, 6. Transubstantiation yet unborn. That 7. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was hitherto administred in both kinds: And, 8. Purgatory it self not brought either to certainty or to perfection. That by consequence, 9. Masses for the Dead were not intended to deliver Souls from those Torments: Nor, 10. Images allow'd for any other purpose than for Ornament and Instruction. 11. That the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was yet unform'd; and even 12. The Pope's Supremacy so far from being then establish'd as it now is, that Pope Gregory thought it to be the fore-running of Antichrist, for one Bishop to set himself above all the rest. These are the Instances in which you have been shewn the vast difference there is between Pope Gregory's Doctrine, and that of the Council of Trent; and which may serve for a Specimen to satisfie the World with what Truth you pretend, that we acknowledg that S. Austin when he came into England, taught most, if not all the same Doctrines that you now teach. And this may also suffice for your next Argument founded upon it, viz.

25. Add pag. 7, 8.] Reply: ‘ That these Doctrines and Practices were either then taught and exercised by the British [Page 14] Christians also, or they were not. If they were not taught by them, certainly we should not have found them so easily submitting to them. If they were taught by the British Bishops also, then they were of a longer standing than S. Austin' s time: and we must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here, or evidently shew some other time before St. Austin when this Church embraced them.’

26. Answ.] A Dilemma is a terrible thing with Sense and Truth, but without them 'tis a ridiculous one; as I take this to be. For,

1. It is evident from what I have before said, that Austin did not teach the same Doctrines, nor establish the same Practices that you do now teach and establish; but did indeed in most of your Corruptions differ from you. So that like the unwise Builder, you have erected a stately Fabrick, and founded it upon the Sand.

2. Had he been as very a Romish Missionary as your self, yet is your Argument still inconclusive. For whereas you suppose the Brittish Bishops submitted to him, they were on the contrary so far from either obeying his Authority, or following his Prescriptions, that, as I have shewn you, they utterly rejected both: and I will presently add, that for above a hundred Years after his Death, they utterly refused so much as to communicate with his Proselytes, nor esteem'd them any more than Pagans. So that I may now turn your own Argument upon you, that seeing they had such an Abhorrence for Austin and his Followers, that they look'd upon them no better than Heathens, it very probably was, because they neither approved what he taught, nor saw any cause to submit to that Authority to which he pretended. You see, Sir, what an admirable Argument you here flourish with; and how little cause we have to expect any great Sincerity from you in other matters, when in the very History of your own Country you so wretchedly prevaricate, and against the express Authority of that very Person whom you quote for your Relation.

27. Having thus given us a proof either of your Skill or your Integrity in the account of the first Conversion of our Island under Pope Gregory the Great; you next make a very large step as to [Page 15] the progress of your Religion, and such as still confirms me more and more, how very unfit you are to turn Historian.

28. Add pag. 8.] Reply. ‘ This Faith and these Exercises (say you) taught and practised by St. Austin were propagated down even till King Henry the VIIIth's time.’

Answ.] In which account, whether we are to complain of your Ignorance or your Unsincerity, be it your part to determine; this I am sure, they cannot both be excused.

29. I have already shewn you that that Faith which was found in the Church of England in King Henry the VIIIth's time could not have been propagated down from the time of Austin's coming hither, seeing that Monk neither taught nor practised the greatest part of those Corruptions which were afterwards by degrees brought into ours, as well as into the other Churches of the Roman Communion. But however not to insist upon this Fundamental Mistake: Can you, Sir, with any Conscience affirm, that the Doctrine which you now teach was till King Henry the VIIIth's time without interruption received and practised in this Country?

30. First; For the Brittish Bishops whom you before bring in as submitting themselves to Austin; your own Author Bede expresly declares that in his time (which was an hundred Years after the Death of Austin) they entertain'd no Communion with them. ‘ Seeing (says he) to this very day it is the Custom of Lib. 2. cap. 20. the Britains to have no value for the Faith and Religion of the English, nor to communicate with them any more than with Pagans.’ Which Henry of Huntingdon thus confirms: ‘ That neither Lib. 3. Hist. the Britains nor Scots, (i. e. Irish) would communicate with the English, or with Austin their Bishop any more than with Pagans.’ So that for one Age, at least, the British Bishops then neither own'd the Authority of your Church, nor had any manner of Communion with the Members of it. But,

31. Secondly; Have you never heard of some other Kings of England, who, with their Parliaments, have most stifly opposed the Pretences of the Pope, and refused all Messages from Him, and made it no less than High-Treason for any one to bring his Orders or Interdicts into the Kingdom? What think you of another Henry, no less brave than his Successor, whom [Page 16] you so revile, in his Defence of himself against his Rebellious Subject, but your Saint, Thomas a Becket? I could add many Acts of Parliament made long before King Henry the VIIIth's time to shew you, that tho he indeed proved the most successful in his Attempts to shake off the Pope's Authority, yet that several other of our Princes had shewn him the way, and that the Usurpations of that See were neither quietly own'd, nor patiently submitted to by his Royal Predecessors. And then,

32. Thirdly; For the matter of your Doctrine, it must certainly be a great piece of Confidence in you to pretend that this came down such as you now believe and practise, from the time of Austin the Monk, to King Henry the VIIIth's days. I speak not now of the great Opposition that was made to it by Wickleffe, tho supported by the Duke of Lancaster, the Lord Marshall of England, and divers others of chiefest note in this Kingdom, in the time of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second. I need not say in how many Points he stood up against the Doctrine of your Church; what a mighty Interest he had to support him against the Authority of the Pope, and the Rage of the Bishop of London and his other Enemies on that account; so as both freely to preach against your Errors, and yet die in Peace in a good old Age. The number of his Followers was almost infinite, and tho severe Laws were afterwards made against them, yet could they hardly ever be utterly rooted out. But yet, least you should say that Wickleffe was only a Schismatick from your Church, which constantly held against him; I will rather shew you in a few Instances, that even the Church of England it self, which you suppose to have been so conformable to your present Tenets, was in truth utterly opposite to your Sentiments in many Particulars. And because I may not run out into too great a length, I will insist only upon two, but those very considerable Points.

33. The first is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: which as it came but late into the Roman Church, so did it by Consequence into ours too. Certain it is, that in the 10th Century the contrary Faith was publickly taught among us. Now, not to insist upon the Authority of Bede, who in several parts of his Works, plainly shews how little he believed your Doctrine of Trans [...]bstantiation; this is undeniably evident from the Saxon Homily translated by Aelfrick, and appointed in the Saxons [Page 17] time to be read to the People at Easter before they received the Holy Communion; and which is from one end to the other directly opposite to the Doctrine of the Real Presence as establish'd by your Council of Trent. And the same Aelfrick in his Letters to Wulfine Bishop of Scyrburne, and to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, shews his own Notions to have been exactly correspondent to what that Homily taught. ‘ The Housell (says he) is Christes Bodye not bodelye, but ghostlye. Not the Bodye which he suffred in, but the Bodye of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wyne to Housell a night before his suffring, and said by the blessed Bread, Thys is my Bodye, and agayne by the holy Wyne, This is my Bloud which is shedd for manye in forgiveness of Sins. Understand nowe that the Lord who could turn that Bread before his suffering to his Bodye, and that Wyne to his Bloude ghostlye, that the selfsame Lorde blesseth dayly through the Priestes handes Bread and Wyne to his ghostlye Bodye and to his ghostlye Bloud.’ All which he more fully explains in his other Letter. Nay it appears H. de Knyghton de Event. Anglice l. 5. p. 2647, 2648. by a Recantation of Wickleffe mention'd by Knyghton, that even in the latter time of that Man's Life there was no such Doctrine then in England as Transubstantiation publickly imposed as an Article of Faith. By all which it is evident that your great Doctrine of the Real Presence with all its necessary Appendages, was not, as you pretend, propagated down from Austin's to King Henry the Eight's time, but brought in to the Church some hundreds of Years after that Monk died.

34. The other Instance I shall offer to overthrow your Pretences is no less considerable, viz. the Worship of Images. It is well known what Opposition was made not only by the Emperor Charles the Great, and the Fathers of the Synod of Franckfort, but by the French Clergy in their Synod at Paris, and by almost all the rest of the Bishops of the Western Church against your pretended General Council of Nice, wherein this Doctrine was first establish'd. The Definitions of this Council being sent to the Emperour out of the East, he transmitted a Copy of them into England. Hereupon Alcuinus, who had formerly been his School-master, wrote an Answer to him in the Name of the Clergy of England, to declare their dislike of this Doctrine: and the account of which our ancient Histories give us in these words. ‘ In the Year from the Incarnation [Page 18] of our Lord 792 Charles King of France sent to Britain a Synode Hoveden. Annal. ad Ann. 792. Simeon Dunelm. Hist. p. 111. Mat. West. ad An. 793. Spelm. Conc. Tom. 1. p. 306. Booke which was directed unto him from Constantinople: in the which Book alas! many things unconvenient and contrarye to the true Fayth were found: in especial, that it was establyshed with a whole consent almost of all the Learned of the East, no less than of three hundredth Bishops or more, that Men ought to worship Images, the whiche the Churche of God DOTH UTTERLYE ABHORRE. Against the whiche Alcuine wrote an Epistle wonderouslye proved by the Authoritye of Holy Scripture, and brought that Epistle with the same Booke, and Names of our Byshops and Princes to the King of France.’ And thus neither was this Doctrine nor Practice propagated down from Austin to King Henry the Eighth; but on the contrary unknown to Austin, and rejected as you see by the Church of England, almost 200 Years after his first Conversion of it.

35. Ibid.] And this may suffice to shew both your Skill in Church-History, and the little pretence you have for that vain and most false Assertion, ‘ that your Religion was taught and practised by S. Austin, and propagated down even to King Henry the Eighth' s time;’ whereas indeed it is made up of such Corruptions as crept into it long after his Decease. Your next business is to rail at King Henry the Eighth, which you do very heartily, tho let me tell you that better Men than See [...]h [...]anus. you are, even of your own Commuion, and who were much more acquainted with the Affairs of those Times, speak better things of him. And had he been as bad as you are able to represent him, yet I could send you to some of the Heads of your Church, who have as far excell'd him in Wickedness as ever any of your Canonists have pretended they did in Authority. But the Merits of Princes, as well as ordinary Persons, are measured by some Men, not according to their real worth, but as they have served their Interests, or opposed the Usurpations. And tho King Henry the Eighth be now such a Monster, yet had he not thrown off the Pope's Supremacy, you would have made no difficulty to have forgiven him all his other Sins whilst he lived, and would have found out somewhat to justify his Memory now he is dead. We know how one of the best Popes of this last thousand Years called Heaven and Earth to celebrate the Praises of a Traytor that had murder'd his Master, [Page 19] and possess'd himself of his Empire. And Cromwell himself, tho a Usurper, and Heretick, yet wanted not his Panegyrists among those pretenders to Loyalty, who now cannot afford a good word to the Honour of a Prince, from whose Royal Line their present Sovereign at this day derives his Right to the Crown he wears.

36. But however, were the Vices of that Prince otherwise never so detestable; yet I shall leave it to the World to judg who proceeded with the most Care and Sincerity in the Point you insist upon of his Divorce with Q. Catherine: the King who consulted almost all the Learned Men, as well as the most famous Universities of Europe, and then acted according to their Determination: Or the Pope who by his notorious jugling with him in the whole process of that Affair, shew'd that he resolved to decide it not by any Laws of God or the Church, but meerly as his greater Interests with the Emperor or the King should move him to do.

37. Ibid.] The next step you make is from King Henry, to his Son King Edward the Sixth. And here you tell us,

Reply, p. 8.] ‘ That as Schism is commonly follow'd with Heresy, so now the Protector, who was tainted with Zuinglianism, a Reform from Luther, endeavour'd to set it up here in England.’

In which you again discover your Zeal against us, but not according to Understanding. There is hardly any one that knows any thing of the beginning of this Reformation, but will be able to tell you that the chief Instrument of it was one whom you have not once mentioned, Arch-bishop Cranmer. I will not deny but that the Protector concur'd with him in his design, but whether he was Zuinglian, or what else, neither you nor I can tell. Dr. Heylin, who on this occasion is usually See your Hist. Coll. p. 103. your Oracle, seems rather to think he was a Lutheran, tho easie to be moulded into any form. But this I know, that had you been so well vers'd in these things, as one who pretends to Hosp. Hist. Sacram. par. 2. p. 33. Lampadius par. 3. p. 439. Scultetus Annal. ad. An. 1516. write Historical Remarks ought to be, you would have spared that idle Reflection of Zuinglius's being a Reform from Luther, it being evident to those who understand his History, that neither himself, nor the Cantons in which he preach'd were ever [Page 20] Lutherans. But on the contrary, whereas Luther appear'd but in the Year 1517, Zuinglius began to preach against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome some Years before, when the very Name of Luther was not yet heard of: And had several Conferences with Cardinal Matthews then in Switzerland to this purpose, before ever the other appear'd in publick against them. So unfortunate a thing is it for Men to pretend to be witty upon others, without considering their own blind side. But you go on;

38. Ad pag. 9.] Reply. ‘ And from that time the Catholick Doctrine which had been taught by our first Apostles, and propagated till then, began to be rejected and accused as Erroneons, Super stitious, and Idolatrous, and they who profess'd it, persecuted.’

Answ.] This is still of the same kind, as false, as it is malicious. How false it is that the Doctrine you now profess was either planted here by our first Apostles, or propagated till this time in the Church of England, I have already shewn. And for the Persecution you speak of, methinks you should have been asham'd to mention that word, being to name Q. Mary's Reign in the very next Line. But what at last did this Persecution amount to? Were any Roman Catholicks banish'd, or put to death for their Religion? Were the Laws turn'd against them; or any Dragoons sent to convert them? No; Bonner and Fisher, and two others, Heath Bishop of Worcester, and Day Bishop of Chichester were deprived of their Bishopricks, and the three first imprison'd. A very few of the inferiour Clergy suffered in the same manner, and all after much provocation. This was the very utmost of what you call Persecution: and soon after we meet other kind of Trials: For this King dying,

39. Ibid.] Reply. You tell us ‘The Catholick Religion began again to bud forth under Q. Mary.’

Answ.] And then as if you were afraid of burning your Fingers in those Fires which Her See Dr. Burnet's Cont. of his Refl. [...]n Varillas p. 4, 5. Persecution kindled against us; you immediately pass to Her Sister's Succession: And to whose Reign I will so far comply with you, as to pass [Page 21] without one word of reflection, which you know I might here have occasion enough to make.

40. Ibid.] Reply. ‘ But that Bud being early nipped by her Death, Queen Elizabeth, by the Advice of the new Council which she chose, and to secure her self in the Throne, resolved to destroy the Catholick Interest, and set up a Prelatick Protestancy, which might have the Face of a Church. But other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelats, and call'd their Orders Anti-christian, and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery, as they called them, taken away: Telling them, that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation, such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected.’

Answ.] The Method by which Queen Elizabeth proceeded in her Reformation, was such as will sufficiently justify both her Piety and Prudence in the choice of it. Never was more care taken that nothing should be done out of Interest or Passion; but all things be establish'd upon the best and surest Foundations. And had not some misguided Zealots, out of a too great Affection to those Models they had seen abroad, run into unreasonable Oppositions at Home, the Church of England had at this day been the most flourishing, as it is the most Primitive Church in the World.

41. But though this then be a Matter justly to be lamented by Us, yet certainly you have no cause to complain of that great Queen's proceedings towards you. It is well known how many Years pass'd before any severe Laws were made against Recusants; and how the Attempts of the Pope, and the King of Spain from Abroad, and of your Brethren in compliance with them at Home, forced her to that Severity, which was afterwards, but with great Moderation, used against you. Bonner, though infamous for his Cruelties in Queen Mary's days, was yet suffered to go in safety now. Heath lived not only in great security, but even in favour with the Queen her self. Tonstal and Thirleby, found a Retreat with the Arch-Bishop at Lambeth: The rest of the Bishops continued in quiet amongst us; only three chose to retire beyond Sea. When the High Commission [Page 22] was establish'd for visiting the Churches of England, they were expresly ordered by her Majesty's Injunctions to reserve Pensions for those that refused to continue in their Benefices: And the Reformation it self appear'd so reasonable to them, that of nine thousand four hundred beneficed Men in England, there were but fourteen Bishops, six Abbots, twelve Deans, twelve Arch-Deacons, fifteen Heads of Colledges, fifteen Prebendaries, and eighty Rectors of Parishes that left their Benefices upon the account of Religion. Consider, Sir, this procedure, and then compare it with that of the Queen her Sister; or if these things be too far out of your reach, look upon the Methods that have been used in our Neighbour Country, and that not in the severe Accounts of any particular Persons, but in the publick Edicts, in the Report which one of your own Party, Monsieur le Fevre has publish'd with the King's Permission; and then say freely, which has most in it of the true Spirit of Christianity, the meekness whereby this Princess establish'd the Truth in her Kingdoms, or that furious Zeal which has been employ'd to root it out of this Other.

42. Ad Pag. 9.] Reply. ‘ From that time (you say) the Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes.’

Answ.] And give me leave to tell you we are in great measure to thank you for it. They were your Brethren, that creeping into Chambers and Conventicles, under pretence of a purer Reformation, endeavoured to divide us among our selves, and especially to draw as many as they could from the Establish'd Religion, which you have ever the most hated. Such was Faithfull Commin in the 9th Year See Foxes & Firebrands, Part 1, & 2. †See Camden's Eliz. ad Annum 1568.: Father Heath in the 10th of that Queen's Reign: and both discover'd to be Priests in Masquerade. And it was in this very Year † 1568 that the Puritans chiefly began to appear: And the Heads of them which our Historians mention, Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson, are named in a Letter that dropt out of Father Heath's Pocket, to have been some of your Emissaries. How far the same Policies Foxes and Firebrands, Part 1. p. 37. Ed. 80. See A. B. Bramhall's Letter to A. B. Usher. p. 611. have kept open our Divisions since it is now no longer a Mystery. We know how Provision has been made to tutor up Scholars, not only in Learning, but in Handy-craft Trades too, in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain: How they have been [Page 23] taught twice a Week regularly to dispute pro and con, concerning Presbytery, Independency, Anabaptism, Atheism; every one to take his part among us, according as his Fancy or Genius leads him. Who was it but a St. Omer's Josuit that confess'd Foxes and Firebrands, Part 1, p. 7. (as we are credibly informed) that they were twenty Years in hammering out the Sect of the Quakers? And indeed the Principle they go upon to refuse all Oaths, is a neat Contrivance for Priests and Jesuits to avoid the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, without a possibility of being discover'd. But this may suffice to shew how unreasonable you are to complain of those Divisions which your selves have in great measure been the Authors of amongst us: and shall, I hope, make us hereafter better understand one another, than to give you any longer the opportunity of keeping up these Differences amongst us, and then I am sure we need not much fear whatever you can do in your own Shapes to ruin us.

43. Ibid.] ‘ During this Time, you say, all things were carried to an Extremity against you: so furious was our rage against the Truth.’

Answ. But certainly you here again make History, and do not report things as they truly pass'd in those Days. I am sure if we may conclude any thing, either from the Writings or Actions of those Times, nothing can be more moderate than we shall find them both to have been. It was then our XXXIX Articles were drawn up, and in which I am confident you will not have the face to say, that things were carried to any undue excess against you. And if the Homilies in some Particulars may seem somewhat severe, yet I believe there are but few Expressions in them that you have not very well deserved. But this first Dream gives you occasion in the next Paragraph to run into a contrary Extravagance, and that as groundless as the foregoing: For you add,

44. Ad pag. 9, 10.] Reply. ‘ That things growing calmer in King James and King Charles the first Time, such Calumnies and Accusations (as had before been used) were looked upon by the more Learned Party as the Effects of Passion; and Moderation taught them to acknowledg the Church [Page 24] of Rome to be a Mother-Church, and that Salvation was to be had in Her. That many of those Accusations which were brought against Her, were but the Dreams of distracted Brains; and the more moderate Persons begun to look upon Her with a more favourable Eye.’

45. Answ.] I wish you had here given us some Proofs of what you say, that so we might have known who these Learned Men were, and what those Charges that they begun to leave off against you. It is well known how earnestly King James wrote against your Church; King Charles the first was your avow'd Enemy even to his Death: The most Learned Men of those Times have left such Volumes against you as you never were, nor ever will be able to Answer: and I shall hereafter shew you, that even those whom you alledge as excusing you from Idolatry (which is I believe in your own Estimation, our severest charge against you) are for all your Preten [...] far from thinking that there is either Falshood or Calum [...] in such an Accusation.

46. It is therefore great Confidence in you, without the least shadow of Authority for what you do, to represent such Eminent Persons as Favourers of your Doctrine. But [...]s has been ever your way, and we ought not to wonder at it, seeing we can remember the time that we our selves were reported to be Popishly affected: and it is but a few Months since that some of you put out a book to shew an Agreement at this day between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome; though I suppose he may by this time begin to repent of an undertaking, which has brought nothing but infamy to the Author of so false and scandalous an Attempt.

47. What you mean by our acknowledging your Church to be a Mother-Church, I do not very well comprehend. We confess indeed it was a Roman Missionary that especially contributed to the Conversion of the Saxons: and this I believe no Man ever denied; but let me tell you, that if your own Historian Bede be to be Judg, our Country was much more beholden to the Labours and Prudence of the Scots & French, than to the Romans. Look into Answer to Reason & Authority pag. 83, &c. the Account that has lately been given by a Learned Person of our Church in His Answer to One of your New Converts. There you will find that they were Columba, Aidan, Ced, Ceadda, [Page 25] Finan, Colman, Trumhere, Agilbertus, and Felix, that restored Christianity and propagated it among the Saxons; when the planting of it by Austin was almost lost. Insomuch that at the Death of Deus-dedit Arch-bishop of Canterbury, there was in all Brittain but one Bishop of Roman Ordination, remaining; viz. Wini, who called in two Brittish Bishops to his Assistance for the Ordaining of Ceadda to be Arch-bishop of York. And to shew what great Obligations we have to own the Church of Rome as a Mother-Church; when things are now in peace, and the Paschal Controversy laid aside, and great Hopes that all things would come to a right understanding, Wilfrid returning from Rome, revived again the Old Quarrells, and forced Colman and his followers to retire into Ireland; St. Chad to leave his Bishoprick of York; and so deprived our Country of the benefit of so many excellent Pastors, as Bede himself, no Friend to them, could not chuse but give an extraordinary Character of them. But that you may see what little reason we have to acknowledge See Masox de Minist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 4. Bede. l. 3. c. 6. Ibid. l. 2. c. 2. your Church above all Others to be our Mother-Church, I will lay this whole Affair in short before you. Our whole Island heretofore was divided into four Languages; of Britains, Scots, Picts, and English. As for the Britains, they were so far from being Converted by Austin, that at his coming he found an Establish'd Church amongst them, and that utterly refused to have any thing to do with Him. For the Scots, they were Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. establish'd Christians before Austin's Time, under Palladius their Bishop; and your own Annalist carries their Conversion yet Baron. ad Ann. 429. higher. The Picts embraced our Faith at the preaching of Columbanus, who came hither out of Ireland, 32 Years before Austin's arrival. And lastly, for the English, tho we are far Bede. l. 3. c. 4. from detracting any thing from the Labours of S. Austin, yet neither may we forget that the Glory even of their Conversion is not his alone; but must be ascribed to those other Holy Men who were His Fellow-workers in the Gospel, Felix, Aidan, Ceadda, Lethardus, &c. and some of which had begun before Him, and prepared the way for that success which afterwards attended his Preaching.

48. As to what you add, that they began to confess then too, that Salvation was to be had amongst you; it is what we do not any more deny at this day. We do hope that some Men amongst you may be saved, because we hope there may be some [Page 26] in your Church who live in a more excusable Ignorance of the Truth, and that these holding still the Foundation, and being ready to submit to any Conviction that should be offer'd, may by God's Grace, and a general Repentance, even for their very Errors among the rest of their unknown Sins, be saved through Faith in Christ Jesus. But yet that you may not mistake our Charity, give me leave to tell you,

(1.) That we think it much more difficult for any one to be saved in your Church now, than it was before the Reformation; because that then your Errors were neither so well known, nor so fully refuted as they have been since: and therefore Ignorance was in those Days much more invincible, and by consequence more fit to excuse than it is now.

(2.) That for those who live, as you do, in a Country where you might, would you sincerely apply your selves to it, find sufficient means of Instruction, it is yet more dangerous than in those Parts where these Helps are wanting.

But especially (3.) will this hold good against you whom God has call'd to be the Pastors of his Church, and whose Character engages them to be in an especial manner, sedulous and inquisitive; Earnest in their Prayers, and unprejudiced in their Desires to know the Truth, more than against the Lay-members of your Church. So that however we will not judg you, yet neither can we with any comfort say that God will acquit you.

And (4.) for those whom by this Argument you endeavour to draw away from us; That we confess that Men in your Church may be saved, but that you utterly deny that they can be in Ours, and therefore it is best for them to be on Yours, that is, the safer Side. If they do indeed use all possible means to be satisfied in the Points in debate betwixt us; if they indifferently apply themselves to the examination of them; and after a diligent trial, remain at last convinced in their Consciences that yours is the best and purest Church; we shall then be encouraged to hope well of them, as we do of others of your Communion, notwithstanding such a change. But now, should Interest, or Prejudice, or any Humane Motives chance to have interposed to byass their Judgments; if they chuse your Religion, without this diligent, and impartial Examination, and suffer themselves without Reason to be seduced by you: We must freely profess [Page 27] our Charity in this Assertion is not meant for them; nor do we think your Church in this Case any way of Salvation at all to such Converts, much less a safer than that of the Church of England. In short, the Sum of this Matter is; We hope honest Men may be saved in your Communion; but we are sure they shall be in Ours. Whether God will condemn you for professing Errors that you do not know to be such, we cannot tell, we believe he will not; Sure we are he would damn us, should we who are convinced of your Corruptions, be seduced by any base Motives to go over to you. And this is enough for us to know; The Other is your Concern, and do you look to it. But you go on, and tell us;

49. Ibid.] Reply. ‘ That the Aversion which the People had imbibed from so long continu'd Slanders, could not be removed; and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh, and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery, which so frighted the Mobile, that they were ready to join with any Party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be: From hence came Rebellions, and the horrid Murder of King Charles the First.’

50. Answ.] That the People had an Aversion to Popery then, I can easily believe, from what I have the satisfaction to find in them at this day. But that this Aversion sprung from any Slanders that had been laid upon you heretofore, I no more believe, than I do that it proceeds from our Misrepresenting your Doctrine now. No, Sir, believe me, there is enough in Popery to make an honest Man hate it, without raising any Calumnies against it to render it the more odious: and I do not find since your Endeavours to vindicate your selves against us, that it begins to be at all more liked than it was before.

51. For what you mention of the Original of the Civil Wars in King Charles the First's Reign, I readily grant that the fears of Popery contributed much to blow up the People into Rebellion. But I am perswaded we must look somewhat farther, if we mean to rise up to the true Authors of them. Shall I tell you freely what I think? I do believe there was more at the bottom of those Civil Wars, than either the People did then believe, [Page 28] or it may be the wisest Men are at this day able sufficiently to dive into. But yet thus much we do all know,

1st, That the King himself in the very first breaking out of them, observed, that the Fanaticks proceeded upon Popish Principles against him. ‘ Their Maxims (says he) are the same See the King's large Declar▪ about the Scotch Troubles, p. 3, 4. with the Jesuits; their Preachers Sermons have been deliver'd in the very Phrase and Stile of Becanus, Scioppius, and Eudaemon Johannes. Their poor Arguments which they have deliver'd in their Seditious Pamphlets printed or written, are taken almost verbatim out of Bellarmine and Suarez; and the means which they have used to induce a Credit of their Conclusions with their Proselytes, are purely and meerly Jesuitical Fables, See his Majesty's Declarat. after the Battel at Edg-Hill. Kings Works, part 2. pag. 213. false Reports, false Prophesies, pretended Inspirations and Divinations of the weaker Sex; As if now Herod and Pilate were once again reconciled for the ruin of Christ and of his true Religion and Worship.’

2. That in the Year 1640, there was discover'd to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury a Design, in which the Pope, Cardinal Richlieu, many of the English Papists, but especially the Jesuits, were concerned in stirring up those Divisions that had just before broke out in Scotland, for the Ruine of the King and of the Arch Bishop. This may be seen at large in the Histories of those Times, and the very Papers themselves may be Vol. 3. p. 1310, &c. found in Mr. Rushworth's Collections.

3. That Sir William Boswell, his Majesty's Resident at that Time at the Hague, and to whom this Discovery was first made; did find out ‘ that the Romish Clergy gull'd the misled party of our English Nation under a Puritanical Dress. That See in the Life of A. B. Usher, Append. p. 27. Letter 17. they had received Indulgences from the See of Rome and Council of Cardinals, to educate their Scholars in Principles and Tenets contrary to the Episcopacy of the Church of England. That within the compass of two Years, above sixty of the Romish Clergy were gone out of France, to preach up the Scotch Covenant, and to pull down the English Episcopacy, as being the chief support of the Imperial Crown of our Nation.’

4. That Arch-bishop Bramhal being in France, some time after the King's Death, did there learn how all these things were managed: That in the Year 1646, above an hundred See Bp Usher's Life, 293. Letter, p. 611. Romish Clergy were sent over into England; who were most of them Souldiers in the Parliament Army; and were daily to correspond [Page 29] with the Romanists in the King's Army: That in the Year 1647. they had a Consult with one another, wherein they discoursed about the Death of the King, and England's being a Commonwealth; that hereupon the Romish Orders wrote to their several Convents, but especially to the Sorbonists, to know whether it might be lawful to make away the King and the Prince? In short, that the Sorbonists return'd, That it was lawful for Roman Catholicks to work Changes in Governments for the Mother-Churches Advancement, and chiefly in an Heretical Kingdom, and so lawfully make away the King.

5. Salmonet Hist. des troubles d'Angleterre, liv. 3. p. 165. That after the Engagement at Edge-Hill, several Romish Priests were found among the slain of the Parliament Army. This Father Salmonet declares in his History of those Civil Wars, printed in France, with the allowance of the King: and adds, that the Parliament had two Companies of Walloons, besides others of that Religion in their Army.

6. When the Rebellion broke out in Ireland, it was we know bless'd with his Holinesses Letters, and assisted by his Nuntio, whom he sent on purpose thither for that Service.

Answer to Philanax Anglicus. pag. 61. Lastly; that Monsieur du Moulin has confirm'd this with several plain Instances, which he declared himself ready to make a legal Proof of before his Judges, and after 17 Years attendance, in a new Edition of his Book desired once more that he might be called to account for it, and yet died without being ever attempted to be disproved.

These things, I say, we know of this Matter, and therefore tho I do confess that the Fears of Popery was the pretence to blow up the People, yet whether there might not be some other Persons and Designs at the bottom, I shall leave it to the Reader to consider what Credit he will think fit to give these Relations, and then judg as he sees Cause.

52. Ad pag. 10.] Reply. ‘ During this War, there was (you say) a good understanding between the Papists and the Prelatick Party, which was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the Restauration of King Charles the Second till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malicious Calumny, laying a pretended Plot to their Charge—The Truth of which being detected by a subsequent real One, the more moderate of the Church of England again [Page 30] began to favour them: Only still the Laws enacted against them being in force, there were Persons enough ready to put them in Execution.’

Answ.] To all which I have nothing more to say, but that being come now to the Affairs of our own Times, I suppose every Man is already satisfied what to believe as to these things: Or, if he be not, I am sure there is nothing here to direct him. The accounts of these Transactions have been publish'd by Authority; and those who desire more nearly to consider them, may recur to the History of the latter of the Plots mention'd; and to the several Trials and Narratives, especially to Mr. Coleman's Letters, for his Information in the former.

53. Ad pag. 11.] Reply. ‘ In this posture were Affairs, when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty: No sooner was his present Majesty ascended upon the Throne, but he declared Himself a Catholick: yet was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles, and that he would protect Her. This gain'd the Hearts of that Party, and had so much Power over the Parliament, that notwithstanding the Conclusion of a Sermon preach'd before them, in which it was declared, that an English Man might be Loyal, but not a Papist, that Parliament testified its Loyalty to such a degree as shall never be forgotten.’

And thus after a long Story nothing to the purpose, and that too fraught (as we have seen) with many Falsifications, we are at last come to the Point to be considered, of the Controversies that are now depending betwixt the two Churches, and the Original whereof you here recount to us.

54. Ad pag. 11, 12.] Reply. ‘ This was the occasion of our following Controversies, and the first thing that appeared in Print against the Roman Catholicks, tho the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it. And the more considering Men of your Party (you say) look'd upon it as the throwing out of the Gauntlet, [Page 31] and bidding defiance to all the Catholicks of England. This produced a Remonstrance from you, and that an Answer from the Doctor, and there (as almost all our Controversies have done since) it ended, tho a Reply was prepared and approved of. But it was thought fit by those (who were to be obeyed) to let the Controversie die, rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the Protestations of Catholicks, but their Practices had justified them in.’

55. Answ.] What you thought of that Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Sermon I cannot tell; but others think that by your Clamours against it you have given the Doctor occasion to satisfy the World that what he had said was but too true. And since you tell us that there is an Answer ready prepared and approved, and that the Controversial Spirit is now let loose, so that our Quarrels will not be much increased by such an Accession, I dare say the Doctor will be very glad to see that Answer, and whether it has force enough to convince him of his Mistake. As for your pretence why you declined engaging any farther in this Dispute, viz. ‘ That it was a Point, which not only your Protestations, but your Practices had justified you in;’ tho I readily acknowledg that the English-man has in many of your Communion been too strong for the Papist, (and far be it from us to detract from their worth) Yet as to your Assertion in the general, that both your Protestations and Practices have sufficiently justified you in this Point, give me leave to tell you that we are not very forward to credit the One, because we have known too much of the Other. We cannot so soon forget the Names of Mariana, Suarez, Bellarmine, of Parsons, Stapleton; and many others of your Communion, as not to remember what sort of Loyalty has sometimes been taught in your Schools. Who were they that Sainted Thomas à Becket, and have applauded even the Assassines of some Princes since, but the venerable Heads of your Church? And in what esteem Campian and Garnet are at this day among you, we are not ignorant. When that wicked Wretch J. Castell assaulted Henry the Fourth of France, he found an Apologist among you; and the Arrest of the Parliament of Paris against him, stands at this day among the prohibited Books in the last Index set forth at Rome. They were these [Page 32] things that moved our King James the First, to set out his Admonition to all Christian Princes against you; and even that your Card. Bellarmine was not ashamed to answer, in defence of his Doctrine of the Popes Authority over Kings: In short, he that would know what Credit is to be given to you in your Assertion as to this matter, need only recur to Mr. Foulis Collection, and I am confident he will then confess that the distinction the Doctor made in behalf of his Country-men of your Religion, is the best Apology that can be offer'd, and the most to the Honour of our Nation, tho it may be not so much for the Credit of your Church, viz. that your Principles consider'd, the English Man may be, I will add, and has often been found Loyal, but then he has laid aside the Papist to be so.

56. Ad p. 12.] Reply. You tell us, ‘ That this Imputation of the Doctor's, joyned with the Mistakes that most Men had conceived of your Doctrine, gave occasion to the Representer to shew your Doctrines truly as they are in themselves, without the mixture of the particular Opinions of the Schoolmen, or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received.’

Answ.] And this Book, tho it produced not any manner of Authority for its Representations, and was contrary in most Points to the Opinions of the chiefest Writers of your Church, soon received an Answer in every particular. There your Doctrine was truly stated from your own Authors, his false Colours detected, and to your shame never replied to. For I suppose no one will be so far mistaken, as to think that Tristle that came out against it deserves the Name of an Answer.

57. Ad pag. 13.] And whilst this Book yet subsists in its full force, and that we have so effectually shewn you the Opinions of the most Eminent Divines of your Church, the Practice of the Generality amongst you, and the very words of your Councils and Liturgies, to be utterly inconsistent with your new Representations, that you are not able to make any reasonable Defence of the one, and are forced utterly to reject after all the other; What a Forehead must that Man have that can tell the World as you do, ‘ That we CANNOT DENY’ (what yet you complain of Me in this very Book for denying) that ‘ [Page 33] all Catholicks do believe according to that Doctrine which the Representer expresses,’ and which you in vain endeavour (as I shall hereafter shew you) to defend.

58. Ad pag. 14.] Reply. ‘ During this Dispute two Books (you say) were publish'd, with the same Intention: The first, The Acts of the Clergy of France in their General Assembly, 1685. in which was shewn in one Column the Doctrine of your Church from the words of the Council of Trent, in the other the Calumnies of Protestants against you, from the very words of their Authors. And this you think to have been so clear a Proof of what the Representer had said, that you suppose his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies.’

Answ.] And here you think you have found out somewhat to boast of: A Wonder indeed not every day to be seen; a Book never yet answered by us. 'Tis true, I do not know of any one here at home, that has taken the pains to examine the Clergy's Quotations, as the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery has done, for the Instances there offer'd by their Humble Imitator the Representer. But then the discovery that was made by that worthy Author of the whole Cheat, by distinguishing Matters of Dispute, from Matters of Representation, has abundantly confuted all their Pretences. We charge you (for Instance) with Idolatry, for worshipping of Images, Praying to Saints, and for adoring the Host. If you do not worship Images, nor pray to Saints, nor adore the Host, then indeed we Misrepresent you. But now for the other Point, that therefore you commit Idolatry, this is our Consequence which we draw from those Practices, and must be put to the Trial betwixt us. If our Reasons be good, our Conclusion will be so too: If they are not, we are then mistaken in our Opinion, and you may say we are in an Error, but we do not therefore misrepresent you. We never yet pretended that you thought Idolatry to be lawful; or that you confess'd that you committed it: We accuse you of it only as a thing which upon the Premises before mention'd, we conclude you to be guilty of; and in that certainly, if we misrepresent any Body, it must be our selves, not you. [Page 34] Now this one thing being observed, the Book you mention is utterly overthrown, and both the Artifice and the Evidence fall together.

59. Ibid.] The other Book you tell us you publish'd was the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, and what has been done on this occasion is very well known, and I shall not need to give any account of it.

60. Ad pag. 17.] And thus have we done with the two Points to which I reduced the Sum of your Preface: What farther remains is your Advice to the Readers of our Books, what they are to take notice of, and what to pass over in them. You tell them that you will ‘ lay down the true State of the difference betwixt us, and that whatever they find written by us that does not immediately oppose some of those Tenets, they should pass it over, tho never so plausible or pleasing.’

61. Now how Politick such an Advice as this may be to hinder the good effect of our Writing, I will not dispute; but sure I am it is highly unreasonable. For what if the very Subject of the Controversie should be (as indeed at this time it is) whether those things which you here lay down be your Churches Doctrine, or only your private Exposition of it? Ought not the judicious Reader in this case to consider our Allegations, and see whether we have not reason to say that you do endeavour to delude them, by pretending that to be your Belief, which in truth is not received by the Generality of your Church as such? As for instance: You positively deny that ‘ the Holy Cross is upon ANY ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be worshipped with DIVINE WORSHIP.’ Now this we deny too, and therefore as to this Point there can be no Dispute betwixt us. But now what if I should undertake to shew, that you here impose upon your Reader, and that whatsoever you pretend, yet your Church does teach, that the Holy Cross IS TO BE WORSHIPPED with DIVINE WORSHIP, and Practises accordingly? Is not this think you fit to be considered by him? Or is the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition become so far the Guide in Controversie in France and England, that all other Expositions are to be look'd upon as superannuated, and this only to contain the true Interpretation of your pretended Catholick Faith.

62. But indeed I do not wonder that you would perswade your Proselytes not to read our Books, since you easily guess [Page 35] that those things may well stagger them, which were not your Obstinacy or your Prejudices too strong, for your Reason and Conscience to grapple with, must long e're this have convinced, as they have sufficiently confuted, your own selves.

63. Ad pag. 27.] ‘ And because you are not willing to prolong Disputes, you do here declare, that if the Defender do meddle hereafter with such Points as those which are not of necessary Faith, you shall not think your self obliged to answer him, tho after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last Word.’

Answ.] That is to say, the great business of the Defender has been to discover your true Doctrine, and yours to dissemble it. Now if the Defender makes any Answer at all to your Reply, it must be to maintain those Doctrines to be yours which he had laid to your Charge, and which you deny; And this if he does, you here declare you will have done with him: Which I think is plainly to confess, that you have had enough of this Argument.

64. But, Sir, the Defender has such a kindness for his Subject, and such a respect for You, that he is resolved not to part either with you or it. And therefore, for what concerns his Subject, he will still make good in the several Points in which he advanced it, his distinction of Old and New Popery against you, and which in your last Defence you have been shewn your self to allow of: He will prove that you do palliate the ancient Doctrine of your Church; and that greater Men than any either the Bishop of Meaux or your self, have and do interpret your Churches Sense in a much other manner than you represent it. And to this you may return or not, as you think fit. For your self, he is resolved to be so far your Humble Servant as to joyn issue with you upon your own terms, and shew you how you have abused the World to no purpose at all; for that even taking your Doctrine as you misrepresent it, yet still we are not able nevertheless to embrace it. But then for your other proposal, of throwing aside all the rest of our Points, only for the sake of those t [...]o which you mention, here he desires to be excused: It being much more for the Edification of his Friends [Page 36] the Populace (and whose Applause you know he courts) to give them a full prospect of your Doctrine, and your Misrepresentations of it, than to run the Circle with you in the single Point of the Churches Authority, in which they may more easily be amused and deluded by you. But you say,

65. Ad pag. 24.] Reply. ‘ That you may be bold to foretell without pretending to be a Prophet, that nothing of this will be done by Me, but that I shall either still fly to the Tenets and Practices of Particulars, or misrepresent your Doctrine, or fob off your Arguments with such an Answer as I think sufficient to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpetuité, which I said wanted only Diogenes' s Demonstration to confute it.’

Answ.] I am very glad, Sir, you profess your self to be no Prophet, (and I have long been convinced that you are no Conjurer) for if your Arguments be no better than your Guesses, I shall have a very easie Task of it. I have already told you what Method I resolve to proceed in, and I hope you will comply so far with me as to excuse one part of it, seeing I go utterly besides my measures to gratify your Desires in the other. As for your fear that I should fob off your Arguments, by which I suppose you mean that I shall endeavour to elude them with some imperfect Answer, I do promise you it is groundless; I will very carefully sift your Reply to the bottom, and not let any thing, that is not very impertinent, pass my Examination. But shall I beg leave now that I have satisfied yours, to confess my own Fears; and that is, that as far as I can yet judg by what I have hitherto read of your Reply, I shall find but few Arguments in it either to fob off, or to answer. For having already consider'd your Calumnies, I much doubt by that time I have rectified your Mistakes too, I shall have little more remaining to encounter.

66. As to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpetuité, I do still say that Diogenes's Demonstration is the best Confutation of it. The Case in short is this; Monsieur Aubertine has shewn in the first Ages of the Church, that the Doctrine which we now embrace of the Holy Eucharist contrary to Transubstantiation, was the ancient Catholick Doctrine of the Church. This he confirms by a multitude of clear Testimonies drawn out of the Writings [Page 37] of those Fathers who lived in those Times. Now for Monsieur Arnaud after this to think to confute this Evidence by a Logical Argument, that had not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation been the Doctrine of the Church at the beginning, it could never have become so afterwards; and that such a little shift is sufficient to overthrow all those Testimonies, this must certainly be a meer Reverie, (you will I hope excuse me that Expression, now you know the meaning of it) and needs no other Confutation, than to shew him that the Matter of Fact is evidently opposite to his Pretences.

67. Ad Pag. 25.] Reply. ‘ But such things as these (you say) are now adays put upon the World without a blush: and they who are this day Ingenuous, Learned, Honest Men, shall be to morrow Time-servers, Blockheads, and Knaves, if they chance to cast but a favourable Eye towards Popery.’

Answ.] O Tempora! O Mores! To what a sad State are we arrived, that Men should be able to do such ill things, and yet not blush at them! But what now is the Matter? ‘ Why, Men who were yesterday esteem'd very honest Men, are the next found out to be Knaves and Time-servers.’ Good Sir, be not too hasty; 'tis possible this may be done, and yet no cause of blushing neither, unless for those Persons who are so found out. For, 1. What if we mistook those Men for Honest Men, who at the bottom were not so? And when we saw our Error, alter'd our Opinion? And as every thing that is done, must be done some day or other; What if we took them for honest Men to day, and to morrow find that they were not so honest? Is it any Crime for one upon good grounds to change his Mind in this Case? Again, 2. There is a certain Season when the worst Man first begins to be so. Now, what if one that had hitherto done nothing to forfeit his Reputation, should begin to do such notorious ill things as to deserve our Censure? Here we had both reason to believe him an honest Man whilst he was so, and as much reason to believe him otherwise, since his Actions have declared his Change. So that then, for ought I can find, we must come at last to the grounds of these Charges, before we can judg of them. And for that, whenever you will [Page 38] please to give us your Instances of the Persons who have been thus censured by us; that have been heretofore esteemed honest, ingenuous Men, and are now found out to be Knaves and Blockheads; though I shall have no occasion to justify any such censure, till you can prove that I have been concern'd in passing of it; yet I doubt not but those who have done this, will be able to give you abundant satisfaction for it.

68. Ibid.] Reply. You conclude all with an Insinuation, the most likely to catch those that are not well acquainted with you, of any thing in your whole Book: ‘ That it is not likely you should palliate your Doctrine to gain Proselytes, seeing that Proselyte the first time he should see you practise contrary to your Doctrine, would be sure to return and expose your Villany.’

Answ.] But yet to this I Answer; 1st, That 'tis possible you may palliate your Doctrine, and your Proselyte never discover it. It is no such strange thing for Men to profess one thing and do another; and yet by subtle distinctions justify themselves to those who are prepared to deny Sense and Reason, rather than not believe them. You tell us for instance, that the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped; And yet certainly your Good-friday Service directly leads you to it. But then if your new Proselyte begins to enquire what this means; presently you tell him a Story of Absolute and Relative Worship; and he who knows nothing more of the Matter than you are pleased to let him, humbly submits himself to yours and the Church's Judgment.

69. If we urge your Expressions against you, and he fortunes to get something of this by the end; Either you confidently deny that you have any such words, (a Case which has happen'd to my self in this very Allegation) or if you are baffled there; then 'tis not (for instance) Come, let us Adore the Cross; but, Come, let us adore Christ who suffered on it: concerning which we must discourse a little by and by.

70. If this too fails, and we shew you plainly that you say, We adore thy Cross, O Lord: So that our Saviour is himself distinguish'd from his Cross which you worship; then the Cross there is put to signify Christ's Passion; though I am afraid the [Page 39] Adoring of Christ's Passion is something like that which you call Jargon, and we in plain English, Nonsence.

71. If even this be beaten off, and other Hymns produced in which that Cross is plainly specified which bore Christ's Sacred Members; the Tree upon whose Arms the Price of the World hung: then you have your Figures ready, 'tis a Metonymie in one line, a Prosopopaeia in the next; in the third a conjunction of both together: And with these Quirks the poor Implicite Proselyte's Head is turn'd round. He believes there is something meant by all these hard words, though he knows nothing of the Matter; and his Opinion of your Integrity, joined with the good assurance with which you pronounce your Oracles, and thunder out your Anathema's against us as Hereticks and Schismaticks; Calumniators, Falsifiers, Misrepresenters, and what not? makes him that he no longer questions your Pretences.

72. As for your Authors he knows nothing of them; or if he did, yet those who have so many tricks to elude such clear Expressions of their publick Rituals, could not want distinctions enough to expound them. Or however a general out-cry against them as private Men, and for whose Opinions the Church is not to Answer, will at once silence all such Allegations that they shall not make any the least impression upon them. By all which it appears that you may (as we affirm you do) palliate your Doctrine, and yet your Proselyte be never the wiser for it.

73. But now, 2dly, if he should discover something of this kind, yet is it not necessary, that he should therefore presently return and expose your Villany. I will suppose that those few Proselytes you have made, may all be reduced to these two kinds; Men of Conscience, or Men of Interest and Design. For the latter of these, whilst they serve their Interests by the Change, there is no great fear of their making any such dangerous Discoveries. Religion is not their Concern; and whether it be New Popery or Old that they embrace, they neither know, nor care: it is to them indifferent; and they understand, as well as value, both alike. As to the Conscientious Converts, (allowing for their Capacities, and that they are able to overcome all the foremention'd Difficulties, and to discover the Cheat, which I fear is what the much greatest part of these are not able to do): It is indeed hard to say what a terrible Conflict [Page 40] this will be apt to make in them. But yet the Point of Reputation, the Opinion of the World, shame of Return. and the dangers those commonly run who venture to reveal such Sacred Mysteries; these Considerations have sometimes kept good Men a longer time in suspense, than any of your Proselytes have yet had to resolve upon a return to us. And who can tell, what Time and Changes may one day bring forth?

74. Again: We know there have been many in your Church, who though they have discover'd these Prevarications, yet have thought, that as long as they did not themselves join in your Errors, they might hold their Tongues, and live quietly in an External Communion with you: and their Eyes have been so dazled with the Splendor, Succession, Extent, &c. of your Church, that they have preferr'd it with all its Faults to Others who seem to them to want these Advantages. Such were the famous George Cassander, Father Barnes, and others that I might mention. Nay, it is no very long time, since a Person yet living, Monsieur Ferrand, has publish'd a Book to shew, that were the Church of Rome as corrupt as we pretend it to be, yet we ought not nevertheless to separate from it. And should any of your Converts be of this Perswasion, they may still continue to all appearance in your Church, though they see the Errors, and your falsifications of the true Doctrine of it.

75. But, 3dly, though I do affirm that what you publish is not the Ancient Doctrine of your Church, yet I do not deny but it is that which you endeavour to make pass with your Converts as such. This you teach your Proselytes, the Bishop of Meaux his Dioces; and they rarely meet with any one that maintains the contrary. But this do's not hinder, that because this is the Popery of a few English Missionaries, and French Expositors; that therefore it has been all along the Common Doctrine of your Church; or is conformable to the practice of other Countries at this day. And all Men have not the leisure to go into Italy or Spain; or the ability to read over your several Authors for satisfaction in it.

76. But, 4thly, to quit all these Suppositions; yet since you make it no less than a Mortal Sin to have any Doubts of your Religion; you are sure, as soon as any such arise in their Minds to hear of it in Confession from them. Being thus acquainted with the first Motions of this kind, you presently take all the [Page 41] ways imaginable to stifle them, and hinder them from coming to an open defection from you. So that though your Proselyte should begin to stagger; yet unless he utterly abandon your Party without ever consulting you in it, (which Men of Conscience will never do) he is almost under an Impossibility of ever doing it at all.

77. To all which I will add but this farther: Which well may, and I am perswaded do's keep many from telling of Tales, and exposing (as you call it) your Villany; and that is, that when you receive a new Convert into your Church, you require a terrible Oath from him, never by any Argument to leave or to forsake you, upon pain of Perjury and Damnation if he do's. And to the end the Reader may know, what is the last step he is to make, if he has any thoughts that way; and to convince him what little force there is in your Suggestion, I will here transcribe it from your Pontifical, in its full length.

The Oath that is ordered by the Church of Rome to be administred to a New Convert. (Pontif. Rom. Ord. ad reconc. Apost. Schism. vel Haeret.)

I. N. having found out the Snare of Division with which I was held, after a long and diligent deliberation with my self, am, by the Grace of God, return'd with a forward and ready Will, to unity of the Apostolick See: And lest I should be thought to have return'd not with a pure Mind, but only in shew, I do hereby promise, under the pain of falling from my Order, and under the Obligation of an Anathema to thee Bishop of such a Place; and by thee to Peter Prince of the Apostles, and to the most Holy Father in Christ our Lord N. Pope, and to his Successors, that I will never through the Perswasions of any Persons whatsoever, or BY ANY OTHER MEANS return to that [Page 42] Schism, from which by the Grace of our Redeemer freeing Me, I am deliver'd: But that I will always remain in all things in the Unity of the Catholick Church, and in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome; and therefore I do say upon my Oath, by GOD ALMIGHTY and these SACRED GOSPELS, that I will without wavering remain in the Unity and Communion aforesaid; And if (which God forbid) I shall BY ANY OCCASION or ARGUMENT divide my self from this Unity, MAY I INCURRING THE GUILT OF PERJURY, BE FOUND CONDEMN'D TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, AND HAVE MY PORTION WITH THE AUTHOR OF SCHISM IN THE WORLD TO COME.—So help me God, &c.

Thus do's your new Proselyte swear himself firm to your Party; at least I'me sure he is here required to do it. And now you may as well expect that a fellow Conspirator should discover the Treason he is to commit, as a Convert thus engaged to you, (though he should find it out) expose your Villany.

[Page 43]

AN ANSWER TO THE REPLY, &c. Being a further Defence of the EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE of the Church of England.

INTRODUCTION.

IT was the Opinion of a late Author concerning a very short Treatise that he had publish'd upon most of the Points in Controversy between us and the Church of Rome; that tho he had neither put himself to the expence of any new Arguments against us; nor produced the Authority of either Ancient Fathers, or even of Modern Writers to back his Assertions; he had nevertheless answer'd in that one Treatise, not only all those late Discourses that had just before been publish'd by our Divines on those Subjects, but a great part of all the Books and Sermons that had ever been writ or preach'd against his Church. Tho I am not very fond of following any Copy which that Author can set me, and in this especially do think his Vanity so ridiculous, that he is rather to be pitied than imitated; yet being once more called upon for a farther Vindication of my self, to another review of the most considerable Articles wherein we differ from those of the other Communion, I cannot but observe, that not only my present Adversary has not advanced in this [Page 44] new Attempt one jot beyond what I had before confuted, but that in all their Books, their whole Business is meerly to transcribe one another; so that from the See the Reply, Pres. p. vi. Bishop of Condom's Exposition, even to the The Original whereof was first published in Spanish, Anno 1616. Eye Catechism, there is nothing new; but the same Answer that is made to one, do's really in effect overthrow them all.

2. 'Tis this has put me upon the troublesome design, not only of resuming and collating the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, and the Vindication of it, with the Reply that is now before me on every Article; But to search all those other Treatises that have been publish'd since the Representer first broke the Peace with us: To convince the World that Matters are now driven as far as they can go; so that in reading any one of their Books they may really find as much, as when they shall have taken the pains to consult them all. If this will not engage them to produce something more than they have yet done to answer our Arguments, it shall at least I hope excuse us, if we from henceforth dispense with our selves the trouble of large Confutations; so that instead of transcribing again our own Books, as often as they shall please to furnish out a new Title to their old Objections, we shall need only to direct them to those Replies that have been already made; and in which their Pretensions have been confuted before they were publish'd.

3. It was the Complaint of S. Austin against such kind of Antagonists as these in his Time; ‘ That whether out of too much St. Austin. de Civit. Dei. lib. 2. c. 1. blindness, by which even the clearest things are not seen; or out of an obstinate stubbornness, whereby even those things which are seen, are not endured, they would defend their own unreasonable Notions after a full Answer had been given to them, as if it were Reason and Truth it self that they maintain'd.—And therefore (says he) what End shall there be of Disputing, what measure of speaking, if we must always answer those that answer us? For they who either cannot understand what is said, or are so harden'd with a Spirit of Opposition, that tho they did understand, yet would they not submit; they answer, as it is written, and they speak Iniquity, and are indefatigably vain. Whose contrary sayings if we should as often refute, as they have resolved with an invincible Forehead not to care what they say, so they do but by any means contradict our Disputations; who do's not see how infinite, and troublesome, and fruitless this would be?’

[Page 45]

The ANSWER to the FIRST ARTICLE.

YOU will excuse, Sir, this little Address to my Reader; I shall from henceforth keep close to your Reply, and notwithstanding Reply p. 1. St. Austin's Insinuation to the contrary, attend you once more whithersoever you shall please to lead Me. And to shew how exactly applicable what I have before said of your Books in general, is to your Reply above any in particular; the first Observation I have to make is, that for what concerns the common Cause of Religion in this first Article, you have entirely taken, or rather indeed stollen it (since I do not remember that you have once mention'd your Author) out of T. G's Discourse against Dr. Stillingfleet, and which that most Learned Man had fully answered some Years since. And yet you neither take notice of his Answers, nor offer any one thing to prevent the same Replies from being made by me to the same Objections.

2. You begin your Vindic. p. 22. Vindication with a scandalous Charge of ‘ Calumnies, Misrepresentations, &c.’ This you persist in in your Reply p. 2. Reply; and so does T. G's first Answ. Pref. pag. 3. T. G. against his Adversary. ‘He tells him how in the prosecution of his Argument, he should be forced to lay open his frequent Contradictions, Calumnies, and Misrepresentations:’ By which the Reader may now see that you meant me no Harm in all these hard words against me; but you found them in your Author, and you transcribed the railing with as little Judgment as you have done the Reason of his Books. After this short and civil Preface, you tell Me,

3. Ad pag. 2.] Reply. ‘ That there was a time in which the Reply p. 2. T. G's first Answ. Pre [...]. pag. 15. Genuine Sons of the Church of England, excused the Roman Catholick Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry; and * SOME of them (never T. G' s secon [...] Answ. p. 1 [...]. excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it) maintain'd, that We cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, without denying that Church to be a true Church, and by Consequence without contradicting our selves, and going against the intention of the [Page 46] Reformation, which was not to make a new Church, but to restore a sick Church to its Soundness, a corrupt Church to its Purity, &c. [See T. G. first Answer, Pref. p. 7.]’

Answ.] Had you but ingenuously own'd from whence you had taken this Objection against our Church, the Reader would presently have known whither to have gone for the Confutation of it. But seeing you are resolved to make it your own, I shall answer two things;

1st, That what you have said is false.
2dly, That you either did, or ought to have known it to be so.

4. First, It is false that those whom from T. G. you are pleased to stile the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, have excused your Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry, or by consequence did think that we could not defend it against you without contradicting our selves, and going against the intention of the Reformation.

5. Your first Author is Dr. Jackson; and he so far from excusing you in this Point, as you most wretchedly assert, that Dr. Jackson, see his Works, 3 vol. Fol. Lond. An. 1673. in a set Discourse under this very Title, ‘ Tom. 1. Of the Identity or Aequivalency of Superstition in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian,’ he spends above 17 Sheets on purpose to prove the Charge of Idolatry upon you: and answers all your Evasions, by which you endeavour in vain to clear your selves of the Guilt of it. The very Subject of his first Chapter is to shew, ‘ That Rome Christian in latter Years, sought rather to allay than to abrogate the Idolatry of Rome Heathen; p. 933.’ In his 25th Chapter, having mention'd that Conclusion of your Church, ‘ Pag. 946. That Saints are to be worshipped with Religious Worship:’ He pronounces Sentence against you in these very words, ‘* This we say is formal Idolatry. The Title of his 27th Chapter is positive, Ibid. p. 954. That the same Expression of our respect or observance towards Saints or Angels locally present, cannot without Superstition or Idolatry be made to them in their Absence.’ And in the 28th Chapter, speaking of your form of commending a departing Soul;

[ Ibid. p. 961. ‘ Depart out of this World in the Name of God the Father Almighty who hath created thee, in the Name of Jesus [Page 47] Christ the Son of God, who suffer'd for thee; in the Name of Breviarium Roman. de Ord. Commendationis animae Deo. the Holy Ghost, who was poured forth upon thee; in the Name of Angels and Arch-angels; in the Name of Thrones and Dominions; in the Name of Principalities and Powers; in the Name of Cherubims and Seraphims; in the Name of Patriarchs and Prophets; in the Name of Holy Apostles and Evangelists; in the Name of Holy Martyrs and Confessors; in the Name of Holy Monks and Hermites; in the Name of Virgins, and of all God's Saints and Saintesses; This day let thy Soul be in Peace, and thy Habitation in Holy Sion.]’

‘ If (says he) thus they pray with their Lips only, they mock God as well as the Saints. If thus they pray with internal Affection of Heart and Spirit, they really worship Saints with the selfsame Honour wherewith they honour God—They might with less Impiety admit a Christian Soul into the Church Militant, than translate it into the Church Triumphant in other Names besides the Trinity. They might better baptize them only in the Name of God the Father, and of S. Francis, S. Benedict, and S. Dominick, &c. without any mention of God the Son and Holy Ghost, rather than joyn these, as Commissioners with them in dismissing Souls out of their Bodies. To censure this part of their Liturgy as it deserves, it is no Prayer but a CHARM, conceived out of the Dregs and Reliques of HEATHENISH IDOLATRY, which cannot be brought forth but in BLASPHEMY, nor be applied to any sick Soul without SORCERY’ See more in express words, cap. 24. § 8. p. 943. cap. 27. § 2. p. 956. Tom. 1..

6. This is the first of our Church-men that you say excused you from the odious imputation of Idolatry. And since I perceive his Authority is of some weight with you, as being one of the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, which T. G. would not allow his Adversary, nor it may be will you therefore esteem Me to be; I hope you will for his sake, who here charges your Offices with CHARMS and SORCERY, as well as with Superstition and Idolatry, be from henceforth a little more favourable to my Reflection on another occasion of your Which he also in express words charges your Adoration of the Cross with, cap. 24. §. 4. p. 941. oper. Tom. 1. MAGICAL INCANTATIONS.

7. I have been detain'd a little longer than I designed in this first Author; but I will make amends for it, by referring [Page 48] you for the Dr. F [...]ILD. A. B. LAUD. Dr. HEYLIN. three next to the like account which See in the Preface to his first Book concerning the Idolatry of the C. R. and his general Pref. to the several late Treatises, &c. Lond. 1673. Dr. St. gave to your Friend T. G. from their own words: As for Mr. THORNDIKE. Mr. Thorndyke, it is confess'd he was once in the Opinion that you mention; but you knew very well that he changed his Mind before his Death. You may see by an Extract that has lately been Mr. Pulton considered. Lond. 1687. publish'd out of his Will, what an ill Notion he had of your Church in general, and for the Point before us, T. G's Reverend and Learned Adversary eight Years ago publish'd a Paper from Dr. Sti [...]ling. Conferences against T. G. Lond. 1679. pag. 89. Mr. Thorndyke's own hand, in which, among other Exceptions against you, he makes this his 12th: ‘ To pray to Saints departed for those things which only God can give (AS ALL PAPISTS DO) is by the proper Sense of their words DOWN-RIGHT IDOLATRY. If they say their meaning is by a Figure, only to desire them to procure their Requests of God; how dare any Christian trust his Soul with that Church, which teaches that which must needs be IDOLATRY in all that understand not the Figure.’

8. Such was the last Judgment of this Learned and Pious Man in this matter. If after this it be necessary to say any thing to his former Opinion; I will only observe, that the ground of it was this Mistake, viz. ‘ Just Weights and Measures, p. 6. Edit. Lond. 1662. cap. 1. That a Christian Church without renouncing the Profession of the true God, cannot be guilty of IDOLATRY.’ Now this De Imag. lib. 2. cap. 24. pag. 2153. Card. Bellarmine himself, and others of your Church, do utterly deny: ‘ For (says he) it is Idolatry, not only when one adores an Idol leaving God, but also when an Idol is adored together with God.’

9. The last of your Divines whom you cite as excusing you from Idolatry, is the Reverend Dr. HAMMOND Pract. Disc. Lond. 1674. § 44. p. 351. Sect. 50. p. 353, 354. Dr. Hammond: but your falseness is as notorious in him as in all the rest. For in a particular Discourse of Idolatry, § 44. He approves and explains the design of our Homilies against the peril of Idolatry: §. 50. He says, ‘ That your worshipping of Images in the most moderate way that can be, is for ought he knows a kind of Idol-Worship, but to be sure a prohibited Act: §. 54. That to put up those Petitions to the Blessed Virgin which are terminated in her self, Sect. 54. p. 354. (as many Forms, if not her whole Office may appear to be) are Acts parallel to the Old Idolatry. §. 56. That your worshipping of Images, notwithstanding all your distinctions of worshipping Sect. 56. p. 355. God mediante Imagine, or relativè, &c. is Idolatry. §. 64. That Sect. 64. p. 357. [Page 49] the Worship of the Bread in the Sacrament must certainly be Idolatry. That your Error about Transubstantiation, and your good design of worshipping Christ there may, he hopes, be some excuse for you; but that your Opinion will not hinder it from being at least material Idolatry, and the worshipping of something that is not God.’

10. So that now upon the whole it remains, that there is not so much as a shadow of Truth in your Assertion, that the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England have excused your Church of the odious Imputation of Idolatry. My next business is to shew, that you did or ought to have known that there was not one word of Truth in what you said.

11. Now this will depend upon the Answer which I shall leave any honest Man to give to these two plain Questions. 1. Whether when you stole all this out of T. G. you either did not, or ought not to have known, that Dr. St. had answered all these Cavils many Years since, and shewn that there was no Truth nor Sincerity in them? 2. Whether a Man that quotes but six Authors for an Assertion derogatory to the Establishment of their Church, and contrary to the publick Doctrine of the Homilies and Injunctions; and to the private Opinions of the Generality of the Divines of it, ought not to have been sure that those Authors at least did affirm that which he pretends they did? The latter of these will conclude against you, that you ought to have known that what you here say is false, because you ought to have examined these Authors, and then you would have known it to be so. And for the former (were not your Conscience unfit to be appeal'd to in a matter of Truth against your self) I durst appeal to your own Soul, whether you did not know, that the Learned Man I have so often mentioned, had shewn T. G. how false these Pretences were? But I go on with you to your next Paragraph: where you tell Me,

12. Ad pag. 2.] Reply. ‘You would gladly know, wherefore at this time I charge you with the odious Imputation of adoring Men and Women, Crosses and Images, &c.’

Answ.] To satisfie you in which Demand, I reply, 1. That I charge you with this, because it is true, and I have both [Page 50] shewn it already, and will yet farther shew it to be so. 2. I do it at this time, because at this time you have the Confidence to deny it, nay to charge us with Calumny, and Misrepresentation for having ever accused you of it. So that your wise Question is in effect but this; We the Vindicators and Representers of New Popery have publickly exposed you to the World as a pack of Knaves, that have misrepresented our Doctrine, and wherefore do you go about to vindicate your selves, and not suffer us to make silly People believe in quiet that what we say is true?

13. Ibid.] Reply. ‘ Where (say you) do I find any thing of this in the 39 Articles? and for the Book of Homilies, I must be little versed in our own Doctrine not to know, that several eminent Divines of our own Church, do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the dogmatical Doctrine of the Church of England’ [Thus T. G. speaks into your Mouth, and you, as his Engine, eccho them to us. T. G's first Answer to Dr. St. Pref. p. 8, 9.]

Answ.] Now to this you should have known that Dr St. gave this Answer. ‘ That the Articles of our Church have confirm'd Answer to several late Treatises; by Dr. Still. Lond. 1673. The general Preface. those Homilies; That these Articles were not only allow'd and approved by the Queen, but subscribed by the whole Clergy in Convocation, Anno. 1571.’ ‘ Now (says the Dean) I desire T. G. to resolve me whether Men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner, if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious, as they must have done, if they had thought the Practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry. I will put the Case that any of the Bishops then had thought that the Charge of Idolatry had been unjust, and that it had subverted the Foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority: that there could have been no Church or Right of Ordination, if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry; would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out? And that the Homilies contain'd a wholsome and Godly Doctrine, which in their Consciences they believed to be false and pernicious? I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allow'd Calvin's Institutions as containing [Page 51] a wholsome and Godly Doctrine, as that Men so perswaded would have allow'd it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry.’

14. For your Objection from T. G' s first Answer to Dr. Still. Pref. pag. 9, 10. T. G. ‘That several eminent Divines of our Church, do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick dogmatical Doctrine of the Church of England; and three of whose Names’ (from * T. G. still) you adorn your Margin with. He answers, Dr. Still. ibid. Be it so: ‘ Surely there is a great deal of difference, between some particular Passages and Expressions in these Homilies, and that which is the main Design and Foundation of one of them. But in this case we are to observe, that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, do not only look on the Charge as false, but as of dangerous consequence, and therefore altho Men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholsome and Godly Doctrine, tho they be not so certain of the Truth of every Passage in it, yet they can never do it with a good Conscience, if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous.’

15. Thus did this Reverend Person confute your Oracle: If you had offer'd any thing to prevent the same Answer from being return'd to you, I should have been far from complaining against you for advancing of an old Argument with new Strength: But when you saw how unable See Dr. Still. Conferences against T. G. p. 22, &c. T. G. was to defend these Cavils, nevertheless still to produce them; and tho you could not but be conscious to your self at the same time that they were not to be maintain'd; I shall only say, that it serves to convince me of the Truth of what an ancient Greek Poet once observed, and the meaning of whose words you may enquire among the Learned at your leisure; [...].

16. Ad pag. 3.] Reply. Your next Paragraph consists of a Story of Q. Elizabeth, and that too eccho'd form T. G's Inspiration: T. G's Dialogues against Dr. Still. p. 17. But to this I have already return'd my Answer, and when you shall think fit to speak out what you mean by it, you shall not fail of a farther Consideration from me, if I be not prevented by your receiving it from a more proper hand.

17. And thus have we done with what concerns the general Cause, in this Introduction; and the Sum of all is this; That [Page 52] of four Paragraphs of which it consists; the first is Calumny; the second false (and I am reasonably perswaded known by you to be so): the third impertinent, and long since answered (as was also the foregoing) by the Reverend Dr. St. the last seditious: I go on to the following part of this first Article, to examine what relates to my self in it.

18. Where first you except against my quoting your particular Authors to find out your Churches meaning, and call it Calumny, tho what Calumny it is to say that those Authors, whom you cannot deny but that I truly cite, have expounded your Churches Sense otherwise than you and some others do, I cannot imagine: But however you tell us;

Ad p. 3, 4. Reply.] ‘ That you have nothing to do with the Doctrine of the Schools: That I must take your Doctrine from your Councils; the publick, authentick, and universally recieved Definitions and Decisions of the Church.’

Answ.] And in this you still follow your old Guide T. G. Dial. against Dr. Still. p. 56, 57. T. G. But I have First Part Preface. already shewn you the weakness of this Pretence; and for your next supposal that even those Authors do not say what I affirm they do, if your Proofs are as convincing as your Assertion is confident, I have already promised you all you can desire, ‘ That I will not fail to confess that you deserve not so ill a Character as I thought.’ Repl. p. 4.

Ad pag. 4.] Reply. Your next Paragraph charges me with ‘ UNSINCERITY in stating the Question betwixt Catholicks (as you call them) and Protestants, for that I represented you as allowing us to hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith.’

Answ.] And is it not the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith which we hold, and which has been deliver'd down to us in those very Creeds which your selves profess, and into the Faith of which you still baptize your Children? Nay, do not you your self confess this to be true in the very place where you cavil against me for this Assertion Vindic. Art. 1. p. 24. Vindic. p. 24. where you grant, that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted Foundation, and only deny that it is [Page 53] intirely so? And again, in this very Reply in which you repeat your Accusation; Reply, Art. 1. pag. 4. P. 4. ‘ I told him (say you) that we do not allow that Proposition, ESPECIALLY IF HE MEAN all Fundamentals.’ So that then the Unsincerity lies not in my saying that what we hold is fundamental; for this you tell me (Vindicat. p. 24.) NO BODY EVER DENY'D, but for pretending that you allow'd that we held ALL which you esteem'd to be fundamental. Now for this I must observe,

1st, That you dare not say positively that I affirm'd any such thing, Reply; See before. ‘ I told him (say you) that we do not allow that Proposition, IF he mean ALL Fundamentals.’ So that you positively charge me with Unsincerity for pretending that you granted what you do not, upon supposition that I MEANT any such thing.

2dly, That to make something of this charge, you are forced to go back from your own Concession: For whereas in your Vindication you had said plainly, that tho you do not allow us Vindic. p. 24. to hold all Fundamentals, yet no body ever deny'd that we held some of them; here you clap in an Insinuation even against this too: ‘ I told him that we do not allow. that they hold the ancient Reply p. 3. and undoubted Foundation; ESPECIALLY, if he meant ALL Fundamentals.’ So that tho you do deny it ESPECIALLY if we mean ALL Fundamentals, yet you do not altogether allow even that what we hold is fundamental.

But, 3dly, Where at last do you find that I ever said, that you granted that we held ALL which you esteem to be fundamental? In my Exposition, I tell you, in the very next words to those you cavil at, that this was the thing to be put upon the issue; ‘Whether those Articles which you had added to this ancient and undoubted Foundation as Superstructures to it, Expos. C. E. p. 5. were not so far from being NECESSARY Articles of Religion, as YOU PRETEND, that they indeed overthrow that Faith which is on both sides allow'd to be Divine.’ And when in your Vindication you first made this little Exception; I again repeated it in these very words, which you take no notice of in your Reply: ‘ But the Vindicator, jealous for the Defen. of the Expos. p. 5. Authority of his Church, and to have whatsoever she proposes pass for fundamental, confesses that we do indeed hold a PART, but not ALL those Articles that are fundamental. THIS therefore [Page 54] must be put upon the issue.—’So that whereas you accuse me of perverting the Bishop of Meaux's Sense, it is indeed you that have (I fear wilfully) perverted mine. What I said, both of you acknowledg, viz. that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted Truth; and you cannot deny the State of the Question to be just as I have said, ‘ Whether what you farther advance, and what we reject, be not so far from being Fundamental Truth, that it is indeed no Truth at all, but rather contrary to, and destructive of that Truth which is on both sides allow'd to be Divine?’

20. Ad p. 5.] Reply. But you go yet farther in this Point against me; and accuse me in the next place ‘ of perverting your own Sense too, by saying that you confess that those Articles which you hold, and we contradict, do by evident and undoubted Consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be fundamental. And you wonder with what Spectacles I read this.’

Answ.] The Spectacles I use are p'ain Honesty and plain Reason; if you have better, I envy you not. In stating the Question between us, I said Expos. C. E. p. 5. Def. p. 5. ‘ the thing to be put upon the issue was, Whether those Additions which the Church of Rome has made to the ancient and undoubted faith, were not so far from being Fundamental Truths, that they do, even by your own Confession, overthrow those Truths that are on both sides allow'd to be Fundamental?’ This you deny you ever said, and yet in the very next word [...] you confess the contrary: Reply p. 5. Vindicat. p. 23. ‘ 'Tis true (say you) I tell him, that were the Doctrines and Practices which HE ALLEDGES the plain and confess'd Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, he would have reason to say that they contradict our Principles: But I tell him also that we renounce these Doctrines and Practices.’ But this is not now the Question, whether you renounce these Doctrines and Practices or no: Did not you confess that those Doctrines which I charge you with do overthrow the Truths that are on both sides allow'd to be Divine? This you cannot, nay you do not deny: And this was what I asserted, and for which you most injuriously accuse me of perverting your Sense. As to your denial of these things, that I have already shewe to be a groundless Pretence, and shall [Page 55] yet farther prove you to be as guilty of prevaricating in your Evasion, as it is evident you have been in your accusing of me.

21. Ibid.] For the Parallel you add between our charging you as guilty of Idolatry upon the account of your Worship, and the Fanatick's Clamours against us for our Ceremonies, and against the Justice of which you think we have little to say, it still more confirms me that the ancient Poet I before mention'd was a wise Man: For after so full a Confutation as has been given to this Parallel by Answer to the Amicable Accommodation— The View of the whole Controversy, &c. two several Hands, for you to presume still to say, that we have little to reply to it; this would certainly have made any other Creature in the World blush, but a Man that has taken his leave of Modesty.

22. Ad pag. 6.] For your last little Reflection, which you have dubb'd with the Title ‘of Protestant Charity and Moderation;’ I shall only tell you, that to charge you with adoring Men and Women, Crosses, Images and Relicks, is no more a breach of Charity, than it would be to charge a Man with Murder or Theft whom I actually saw killing his Neighbour, or stealing away his Goods. If you are indeed guilty of doing this, 'tis Charity to admonish those of their danger, whom you might otherwise ensnare by your confident denying of it. But the truth is, it is the Justice of this Reflection that so much troubles you: and you could be well enough content we should accuse you of doing this, if you could but find out any means to prevent our proving of it.

The ANSWER to the SECOND ARTICLE.

That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone.

1. AD p. 6.] Reply. ‘In the beginning of this Article you seem a little concern'd that I took no more notice of what you had said in your Vindication, concerning your Distinctions of Religious Worship: You pretend that I did not do it, because if I had, all my Quotations [Page 56] out of your Liturgies would have signified just nothing; neither could I have made so plausible an Excuse for my Calumnies and Falsifications: And you conjure me not to obstruct the Hopes of a Christian Unity by a future Misapplication of these Terms.’

2. Answ.] It is perhaps none of the least Instances of that Perplexity, into which Sin and Error commonly lead those who have been involved in them, to consider what a multiplicity of obscure and barbarous Terms the Iniquity of these latter Ages has invented to confound those things, which are otherwise in themselves of the greatest Clearness and Evidence. Whilst Men kept to that Primitive Rule of the Gospel, Mat. iv. 10. ‘ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve;’ the Law was simple and easie, and there was no need of any Distinctions, either to excuse or to condemn the Worship of any other besides him. The Command was so plain, that the Devil himself had nothing to say to it: As for the Sophistry we are now to encounter, (and by which you would have been able to have taken that offer which our Saviour refused, and yet have salved your Conscience of any breach of the Precept too) he was either yet to learn it, or else it appeared to him so thin and contemptible, that however he has since inspired others with it, yet he was ashamed himself to insist upon it. But however, seeing Mens words are their own, and let them express their Conceptions after what manner they please, it is enough for us that we understand their meaning; I shall content my self to draw up a short Summary of what you here offer, and which indeed is all that your Party has to insist upon on this occasion, and we shall hereafter see when you come to the Application of these Distinctions, whether there be any thing in them to excuse you of that Guilt we here charge you with.

3. But before I enter upon this Enquiry, I cannot but observe the Change you make in the Title of this Article. Hitherto we have had it in these words, Monsieur de M. Expos. Art. 3. Vindic. Art. 2. ‘ Religious Worship is terminated only in God: Now you add another Restriction, Reply, Art. 2. That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone:’ By which you would seem to imply, that Religious Worship may terminate upon the Objects to which you pay it, as Saints or [Page 57] Angels; (and wherein you certainly depart from your own and the Bishop of Meaux's former Principle) but that ultimately it must end in God alone. But the truth is, ( Answer to Papists Protesting, p. 29, &c. Sect. III. what you have been already told) all Worship do's properly terminate in the Object to which it is given. You may honour a Saint for God's Sake, and it is an honour to God by accident so to do: but when all is done, still the proper Honour that is given to the Saint terminates in him, and do's not pass to any other. And this you must confess, unless you will spoil all your own Distinctions. For whatever the Honour be that you give to the Saints, either it must finally terminate in them, and then your new Addition is useless; or if it pass on to God, you must either dishonour God if you give him such an inferior Honour as you do the Saints, and which is altogether unsuitable to his infinite Nature and Majesty; or if you give the Saints the same Honour you do God, then you raise them up into a state above the condition of meer Creatures, and so yet more dishonour God, by setting up Competitors with him in his Service. So that then your new modelling of this Position will stand you in no stead: and you must after all say, either that no Religious Honour must be given to any other but God, (as our Saviour has declared, and as we affirm) if you do truly believe that all Religious Honour ought to terminate in Him alone; or you must confess, that Religious Worship may be terminated, and that ultimately, upon the Creature; which indeed your Practice shews you do believe, and for which we justly accuse you of Idolatry.

4. But we will examine your own Scheme, that so we may the better understand your Pretences. And,

Ad Pag. 7, 8.] Reply. 1st, As to the words (you say) ‘That Honour, and Worship, and Adoration, may admit of different Senses, and according to them be differently applied. There is a Divine Worship proper to God, and there is a Civil Worship that is paid to Men; and a Dulia, or inferior sort of Religious Worship, that you give to Saints Angels, and Holy Things. 2dly, That as to the outward Actions of the Body, whether Bowing, Kneeling, &c. there may be a difference in these two; they being not so appropriated to God, but that they may be paid to the Creature also. That therefore, 3dly, both [Page 58] the Actions and Expressions are to be distinguish'd, according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are terminated. If the Excellency be natural, or naturally acquired; then the Honour that is paid is Civil or Humane. If it be Supernatural, then the Honour is Religious. And this Religious Honour is either a Sovereign Honour proper to God alone, call'd Latria; Or it is Inferior, and of which there are several degrees according to the several measures in which God bestows his supernatural Gifts upon his Servants; and is that you call Dulia. And this inferior religious Honour may be paid, not only to rational Natures, but sometimes also to inanimate Things.’

5. Answ.] This I think is the sum of what you desire me to take notice of; and I will now return you a few general Reflections upon it. And,

1st, Though we are contented to take all these hard words in your own Sense, yet I must observe to prevent any misapplication of them to the Passages of either Holy Scripture, or Primitive Antiquity, before St. Austin's Time. That for what concerns the Hebrew Phrases of the Old Testament, by which this Worship is express'd, they are all of them promiscuous, and indifferently used with reference both to God and the Creatures. But now with the Greek Phrases in the New Testament it is otherwise. One of them indeed, viz. that from whence you derive your term Dulia, is ambiguous; but for the other two, [...] & Mat. 18. 26. [...], the former is never at all, the latter never but once, and that too in a parabolical sentence, applied to any other Worship than that of God only; not to any Humane or Civil respect.

2dly, As to the distinction you make between Civil and Religious Honour properly so called, we readily embrace it: and we do confess, that the difference must be taken from the diversity of excellency in the Objects on which they are terminated. Reply, p. 7. From which we infer, that there must be therefore the same proportion between Civil and Religious Worship, as there is between God and Men. Seeing then there can be no Analogy between these two, neither can there be any between the Worship that is paid to the One, and to the Other. By consequence, that properly speaking, there can be no other Honour attributed to a [Page 59] Creature but what is Civil, and which must be diversified, according to the different Excellencies of those to whom it is given. And this you your self allow in your Vindication, [p. 28, 29.] where you declare that this Honour is but an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive, not from the Nature of the Act; and that you do renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the Nature of the Act, and by consequence only due to God. And here again in your Reply you found the Appellation of Religious Honour with reference to the Saints, ‘either upon the Motive of it, which is religious; or, Ibid. p. 8. because it ultimately refers to God, for whose sake, and upon account of whose Gifts we honour them.’ Now taking this then to be not only your own private Opinion, but the Sense of your Church; and that you may see, I desire to close as far as possibly I can with your Notions, I add,

3dly, That as to the first of these, ‘ The Religious Motive;’ We are content in this respect to allow the denomination of Religious Worship to others besides God. Such is the Honour we render to our Parents, to Civil Magistrates, &c. upon the account of God's Command so to do. And thus the two terms of Civil and Religious are not opposite, but co-ordinate, and consistent with one another. Secondly, For the other Grounds on which you call this Honour, Religious, namely upon the account of those Supernatural Gifts or Excellencies which God has bestow'd upon his Creatures; We are ready to allow of this too. And thus we confess, that the Honour which we, as well as you, pay to the Saints, may be called Religious; when we bless God for their Excellencies, and pray to him for Grace to follow their Examples. We never denied but that godly and religious Men were to be reverenced, not only for their other Qualities, but yet more especially for their Sanctity and Devotion. But then,

4thly, As for Religious Honour properly so called, and as it respects not meerly the Religious Motive, or the Supernatural Gifts which God has bestow'd upon his Servants, but the very Nature and Quality of the Act it self; such Acts by which we pay not only all that worship which may be due to the Excellencies of a pure Creature, but the proper Exercises of Religion, as Prayer, Confession, and such like; and these with all the Circumstances of a proper, religious Worship; in the House of God, in the [Page 60] midst of his Solemn Service; it may be in the same Breath and Form in which we address to the Creator; this is that religious Worship which we constantly affirm, and which you your self confess may not without impiety be given to any but God only; and it is for this we charge you with that, which by your own acknowledgment none of your Distinctions reach to, nor will therefore excuse you of, viz. Idolatry.

5thly, As for the outward Expressions of this Honour by bodily Actions, as Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, &c. these we confess are ambiguous, and must be determined by the other Circumstances. But then we deny that they are to be interpreted meerly according to the intention of him that performs them. There is an External Adoration, which no Internal Act of the Understanding or Will can excuse, if it be applied to any besides God. Such as is perform'd with those Circumstances of a Religious Worship before mention'd, as to Time, Place, Words, and the like. In short, it is, we say, Idolatry by any External Act whatsoever, to shew that we do attribute Religious Honour to any other but God alone.

6thly, And for the rest, we do affirm, That there are some other kind of External Actions so peculiarly appropriate to God, that they cannot without Idolatry be attributed to any other. Such as, 1st, Sacrifice Bp of Meaux's Expos. Sect. III. p. 4., by your own Confession: See this prosecuted at large in Dr. Still. first Answer to T. G. p. 190, to 283. to which I will, 2dly, add all those other things of the like kind which God appropriated to himself under the Law; as Religious Adoration, Erection of Temples and Altars, Burning of Incense in token of Divine Worship, Solemn Invocation, and Vows; in all which neither our Saviour nor his Apostles having made the least alteration, we ought certainly (as both the Jews and Primitive Christians most undoubtedly did) to esteem them still his own peculiar Prerogative.

Having thus establish'd in General our Notion of Religious Worship; let us see if any of these Distinctions will (as you pretend) excuse you of that imputation which has been laid upon you.

[Page 65]

ANSWER TO THE THIRD ARTICLE, OF THE INVOCATION of SAINTS.

IN the beginning of this Article I cannot but acknowledge Reply, p. 10. a commendable Endeavour in you to clear the true State of the Question betwixt us: And tho I am not absolutely of your mind, nor do I see any Cause for your Supposal that Mr. P. 11. Thorndyke spoke the Sense of the Church of England in every one of those Particulars mention'd by you in Order thereunto, yet I will not enter into any Controversie with you about them.

1. And first, Be it allow'd that the Words Prayer, Invocation, Calling upon, Address, &c. are or may be Equivocal; i. e. (as that Learned Man phrases it) that we may make use of the same Expressions in signifying our Requests to God and to Man; tho yet for the two first of these, viz. Prayer and Invocation, they are seldom Applied to any Other than a Religious Sense. This T. G. long since observed, and you have now borrowed it from Him; and you may make what use of this Remark you please in managing of this Controversie.

2. We do not deny but that we ought to Honour the Saints departed, as well as Holy Men upon Earth; Only we desire that that Honour be such as becomes them to receive, and us to pay. We honour them when we praise, and much more when we follow their Faith and Patience. And because the Reason and End of this Honour is Religious, you may without being contradicted by me call the Honour it self Religious too; seeing [Page 66] you explain your self to mean no more by it, than an an External Denomination from the Cause and Motive, but not Vind. p. 28, 29. from the Nature of the Act its self.

3. Nor will I dispute with you, lastly, Whether the Saints in Happiness do not in General pray for the Church Militant: For 'tis to as little purpose to deny what cannot be disproved, as to affirm what one cannot prove. I have as great an Honour as any Man for Mr. Thorndyke's Memory; but yet I cannot see the Proof even of this in those Scriptures which (as you say) He proves it by. Some Fathers I know have said Reply, P. 11. so; but their saying it is not to Me a sufficient Proof of a Point of Doctrine. When all is done, the Congruity of the thing is the best that can be brought for it. And if upon this account you are resolved to call them Advocates or Intercessors between God and us, you will I hope excuse me if I do Ibid. not comply with you in it. That they are full of Charity towards us who are Members of the same Body with them, I make not the least Question: But how they express it I do not certainly know, because many Particulars there are from whence such a Matter is to be concluded, which are all hidden from my Knowledge. One thing I know, That we have a Mediator at the Right Hand of God, who knows all our Wants, which I see no reason to believe the greatest Saint in Heaven does. I am likewise assured that his Right to intercede for us is founded upon the Sacrifice of his Death. And since the Gospel gives this Honour and Prerogative to Him ONLY, to appear in the Presence of God for us, I shall never whilst I live help forward an Ambiguity in those Titles, of a Mediator with God, or an Advocate with the Father, or an Intercessor in Heaven, by attributing of them to any Saint whatsoever. These Expressions so applied are dangerous, and scandalous; and 'tis but a frivolous Pretence for the doing of it, that possibly the Saints may do something for us in Heaven, upon the account of which the Titles of our Redeemer may in some sense be given to them.

2. As for the State of the Question which you next propose, you should know by this time that we are by no Means Reply, p. 11. agreed that the only thing in dispute betwixt us is, Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to the Saints that they would Pray for us? and, Whether such kind of Addresses as these are of [Page 67] such a Nature as to make Gods (for so you tell me I very disrespectfully Ibid. call them; tho I believe you will find 'tis your Misrepresenter's Phrase, and not Mine) of Men and Women. You do indeed with your Guides T. G. and the Bishop of Meaux tell us, that all the Prayers of your Church, be their Words never so repugnant, must yet be reduced to this sense, PRAY FOR US: But you have often been told, that this is utterly disallow'd by us. However, to take off all occasion of Cavil, as far as is possible, I will offer you the State of the Question in such Terms as you shall have no just cause to except against it; viz.

‘ Whether it be Lawful to pray to the Saints, after the manner that is at this day prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome?’

And I will so far comply with you, as to consider it in both respects: 1. According to your own Representation of it: 2. According to that which is indeed your Practice, and fre [...] ly acknowledged by the greatest Men of your Church to be so.

I. POINT.

Whether it be Lawful to pray to the Saints, to PRAY FOR US?

3. This is the least that can possibly be made of this Matter: And because I would bring the Point to the fairest Issue that may be, as I have proposed the Question according to your own desire, so I will dispute it with you upon your own Principles.

4. And first; for what concerns the Terms of the Question, they are exactly taken from your own Words: You tell us in your Vindication, that all you say is, ‘ That it is Vindic. p. 30. LAWFUL to Pray to the Saints; and here in your Reply, That the Difference between us is Whether it be LAWFUL Reply, p. 11. for us to Pray to them?’ In which yet you seem to fall a little below even the Bishop of Meaux Himself, who tells us, ‘ [Page 68] That your Church teaches that it is PROFITABLE at least Exposit. Sect. IV. p. 5. to Pray to them.’ But however such is our Security according to Both of you, that neither You nor He care to say it is our Duty so to do, or that we run any Danger in the neglect of it. Whatever therefore be the Issue of this Dispute, it is wholly your Concern to look to it; thus much we are Agreed in, That there is no Sin in our Omission. For where there is no Law, there is no Transgression.

5. But I will now presume to go farther: And since you dare not say that such an Invocation is Necessary, I will undertake to affirm, that neither is it Profitable, nor indeed Lawful, but utterly forbidden. And for proof of this, I shall lay down no Other Foundation than what you have your self establish'd; viz. That Religious Honour or Worship may be taken in a double Sense: ‘First, Strictly, and so is due Only See Vidicat. p. 27. to God: Secondly, More largely, and so may be paid to Creatures.’ And what you mean by these Terms, you thus more fully express: ‘That by Religious Honour in this latter Ibid. p. 28, 29. sense, and as you apply it to the Saints, you understand only an Honour so called by an extrinsecal Denomination from the CAUSE and MOTIVE, but not from the NATURE of the ACT it self.’ That is such an Honour as may be in it self Civil, and is only CALLED Religious because it is done for God's sake, and in Obedience to God's Commands. But for a strict and proper Religious Worship, such as is in its own Nature so, this you confess with us to be due to God ONLY. From whence I conclude, That to give such a Worship to any Creature, must be to pay that Service to the Creature which is due only to the Creator; and that is, in Our Sense, to Commit Idolatry.

6. And now from this Principle which you have your self laid down, and which you think ‘ will be alone sufficient to Vindic. p. 28. Answer all Objections brought against your Doctrine;’ I take leave to inferr, ‘That if even such an Invocation as you confess you pay to the Saints, be strictly a Religious Honour, in the very Nature of the Act it self, and not barely by an Extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive of it; it will then remain that you are guilty in this Service of giving that Worship to the Saints which is due only to God, and are by Consequence therein guilty of Idolatry’ And this I shall shew,

[Page 69]I. From the very Nature of the Act it self.
II. From the Circumstances of it.

I. That the very Nature of the Act it self of Invocating the Saints, does shew, that it is strictly and properly a Religious Worship.

7. This is what I know Monsieur de Meaux denies: He tells us, ‘That when you pray to the Saints, you do it in the same Expos. Artic. IV. Spirit of Charity, and according to the same Order of Brotherly Society, which moves us to demand Assistance of our Brethren living upon Earth.’ Thus he smooths your Invocation of Saints departed, to make it lie even with our desires of one anothers prayers. But did he in good earnest believe, that nothing but a Spirit of Charity, and the Order of Brotherly Society, is to be discerned in the Act of calling upon departed Saints to pray for us? We have indeed that Charity for them, as to believe, that they have Charity for us: and though they are highly advanced above us, we yet take them to be our Brethren. But is this all that is implied in the Act of calling upon them to pray for us? For my part, I cannot but believe, that Monsieur de Meaux himself was sensible of a vast difference in the Case, as appears by his endeavouring to blind it afterwards. And I shall now offer some Reasons, that may perhaps convince others, as they have fully satisfied my self about it.

8. For 1. If the Nature of that Act of Invoking the Saints in Heaven, be the same with that of desiring my Christian Brother to pray for me upon Earth, then on the other hand this is also of the same Nature with that. And by consequence, I may as well fall down upon my Knees here in London, and desire my Christian Brother, who is now, it may be, in Japan, or somewhere in the East Indies, or perhaps on his return homewards, to pray for me, as do the like to S. Peter or S. Paul, who, for any thing I can tell, are at a vastly greater distance from me, than my Friend upon Earth is. But if there be something more than a Spirit of Charity, or an acknowledgment of Brotherhood, in calling upon my living friend, who is out of all natural distance of hearing, there is also something [Page 70] more than this in calling upon the dead, who it may be are a thousand times farther from me, than the living can be from one another. Would not such an Invocation of my Friend, think you, suppose him to be more than a Brother, or a Man? Would not the Nature of the Act ascribe to him not only the praise of Charity, but likewise the power of hearing and knowing all that is said upon Earth, at any distance whatsoever? I grant, that if this were indeed no more than according to the Order of Fraternal Society; neither would it be any more than so for you to call upon the Saints deceased to pray for you. But if the former would be more, when you have said all that you can, the latter must necessarily be so too: And you do thereby Elevate the Saints above the condition of Creatures. For whether you believe them to be Omnipresent or not, the very Act of invoking them indifferently in any place, and their being called upon in several places at the same time, does imply their Omnipresence, unless you could give us some other ground of certainty, that they hear you, besides this, that wherever they are when they are spoken to, and wherever you are when you speak to them, 'tis all one, they do as surely know what you say, as if they stood within the common distance of hearing. Now that Action, which in the very Nature of it ascribes an Immensity of presence to the Object, about which it is conversant, is religious in the very Nature of the Act. And then I leave it to you to determine whether it be Idolatrous or not, if it be paid to any thing that is not God. But,

9. Secondly, If you are not yet satisfied, I would desire to know, whether prayer to God, which you will not deny to be in its own Nature a religious Act, be not so upon this account as well as others, that 'tis an Acknowledgment of his Immense Presence. But how is it such an acknowledgment, otherwise than as we do in all places, and at all times call upon him. Since therefore you do in all places, and at all times call upon the Saints as well as upon God, I pray tell us why this Invocation should not also be in its own Nature religious Worship. If you allow this, then you have already pass'd sentence upon your self: If you do not, I should be glad you would find a little leisure to shew us the difference. This is an Argument that has been often enough urged to be taken notice of; and if you shall still go on to say nothing to it, we shall conclude the reason to be, that indeed you have nothing to object against it.

[Page 71] 10. And what I have now said of this Invocation, upon the account of the distance of the Saints from us, that they are now out of the compass of all Civil Commerce; and therefore to pray to them must be properly a Religious Worship, will be yet further confirm'd, Thirdly, by another of your practises; in that your Church allows not only Vocal, but even Mental Prayer to be made to them. Now this can be no Act of Civil Honour, seeing no creature, such as Man (the Object of all Civil Honour) is, can be capable of searching the Heart, so as to find out the secrets of it. For God, even God only knows the secrets 1 Kings VIII. 31. of all the Children of Men. And therefore to pray in our minds to the Saints, to offer up the secret aspirations of our Souls, in Honour to any Creature, this must be an Act of Religious Worship, and such therefore as by your own acknowledgment is due to God only.

11. Now that you could not be ignorant of these things, and by consequence are the more inexcusable in this your Worship, appears from what Monsieur de Meaux has told us; viz. ‘That by addressing Prayers to the Saints, and honouring Expos. Sect. IV. them all the World over as present, you do not attribute to them a certain kind of Immensity, nor the Knowledge of the Secrets of the Heart, which God has reserved to Himself; seeing it is manifest, that to say a Creature may have the Knowledge of these things by a Light communicated to Him by God, is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition.’ Thus he gives that to the Saints in the Close, which He deny'd in the Beginning. They have not a kind of Immensity, nor do they know the Secrets of our Hearts; No, by no means, for that is necessary to be said to save your selves from giving Divine Honour to the Saints: But for all that they have the Knowledge of these things by a Light communicated to them by God; and this is also necessary to be said, to save your Invocation of them from being a foolish and absurd Devotion. And for the same reason he supposed before, that some Grounds, ‘which He would not examine, might be had to attribute to the Saints some certain Degree of Knowledge as to those things that are acted amongst us, as also of our secret Thoughts.’ Thus he doubles, and treads with fear, like a Man that has lost his Way in a dark Night, and is afraid of a Ditch every Step he takes. To say that the Saints know [Page 72] All our Wants and Desires, and the Secrets of our Hearts, is to give them a certain kind of Immensity which He dares not say they have; and therefore those Words are slipt in, that ‘ some Grounds may be had to attribute to them a certain Degree of Knowledge, as to these things.’ Now a certain Degree of Knowledge, seems not to be a certain kind of Immensity; and so you are for a while safe on that side. Well, but a certain Degree of Knowledge as to these things, will not serve to make all the Prayers of All Men, at any time, and in any place, to this or that Saint, wise and profitable Prayers. For a certain Degree is but a Degree; And to answer all that is, or that you would have to be done in this kind, nothing will serve but a certain kind of Immensity. And therefore on the Other hand, a Creature may have the Knowledge of these things, i. e. of ALL these things. So that now the Prayers are profitable again; but then what shall we do to keep off Immensity from being attributed to the Creature? He has a Trick for that, and it is this; viz. That this kind of Immensity or Knowledge of all Prayers that are or can be any where offer'd to them, is communicated to them by God, and as long as God has made them thus immense, we may do so too.

12. And thus he represents the Saints as Dii facti, Made Gods, and that by the Almighty himself; which being done with respect to Omnipresence, may, whenever a wretched Cause requires it, be done as well with respect to Omnipotence, and all the other Divine Perfections; and in one word leads to such Consequences, as cannot but stir up the Indignation of all good Men. Nothing should be maintain'd in the Minds of Christian People with more care than the distinct Notion they ought to have of God and his Creatures. But your Doctrine and Practice in this kind does so confound these Apprehensions of the One and the Other, that they cannot tell what Prerogative, as to the matter of hearing Prayers, God has above his Saints; since they hear all, as well as He. Prayer to God every where is that which principally supports in the Minds of Men the apprehension of his being every where present: And tho much of it is due to the natural Impressions which God has left of himself in our Souls, yet the Reflexions we make upon it, are chiefly owing to the frequent Addresses we make every where, publickly and privately, to the [Page 73] Invisible Being, the Lord of All, of whom we have some knowledge by Nature, and more by Christian Instruction. But when Prayer is made to other Invisible Beings as generally as to God, how can it be otherwise, but that the People should conceive them to be as Omnipresent as God himself is? Especially if it be considered, that when their Educated and Philosophical Men, come to vindicate their Practice and Doctrine from this imputation, they cannot so much as speak sense about it, but with all their Art, talk more meanly and confusedly than meer Nature would instruct an Honest man to do. The difference between the People and the blind guides on the one side, and between the Seers on the other, being only this, That the Worship, and the Notions of the former go together, and are of a piece; but the latter, with as bad a Worship, have better Notions; and give that Honour to the Saints by their Practice, which their Notions (as they would have us think at least) deny to them. But for that reason they are the more to blame; and tho their Idolatry be not so gross as the Peoples, yet it is more inexcusable.

13. And yet if we may judge of their thoughts by their words, some of the refined Controvertists do not come much behind the Common People in this stupidity. If they think otherwise than they say, they are to answer to God for that too. Cardinal Bellarmine, and others, who had none of these De Cultu [...]. lib. iii. c. 9. Expounding designs to carry on, speak out freely, and tell us, that the Saints are Dii per participationem, God's by participation; and upon that account he justifies the Practice of the Church of Rome, in swearing by them, and making Vows to them. Nor Expos. §. IV. p. 7. indeed do I see how that differs very much from Monsieur de Meaux's giving them the Knowledge which the hearing of all Prayers requires, as by a light communicated to them by God. For what is that but to say, that God has (in effect) made them partakers of his Immensity? Nay, the Representer (if we may conclude any thing from his arguing) seems plainly to yeild, that the Saints have a Natural Knowledge of our Prayers: ‘ For (says Part 1. §. ii. p. 3. he) Abraham heard the Petition of Dives, who was yet at a greater distance from him (than the Saints are from us), even in Hell: and told him likewise the manner of his living whilst as yet on Earth. Nay, since 'tis generally allow'd, that the very Devils hear those desperate Wretches who call on them, why should we doubt that the Saints want this priviledge?’

[Page 74] 14. No wonder therefore if Bellarmine makes a greater difference between the Prayers to the Saints, and our desires of good mens Prayers upon Earth, than Monsieur de Meaux seems willing to acknowledge; and looks upon it to be a Worship due to them, thus (in the words of your Synod of Trent) suppliantly to call upon them: For what can be more reasonable than Conc. Trid. Sess. ult. to esteem that Prayer, the Invocation of Suppliants, and the Worship of Invocation, which is made with such deference of respect from the very Nature of the Act, as is due to God the only Omnipresent Being? And what more unreasonable and foolish, than to call our desires of each others Prayers by such Titles as these?

And hitherto have I shewn, that in the very Act of praying to the Saints, without any regard had to the form or substance of your Petitions, or the circumstances with which you call upon them, you give proper, religious Worship to them, which you acknowledge it is unlawful for you to do. I proceed, Secondly, to shew this yet more plainly,

II. From the Circumstances of it.

15. And here to avoid, if it be possible, all your little Cavils so usual upon this occasion, as in speaking to the former part of this Argument, I have managed it so as not to concern my self with any of your distinctions of Supreme and Inferiour Reply, p. 7. Religious Worship; so here I will not insist on those Exteriour Actions of the Body, which you tell me are Equivocal, and of which Monsieur de Meaux roundly affirms, ‘ That the Nature of Expos. p. 8. that Exteriour Honour which you render to the Saints, must be judged from the internal Sentiments of the Mind.’ The Circumstances I shall now insist upon are such, as are not liable to any of these Evasions; but will, if not silence a Contentious Spirit, yet I am confident, satisfie any unprejudiced Christian, that the Prayers which you make to the Saints are properly a Religious Act, and not only called so by an external denomination from the Cause and Motive of them.

16. For 1. What else can be gathered from those outward Circumstances, of the Place, Time and Manner (to say nothing of the Gestures of the Body) with which you call upon them? Do not all these speak plainly to us what the Nature of this [Page 75] Worship is? You pray (for instance) to the Saints in the House of God, it may be, in a Temple which you have consecrated at once to the Service of God, and to the Honour of the Saint whom you invoke. You accompany these Prayers with Incense smoking before their Images; a Circumstance which was once reckon'd as a peculiar instance of External Religious Adoration; and which was therefore thought so appropriate an Act of Divine Worship among the Primitive Christians, that they chose to die rather than to throw a little Incense into the fire upon the Heathen Altars. You call at the same instant upon the One and upon the other, and too often place them in an equal rank with one another. ‘Thus, if you confess your Missal. R. in ord. Miss. sins, you do it to God Almighty, to the B. Virgin, to St. Michael the Archangel, to S. John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and in short, to All the Saints: If you commend a departing Soul, you bid him go out in the Name Rituale R. Ord. Comm. An. of God the Father Almighty, who created him; and of Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who suffer'd for him; and in the Name of the Holy Ghost, who was poured out upon him; in the Name of Angels and Archangels, of Apostles, Evangelists, &c. If you conjure a Tempest, you call upon God and Ritual. Fr. de S [...]les. p. 77. in sin. the Holy Angels; you adjure the Evil Spirit, you contradict him, by the Vertue of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Offices of the Church, your Addresses to God, and the Blessed Virgin, are so inter-woven with each other, that there is no alteration but only in the manner of the Expression, and very often not in that neither: As when you pray (for instance) That the Virgin Mary and Her Son Offic. B. V. pag. 84. would Bless you.’ In the Doxologies of your greatest Men at the End of their Works, nothing more frequent than to see ‘ Glory and Praise return'd to God and the Blessed Virgin;’ and in your ordinary Conversation no exclamation more frequent than that of Jesu-Maria. Even your solemn Excommunications Pontific. R. Ord. Excom. & Absolv. p. 196, 197. and Absolutions are made in the Name and Authority of the Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin, and all the Saints; and the Passion of Christ joyn'd in equal rank with the Merits of the Virgin Mary for the remission of their sins. By all which it undoubtedly appears, that either your Invocation of God himself is not properly a Religious [...]t; or if that be strictly a Religious Worship, the other will be so also.

[Page 76] 17. Secondly, Another Circumstance which plainly shews your Invocation of Saints to be in the very Nature of the Act a Religious Service, is, that you offer not only your Prayers, but your very Sacrifice too to their Honour and Veneration: And this I am sure you will not deny to be truly a Religious Act. Thus in the Missal of Salisbury.

‘ Accept, O Holy Trinity, this Oblation, which I, unworthy sinner, offer in Honour of thee, and of the Blessed Virgin In Ord. Missae. fol. 146. Mary, and of All Saints.’

And in the Common Roman Missal,

‘ Accept, O Holy Trinity, this Oblation which we offer to thee in memory of the Passion. Resurrection, and Ascension Ord. Miss. p. 311. Paris. 1616. of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Honour of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Blessed John the Baptist; and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.’

And in the Post-Communio of the Mass of the B. Virgin.

‘ Having received, O Lord, the defence of our salvation, Rituale Fr. de Sales. par. post. p. 19. Lyon. 1632. grant, we beseech thee, that we may every where be defended by the Patronage of the Blessed Virgin, for whose Veneration we have offer'd this to thy Majesty.’

Now, not to enter on an Enquiry, how far these Expressions will in some measure apply the very Sacrifice it self to those Saints; it being hardly intelligible otherwise what Honour can be done to the Saints, by a Sacrifice offer'd solely to God; it cannot be doubted, but that this being confessedly a proper Religious Act, whatever Honour is hereby done the Saints, must be strictly and properly a Religious Honour; not meerly in denomination, but in the very Nature of the thing it self. And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell us, whether this too be done with the same Spirit of Charity, and in the same Order of Brotherly Society with which we intreat our Brethren upon Earth to pray for us. And what would be thought of him, that out of kindness or respect to his fellow Christian, should offer up the Son of God for his Honour, or (as the last Prayer has it) in his Veneration.

[Page 77] I do not pretend that this is properly an Act of Prayer to Saints; and therefore I propose it only as a Circumstance from whence to conclude what the true Nature of your Invocation of them is. For if it appear, that the other parts of that Worship you pay to the Saints, are properly Religious Acts, it will not be doubted but that your praying to them is certainly so too. And tho you have restrain'd the terms of our Question to this one particular Instance, of calling upon them, yet it suffices me in general to conclude against you, that you do give proper Religious Honour to others besides God, if it appear, that any part of that Worship you pay to the Saints is such.

18. Nor is it by any means to be forgot here, that in almost every one of these Masses you desire to be accepted by the MERITS of that Saint in whose Honour or Veneration the Mass it self is offer'd. I will give you an instance or two of this.

Regard, we most humbly beseech thee, O Lord, these things Missale in usum Sarum. Fest. Januarii. fol. x. which we offer to thee: and by the MERITS of thy Blessed Bishop Julian, deliver us from all sin.

Let the MERITS of S. Bathildis obtain, that these gifts may be accepted by thee.

We load thy Table, O Lord, with mystical gifts, in commemoration Ibid. fol. xiii. of S. Agatha thy Virgin and Martyr; humbly beseeching thy Majesty, that by the help of HER MERITS we may be freed from all Contagions.

Thus (as I have heretofore observed) do you joyn the MERITS of Christ, whom you suppose to be the Offering, with the MERITS of your Saints; and make a Bathildis or a Julian, joynt Intercessors with the Son of God for your forgiveness. What is this but truly to ascribe to the Creature the Honour of the Creator, and to worship them with a Religious Worship, in the utmost propriety of the Expression?

19. I shall add but one Circumstance more, and that of another sort of Service with which you sometimes accompany your Prayers to the Saints, and which I think will undeniably convince you, that you do give them the most strict Acts of [Page 78] Religious Service; and that is, Your making of Vows to them. That this is a proper Act of Religion, both the Holy Scripture Numb. XXX. Deutr. XXIII. evidently shews, and the reason of the thing it self declares; A Vow being in its own Nature nothing else than a Promise made to God; and such by which he is acknowledged to be the Searcher of the Heart, and the just Avenger of all perfidious Promisers, as he is the bountiful Rewarder of those who are faithful in his Service. And your own Authors unanimously acknowledge Aquinas 22ae. Qu. 88. A. 5. it to be an Act, not only of Proper, but of Supreme Religious Worship.

20. And yet even this too is paid by you to the Saints: and I desire you to consider what you then did, when at the entry into your Order (if you herein, as I suppose, agree with the manner of your Brethren the Dominicans), you solemnly Vid. Annot. Cajet. in D. Th. Qu. 88. Ar. 5. p. 313. Lugd. 1562. vow'd to ‘ God, to the B. Virgin, to S. Benedict, and to All the Saints, that you would be obedient to your Superiors.’ Now this I the rather remark, because the Answer that is made by your Writers, to justifie this Practice, plainly condemns you (not only in this Point, but in that of your Prayers too) upon your own Principle, as Idolaters. They acknowledge the Act to be PROPERLY RELIGIOUS; That these Vows are made after the very SAME MANNER to God and the Saints. And Card. Cajetane anticipating Ibid. this Objection, ‘That to Vow is an Act of Supreme Religious Worship; and how then may it be given to the Saints?’ Answers, ‘That it is an Act of the same kind to VOW and to PRAY; but (says he) We pray to the Saints in Order to God, and therefore in the same manner we Vow to them too.’ And the main Excuse which He makes for both, is the utter ruine of yours and Monsieur de Meaux's Pretences, viz. ‘ That the Saints are GODS BY PARTICIPATION.’ A Remark which Card. Bellarmine Bellarm. de Cult. SS. Lib. iii. c. 9. p. 2235. D. thought so considerable, that He from thence distinguishes between the Promises that are made to Men on Earth, and to the Saints in Heaven; so that the former are Only Promises, the latter are Vows; ‘ Because a Vow does not agree Otherwise to the Saints, than as they are GODS BY PARTICIPATION.’

21. The Consequence of all is this plain Conclusion, That if a Vow be strictly and properly an Act of Religious Worship, [Page 79] and not only call'd so by an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive of it; and Prayer (as Card. Cajetane says) be an Act of the same kind with it; then are they both Acts, by your own Acknowledgment, due only to God: And therefore it must be a Sin to give them to any Other; and being a Sin in a matter of Religious Worship, whereby that Honour is given to the Creature which is due only to God, it remains, according to our Notion, that it must be Idolatry.

22. And thus have I hitherto argued against that Worship you pay to the Saints, upon your own Principle, and according to your own Proposal: I shall only add, to close this First Point, That whether these Arguments shall be thought of force sufficient to convict you of what I am persuaded you are guilty in this Service, it is your Concern alone to weight. If they are, I need not say any thing to exaggerate your Offence which you commit in this Matter: If they are not, yet whilst we are neither defective in our Veneration towards those Blessed Souls, but pay them all that Honour (as I have before shewn) of which they are now Capable; whilst we transgress no Command of God in our Omission of these Superstitions; nor fail continually to Address our selves to the Throne of Grace, through our Great and Only Mediator Jesus Christ; We are not only sure of his Intercession, who we know is able both to Hear and Help us; but also in a most likely way of obtaining the Charitable Assistances of those Holy Souls too, who, if they have any Knowledge of us, or Concern for what passes Here below, will doubtless need no Sollicitation to be kind to us; but without our Intreaty offer up their Prayers to God, for all those who thus serve him in Sincerity and Truth.

23. But I must now go much farther, and bring my Charge more closely against you, by shewing, secondly,

[Page 80]

II. POINT.

What the True Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, as to the Point of INVOCATION of SAINTS?

Now the Sum of this Point may I think best be reduced to these Four Considerations, by which you endeavour in your Reply to justifie your selves in this Particular.

For, I. As to the Prayers themselves, you cannot deny but that in the natural Sense of them they do imply a proper and formal Invocation of the Saints to whom you Address: But then you tell us, That the Churches Sense is much otherwise; and therefore that whatever their Words may seem to imply, yet the Intention of them all is One and the Same, viz. PRAY FOR US.

II. That as to what We object concerning the MERITS of the Saints, your concluding of All your Prayers in this Form, ‘ Through Jesus Christ our Lord,’ plainly shews, that you mean no more by it than this, ‘That God Reply, Art. iii. §. 18. p. 23. would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious Actions and Sufferings of his Saints, performed in and by His Grace, and upon those Accounts accept your Sacrifices, or hear your Prayers.’

III. That for those Addresses you have the Warrant both of Scripture and Antiquity. Whereas,

IV. We have neither against them: Those Pretensions I offer'd in my Defence being either false or deceitful; or at least not conclusive enough to engage you to lay aside a Practice which has been so many hundred Years in the Church, and that by our own Confession.

This is the Sum of what is said on this Occasion, not only by your self, but by the generality of your Party: And to this I shall answer with all the Plainness and Candour that I am able.

[Page 81]

SECT. I.

Whether all the Prayers that are made to the Saints by those of the Church of Rome, are fairly to be reduced to this One Sense, PRAY FOR US?

24. For thus it is that you Expound your selves.

‘ That in what Terms soever those Prayers which you address Reply, Art. iii. sect. 16. p. 22. to the Saints are Couch'd, the Intention of your Church reduces them always to this Form, PRAY FOR US. You charge me with VOLUNTARY fixing the Words of your Addresses, which are Equivocal, to a Univocal Sense; and that Had I either as became a Christian or a Scholar taken notice of this Direction laid down by the Bishop of Condom, both in his Book, and in his Advertisement, I should have saved my self the labour of Amassing such an Appendix as I have made to this Article, and the Reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose. Since tho your Church does indeed make her Addresses to the Saints for Protection and Power against your Enemies; for Help and Assistance, and the like; yet it does Appear manifestly to any one Who is not WILFUL in his MISTAKES, that all these are reduced to an Ora pro nobis; it being a kind of Aid, Succour, and Protection, to recommend the Miserable to Him who alone can succour them.’

25. Answer.] Such then are your Pretences. To your Reflections I have spoken Already; I come now to examine your Reasons: And to convince Others, if not You, that I was not WILFUL in my MISTAKES as to the meaning of your Prayers, but that you are a sort of Miserable Shufflers, in your pretended Expositions of them. For tell me now, I beseech you, by what Authority is it that your New Guides Answer to Dr. St. p. 399, 406, 407. T. G. and the Bishop of Meaux undertake thus to detort the plain Expressions of your Addresses to a Signification utterly repugnant to the natural Meaning of them? Have any of your [Page 82] General approved Councils positively defined this to be all your Full Answer, p. 6. Design in them? And if they have not, are you not, according to your own Language, in your accusing of me on this Ibid. p. 7. Occasion, a Falsifier, a Calumniator, and a Misrepresenter TOO? Does the Council of Trent, where it decrees this Service is to be paid to them, say that this shall be the Universal, Ecclesiastical Sense of these Devotions? Nay, does but so much as One single Rubrick in all your Offices give us the least Intimation of it?

26. It is, I know, pretended by Monsieur de Meaux, That Catechism. Conc. Trid. Part. IV. p. 345. Tit. Quis Orandus sit? your Catechism authorizes this Exposition of them; where it ‘teaches the Difference there is between your Praying to God and to the Saints. For that you pray to God either that He would give you Good things, or that He would deliver you from Evil, but to the Saints, that they would undertake your Patronage, and obtain for you those things you stand in need of. That from Hence arises two different Forms of Prayer; for that to God you say properly Have mercy upon us, or Hear our Prayers; but to the Saints, Pray for us.’

27. Such are that Bishops Pretences, and it must be confessed they have something that is plausible in them; tho what will soon vanish when it comes to be examined to the Bottom. For be it allow'd, as He desires, that there are here proposed two different Forms of Prayer; for indeed we do not deny but that in General you may pray with other Sentiments to God, than to the Saints; tho too often in your Prayers themselves we find no great care taken to distinguish them: To God, as to the First and Supreme Dispenser of All Good; to the Saints only as His Ministers, and inferiour Distributers of it. ‘But does this therefore reduce all the Prayers you make to the Saints, in whatever Terms they are conceived, to this One Form, PRAY FOR US?’ Judge, I beseech you, by those Words which immediately follow in the Catechism, but were not for the turn of an Expounder, and therefore His Lordship thought good to omit them: ‘Altho it be Lawful, Catechism. ibid. IN ANOTHER MANNER, to ask of the Saints themselves that THEY WOULD HAVE MERCY UPON US, for they are very Merciful.’

28. If this be ANOTHER MANNER from the foregoing then I am sure all the Prayers of your Church are not [Page 83] to be reduced to that One Form, Pray for us. But what is this Other Manner? ‘We may pray (says the Catechism) that Ibid. being moved at the Misery of our Condition, they would Help us with their FAVOUR and DEPRECATION with God.’ So that Here then is somewhat more, at least in the opinion of your own Catechism, than a meer praying for us; Here is Encouragement to ask not only their Prayers, but also their Favour and Interest too. But indeed the Catechism goes yet farther: For giving a Reason why Angels are to be invocated, ‘They are (says the Catechism) to be prayed to, Pars iii. de Cultu & Invocatione SS. n. 19, 20. p. 255. because they both continually look upon God, and most willingly undertake the Patronage of our Salvation which IS COMMITTED to them:’ And from thence in the next Section it infers the like Necessity of Honouring the Saints.

29. This is plain dealing, and gives us an Authentick Exposition of that Passage in the Council of Trent, whose Sense you no less pervert than that of your Liturgies; viz. ‘That for Concil. Trid. Sess. xxv. de Invocat. &c. p. 292. Obtaining the Benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ, you should betake your selves to their (the Saints) Prayers, Aid, and Assistance: And to this End, that you should not barely invoke them, but invoke them in a suppliant manner; as those who reign now with Christ.’ A Circumstance this which was not put in by Chance, but was thought so considerable as to be mention'd in Pope Pius's Profession of Faith, where nothing superfluous was to be admitted; and where you declare, ‘That you firmly believe that the Saints who REIGN together with Christ, are to be Venerated and Invoked.’ Insomuch that (as I have before observed) your great Cardinals, Cajetane and Bellarmine, doubt not to call them ‘ Gods by Participation; and to deliver it as the Catholick Doctrine’ (and we know how conformable the Catholick Practice is to it amongst you) ‘That the Saints are set over us, and take Bellarm. de SS. beat. L. I. c. 18, 20. care of us, and that the Faithful here on Earth are RULED and GOVERN'D by them.’ By all which it appears with what Sincerity you pretend that all your Church teaches is only to pray to to the Saints ‘in the same Spirit of Charity, Bishop of Meaux's Expos. Sect. IV. and according to the same Order of Fraternal Society, with which you demand the Assistance of your Brethren living upon Earth.’ And how false it is, that you are taught to reduce all the Forms of your Addresses to this One Meaning, [Page 84] Pray for us; seeing you both direct the Faithful ‘to recur to them for their Prayers, Aid, and Assistance;’ and suppose them capable as Reigning together with Christ, and Gods by Participation, but especially as having the Care of the Faithful committed to them, to Rule and Govern them, to lend you Other Help and Assistance besides that of their Prayers, and (as I shall presently shew) pray to them accordingly so to do.

30. But Secondly, We will examine this Point a little further; for indeed the whole Mystery of this Service in the Church of Rome depends upon a right understanding of what Notion they have of the Saints above. And because I will do this without any suspicion of Falsity, I will deliver nothing but from Card. Bellarmine's own Words. In his Book of the Eternal Felicity of the Saints, among Other Reasons that De aeternâ felicitate SS. lib. 1. cap. 4. he gives ‘why the Place and State of the Blessed should be called the Kingdom of Heaven, He has this for one, Because all the Blessed in Heaven are Kings, and all the Qualities of Kings do most properly agree to them. The Just (says He) in the Kingdom of their Father, shall be themselves Kings of the Kingdom of Heaven; for they shall be Partakers of his Kingly Dignity, and of the Power, and Riches, and other Goods that are in the Kingdom of Heaven.’ Which is, I suppose, a plain Paraphrase of what he elsewhere says, ‘That they are Gods by Participation, or Partakers of the Dignity See before. and Power of God.’

31. Having thus established His Foundation, He now goes on to the practical Demonstration of it. ‘The Goods (says He) of an Earthly Kingdom are usually reckon'd to be these Lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 20. Colon. 16 26. Four, Power, Honour, Riches, and Pleasure. An Earthly King has Power to command His Subjects; If they do not obey Him, He can punish them with Bonds, Imprisonment, Exile, Scourging, Death. Again; Kings will be Honour'd with an Honour almost above the Nature of Men; for they will be adored upon the Knee; nor will they vouchsafe oftentimes to hear those that speak to them, unless in this bended posture, and with their Face down to the Ground.’ But yet (as He afterwards shews) this Power is mix'd with Infirmity; this Honour oftentimes changed into Disgrace. But with the Saints above it is much otherwise: ‘For their Power is exceeding great, and without any mixture Ibid. pag. 26. [Page 85] of Infirmity.’ This He illustrates with a Story, which at once shews what their Power is with reference to us, and How they are pray'd to in the Church of Rome upon presumption of it.

‘St. Gregory (says he) relates in his Book of Dialogues, That Lib. iii. cap. 36. a certain Holy Man, being just ready to be slain by the Hangman, whose Arm was stretch'd out, and Sword drawn for that purpose, cry'd out in that Instant, Saint John hold him; and immediately his Hand wither'd, that he could neither put it down again, nor so much as move it. S. John therefore (continues the Cardinal) from the highest Heaven heard the Voice of his Client, and struck his Executioner with this Infirmity so suddenly, as to hinder the Stroke already begun. This is the Power of those Heavenly Kings, that neither the almost infinite distance of Place, nor the Solitariness of a poor and unarm'd Righteous Man, nor the multitude of Armed Enemies, could prevent S. John from delivering his SUPPLIANT from the Danger of Death.’

32. I shall not need to transcribe what He in the next place adds concerning the Worship that upon this and other accounts is paid to the Saints, beyond that of any Earthly Monarch. But from what has been said, I conclude, That it is the Opinion of those in the Church of Rome, that (as the Council of Trent expresses it) The Saints reign together with Christ; and, are Gods by Participation; that is, are made Partakers of the Dignity and Power of God. 2. That therefore whatever Intercourse the Faithful upon Earth may have with them, it must be vastly different from what they have with their Brethren here below, who are neither admitted to such a Dignity, nor Partakers of this Power. 3. That since the Saints are thus Kings in Heaven, when those of the Roman Church address to them in a SUPPLIANT manner, as their CLIENTS, for Help and Assistance, they do not do this in the same Spirit of Charity, nor after the same Order of Fraternal Expos. Mr. de Meaux, sect. IV. Society with which they would desire the Prayers of their Fellow-Christians yet living. And, 4. That seeing the Bless'd in Heaven have Power together with God of taking Care of us, and bestowing Blessings upon us; there is neither Truth nor Reason in that vain Pretence, That all the Prayers that are made Reply, p. 22. [Page 86] to them, must be reduced to this One form, PRAY FOR US; but that we ought indeed to understand them to desire of the Saints, what both their Principles allow them to do, and their Words declare that they do desire; viz. THEIR HELP and ASSISTANCE, as reigning TOGETHER WITH Christ.

33. But, Thirdly, I have yet more to say in Answer to this Evasion. It is well known how much those Prayers you make to the Saints, scandalized many of the most Eminent Men of your Church. Wicelius doubted not to say of one of your In Elencho Abusuum. Hymns, that it was full of downright Blasphemy, and horrible Superstition; of others, that they were wholly inexcusable. Ludovicus Vives profess'd, that he found little difference in the Lud. Vives Comm. in S. August. de Civ. dei. lib. viii. cap. 27. Peoples Opinion of their Saints, in many things, from what the Heathens had of their Gods: and that numbers in your Church worshipp'd them no otherwise than God. Now this the Council of Trent could not but know, and it then lay before them to redress it. If therefore those Fathers had thought, that there was no other form of Invocation allowable to the Saints, than (as you now pretend) to Pray to them to Pray for us, is it to be imagined, that at such a juncture as this they would have taken no care about a thing so justly scandalous, not only to the Protestants, whom they desired to reduce, but even to many of their own Communion? How easie had it been for them to say, ‘That to satisfie the complaints of these Learned Men, and of their Enemies; and to prevent any mistakes of the like kind for the future, it seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to them to declare, that in what terms soever the Prayers of their Church were conceived, yet that the Ecclesiastical sense of them was in all one and the same, viz. Pray for us.’ But now instead of such a declaration, and which such wise men in this case would never have omitted, they regard no Complaints that were made against this Service; but roundly decree an Invocation to be due to them, and establish it upon the Old Foundation before-mention'd, and which had given rise to all these excesses, viz. that the Saints REIGN TOGETHER WITH CHRIST; and were therefore in A SUPLIANT MANNER to be call'd upon; and that for the obtaining benefits of God, they were to fly, not only to their Prayers, but also to their Help [Page 87] and Assistance: And when according to their Order for reciting the Missals and Breviaries, they were again set out, the one Four, the other Six years after the Council was ended: the Hymns and Prayers were left still as we see, and not so much as the least Note in a Rubrick, for a right Exposition of them.

34. Nay, I will go yet farther: There was not only no Care taken then, but at this day men are suffer'd to run, without Censure, into the same Excesses. We know to what Extravagance Card. Bona, Father Crasset, and but the other day Doctor J. C. our own Countryman, have gone; and no One of your Church censures them for it. Cassander immediately after the Council, no less complain'd of these things than Vives and Wicelius before; and that too was disregarded. On the contrary, whilst the Extravagances of these Votaries are encouraged, the moderation of the others is censured by the highest Authority of your Church. The Psalter of S. Bonaventure goes abroad with permission, but the Comments of Lud. Vives are put in the Expurgatory Index, and George Cassander's Works absolutely prohibited. If Advices are given from the Blessed Virgin Crasset devotion veritable, pref. p. 2. to her indiscreet Worshippers, ‘All the Servants of the B. Virgin run to Arms to encounter him: The Learned of All Nations write against him, the Holy See condemns him, Spain banishes him out of all its Dominions, and forbids to Read or Print his Book, as impious and Erroneous.’ But if a Crasset in his Zeal for the Mother of God, runs into such blasphemous Excesses as no pious Ears can hear, without indignation; If he rake together all that the Folly and Superstition of former Ages has said or done the most excessively on this Subject, to make up a Volumn scandalous to that Church and Society that endures him; not only the Divines of his Order approve it, but his Provincial licenses it to be Printed; the King's Permission is obtain'd for [...]; and the Expounders themselves are so very good natur'd, that they cannot see any harm in it. And then let the World judge what your true Doctrine, as to the Invocation of Saints, must be. For,

35. Fourthly, Had the Council of Trent been of the same Opinion with Monsieur de Meaux, I shall leave it to any reasonable man, that will but be at the pains to examine your Offices, to say, whether there was not great need of some such Advertisement [Page 88] as I before said. As for example: In the Office of the Blessed Virgin you thus address to Her:

‘ We fly to your protection, O Holy Mother of God; despise not our Prayers which we make to you in our Necessities; but Officium B. Virg. p. 84. Antw. 1631. deliver us from all dangers, O Glorious and ever Blessed Virgin.—’And again,

‘ Vouchsafe that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin: Give me strength and power against thine Enemies.’ Ibid. p. 103.

Now that these Prayers are conceived in as formal terms as any can be to God himself, is not to be deny'd: I desire you therefore to tell me by what Rules of Interpretation, by what Publick and Authentick Decree of your Church, we are to expound a Prayer made to the Blessed Virgin, that She would give strength and power, into a desire that she would pray to God that He would do this?

36. But however, let us for one moment suppose this to be reasonable, and try whither such a method of interpreting will carry us. For instance, thus you Ibid. p. 497. Pray to the Apostles.

‘ O ye just Judges and true Lights of the World, we pray unto you with the Requests of our Hearts, that ye would hear the Prayers of your Suppliants.’

That is to say, ‘We do desire you in a friendly way,’ and only after the Order of Brotherly Society, though in complement we call our selves indeed your Suppliants, and intreat you to hear our Prayers, that you would Pray for us.

‘ Ye that by your Word shut and open Heaven, deliver us, we beseech you by your COMMAND from all our sins.’

That is, you who by your Prayers to God are able to incline him either to shut or open H [...]aven, we intreat you, that by YOUR COMMAND, meaning only your Prayers, you would deliver us; that is to say, would Pray to God, that He would deliver us—, from all our sins.

[Page 89] ‘ You to whose COMMAND the Health and Sickness of all men are submitted, Heal us who are sick in cur Manners, and restore us to vertue.’

That is to say, O ye Holy Apostles, to whose command, as far as Prayers may be so called, the Health and Sickness of all is subjected; forasmuch as your Requests can prevail with God to submit it to you: Heal us, i. e. Pray to God that He would Heal us, who are sick in our manners; and Restore us; that is to say, intreat God, that He would restore us to Vertue.

37. Such, according to your Principles, is the Paraphrase of this Prayer. If this be a natural way of Expounding, then be also your Pretences allow'd of: But if to pray in such words as these, meaning no more than what I have express'd, be a downright mocking both of God and his Saints, then let the World judge what we are to think of your Interpretations.

38. But however, for once let us allow even this too: What shall we do with those Prayers where God and the Saints are both join'd together in the same Request. As for instance,

Let Mary and Her Son bless us.

Officium B. Virg. pag. 105.

Here, I doubt, it will be something difficult to reduce them to what you call the Churches Sense, PRAY FOR US, unless you pray to God too as well as to the Saints, to pray (to whom I cannot imagine) for you.

39. I shall add but one Consideration more, from your Service of the Saints, to overthrow your new Expositions; but that such as I shall be very glad to receive an Honest Answer to. For be it that in defiance of all Sense and Reason, your Prayers to the Saints, in what terms soever they be conceived, must all be interpreted, as you pretend. Yet what shall we do in those Cases where the very Nature of the Service utterly refuses such kind of Colours? As,

I. When in your Vows, you vow'd (as I before observed),

[Page 90] ‘ To God, and the Blessed Virgin, and to St. Benedict, and to all the Saints, that you would be obedient to your Superiours.’

II. When in your Doxologies, you give

‘ Glory to God, and the B. Virgin Mary, and last of all to Jesus Christ. So Greg. de Valencia.’

‘ Praise be to God, and the Virgin Mother Mary, also to God Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, be Praise and Glory.’ So Card. Bellarmine closes this very Dispute of the Worship of Saints.

‘ Honour and Glory be to God, and to the most Holy Virgin Mary, and to all the Saints.’ So your Collector of the Lives of the Saints.

Vers. Open my lips, O Mother of JESUS.

Resp. And my soul shall speak forth thy Praise. Contemplat. pag. 23.

Vers. Divine Lady, be intent to my aid.

Resp. Graciously make haste to help me.

Vers. Glory be to JESUS and MARY.

Resp. As it WAS, IS, and ever SHALL be.

So Dr. J. C. Now what you will think of all this I cannot tell, but sure I am S. Athanasius pronounces it to be downright Idolatry, and what no good Christian would ever be See below. guilty of.

III. When in your Commendation of a departing Soul, you bid him,

‘ Depart out of the World, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; of Angels and Archangels, of Patriarchs, Rit. Rom. Ord. Comm. Anim. Prophets, Apostles, and of all Saints,’ as I have before at large recited it.

IV. When in the Confession of your sins, you confess,

[Page 91] ‘ To God Almighty, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, to S. Michael, Missale R. in Ord. Miss. the Archangel, to S. John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints.’

V. When in absolving your Penitents from them, you join,

‘ The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Merits of Rituale Rom. deSacr. Poenir. the Blessed Virgin, and of all the Saints; together, for the remission of all his sins.’

VI. When in your Conjurings against storms,

‘ You contradict the Evil Spirit by the Vertue of our Lord Rituale Fr. de Sales. p. 77. Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin.’

VII. When in your Excommunications, you shut men out of the Church,

‘ In the Authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Pontific. Rom. Ord. Excom. & Absol. Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and of all the Saints.’

VIII. When in Absolving them from this Sentence, you

‘ Remit this bond, in the same Authority of God Almighty, Ibid. and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.’

Lastly, When in consecrating of a Church or Altar, you

‘ Bid this stone be Sancti✚fied, and Conse✚crated, in the Ibid. de Consecrat. Ecclesiae. p. 124. Name of the Fa✚ther, and of the S✚on, and of the Holy ✚ Ghost; and of the Glorious Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints.’And again,

‘ Let this Church be Sanc✚tified, and Con✚secrated, in Ibid. p. 127. the Name of Fa✚ther, and of the S✚on, and of the Holy ✚ Ghost; to the Honour of God, and of the Glorious Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints.’

[Page 92] Now in all these several instances, there is no room for any such interpretation as you pretend in the Case of your Prayers; but here either your hearts join in what your lips utter, and then it is plain you give as Proper Divine Worship to the Saints as you do to God, which you confess to be unlawful: Or if they do not, what is this but to speak words of Vanity in your most Solemn Service, and in which you ought especially to take heed not to offend?

40. Thus do the very Words of your Liturgies utterly refuse such an Exposition as you pretend to be your only meaning in all your Prayers to the Saints. I will add yet one Consideration more, to shew the insincerity of it, Fifthly, from the concurrent Practice of the most eminent Persons of your Church, and whose Authority you cannot with any justice except against.

41. Now of this the famous Psalter of S. Bonaventure, may alone serve for a sufficient Evidence; which as it has been publickly set forth, and authorized amongst you, so I need not tell you, that the design of it was to apply all the Addresses that are made to God in the Psalms and Hymns of the Church; nay, and even the very Creeds to the Blessed Virgin.

Come unto Mary all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and Psalterium S. Bonavent. Psalm 2. she shall refresh your Souls. Come unto Her in your temptations, and the Serenity of Her Countenance shall establish you.

When I called upon thee thou heardest me, O Lady, and from thy high Throne didst vouchsafe to remember me. Blessed Psal. iv. art thou, O Lady, for ever, and let thy Majesty be exalted for evermore.

O Lady, in thee do I put my trust, deliver my Soul from mine Enemies. O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good: O Psal. vii.—cvii. give thanks unto His Mother, for her Mercy endureth for ever.

42. I might pass at this rate through all the other Psalms, and to these add the Te Deum, Benedicite, Athanasian Creed, &c. all burlesqued to He [...] Honour: But there has been so many large Speculum B. Virginis, &c. Collections of these already publish'd, that I shall subjoin only one Prayer at the close of all.

[Page 93] ‘ O my Holy Lady Mary! I commend to thy blessed Trust and especial Custody, and into the Bosom of thy Mercy, this day and every day, and in the hour of my Death, both my Soul and Body: I commit all my Hope and Consolation, all my Troubles and my Miseries, my Life and the End of my Life, to thee; that by thy most Holy Intercession and Merits all my Works may be directed and disposed, according to THINE and THY SONS Will. Amen.’

43. I will not now insist upon this, that this Book has been often Printed among you with Licence and Commendation, and particularly my Editions of it; the one Italian and Latin, Printed at Genoa, 1606. with the Licence of the Superiors, and submitted by the Translator Giovan Battista Pinello to the Censure of the Church; the other at Leige in the same Year, by le Sage: But this last had the Honour of being particularly commended by the Vicar of that Church, and Censor of Permiss. Jo. Chapeaville. Leodii 17. Nov. 1606. Books, as a Piece ‘that was profitable to be Printed, and very piously and commendably to be recited by all Men in their private Prayers, to the Honour of the B. Virgin.’ The Author of it is at this time a Canonized Saint in your Church, and is now in his turn Worshipped by you. If therefore you approve these Addresses (as I presume you must) be pleased to try, ('twill be a pretty expounding Task) how you can reduce all these Hymns and Prayers to this One Sense of your Church, ‘PRAY FOR US.’ But if you disallow these Addresses, as (what in truth they are) Scandalous and Idolatrous, what then shall we say if you pray to those as in Heaven now, who whilst they lived were guilty of such desperate Superstitions?

44. And now I am instancing in your Saints, I cannot forbear presenting you with a Strain or two of your Pious, but very Superstitious and Indiscreet St. Bernard: and this too to try your Faculty of Expounding.

‘ To thee, O Holy Virgin Mary, as to the Ark of God, as Vid. in Psal. S. Bonav. Leodii, 1606. p. 238. to the Cause of Things, as to the Business of Ages, do all look that are both in Heaven and Hell; both they that have gone before us, and we who now live, and they who shall hereafter be born.—All Generations shall call thee Blessed, O Mother of God!— In thee the Angels have found Joy, the Righteous [Page 94] Grace, and Sinners Pardon for Ever. Worthily do the Eyes of the whole Creation look upon thee, because in thee, and by thee, and of thee the kind Hand of the Almighty hath re-created whatever he had created. We embrace thy Footsteps, O Mary, and with most devout Supplication we fall down before thy blessed Feet. We will hold thee, and not let thee go till thou shalt bless us. For thou art able, &c.’

45. But I insist too long upon these Matters; and therefore Defence, Append. 2. Def. part 1. p. 89. in stead of multiplying new Instances, shall refer you to those I have already offer'd: And from your Saints descend to the Heads of your Church; One of which thus piously Greg. VII. Baron. Ann. ad an. 1080. T. xi. p. 532. See Platina in his Life. call'd upon S. Peter and S. Paul at the Head of a Synod, in Excommunicating the Emperour Henry IV. Anno 1080. in these Words.

‘ Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and thou O Blessed Paul, Doctor of the Gentiles; Vouchsafe, I beseech you, mercifully to incline your Ears unto me, and hear me.’ And then, after some Particulars too large to be transcribed, He thus goes on: ‘ Go to now I beseech you, O Fathers and Holy Princes, that all the World may know and understand, that as you have in Heaven the Power of Binding and Loosing, you have also on Earth Power over Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, &c. For you have often taken away Patriarchates, &c. from the Wicked and Unworthy, and have given them to Religious Men. Let the Kings and all the Princes of the World now learn how great you are, and how much you can do, and fear to undervalue the Command of your Church: And execute Judgment on the aforesaid Henry so suddenly, that all Men may know that he shall fall, not by Chance, but by your Power.’

This is a blessed Prayer for a Pope to make; and I doubt will be found to signifie somewhat more than to pray to those Saints to pray for Him. If you think otherwise, let us see your Paraphrase, and then we shall be able the better to judge of it. To conclude, Let any Man but read over the late Books of Father Crasset, and Dr. J. C. and then I will leave Him to believe if He can, that all you mean in your Invocation [Page 95] of Saints, is only to desire them to pray for you.

46. And this may suffice to your first Pretence, of the Interpretation you would put upon these Addresses. As for the Authority you would be thought to have from Holy Scripture, for them, it is so very trifling, as not to deserve a Consideration. For who would not laugh at that Man that should seriously argue after this manner?

1. When the Children of Israel were under Oppression, Judges iii. 9. God raised up a Deliverer or Saviour for them, who delivered them: Therefore it is lawful to pray to Saints as our Saviours in Heaven. Again,

2. St. Stephen calls Moses a Ruler and a Deliverer of the Acts vii. 35. Galat. iii. 19. Children of Israel; and St. Paul a Mediator, because at the delivery of the Law God sent it by his Hands to them: Therefore we may now give the Titles of Mediators and Redeemers to the Saints departed, with reference to our Spiritual and Eternal Concerns, tho they neither are, nor have been, either Redeemers or Mediators to us.

3. St. Paul tells Timothy, That if he discharged the part of 1 Tim. iv. 16. a faithful Pastor, as He exhorted him to do, He should be a blessed Instrument of Salvation both to Himself and Others: Therefore we may now pray to Timothy as our Saviour in Heaven.

47. Are not these, Sir, weighty Arguments? And were you not resolved utterly to confound us, when you alledged such Proof out of Holy Scripture as this? But you have one Passage at least that will do our Work.

‘Grace and Peace are the proper Gifts of God: But this Revel. i. 4. St. John wishes to the Seven Churches of Asia, not only from God, but also from the Seven Spirits which are before the Throne: Therefore We may warrantably pray to the Blessed Virgin, Let the Virgin Mary and Her Son bless us.’

A notable Proof this, and almost as terrible as that which follows: The Holy Scripture says of Princes, ‘That they are Gods; therefore we may pray to the Saints as Gods too.’ But we will consider every part of it. ‘ Grace and Peace are the [Page 96] proper Gifts of God.’ This is confess'd: What will you infer from thence? ‘ But these St. John wishes not only from God, but also from the Seven Spirits.’ I answer, 1. If your own Gloss be good, those Seven Spirits are set to signifie the Gloss. Ord. in loc. Rhemists Test. p. 700. Seven fold Gifts of the Holy Ghost; and your own Rhemists in their Annotations (from whence I am apt to believe you borrow'd this Argument) confess it may be well understood so. But, 2. Not to deal too strictly with you; Let us allow these Seven Spirits to signifie Created Angels; What will be the Consequence? St. John wisheth all Grace and Peace to the Churches of Asia from God, by the ministration of his Holy Angels, whose Ministry He employs in dispensing His Graces and Blessings for the Preservation of His Church: Therefore we may wish to the Church now, Grace and Peace from Christ and the Blessed Virgin, who is neither Angel nor Ministring Spirit, nor that we know of any way employ'd by God for the Service of it. Nay, but this will not do yet: We must carry it yet further. St. John wishes all Peace and Happiness from God and his Holy Angels to the Church: Therefore We may not only Wish the like from God by their Ministration, but may solemnly pray to Saints and Angels themselves, together with God, for Grace and Peace. And if this be your way of Arguing from Holy Scripture, 'tis well you have Infallibility of your Side, for I am confident otherwise you would never persuade any Man, by way of reasoning, to submit to your Conclusions.

48. But the Representer has yet a Passage to justifie the utmost Extravagance of former Times, and prove even that Prayer, which Bellarmine was fain to deny they ever used, ‘ Of the Virgins commanding our Saviour by the Right which as a Mother she had over Him,’ to be most agreeable to Holy Writ. For does not the Scripture say of Joshua, c. X. 14. That ‘ He spoke to the Sun, and it stood still, the Lord OBEYING the Voice of a Man?’ This is an Argument that must be carefully look'd to, or, like Wit that depends upon a turn of Expression, 'twill be utterly lost. And therefore in the Vulgar Latin and Doway Bibles, this is a good Proof; but in our own, 'tis none at all. For as we render it, it would be a most wild Inference thus to conclude; Joshua pray'd unto God that the Sun might stand still; and God hearkned unto his voice, [Page 97] and answered his Request: Therefore we may pray to the Blessed Virgin by the Right of a Mother to command her Son.

But be it as he desires; God obey'd the voice of Joshua; i. e. as the Chaldee Paraphrast has it, He accepted his Prayer; as the Doway Bible it self expounds it, ‘ He condescended to work Doway Bible in loc. p. 488. so great a Miracle at the Instance of his Servant:’ How will it even thence follow, that we may desire the Blessed Virgin to command our Saviour by the Right of a Mother over him? But such Twigs as these must be laid hold on, when Men are resolv'd to keep to their Conclusion, tho at the same time they have not so much as the shadow of a Proof to support it.

SECT. II.

After what manner it is that the Church of Rome Reply, sect. xviii. p. 23, 24. prays to God through the Merits of Her Saints?

This is the next Point to be considered by us; and thus you establish it.

49. Reply, p. 23.] ‘ You tell us, that the Word Merit is Equivocal, and misapplied by Me: That the Truth of your Doctrine is, I. To reduce all your Prayers to this Form, That God would be pleased not to regard your Unworthiness, but (the Merits of our Redeemer ever supposed) respect the Merits of his Saints also, and for their sakes hear your Prayers, and accept your Sacrifices. II. That this is plainly shewn in your solemn concluding of All your Addresses in this manner, Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Whereby it appears, that you mean no more, than to beg of God Almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious Actions and Sufferings of his Saints, performed in and by his Grace, and upon these Accounts accept you. III. And finally, That for this you have the Authority of the Holy Scripture it self.’

50. Answ.] For Answer to which Discourse, I must first desire you to come a little out of the Clouds, and not play with us in ambiguous Terms, whilst you charge Me with it. The word Merit, you say, is Equivocal; and the two Senses you [Page 98] give it are, First, To signifie that We do by our own Natural force alone deserve the Reward of Grace and Glory. And in which Sense if you pretend that we charge you with pleading your own Merits, you do certainly most falsly accuse us. The other Sense you give the word is, That our Good Works may be said to Merit, because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us, and are the Means by which we attain Eternal Life, in vertue of the Promises of God, and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer. In which were you sincere (for all the impropriety of the Speech) yet we should not be far from agreeing with you. But now what is all this, to your praying to God to hear you by the Merits of the Saints? This may do well in its proper Article; but here it serves only to amuse the Reader with that which is nothing to the purpose, that so he may be disposed to forget what you were to prove. Jam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis.

51. You tell us then, in the next Paragraph, That you pray, ‘ that God would not respect your own Unworthiness, but regard Reply, p. 24. the Merits of his Saints, and for their Sakes, i. e. for their Merits, Hear your Prayers, or accept your Sacrifices.’ But where then is the Misrepresentation? For this is the very thing we charge you with, viz. That not content to Address your selves to God, in the Name and through the Merits of our ONLY Mediator Jesus Christ, you have sought out to your selves other Intercessors, in whose Name, and through whose Merits to offer up both your Prayers and Sacrifices to God. And whether we do not in this very justly accuse you, let your Addresses themselves satisfie the World.

O Blessed John the Baptist, reach out thy Hand to us, and be to us continually a Holy Intercessor, to the Clemency of the most High Judge, that through THY MERITS we may DESERVE to be freed from all Tribulation.

O God! by whose Grace we celebrate the Memories of thy Saints Saturninus and Sisinnius, Grant that by THEIR MERIT we may be helped, through our Lord.

Mercifully accept, O God, our Offerings which we have made unto thee, for the SAKE of the Passion of thy Blessed Martyrs Saturninus and Sisinnius; that by their Intercession they may be made acceptable to thy Majesty.

[Page 99] And in the Breviary of Salisbury, we find this to be a part of the Constant Service:

Be propitious we beseech thee, O Lord, unto us thy Servants, Breviarium in usum Sarum in Servit. B. Virg. par. 2. through the glorious Merits of thy Saints whose Reliques are contain'd in this Church; that by their pious Intercession we may be protected in all Adversities.

Grant we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the Merits of thy Saints whose Reliques are contain'd in this Church may protect us, &c.

It were infinite to recount all the other Prayers which run in the same strain throughout all your Offices, insomuch that the very Missal. Rom. p. 367. Canon of the Mass is infected with it. I will mention only one Instance more, which is indeed a singular one; not so much because of the Expression of it, wherein the General word of Merit is restrain'd to the particular Merit of his Death, as because it was made to one who died in Actual Rebellion against his Prince; and concerning whom therefore it was for some time debated amongst you, Whether he were damn'd or saved?

‘ BY the BLOOD of Thomas (a Becket) which he SHED Mornay de la Messe, p. 826. Saumur, 1604. for THEE, make us to ascend to Heaven whither He is gone.’

52. It remains then, that you do recur to the Saints not meerly for their Prayers, but that by their Merits and Intercession they would obtain Grace and Pardon of God for you. This is the Doctrine of your Catechism: ‘ That the Saints help Catech. Trid. par. iij. p 256. de Invoc SS. n. 24. tit. Sa [...] cti suis Meritis nos adjuvant. us by their own Merits, and are therefore the rather to be worshipped and invoked, because they both pray continually for the Salvation of Men, and that God bestows many Benefits upon us by their Merit and Favour.’ 'Tis from hence that the Master of the Sentences interprets your praying for their Intercession, to be the same thing as to pray that by their Merits they would help you. And Aquinas, ‘ We pray to the Aquin. 22dae. q. 83. art. 4. Saints (says he) not to inform God of our Petitions by them, but that by their PRAYERS and MERITS our Prayers may become effectual. We may say to the Saints (says Card. Bellarmine) Bellarm. de Bear. SS. l. 1. c. 17. Save me, or Give me This or That; provided we [Page 100] understand, Give it me by thy Prayers or Merits.’ So that in all this we say no more of you, than what both your Doctrine and Practice warrant us to do.

53. Let us see therefore how you excuse your selves in this Matter. You say, ‘That your Concluding of all your Prayers Through Jesus Christ our Lord, shews that you desire all at last by his Merits.’ But indeed this is but a poor Shift; and as a very Learned Man has long since told you, that Close Dr. Jackson, Tom. 1. p. 941. comes in in your Addresses, much after the same manner that the mention of a certain Sum of Money does in Deeds of Trust, only pro formâ: And you are never the less guilty, for this Conclusion, of what we charge you with, viz. That you join the Merits and Intercession of the Saints, with the Merits and Intercession of Christ for Pardon and Acceptance. And to the end that you may see what sensless Petitions you hereby make to God in these Addresses, I will only take one of your Prayers in the literal meaning of it, and apply it in a plain Paraphrase Idem. ib. to your Pretensions, by way of Petition to some Earthly Prince. Thus then you pray upon the Third of May.

‘ Grant we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we who Adore the Nativity of thy Saints, Alexander, &c. may by their Intercession be deliver'd from all Evils that hang over us, through Jesus Christ our Lord.’

Now changing only the Names, this, according to your Exposition, will be the Paraphrase of it.

‘ I beseech your Sacred Majesty that you would vouchsafe to pardon my Offences against you, and deliver me from those Evils that hang over me for them, at the Intercession of your Lord Chancellor, &c. and in Honour of this his Birthday; and that for the Sake of the Prince your Son, our Royal Lord and Master.’

In this extravagant Petition, the very Transcript of the foregoing Prayer, he must be blind who sees not that the Conclusion of it, for the Princes sake, &c. is very impertinent, and does not at all hinder but that the Request is formally made by the Interest of my Lord Chancellor, and in Honour of his Birthday: [Page 101] And therefore that notwithstanding this Conclusion (which is really the Remains of your Old Forms, before ever any New Intercessors were put into them) you remain justly chargeable with what I accused you of, That you make the Saints joint Intercessors with Christ to God; and desire not only through his Merits, but by theirs also, to obtain your Requests.

54. As for your last Pretence of Holy Scripture for this Practice, it is every jot as little to the purpose in this, as I have shewn it to be in the foregoing Point.

1. ‘God tells Isaac (say you) that he would bless him, for Reply, p. 25. his Father Abrahams sake. Moses, praying for the People, desires God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, i. e.’

Because God, in pursuance of his Covenant made with Abraham, blessed his Son, and Moses put him in mind of that Covenant, to appease his Anger, that he should not destroy the Israelites; Therefore it is lawful now to pray to God not only by the Merits of Christ (the only Mediator of God's Covenant with us) but also of the Saints too, for Pardon and Salvation

2. ‘ God, in remembrance of his Promise made to David, Reply, ib. shew'd Mercy unto Solomon for his Sake: Therefore Solomon might have urged to God the Merits of David for Pardon of his Sins; and therefore we (who have another, and better, and only Advocate) may address to God by the Merits and Intercession of the Saints for Forgiveness.’

I wonder you did not put in the City Jerusalems Merits too, to prove that we may not only pray through the Merits of the Saints, but of their Cities also: For the Text seems as express in this, as in the other: I Kings xi. 32. ‘ But he shall have one Tribe for my Servant David's sake, and for Jerusulems sake, the City which I have chosen out of all the Tribes of Israel’

3. What you mean by your last Passage, I must confess I Reply, ib. cannot divine; unless you think that because Elijah, who was sent by God's express Command to make a Proof of his Divinity before all the People of Israel, who were gone after Baal, began his Prayer with that usual Character of his being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it was therefore through their Merits that the Fire came down from Heaven, and burnt up his Sacrifice.

[Page 102]

SECT. III.

In which the Arguments offer'd by the Vindicator for the Establishing of this Worship are particularly Consider'd, and their Weakness laid open.

55. Hitherto we have been clearing the matter of Fact, what your Practice in this Invocation of Saints is; I come now in the next place to examine your Arguments, and see what grounds you have to support so great a Superstition.

And First, for what concerns the Holy Scripture, I find you do not much care to be try'd by that: You plead Possession for your Warrant, and are resolved that shall be sufficient, till we by some better right can throw you out of it. Now in this I cannot but commend your discretion; for indeed those who go about to found this Article upon the Authority of Holy Writ, do in the Opinion of many of your own Church but loose their Labour, since (as they tell us) for the Old Testament, the Holy See Defence of the Expos. p. 8. in annot. Patriarchs and Prophets that lived before Christ's Incarnation were not yet admitted into Heaven, and therefore were not Capable of being pray'd to; and for the New, it was not express'd there for fear of Scandalizing the Jews, and least the Gentiles should have been thereby moved to think, that the Worship of new Gods had been proposed to them.

56. Wherefore passing by the Holy Scripture, which you look upon as unfit to be appeal'd to in this Case, let us come to the Possession you so much boast of; And see how you defend it against those Arguments I offer'd to prove ‘That this Custom Defence ibid. of Calling upon the Saints had no footing in the Church before the latter End of the IV. Century; and was then but beginning to creep into it.’ And to reduce your Confusion to the clearest Method I can, I will distinctly consider your Allegations in these two Periods.

First, Of the first 300 Years, wherein I affirm that there was no such prac [...]ice in the Church.

Secondly, Of the F [...]urth Century; towa [...]ds the latter End of which I confess it began to appear; tho' still with very great difference from what you now Practise.

[Page 103]

I. PERIOD.

That the Custom of Praying to Saints had no being in the Church for the First 300 Years.

57. Now for this I shew'd you in my Defence, ‘That the Defence of the Expos. Art. 3. p. 6. Fathers of the IV. Century did certainly herein depart from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them; because * That you were not able to produce so much as One Instance out of the first three Centuries of any such Invocation: * But rather were forced to Confess, that nothing of that kind was to be found amongst them. * That this was in effect what your greatest Authors, Card. du Perron, Card. Bellarmine, and even the Bishop of Meaux himself had done: * And that indeed your own Principles oblige you to this Acknowledgment; seeing you both allow that without believing that the Saints departed go forthwith to Heaven, they could not have pray'd to them; and yet cannot but say that this, the Holy Fathers of the first three Ages did utterly deny.’ These were my Arguments; let us see how you clear your Possession from the force of them.

58. First, You clap a Marginal Note upon my Assertion (in earnest of your future Civility) ‘ Primitive Fathers Reply. p. 17. §. 13. CALUMNIATED by the Defender:’ And to wipe off this Calumny you undertake to shew that they did Pray to the Saints within the First 300 Years. This is I confess to the purpose, and if you can do it, let the Note of Calumny stick upon Me; but indeed I rather think that this Undertaking will fix another, and a much more proper Note upon You. But let us hear your Proofs.

Ibid.] And first you say, ‘My Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg acknowledg that Origen prayed to Job, and admitted the Invocation of Angels.’

59. Answer] If this be true, then, Sir, I tell you in one word, that my Brethren the Centurists were mistaken; and that, (considering the time they wrote in) is no great Wonder. But now did you never hear in your Life, that your Brethren, Erasmus, Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmine, Baronius, Labbé, Du Pin, &c. have all confess'd, that neither the Tracts, nor Comments upon Job were Origen's? Has no one ever told you, [Page 104] Secondly, that another of your Brethren Card. du Perron, has Replique au roy de la Grande Bretagne liv. v. c. 13. p. 982. utterly rejected the Authority of Origen, as an incompetent Witness in matter of fact, and that especially in the very Point before us? Were you indeed so ignorant, Thirdly, as not to know how opposite this Father is to you (as I shall presently shew) in his undoubtedly genuine Works as to this matter? As for the other Passages you quote, Fourthly, out of his Comments upon Ezekiel; besides that He there supposes the Angel present with Him: Could you look upon this place and not see that another of your Brethren, your own Editor, calls it an Apostrophe to His Guardian Angel; and I desire you to try if you can make any more of it. And Lastly, for what you finally alledge out of his Lamentations; did you in good earnest not know that it was a Book mark'd, not by your Brethren only, but by your Holy Father Pope Gelasius as Apchryphal; and rejected as such by all the Learned Men of your own Communion? So unfortunate, or rather unfaithful have you been in your first Entry upon Antiquity. It may be you will go on a little better.

Reply.] You tell us in the next place a story of one Justina, Reply p. 17. n. 14. ‘how being in danger of making Shipwrack of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian, she had recourse to the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging of Her to assist Her whose Virginity was in danger.’

60. Answer.] If by this Story you design to prove the Invocation of Saints to have been the Practice of the Church within the first 300 Years, (and indeed it is for this you do produce it,) I must then again complain of your Unsincerity; seeing it is both acknowledged by your own Authors, and indeed Reply p. 17. confess'd by your own self, that Gregory Nazianzen was mistaken in the relation, and attributed that to the great St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, which could not belong to Him. As for the other Cyprian to whom Card. du Perron, Baronius, &c. apply it, He is not pretended to have lived See Baron Mart. ad 26. Sept. p. 376. Edit. Paris 1613. Et annal. ad ann. 250. n. 5. within that Period, and so your Proof is without the Compass of what you undertook to shew.

61. But Secondly, Had there been any truth in this Story, even with reference to this other Cyprian, how comes it to pass that none of the ancient Martyrologies, no not your own [Page 105] Breviary, since the Reformation of it, makes the least mention of any such thing: Would all these have omitted so Considerable a Passage had there been any grounds of certainty in it.

62. To Reply therefore to this Instance, I say, It is more than probable that St. Gregory took up this Story either from some flying report, or out of some Counterfeit Acts: For one part of it, at least that which relates to St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, you confess your Baronius calls it Explodenda fabula. ad ann. 250. n. 5. Billius Caecutiisse hic Gregorium in Orat. annot. Vid in Martyr. ubi supr. selves that in this he was certainly mistaken. And if any other Cyprian we hear nothing either in Eusebius, or any other Historian or Writer of that Age. The first Cardinal Baronius has produced being Beda and Adelhelmus, who lived not till the Eighth, and Metaphrastes in the latter end of the Ninth Century. But however let us see even what they say of this matter. They tell us that the Cyprian here meant was Bishop of Antioch, and suffer'd Martyrdom at Nicomedia with St. Justina: And thus it stood in your own Breviary too till the Reformation of it by the Order of the Council of Trent. But now it is beyond dispute evident Vid in Brev. Eccles. Sarisb. ad 26. Sept. that this is utterly false; for that in those times there was no such Bishop of Antioch, both the accounts of the Succession of that Sea given us both by ancient and modern Historians plainly shew; and Card. Baronius himself confesses it: Who is therefore forced for the credit of the business contrary both to his own Authors, and to your Ancient Brevaries, Ibid. to degrade him from a Bishop to a Deacon. And for this He has no Authority. So evident do's it remain, that this whole matter is what the Card. calls, one part of it at least, a Fable to be exploded by all Wise Men. And this is another Proof either of your integrity or ability in Church History. But we will hope the next may be better.

63. Reply.] And thus you go on with your Undertaking, ‘ You tell Me you will not cite Dionysius the Areopagite, Reply ibid. pag. 19. because it may be I will not allow Him to be the Author of the Book under his Name: Nor Justin Martyr, because I shall be apt to say he does not speak plain enough: Nor Irenaeus, tho' He says plainly that the Virgin Mary was made an Advocate for the Virgin Eve’(I presume you mean that Eve pray'd to the Virgin Mary 4000 years [Page 106] before she was born, as Father Crasset says they built Temples Crasset par. 2. Trait. 4. qu. 3. p. 99. to Her ere she came into the World) ‘ because it may be I shall find out an Evasion for that too.’

64. Answ.] Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor Hiatu?

You will not insist upon Dionysius, nor upon Justin Martyr, Horace de Art. poet. nor upon Irenaeus: But what then will you insist upon? for you have said nothing at all to the purpose yet.

After all this Gaping, we have two Testimonies only offer'd to us for the practice of 300 years: One a passage of Origen already rejected as Spurious: And the other out of a Tract of Methodius, if not certainly Spurious, yet justly suspected by your own Critick's, being neither quoted by any of the Ancients, nor mention'd by Photius; and of a Stile more Luxuriant than that Fathers other Writings are; and that speaks so clearly of the Mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Divinity of the Word, whom He calls, in a Phrase not well known in his time, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father; of the Trisagion never heard of for above 100 years after His death; of the Virginity of Mary after Her Conception; and of Orginal Sin; that your late Critick Monsieur du Bibliotheque. T. 1. pag. 530. Pin had certainly reason to place it among his Spurious Works, however it be now cited with such assurance by you.

65. But to quit this Exception against the Book: The very Passage it self is so manifest a piece of Oratory, that had you ever consulted it, in the Greek set out by Combefis, you could not have doubted of it. He had begun his Apostrophe two or three Pages before what you produce; and he ushered it in with this express Introduction, to prepare us for it, ‘That he Methodius Gl. Edit. Combefis. Paris cum S. Amphilochio. 1644. would conclude his Speech with an Address to the City of the great King, and to all his Brethren and Fathers there, as if they were now present with him; and accordingly he Apostrophe's the City Jerusalem, p. 426. The whole Catholick Church, p. 428. A. All the People of God, ibid. B. The Blessed Virgin, ibid. C. Holy Simeon, p. 429. B. And so concludes all, joyning with that Blessed Man in his Address to our Saviour Christ.’ And tho his Expressions may be very high, (as the whole Sermon is) yet we cannot but think it very unreasonable to conclude the dogmatical Sense of the Church from the Rhetorical flights of a single Man, [Page 107] were the Piece otherwise never so Genuine: But indeed it is worthily rejected (for the reasons before mentioned) by the Learned Criticks both of your and our Communion.

66. This then is the sum of your Arguments to Establish this Practice in the first three Centuries. Were it necessary, after what has been done by so many better hands, to recount the Opinions of those Holy Fathers as to this Point, I should certainly be able to make some better Proof of the Antiquity of our praying to God only, than you have been able to do of your Addressing to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints.

67. In the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the death of Polycarp, Anno 167. we find that the Jews had perswaded the Heathens, that if they suffer'd the Christians to have the body of that Holy Martyr, they would leave Christ, to Worship Polycarp: ‘Not knowing (says that Letter) that Apud Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. c. 15. p. 109. B. Ed. 2. Vales. Paris. 1678. it is not possible for us to leave Christ, who hath suffer'd for the Salvation of all those that are saved in the World; nor to serve or religiously Adore any other. For as for Jesus Christ, We Adore Him as being the Son of God. But as for the Martyrs we love them as the Disciples and Imitators of the Lord. And that very justly considering their insuperable Zeal which they bore to their King and Master, and God grant that we may be both the Disciples of their Piety, and partakers of their Glory.’

68. This is indeed the true Spirit of Christianity, and the exact account of the Honour we now pay to the Saints. We Adore only our Saviour Christ, as the Son of God, and therefore (as the Ancient Latin Translation of this Letter reads it) Edit. Usser. we pray to no other. But for the Saints, we Love and Honour them; we recite and magnifie their noble Acts: We encourage our selves by their Examples to the like performances, as those who earnestly desire to be partakers of their Glory. This is all the Honour they are now capable of receiving; and this was all that the Primitive Church in those best Ages, was ever known to have given to them. Irenaeus lib. ii. c. 57. p. 218. Ed. Paris. 1675.

69. The Church of Christ (says Irenaeus) does nothing ‘by the Invocation of Angels, nor by any other perverse Curiosity; but by addressing her Prayers purely, and only, and openly to the Lord who has made all things.’

70. In Rom. l. viii. c. 10. Tertull. de Orat. cap. 1. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. Origen tell us, that to Invocate the Lord, and to Adore God, are the same thing. So do Tertullian and Cyprian, using [Page 108] the words to Pray and to Adore promiscuously in the same signification. In a word, this was the constant Doctrine of those first Ages; and I will chuse to deliver it in the words of that Father whom you have especially alledged to the contrary: ‘We Worship (says Orig. contr. Cels. lib. viii. pag. 386. Ed. Cantabr anno. 1658. Origen) the one only God, and his one only Son, and Word, and Similitude, with our utmost Supplications and Honours; bringing our Prayers to the God of all things, through his only begotten Son;— Ibid. 395. We must pray to God only, who is over all, and to his only begotten Son the first born of every Creature, and beseech Him as our High-Priest to carry our Prayers which we make to Him, to his God and our God, to his Father, and the Father of all those that live according to the Word of God.— Ibid. pag. 400. This is our Profession of Faith, which we constantly maintain as long as we live, by the blessing of God, and of his only Son Jesus Christ, who was manifested amongst us. As for the favour of others, (if that be to be look'd after) We know that thousands of thousands stand before him, and ten thousand times ten thousand minister unto Him. These as our Brethren and Friends when they see us imitating their Piety towards God, work together to the Salvation of those that CALL UPON GOD, and PRAY as they OUGHT to do.’

71. I will add but one Testimony more in a matter both so plain in its self, and so often insisted upon by others, and it is of Novatian proving the Divinity of Christ, from the Churches Novatian de Trinitate. c. xiii. p. 17. A. Ibid. C. D. ad fin. Tertull. Paris 1675. praying to him, ‘For none but God (says he) knows the Secrets of the Heart as our Saviour did—If Christ be only a Man, how is He every where present to those that Call upon him? Seeing this is not the Nature of a Man, but of God, to be able to be present in every place. If Christ be only Man, why is a Man called upon as a Mediator in Prayers, seeing the calling upon a Man is judged of no value to give Salvation? If Christ be only Man, why is any Hope put in Him, seeing that Hope is represented as Accursed that is placed in Man?’

72. Such was the Opinion of the Church in the first three Centuries: As for that extraordinary discovery you are pleased next to make, ‘That all you do in your Liturgies is, to beg of Reply p. 19. §. 14. God to hear the Prayers of his Saints, and that for this you are able to furnish Me with many Examples out of the ancient Liturgies and Fathers within the first 100 Years;’ it is so false [Page 109] an Assertion, and so vain an Undertaking, that either you must be ignorant even to astonishment both in the Doctrine of your own Church, and in the Acts of Primitive Antiquity, or else most certainly you never believed, either what you say or what you promise.

73. But tho you are not then able to answer my Challenge of producing any Warrant from the Fathers of the first 300 years for this Doctrine and Practice; it may be you are able at least to answer my Presumption from those times against it: viz. ‘That those Fathers did not believe that the Souls of the Just went streight to Heaven, and therefore by your own Principles could not have believed that they ought to be prayed to as there.’

74. Reply] To this you say, ‘ That you are not bound to defend Reply p. 15. §. 12. every Argument that Bellarmine and Suarez bring, especially when Others of your Writers think them unconclusive. In short, you cannot deny the matter of Fact, tho you would be thought to suppose rather than allow it to be true; And all you have to say is, That whatever they believed besides, sure you are they did pray to the Saints.’

75. Answ.] That the Fathers about the latter end of the IV. Century began to Invocate the Saints we do not deny; tho' it were rather in the way of a Rhetorical Compellation, than of a formal Address. And if herein they contradicted any other of their Principles, we know they were but Men, and as such might possibly in their Religious heats do some things not entirely consonant to themselves in their Cooler hours. Now then taking it for granted that those Fathers I heretofore mentioned did teach, that the Saints departed do not yet enjoy the Beatifick Vision, I say with those great Men of your Church, whom you here forsake, that they could not reasonably pray to them. Since it is upon this Vision, especially, that you found your Opinion of that particular knowledge you suppose they Ordinarily and Constantly have of those things that are done here below, and without which it would be Vain and Absurd to call upon them. And therefore tho you have no regard to Bellarmine's or Suarez's Authority, yet for the sake of Sense and Reason answer their Arguments; and tell us a little (upon your own Principles) [Page 110] how those Fathers could think the Saints were fit to be pray'd to, if by denying them to be yet in Heaven, they by consequence must have deny'd them to have any ordinary and certain knowledge of what is done here upon Earth?

76. Reply.] ‘ But Sixtus Senensis (you say) after all concludes, Reply, p. 16. That those Fathers do not intend to exclude the Saints departed from the Beatifick Vision, but only from that Perfect Happiness which we shall enjoy after the Resurrection. And it would have been much more Christianlike in Me, to have imitated his Example, than to argue as I do against their Praying to Saints from this Principle.’

77. Answ.] Had I been crampt, as he was, with a Defininimus of my Church, I might possibly have been tempted to make Excuses for those Fathers, as he did. But a Man need only look upon their Words, as they are cited by him, to see how little such shuffling will avail, to reduce their Doctrine to your Pretences. And the truth is, this Sixtus Senensis was so Honest as to confess, tho you were not so Honest as to take notice of it. For having offer'd that Exposition of their Words which you mention, he immediately subjoins, ‘ Thus (says he) have I interpreted the Expressions of S. Ambrose, Austin, and Chrysostome. But if there be some Sayings of the Holy Authors which CANNOT suffer such an Interpretation, yet we should at least remember that this ERROUR ought not to prejudice the Learning and Piety of such Illustrious Fathers, seeing the Church in their time had not yet determined any thing Certain to be believed in this Matter.’ Thus Sixtus Senensis; ingenuously confessing how the Case stood. And this you cannot be presumed not to have seen in him, seeing they are in the very same place with what you transcribed from him. And what then must I think of such a One, as values not how he reports things, so he may but by any means seem to say somewhat; tho he knows at the same time, that he cannot expect long to triumph in his Unsincerity.

78. And now there is but one thing more remaining, to get over this unlucky Period of the First 300 Years.

Reply.] For what if the few Writings of the Ancients of the First 300 Years which remain, be silent in this Particular, does it Reply, p. 18. sect. 14. follow that they approved not the Practice?

[Page 111] Answ.] No, Sir, this in not the Case: We do not pretend to a bare Silence of those Holy Fathers, but we produce their express Authorities against you: And that I hope is a good Argument that our Possession is at least 300 Years better than yours; and that you, not we, have been Innovators in this Particular.

79. Reply.] ‘ Had this Custom of Praying to Saints been only Ibid. introduc'd in the Fourth Age, and been so dangerous as Moderns would persuade the World that it is, certainly the succeeding General Councils would have taken notice of it, or some One of the Fathers would have written against it. But, on the contrary, we find the Fourth General Council allowing this Invocation in the Third Person, Let Flavian the Martyr Pray for us.’

80. Answ.] To your Instance from the Fourth General Council, I reply, That besides that you your self confess that it is nothing to the purpose, there being a mighty difference between wishing that the Saints would pray for us, and praying to the Saints for their Aid and Succour, you should have known that this Council was held in the middle of the Fifth Age, and so is without the compass of what I am here to consider.

81. But I will go yet farther with you as to this Instance; and to that end I must tell you, that your Authors have very much deceived you in their Accounts of it. For first, It was not the Synod, but only a Party in that Synod, that cry'd out, Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us. And secondly, Even they that did cry out thus, were as far from designing to pray to Flavian at all, as you were from understanding the meaning of their Exclamation. The Occasion of those Words in short Labbé Conc. Tom. iv. Act. xi. p. 697. B. was this: In the Eleventh and Twelfth Actions of that Council there arose a difficult Debate concerning Bassianus and Stephanus, whether of the two was lawful Bishop of Ephesus. Bassian had this Plea, That he had held it quietly Four years; that Proclus and his Successors, Bishops of Constantinople, had communicated with him as lawful Bishop of that See; among whom was Flavianus but lately deceased. Upon this the Fathers that were of Bassianus Party urged to the Synod, that Flavian by communicating with him, had acknowledged him to be lawful Bishop of Ephesus: And thereupon press the Holy Bishops to have this respect to Flavian a Catholick and Martyr, [Page 112] as to acknowledge Bassianus to be the true Bishop, seeing he had Communicated with him as such. And here comes in among other Expressions, this that is the Subject of our present Debate. The Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople cry out, in Honour of their late Martyr, ‘This is the truth; this we all say: Let the Memory of Flavian be eternal; let the Memory of the Orthodox Flavian be eternal: Flavian lives after his Death; Let the Martyr pray (or entreat) for us; Flavian judges with us.’This was the Occasion of those words; and it plainly shews, that all they meant by them was, That the Judgment of Flavian, a Holy Bishop and Martyr, should prevail with the Synod to judge of Bassianus side, with whom He had Communicated.

82. As for your Argument, That had this Custom of Praying to Saints been introduced in the Fourth Age, it would certainly have been condemned in the following: I reply, First, That this is at most but a meer Presumption, against plain and undoubted Matter of Fact, and such as not only this, but too many other Corruptions which have crept into the Church, without any notable Opposition for some time made to them, abundantly overthrows. But, Secondly, Tho your Argument therefore (if we should allow it) would be good for little; yet it has another Misfortune too, which most of your Proofs labour under, that it is as false as it is unconclusive. For, Good Sir, did you never, in your Enquiry into these Matters, hear of such a Canon as the Thirty fifth of the Council of Laodicea, Anno 364. expresly condemning the Worship of Angels? Did you never meet with such an Order as that of the Third Council of Carthage in S. Austin's time, commanding ‘all the Prayers Can. 23. that were made at the Altar to be directed to the Father?’ At least I am confident you cannot be ignorant what Vigilantius did in opposition to this Superstition; and whose Piety S. Hierome himself (tho his hot Antagonist) could not but acknowledge. Nor was he alone in this Quarrel: S. Jerome speaks of several Bishops that were of his Party, and join'd with him in his Endeavours against this growing Evil. Even S. Austin himself, as appears from many Places of his Works, spoke not a little contrary to it, and plainly insinuates he Vid. Epist. ad Januar. Ep. 119. would have done more, had not this Practice already so possess'd Mens Minds, that it was not safe so to do.

[Page 113] 83. But to quit all these, The publick Declaration which Epiphanius made against the Collyridians (a sort of Women in those days Superstitious in their Honour of the Blessed Virgin) is alone enough to shew that this practice did not pass without Opposition in those times. ‘ 'Tis true (says he) the body of Mary was holy, but She Epiphan. Haeres 79. pag. 1061. C. D. was not therefore God. She was a Virgin, and highly honour'd but She was not set forth to us to be worshipped; but She her self worshipped him who was born of her flesh. And therefore the holy Gospel has herein armed us before hand; our Lord himself saying, Joh. 2. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Wherefore do's he say this? But only least some should think of the Blessed Virgin more highly than they ought; He called her Woman, as it were foretelling those Schisms and Heresies that should arise upon Her account.— But neither is Elias to be adored, tho he be yet alive: Nor is St. John to be adored; nor Tecla; nor any of the Saints— Ib. 1062. C. If God will not permit us to worship Angels how much less the daughter of Anna?— Let Mary be held in Honour, but let the Ib. 1064. D. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be worshipped. Let no one worship Ib. 1065. B. Mary. For tho She were most fair, and Holy, and Honourable; yet She is not therefore to be adored. In a word; Let Ib. 1066. D. Mary be held in Honour, but let God be Adored.’

84 To conclude this Point you tell us;

Reply] ‘ That it seems most extravagant to you that Protestants Reply, pag. 18. should demand of you to shew them some testimonies of the Fathers of the first Three Hundred years, who lived under persecution, few of whose Writings remain, the greatest part being lost and destroy'd, and yet reject the Fathers of the IVth. Age who wrote when the Church began first to be in a flourishing Condition. Can any one imagine that the Church when in Grots and Caverns taught one thing, and when She came into the light practised another?’

85. Answ. What meer Harangue is this? But we must be contented where better is not to be had. And therefore I reply, 1st. As to your insinuation, which since Cardinal Perron first invented it, has been the constant common place of the little crowd of Controvertists that have follow'd after, viz. That the Fathers of the first Three Hundred years lived under persecution, and therefore wrote but little, and of that little the greatest part was [Page 114] lost too; tho I can easily excuse this in you as a Sin of Ignorance, yet I must needs say of the Cardinal and Others, that they have herein greatly injured those Holy Men; who were neither so lazie nor fearful as they have represented them to have been.

86. For not to say any thing of the foundation of all our Religion, the Holy Scriptures, which were written within this period; how large a Catalogue has Eusebius alone preserved of the works of those Holy Fathers: And yet how many of the Latin Church has he omitted: Look into his History, and there you will find those great names, Clemens Romanus, Papias, Quadratus, Aristides, Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Pinytus, Apollinarius, Melito, Modestus, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, Bardesanes, Clemens Alexandrinus, Rhodo, Miltiades, Apollonius, Serapion, Heraclitus, Moscarinus, Candidus, Sextus, and Arabien; all to have been Writers of the Second Century: Tertullian, Judas, Beryllus, Hippolytus, Caius, Africanus, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Nepos, Cyprian, Origen; in the Third. And the Writings of which last Author only were said to have amounted to Six Thousand Volumes; and which tho St. Jerome retrench'd to a third part, yet still he left Two Thousand to him.

87. In what sort of Writings were these Holy Men defective? Some publish'd Apologies for our Religion; Others disputed against the Heathens, the Jews, the Heretick's of those times. Some wrote of the Discipline of the Church; Others moral Discourses, for the direction of Mens Lives and Manners. Their Histories, their Accounts of the Holy Men, who suffer'd for the Faith; their Comments on the holy Scripture, their Sermons are yet upon Record: And when such was their diligence, why should it be insinuated as if living under persecution they wrote but little; and therefore that it is unreasonable to appeal to them?

88. Nor is your next pretence any better: that their Writings are lost and destroyed: For tho it be indeed in great measure true, that in respect of what they wrote there is but a small part brought down to us (and we have some reason to believe that the Opposition they made to your Corruptions has been in some See Def. of the Expos. p. 127. &c. measure the Cause of it;) yet have we still enough to shew us what the Faith of those times was, and how vastly you have declined from it. And when both the Writings of Holy Scripture, and of those Fathers that do remain speak so plainly against you, we have no great reason to believe that those which are lost were at all more favourable to you.

[Page 115] 89. But can any one Imagine, that the Church when in Grots and Reply. p. 18. Caverns should teach one thing, and when it came into the light practise another? I answer, yes; this is very easie to be imagined. Affliction keeps men close to their duty, whereas Prosperity too often corrupts the best manners. When it pleased God to convert the Empire to Christianity, there were but too many instances of Heathen Customs, accommodated to the principles of the Gospel; and this was one. Whether it were that they could not so soon forget their ancient Rites; or that they thought it a religious policy to extend the pale of the Church by suiting Christianity as much to the Heathen Ceremonies as it was possible, and to dispose men thereby the more readily to embrace it; Or whether finally, that simplicity of the Gospel which suited well enough with a State of persecution, was now thought too mean for an Establish'd Church, the Religion of the Emperour, and they were therefore willing to render it more pompous, and set it off with greater lustre in the Eyes of Men, tho in so doing they a little departed from the purity of their lower and better State.

90. Let us add to this, the Opinion which then began to prevail among those Holy Fathers, of the particular intercession of the Saints for us; and which both the prayers that were made in those days at the memories of the Martyrs, and the Miracles God was sometimes pleased to work there; not to say any thing of the Visions and Apparitions that were sometimes thought to be seen there, very much confirm'd them in. Now this naturally prepared the way for the Invocation which follow'd upon it. For now the Poets began instead of their Muses, to call (more Christianly) upon the Saints and Martyrs to assist them. The Orators, following the Genius of the Age, indulged themselves all the liberty of their Eloquence, in Apostrophe's to the Saints at their Memories. And as things seldome stop in their first beginnings, by degrees through the Ignorance of some, and superstition of more; they fell into a formal Invocation, about the beginning of the Vth. Century.

91. But here another accident fell out for the carrying on of this Service. For about this time Nestorius began to teach that men ought not to call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God. Now this made some think his design was secretly to revive the Heresie of Arrius or Sabellius under a new Cover; and their Zeal for the Divinity of Christ made them in the Council of Ephesus, Anno [Page 116] 431 condemn his Opinion as Heretical; and in Opposition to Him they fell into the contrary extream, of an immoderate magnifying of Her; tho' (as I shall presently shew) they still continued within much better bounds than you do now: It being almost Three Hundred years after this, before ever the Invocation of Her or the Saints, was publickly Establish'd in the Church. And this brings me to my next Proposal; which was Secondly;

II. PERIOD.

To consider what Grounds this Superstition had in the IVth. Century.

92. And here, first, to what I said concerning the first beginnings of this Invocation, viz. That the most part of your Allegations from this Age were rather Rhetorical flights than formal prayers; you return very pleasantly.

Reply.] ‘ That the Rhetorick lies wholly at my door, who fly to so poor a shift. That these passages are some of the duriores loci more difficult places which some only nibbled at; Others could not digest; and I shift off under the notion of Rhetorical Flights or Novelties.’

93. Answ. One would think by this Droll you had been lately reading the judgment of your University of Doway concerning Bertram. ‘ Altho (say they) we do not much value that Book, yet since he has been often Printed and is read by many, and that in other ancient Catholick's we tollerate many Errors, and extenuate, or excuse them; often times find out some contrivance or other to deny them, or to set a convenient Gloss upon them when they are Opposed to us in disputes, or in engaging with our Adversaries; we do not see why we should not allow the same Equity to Bertram.’

94. But what now is this shifting? Why I said that, which all the learned Men in the World must allow to be true, viz. That the Fathers of the IVth. Age were many of them great Orators, and made use of Rhetorical Addresses to the Saints. And that from those conditions they sometimes expresly put into their Writings, [Page 117] [...], &c. If thou hast any sense, If thou hast any concern for what is done here below, and the like; we may reasonably conclude, that this was all they meant, even where they do not express any such thing.

95. But did not those Fathers do somewhat more than this? Can all their Expressions be fairly reduced to such Apostrophe's? To this I have already said, that We do acknowledge that about the latter end of this Century, S. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, amongst the Greeks, and their great Imitator S. Ambrose among the Latins, did begin to Invocate the Saints. And had you thought fit to consult that Excellent Treatise to Discourse of Worship of Saints in Answer to Mr. de Meaux's Appeal to the IV. Age. which I referr'd you, or rather to take notice of what was said there, (for I am apt to believe you did Consult it) I should not have been troubled with these impertinences here. And therefore tho it were not difficult to find some considerable faults with those few passages you have alledged from those Holy Men; (as when you say that S. Basil exhorts those who are in Tribulatian to flie to the Saints, those who are in joy to have recourse to them, whereas He only Historically relates what they did do, ‘ He (says he) who is afflicted flies to them, He who is in joy runs to them)’yet I shall quit all to you, and without either shifting or nibling leave you to make the most you can of them.

96. But then that you may not put any more such Crude notes upon your Reader as you have done here, where you say, ‘That Protestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the IVth. Age:’ I will very briefly transcribe from two Learned Men of our Church some considerable differences between what the▪ Fathers of this Century did, and what you do now; and of which if you will not yet be perswaded to take any notice, I hope at least all indifferent persons will see by them how impertinently you alledge their Authority for your Excuse.

First, That in your Church, Prayer to Saints is look'd upon Ushers answer to a challenge. P. 409. as a part of Worship that is due to them; insomuch that (as I have shewn) Cardinal Bellarmine places it among one of those Advantages that accrues to them upon their Canonization: But this those Holy Fathers never believed; on the contrary they absolutely define prayer, as a service proper to God only, and argued against the Arrians upon this very Topick, that Christ must needs be God, because the Church prayed to him.

[Page 118] If you pretend that there are two sorts of Prayers, one proper to God, another that is not: I reply, 1. That this is false, because (as we have seen) all Prayer is a Religious Worship, and therefore proper to God only. Secondly, It concludes nothing; because you offer the most proper sort of Prayer for Help and Assistance to the Saints, that you can do to God himself.

Secondly, In your Church you allow mental Prayer as well as Vocal to be made to the Saints: But in the Primitive, this P. 401. was reserved as peculiar to Him who searcheth the Heart, and alone knoweth the Secrets of all the Children of Men.

Thirdly, In your Church it is resolved that the Saints are capable of hearing and knowing your requests: In the Primitive this P. Ibid. &c. was never determined, and the contrary seems to have been the most generally received.

Fourthly, In your Church formal Prayers are made to the Saints; But the Addresses of these Holy Fathers were either wishes P. 405. only, or requests of the same nature with those which are in this kind usually made to the living; where they who are requested, be evermore accounted in the Number of those that pray for us, but none of those that are prayed unto by us.

Fifthly, In your Church the Saints are made not only joynt Petitioners with us, but Advocates too; and that to plead not only P. 408. Christs Merits, but their own likewise. But against this these Fathers openly protested as an open derogation to the high prerogative of our Saviors meritorious Intercession, and a manifest encroachment upon his Great Office of Mediation.

Sixthly, In your Church it is thought a more proper way of access, and a surer means of obtaining your requests to address by P. 410: 416. some Saint to God, than to go immediately to the Throne of Grace, through our Saviour Christ. But this those Fathers earnestly opposed, exhorting all men to go directly to God by his Son Jesus Christ.

Seventhly, In your Church the Saints are indifferently called upon all the World over; which does in effect attribute a Divine Discourse in Answer to Mr. de Meaux's Appeal to the IVth. Age. p. 82. &c. perfection, viz. That of Omnipresence to them: But in the Primitive Church, those who sought the Intercession of the Saints, limited their presence to some determinate places, as particularly to their Memories, where they thought them within Hearing; and did not call upon them indifferently every where.

Eightly, This in your Church is an establish'd practice; they [Page 119] who oppose it are declared to do wickedly, and an Anathema is pronounced against them on that account. But in the Primitive there was no Rule, or Order for it; it was the effect of a private and voluntary Zeal, encouraged it may be by the Guides of the Church, but no part of the established Service of it.

97. And this may suffice to shew how vain your pretences to the Antiquity even of this Age are to warrant your Superstition; and upon what slender grounds you affirm, after your Master the Bishop of Meaux, that this Invocation of Saints was Establish'd, nay that we grant it was Establish'd in the Fourth Age. But to convince you yet more with what little reason you either boast of this, or tax us with receding from our old principle of being tryed by the Fathers of the First Four General Councils; upon this account I will now make you a more Liberal offer; and that is to prove if you can any Authentick Establishment of this Service in the Church. I do not say now in the Sixth Century; but in the Seventh: Nay or even before the latter end of the Eighth: In short, I do affirm that the first solemn Establishment of it was in the Second Council of Nice 787. and indeed that Synod which decreed the Worship of Images in opposition to the Second Commandment, was the most proper to define the Religious Invocation of Saints contrary to the First: And because there is something almost as bad in the manner of the Establishment, as in the thing it self, I will close all with a brief account of it.

98. About the end of the Sixth Century both the Worship of Images, and the Invocation of Saints, having taken deep root in the minds of many Superstitious persons; Controversies began to arise about them; and generally the same persons were found to be either Friends or Enemies to both.

In the year 754 Constantine Copronymus called a Synod of Baron ad Ann. 754. N. 38. Spondane. Ibid. N. 6. 338 Bishops, to Examine into these matters, and both the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images were utterly condemned by them.

99. Thirty years after this Council the Abettors of these Superstitions Binnius in Syn. Const. p. 1663. T. VI. Concil. Labbe. prevailing, another Anti-Synod was convened by the Au [...]hority of the Empress Irene at Nice. In Action. VI. this the Acts of the former Council of Constantinople were recited, and instead of the Canons which they made in condemnation of this Worship; Defin. XV. XVII. two others were read in their Names, Establishing of it. How [Page 120] this came to pass it is not known; but this the Annot. Epi-Phan. in def. XVII. Nicene Fathers themselves acknowledge that the other Synod had established the quite contrary: Nay they were such Enemies to this Invocation, that Binius tells us, they exacted a solemn Binnius Annot. in Concil. Const. T. VI. p. 1663. Baron. l. c. Oath of all their party, That they would never invocate the Saints, Apostles, Martyrs, or the Blessed Virgin. And yet have these good Fathers transmitted down to Posterity those two spurious Canons of the Council of Constantinople, as approving that very Worship, which the Council in the true definitions of it had utterly disclaimed.

100. As for the Synod of Nice its self; if the definitions there made were of any force; that of Frankford, seven years after, has utterly taken it away; in which ‘ it was so wholly abrogated, Act. Concil. Franc. in lib. Cant. praef. in l. 1. and annulled, as not to be placed in the number of Synods, or be any otherwise esteem'd of than that of Ariminum.’ And I should beglad you would find me any other (but pretended) establishment of it, before your Synod of Trent in the very last Age.

I have only now remaining in the last place to shew;

SECT. IV.

What our Reasons are against this Service?

101. You had ask'd me in your Vindication, ‘ What Authoritie have you to oppose us? You say that [to invocate Saints] is repugnant to Gods Word: Shew that word, if you cannot we are in possession, and the Antiquity and Un-interruptedness of our Doctrine, Vindic. p. 30. besides the reasonableness and innocency of it, confirms us in our belief.’

102. To this I answered; ‘That every text of Scripture that appropriated Divine Worship to God alone was a demonstration Def. pag. 9. against you: And that that one passage of St. Paul, Rom. X. 14. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? were not men willing to be contentious, might End the Controversie. And for the Authority you speak of, that it was rediculous to pretend prescription for that, which has not the least foundation neither in Holy Writ nor in Primitive Christianity; of which not one instance appears for the first Three Hundred years after Christ, and much to the contrary.’

[Page 121] 103. To this you now reply in your Margin with great Assurance; Reply p. 21. §. 16. ‘ Protestants destitute of Scripture Proofs against the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints:’ But all you have to say in the Book is, ‘That you do not give Divine Worship to the Saints, nor call upon them in that strict sense in which they are Duties only to be paid to God.’ That is to say, you play with Words, and make use of such distinctions as if they were allowed, a man might evacuate any other of Gods Commands, without a possibility of being confuted. And I desire you to tell me what answer you would make an Impudent Woman that should give her Husbands Bed to another, and being charged by you for breaking the Seventh Commandment, should tell you that you were not to be so uncharitable as to judge of what she did by the External Act, that the Law forbad only lying with another man, as with her Husband; and that in this strict sense she was still Innocent, by reserving that highest Degree of Conjugal affection to him only, the giving whereof to another would make her guilty.

104. But since you are so desirous to know what our Reasons against this Invocation are, I will now very freely lay them before you, if you will first give me leave only to prepare the way for them, by stating truly the difference between us in this matter, which you are wonderfully apt either to mistake or to palliate.

105. You tell us in your Vindication, ‘That All you say, is that it is lawful to pray to the Saints; and so again in your Reply.’ Vind. p. 30. Repl. p. 11. Expos. Sect. IV. p. 5. Papist Repl. N. 2. p. 2. The difference (you say) between us is, ‘ Whether it be lawful for us to beseech or intreat them to pray for us?’ Monsieur de Meaux in the same moderate way tells us, that the Church teaches that it is profitable to pray to the Saints: And the Representer (from the Council of Trent) says of a true Papist, ‘ That his Church teaches him (and he believes) that it is Good and profitable, to desire the intercession of the Saints, reigning with Christ in Heaven.’ In your Discourses with those of our Communion, there is nothing more Ordinary with you, than to make them believe, that you value not praying to the Saints, nor Condemn any for not doing it. That if this be all they scruple in your Religion, they shall be received freely by you, and never pray to a Saint as long as they live. Nay I have heard of some who have gone so far in this matter, as to venture their Religion [Page 122] upon it, that you do not necessarily require the practise or profession of this service at all; nor pronounce any Anathema against us for opposing of it.

106. But this is not ingenuous; nor as becomes the Disciples of Christ. For tell me now I beseech you: If we unite our selves to your Church, will you not oblige us to go to Mass with you? Or can you dare for our sakes to alter your Service, and leave out all those things that relate to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints in it? Shall we be excused from having any thing to do with your Litanies and Processions, your Vespers or your Salves? Or will you purge all these too in Order to our Conversion? When we lie in our last Agonies, will you be content to Anoint us in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and leave the Angels, Arch-Angels, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and all the Saints out of the Commission? And when our Souls are now expiring, shall we be sure you will not then at least trouble us with that long Beadroll which your Office prescribes to be call'd upon in that Ceremony? If you have indeed the Liberty to do this, why do ye not use it, and remove so great a stumbling block as this out of our way? But if you cannot dispense with these things for our common Conversion, how shall we believe that you can do it to satisfie a private Proselyte?

107. The truth is Invocation of Saints in your Church is not esteemed so indifferent a matter as you would have it thought to be. It is a Worship you suppose due to them: And to which they acquire a right by their Canonization. So Cardinal Bellarmine informs us: And therefore in your Profession of Faith set forth by the order of Pope Pius IVth. you are obliged with ‘ a firm Faith to believe and profess, that the Saints, who reign together with Christ, are to be Venerated and Invoked.’ And tho the Alarm which the Council of Trent was in upon the News of the Popes sickness, and the haste which thereupon they made to conclude that Synod permitted them not to frame any Canons in this last, as they had done in the other Sessions; yet the materials put together in the Chapter shews us what Anathema's would have been thunder'd against us. For to take it only as it lies in that Session. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. There we find ‘ the Bishops and Pastors of the Church commanded to teach (what therefore I hope is undoubtedly the Churches sense in this point) That the Saints who Reign together [Page 123] with Christ offer up their Prayers to God for Men: That it is Good and Profitable in a suppliant manner to call upon them: And that for the obtaining benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Saviour and Redeemer, we should flie to their Prayers, Aid and Assistance. They declare that those who deny (which you know we all do) that the Saints who enjoy Eternal Happiness in Heaven are not to be invoked, or say that this Invocation is Idolatry (as we generally believe it to be) or that it is contrary to the Word of God; or derogatory to the Honour of the One Mediator between God and Man Christ Jesus; or that it is foolish to supplicate those who Reign in Heaven in word or in mind; do think WICKEDLY.’

108. These are the words of your Council. If therefore you permit your Prosolytes to profess what they do not believe; if you receive those as good Catholicks into your Church, whom nevertheless you know to remain still infected with wicked Opinions, contrary to the Doctrine and Practise established amongst you; If you allow them to assist at your prayers, without any intention to joyn in them, nay in an Opinion that they could not pray with you, without committing a grievous sin; Then go on to make folks believe, as you do, that you oblige no body to pray to the Saints, and that they may be of your Church, and yet still believe or do what they please in this matter. But if otherwise this be all gross Hypocrisie, if there be nothing but cheat and design in these pretences; then may I humbly desire all sincere Members of our Communion to beware of such Guides, as value not how they charge ours, or palliate their own Religion, so they may but by any means draw unwary men into their Net.

109. But the Council of Trent goes yet further: It does not only Establish this Doctrine, but in express terms Anathematises those who oppose it: For in the close of that Chapter I but now mentioned, Concil. Trid. Ibid. thus it decrees: ‘ If any one shall teach or THINK contrary to these Decrees: let him be ANATHEMA. All which your Epitomator Caranza thus delivers in short, The Synod commands Caranza Summ. Sess. XXV. Conc. Trid. p. 482. Lovami 1681. (all those who have the care of Souls) that they should teach the Invocation of Saints; the Honour of Reliques; and the Use of Images; and that those who teach otherwise do think WICKEDLY. And if any one shall teach or think contrary to these Decrees, Let him be ANATHEMA.’

[Page 124] 110. It remains therefore that your Church does teach and require of all its Members both the profession and practise of such an Invocation, as I have before explain'd: And of which I now undertake to shew:

1. That it is repugnant to Gods Holy word.
2. Contrary to Antiquity.
3. That is unreasonable in the constitution; and
4. Unprofitable and unlawful in the Practise.

I. It is repugnant to Gods Holy Word.

111. And here, First I will not doubt once more to tell you that to pray to Saints after the manner that it is now done in the Church of Rome, is contrary to all those passages of Holy Scripture which attribute Religious Worship to God only; such as Deut. VI. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve Him, and swear by his Name; and again Chap. X. 12, 20. XIII. 4. &c. All which our Saviour Christ has taught us to interpret with such a restrictive term, as excludes all others from a share in our Service. Mat. IV. 10. It is Written, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and Him ONLY shalt thou serve. I have already shewn that all Prayer made to a person that is absent, with a Confidence that he is able both to know our wants, and to hear our Prayers, and to answer our desires, is in its own nature a Religious Worship. Now then from these places of Holy Scripture, I thus argue: It is repugnant to Gods Word to give any proper Acts of Religious Worship to any but God only; but all such prayer as is made in your Church to the Saints departed, are proper Acts of Religious Worship; and therefore it must be contrary to Gods Word to pray to any but God only.

112. Nor am I here at all concern'd in your distinctions of a Supreme and an Inferior Religious Honour; seeing both you and I are agreed that all Honour properly Religious (such as Prayer) is comprised under these prohibitions. If I were, I would then tell you that the Devil here did not require of Christ such a Supreme Worship, but on the contrary acknowledged himself to have a Superior, from whom He derived his Power of disposing of all the Kingdoms of the Earth, and the Glories of them. All he desired was to have some Religious Honour paid to Him. And our Saviour by alledging this Sentence of the Law against [Page 125] it, Evidently shews that it is not only such a supream Religious worship as some of you pretend, but that all such Honour in general, is the peculiar service of God alone. But this (if you stand to your own principles) you cannot object, and for others, what I have now said may suffice to obviate their pretences.

113. Secondly, What I have now concluded from this general Principle of Holy Scripture, I will in the next place more particularly inforce from these other passages, where the worship of Creatures is expresly prohibited. In the Xth. of the Acts, when Cornelius fell down at St. Peters feet, and would have worshipp'd him, ‘ he took him up saying, I my self also am a man.’ It Acts X. 25. is a poor shift here to say, that Cornelius would have worshipp'd St. Peter with a supream divine worship; he was not certainly so ignorant as to think, that when the Angel bid him send to Joppa for Simon Peter, who lodged with Simon a Tanner, he meant he should send for the great God that had made Heaven and Earth. Nor is it of any more moment which others amongst you suggest, viz. That Cornelius did well to adore him, but that St. Peter out of modesty refus'd it. And the answer he gave, ‘ I my self also am a man,’ utterly overthrows all such insinuations; being as much as if he had said, that no Man whatsoever was to be worshipped.

114. But this will more evidently appear in another instance, viz. that of St. John, Revel. XIX. 10. who when in his Ecstacy Rev. XIX. 10. XXII. 8. he fell down and would have worshipp'd the Angel that discoursed with him, the blessed Spirit utterly forbad him; See (says he) thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant: WORSHIP GOD. In which words are plainly establish'd these two Conclusions against this service; 1st. That Angels (and so likewise the Saints) being our fellow Servants are not to be worshipp'd: 2dly, That God only is to be adored.

115. But St. Paul is yet more plain: He exhorts the Colossians in general, and in them us: Colos. II. 18. Let no man beguile Colos. II. 1 [...]. you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels. It is answered by some among you, that this was said in Opposition to the Heresie of Simon Magus who would have Sacrifice offer'd to the Angels: Or at least of some Others, who thought that tho' Christ had abolish'd the Law, yet was it still to be observed out of respect to the Angels by whom it had been deliver'd. But besides that I do not find [Page 126] any such thing charged by any of the Ancients upon Simon Magus, as is pretended; had S. Paul designed only to forbid one particular Act of Religious Worship being paid to them, would he in General have said that they were not to be Worshipped? Or had he intended to signifie the abolishing of the Law, would he not have said so here, as well as in his other Epistles; and not have given such an obscure insinuation of it, as when he meant to forewarn them against observing the Law, to bid them have a care of worshipping Angels. But the truth is the meaning of the Text is too plain to be thus eluded. And I shall give it to you in the words of an ancient Father who lived in those very times in which you yet pretend such a service was establish'd: ‘ Those who maintain'd an Observance of the Law together Theoderet in loc. with the Gospel, taught also that Angels were to be worshipped; saying that the Law was given by them. This Custom remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Upon which account the Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia, forbad them by a Law to PRAY TO ANGELS.’ But.

116. Thirdly, And to come more immediately to the Worship of Invocation. The same Apostle in that Question, Rom. X. 14. Rom. X. 14. ‘ How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?’ furnishes us with another maxime of Holy Scripture against all such Prayers; viz. That no one is to be invoked in our religious addresses, but He only in whom we believe. But now Reason, Scripture, the Common Creeds of all Christians shew that we are to believe ONLY in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and therefore upon Him ONLY must we Call. As for your distinction that this indeed in one sense is very true, but then in another and secondary sense Others besides God may be both believed Reply. p. 21. in, and called upon; if you mean in a civil respect, it is indeed very true, but nothing to your purpose, seeing in this sense we can no more believe in than we can call upon such persons as are absent from us, and know nothing at all of us, which is the Case of the Saints departed. But for believing in a religious sense, as it is properly an Act of Divine Faith, and the foundation of that Assurance with which we call upon God by our Saviour Jesus Christ; this admits of no distinction, nor may it by any means, or in any measure be applied, without Sin, to any other than God alone.

117. I will add but one principle more of Holy Scripture against [Page 127] this Service, and so close this first Point. Rom. XIV. 23. Rom. XIV. 23. That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin. But now those Prayers which have no foundation in Holy Scripture cannot be of Faith; for (says the same Apostle Rom. X. 17.) Faith cometh by Hearing, and Hearing by the word of God; And therefore such Prayers must be Sin. If God has any where revealed it to you, that you may lawfully give such a religious Worship to the Saints, shew this, and our dispute is ended. But if you cannot do this, nor by consequence cannot pray to them with any well grounded perswasion of Conscience, that this is what God allows, and what the Saints are capable of receiving, I do not see how it can be avoided but that to you it must be sin so to do. [...], S. Basil. Reg. Miral. 78. cap. 22. [...]. As an ancient Father argues from this very principle in the like manner.

118. For the Other part of this Service, the intercession of the Saints for us; I might to this Oppose all those passages of the New Testament, where Christ is set forth to us as our only Mediator. But I shall content my self with one single text, 1. Tim. II. 5, 6. There is one God, and one Mediator between God 1 Tim. II. 5. 6. and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a Ransome for all. Now if there be but one Mediator, then Saints and Angels are not Mediators as you pretend. If the foundation of Christs Mediatorship be this, ‘ That he gave himself a Ransome for all;’ then seeing the Saints have not done this, it must follow that neither can they be our Mediators. And this cuts off your new distinction of a Mediator of Intercession, and a Mediator of Redemption; which besides that it is the issue of your own Brains, and was invented only to support a tottering Cause, is here utterly destroy'd; seeing the Foundation of Christs Mediating now in Heaven, and appearing in the presence of God for us, is by vertue of His being our Mediator of Redemption upon Earth; and he therefore is become our intercessor there, because He shed his bloud for our Expiation here. This is that great Argument upon which the Author to the Hebrews so much insists, Chap. IX. X. And the Analogy of the High Priest under the Law, making first the Expiatory Sacrifice for the people, and then Entring into the Holiest to appear before [Page 128] God for them, most evidently confirms it to us. And this may suffice for the 1st. Point, That this Service is contrary to the principles of Holy Scripture.

II. It is Contrary to Antiquity.

119. And here I am fallen into a vast Ocean; and should never have ended, should I go about particularly to shew how vain your pretences are to possession for this superstition. It shall suffice me at present only to point out to you a few of those Remarks which others have more largely pursu'd; and which do abundantly declare how little conformable the best and highest Antiquity has been to what you now practise.

120. I have already given some short account of the first three Centuries: And how little able you are to lay any claim to the Authority of them. You have there seen what the Opinion was of those Holy Fathers, touching the State of the Saints departed: How they thought that they do not yet enjoy the Beatifick Vision, and by consequence were not in a condition to be called upon by the Church on Earth. I have shewn you the Fathers arguing against the Arrians for the Divinity of Christ from the Churches praying to Him; and which evidently proves that they thought none but God was capable of such a service. I have offer'd you the definition which those Holy Men gave of Prayer; viz. That it was an Address to God, a Conversing with God, and the like; and in all which they still restrain'd it to Him as His own peculiar prerogative. There we find no mention of any calling upon the Blessed Virgin or the Saints. No distinction of supreme and inferiour religious Worship; of Mediators of Redemption and Intercession: in short none of those Evasions with which all your discourses on this Point are now filled; and without which indeed, according to your principles, it is impossible to explain it.

121. But I will now add yet more. It was a general custome in the third and following Ages (concerning which we are particularly to enquire) to pray for the Saints departed, for Martyrs and Confessors, nay for the Blessed Virgin her self, as has been elsewhere fully proved, and I suppose you will not have Discourse of Purgatory and Prayers for the dead. the confidence to deny it. Now let me appeal to any reasonable man to say; could the Church in those times have prayed [Page 129] in a suppliant manner to the Saints, as Reigning with God, nay and Gods themselves by participation, to aid, and assist them, when on the contrary they thought them in such a State as to need prayers to God for them? Is it to be believed, that they Addressed to those as Mediators and Intercessors with God, for whom they themselves interceded to God? It is a memorable remark that has been made to confirm the force of this Argument, that since the prevalency of this praying to Saints in the Church of Rome, your publick rituals have had a notable change. Those very Saints which in your ancient Missals you pray'd for, being now a la Mode pray'd to. Thus upon IV. Kalends of July in the Sacramentary of Pope Gregory I. above 600 years after Christ we find Sacrament. Greg. p. 112. this Prayer made in behalf of S. Leo, one of your Popes.

‘ Grant O Lord that this Oblation may be profitable to the Soul of thy Servant Leo.’

But in the present Roman Missal, the Collect is changed, and Missale Rom. pag. 612. the Address made by the Intercession of the Saint now, that was formerly made by way of Intercession for Him.

‘ Grant to us, O Lord, that by the Intercession of Blessed Leo, this Offering may be profitable to US.’

And of this change, Pope Innocent the 3d. gives this honest Decret lib. 3. tit. 41. p. 1372, 1373. account: Viz. That the Authority of Holy Scripture says, that he ‘ injures a Martyr, that prays for a Martyr;’ (wherein yet his Infallibility mislead him, it being S. Austin and not the Scripture that said so) ‘ and they do not want our Prayers, but we theirs.’ Which the Gloss thus more fully expresses; ‘It was changed (viz. this prayer for Pope Leo) because anciently they pray'd FOR Him, but now TO Him.’ And from whence therefore we may warrantably infer, that in those first Ages praying TO Saints was not establish'd, seeing it was then the general Custom to pray FOR them.

112. The truth is, the whole face of the Ancient Church seems clearly opposite to the present practise: Some doubted whether the holy Saints departed, do at all concern themselves for us, or conduce any thing to our Salvation. So Origen. And these to be sure never prayed to them. Others made open opposition to such service. So the Council of Laodicea; S. Epiphanius, Vigilantius, and others before mention'd. Now you Canonize Saints, and esteem it necessary so to do, to prevent mens praying to those in Heaven, who are it may be at this time tormenting in Hell. [Page 130] But in those first Ages we find none of these Apotheoses; and Bellarmine himself could not find out any instance of any Saint De beatit. SS. lib. 1. C. 8. that was Canonized before the VIIIth. Century. If we go into your Churches, we find them filled with Altars and Chappels, Images and Reliques of the Saints: Candles are lighted up before them; Incense is burned to their Honour: But in those Primitive Ages, not the least shadow is to be met with of any such Superstitions. Your Books of Devotion are now filled with little else than advises how to pray to the Blessed Virgin; to list your selves into her service; to vow your selves to her Worship; her Psalter, and Rosary, and Salutation is in every part of your performances. Even the Catechism of the Council of Trent it self, the most Cautious Book that has been set forth for some Ages in your Church, having taught you first how to pray to God, fails not to instruct you that you must in the next place have recourse to the Saints, and make Prayers to them.

How comes it to pass, if this were the primitive practise too, that none of those Holy Fathers, in any of their practical discourses have ever treated of these things? Nay on the contrary, they every where thunder in our Ears, that Protestant, Heretical Maxim, that we must pray to GOD ONLY, and that we ought not to address our selves to any other.

123. In all your Sermons, you call upon the Blessed Virgin for assistance. In the Ends of your Books, her Name seldom fails of standing in the same return of praise in which God and our Saviour are Glorified. Your publick service, and private prayers, are all over-run with this superstition. But is there any thing of this in the Primitive Rituals? Look I beseech you into the account that has been given us of the publick service of the Ancient Church by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, nay by the Clementine Constitutions themselves: Consult the Relation which Pliny made to the Emperour Trajan of their Manners. Try those famous Liturgies of the Church within the first 100 years, which no body has the Reply. p. 19. happiness to be acquainted with but your self; see if you can pick us up but one instance, but some shadow of an instance to flourish with on this occasion.

124. What are the Lives of your Saints, but continued Histories of their Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and the favours which upon that account they received from them? But in the ancient Compilers of such kind of Discourses, we find [Page 131] only dry accounts of their Piety towards God; of their Zeal and Constancy in the Faith; of their patience in suffering any thing, rather than submit to such superstitious practises as these, which the Heathens indeed would have drawn them to, but which the Church utterly abhorred. But for their knight errantry in Honour of the Blessed Virgin; for watching whole Nights before her Images; or in her Chappels; for turning Vagabonds in order to the visiting her Chamber at Loretto; or fetching a Feather from Compostella; of this New Method of Piety there are not the least traces.

125. I might run out these remarks into almost infinite Examples, were they not things as well known, as your contrary superstition is notorious. But I shall reserve these, and some other Observations of the like kind, till you think fit to call me to account for them. In the mean time I conclude from this short specimen I have here given, that certainly the face of the Church must be very much changed as to these things; Or otherwise that so great a difference could not possibly be found in the Lives, the Writings, the Actions, the Customs, the Opinions, the Expressions, Prayers, Practises, of those holy Fathers, from what we see and lament in your Church at this day. I go on thirdly to shew;

III. The Unreasonableness of this Service.

126. And for that I shall offer only this one plain Argument; If the Saints cannot ordinarily hear your prayers, nor are able to attend distinctly to those Addresses that are made to them: If those whom you Canonize are not indeed such as you suppose, but many at this day tormented in Hell, upon whom you call for assistance in Heaven: If some of those to whom you pray never had any being, but either in the Heralds Office, or in the fruitful Womb of a Legendaries Brain: Then it cannot be doubted but that to pray to the Saints must be the most unreasonable Devotion in the World; you speak to the Wind, and call upon them to as little purpose as if you should here in England make an Address to a Man in China or Tartary; and you might as well have continued the Deities, as you do the practise of the ancient Heathens in this service: It being altogether as wise a Devotion to pray to a Jupiter or an Apollo that never lived in the World, as to a St. George or a St. Christopher that never [Page 132] had any more being in it than they. And yet were we now to inquire into these Circumstances, without a full knowledg of which this Invocation can never be a reasonable service, what uncertain accounts should we receive from you. For,

127. First. As to the main foundation of all ‘Whether the In his suppress'd Edition. Expos. of Mr. de Meaux. Sect. IV. p. 7. Saints hear your prayers?’ In what doubt is your Bishop of Meaux still in his Exposition, and you know he was once in a great deall more? All he has to say is that you teach ‘ That your prayers to the Saints are very profitable, Whether it be that they know them by the Ministry and Communication of the Angels; or whether it be that God himself makes known to them our desires by a particular Revelation; or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his Divine Essence in which all truth is Comprised.’ If we enquire of your more Ancient Authors, we shall find all full of Uncertainty. Lombard thought it was not incredible to suppose Lombard sent. lib. IV. dist. 45. Scotus ibid. Qu. 4. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. l. 31. that the Saints might know the prayers that were addressed to them. Scotus went a little farther, and judged it to be probable that God revealed these things to them: And so did Gabriel Biel. Those who pretend to more certainty yet are able to give but very little reason why; Bellarm. de Eccles. Triumph. l. 1. cap. 20. unless you will take this for a reason, that their Church generally belives so, and that otherwise it would be vain and absur'd to pray to them. In short, how the Saints hear your prayers you do not pretend to know; and I desire you to give Me but one rational Argument to convince me that (by whatever means it is) they do ordinarily, and constantly, and certainly, and particularly, understand the Addresses that you make to them. For to deal freely with you, I never yet met with any thing that but inclined me to believe this, but much to the contrary.

128. Secondly, Concerning the Canonization of your Saints, may I beg leave to ask you: Are you sure that all those whom your Church has placed in Heaven are truly there? if you are not, I am sure you do very unreasonably to pray to them. Now this I the rather desire to be satisfied in because here again I find your Authors very much unresolved what to say.

First, It is but the common Opinion, (no matter of Faith) Bellarm. l. 1. de. Beat. SS. c. 8. 9. Vasquez. l 1. de Ador. disp. V. c. 3. that the power of Canonizing Saints belongs to the Pope; and therefore it cannot be without all doubt whether those whom he Canonizes are infallibly Saints or no.

Secondly, The Jesuit Vasquez tells us, there are Catholicks [Page 133] (He means those of your Communion) who do not think it without doubt that all whom your Church has Canonized are indeed Saints: And he mentions no less a man than Cardinal Cajetane. libr. de Indulg. c. 8. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 5: c. 5. Gerson de 4: dom. cons. 2. &c. de Exam. doctr. cons. 1. See Bishop Taylours Polem. disc. pag. 333. Cajetane for one. And that Cardinal in the book to which Vasquez refers, alledges the great Doctour of your Schools S. Thomas for another. To these I will add Melchior Canus, Antoninus, and Gerson, who at most esteem it but piously credible, not absolutely certain. But Augustinus Triumphus goes farther; and doubts not freely to declare that all who are Canonized by the Pope cannot be in Heaven. And Prateolus tells us that Herman the Author of the Heresie of the Fratricelli was for twenty years together after his death honour'd as a Saint, and then his body was taken up and burnt for a Heretick. And now if you are not yet sensible of the danger you run by this means, whilst you not only call upon a damned soul for aid and assistance, but (as in some of your prayers you do) pray unto God so to give you Grace on Earth as he has glorified them in Heaven; I shall leave it De SS. beat. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. secundo. to your own Cardinal Bellarmine to inform you of it.

Thirdly, It is confessed by those of your own Church that among your Canonized Saints, some there have been whose Lives were not to be commended: Others whose Opinions have been condemned as Heretical; and for my part, when I consider the Character of some to whom you pray, such as Thomas a Becket, Dominick, &c. I cannot but say, that if these be the men whom you place in Heaven, what the poor Indians did of the Spaniards, that then the other is certainly the more desirable portion. For, and I am perswaded that were but S. Martin again alive to summon their Souls before him, as he once did that of a supposed Saint in his time, they would make the same Confession that Vid Bellar. de beat. SS. l. 1. cap. 7. wretched Spirit is reported to have done, and prove much more worthy your Compassion than your Adoration. Now that which the more encreases this danger is

Fourthly, The almost infinite Number of Saints that have been received amongst you, and whose Consecration depending wholly on matter of Fact, in which you do not pretend the Pope to be Infallible, it can hardly be supposed but that he must have very often proved mistaken. For to keep only to your own Order; a late Author of yours tells us, that your Domestick Saints Calendarium Benedictinum ad 26. Dec. alone did long since by computation amount to fourty four thousand. And I find another Dr. Jackson T. 1. p. 937. list increasing them to fifty thousand. [Page 134] Now to consider all the Arts and Intrigues that are used to procure these Canonizations; by what Popes many of them have been placed in Heaven; what Characters several among them have in your own Histories of their Lives; these and many other Reflections would I confess prompt me, were I otherwise as well satisfied of the Innocence of this Worship, as I am fully convinced of the unlawfulness of it, yet to pray to the greatest part of your Saints, as he once did to Saint Cutbert; Si Sanctus sis, Ora pro me: IF THOU ART A SAINT, pray for me.

129. It is I know, the last refuge of many, who consider this uncertainty, to say, That at least your good intention shall render these Prayers acceptable to God; for what (says the Learned Vossius Thes. Theol. p. 106. Erasmus) if the Saints do not perceive our desires, yet Christ do's know them, and will for them give us what we ask? But yet still this will not make it a reasonable Service; nor can you with a firm Faith call upon those in Heaven, of whom you have at most, but a Pious Credulity that they are there: And tho' some of your Authors do believe, that your own Piety shall excuse you, yet others utterly deny it, and doubt not to say, that you may as well excuse the Heathens themselves, who in worshipping the parts of the World, supposed (according to Varro's Divinity) Catherinus Annot. in Cajet. dogm. de Canoniz. pag. 135. that they Worshipped the Divine Nature, that was diffused through it. But

130. Thirdly, That which is the worst of all, is, that you have not only no certainty of the Happiness of those Saints whom you Canonize, but you pray to some who (for ought appears) never had any Being in the World.

Now among these, I shall not doubt in the first place, to account our own Country Saint and Champion St. George, and of whom our English Legends still recount so many Miracles; tho' Cardinal Baronius himself has confess'd that they are for the most Baron in Martyr. R. Apr. 23. part absolutely false. In the Roman Breviary since the Reformation of it by Pope Pius V. there is no account at all of his Life; and your own Ribadeneira. ad 23. April. Authors tells us the reason is, because there is no certain truth of any of those things that are extant concerning him. And indeed, if the Antient Histories of this Saint were justly censured by Pope Gelasius, as Apocryphal, we have no great reason to believe, that the latter Legends deserve any better reception. As for the famous Story which still continues in those equally Books of the Ignorant, The English Lives of the Saints, and [Page 135] the Sign Posts; where we see this great Champion, like another Perseus, mounted to deliver the fair Andromeda from the Dragons Mouth; Baronius charges Jacobus a Voragine with the pure Invention of it, and almost every Body now, but our English Compiler, is grown asham'd of it. In short, if there be any Foundation at all in Antiquity for this Story, it is but little for the satisfaction of those who Worship this Saint. Your own Authors confess, that this George lived about the time of Dioclesian, that he was by Birth a Cappadocian; that he had Encounters with Athanasius a Magician: Now all this seems to perswade us, that our S. George was no other, than George the Arrian Bishop, who was also a Cappadocian by Birth, who had Encounters with S. Athanasius, whom the Arrians called a Magician; and who was Deified by those Hereticks, after his violent Death in the time of Julian. And in Memory of which perhaps it was, that they first mounted him upon a Camel, (being led through the Streets upon one) and then for greater decency changed it into a Horse; to which Jacobus a Voragine added the Dragon and the Lady; with the Warlike Equipage of Cask and Lance: And thus is our Tutelary Saint, brought under suspition of being, if any thing at all, a wicked Heretick; that persecuted one of the greatest Bishops of his time, for asserting the Divinity of the Son of God; and yet is this Man still pray'd to in your Church; and I have now by me an Antient Ritual in which he is seen Armed at all points, his Spear in the Dragons Mouth, the Lady by him on her Knees: and these Prayers addressed to him.

Saint GEORGE, famous Martyr; Praise and Glory become thee: By whom the princely Lady being grieved by a wicked Dragon, was preserved.

Almighty and Everlasting God, who mercifully hearest the prayers of those who call upon thee; we humbly beseech thy Majesty, that as for the honour of thy Blessed and Glorious Martyr S. George thou causedst the Dragon to be overcome by a Maid, so by his Intercession thou wouldest vouchsafe to defend us against all our Enemies visible and invisible, that they may not be able to hurt us, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now what is this but to mock God in his solemn service? To pray to him through the Intercession of a man that either never [Page 136] lived in the World, or it may be was one of his most hated Enemies; and deified by a crew of wretched Hereticks, for his fury in opposing the Eternal Generation of the Saviour of us all.

131. And what I have thus chosen more particularly to insist upon in this Example, I might shew in several others not a whit less fabulous. Our Saviour in S. Luke gives a parabolical account of the different States of men in the other World, under the names of Dives and Lazarus. As for the former there was no great danger of making him a Saint. But for Lazarus he is transubstantiated into a real man. Temples are built among you to his Honour: Anniversary solemnites are Consecrated to Baron. Ann. ad Ann. 3. §. 44. his memory, and because he was represented in Scripture as full of sores, he is now made the Patron of the Lepers in Heaven. From the Greek word signifying a Spear, you have first found out a name for the Centurion that ranour Blessed Lord into the Side; and having metamorphosed the Spear into a Man, it was no hard matter to make the Man a Saint: And now upon the 15th. of March, who so much Honour'd, as S. Longinus. Nay Baron. Not. in Mart. XV. March. what is yet more pleasant, Baronius assures us that his Venerable Body is kept in the Church of St. Austin at Rome.

132. S. Christopher is another of your Saints that never lived. He is pretended to have suffer'd under Dagnus King of Lycia, who also never was in the World; and being of a Giantly stature to have dwelt by a River side where there was no Bridge, and there he made it his business in Charity to carry over all that pass'd that way: Which our Saviour so much approved as to suffer him once upon a time to carry himself over upon his shoulders. Now all this Cardinal Baronius confesses to Not. ad Martyrol. Jul. 25. be a meer Legend; but our thorough paced English-Irish Collector, tho he confesses he never saw any approved Author that said it, yet for the Pictures sake which are so common amongst you, declares generously that he was resolved to believe it. And the ancient Ritual I before mention'd, prays to our Saviour that in consideration of his riding over the River upon S. Christophers back, he would deliver you from all dangers.

133. I should never have done should I insist on this manner upon all the other Imaginary Saints whom you Worship. Such were our own Country-woman again, S. Ursula and her 11000 Virgins; who is pretended to have been Daughter to Dionet King of Cornwall, in the time of Marcian, when there was no [Page 137] such King in England; and to have been Martyr'd at Cologn, whither she went by Ship, being the first and last that ever sail'd thither; and yet this Lady makes no mean Figure in your Church. She is Patroness under God and the Blessed Virgin, of a whole Religious Society; and with great Devotion pray'd to, December 21. I might to this Visionary Saintess, add others of the same Sex; S. Catharine, S. Margaret, &c. But I shall content my self with one Memorable Instance, not so commonly known, which may suffice to shew with what uncertainty you pray to many in these Devotions. The account is given by one of your own Communion, and who himself discover'd the mistake.

134. About eight Miles from Evora a City of Portugal, there Ressendii Epist. ad Barthol. Kebedium. pag. 168. is a place which they call the Cave of the Martyrs; where they pretend were slain a great number of Christians with their Bishop and his two Sisters; to one of which, called Columba, there was a Chappel erected, and in the place where the other was slain, there issued out a Spring of sweet Water, called to this day, Holy-well, and very good for curing a weak sight. The Sepulchre of the Bishop himself is in a Church of the Blessed Virgins, empty, and open. Over it is a Table of Stone supported by four Pillars, so that a Man might go under it. Hither came all those that had Pains in their Loyns, and imploring the aid of this Martyr, they went away certainly Cured. There was also the Picture of this Bishop: and upon this Stone Table they Sacrificed the Mass, in Honour to him, calling him by his proper Name VIARIUS.

135. This was the ancient Tradition, and Worship. When Ressendius, who relates this Story, came hither, in order to the publishing the Life of this Saint, among others he was then Writing; he desired the Priest who had given him this account of their Martyr, to shew him if there were any antient Records, or Inscriptions, that confirm'd it. Upon this he brought him to the Altar beforemention'd, and there he found this Inscription.

[Page 138] S. Q. JVL. CLARO. C. V. IIII. VI RO VIARVM CVRANDA RVM ANN. XXI.

Q. JVL. NEPOTIANO. C. I.

IIII. VIRO. VIARVM CVRAN DARVM. ANN. XX.

CALP. SABINA. FILIIS.

The Priest pointing with his Finger to these Words VIARUM CVRANDARUM, See (says he) the proper Name of the Martyr VIARIUS: And for CURANDARUM, it is as much as to say Cura Cutarum, i. e. a Bishop. As for the other Names (continued he) I suppose they may be the proper Names of the other Martyrs that suffered with him.

136. Ressendius held his Countenance as well as ever he could, but went immediately away to Cardinal Alphonsus, who was at that time Bishop of Evora, and told him all that had pass'd, and how a couple of Heathens, Overseers of the High-ways, had been Worshipp'd there for Christians, and Martyrs. The Cardinal commanded the Tomb to be stopped up, to the great discontent of the people, who had been wont to receive mighty relief by their Addresses to this Viarius; and cursed the Learning and Curiosity of Ressendius, that had deprived them of so great and useful a Saint.

137. I shall make no other Application of this Story, than what I find in the complaint of another Learned man of your Church, Cassander Consult. p. 971. as to this very matter. There is also (says he) another Error, not uncommon; that neglecting, in a manner, the antient and known Saints, the common People Worship more ardently, and diligently, the new and unknown; of whose Holiness we have but little assurance, and some of which are known to us only by Revelation; insomuch that of several of them it is justly doubted, Whether EVER [Page 139] THERE WERE ANY SUCH PERSONS IN THE WORLD.

138. From all these Considerations, I now conclude against the reasonableness of this Invocation. 1. No Man can reasonably pray in Faith to such Persons, as he can never be sure are able either to hear his Prayers, or to answer his desires: But you can never be sure that your Saints are able to do either of these; and therefore you cannot reasonably pray with any good assurance to them. 2. It is unreasonable to pray to those as Saints, who, it may be, are not in Heaven, nor ever shall be there: But this is very probably the Case of many of your Saints, and you cannot be sure it is otherwise, when you address to them; and therefore it is unreasonable in you to pray to them. 3. To pray to those who never were in the World, is the most unreasonable thing that can be imagined; but in your Prayers to many of your Saints, you address to those that never were in the World; and therefore upon this, and upon all the foregoing Accounts, I conclude it very unreasonable to pray to the Saints at all.

There is yet one thing more remaining to finish this whole Subject of Invocation of Saints, viz.

IV. That it is Unprofitable, and Impious in the Practice.

First, That it is Unprofitable.

139. And if the former consideration stand good; this will necessarily follow from it. For if either those whom you pray to are meer figments of your own brain, that have neither Truth nor Existence; or if tho they do Exist, yet they are not Saints as you suppose; or tho they should be Saints too, yet have no means ordinarily and particularly to hear your prayers, nor can attend to those numberless addresses that are at the same time from all the parts of the World put up to them; it must then be a most unprofitable, as well as a most senseless practise to pray to them; and what our Saviour once objected to the Samaritans, will be found no less true of you, that ye worship ye know not what, nor why.

140. But let us allow that you invoke none but what have lived, and are sanctified: Let us also grant that which yet the Holy Fathers so much doubted of, that the Saints do already enjoy the Beatifick Vision; and therefore (according to your Divinity) [Page 140] are capable of understanding your prayers, by whatsoever way it be that they do so: I dare yet ask of you, what profit is there in this service? For tell me now, I beseech you, O ye Worshippers of dead men? Have we not an Advocate in Heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the sole and full propitiation of our 1 John II. 1. sins? Has he not promised that whatsoever we ask the Father in HIS NAME, we shall receive it? Has he not told us that he Jo. XIV. 13. Ib. VI. 6. is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? And that no one can come to the Father but by him? Is it not he that has set us an Example how we ought to pray; when ye pray say, Our Father which art in Heaven: Shew us if you can any precept, or encouragement, or Example, for going to any other. Is it that our Saviour Christ has not compassion enough for us, that you go to others as more merciful? Thus some of you I know have said: But on the contrary the Scripture tells us ‘ That we have not a High Priest Heb. IV. 15, 16. which cannot be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are:’ And from thence presently infers ‘ Let us therefore come boldly unto the Throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find Grace to help in time of need.’ Or is it finally, that the interest of the Blessed Jesus is not great enough with his Father; unless you add a mad Francis, a bloody Dominick, a Rebellious Becket, an enthusiastick Ignatius, to be joynt Advocates with him? If these indeed be your thoughts, let us plainly know the impiety of them? And upon what unchristian foundations the benefit of this practise is established by you? But if you dare not say that any Saint in Heaven can prevail, where Christ alone cannot; if you are ashamed to own, that you think any one can love us more dearly, than he who gave himself for us, and redeem'd us with his own most precious Blood; or by consequence can be more ready to hear and intercede for us: Tell me then, what profit is it, that having this fountain of living water, you run to the broken Cisterns of the merits and intercession of your fellow Creatures, which can hold no Water.

141. But I will go yet further, to shew you the unprofitableness of this service. It was objected by a great Man of your own Church; ‘ If (says he) the Saints know our necessities, and Durand. in sent. IV. d. 45. q. 4. those defects which we express in our Prayers: How comes it to pass that we do not oftner find our selves relieved by them? To this he answers; That altho the Saints in Heaven have doubtless [Page 141] the greatest Charity imaginable for us, yet they have withal their Wills so intirely conformed to the Will of God, as not to lend any assistance to us, but according to what they see the Knowledge and Will of God disposed towards us.’ An excellent reflexion certainly; and which no one can doubt to be most true. But then it will follow from it, that you do in vain sollicite the Saints, who cannot lend you any assistance, till God is pleased to permit himself to be intreated for you. Whilst our Heavenly Father is our Enemy, all the Host of Heaven are so too. We must first be reconciled to him, before ever we can expect any favour or acceptance with them. In short, it was the Conclusion of an antient Father, whom I before mentioned, ‘That the only way to make the Angels and Saints our Friends, is to make God so first:’ And tho' we know little of what those blessed Spirits above do for us, yet we have all the reason in the World to believe that they Love and Hate according to the Divine Pleasure; and if they do pray for us, the most ready way to obtain their Prayers, is to be constant, and zealous, and persevering both in our Prayers and Piety towards God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

142. I shall conclude this with the words of S. Austin, ‘ Let it not De verâ Religione. p 290. Lugd. 1664. be any matter of Religion to us to Worship dead Men; because if they have lived well, they desire no such Honour, but rather that we should Worship him; by whose Illumination they rejoyce, that we are Companions of their Piety. They are therefore to be Honoured for our Imitation, not to be Worshipped out of Religion— And the same let us think of Angels; that they above all things, desire that we should, together with them, Worship God only, in whose Vision they are happy—Tying our Souls to him alone, from which Religion derives its very Name, let us lay aside all Superstition. Behold I Worship one God, the One principle of all things—Whatsoever Angel loves this God, I am sure that he loves me too. Whosoever remains in him, and can understand the Prayers of Men, in him he hears me. Whosoever has God for his Good, do's in him help me—Let the Adorers of the parts of the Universe tell me: What good person is there that he does not reconcile to himself, who Worships him only whom every good person loves, and in whose knowledge he rejoyces, and by recurring to which principle, he becomes good. Let therefore Religion bind us to the One God Almighty, &c.’ But I insist too long on these Reflections: I add only,

[Page 142] Secondly, To close all, That this Invocation of Saints departed, is as Impious, as it is Unprofitable.

143. For First, To take this Practice in the most Moderate Sense that may be, yet to pray to any Creature after the manner that you do to the Saints departed, is to make them the Objects of a proper Religious Worship, and to pay that Service to the Creature, which is due only to the Creator; and this certainly cannot be done without a very great Impiety.

144. Secondly, To pray to the Saints but only as Intercessors, even this do's usurp upon the peculiar Prerogative of our Blessed Saviour, who is our only Mediator, and whose singular Priviledge it is to appear in the presence of God for us. And to joyn others with Christ in his great Office and Employment, to make to our selves new Mediators; what is this but tacitely (at least) to imply, that we dare not trust either his Mercy, or his Interest; in the concern of our Everlasting Salvation. But then

145. Thirdly, To pray, as you evidently do, not only that the Saints would intercede for you, but that God would be merciful to you, not only through the Merits of Christ, but of the Saint whose Memory you celebrate; this is a downright undervaluing of our Saviour's Bloud, and do's despight unto the Covenant of Grace.

146. Fourthly, To pray to the Saints, (as if we may be allow'd to understand the meaning of plain words you do) as the Arbitrary Dispensers of Benefits to you, that they would themselves grant you those things which you ask of them; this makes your Service yet more intollerable. And tho' you seek to evade the justice of this Censure by those unreasonable Expositions of your prayers, I have before refuted, yet I am sure it ought to be more than enough to make us avoid that practice which cannot be excused but by such forced Interpretations, as should men use the like on other Occasions, all Society must be overthrown, and Mens Words be no longer relied upon as sufficient to declare the Sense of their Minds.

147. Fifthly, As to what concerns the practice of the people in this point, it cannot be deny'd; nay, it is by some of your own Church openly complain'd of, how much their hope and confidence, their Love and Service are hereby lessen'd towards God; and what greater signs of Zeal appear in them towards the Blessed Virgin, than towards our Saviour Christ himself. And indeed, [Page 143] you who ought to have better inform'd them, are the very Persons that have especially help'd to mislead them. 'Tis from you they have learnt, as a great practice of piety, to salute her ten times, for God's once. 'Tis you that have taught them to joyn Mary still with Jesus in their Mouths: Insomuch, as if it be possible, to let her Name be the last Expression of their dying Breath. 'Tis you that have told them, that to list themselves into her Fraternity, is one of the surest means in the World to ascertain their Salvation. From you they learn in all their prayers to call upon her: at the sound of a Bell thrice every day wherever they are, or whatever they are about, to fall down upon their Knees and salute her. Your Confessions, Absolutions, Excommunications, Vows, Thanksgivings, Visitations, Commendations, Conjurations, are all transacted in her Name, as well as in the Name of the Holy Trinity. Whilst our Saviour Christ is represented by you either as still in the state of Pupillage, an Infant in her Arms, or expiring upon his Cross, she has her Crown, and Glory about her Head; sometimes the Moon under her feet, and not seldom the whole Trinity joyning to set forth her Honour. Her Titles in all your Offices are Excessive: The Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Divine Grace, the Mirrour of Righteousness, the Seat of Wisdom, the Cause of our joy, the Tower of David, the Ark of the Covenant, the Gate of Heaven, the Refuge of Sinners, the Help of Christians, the Queen of Angels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and all Saints: These are the common Names you give her, in your Hymns, your Litanies and Prayers to her. And what Impression all this must make upon untutor'd minds; how much greater value they will be hereby apt to set upon her than upon Christ himself, every mans reason will soon tell him, and a sad experience confirms it to us.

148. But indeed Sixthly, It is here (in the Words of the Isaia XXIV. 2. Prophet) As with the people so with the Priest: Your Superstition is not at all less, tho much more inexcusable than theirs. Witness those great Names for whom you have appeared to be so much concern'd; St. Bernard, St. Germain, St. Anselme, St. Antonine, St. Bernardine, &c. And whose Blasphemous Devotion I have before exposed to the World. Let the Writings of Card. Bona, and Father Crasset, the Contemplations of the Blessed Virgin, and the late Apology for them in our own Language be consider'd. For I am very much mistaken, if it be possible for the most ignorant [Page 144] Zealot to be more unreasonably extravagant, than these Learned Men have approved themselves to be.

149. Nor may you turn off these with your old distinction, that they are but private persons, and for whose Excesses therefore your Church is not to Answer. They were approved in what they did, and many of them are at this day Worshipped by you as Canonized Saints; and 'twas this Superstition that especially contributed to their Exaltation. Who was it that composed that exorbitant Hymn, yet used in your Church, Ave Maris Stella, but your devout St. Bernard? S. Herman, another of your own Order, made those others neither less extravagant, nor less authorized by you, Salve Regina, Alma Redemptoris Mater, and Ave Regina Caelorum. And the late Editor of his Life tells us, That being Lame in Calendar. Benediction. To. 3. Jul. 19. Body, and Dullin Mind, he pray'd earnestly to the Blessed Virgin in this Romantick manner: ‘ Help, O help, the doubly wretched Herman.’ His Prayer smote the tender hearted Virgin, and immediately she appear'd to him, and offer'd him his choice, whether he would have firmness of Body, or Accuteness of Mind. He chose the latter, and express'd his Gratitude to his great Benefactress, by composing those famous Hymns beforementioned to her Honour.

150. It was another of the same Order, and that had in your Opinion two the greatest Characters any Man can pretend to; a Pope in the Church Militant, and now a Saint in the Church Triumphant, Pope Urban 11. Ibid. Jul. 29. who appointed the three Solemn [Devotions I have spoken of, to be every day paid to the Blessed Virgin at the sound of a Bell, and composed the Course of the Virgin, that what was done before by the Monks only, might from thenceforth become the Public Service of the Church to her.

151. What is the great Commendation that is given of S. Gerard, and he too a Saint of your own Order. But that having caused an Image of the Blessed Virgin to be curiously wrought, he set it up Ibid. Sept. 24: in a Chappel built on purpose for it, and appointed Incense and sweet Odours to be every day for ever burnt to it. That he taught the Hungarians to call her their Lady, having perswaded their King Stephen to make his Kingdom Tributary to her. In short, that he never heard the Name of Mary pronounced, but he Worshipp'd it, bowing his Face towards the Ground.

[Page 137] 152. 'Twas this was the great thing for which yet another Cal. Ben. To. 4. Sept. 30. of your Order St. Joscio was Canonized. Whose Piety to the Virgin whilst he lived, was rewarded with a notable Miracle at his death. For no sooner was he dead, but there grew five Roses of an extraordinary sweetness out of his Head, two out of his Eyes, two out of his Ears, and one out of his Mouth; and upon every one of them a Letter of the Virgin Mary's name; so that the whole M. A. R. I. A. was composed by them.

153. Thus has this devotion to the Saints, almost wholly overcome your piety towards God. Your Devotions, your Histories, your Lives, your Miracles, are all framed to promote it. And now I am mentioning those Evils which from these kind of Legends have been derived to corrupt both the Opinions and Practice of those who are acquainted with little else than these Fables: I will refer it to your self to tell me, whether you can endure to see the Dignity of our Saviour, and the Majesty of God himself, so lessen'd as it is by many of your Communion, to encrease the Veneration of the Saints.

154. When St. Gothardus was chosen by the Emperor Henry to Ibid. ad IV. Maii, p. 3 [...]0. To. 2. succeed Bernard in the Bishoprick of Hildersheim, and the Monk modestly declined that Honour; the Blessed Virgin the same night appears to him, and sharply reproves him in this Ranting Rhetorick, Scito Imperatorem MEO id JUSSU motiri. ‘ Peccasti penicaciâ tua in ME & filium.’ Know (says she) that the Emperour has done this at MY COMMAND; Thou hast sin'd by thy obstinacy, against ME and MY SON. This indeed was as became the Queen of Heaven; and one would think by it, that she still maintain'd the RIGHT of a MOTHER over Her Son.

155. But you have dealt yet worse with our Saviour than this; your Writers represent him at this day as a little Child in Heaven, as if he were ever to continue in the same impotent State, in which your Pictures and Images express him. Thus we read in the Life of St. Paula, That the Blessed Virgin appear'd to Cal. Ben. To. 1. Jan. 5. her with her LITTLE BOY, who kist Paula, and squeezed some of his Mothers Milk into her Mouth. Nor was this any thing extraordinary; The Writer of her Life assures us, that she was often wont to take him into Her Arms and play with him. And the like happened to many other of your Saints; as for instance, Saint Ibid. Mart. 30. Aldegundis, St. Francisca, of whom we are told, that being committed [Page 138] to the care of an Arch-angel, she did oftentimes read the Office of the Blessed Virgin in the night, by the Light that proceeded Ib. Mart. 9. from his Rays: And was for her diligence in it so acceptable to the Virgin, that she several times came down from Heaven to refresh her, and offer'd her Son to be kiss'd, and embraced by her.

156. But the Favours of the Blessed Virgin to St. Ida were of all Tom. IV. p. 590. Dec. XI. others the most considerable. ‘For coming down into Her Cell with her INFANT JESUS; Behold (says she) O Ida! thy Love: Take Him into thy Lap, and satisfy thy self with the Kisses and Embraces of him whom thou lovest.—’My Author goes on beyond all bounds even of common decency: But I must stop here, and not repeat those Blasphemies, which cannot be read without trembling. But, O Blessed Jesus! How long wilt thou suffer this dishonour? and permit an unbounded Superstition to run to these Excesses? I appeal to all the Christians of the World, what mean, dishonourable Notions must they have of the God of Heaven and Earth, that in such a discerning Age can presume to publish such Romances? These Stories might indeed become a Homer, or a Virgil; But what is fancy in them, being applied to a Venus and a Cupid, is an unpardonable Blasphemy to be thus used of the Saviour of the World, who is God over all blessed for ever.

157. These are the effects of this Superstition: I might add many other Examples no less Horrible, in which our Blessed Lord has been diminish'd to make up the Honour of his Servants. But I shall shut up all with an Impiety of another kind, though the effect of this Worship; and which ought the more to be taken notice of, both because it was done by a Society which would be thought at least the most zealous of any for their Faith; and was exposed publickly in the sight of the Sun, and before the Eyes of many to whom I now write. The thing I mean is the late Procession of the Jesuits at Luxemburg, May 20. 1685. designed for the See the Account publish'd by that Society: La S ^te Vierge Patrone Honoree & Bienfaisante dans la France & dans le Luxembourg. Glory of the Blessed Virgin ‘ the Honour'd and Affectionate Patroness of France and Luxembourg.’

The Procession indeed was singularly extravagant; and it needed the skill of that Learned Society, to put Prophaness into so Scholastick [Page 139] a dress. Heathenism and Christianity walk'd together, as if the Fathers of the Society had equally reverenced the Ancient Deities of the One, as the Modern Deities of the Other.

On the one side were carried the Image of the Blessed Virgin, and the Holy Sacrament. On the other, Mars, Vulcan, the Cyclops and Nayades, Ceres, Flora, Pomona, &c. And these too with all the Pomp, and even under the Names of GODS and DIVINITIES.

At several Stations, where the Procession was to rest, Theatres were erected, to serve to inspire agreeably (say the Learned Fathers in the Account which they printed of this days Work) a Piety towards our Lady of Consolation. So the Blessed Virgin there is called.

The second of these Theatres, was for the GOD MARS;

who commands his Warriors to take heed not to commit any insult from henceforth upon the Chappel of our Lady of Consolation. This is Mars's care: And the Device for the GOD Mars, was

Procul, ô, procul ite profani. Virg.

In the third Theatre, Ceres, Flora, Pomona, &c. rejoyce at the return of our Lady of Consolation. And their Motto, still under the Title of Divinities, was

Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia Regna.

It were too long to transcribe all the other Follies and Impieties of this days Solemnity, in which the Holy Scripture found no room; the Sacrament but very little: The whole Piety was designed to the Blessed Virgin; and because Christianity had not Gods enough in it, to set forth her Glory, all the Poetic Deities were revived, to inspire agreeably a Devotion into the People for Her. This was indeed a Master-piece of Contrivance; and what Invention shall next be had, to excite a Devotion to her, we may expect to see the first time the Gentlemen of the Society shall have Occasion to make their complying Consciences do something extraordinary, for the Flattery of a Prince so much their Friend, and therefore so much their Favourite as he, for whose Honour [Page 140] this Solemn Procession was in great measure designed. In the mean time, I shall leave it to the Reader seriously to consider, what sad Effects such a Devotion as this has given birth to; and what just Cause we have to oppose a Superstition, contrary to the Holy Scripture, unknown to the best and most Primitive Antiquity; unreasonable in its self, and which is worst of all, not only, very Unprofitable, but very Wicked too in its Practice.

[Page 141]

ANSWER TO THE FOURTH ARTICLE, OF IMAGES and RELIQUES.

IN the beginning of this Article you tell me (but with very Reply, p. 25. little reason) that you might have past over this point without any further consideration; the best Argument you bring for it, being, if I mistake not, this, That you are not obliged to defend what I had advanced against you upon it. And indeed tho the reason be but a poor one, yet I am perswaded you had done better both for the interest of your Cause, and for your own credit, to have contented your self with it, and have past over this Article altogether; rather than by giving such loose Answers to my Allegations, to have satisfied the World, that you have no just Exceptions to make against them.

2. Were I minded in return to excuse my self the trouble of any farther Answer to you, I could, I believe, give you some more plausible pretences for it. I might tell you, (1st,) That your Distinctions are now so well known, and have been so often exploded by us, that there is no longer any danger that even ‘ my Reply, Ibid. friends the Vulgar should be circumvented by them.’ I might add, (2dly,) And that with great truth, that this whole subject has been utterly exhausted by that Learned Man, I have so often mention'd, in his Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against T. G. and from whom you have here again borrow'd your chiefest strength. I might mind you, (3ly,) How after two endeavours to reply to him, T. G. was forced to give over; and it is now above eight years since neither he nor any of your Church has thought fit to [Page 142] carry on the Dispute. I might desire you, (4thly,) To compare your performances upon this point with what the Representer ventur'd not above a year since to make a flourish with; and see if you could find out but any one thing in all you here repeat, that his learned and judicious Adversary had not utterly confuted. But he too has forsaken the Cause; and I am now called upon to give you the same Answers that have been made to both these, and then without pretending to be a Prophet, I dare be bold Reply, Pref. to say for all your blustring, you will go off the Stage as tamely and quietly, as any of your Predecessors have done before you. There is a certain Circle of Shifts and Distinctions which you all run; and no sooner are those spent, but your bolt is shot; you drop the Question, and begin again upon a new score.

3. These and many other reasons I might offer to decline any farther Examination of this Point; but I have promised you before, that I would neither misrepresent your Doctrine, nor FOBB Reply, Pref. OFF your Arguments. And I will here perform it with such exactness, that [...]even your Incense and Holy Water shall not be forgotten. And if for our diversion you shall think fit the next time you write to add to these all your other follies, of Holy Ashes, Consecrated Candles, Agnus Dei's, and in one word, whatever Superstitions of the like kind, your Pontifical, Ceremonial, Missal, Breviary, Office of the Blessed Virgin, with all the Rationals and Comments that have ever been written upon them can furnish you with, I do once more promise you, that no pretence of their Impertinence shall hinder me from sifting both them and you to the Bottom. As to the present subject, I shall observe this plain Method:

I. I will make good the Charge of Image-Worship against you.
II. I will shew you, that in this service too, you are truly and properly guilty of Idolatry.

4. But before I enter upon these Particulars, I must stop so long as to consider the new Introduction you endeavour to amuse your Reader with: viz.

[Page 143]

SECT. I.

Of the Benefit of Pictures and Images. Reply, p. 26.

AND which brings to my mind what Tully (reckoning up the several Opinions of the Philosophers concerning the Nature of Tusc. Qu. l. 1. Sect. 17. the Soul) said once of Aristoxenus, who of a Fidler became a Philosopher, and asserted the Soul to be a Harmony; ‘ Hic ab artificio suo non recessit, & tamen aliquid dixit.’ You tell us then,

5. Reply, §. 19.] ‘ That they are the Books of the Ignorant, silent Reply, p. 26, 27. Orators, apt to increase in us the love of God and his Saints, and (O Elegant!) BLOW UP the DYING COALS of our AFFECTIONS into a FLAME of DEVOTION, That the representations of Holy persons, and of their glorious actions, do by their powerful Eloquence inflame us towards an imitation of their Graces and Virtues, and renew in us afresh the memory of the persons whom they represent, with a reverence and respect for them.’

6. Answ.] In all which tho you fight with your own shadow, and say nothing that either contradicts our Principles concerning Worship, or justifies your practises; yet have you been so unhappy as to offer just matter for our Animadversion: For,

1st. It is no small mistake in you, thus to joyn Pictures and Images together, as if they were all one; when yet both your own Superstition, and the Opinion both of the Jews and Gentiles (as to the point of worshipping of them) have always made a very great difference between them. As for the ancient Heathens, they adored their [...], Statues, or Graven Images; because they conceived them most apt to be animated by their Gods, of which they were the resemblances. Whereas Pictures were not thought so capable of receiving that animation. The same was the distinction of the Jews too, who upon this very account have always look'd upon the former sort of [...] Maimon. See Dr. Hamm. of Idolatry, Sect. 40. Sculptures to be the thing especially forbidden in the second Commandment; insomuch that they thought it unlawful to have them even for Ornament; but for [...] Id. Ibid. Pictures painted or woven, those they did not esteem to have been absolutely forbidden to them. And at this day in your Church, your Images are set up with solemn Consecrations to receive your [Page 144] Adoration. But I do not know that any Pictures are dedicated for Altar-pieces, or other uses, with the like solemnity.

2. Another Confusion of the like kind you make in what follows, in speaking of the Pictures not only of Holy Persons, but of their Actions too. For every body knows how much more use there may be, and how much less danger there certainly is in Historical Representations, than in single Figures, but especially Carved Images.

3. Were the benefit of Images never so great, yet you know this is neither that which we dispute with you, nor for which they are set up in your Churches. Your Trent Synod expresly defines that due Veneration is to be paid to them. Your Catechism says that they are to be had not only for Instruction, but for Worship. And this is the Point in Controversie betwixt us. We retain Pictures, and sometimes even Images too in our Churches for Ornament, and (if there be such Uses to be made of them) for all the other Benefits you have now been mentioning. Only we deny that any service is to be paid to them; or any solemn Prayers to be made at their Consecration, for any Divine Vertues, or indeed for any Vertues at all, to proceed from them. This is our Business; the rest is all Impertinence in such Discourses as these, where men are to dispute, not harangue. And for Images set up in Churches, with these Ceremonies, and for this purpose, I add

4. That were the benefits of them otherwise never so great, yet will not this be any manner of Excuse to you for the violating of God's Law, seeing, as you have been often told, and indeed do your self confess, No Evil is to be done, for any Good whatsoever that may come of it. Tho now

5. I am not altogether satisfied of the great usefulness of Images for the instruction of the Ignorant. They may indeed serve to call Good things and Persons to their remembrance, when they have before been instructed, and by consequence in that respect are no longer ignorant of what is represented by them. But let a man, that is properly Ignorant, i. e. who never heard of the XIIth (for Rev. XII. 1. instance) of the Revelations, see the Virgin Mary ten thousand times painted with a Half-moon under her feet, I do not believe he would become one jot the Wiser for it. Nay,

6. In opposition to your Pretences, though all this is out of the way, yet I dare affirm, lastly, that for such Images and Pictures as are too often [...]d both in your Churches and [...]ouses, they are [Page 145] so far from serving to any of those Uses you pretend, that on the contrary, if Men are not very well instructed, they will be apt to beget in them most pernicious Notions, contrary to the Honour of God, to the Nature of our Saviour Christ, and to the Covenant of His Gospel.

7. For tell me, I beseech you; Was not this the great reason wherefore God forbad any Resemblance to be made of Himself under Deut. IV. 15. Isa. XI. 18. the Law, that it was a lessening and debasing of his Nature so to do? And does not St. Paul urge this very consideration against the Athenian Idolatry? Acts XVII. 29. And is not the Divine Nature Act. XVII. 29. as excellent now, and as much debased by yours, as ever it was by their Representations of it? I need not tell you of the frequent Pictures of God the Father in the shape of an Old Man, and commonly in a Pope's Dress; and the meaning of which (if one may conjecture the design of this by the Natural tendency of it) can be no other than this, viz. to perswade the Ignorant, that as you sometimes call the Pope a God on Earth, so God is no other than the Pope of Heaven.

8. And this, were it only in some Sacred Places, would yet be too prophane for any Pious Christian to endure. But alas! you have not been so reserved. Every Office carries this Abuse in it; Hardly a Psalter or Catechism without it: Nay, I will add, what I should hardly be credited in, had not thousands among us with indignation beheld it, that in the open Streets of your Cities, we may see That God who is over all blessed for ever, exposed to the scorn and meanness of a Sign-post.

9. How miserably have you by these Pictures, abused the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity; sometimes you make it a Monster; As where you paint one Body with three Heads; One Head with three Faces; sometimes one Body with two Heads, and a Pigeon in the midst; of which Card. Capisucchi makes mention. The Sacred Capisucchi, pag. 613. Gerson. Trinity in the Belly of the Virgn, which Gerson says, He saw with his own Eyes in a Church of the Carmelites; the most ordinary Figures are, Either an Old Man holding a Crucifix in his Hands, and a Pigeon upon his Shoulder; Or, (as in your Eye-Catechism) on one side an Old Man with a Globe, on the other a Younger with a Cross upon his Shoulder, and a Dove betwixt them: And what is all this but to debase the glorious Godhead? In St. Paul's Phrase, to Rom. I. 23, 25. change the truth of God into a lie, by representing the Incorruptible God by an Image made like unto a Corruptible Man? And where is there a [Page 146] Christian so insensible of that dishonour that is hereby done to the Majesty of that God, whom the wiser Heathens themselves never debased to the likeness of any created Being, as not with the same Apostle to have his Spirit stir'd within him, at the sight of such Impiety? Acts xvii.

10. Nor are you at all less excusable in your Representations of our Blessed Saviour, and the Holy Virgin; not to descend to any other of the Saints. For besides that such Similitudes exhibit only one, and that his inferior Nature, viz. his Manhood; how do these Pictures insensibly breed a mean Opinion of him, in the minds of the Ignorant and Unwary? As 1st, Nothing is more ordinary in the most solemn Places of your Worship, than to see our Blessed Lord still set forth as a Child, in the Arms of his Mother. And what Notions this has bred in many of your Communion, I would to God the greater esteem they seem to have for the Virgin, than for Christ, did not too plainly shew. But that which renders this more intollerable, is, that you thus represent him not only upon Earth, but at this time even in Heaven; and indeed, seeing in your Legends, you speak of him as a Child still, I do not wonder if in your Pictures, you represent him too as such.

11. Thus in one of your Eye-Catechisms, set forth in Portugal, for the Instruction of the People; the latter part of the Ave-Maria, is set in this manner before them. All sorts of Men and Women upon Earth, are drawn in an open Scene, upon their Knees, and Hands lifted up to Heaven, and in the Clouds over them, the Blessed Virgin in Glory with our Saviour (as a Child) in Her Arms; and under it this Inscription, O Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us Sinners now, and in the hour of Death. Amen. Jesus.

12. In the Calender of the Saints of your Order, There is a Figure of St. Odilo, devoting himself to the blessed Virgin in this Tom. 1. Jan. 1. manner. ‘ O most Holy Virgin, and Mother of the Saviour of all Ages, receive me from this day forward as your Servant, and in all my Causes, be my most merciful Advocate. For from this time, after God, I set nothing before thee, but voluntarily deliver my self for ever to be your Possession, as your proper Servant. Amen.’ Above Him sits the Blessed Virgin in Glory, with our Saviour in her Arms, holding her about the Neck, after the manner of a little Child. Many of the like kind are there in those Volumes; but I may not insist upon them; I will add only some of those Figures, in which the whole Trinity are made to concur to her Honour. Thus [Page 147] in the Office in the Virgin, printed at Antwerp. She is set forth in Glory in Heaven, with God the Father on the one side, and God the Son on the other, holding a Crown over her Head, the Holy Ghost above overshadowing Her, and all the People on the Earth below Adoring.

13. I will not deny, but that these may be very good Instructions for Father Crasset's, or Doctor J. C's Disciples. But I cannot see how any of the Expounding and Representing Party, will be able to prove such Pictures as these, to be much for the Edification of the People. I shall finish these Remarks, (which have already run out into a greater length than I design'd, tho I might have added much more) with the account which the Learned Gerard Vossius gives us, of a Picture over an Altar in Flanders, in which that blasphemous Epigram is express'd of Mens doubting whether they should run to the Blood of Christ, in which alone there is Redemption to be obtain'd; or to the Milk of the Virgin. This is certainly to contradict the very Foundation of the Gospel; and to lead the Ignorant into Error in that Point, in which it is of all others the most dangerous to be mistaken; viz. Whether they ought to place the Hopes of their Salvation in the Redemption of Christ, or in the Mercy and Interest of his Mother.

14. You may at your leisure consider how to improve these things into Helps of Devotion, and useful Instructions for the illiterate Populace. I might have added, what has lately been elsewhere observed, of the Prophaness of many (in Italy especially) in this Point: Where the most celebrated Madonna's, are the Pictures of the Painters Whores, set up in their Churches, as Objects of the Peoples Veneration. But this and other Excesses of the like kind I purposely forbear, lest I should be thought to please my self in your Impieties, which I heartily lament, and earnestly bebeseech God to reform in you. Nor should I have said thus much, but only to shew how little Reason you had to enter on this new and most Impertinent Subject of the Benefit of Images; and that were our Cause to be try'd by this alone, we might even so expect to carry it against you. And this to your first Pretence.

15. The next thing you offer in favour of your Images, is Reply § 20.] ‘ That there is no now danger of Idolatry in this Practice, seeing all Persons are taught that there is but one God, to whom Adoration is only due; and therefore, that they cannot be capable [Page 148] of erring so grosly, as to give Divine Honour to an Image, or to think any Virtue annexed to them for which they ought to be adored. In short, it is (you say) by the subtilty of the Devil (who hates any thing that excites Devotion) that these helps to Piety, are now branded with the horrid Note of Idolatry, and Catholics represented, as if they paid the Act of Adoration to the Images themselves.’

16. Answ.] That the Devil is an Enemy to Piety, and to all those things that may any way serve to promote it, I can easily believe; but that it is He, who upon this account stirs up us to oppose your Idolatry, I shall hardly Credit, tho you should give me as good an assurance of it, as ever your Brother the old Monk did the second Council of Nice, when he told them that the Devil himself had confess'd to him, how much he hated your Holy and Venerable Images. I am sure Tertullian was so far from this, that De Idololatria he thought 'twas the Devil that instigated Men to bring them into the World, and not to help to cast them out. But to overthrow at once, both your Reflection and Argument together, I do here roundly affirm, That what you say is so far from being true, That there is now no danger of Idolatry in the Worship of Images, that on the contrary I will shew, that in the Worship of them publickly authorized and practiced amongst you, you do actually commit it. And then every Body will see what Spirit it is that Acts us in opposition to this Service; and who it is that blinds you so far, as to make you contend for that, which both the Holy Scripture condemns, and the Primitive Christians neither knew, nor would have endured. And this brings me to my first Proposal; wherein I am

SECT. II.

To make good the Charge of Image-Worship against you, and Answer those Evasions, by which you endavour to clear your selves of it.

17. NOW that you give Religious Worship to Images, has been so fully proved in that Learned Book I have before refer'd you to, in Answer to T. G. both from the Definitions of your Councils of Nice and Trent, and from the unanimous Voice [Page 149] of almost all the great Men of your Church, who have written any things of this matter, that I shall need say but very little here in Confirmation of it. And therefore not to multiply Quotations by transcribing what has been already collected as to this matter, I shall content my self with this plain, and I think unexceptionable manner of proceeding against you;

1st, I will propose to you the Voice of your Church in her Definitions.
2dly, I will give you the Interpretation of her Sense in these Definitions, from Card. Capisucchi only; and out of that Book to which Mons. de Meaux himself appeals.
3dly, I will from both vindicate the Account I have given of the Practice of your Church, in Conformity to these Principles.

18. 1st, For what concerns the first of these, the Voice of your Church, as to this Point; the Council of Trent declares, ‘ That the Images of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, are more especially to be had and retained in Temples, and that due Honour and Veneration is to be paid to them. Not that it should be believed that there is any Divinity or Virtue in them, for which they are to be Worshipped; or that any thing is to be Asked of them, or that any Trust is to be put in Images; but because the Honour which is given to them, is referr'd to the Proto-types which they Represent; so that by the Images which you Kiss, and before which you uncover your Heads, and fall down; you Adore Christ, and Worship the Saints which they Represent.’

19. Thus that wary Synod; Neither determining what Honour should be given to Images, nor yet setting any bounds to any. But then, as it expresly allows them the external Marks of Divine Worship, so by fixing the Grounds of this Honour to be the passing of it to the Proto-type, not only Soto, Turrian, and Naclantus, three great Divines concern'd in that Synod, but also the Generality of those who have treated since of this matter, have concluded, that the same Adoration is to be paid to the Image, and the Proto-type; So that if Christ himself be worshipp'd with Divine Worship, then must the Crucifix also be worshipp'd with the very same. But this will better appear,

[Page 152] 19. 2dly, From the Account I am to give of the Doctrine of your Church, as to this Worship, from Cardinal Capisucchi.

And to whose Book since Mons. de Meaux has thought fit to Appeal, I am content to submit the Decision of this Controversy to his Sentence, and shall leave the World to judg whether I have Misrepresented, or whether the Bishop and You have not departed from the Doctrine of the Council of Trent.

20. Now that we may know precisely, what in his Opinion, that due Honour and Veneration is, which you pay to Images, and which the Council so cautiously declined the telling us; we will consider first of all, what was thought to be so by them, whose Opinions he rejects, as not fully delivering your Churches Sense. Such were

21. First of all Durandus; ‘Who thought that properly speaking, Card. Capis. Controv. p. 624, 625. the Images are not to be Adored; but because they resemble things worthy Adoration, which by remembrance are Adored in Presence of the Images, therefore the Images themselves improperly are, and may be said to be Adored.’ Now this he Rejects, because (says he) in truth, it takes away the ‘ Worship of Images; Ibid. 625. and concludes it with another of your great Men, Raphael de Tuire, to be Dangerous, Rash, and savouring of Haeresy; or as Ferdinandus Velosillus phrases it, False, Rash, and Erroneous; but especially, since the Definition of the Council of Trent’

22. The next whose Opinion he Rejects, is Vasquez; ‘Who Card. Capis. Ibid. par. ii. p. 625. taught that the Images themselves were no otherwise to be Adored, but because in the Presence of them, and about them, are exhibited the external Signs of Honour, such as Kneeling, Kissing, uncovering the Head, &c. But that for the inward Act of Adoration, this was by no means to be directed to the Image, but to the thing represented by the Image.’ And this too he Rejects upon the same Grounds that he did the foregoing, viz. ‘Because that by Asserting, that the inward Act of the Adorer terminates only upon the thing represented by the Image; he do's by consequence affirm, that the Images themselves are not TRULY and PROPERLY to be ADORED.’

23. The next Opinion which he rejects, is that whereby an Inferior Honour is supposed due to Images, and not an Honour of the Id. par. iv. p. 634, 635. same kind with that which is paid to the Exemplar. And this has been proposed with some variety. Catherine and Peresius thought that no other Worship besides this inferior, honorary respect, was due to [Page 151] them. Sanders distinguish'd, That the Images consider'd by themselves, and without any regard had to the Exemplars, deserved only an inferior Honour; but being consider'd conjunctly with the Exemplar, were to be worship'd with the very same Worship that the Exemplars themselves were. And this was also the opinion of Suarez, ‘That Images consider'd only as Sacred Utensils, were to have no other Honour than was usually given to any other the like holy things; but that being consider'd as Images, they were to have the very same Worship with the Proto-types whom they represented. Lorca deliver'd his Opinion yet more subtilly:’ 1. ‘That the Image of Christ might by accident be adored with the same adoration as Christ himself; but that this was only improperly call'd the Adoration of the Image, it being Christ himself that alone was truly and properly adored. 2. That for that Adoration which terminates on the Image, it is an Adoration much inferior to that wherewith Christ himself is adored. 3. That tho the Adoration wherewith the Image of Christ is adored, be in the kind of the Act different from that with which Christ himself is worshipped; yet that it proceeds from the same habit, the virtue of Religion, from which the Adoration of Christ himself proceeds, and upon that account may be called by the same name with it. And all these Opinions the Cardinal still rejects upon his old principle, ‘That the Image is adored with the very same Act with which Christ himself is adored, and by consequence must be worship'd with the same Divine Worship.’’

24. The next whose opinion he refutes, is Card. Bellarmine; Capis. Par. V. pag. 636. who supposed that, ‘The Worship which is properly given to an Image, is not the same with that which (for instance) is given to Christ Himself; but a sort of imperfect Worship, which may by a certain analogy be reduced to the same kind of Worship that is paid to the Exemplar. But yet that the Image may by accident be worshipped with the same Worship as the Exemplar, when the Exemplar is considered as shining forth in its Image.’ This also he refutes, utterly denying that any inferior honour is to be given to ‘an Image, which requires properly, and in its own nature the very same Worship that is paid to the Exemplar which it Represents.’

25. Lastly, Cardinal Lugo's Opinion was, that the Image and Ibid. Par. VI. pag. 637. the Exemplar were to be adored as two distinct Objects of Adoration; as when a man sees the Son of his friend, he at the same time loves both the Son and the Father, not together with the very [Page 150] same Act, yet both directly: The Son for the Father's sake, and the Father accidentally upon the occasion of the Son's bringing him to his remembrance. Thus in the present case, ‘When a Christian beholds the Image of Christ, presently he calls his Blessed Saviour to mind, and directly worships both the Image for Christ's sake, and Christ for his own.’ And this also the Cardinal rejects, not so much for that it does not give sufficient Honour to the Image; for Lugo also held that the same Divine Honour was to be given both to Christ and his Image, as because it distinguish'd the Objects; whereas according to Card. Capisucchi, ‘ Christ and his Image are to be Adored not only with the same Act, but also as the same Object of Worship.’

26. Having thus rejected all those several Opinions, he finally concludes, ‘That the true Opinion, and which ought to be held, is, Card. Capis. contr. par. VII p. 639. that the worship of the Images and the Exemplars, is one and the same; so that the worship of the Images is not distinct from that of the Exemplars, but they are both worshipped together.’ This he proves to be the CHURCHES SENSE by a Cloud of Witnesses, from St. Thomas to this day; and shews it to be what both the second Council of Nice, and the later Synod of Trent designed in their definitions. And then finally, closes all with the instance of Aegidius Magistralis, I heretofore mentioned, who having deni'd that Divine Worship was to be paid to Images, was forced by the Inquisition to recant and abjure it as Heretical; and exhorts ‘ all those to consider it who find fault with St. Thomas for saying that the CROSS and IMAGES of CHRIST were to be ADORED’ Vid. p. 649. with SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP.

27. And this may suffice by the way to answer your Exception against the Authority of Aquinas; who as you see allow'd a true and proper worship to be paid to the Cross as well as to Reply, p. 29, 30, 31. Christ. And that you may not shift off this REPLY (as you have done my former Answer) only with scorn and derision, I must mind you, that 'tis not now a Doctor of the Populace whom you think uncapable of penetrating into the profound Mysteries of Scholastick Niceties, that says this; but Card. Capisucchi, a Schoolman Reply, p. 31. and Disciple himself of St. Thomas, and whom perhaps you will allow to have as deep a reach as your self in these matters. For Vasquez having brought the very same interpretation of Aquinas's Doctrine that you now insist upon against me, the Cardinal thus roundly answers him, ‘ That according to St. Thomas the Image of Capis. contr. p. 630. [Page 153] Christ is absolutely and simply to be adored with the same Adoration with which Christ is adored.—And that therefore the same Adoration which is given to Christ, ought to be given to his Image also.’

27. And thus have I in short laid before you the sum of this Cardinal's Doctrine, who both approved M. de Meaux's Exposition, and to whom Monsieur de Meaux himself appeals for the Vindication of this very part of it. I have already sufficiently shewn how inconsistent these two are with one another; I will now only apply what I have here further added to my former account of this matter, to the point before us. And,

28. First, It may not be amiss to observe what great diversity of Opinions there has been in stating of that Worship which is paid by you to Images, and what difficulty you have found to defend your practice against that Charge of Idolatry we have so justly brought against you upon the account of it. How the Caution of some, and the distinctions of others amongst you, have been branded by the rest as Scandalous and Erroneous; and one forced to abjure as Heretical, what others have set up as the only true Exposition and Representation of the Churches sense. And this you will give me leave the rather to remark, because you are so often pleased to reflect upon our divisions, which yet are neither so frequent nor dangerous, as among you who pretend not only to Truth, but Infallibility in all you believe. And if the consequence you are wont from thence to draw against us, That because we differ in some things, therefore we have no certainty in any, be good, (as you say it is) you may now see that it will equally fall upon your selves too; and by so much the more heavily, by how much your pretences in this matter are greater than ours. But,

29. Secondly, Tho there be then such a diversity of Opinions amongst you as to this Worship; yet it is to be remarked that they who have allow'd the least Honour to Images, have yet still confest that some Honour was due to them. ‘ In this (says Capisucchi) Capisucchi, lb. pag. 605. all Catholicks do agree that Images are to be worshipped, and are rightly worshipped by the faithful. Even Durandus himself, who disapproves the Images of the Holy Trinity, yet allowing both the use and Worship of other Holy Images.’ From whence therefore I conclude, That those in this Cardinal's opinion, are no Catholicks who tell us that, ‘All the Honour they have for them, is only such a Reply, Pre [...]. p. 17, 18. respect as they pay to any other Sacred Utensils. That if they seem to act in their presence some external signs of Veneration, this is [Page 154] meant ONLY to the persons whom they represent, but NOT to the Images themselves, which can claim NOTHING of that KIND from us. In short, as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it, That they do NOT WORSHIP the Images; No, GOD FORBID; but ONLY make use of them to call to mind the Originals. The Council of Trent teaches NO OTHER USE of them.’

30. Thirdly, It may from hence farther appear, that the Worship which this Cardinal thought due to Inages, was not an improper, accidental, abusive Worship, but a true, proper, and real Adoration; the Image being to be adored in the very same act with which the Exemplar was. So that now according to this Exposition, the Cross of Christ is to be worshipped truly and properly with a Supreme Divine Adoration. And that not only as to the outward acts, but by the inward sense of the Soul too; all which are so to be paid to Christ, as to terminate at once both upon him, and upon the Crucifix by which he is to be adored. And this,

31. Fourthly, We are to look upon, not as a private opinion, or a meer Scholastick Nicety, but as the true and proper sense of the Church, and to be held of all. So the Cardinal expresly declares; as being the Doctrine of the Councils both of Nice and Trent; and for denying of which, Aegidius Magistralis was by the Inquisition forced to recant, and renounce his Doctrine contrary thereunto, as Heretical.

32. This is an Instance which with Card. Capisucchi I will take the liberty to recommend to your consideration. For certainly if what he says be true, you who deny that the Cross is upon any account whatsoever to be worshipped with Divine Worship, can be no otherwise Reply, Pref. than a downright Heretick. And tho you are at present secure in a happy Expounding Country, where you may safely make what representation of your Doctrine you please, or rather that the necessity of your present circumstances moves you to do, without any other danger than that of losing your credit with honest and inquisitive men, which you do not seem much to value; yet should time and other circumstances invite you hereafter into a hotter Climate, you might run some worser hazards among those who have not given themselves up to follow your Innovations. It happened not many years since, that a French Gentleman being travelling Relation del' Inquisition de Goa, pag. 14, 15. cap. 2, 21. cap. 3. in the East-Indies, fell into some company at Goa, and there discoursing about matters of Religion according to your Principles, maintain'd, ‘ That the Crucifix was no otherwise to be adored, [Page 155] than by reporting all the Honour to our Saviour Christ represented by that Image. And another time, he fortuned to say of an Ivory Crucifix which hung up at his Beds-head, that it was onely a piece of Ivory.’ For this he was clapt into the Inquisition, and after some years imprisonment for his Heretical Sayings, hardly escaped the fire, with this Sentence, ‘that He was declared Excommunicate; Ibid. cap. 27. pag. 151, 152. Edit. Leyd. 1687. that for reparation of his fault, all his Goods should he confiscated; Himself banish'd the Indies; and condemn'd to serve in the Galleys (or publick Prisons) of Portugal five years; and further accomplish those Other Penances which should more particularly be enjoin'd Him by the Inquisitors.’ As for his Crime, it is thus set forth in the Preamble to his Sentence, ‘ That he had said that we ought NOT to ADORE IMAGES; and had BLASPHEMED against that of a certain Crucifix, by saying of a Crucifix of Ivory, that it was a piece of Ivory.’

33. This was plain dealing, and a sensible convicton that it is not meerly a Scholastick Nicety with the Fathers of the Inquisition, ‘that the CROSS is to be worshipped with DIVINE WORSHIP.’ The truth is, the contrary Opinion of Durandus, Holcot, Mirandula, and some others, (and who allow'd all the Acts of external Honour to be paid to them, only they deni'd them that inward Veneration which makes it properly a religious Worship) has been always esteemed as false and scandalous, and savouring of Heresie; and is expresly censured as such by those great Men, Suarez, Medina, Victoria, Catherine, Arriaga, Cabrera, Raphael de Turre, Vellosillus, and many others at large, collected by Cardinal Capisucchi on this occasion, as Abettors with himself, of a true Divine Adoration to be paid to the Holy Cross, and other Images of God, and the Blessed Trinity. I go on finally from these Principles,

34. Thirdly, To vindicate the Account I have heretofore given of your Practices in consequence to this Doctrine.

And first, I observed that in the solemn Procession made at the reception of the Emperor, the Legat's Cross is appointed by the Pontifical to take place of the Emperor's Sword, because LATRIA or DIVINE WORSHIP is due to it.

35. This you cannot deny to be faithfully quoted out of your Pontifical: but you say there ‘ is some kind of impropriety in the Reply, p. 31. Speech;’ and we must understand it so, not as if Divine Worship were due to the Cross, but to Christ crucified upon it. A strange [Page 156] liberty of interpreting this, which turns plain Affirmatives into downright Negatives; and this contrary to the sense, not only of your greatest Authors, (as I have shewn) but in their opinion contrary to the sense of your Church too. These all say with the Rubrick, ‘ that a Divine Worship is due to the Cross; you declare 'tis no such thing; No, God forbid. Such Worship is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be given to the Cross, but only to Christ represented by the Cross.’ I will not desire you to consider what wise arguing you make of what your Pontifical here says; That the Cross must take place of the Emperor's Sword, because Christ is to be worship'd with Divine Worship: It shall suffice me to leave you to the Censures of your own Learned Writers and Inquisitors, who have already pronounced this Exposition to be false, scandalous, and savouring of Heresie. Only let me once more caution you to remember the hard fate of poor Monsieur Imbert, of Aegidius Magistralis, and the French Traveller I just now mention'd; For however it may be safe enough to dissemble with us here, yet will it behove you to take great heed that you alter your tone, if ever you should chance to fall into those Parts, where the Old Popery Doctrine is still the measure of the Inquisitors Proceedings.

36. My next Instance was from your form of blessing a New Cross: To your Cavil about my omitting some words, I have said enough heretofore; but the dear Calumny must be continu'd, tho not only those two words were added, but so many more set down, that you seem as much dissatisfied with my length here, as you pretended to be with my brevity before.

37. You pray, ‘That the Wood of the Cross which you bless, may be a wholsome remedy to mankind: a strengthner of Faith; an increaser of Good Works; the Redemption of Souls; a Comfort, Protection, and Defence against the Cruel Darts of the Enemy.’

‘You incense it; you sprinkle it with Holy Water; you sanctify it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and then both the Bishop and People devoutly ADORE it, and Kiss it.’

38. This is in short the sum of that Ceremony; In which you desire to know what is Amiss? I answer; That take this whole Office together, with the Ceremonies, Prayers, and other Circumstances of it, and it is Superstitious and Idolatrous; and I shall not doubt once more to repeat, what before so much offended you, That the Addresses you here make, look more like Magical Incantations, than Christian Prayers. For,

[Page 157] 39. First, If we enquire into the design of this Ceremony; it is to Consecrate a piece of Wood or Stone, that it may become a fit Object of Adoration: which being directy contrary to the Second Commandment, cannot be done without a very great Sin.

40. 2dly. To this End, secondly, you pray that several benefits may proceed from this Wood of the Cross; and if those words signify any thing, whereby you beseech God, that it may be a wholsome remedy to Mankind, a strengthner of Faith, &c. We must then look upon it, that you do believe, that by this Consecration there is a Virtue, if not residing in it for all these purposes, yet at least proceeding from it; which your Council of Trent confesses was one of the things that made the Worship of Images among the Heathens to be Idolatrous. Nor will your little Evasion here stand you in any stead; that ‘ you pray only that the Cross may be a means for Reply, p. 32. the obtaining all these Benefits; and that this is no more than a Preacher may desire for his Sermon, or the Author of a good Book for what he is about to publish:’ For, 1. A piece of Wood or Stone, carve it into what Figure or Shape you please, is not certainly so proper a means for the conveying of such Benefits to men, as a good Book or a good Sermon are: And therefore what may be very naturally desired for the One, cannot without great Superstition be applied to the Other. I may, and I heartily do pray, that what I am now writing may be a saving remedy to you, by correcting your Faith, and encreasing your Charity; because I am perswaded here are Arguments proper to such an End, if it shall please God to dispose you impartially to consider them; but now, I believe, you would think me very Extravagant, should I pray to God to sanctify the Paper on which 'tis printed, or my Bookseller's Sign that sells it, as you pray to God to sanctify the WOOD of the Cross; that as often as you see the leaves of this Book, or look upon the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, these good effects may be wrought in you.

41. Again, 2. As the thing it self is not a proper means of producing these Effects in us; so the manner by which you pray it may be done, renders it yet more Superstitious. To get instruction by hearing or reading; to have ones Faith confirm'd, or Charity enlarged, or Zeal heightned, by pious Considerations, or powerful Motives, all this is very natural; and we may therefore lawfully pray to God for to bless them to us in order to these Ends. But to pray to God, that by bowing our selves down before a Cross, we may find health of Soul and Body; to sanctify a piece of Wood, that by ITS [Page 158] MERITS it may free men from all the Sins they have committed, this must be more than a natural Effect, neither the thing nor action being proper to produce it; and whether such Requests be not more like Magical Incantations than Christian Prayers, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to consider.

42. But 3dly, That this which you pretend, is not all that your Church designs by those Prayers, is evident, in that this Exposition cannot possibly be applied to several of those things which you ask of God in those Addresses. For instance, you pray, ‘ That the blessing of the Wood upon which our Saviour hung, may be in the Wood of the Cross which you consecrate; and that by the Holiness of that, he would Sanctify this; that as by that Cross, the World was delivered from Guilt, so by the Merits of this, the devout Souls who offer it, may be free from all the Sins they have committed.’ Now tell me in Conscience, if you dare speak the truth; Is not all this somewhat more, than to pray that the Cross may accidentally become a means of working good Effects in you, by putting you in mind of the price of your Redemption? Do you not Reply p. 32, 33. here see somewhat, which your Council of Trent calls the Idolatry of the Gentiles? viz. an encouragement to Worship the Cross, as if some Divine Virtue were in it, for which it ought to be Adored. For, so certainly he must do, who believes that by these Prayers, the blessing of that Cross, on which our Saviour hung, is in this which he Worships; and that bowing down before it, he shall find Health both of Soul and Body. Nay, but

43. 4thly, I must once more ask you that Question, I before proposed on this Occasion; and which, tho you heartily rail at, yet you shift it off without answering one wise word to it. If you design no real Virtue to proceed from the Cross which you thus consecrate, nor allow any Adoration to be paid to it, but intend it meerly for a memorative Sign, and no more: To what purpose all these Prayers, and Sprinklings, and Smokings, and Blessings, and other Ceremonies for the Consecration of it? As to your Question, why we dedicate our Churches to God? I will then allow it to be a Parallel, when you can prove that we pray that God would Sanctify the Walls or Seats of them, That they may become a wholesome Remedy to Mankind, and by their Merits free us from all the Sins we have committed. In the mean time it shall suffice to tell you, that as all we design in those Ceremonies, is no more than a solemn setting of it apart for Prayer and Devotion to God only; [Page 159] so all we desire, is, that God would vouchsafe favourably to accept our Offering of that Place to his Service, and give a blessing to those Holy Offices that are from thenceforth to be peformed in it.

44. But 5thly; and to conclude this Point; He that would know what your Intention in these Prayers is, need only consider what Prayers you make in behalf of other things of the same Nature: And in which you so evidently desire a Divine Virtue may proceed from the very things themselves which you Sanctify, that there is no doubt to be made of it. I shall give but one Instance of this, viz. the Prayer you make at the Consecration of your Agnus Dei's; in which you thus Address your selves to God.

‘ Do thou vouchsafe to Bless ✚, Sanctify ✚, and Consecrate ✚ Sacrar. Cerem. Lib. I. [...]. de Consecr. Agn. Dei. them, that being sanctified by thy liberal Benediction, they may receive the same Virtue against all diabolical Subtilties, and the deceits of the evil Spirit; that for those who carry them devoutly about them, no tempest may prevail against them, no Adversity may get the Dominion over them, no pestilent Breath, no Corruption of the Air, no Falling-sickness, no Storm at Sea, no Fire, nor any Iniquity may overcome them, or prevail against them.’

45. Such are the admirable Virtues which you desire may proceed from these little Images; and by the Prayers you make at the Consecrating of these, we may easilly understand how to interpret your Addresses for the same purpose in the other. But now to make your Practice exactly parallel with the old Heathen Superstition; I must observe, ‘That it is not enough that you carry these Agnus Dei's devoutly about you, but they must be Worshipped too;’ For so your Prayer of Consecration says;

‘Bles ✚, and Sanctify ✚ these blessed things, that through the VENERATION and HONOUR of them, the Crimes of us thy Servants may be blotted out.’

And now I shall leave it to you, to try once more your gift of Expounding, and see if you can bring all this to your new Sense: And for your Encouragement in it, I will promise you if you can, to give you something more of this matter, which will be more difficult, and which I forbear at present to insist upon.

[Page 160] 46. I should now go on to the next Instance; but I must intreat the Reader's excuse, if I stop one moment to follow your rambling Discourse in two Points, as little to your purpose, as the handling of them will appear to have been for your Reputation.

47. I. The first is concerning the Use of Holy Water.

Reply] ‘ Which you tell us was established by Pope Alexander the I. Reply p. 33. An. 121. and is good for dispelling Incantations and Magic Frauds, rather than introducing them; and has been famed for sundry Miracles, which God has been pleased to work thereby in several Ages.’

48. Answ.] For the Antiquity of this Usage, I wonder you should stop at Pope Alexander I. when had you but look'd into the Clementine Constitutions (a much more authentick Piece than Lib. VIII. cap. 35. your Decretal Epistle) you might have found St. Matthew to have been the Author of it. And the one would have been as easily believed as the other.

49. Nor have you been less defective in setting out the Benefits of it, than you were in your account of its Antiquity. And therefore to spare your Modesty, I will help to publish them for you. ‘ Holy Water then (if all be true that is in Print) is good, not only to drive away Evil Spirits, but more over to cure Infirmities; to wipe See Domenico Magri Notizia de Vocaboli Ecclesiastici in aqua Benedicta. Marsilius Columna Hydragiolog. Sect. 3. c. 2. out Venial Sins; to cleanse the Pollutions of defiled Consciences; to cure Distractions; to elevate the Mind, and dispose it for Devotion; to obtain Grace, and dispose Men for the Holy Sacrament. It cures Barrenness, preserves the Health, purges the Air from Pestilential Vapours; besides a great many other good things that are not so fit to be named.’ All the mischief is, that it is nor certain it do's any of these things; because (as De Cultu ss. l. 3. c. 7. p. 2226. B. Bellarmine well observes) there is no Promise of God made to it; but yet being sanctified by the Prayers of the Church for these ends, you may as securely believe it, as many other things that have no better a Foundation.

50. And are not these now rare Follies for a Man to force us to publish whether we will or no? Did ever any Mountebank set out his false Ware with greater Vanity, than those of the Church of Rome have here done theirs? And indeed was there ever less reason to believe his Remedies, than in this Case there is to Credit your Pretences? In short, seeing you sanctify Water in the [Page 161] Name of God, by Prayer for these Ends, either shew us some Promise, some Warrant at least from the Holy Spirit of God so to do; or all reasonable Men will look upon this after all you have said for it, as none of the least both of your Follies, and of your Superstitions.

II. The other thing you mention is your Incense.

51. And this is indeed to our purpose; and I shall presently shew you how little you consider'd your own interest in the mention of it. I pass by your pretended significations of it, as impertinent in a Discourse where Truth only is sought. For the Antiquity of it you refer us to Dionysius and St. Ambrose; in which you again shew your skill in Church-History. The one of these being an Author that lived not till the latter end of the Fourth Century, and the other probably much later. But now the use of Incense, in the Greek Church especially, was of a much earlier date. The Apostolical Canons speak expresly of it: And if that Oration of Hyppolitus about the End of the World, be truly his, as from St. Jerome's mentioning of it in his Catalogue it seems to be; we have then two considerable instances to assure us that it was in use in the Greek Church even in the Third Century. You see how far I am from detracting any thing from the force of your Argument: But yet now after all, without fear of censuring Primitive Antiquity in this matter, whose Innocence I as freely acknowledg, as I heartily honour its piety; I shall not doubt to say that the present usage of it in your Church is so far from being innocent, that it is in truth Superstitious and Idolatrous.

52. First, it is Superstitious. For indeed what else can we make of your praying to God, (as in this very Ceremony of Consecrating a Pontifical. Rom de Benedict. Nov. Cruc. Cross you do) that, ‘ He would Bless ✚, and Sanctifie ✚ this Creature of Incense, that all weaknesses and infirmities, and all the snares of the Enemy perceiving its smell, may flie and be separated from his Creatures; that they may never be hurt by the biting of the Old Serpent, who have been redeemed with the precious blood of his Son.’

53. Now if you make this prayer in faith, that it is pleasing to God, and have a confidence that it shall be accepted by him, you must then shew us some grounds, some security in the Word of God for it. But if you cannot do this, what is it but Superstition, that is, a vain and fond service, to intreat the favour of God in the [Page 162] usage of a thing to which he has neither annexed any promise, nor for the doing whereof has he any where given us the least encouragement. But,

54. Secondly, The Use you make of this Incense, is yet worse than the Consecration of it. You offer it up to Creatures, nay to the very Images which you worship; and in doing of which I do not see how you will excuse your selves of being guilty of Idolatry. That the burning of Incense was part of that Religious Worship under the Law, which God was pleased to appropriate to Himself only, is not to be denied. It was indeed a more peculiar act of Divine Worship, than that of bloody Sacrifices themselves. And therefore both the Altar on which it was offer'd was covered with Gold, and it stood in a more Holy place than that of the Burnt-offerings; and is in a more singular manner said to be ‘ Most Holy unto the LORD, Exod. XX. 8, 10.’ Hence it was that Exod. XX. 8, 10. 2 King. XVIII. 4. Bellarm. de SS. Beatit. l. 1. p. 2026. c. 13. D. Vasquez. in 3. Vol. 1. q. 25. Disp. 104. Art. 3. c. 5. p. 735. King Hezekiah immediately brake to pieces the Brazen Serpent, as soon as he consider'd that the children of Israel burnt Incense before it. And yet if we enquire into the use that is made of it in your Church, we shall find it offer'd not only to the Saints, but even to their very Images and Reliques. Vasquez ingenuously confesses, that the Israelites gave no other Worship to the Brazen Serpent than what you give to your Images at this day; and that Hezekias therefore commanded it to be broken in pieces, not that he thought the people adored it as a God, but because he saw such a Divine Worship paid to it. It is one of the chief things remarked by your own Writers in the Life of a great Saint of your Order, St. Gerard Bishop of Chanade in Hungary, whom you Commemorate Vie des Sts. Calend. Ben. ad Sept. 24. Septemb. 24. That he caused a Church to be built in Chanade, His Episcopal See; and in it ‘ dedicated a Chappel to the Honour of the Blessed Virgn; where having set up her Statue, He every day offer'd Incense to the Figure, and took care by an Ordinance which He made, that Her Altar should never be without fine Odours upon it, which should continually smoke to Her Honour.’

55. Now this being the undoubted Practice of your Church, and such as you cannot deny to be contrary to the express Command of God under the Law; insomuch, that Cardinal Bellarmine Bellarm. de Imag. SS. l. 2. c. 17. p. 2144. freely confesses it would have been Criminal in a Jew to have offer'd Incense to any besides God only; either you must evidently prove to us, That those Acts which were then appropriate Acts of Divine Worship, are not so now, but remain indifferent to be paid [Page 163] to the Creature, as well as the Creator; or you must give us leave to conclude, that you do in this, attribute that Honour to an Image, which God has reserved as peculiar to Himself; and are by so doing, guilty of Idolatry.

56. And thus have I dispatch'd the two Things you called me, without any Provocation of mine, to examine; and which it may be you will now begin to think you might as well have let alone: I return to my Defence, in which I am next to consider, what you have to except against my third Argument, which I brought to shew, that you do truly and properly Adore the Cross; and that was from your Good-Friday Service.

Reply.] To this you Answer, ‘ That you bad here also shown my Reply p. 35. UNSINCERE TRICKS, in adding and diminishing Words, to make your Church speak as I would have it. And you pronounce me once more a CALUMNIATOR, for saying, that this proves that your Church do's Adore the Cross, in the utmost propriety of the Phrase.’

57. Answ.] These are hard Words; but I have always observed, that men are most uneasy when Truth touches them to the quick. If you are not yet sensible that it was indeed a pitiful Cavil to pretend I had false translated your Service, by what I have offer'd in my former part from Mons. Imbert's Case, and who for opposing that Interpretation of those Words which I deliver'd, was used after the manner that I have declared; I am confident you are the only Person even of your own Church, that needs to be convinced of it. In all the French Translations of your Missal, I have ever seen, it is render'd in the very words that I gave it, Behold the Wood of the Cross, come let us Adore IT: And particularly in that of Mons Voisin, approved by those of your Church, even to excess, you will find it in these express terms, Voila le Bois de la Croix, R. venez Adorons LE.

58. In the Missal of Salisbury, the Determination of that Address to the Cross, is undeniably evident. The Priests uncover the Cross, and sing the whole Antiphone, ‘ Behold the Wood of the Cross, come let us Adore; to which the Quire kneeling down, answer; We adore thy CROSS, O Lord.’ And I cannot but observe, that when Jo. Aegidius Canon of Sevil (of whom I have so often spoken) was forced to retract, as Heretical, his denial of [Page 164] Supreme Divine Worship to the Cross; Ludovicus de Paramo tells us, Lud. de Par. de Orig. S. Inquis. l. 2. tit. 3. c. 8. n. 19. that the Fathers of the Inquisition convicted him of his Heresy, especially by this Argument, taken from your Good-Friday Service; viz. That the Church on that solemn day did truly and properly Adore the Cross, when it said, We Adore thy CROSS, O Lord.

59. And this may by the way suffice, to shew how falsely you Reply p. 37, 38. expound even those Words, not to signifie the Cross of Christ, but his Passion. Which besides, that it is foreign to the Ceremony of Worshipping the Cross, which you are then about; and not a little Nonsence into the bargin; is here interpreted, not only by me, but by the Fathers of the Inquisition, of the Cross properly so called; and whose Authority I presume you will not care to despise. And now I shall leave it to any Jury that you please, to judg of my Translation; and what Character you deserve for your Reply p. 38. little Reflection upon me. And I do assure you withal, that I will never from henceforward so far distrust my Reader's Memory, as to say the same things again, tho you should give me the same occasion.

60. For the other Point; That this do's plainly shew, that your Church Adores the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase; If you will allow those great Men I before quoted, to understand the Sense of your Church in this Point, then 'tis plain, that my Assertion must stand good. You see they freely confess it; nay, what is more, they pronounce you a Heretick for denying it. As for your applying of this Worship to our Saviour Christ; if you mean thereby to signify that Christ only is worshipp'd in this Ceremony, exclusive to the Cross; it is evidently false, seeing the whole Action, as well as Words, shew, that the Cross is at least worshipped together with him; or rather (to speak more precisely) Christ is worshipped together with the Cross. Nor will Cardinal Bellarmine, to whom you direct me, stand you in any stead. For even he allows the Cross to be improperly and accidentally Worshipp'd with the same kind of Worship that Christ himself is. And if you please to let me send you to another Cardinal, and who being Card. Capis. ib. ub supr. & par. XVI. pag. 670. both a great Schoolman himself, and Master of the Sacred Palace, may be presumed to know somewhat of your Churches Sense; he will tell you, that your Cardinal Bellarmin was too wary in his Distinctions: And that he ought without any of those softning Limitations, freely to have asserted, That the Cross was truly and properly to be worshipped with Divine Adoration. And that I think, is much the [Page 165] same with what I said, That you do Worship the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase.

61. But you have here two singular Arguments to excuse this Service from the charge of Idolatry, and which ought not to be forgot. For,

Reply.] ‘ First, St. Paul (you say) lookt upon it to be no Superstition, Reply p. 38. to fall on our Face in the assembly, and Worship GOD, 1 Cor. XIV. 25.’

Answ.] Ergo (ô Lepidum Caput!) If St. Paul may be Judg, 'tis no Idolatry in you to fall on your Faces in the Assembly, and worship the CROSS. What would T. G. have given to have met with such a Consequence in his Learned Adversary? But indeed we needed not this Proof to convince us (in that Gentleman's Phrase) that you never look'd over Aristotle's Threshold, however your ill Genius has prompted you to become a Controvertist.

62. Well, [...]t if St. Paul wont do, yet at least you are sure the Primitive Christians were on your side. And you prove it by an Instance most fit to keep company with the foregoing Argument. The Case in short is this.

Reply.] ‘ St. Athanasius relates how some Jews in his time, in Reply p. 38. the City of Berthus (Berytus) in Syria, used great Indignities to a Crucifix, which a Christian had accidentally left behind him, when he removed from his Lodgings. And you desire your Antagonist to answer you this Question: Whether I would have excused those Jews, because they did those Actions to an inanimate Being; or would not rather have interpreted their Intention, as passing from the Cross to our Blessed Saviour.’

63. Answ. This is indeed a most melting Argument, and which as I remember, set all the good Fathers of the second Council of Nice, a crying. But Sir, be not you too much affected with it, for I will venture to give you that Consolation, which one of your De la conformitè des merveilles anciens avec les moderns, Par. 1. Ch. 25. P. Brethren once did his Congregation in France; when having preach'd in a most Tragical manner about the Passion, not of a Crucifix, but of our Blessed Saviour himself, insomuch, that the whole Assembly was in Tears at it; the good Father bid them not weep, for that, after all, it may be it was not true. For

[Page 166] 1st, As to the Book which you cite for this goodly Story, 'tis certain it was written above 420 years after Athanasius was in his Grave, and is of no manner of Credit among the Learned.

2dly, As to the Story: It was invented in the time of Irene the Empress, when all the World was set upon making and finding out Fables and Miracles, for establishing the Worship of Images.

3dly, All the Authority we have, that ever there was any such thing done, and that it was not a meer Invention (as were many others of the like kind at that time) is that of Sigebert, whose Chronicle besides, that it was written yet another 400 years after this supposed Insult upon the Crucifix, was also an Bell. de Scrip. Eccles. p. 283. Author whom Bellarmin himself confesses, is not to be credited in every thing he says. And especially, when in all probability he had no other Warrant for it, than the Acts of the Council of Nice, and the pretended Treatise of St. Athanasius, which you quote for it. So unlucky a thing is it for you to meddle with Church-History.

64. But whether the Relation be Truth or Fable; The Question is put, and must be Answer'd: Would I not have thought that these Jews hereby intended to affront our Saviour Christ? I answer, Yes; No doubt they did. And ‘ why then (say you) should I not in like manner interpret this Service of yours to terminate not upon the Crucifix, but to tend to him who suffer'd upon the Cross?’ I answer, 1. That had you put your Question as you ought, you should have ask'd, Why then we do not look upon your Intention to be to Honour, not the Cross, but Him that suffered upon it. Now there is a very great Difference between these two. And however your Friend T. G. supposes, That Actions must necessarily go whither they are intended; yet I think both he and you ought by this time, to be satisfied of the falseness of that Maxim? And therefore should we allow your Intention to be only to worship Christ, and not the Cross, yet it do's not thence follow that all your worship must by the Interpretation of Gods Law terminate upon him. But now, 2. I have shown, that for all your Pretences, it is not your Intention that your Worship should so terminate upon Christ, as not to terminate also upon the Cross together with him. 3. If it were, yet for all your intention you would nevertheless be far from Honouring Christ: seeing that to worship Christ by an Image is a prohibited Act; and God cannot be Honour'd in the very same Act in which he is disobey'd. And though an intention to dishonour [Page 167] Chris [...], by abusing his Image, is sufficient to do it, (as in all other Cases, one ill Circumstance will make the whole Action to be Evil;) yet a good intention alone is not sufficient to make an Act good, nor by consequence for the glory of God, unless that Intention it self be also govern'd by the Rules of His Commandments. For otherwise a man might do the worst things with a Good intention, and that should be sufficient to sanctify all his Villanies. So far have you hitherto been from producing the least shadow of an Answer to overthrow the force of my Allegations. My Last Instance was:

65. Fourthly; From the Hymns of your Church. In which I Reply, p. 39. shewed that you address your selves to the Cross, and beg spiritual Graces of it; and that you could not say the Cross was here put by a Figure to signify Christ crucified upon it; because the very words of the Hymns shew, that 'tis the Material Cross as distinguish'd from Christ, of which they speak.

66. And here you are in a great distress; you catch at every thing that comes near you; but for the most part without considering whether it be to any purpose or no. As for instance: You observe, First, That I am brisk and confident, and have a mind to ‘ expose your Literature as well as your Idolatry.’ But, Sir, may I beg leave to ask you on this Occasion the very same Question that Ib. p. 40▪ you do Me. Who is it you mean, when you say, I have a mind to expose YOUR Literature? If you understand that of your Party, I must tell you I am so far from exposing it, that I shall presently shew you that they are the most Learned Men of your Church whom I follow in the Application of that Hymn I alledged. But if by YOUR Literature you meant your own, you have then made a most unlucky piece of Work of it, in joining your Literature and your Churches Idolatry together; and I doubt your Brethren will have but little cause to applaud the Comparison. For do but grant it to be as easie to Prove the One, as it is to Expose the Other, and I will never desire a fairer Advantage against both, than you have here offer'd to Me. For,

67. Secondly, You say I must confess that your Churches Hymns were made by Poets, unless I will be so great a Hypocrite as to deny that Prudentius and Fortunatus were Poets. I suppose Prudentius and Fortunatus clubb'd together to make the Hymn that I refer to: Only the mischef is, that the One lived in the End of the IVth, the other not till about the middle of the Vth Century. [Page 168] Nay, but what now if neither of these were Author of that Hymn? I am sure Gretser, a very inquisitive Man in these matters, speaks very doubtfully of it, and leaves it in Question, whether Venantius Lib. 1. de Cruce, c. 35. Fortunatus, or Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans, was the Author of it; and He lived yet later, about the beginning of the IXth Century. But to let this pass; and consider,

68. Thirdly, How you prove these Men to be Poets, for indeed it is very remarkable. You tell me, that if I will but look into the Corpus Poetarum, I shall find them to have had a place among the Poets. A most undoubted way this, to find out whether an Author were a Poet or a Schoolman; And I dare say you were beholden to no man's Literature but your own for this Remark.

69. Well, but to grant that which I perceive you do not know very well how to go about to prove, that the Author of this Hymn, whoever he was, was a Poet; what will follow? Why then you say, Fourthly, I shall presently find the Figure he there uses; his Title being not ‘ Of the CROSS, but of the PASSION of our LORD.’ And then you take a great deal of pains to prove, what no man ever deni'd, ‘that the Cross in Holy Scripture is oftentime put to signify, the Force, Effects, and Merits of Christ's Death and Passion.’ Now if this be any thing to the purpose, as all that drops from a Person of your Literature must be supposed to be; then I must conclude, that seeing the Title of that Hymn is ‘Of the Passion of our Lord,’ whereever I meet the word CROSS in it, I am to understand it not of the Material Cross, but of Christ's PASSION. This you must mean, or else all this ado is meer Reverie, and Impertinence. Now then let us see what mad work we shall according to this new Exposition make of that Hymn.

The PASSION of our King comes forth; The mystery of the PASSION shines; upon which PASSION the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh.

Beautiful and bright PASSION! Adorned with the purple of a King. Chosen of a fit Stock to touch such sacred Members.

Blessed PASSION! upon whose Arms the price of the World hung. Hail, O Passion! our only Hope; In this time of the PASSION, increase righteousness in the Godly, and give pardon to the Guilty.

70. Now this I am confident a man of so much Literature as you are, will not allow to be a proper paraphrase of this Hymn: And if instead of the Passion, you put Christ for the Cross, this will yet [Page 169] more increase the Nonsense and Confusion. In short; If all the Corpus Poetarum were alive, and should lay their Heads together with you, they could not find out any of their Figures that would do the business; but must have some new Ecclesiastical Figure found out to make the Cross signify Christ and his Passion, at the same time, and in the same place in which it distinguishes both from the Cross. And such a Figure I do say would be as Great a Mystery, in Verse, as Transubstantiation is in Prose. And I desire you, if you can, to give me but one parallel Text of Scripture, in which the Cross is at once taken both literally for that Cross on which Christ suffer'd; and figuratively, for Christ and his Sufferings upon it.

71. In the mean time it shall suffice me Once more to mind you of what I perceive you have nothing to say to; viz. That Aquinas and his Followers, who have been sometimes reckon'd men of Literature in your Church, have understood this Hymn according to the plain and literal meaning of it: and that so confidently as to conclude from it, that your Church holds Divine Honour to be due to the Cross. ‘ We ought to worship the Images themselves (says Soto) for the Church doth not say, We worship THEE, O Christ; Soto de Just. & Jure. l. 2. q. 3. Art. 2. Cathar. de Cult & Ador. Imag. p. 133. But, We adore thy CROSS, O Christ.’ And again, ‘ O CRUX AVE, &c. We direct our Words and signs of Adoration to the Images, (says Catherine) to which likewise we burn Incense:’ as when we say to the CROSS, O Crux Ave. And to the same purpose, Marsilius ab Ingen; Ludovieus de Paramo; Philippus Gamachaeus, &c. See Dr. St. Answer to T. G. Part 2.

72. But if all this will not yet satisfy you, but you are still resolved to adhere to your new Figure, I will then give you another Instance, and which I believe may be Prose, for I do not remember I ever saw it in the Corpus Poetarum, though this I shall leave to your Literature to determine: And I pray be pleased to send us the Paraphrase of this Antiphone, according to your New Method of Expounding:

‘ O CROSS! brighter than all the Stars; famous in the World; Breviar. Rom. May 3. p. 797. Paris 1643. exceeding amiable to Men; more holy than all things; which alone hast been thought worthy to bear the weight of the World. Sweet Wood! bearing the sweet Nails, and sweet burdens; SAVE the present Company gathered together this day to THY PRAISE.’ And this may serve for the Second Point; which was, To make good the Charge I had brought against you, of giving Divine Worship to Images. I proceed now finally to shew;

[Page 170]

SECT. III.

That the Church of Rome thus Worshipping of Images is truly and properly guilty of Idolatry.

73. THERE is nothing in all our Disputes with those of the Church of Rome that seems so much to offend them, as this Charge. They think it not only unreasonable to suppose that men in the clear light of Christianity should be capable of falling into Idolatry, but even destructive of the very nature of a Church, and by consequence contrary to all those Promises of Christ in his Gospel, ‘ That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it;’ And indeed were our Notion of Idolatry the same with what some of their late Advocates have set forth as the true and only Notion of it, I should not Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 80, 81. at all wonder at their resentments; but rather confess that we had justly deserved all those Reproaches which their intemperate Pens have of late bestow'd upon us.

74. But whatever their opinion of the true and only Notion of Idolatry be, yet common equity should have taught them to confess, that we mean no more in our charge of it against them, than this, That those of the Church of Rome, in their worship of the Host, of Saints and Images, do give that Honour to the Creature, which ought to be given only to God. We do not pretend that you have either renounced the Worship of the Supreme Deity; or that you do adore either the Sun, Moon and Stars; or even Angels and Saints as such. And therefore howsoever you may dislike our Notion of Idolatry, yet you ought not to revile us for fixing a false Charge against you, but to shew that we give an ill Name to a true Charge. And because I now desire not to be mis-understood, I do first of all declare, that by my present Conclusion I intend no more than this, ‘That you do give the proper Acts of Divine Worship to Images, as I have already shew'd you do to Saints; and that this is truly and properly Idolatry.’

75. To discharge therefore this last part of my Undertaking as I ought to do; I will proceed distinctly upon these two things,

Ist. To fix our Notion of Idolatry, against those New Idea's that have of late been given of it.

IIdly. To shew, that according to the true Notion of it, the Church of Rome in her Worship of Images is guilty of Idolatry.

[Page 171]

I. POINT.

I. Of the true Nature of Idolatry.

76. This is what you desire me to reflect upon, and I hope it Reply, p. 29. will not be thought amiss if I here with all imaginable tenderness communicate my Reflections to you.

Reply, p. 28.] ‘ Three things (you say) there are required to make that Honour which we do pay to any thing, become Idolatrous. 1st, The Understanding must acknowledge an Excellency in the Object truly Divine, and worthy of Adoration in the strictest sense, where really there is no such Excellency. 2dly, The Will must have a propension and inclination to it as such, and pay that Honour to it. And Lastly, the Body must pay the exterior Obeysance, of bowing, kneeling, prostrating, kissing, &c. in pursuance of this interior Love and Knowledge.’

77. Ans. That is to say, that no One is an Idolater, but what takes somewhat to be God that indeed is not so, and upon that account gives the Worship due to the Supreme God to a Created Being. And this explains what you had said before; ‘ that you wonder how it Reply, p. 27. could enter into the Minds of Men of common sense to conceive it possible, that in the clear light of Christianity, where all Persons are taught there is but One God to whom Adoration is only due, they should yet fall down and Adore a Stock or a Stone, and pay divine Honour to it. That the Idolatry of the ancient Jews and Heathens consisted in believing Ibid. p. 28. a plurality of Gods, and adoring them as such:’ So that in short, let men but keep to the Knowledge of the One true God, and not worship Saints, or Images, as such; and then there is no danger of Idolatry for any Other Worship that may be paid to them.

78. And now let Idolatry be as stabbing and cut-throat a word as Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 71, &c. it will; Be its punishment, if it were possible, greater than what a Reverend Author has lately told us is its least, Death and Damnation; If this be the only Idolatry, viz. to worship somewhat else besides God, as supposing it to be very God; I dare confidently affirm in behalf of all those Popular Divines that have ever used that scolding word, That the Church of Rome is not Idolatrous in the worship of Saints or Images, nor has it in this sense ever been charged by us [Page 172] as such. But to shew the Vanity of this Pretence; and yet more clearly express what we mean by this Charge, I will now very plainly examine these two things:

I. Whether, according to the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both Know and Worship the One true God?

II. How such Persons may become Guilty of it?

I. Whether, according to the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both Know and Worship the One true God?

79. And here it is not my design to enter on any large Discourse about the general Nature of Idolatry; but still remembring the particular Point before me, to prove it only in such Instances, as are more immediately applicable to it. And such are especially these two:

1st, The Idolatry of the Golden Calf.
2dly, Of the Calves of Dan and Bethel.

80. As to the former of these, it has of late been suggested, Reasons for Abrog the Test, p. 85. That it was made by Aaron as the Symbol of the Egyptian Apis or Osyris; and to whose Idolatry the Israelites now return'd in the Worship of it. But this is indeed a very weak Suggestion; and whosoever will but consider the Circumstances of what was done by that People on this occasion, will presently see, that they design'd that Calf to be the Symbol not of any Egyptian Deity, but of the true God, whom accordingly they worshipp'd in presence of it. And this will appear;

81. 1st, From the occasion of this Idolatry; which was not any Infidelity as to the true God, or that they had now any better Reasons given them for the Worship of others besides him; but because Moses delayed to come down from the Mount, therefore they urged Aaron to make them a God, that might go before them. They had now Exod. XXXII. rested a long time in that place, and were impatient to go on towards the Land of Promise. But having now no Moses to enquire of Gods Pleasure, they wanted an Oracle to consult upon these Occasions. And therefore they cri'd out unto Aaron, Up, make us Gods that shall go before us, for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

82. Now that this was all they intended by it, will appear, 2dly, From the Character which the People presently gave to the [Page 173] Calf, as soon as it was made: This is thy God; or as the Chaldee Ibid. ver. 4. Paraphrast renders it, This is thy Fear, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. For sure the People were not so stupid as to think it was either that Image which had brought them up out of Egypt; or that the Gods of Egypt had plagued their own People for their sakes, and with a high hand deliver'd them out of their Power. No, doubtless they understood by it their God, Exod. XX. who but just before at the delivery of the Law, had assumed this as his own peculiar Character, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, and out of the house of Bondage. And this naturally Suggests to me a third Evidence of this Truth.

83. From the Title which Aaron himself gave to that God, of which this Calf was the Symbol. Ver. 5. ‘ And when Aaron saw it, Ibid 5. he built an Altar before it; and Aaron made Proclamation and said, To morrow is a feast unto the LORD.’ This was the peculiar and incommunicable name of the God of Israel, which he assumed unto himself, Exod. VI. 2. when he renew'd his Covenant with them; and we do not find any one place in all the Holy Scripture, where it has ever been attributed to any other.

84. 4thly, Had the People hereby designed this to be the Symbol of the Egyptian Deities; how comes it to pass, that (as we read in the next Verse) they offer'd Burnt-offerings, and Peace-offerings unto Ver. 6. it. For this, both the Scripture tells us, was an Abomination to the Egyptians; and a late Advocate for you, freely confesses, that Reasons for Abr. the Test, p. 114, &c. they esteem'd Bullocks and Rams to be Sacred Animals, and therefore never offer'd any of them to their Gods.

85. Lastly, The Scripture plainly distinguishes this Idolatry from that of the Egyptians, and makes the one to have been the Punishment of the other. It is confess'd, or rather contended for by the Author I but now mentioned, that the Egyptian Idolatry consisted in worshipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the Supreme Deity: Now, this St. Stephen tells us, that God afterwards permitted them to fall into, and therefore it must have been some other Idolatry, which in this Case they were Guilty of; For speaking of their setting up the Golden Calf, Acts VII. 41. He thus goes on, ver. 42. THEN God turned, and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven.

86. As for the other Instance I proposed to consider; The Calves of Dan and Bethel; the Occasion of their making, was this. [Page 174] When the ten Tribes had thrown off Rehoboam from being their King, and had chosen Jeroboam to Reign over them; This new Usurper, fearing lest if the People went up at the yearly Sacrifices to Jerusalem, where Rehoboam still Reigned over the other two Tribes, it might in time occasion their falling away from him, set up two Calves in Dan and Bethel, and made Altars before them, and perswaded the People, saying, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: Behold thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out 1 Kings XII. 28. of the Land of Egypt.

87. Now that Jeroboam intended these Calves to be Symbols of the God of Israel, appears, 1st, From most of those Reflections I before made. He gives them the same Character by which they constantly understood the God of Israel; Behold (says he) thy God, that brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. He offer'd Sacrifies before them, and consecrated the Priests that Ministred unto them, with a young Bullock and seven Rams. All which is exactly agreeable 2 Chron XIII. 9. to what God required of them, but was utterly inconsistent with the Idolatry of Egypt. But

88. 2dly, We have some more peculiar Proofs of this matter. I speak not now of the readiness of the People in complying with him, which it is not imaginable they would so easily have done, had he intended to lead them to the Worship of strange Gods. Nor will I insist upon the danger, which so sudden an Innovation might have brought to this new King, and who was not so little a Polititian, as to attempt such an Alteration at a time when he was hardly yet well establish'd in his new Usurpation. These are indeed great Probabilities, but such as this Cause needs not; seeing it has the Evidence of Holy Scripture fully confirming it; It being certain that the Idolatry of these Calves did not take them off from the Service of the true God. Let us examine all along the History of the Kings of Israel; we shall find them constantly worshipping the Jehovah, the God of Israel. Jehu was zealous for him; he destroy'd the Idolatry of Baal out of his concern for the Lord; and had the Kingdom by Gods own immediate Promise setled upon his Posterity for his so doing. And yet it is expresly said of him, Howbeit from 2 King. X. 29. the Sins of Jeroboam, who made Israel to Sin, Jehu departed not from after them, viz. the Golden Calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan.

89. Who was it but the true God for whom Elijah appear'd so zealous? 1 King. XVIII. when he enter'd into that famous trial [Page 175] with the Prophets of Baal; If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, than follow him. And the Fire came down from Heaven, and burnt up the Sacrifice, and all the people confest, saying, ‘ The Ibid. 39. Lord he is the God; The Lord he is the God.’

90. Hence it is, that when Ahab fell into that other kind of Idolatry which consists in worshipping of false Gods, he is represented as much more heinously offending God, than the other Kings of Israel, who worshipp'd the Calves of Dan and Bethel, 1 King. XVI. 31. 1 Kings XVI. 31. ‘And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, that he went and served Baal, and worshipped him.’

91. By all which it undoubtedly appears, that in both these cases, they design'd by those Calves to worship the true God; and then seeing it is confest they did commit Idolatry in that service, it must remain that men may know, and serve the true God, and yet by worshipping him in this prohibited manner, may in the interpretation of the Divine Law commit Idolatry.

92. I shall conclude this with that Confession which the Evidence of truth in this matter has extorted from Cardinal Bellarmin and and some others of your own Communion; where answering this objection, that when the Golden Calf was set up, Aaron proclaimed a Feast not to any other strange God but [...] to the LORD, to the Jehovah,

It is (says he) the solution of Abulensis Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. c. 13. p. 2130, 2131. and others, that there were two sorts of Idols among the Hebrews. One without the name of any certain God, as that of Micha, Judges XVII. and perhaps the Golden Calf which Aaron made, Exod. XXXII. and Jeroboam renew'd, 1 King. XII. for the Scripture does not call the Calf the God Moloch, or the God Baal,

These are thy GODS, O Israel. The other sort of Idols had a certain name; as Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth, Chamos, &c. as is plain, 1 King. XI. &c. They say therefore, and that not improbably, that it may be admitted of the former kind, That the Jews did think that in the Idol THEY WORSHIPPED THE TRUE GOD.

93. And now tho this might suffice to shew how consistent the guilt of Idolatry is with the acknowledgment of one true God, yet will I add a reflection or two more, for the farther confirmation of it. For,

First, Were such a Notion as this of Idolatry to be admitted, it would serve no less to excuse the Heathens than those of the Church of Rome of the guilt of it. For however they worshipp'd [Page 176] other inferior Deities, as these do Saints and Angels with a lower degree of Religious Honour; yet even they too acknowledged one supreme God, who was over all, and to whom the highest Worship and Adoration alone was due. This has been so largely proved Defence of the Disc. of Idolatry, par. 1 by T. G's worthy and learned Antagonist, not to mention any others who have occasionally treated of this Argument, that I shall not need to enter on any particular induction in order to the asserting of it.

94. Secondly, It cannot be question'd but that this new Notion of Idolatry, set up on purpose to excuse you from that Imputation, is utterly repugnant to the Principles of the Ancient Fathers, who certainly charged those with Idolatry, who yet believed and worshipp'd the very same God with themselves. Thus St. Athanasius charges the Arrians with Idolatry for adoring Christ, ‘whom they Athanas contr. Arrian. Orat. 1. p. 286. esteem'd to be a Creature. He tells them, that no supposition of any Excellencies whatever in him, altho derived from God, would excuse them. But that if they thought him a meer man, and yet adored him, they would be found worshippers of men for all that.’ Nay he doubts Ib. 387. not to parallel them with the Gentiles, and to compare the service they paid to our Saviour upon this supposition, with that which the other gave to their inferior Deities. And the same was the opinion of all the rest of those great men, Gregory Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, &c. and whose words are so well known, that I shall not need to transcribe them.

95. But now that I have mentioned Epiphanius, I may not forget another sort of Idolatry exploded by him, and yet more near our purpose than the foregoing. I mean that Worship which some Superstitious Women in his time paid to the Blessed Virgin by offering a Cake to her. Now this that Holy Father condemns as downright Idolatry, and the device of the Devil. And to shew how consistent the charge of Idolatry is with the worship of one God, he gives us a similitude that would almost imply a necessity of acknowledging the one true God to compleat the nature of it: ‘ Idolatry (says he) comes into the world through an Adulterous inclination of the mind, which cannot be contented with one God alone: Like an Adulterous Woman that is not satisfied with the chast embraces of one Husband, but wanders in her lust after many lovers.’ So possible did those Ancient Fathers think it to be for Men in the clear light of Christianity, and retaining the acknowledgment of the true God, nevertheless to commit Idolatry.

[Page 177] 96. I might add here the Exhortations of the New Testament, where both S. Paul and S. John, among other Cautions to the Christians of their Times, place that of fleeing from Idolatry; and this in such a manner, as evidently supposes them very capable of continuing the Profession of Christianity, and the Knowledg and Worship of God, and yet of falling into it. But I shall content my self, lastly, to close up this with the Confessions of Learned Romanists themselves, who have acknowledged Idolatry to be consistent with the Worship of the true God.

97. S. Thomas defines Idolatry to be a Sin, whereby the singularity 22dae q. 94. Ar. 3. resp. ad 2. Cajet. pag. 340 of God's Dominion is taken from him: And Card Cajetane in his Notes upon this same Question, supposes that a Christian may commit Idolatry, and yet be so far from renouncing the true God, as not to violate any part of his Faith in him. Gregory de Valentia, says 'tis Idolatry; ‘ Whensoever a Man intends Lib. 1. de Idol. to apply to a Creature, either by Words or by Actions, any estimation which is proper unto the Majesty of God, whether it be done directly or indirectly.’ Vasquez reckons those to be Idolaters, Vasquez in 3. T. 1. p. 721. who give to an Image the Service due to God; and defines an Idol in general to be, Whatsoever is worshipped as God that is not truly so. Now all these either manifestly suppose the Knowledg of the True God, or at least do not exclude it.

98. But what need I insist upon Generals, seeing if we may believe those of your own Communion, you are not only capable, for all your Christianity, of falling into Idolatry; but in this very Point of Image-Worship, are actually guilty of it. For,

1st, Cardinal Bellarmine disputing against that which I have Bellarm. de Imag. Ss. l. 2. c. 24. p. 2153. C. shewn by such a number of Witnesses to be the True Doctrine of your Church, viz. ‘That the Image of Christ is to be worshipp'd with proper Divine Worship;’ doubts not to say this is Idolatry; And therefore argues in this manner against it: ‘ That this Worship is either given to the Image for it self, or for the sake of another. If for it self, it is plainly IDOLATRY; if for another, it is not proper Divine Worship, because the very Nature of that is to be given for it self. Again; Either the Divine Worship (says he) which is given to the Image relatively for another, is the same with that which is given to God, or it is an inferior Worship. If it be the same, then the Creature is equally [Page 178] worshipped with God, which CERTAINLY IS IDOLATRY. For Idolatry is not only when GOD IS FORSAKEN, and an Idol worshipped, but when an Idol is worshipped together with God. If it be an Inferior Worship, then it is not the proper Divine Worship.’

99. So that now then the Point is reduced to a fair issue. Either we must pay the same Adoration to the Image that we do to the Original, and then Card. Bellarmine pronounces us Idolaters; Or we must give it only an Inferior Honour, and then Card. Capisucchi, and the Inquisition, damn us as Hereticks. Nay, but there is Idolatry committed go which way you will. For Vasquez, another Learned Jesuit, and whose Works have been In 3. T. 1. p. 778. no less approved than Card. Bellarmine's, tells us; ‘ That if a Man give inferior Worship to an Image, distinct from that which is given to the Thing represented by it, he thereby incurs the guilt of IDOLATRY, because he expresses his submission to a meer inanimate Thing, that hath no kind of Excellency to deserve it from him.’ And now seeing there is so much danger of Idolatry, whatever the Honour be that is given to Images, I hope we may be the easier excused, if admonished by these Confessions, and directed by God's Commandments, we refuse to give them any Honour at all. And thus much be said to the first Point, ‘That a Man may be capable of falling into Idolatry, though he continues both to know and worship the One true God.’ My next Business is,

2dly, To shew, How this may be done by him.

100. I shall mention only two ways, and which I have already before infinuated; [...]iz.

1. By worshipping the True God after an Idolatrous manner.
2. By giving Divine Worship to any other besides Him.

1. By worshipping the True God after an Idolatrous manner.

101. This was the Case of the Israelites, in the Examples I have before mention'd, of the Calves of Aaron and Jeroboam. They directed their Adoration to the JEHOVAH, the [Page 179] LORD their God that brought them up out of the Land of Egypt. To him they proclaim'd the Feast, and offer'd Burnt- Offerings and Sacrifices upon their Altars. Yet because they set up a Symbol of him, contrary to his Command, and worshipp'd him after an Idolatrous manner, they are expresly charged as Idolaters in Holy Scripture; and the Worship that was intended by them to God, is represented as given to a Molten Image.

102. And the same was the Case of that other Image which Card. Bellarmine joins with these, viz. the Teraphim of Micha, Judg. XVII. that these were designed for the Service of the True God, is plain, seeing both his Mother is said to have consecrated the Silver of which they were made [...] to the JEHOVA, Vers. 3. and Micha himself hired a Levite of the LORD's to be his Priest, Vers. 10, 11. And he comforted himself upon this consideration, Vers. 13. ‘ Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my Priest.’ And again, Chap. xviii. 5. The Priest asked Counsel of GOD; for some of the Danites that enquired of him, and GOD, or the JEHOVA, gave them a true Answer. It is supposed by some in favour of this Micha, that being a Religious Man, and the publick Service of God being very much obstructed by the miserable Violence of those Times, he made himself a little Oratory, and placed in it all the Furniture of the Tabernacle, with these Teraphim to resemble the Cherubims of the Ark, whose Figure S. Hierome and others suppose them to have had. But whatever becomes of this Fancy, that which I have to observe now is, that what the Original Hebrew stiles Teraphim, the old Vulgar Latin calls Idols; and in that famous Passage, 2 Sam. xv. 23. they are both join'd in the same rank of Ilness with one another; ‘ For Rebellion is as the Sin of Witchcraft; and to transgress an Idol and a Teraphim:’ [...], so Symmachus rendèrs it; and so both the [...] and [...] in that place must undoubtedly be understood. And indeed Card. Cajetan Comm. Jude 17. Vers. 2. himself confesses as to the very Point before us, that the whole Work (however Micah intended it) was in God's estimation without question Idolatry: And to whose Opinion we have already seen Card. Bellarmine to have agreed; not to mention Tostatus and others whom he refers to as acknowledging the same likewise.

[Page 180] 103. 2dly, As for the other way by which a Man may commit Idolatry, who yet both acknowledges and worships the True God, viz. by giving Divine Worship to any other together with him; I have already offer'd Instances of that in the Cases of the Arrians and Collyridians; the one of which for worshipping Christ, whom they supposed to be but a Creature; the other for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary, are charged by the Ancient Fathers as guilty of Idolatry. Nor is this without foundation from the Holy Scripture. For besides, that first of all we find there ‘ all Religious Worship appropriated to God only;’ and therefore to give such Worship to any other, must be practically to set up another God. To say nothing, 2dly; that if any such Worship has at any time been offer'd any Holy Men or Angels, they have not only constantly refused it as a great Abomination, but have still given this Reason for it, that they were Creatures, and by consequence not to be adored: Stand up (says St. Peter to Cornelius) for I also am a Man. Sirs, Why do Acts 10. 26. Acts 14. 15. Rev. 22. 9. ye these things? (says St. Paul to the Men of Lystra, who would have offer'd Sacrifice to him) We are also Men of like Passions with you. See thou do it not, (says the Angel to St. John) for I am thy fellow Servant: worship God. All which sufficiently shew, that to worship any other besides God, is to raise them above the state of Creatures, and in effect to make Idols of them. We may observe, 3dly, That to give even the least part of that Service which is due only to God to any Creature, is expresly called Idolatry. Thus because we ought to trust in God only: Covetous Men who (as St. Paul tells them) trust in uncertain Colos. 3. 5. Ephes. 5. 5. Riches, are in the New Testament called Idolaters. And sure those do not less deserve this Character, who trust in the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, or by any other Act of proper religious Worship, such as Prayer, and in one word all those other Instances of religious Adoration I have heretofore mentioned, shew that they divide the proper Service of God with them.

104. Let us add to this, 4thly, That Cardinal Bellarmine Bellarm. L. C. §. 98. supr. himself confesses that Idolatry is committed, not only when God is forsaken and an Idol worshipped, but when an Idol is worshipped together with him. And this he proves from Exod. XX. 23. Ye shall not make WITH ME Gods of Silver, &c. [...] i. e. says your Learned Vatablus, to worship them ‘ together Vatabl. in L [...]c. [Page 181] with Me: For I will that ye should worship ME ALONE, and not joyn any Companion WITH ME.’

105. I shall finish this with the Consideration of that Charge which S. Paul brings against the Gnostick Hereticks, and in which he plainly argues against their Idolatry, Rom. 1. 25. ‘ That they changed the Truth of God into a Lie, i. e. says Theodoret,’ they gave the name of God to an Idol: and worshipped or served the Creature [...] besides, but yet togethér with the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. ‘ For whereas (says the same Father) they ought to have worshipped the true God, they gave Divine Worship to the-Creature; To the same Accusation are they subject, who calling the only begotten Son of God of a Creature, do yet worship him as God. For they ought in their Divinity either not to rank him among the Creatures, but with God that begat Him, or if they will have Him to be a Creature, they ought not to give Worship to Him as a Deity.’

106. Hence Athanasius calls this ‘ the folly of the Arrians and Tom. 1. p. 385. C. Greeks: to worship the Creature, besides or with the Creator.’ And again, ‘ The Apostle (says he) accuses the Greeks that they worshipped the Creatures, seeing that they served the Creature besides the Creator; seeing then the Arrians say that our Lord is a Creature, and serve him as such, wherein do they differ from the Greeks or Gentiles?’ And lastly, S. Jerome in answer to the charge of Vigilantius, who accused them of Idolatry for worshipping the Reliques of the Martyrs, utterly renounces the Charge upon the same Foundation: ‘ But as for us (says Jeronim. Epist. ad Ripar. T. 3. Erasm. fol. 54. he) so far are we from adoring the Reliques of the Martyrs, that we do not worship the Sun or the Moon, not any Angels or Arch-angels, not the Cherubims nor Seraphim, nor any Name that is named either in this World or in that to come, lest we should serve the Creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.’

107. And thus have I endeavour'd in as short a compass as I could, to clear the general Nation of Idolatry, as far as concerned the Point before me, and in which I suppose you to have erred more for your Churches sake, than for any great difficulty there is in understanding the nature of this Sin. It will now be an easie task from these Principles to infer, (which is my next Point.)

[Page 182] II. That your Church in the Worship of Images is truly and properly guilty of it.

And this I shall shew according to what you desire;

1st, With reference to those who hold that Images are to be worshipped with the same Worship as the Things which they represent.
2dly, As it concerns their Opinion, who denying this, yet allow an inferiour Honour to them.

First, That they are guilty of Idolatry, who worship Images with the same Honour as the Things which they represent.

108. Where first I must observe, that this, however of late opposed by you and the rest of our new Representers, is yet not only the most general received Doctrine of the Roman Church, but so esteem'd to be the sense of your two Councils of Nice and Trent, that Card. Capisucchi produces a long Catalogue of your greatest Writers who have look'd upon it as savouring of Heresy to oppose it. And not only Monsieur Imbert in France, but also Aegidius Magistralis, and the French Gentleman, whose Case I before represented, will assure you, that in the Inquisitions of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, 'tis somewhat more than a Scholastick Nicety, or a probable Opinion, which may without danger be opposed by you. And therefore, tho to make good my promise, I shall also dispute this Point with you too upon your own Principles; yet I must needs declare that 'tis here I esteem my self truly to oppose the Doctrine of your Church in this particular.

109. Now that they who hold this sort of Image-worship are thereby guilty of Idolatry, is so evident that your own Card. Bellarmine could not forbear reproaching them with it: And whose words I will once more produce, not more for the Authority than the Weight of them; where maintaining this Conclusion, ‘That Images of themselves and properly are not to be worshipped with the same Worship with which the Exemplar is worshipped, He thus argues against the contrary Opinion: Either that Latria or Divine Worship which is given to the Image, [Page 183] for another is the same with that Worship which is paid to God, or it is some inferiour Honour: If it be the same, then the Creature is equally worshipped with God himself, which is certainly Idolatry; For it is Idolatry, not only to forsake God and worship an Idol, but to worship an Idol together with God. As it is written, ye shall not make Gods of Gold or of Silver together with Me. Thus this great Writer.’ And tho I ought not to expect such free Declarations from you, whose business it is to dissemble, and soften, and accommodate things all you can, yet have you plainly enough insinuated the very same. For when you lay down this Position, ‘ That the Image Reply, Pref. pag. 18. of our Saviour Christ, or the Holy Cross, is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped with Divine Worship, that Worship being due only to God:’ All you have to say for the other Opinion is, that it MAY, nay that's not enough, it MAY POSSIBLY be defended, which is, I think, a tacit Confession, that, to say the truth, you doubted it could not. 'Tis true, you afterwards grow more confident, and improve your POSSIBLY into EASILY; ‘ I say these Expressions of the Schools MAY be EASILY defended;’ but then you add, that it must be done by ‘ interpreting them so as not to shock this first Principle, That God alone is to be worshipped;’ That is to say, by changing the Conclusion; and whereas they say, ‘ That the Cross is to be worshipped together with Christ with Divine Worship; you give it the new turn, That not the Cross, but Christ in presence of the Cross is to be worshipped with Divine Worship. For otherwise you had before told us, that the Holy Cross it self must upon no account whatsoever be worshipped with Divine Worship;’ and again here, this first Principle (say you) must not be shock'd, ‘ That God alone is to be adored with Divine Adoration.’

110. It appears by this how uneasy you are in this Case, and it is not a little Confirmation to us of the Security of our Condition, to see that you whose concern it so much is to be very well assured of what you do, yet cannot agree among your selves what Honour is to be given to Images. But one Party thinks that cannot be maintain'd without Idolatry, which the other declares may not be deny'd without Heresie. As for the Images of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, that those commit Idolatry who worship them with the same Religious Worship that [Page 184] they pay to the Exemplars, will follow from what I have before said of your worshipping the Blessed Virgin and Saints themselves. For if it be Idolatry to give Religious Worship to the Prototypes, it must then be much more so, to pay it to the Images.

111. For your other Images, those of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Trinity, I shall need no other Argument than that of Card. Bellarmine before-mention'd, to shew the Worship of those too to be Idolatry. It being evident that to give Divine Adoration to any Creature, that is, to worship any Creature as God, is to make an Idol of it, and therefore the Service that is thereby paid to it must be Idolatry. Now that this is the Case of those who hold this Opinion, if what I have already cited from them be not sufficient to show, and especially where they declare (as we have seen) that not only Christ, but the Image it self too is to terminate the Divine Worship which is paid to Christ by it; I am sure the Reason which they bring to establish their Conclusion will be more than enough to do it: viz. ‘ That the same Indivisible Act is at once and indivisibly Card. Capis. de cult. Im. qu. ii. par. 9. pag. 650. the Worship both of the Image, and of Christ represented by the Image. And if the Image of Christ be adored with the same indivisible Adoration with which Christ is adored, that Adoration must be the supreme Divine Adoration, seeing with such only Christ is to be adored.’

112. But how then do's the Cardinal excuse this from being Idolatry. He answers, ‘ That it is not Idolatry, because the Ibid. par. 18. p. 677. Image as an Image is in that respect Christ himself. For in this respect (says he) the Image of Christ is not consider'd PRECISELY as it is a CREATURE, but as it is a Divine Thing, and Christ himself by Representation.’ And then he dogmatically concludes, ‘ That it is not at all inconvenient that a CREATURE as it is a Divine Thing, and after a certain manner one with God, should be honour'd with the very Ibid. 679. same Divine Honour, with which God himself is honour'd.’ In short, he confesses that the Images of Christ, upon the account of their being so, may be adored with the very same Adoration that Christ himself is; and that in such a respect it is not at all inconvenient for the Creature to have Divine Worship paid to it. He looks upon Idolatry to be then only committed when the Image is worshipped exclusively to God, but that it [Page 185] is none to worship God by an Image, or to worship an Image together with God. But yet since he confesses that Images consider'd as Images, in their Representative Natures, are still but Creatures, and to worship any Creature with the Worship due only to God (whatever the pretence be for the so doing) is in effect to set up another God, which must needs be Idolatry; It will remain that no pretence of Scholastick Niceties will be able to excuse this great Man from Card. Bellarmine's censure of Idolatry; ‘ Seeing (as he truly tells us) it is Idolatry not only to forsake God and worship an Idol, but to worship an Idol together with God.’ But all this will more evidently appear from the other Consideration, in which I am to shew,

Secondly, That even those who deny this Supreme Divine Honour to Images, are yet guilty of Idolatry in what they allow to them.

113. The truth is, the case of these Men is, I think, rather more inexcusable than that of the other kind, because that (in S. Paul's words) Rom. 1. 32. ‘ Knowing the Judgment of God that they which commit such things as these are worthy of Death, they not only do the same, but [...]. They assent to those who do them. [...],’ so Theophylact; they defend and patronize them: [...]. As Theodoret very well observes upon this place.

114. Now that this is indeed truly your Case appears, 1st, In that at the same time that you assert in express terms, that you do not worship Images, God forbid: That the Cross is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be worshipp'd with Divine Worship; you nevertheless comply with those others before mention'd in all the most forbidden Instances of Divine Adoration. You incense them, you carry them solemnly in Processions, you consecrate them for this very end that they may be worshipped, you prostrate your selves before them in the Church of God, and in the time of Prayer, you desire several Graces to accrue to you by your serving of them, nay you address your very Prayers to them, which your own Aquinas makes use of to prove that a proper Divine Adoration is due to the Cross; for having laid down this Conclusion, that the Cross is to be adored [Page 186] with the same Adoration that Christ himself is; He immediately subjoins, ‘ And for this cause it is that we speak to the Cross, and pray to it as to Christ himself. Where you must observe’ (says Aqu. 3. p. qu. 25. ar. 4. in Corp. Card. Cajetan in his Notes on that Passage) that S. Thomas ‘brings our speaking to the Cross as an effect of the same Adoration with which Christ is adored. For because we speak to the Cross as Christ, 'tis a sign that we recur to the Cross as to Christ.’ By all which it appears that you are in this matter [...], or self-condemned: If you believe this Worship to be lawful and yet deny it, of Hypocrisy towards us; if you think it to be Idolatrous, and yet comply with it, of a great Sin towards God.

115. And that which yet farther confirms me in this is, to consider what wretched Evasions you make use of to excuse your selves in these Particulars. Can any thing be more pitiful than the Expositions you have here offer'd, of your Consecrating of Crosses, of your Good-friday-Service, and of the Hymns of your Church, which I had alledged as Instances of that Worship you give to Images? Do not these plainly shew a desperate Cause: and that you are but too sensible that your old Practices are not to be reconciled with your new Pretences.

116. If while I am endeavouring to convince you of Idolatry, I do by the way discover your Insincerity, 'tis what I cannot help. But all the use I shall make at present of these Remarks shall be to observe, that even those among you who pretend the most to deny a Divine Worship to Images, yet must allow such Acts of it as these I have here recounted. Now that even this will involve you in this Guilt, is evident from the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry before establish'd. For I desire you to tell me, if you can, what did those Israelites do when they worshipped the Golden Calf, that you do not at this day practise in the very same manner? Was it, 1. that they worshipped God by an Image? But if this be Idolatry, you cannot deny but that you do the very same. Or, was it, 2. that they did not refer their Worship finally to God, but terminated their Adoration upon the very Image it self? Nay, but Aaron in express terms proclaim'd a Feast unto the Lord; and to whom can we suppose that they offer'd their Burnt-offerings and their Peace-offerings, but to the same LORD to whom the Feast it self was proclaim'd?

[Page 187] 117. To conclude; There is nothing in that whole History to make us doubt but that they design'd that Calf only as a Symbol of the God of Israel: And their Idolatry by Consequence was no other than what the most moderate Men of your Church must confess themselves to be guilty of, viz. ‘That, contrary to God's express Command, you set up Graven Images as Representations of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Trinity; and worship the infinite and incomprehensible God,’ in a Figure made like unto a Mortal Man: Which God himself has warranted us by his holy Word to call Idolatry.

118. It remains therefore upon the whole, that either you must shew us to be mistaken in our Notion of Idolatry; or you will never be able to acquit your selves of the Charge of it. And when you have done this, we shall then only tell you, that you commit a Sin in this Service, that you violate God's holy Law which forbids it; but for the denomination of it, we shall leave it to you, whose Sin it is, to give it what particular Name you your selves think fit.

Of RELIQUES.

119. IN the Point of Reliques you offer only two things in Reply, p. 42, &c. answer to all that I had said upon that Subject, viz.

Reply] First, ‘That the whole of my Discourse proceeded upon verbal Dispute, what we are to call that Honour which you give to them, and which you deny to be properly Worship. Secondly, You once more egregiously cavil about the Translation of that Part of the Council of Trent which concerns this Subject, and deny that you seek to the sacred Monuments or Reliques of the Saints for the obtaining of THEIR Help and Assistance.’

120. Answ.] For answer to which Pretences, because I as little love to prolong Disputes at any time, as you do when you Reply, ibid. have no more to say in order to the carrying of them on; I will lay aside words, and bring the Issue to the things themselves, [Page 188] and shew how miserably you have prevaricated in this Point too, as wellas in the foregoing, by proving,

I. That you do properly worship the Reliques of your Saints.
II. That you do seek to them for Help and Assistance.

And when this is done, I shall not need say any thing to prove that you here also commit Idolatry; seeing you allow the Cases of Images and Reliques to be the same; and the Council of Trent makes this to be the very difference between Reply, p. 44. the Heathens and them, and that by which they hope to escape the Censure of Idolatry, viz. ‘ That they do not believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any trust to be put in them.’ Tho how truly they declare this, the account I have before given of your consecrating both of Crosses and Agnus Dei's will sufficiently show.

I. That you do truly and properly worship the Reliques of your Saints.

121. This is a Point that in any other Age, or Country but ours, would have needed no Proof. And it is not the least Argument of an innovating Spirit in you, that no Words or Expressions are of any value with you, as often as you are minded to give us what you call the Churches Sense. Let your Writers use never so many Phrases to assure to us their Opinion that Reliques are to be worshipp'd, all this signifies nothing, they meant no more by it than an ‘ Honour or Veneration due to the sacred Remains Reply, p. 42. of those Saints who were once the Temples of the Living God; and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict Sense.’ There is hardly an Expression that can signifie a proper Worship which your own Authors have not made use of to declare the Service they thought due to them. ‘ I ADORE, WORSHIP, embrace the Reliques of the Saints, said one in the second Council of Nice, and the whole Assembly resolved, Act. IV. That their Bones, Ashes, Raggs, Blood, and Sepulchres, should be ADORED, only Men should not offer Sacrifice unto them.’ Card. Baronius speaks of it as an Honour done Him by Pope Annal. ad. Ann. 821. §. 14. Clement VIIIth, that tho most unworthy of so great an undertaking, [Page 189] he was yet sent by him to examine and ADORE the venerable Body of S. Cecilia. And though the cautious Synod of Trent said only that Reliques should be VENERATED, yet seeing it neither condemned the Opinions of those who taught they were to be worshipped, but rather allow'd the Acts of proper Divine Service to be paid to them. What can we conclude, but that they made use of a loose Expression to satisfy the more moderate Party of your Communion, at the same time that they resolved by their practice to favour the Superstition of those who properly adored them?

122. Now that this was truly the Case, will appear,

First, From what I have before said, concerning the Holy CROSS; which is consider'd by you in a double Capacity, both as an Image and as a Relique; and is upon both accounts declared to be worthy of the very SAME ADORATION that Christ himself is; And I hope that is a proper Worship in the strictest sense. For thus St. Thomas argues; ‘ If we speak of Aquin. 3. Par. Qu. 25. Art. 4. the very Cross upon which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshipped with Divine Worship, both as it represents Christ, and as it touch'd the Members of Christ, and was sprinkled with his Blood. And for this Cause we both speak to the Cross and pray to it, as if it were Christ Crucified upon it.’Where note, (says Cajetane) ‘ That our speaking to the Cross is here produced Cajet. in Th. Ibid. as an Effect of the same Adoration with which Christ is adored.’ This I think is plain enough, and may serve to shew both with what sincerity you deny that properly speaking you do worship Reliques; or that 'tis not the Cross, but Christ Crucified upon it, to whom you speak in these Addresses; and which I have before vindicated against your Cavils.

123. Now this is the more to be consider'd, in that here you cannot say, as you do in the Case of Images, that the Figure and the Proto-type are in a manner united together, and that therefore the Image in its representative Nature is in some sort very Christ: The reason of this Worship being only a former Relation to our Saviour; because (says Aquinas) it heretofore Aquin. loc. cit. touch'd his Sacred Members, or was sprinkled with his Blood. Upon which single account Cardinal Capisucchi doubts not to affirm, Paragr. Appendix. p. 690. ‘ That the Wood of the Cross is so sanctified and consecrated by [Page 190] Christ, that every the least Particle of the Cross divided from the whole, and from the other parts do's remain Consecrated and Sanctified; and therefore that every the least piece of the Cross is to be adored with the very same supreme Divine Adoration that Christ himself is.’ So truly have you told us, that you do not allow Relicks a Worship or Adoration taken in its strictest Reply, p. 42. sense.

124. And what I have now said of the Cross, will in the next place no less hold for the Nails, Lance, and other Instruments of his Passion. Upon which account, as we have Vid. Card. Capisuch. l. c. seen that you address to the Cross, so you also do to the Lance; ‘ Hail O triumphant Iron! Happy Spear! Wound us with the Love of him that was pierced by thee.’ It is possible you may find out this too in the Corpus Poctarum; and by the same Figure that the Cross signifies at once both the Material Cross, and our Saviour that hung upon it, may make the Spear here signify at once both S. Longinus's Spear, and the Body of Christ that was wounded with it. And that you may see how much it will be worth the while to have such an Ecclesiastical Trope invented. I will add one Instance more of another Relique that has an Address made to it altogether as much wanting it as either of the foregoing. The Relique I mean is the Veronica, or Cloth which our Saviour Christ wiped his Face, and left the Impression of his Visage upon it. And to this you thus pray; ‘ Hail Holy Face of our Redeemer, printed upon a Cloth white as Snow; purge us from all Spot of Vice, and join us to the Company of the Blessed. Bring us to our Country, O happy Figure! there to see the pure Face of Christ.’ This is I suppose a plain Instance enough what kind of Honour you pay to Reliques. And that this Cloth might never want Votaries to worship it, your Pope John XXII, has vouchsafed no less than Ten thousand Days Indulgence to every repetition of this Prayer. I might add other Instances of this kind of Superstition: But I go on,

125. Thirdly, To another Instance of your giving religious Worship to Reliques; and that is your allow'd practice of swearing by them. Now that to swear by another, is to give that thing by which you swear the VVorship due to God only; both the nature of an Oath, which implies a calling of God to witness, [Page 191] and therebly acknowledges him to be the Inspector of the Heart, and the just Avenger of the falshood of it, and the Authority of Holy Scripture plainly declare; ‘ Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, says Moses, Deut. vi. 13. and shalt serve him only, and swear by his Name. How shall I be favourable unto thee? says God by the Prophet Jeremy, Chap. v. 9. Thy Children have forsaken me, and sworn by those that are no Gods.’ But now the Catechism of your late Synod of Trent allows you to swear In 2. praec. decal. p. 267. by the Cross, and Reliques of your Saints; and there is nothing more common among you than so to do. When the Emperor comes to Rome to take the Imperial Diadem at his Holiness's Hands, he thus swears: ‘I King of the Romans SWEAR—By the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and by the VVood of the Cross, and by these Reliques of the Saints, &c.’ In which we find the Holy Trinity join'd in the same rank with the Wood of the Cross, and with the Reliques of the Saints.

126. Nor am I here concern'd in those Pretences that are sometimes brought to excuse this, viz. that you hereby intend no more than to swear by God, seeing it is plain that you do it at once both by God and Them. And again; That you do not believe that thereby any strength is added to the Oath which it would not otherwise have; for allowing this, yet still you do swear by them; and if there be neither any reason for it, nor benefit in it, you are never the less culpable, but the more inexcusably so upon this account. But indeed you do expect a benefit by this swearing; and suppose that the Saints do hereby become Sureties with God to you to see the Oath fulfill'd, and to punish the Perjury if it be not. And so you not only swear by the Reliques as well as by God, but ascribe all the reason and design of an Oath to the Saints in common with God. I will illustrate this in one of your own Instances, which will clear this Matter to us. It happen'd that one of your Saintesses, S. Guria, was married to a Goth, a Souldier in the Roman Army, that was sent to deliver the City Edessa from the Hunns. The Siege being raised, and the Army recall'd, the Souldier required his Wife to go home with him. Her Mother could not bear this; but being forced to comply, she brings the Souldier and her Daughter to an Altar, under which were buried the Bodies of three Saints. And being there, she thus spake to him; ‘ I will not give thee my Daughter, unless laying thy hand upon this [Page 192] Tomb, in which are contain'd the Reliques of the Holy Martyrs of Christ, thou shalt swear that thou wilt treat my Daughter well.’ This he readily did: But yet soon after, without any regard to his Oath, he used her very ill. It were too long to recount all the Circumstances of her Misfortunes, or her miraculous deliverance out of them, by the aid of these Holy Martyrs. I observe only as to my present purpose, that being reduced to the utmost degree of despair, the Saint now, as her last refuge, puts the Holy Martyrs in mind of her Husband's swearing by their Reliques, and how they were thereby become SURETIES to her Mother for her good Entertainment, and ought not to suffer her to be thus abused. Immediately, the Martyrs spoke to her, and told her, that as FAITHFUL SURETIES they would deliver her: and straightway she was miraculously brought out of a Coffin under Ground (for her Husband had buried her alive) to the very place where their Bodies lay, and where her Husband had sworn to her. And then they once more spoke to her to this effect: ‘ We have now satisfied our SURETISHIP, Go to thy Mother.’ It was not very long after this, that the War breaking out again, the same Souldier came back to Edessa, where he was surprised to find his Wife alive; and being prosecuted for the Injuries he had done her, and for the Perjury he had committed, was condemn'd to be hang'd for it. But,

127. Fourthly, And to conclude this Point. I will to these add those Superstitions which are your common practice; and of which every one that has lived any time among you, must needs have been Eye-Witnesses. Such are your running to visit the Shrines of your Saints upon their Solemn Festivals; which with what devotion you do it, all Paris on the 3d of January every Year is sufficiently sensible. Your carrying them in Procession is indeed very remarkable; and of which I shall leave those who have ever known a dry time in the City I last mention'd, to consider what they have then seen. But because I must not expect to be credited by some Men in any thing that can possibly be deny'd; I will leave these Matters of Fact to those who have been Spectators of them: and for the satisfaction of those who have not, will give a short extract of the [Page 193] form of Procession, with which you bring the Reliques of your Saints into a New Church.

128. First the Bishop with his Clergy leads the Procession to Pontific. Roman. de Benedictione Ecclesiae, p. 119, &c. the place where the RELIQUES were lodged the Night before; When they are come to it, they sing this Anthem, Move your selves, O ye Saints of God from your Mansions, and hasten to the place which is prepared for you. Then the Bishop uncovering his Head before the RELIQUES prays thus. Grant unto us, O Lord, we beseech thee, that we may worthily touch the Members of thy Saints that are more especially dedicated unto thee.

Then the Incense being prepared with the Cross, and lighted Candles leading the way, and follow'd by the Clergy, singing their Anthems, the Priests appointed take up the Carriage, and one going by them all the way incenses the Reliques. The Bishop and Clergy singing, among others, this Anthem, Rise up ye Saints of God from your Habitations; SANCTIFY the PLACES; BLESS the PEOPLE, and KEEP us sinful Men in PEACE.— Walk O ye Saints of God; Enter into the City of the Lord, for a Church is built unto you, where the People may adore the Majesty of God.

Being come to the Door of the Church, they make a stop whilst some other Ceremonies are performed. Then the Bishop crosses the Door with Holy Chrism, and bids it be Blessed, and Sanctified, and Consecrated, and Consign'd, and Commended, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And so they carry in the Reliques, the Bishop and Clergy singing as before.

This is the Order of that Solemnity. What Name it deserves I shall leave it to others to say. But sure I am, that all this is somewhat more than such an Honour and Respect which you pretend is all that you give to them. Let us see,

IIdly, Whether you do not seek to these Sacred Monuments for Help and Assistance?

129. It is indeed a hard Case that we must be forced now to prove that which is a known practice of daily experience amongst you. The Council of Trent it self confesses, ‘ That by [Page 194] them many Benefits are bestow'd by God upon Men;’ and then I am confident it will not be thought at all improbable, that it should encourage Men to recur to them for their help. But here you have a notable evasion. ‘You do not deny but that Full Answ. pag. 6. Men go to these Sacred Monuments and Reliques to receive Benefit; but this you say will not justify my Translation unless when they come there they pray to the Reliques, instead of desiring the Saints, whose they are to pray for them.’ And to make this look like a Rational Answer, you change the Terms of the Question; which was not (as you falsly insinuate) whether the Council of Trent directs you to Full Answ. Ibid. IMPLORE the Aid of the Monuments or Sacred Reliques; But whether it do's not condemn those who say that for the See Expos. p. 17. Defence, pag. 25. OBTAINING of THEIR Help the Memories of the Saints are in vain frequented. And though they do not PRAY to the Reliques; yet if for the OBTAINING their Help your People do recur to them, which you cannot deny but that they do, the presumption offer'd in vindication of my rendring that Passage of your Council is still good; and you have shewn nothing but your own falseness in this new Answer to it. If it were necessary to prove that you do pray to Reliques, you may see by what I have already offer'd, that even so you would not have secured your self from having made your self a false Translation, where you charge me with One. But you have chosen your Jury, and I accept of it; and only for their better direction, I must desire them to look the words in the Council it self, and not in your Transcript of them; who have purposely omitted all the Antecedent to which the EORUM refers; that so they might be sure to see no more than what made for your Purpose. Should I have done this, I should have found all the variety of hard words muster'd up against me, Mutilation, Falsification, False Imposition, wilful Prevarication, wilful Mistake, unsincere Trick, &c. that either your Margin could have contain'd, or your Malice have invented; And the Truth is, I should have deserved them. But I shall leave this also to your Jury to judg of: And for all your good assurance, I dare venture all my little Learning, against all your Little, that the Verdict is brought in against you; and that you are concluded in this Matter [Page 195] to have been either very blind, Aut illud quod dicere nolo.

130. For what concerns the thing it self; Whether you do not seek to the Monuments of the Saints for the obtaining the Help of their Reliques; this is what will need no proof to those who are but never so little acquainted with your Superstition: And have seen with what Zeal you touch your Beads and Psalters at the very Shrines in which they ae contain'd, to sanctify them thereby. How upon all occasions they are brought forth by you: To cure your Sickness; to preserve you from Tempests at Land, and in Storms at Sea; but especially to drive away Evil Spirits, for which they are the most beneficial. The Messieurs du Port Royal, have given us a Reponse à un Ecrit publié sur les Miracles de la Ste Espine. p. 15. Pag. 18, 22. whole Volume of the Miracles wrought by the Holy Thorn. There you may see how Sister Margaret, one of the Nuns, being ill of the Palsy, was carried to ADORE the Holy Thorn. How another being sick, recurr'd to it for its help, and found it too; having no sooner ADORED the Holy Thorn, and kissed it, but she was well of her Infirmity. Infinite Examples of the like kind might be produced, but I shall content my self to shew what Opinion you have of the Power of your Reliques, from the very Prayer that Pontific. Ro [...] pag. 164, 165. you make at the blessing of those little Vessels in which they are put.

‘ We most humbly beseech thee Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless these Vessels that are prepared for the Honour of thy Saints through the Intercession of the same Saints: That all those who shall venerate their Merits, and humbly embrace their Reliques [may be defended] against the Devil and his Angels, against Thunder, Lightning and Tempest; against the Corruption of the Air, and the Plagues of Men and of Beasts; against Thieves and Robbers, and Invasions of Men, against evil Beasts, and against all the several kinds of Serpents and creeping things, and against the wicked Devices of evil Men.’

[Page 196] Here I hope are benefits enough to invite a Man to seek to them, and if they can help in all these Cases, we need not doubt but they shall have Votaries enough to recur to them for it.

131. But that which is most admirable is, that in all these Cases, false Reliques are every jot as good as true ones; and which makes somewhat for the Opinion of Vasquez, that provided a Man do's but think 'tis the Relique of a Saint, he may securely worship it, tho it may be 'tis no such thing. We have before heard what mighty Cures were wrought at the Monument of the famous Bishop and Martyr VIARUM CURANDARUM: And whether the Council of Trent prescribed it See above [...]. 3. or no, Ressendius assures us, all the Country round about did come to the Monument of this pretended Saint, for the obtaining Help and Assistance, and fancied at least that they found it too. Tho it afterwards appear'd that 'twas an old Heathen Inscription, and those words far enough from signifying either the Name of a Man, or the Character of a Bishop. Many have been the Cheats of the like kind, and which ought very much to lessen the Credit of those Miracles that you pretend are wrought in your Church: But I shall finish all with one so much the more to be considered, in that it was the happy occasion of undeceiving a very great Person, and disposed him to receive that Truth he afterwards embraced: And may it please God, that the recital I shall here make of it, may move those who are yet in Captivity to these Superstitions to deliver themselves from the like Impositions.

132. Prince Christopher, of the Family of the Dukes of Radzecil, a Prince much addicted to the Superstitions of your Church, having been in great Piety at Rome to kiss his Holiness's Drelincourt Response à M. le Landgrave Ernest. p. 348. §. lx. Feet; the Pope at his departure presented him with a Box of Reliques, which at his return soon became very famous in all that Country. Some Months had hardly pass'd when certain Monks came to him to acquaint him that there was a D. Man possess'd of the Devil, upon whom they had in vain try'd all their Conjurations, and therefore they humbly intreated his Highness that for his relief, he would be pleased to lend them his Reliques which he had brought from Rome. The Prince readily complied with their desires, and the Box was with great Solemnity carried to the Church, and being applied to the Body [Page 197] of him that was possess'd, the Devil presently went out with the Grimaces and Gestures usual on such occasions. All the beholders cry'd out, A Miracle! and the Prince himself lifted up his Hands and Eyes to Heaven, and blessed God who had favour'd him with such a Holy and powerful Treasure.

It happen'd not long after that the Prince relating what he had seen, and magnifying very much the Virtue of his Reliques: One of his Gentlemen began to smile, and show by his Actions how little Credit he gave to it. At which the Prince being moved, his Servant (after many promises of Forgiveness) ingenuously told him, that in their return from Rome he had unhappily lost the Box of Reliques, but for fear of being exposed to his Anger, had caused another to be made as like as might be to the true one, which he had filled with all the little Bones, and other Trinkets that he could meet with, and that this was the Box that his Monks made him believe did work such Miracles.

The Prince the next Morning sent for the Fathers, and enquired of them if they knew of any Demoniaque that had need of his Reliques: They soon found one to act his part in this Farce; and the Prince caused him to be exorcised in his presence. But when all they could do would not prevail, the Devil kept his Possession, he commanded the Monks to withdraw, and delivered over the Man to another kind of Exorcists, some Tartars that belonged to his Stable, to be well lash'd till he should confess the Cheat. The Demoniaque thought to have carried it off by horrible Gestures and Grimaces, but the Tartars understood none of those Tricks, but by laying on their Blows in good earnest quickly moved the Devil, without the help of either Hard Names, Holy Water, or Reliques, to confess the truth, and beg Pardon of the Prince.

As soon as Morning was come, the Prince sent again for the Monks (who suspected nothing of what had pass'd) and brings their Man before them, who threw himself at the Princes Feet, and confess'd that he was not possess'd with the Devil, nor ever had been in his Life. The Monks at first made light of it, and told the Prince it was an Artifice of the Devil who spoke through the Mouth of that Man. But the Prince calling for his Tartars to exorcise another Devil, the Father of LIES, out [Page 198] of them too, they began presently to relent, and confess'd the Cheat, but told him they did it with a good Intention to stop the Course of Heresy in that Country.

Upon this he dismiss'd them, but from that time began seriously to apply himself to read the Holy Scriptures, telling them that he would no longer trust his Salvation to Men who defended their Religion by such pious Frauds, so they called them, but which were indeed Diabolical Inventions. And in a short time after, both himself and his whole House made open Profession of the Reformed Religion. Anno 1564.

And thus much be said in Answer to your IVth Article.

FINIS.

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell

A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto.

A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto.

An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church]. Quarto.

A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 4 ^o.

A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 8 ^o.

A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented: being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented]; and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, Quarto.

The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto.

The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries. 24 ^o.

An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.

A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. 4 ^o.

Mr. Chillingworth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England, with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's, never before Printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Tradition, &c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Confutation of the said Motives.

An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME, touching Transubstantiation. Wherein is made appear, That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH, This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4 ^o.

The Protestant's Companion: Or an Impartial Survey, and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established, with the main Doctrines of Popery. Wherein is shewed, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years, and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves. 4 ^o.

A Sermon preached upon St. Peter's day: By a Divine of the Church of England. Printed with some Enlargements.

The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 3. Vers. 15. 4 ^o.

The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted, 4 ^o.

A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, [Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs.] 4 ^o.

An Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, [The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative, viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws.] 4 ^o. [Page] A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host; in Answer to the Two Discourses lately Printed at Oxford on this Subject: To which is perfixed a Large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument.

Two Discourses; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.

The Fifteen Notes of the Church, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin, examined and confuted. 4 ^o. With a Table of the Contents.

Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which she died. By W. W. M. A. 12 ^o.

The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in opposition to a late Book, Intituled, An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome.

A PRIVATE PRAYER to be used in Difficult Times.

A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Sept. 29, 1687, between A. Pulton, Jesuit, and Tho. Tenison, D. D. as also of that which led to it, and followed after it. 4 ^o.

The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the Aspersions of A. Pulton, Jesuit, Schoolmaster in the Savoy; together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith.

A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries; and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven. 4 ^o.

Six Conferences concerning the Encharist, wherein is shewed, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion.

A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church. In Three Parts. With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.

The Pamphlet entituled, Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass, considered, in its False Reasonings and Quotations. There are added, by way of Preface, two further Answers, the First, to the Defender of the Speculum; the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences.

A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Mons. de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. The FIRST PART. In which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition, is fully Vindicated; the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted; and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in Point of Image-worship, more particularly considered. 4 ^o.

The Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome. By the Author of the [Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist.] 4 ^o.

Mr. Pulton Considered in his Sincerity, Reasonings, Authorities: Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto Published in his True Account; his True and full Account of a Conference, &c. His Remarks; and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T's Rule of Faith. By Tho. Tenison, D. D.

A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Antient Church relating to the Eucharist, wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation. Being a sufficient Confutation of CONSENSUS VETERUM, NUBES TESTIUM, and other Late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the Contrary. 4 ^o.

An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy; With a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Answer, shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Imprimatur. …

Imprimatur.

Ex Aed. Lamb. Feb. 14. 1686.

Guil. Needham RR ^mo in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. à Sacris Domest.

A COLLECTION OF SEVERAL DISCOURSES AGAINST POPERY.

By WILLIAM WAKE, Preacher to the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard. MDCLXXXVIII.

A TABLE OF The DISCOURSES contained in this COLLECTION.

I. AN Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c. in Answer to the Bishop of MEAUX.
II. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the Exceptions of Monsr. de MEAUX and his VINDICATOR.
III. A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsr. de MEAUX and his VINDICATOR.
- PART I.
- PART II.
- PART III.
[Page] IV. A Discourse of the HOLY EUCHARIST, in the two great Points of the REAL PRESENCE, and of the ADORATION OF THE HOST.
V. An Historical Account of the Doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE profess'd in the Church of England, &c.
VI. Two Discourses of PURGATORY, and PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
VII. A Discourse of the Nature of IDOLATRY, in Answer to the Bishop of Oxon's Reasons for Abrogating the TEST.
VIII. The Present State of the Controversy between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome.
IX. A Continuation of the Present State of the Controversy, &c.
Other Treatises written by the same Author.
X. A Sermon on the xxxth of January, Preach'd at PARIS, Anno 1684/5
XI. Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a Young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which She died.

A DISCOURSE OF THE Holy Eucharist, With particular Reference To the two GREAT POINTS OF THE REAL PRESENCE, AND The Adoration of the HOST.

A DISCOURSE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, IN THE TWO GREAT POINTS OF THE Real Presence AND THE Adoration of the Host.

IN ANSWER to the TWO DISCOURSES lately Printed at OXFORD on This SUBJECT.

To which is prefixed A Large HISTORICAL PREFACE relating to the same ARGUMENT.

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

THE PREFACE.

THE nature of the Holy Eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon, and so fully explain'd in our own and other Languages, that it may well be thought a very needless undertaking for any one to trouble the World with any farther Reflections upon it. For not to mention now those Eminent Men who have heretofore labour'd in this work, nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined; What can be said more evidently to shew the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, than has been done in the late excellent Discourse against Transubstantiation? It is but a very little time since the Adoration of the Host has been shewn not only to be a novel invention, contrary to the practice of all Antiquity, but the danger of it evidently demonstrated, notwithstanding whatever pretences can be made of a good intention to excuse them from the charge and danger of Idolatry, who continue the practice of it. And both these not only still remain unanswer'd; but if we may be allow'd to judge either [Page ii] by their own strength, or by our Adversaries silence, are truly and indeed unanswerable.

It is not therefore out of any the least Opinion that any thing more need be said to confirm our cause, much less that I esteem my self able to undertake it with the same success that those other Champions of our Faith have done it, that I venture these Discourses to a publick view. But since our Adversaries still continue, without taking notice of any of these things, to cry up their Great Diana no less than if she had never at all been shewn to be but an Idol, I thought it might not be amiss to revive our Instances against it: And that we ought not to appear less sollicitous by a frequent repetition of our Reasons, to keep men in the Truth, than others are by a continual insisting upon their so often baffled Sophistry, to lead them into Error.

'Twas an ingenious Apology that Seneca once made, for his often repeating the same things; ‘That he did but inculcate over and over the same Counsels, to those that over and over committed the same faults:’ And I remember an antient Father has left it as his Opinion, that it was useful for the same truths to be vindicated by many, ‘because that one Man's Writings might possibly chance to come where the others did not; and what was less fully or clearly explain'd by one, might be supplied and enlarged by the other.’ And a greater than either of these, S. Paul, has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this sollicitude; Phil. 3. 1. ‘To write the same things to you, to me (says he) is not grievous, but for you it is safe.’

Indeed I think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking, it ought to be rather to Apologize for a [Page iii] far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those Men, who in these Disputes concerning the Holy Sacrament, have most evidently shewn that to be true of Christians, which was once said of the antient Philosophers, That there can be nothing so absurd which some Men will not adventure to maintain.

In most of our other Controversies with those of the Church of Rome, we shew them to be Erroneous; in this they are Extravagant; And as an eminent Pen has very justly express'd it, ‘The business Discourse against Transubstantiation, Pag. 2. of Transubstantiation is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the sense and reason of mankind.’

The truth is, as the same Person goes on, ‘It is a Ibid. most self-evident falshood: and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true, than Transubstantiation is evidently false.’ And if such things as these must be disputed, and this Evidence, ‘That what we see and handle, and taste to be Bread is Bread, and not the Body of a Man; and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine, and not Blood, may not pass for sufficient without any farther Proof, I cannot discern why any Man that hath but confidence enough to do so, may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is, or affirm it to be what all the World sees it is not, and this without all possibility of being further confuted.’

[Page iv] But yet since it has pleased God so far to give over some Men to a spirit of delusion, as not only seriously to believe this themselves, but also vashly to damn all those that cannot believe it with them, we ought as well for the security of those who have not yet abandoned their own sense and reason, in compliance only with others who in this matter profess to have laid aside theirs; as in charity to such deluded Persons as are unhappily led away with these Errors, to shew them their unreasonableness: To convince them that Christianity is a wise and rational Religion: that 'tis a mistaken Piety to suppose that Men ought to believe Contradictions; or that their Faith is ever the more perfect, because the Object of it is impossible: That our Senses ought to be trusted in judging aright of their proper Object; that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external Evidence we have for our Religion, which is founded upon their judgment; or if that will be more considerable, is to take away all the grounds that even themselves can pretend to, wherefore they should disbelieve them in favour of Transubstantiation.

And this I perswade my self I have in the following Discourse sufficiently shewn, and I shall not need to repeat it again here. For the words themselves, which are the grounds of this great Error, I have taken that Method which seemed to me the most proper to find out the true meaning of them; and, as far as the nature of the Enquiry would permit, have endeavour'd to render it plain and intelligible even to the meanest Capacity. And I have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dissatisfied with the design, what ever they may be with [Page v] the performance; it being from such that I have taken the greatest part of my Reflections, and in which I pretend to little of my own besides the care of putting together here, what I had observed scattered up and down in parts elsewhere.

It was so much the more fit at this time to insist upon this manner of arguing, in that a late disturber of the Fathers, the better to shew the Antiquity of his new Religion, has pretended to search no less than into the secrets of the Jewish Cabala after it, and to have found out Transubstantiation there amongst the rest of the Rabbinical Follies: Now Consensus Veterum p. 21, &c. however the very name of Galatinus be sufficient to Learned Men to make them esteem his Judgment in his Jewish to be much the same as in his Christian Antiquity which follows after, in those eminent pieces of S. Peter' s and S. Matthew' s Liturgies, Ibid. p. 27. S. Andrew' s work of the Passion of our Lord; Dionysius' s Ecclesiast. Hierarch. &c. yet because such stuff as this may serve to amuse those who are not acquainted with the emptiness of it, I was so much the rather inclined to shew what the true notions of the Jewish Rites would furnish us with to overthrow their pretences; and that the Rabbins Visions are of as little moment to confirm this conceit as their own Miracles.

But whatever those of the other Communion shall please to judge of my Arguments, yet at least the Opinions of those eminent Men of their own Church may certainly deserve to be consider'd by them, who have freely declared that there is not in Scripture any evident proof of Transubstantiation; nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other Authority to believe it, [Page vi] that they have lived and died in their Church without ever embracing of it.

And of this the late Author of the Traitté a [...]un Autheur de la Communion Romaine touchant la Transubstantiation. Lond. 1686. Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, and which is just now set forth in our own Language, may be an eminent instance, being a Person at this day living in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and in no little Esteem among all that know Him. It is not fit to give any more particular character of Him at this time. They who shall please to peruse his Book, will find enough in it to speak in his Advantage; and if they have but any tolerable disposition to receive the truth, will clearly see, that this point of Transubstantiation was the production of a blind and barbarous Age; unknown in the Church for above one thousand Years, and never own'd by the greatest Men in any Ages since. The truth is, if we enquire precisely into this business of Transubstantiation, we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a Clayster by an unwary Monk about the beginning of the About 636 or 640. See Blondel de l'Eucharistie. c. 14. p. 365. 7th Century: carried on by a Cabal of Men, assembled under the name of a 2. Concil. Nic. General Council to introduce the worship of Images into the Church, Ann. 787. Blondel. l. [...]. cap. 18. pag. 426. formed into a better shape by another Paschasius Radbertus. Monk Ann. 818. and He too opposed by almost all the Learned Men of his Age; and at last confirmed by a See the Treatise of Transubstantiation; Hist. of the 9th Age. Pope of whom their own Authors have left us but a very indifferent Innocent. III. Super omnes mortales ambitiosus & superbus, pecuniaeque sititor insatiabilis, & ad omnia scelera pro praemiis datis vel promissis cereus & proclivis. Matt. Paris. character; and in a Concil. La [...]an. IV. Can. 3. de Haereticis. Synod of which I shall observe only this, that it gave the Pope the power of unmaking Kings, as well as the Priests that of making their God.

[Page vii] But indeed I think we ought not to charge the Council with either of these Attempts; since, contrary to the manner of proceeding in such Assemblies, received in all Ages, nothing was either judged or debated by the Synod: His omnibus congregatis i [...] suo loco presato, & juxta morem Conciliorum generalium in suis Ordinibus singulis collocatis, facto. capitula LXX See this conprius ab ipso Papâ exhortationis sermone, recitata sunt in plen [...] Concilio quae aliis placibilia, aliis videbantur onerosa. Matt. Paris. ad Ann. 1215. firmed by Mons [...]eur du Pin. Dissert. VII. Paris. 4 ^o 1686. pag. 572, 573. The Pope only himself formed the Articles, digested them into Canons, and so read them to the Fathers; some of which, their own Historian tells us, approved them, others did not, but however all were forced to be contented with them.

Such was the first rise of this new Doctrine; 1215 years after Christ. But still the most learned Men of that and the following Ages doubted not to dissent from it. See 3. q. 75. Art. 6. Utrum factâ consecratione remaneat in Hoc Sacramento formá substantialis Panis? Aquinas who wrote about 50 years after this definition, speaks of some, who thought the substantial form of the Bread still to remain after Consecration: In. 4. d. 11. q. 9. Quid ergo dicendum de conversione substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi? Salvo meliori judicio, potest aestimari, quod SI in isto Sacramento fiat Conversio substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi, quod ipsa fit per Hoc quod corruptâ formâ Panis materia ejus sit sub formâ Corporis Christi Durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the Matter of the Elements, whatever became of the form; and that 'twas Id. in 4. dist. 11. q. 4. Art. 14. rashness to say that Christ's Body could be there no otherwise than by Transubstantiation: To which Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Scotus also subscribed, that the truth of the Eucharist might be saved without Transubstantiation, Id. 4. sent. q. 11. q. 3. and that in plain terms ours was the easier, and to all appearance the truer interpretation of Christ's words; in which Ockam in 4. q. 6. Ockam and Alliaco in 4. q. 6. art. 2. d'Alliaco concurr'd with him. Contr. capt. Babyl. cap. 10. Fisher confess'd that there was [Page viii] nothing to prove the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood in their Mass: Ferus in Matt. 26. Cum certum sit ibi esse Corpus Christi, quid opus est disputare num Panis substantia maneat, vel non? Ferus would not have it inquired into, How Christ's Body is there; and Lib. 1. de Eucharistiâ: See the Treatise of Transubstantiation, 1. part. Tonstall thought it were better to leave Men to their Liberty of belief in it. Those who in respect to their Churches definition did accept it, yet freely declared that Vid. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767, 768. Suarez in 3. part. D. Th. vol. 3. disp. 50. p. 593, 594. Cajetan. in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. Scotus, l. c. 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. Uid. etiam Ockam, Alliac. locsupr. cit. before this Council it was no matter of Faith, nor but for its decision would have been now; That the Ancients did not believe it; that the Scripture does not express it; in short, that the interpretation which we give is altogether as agreeable to the words of Christ, and in truth free from infinite inconveniences with which the other abounds. All which plainly enough shews that not only the late private ‘Heretical Spirit, whose imperious sentiments, and private Glosses, and contradictory interpretations (as a late Consensus Veterum Pag. 27. Author has elegantly expressed it) like the victorious Rabble of the Fishermen of Naples riding in triumph, and trampling under foot Ecclesiastical Traditions, Decrees, and Constitutions, Ancient Fathers, Ancient Liturgies, the whole Church of Christ, but especially those words of his, This is my Body,’ has opposed this Doctrine; but even those who are to be supposed to have had the greatest reverence for all these, their own Masters and Doctors, found it difficult to embrace so Absurd and Contradictory a Belief.

And here then let me beseech those into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall, seriously to consider this matter, and whether the sole Authority of such a Pope as Innocent III, whose actions towards one of our own Kings, and in favour of that very ill Man Dominick and his Inquisition, were K. John. [Page ix] there nothing else remaining of his Life, might be sufficient to render him detestable to all good Men, ought to be of so great an Authority with us, as to engage us to give up our senses and our reason; nay and even Scripture and Antiquity it self, in obedience to his arbitrary and unwarrantable Definition.

It is I suppose sufficiently evident from what has been before observed, how little assurance their own Authors had, for all the definition of the Council of Lateran, of this Doctrine. I shall not need to say what debates arose among the Divines of the Council of Trent about it. And though since its determination there, Men have not dared so openly to speak their Minds concerning it as before, yet we are not to imagine that they are therefore ever the more convinced of its Truth.

I will not deny but that very great numbers in the Roman Communion, by a profound ignorance and a blind obedience, the two great Gospel perfections with some men, disposed to swallow any thing that the Church shall think fit to require of them, may sincerely profess the belief of this Doctrine; because they have either never at all considered it, or it may be are not capable of comprehending the impossibility of it. Nor shall I be so uncharitable as to suppose that all, even of the learned amongst them, do wilfully profess and act in this matter, against what they believe and know to be true. I will rather perswade my self that some motives or prejudices which I am not able to comprehend, do really blind their eyes, and make them stumble in the brightness of a mid-day light. But yet that all those, who nevertheless continue to live in the external Communion of the Church of Rome, are not thus [Page x] sincere in the belief of it, is what I think I may with out uncharitableness affirm; and because it will be a matter of great importance to make this appear, especially to those of that Perswasion; I will beg leave to offer such proofs of it as have come to my knowledge, in some of the most eminent Persons of these last Ages, and to which I doubt not but others, better acquainted with these secrets than I can pretend to be, might be able to add many more Examples.

And the first that I shall mention is the famous Petri Picherelli Expositio Verborum institutionis Coenae Domini. Lugd. Batav. 1629. 12 ^o. Picherellus, of whom the testimonies prefix'd to his Works speak so advantagiously, that I shall not need say any thing of the esteem which the learned World had of him. Hoc est Corpus meum, i. e. Hic panis fractus est Corpus meum. pag. 10. Hoc est Corpus meum, i. e. Panis quem frangimus est communio cum Corpore Christi. pag. 14.— and pag. 27. Expounding Gratian. dist. 2. Can. Non Hoc Corpus, Ipsum Corpus invisibiliter, de vero & germano Corpore in Coelis agente intelligitur: Non ipsum visibiliter de Corpore & sanguine Sacramentalibus, Pane & Vino; Corporis Christi & sanguinis symbolis: Quae rei quam significant nomen per supradictam metonymiam mutuantur. I must transcribe his whole Treatise should I insist on all he has delivered repugnant to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Suffice it to observe that in his Exposition of the words of Institution, This is my Body, He gives this plain interpretation of them, This Bread is my Body which is both freely allowed by the Papists themselves to be inconsistent with their belief as to this matter; and which he largely shews not only to be his own, but to have been the constant Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers in this point.

But in this it may be there is not so much ground for our admiration, that one who was not very fond of any of the Errors of that Church, should openly dissent from her in this: It will more be wondred that a person so eminent amongst them as Cardinal du Perron, and that has written so much in defence [Page xi] of Transubstantiation, should nevertheless all the while Himself believe nothing of it. And yet this we are assured he freely confess'd to some of his Friends not long before hisdeath: That he thought the Doctrine to be Monstrous; that He had done his endeavour to colour it over the best He could in his Books; but that in short he had undertaken an ill cause, and which was not to be maintain'd. But I will set down the relation as I find it in Monsieur Drelincourt' s Reponse à la Lettre de Monsig. le Prince Ernest aus cinq Ministres de Paris, &c. Geneve 1664. Answer to the Landgrave of Hesse; and who would not have presum'd to have offer'd a relation so considerable, and to a person of such Quality, had he at all fear'd that he could have been disproved in it. ‘ Votre Altesse me croira s'il luy plait. Mals je luy puis dire avectoute sincerité & verité, que si le desunt Cardinal du Perron luy a persuadé la Transubstantiation, il luy a persuadé ce qu'il n'a pû se persuader à soymème, & qu'il [...]'a nullement cru. Car je scay par des Gens d' Honneur & dignes de foy, qui l'avoient apris de temoins oculaires, que des Amis de cet illustre & scavant Cardinal, qui l'estoient allé visiter lors qu'il estoit languissant en son lit, & malade de la maladie dont il est mort, le prierent de leur dire franchement ce qu'il croyoit de la Transubstantiation, & qu'il repondit, qu'il la tenoit pour un Monstre. Et comme ils luy demanderent, comment donc il en avoit écrit si amplement & si doctement; il repliqua, qu'il avoit deployé toutes les Adresses de son Esprit pour colourer cet abus, & pour le rendre plausibile; & qu'il avoit fait comme ceux qui font tous leurs Efforts pour defendre une mauvaise Cause. Your Highness (says He) may believe me if you please: But I can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late Cardinal du Perron has convinced you of the Truth of Transubstantiation, he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself, nor did he ever believe it. For I have been informed by certain Persons of Honour, and that are in all respects worthy of belief, and who had it from those that were eye witnesses; That some friends of that Illustrious and Learned Cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his Bed, and ill of that distemper of which he died, desired him to tell them freely, what he thought of Transubstantiation: To whom he answer'd, That 'twas a MONSTER. And when they farther ask'd him, How then he had written [Page xii] so copiously and learnedly about it? He replied, That he had done the utmost that his Wit and Parts hadenabled him, to COLOUR OVER THIS ABUSE and RENDER IT PLAUSIBLE; But that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ILL CAUSE.’ And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt. I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learnt of this matter, but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal, after all his Voluminous Writings, as to this Doctrine was; unless some future Obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it.

To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own Country: Father Barnes the Benedictine, who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversie between Catholico-Romano-Pacificus Oxon. 1680. Pag. 90. Assertio Transubstantiationis se [...] mutationis substantialis panis, licet sit Opinio communior, non tamen est fides Ecclesiae. Et Scripturae & Patres docentes [...], sufficienter exponi poss [...]nt de admirand [...] & supernaturali mutatione Panis per Praesentiam Corporis Christi ei accedentem, fine substantialis Panis desitione. Et. P. 95. [...] illam in Augustissimo Sacramento factam, plerique graves & antiqui Scriptoresita explicant, ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis, [...]d per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae Corporis Christi in substantiam Panis. V. pl. us and the Papists, expresly declares, ‘That the Assertion of Transubstantiation, or of the substantial change of the Bread, though it be indeed the more common Opinion, is yet no part of the Churches Faith: And that the Scripture and Fathers, when they speak of a [...] may be sufficiently Expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the Bread, by the presence of Christ's Body added to it, without the departure of the substance of the Bread it self.’

It appears by these words how little this Monk thought Transubstantiation an Article of Faith. But a greater than he, and who not only did not esteem it [Page xiii] necessary for Others, to receive it, but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself, is the Illustrious Monsieut de Marca, late Archbishop of Paris, and Illustriss. at (que) Reverend. P. de Marca Parisiens. Archiep. Dissertationes Pos [...]humae. De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento dissertatio, in fine. well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence. His Treatise of the Eucharist was publish'd with Authority, by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracks which he had received from the Archbishops own hands. In the close of that Treatise he thus delivers his Opinion: ‘ Species Panis est Essentiâ & Naturâ distincta á Corpore Christi sibi adjuncto, licet ratio Eucharistiae id exigat, ut substantia Panis interior conversa suerit in illud Corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat. Caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin Panis, qui videtur, [id est, Accidentia] suam Naturam, Extantiam & Essentiam [SIVE SUBSTANTIAM] retineat, & naturae verae Proprietates, inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas—. Unde consequitur rectè observatum à Gelasio Sacramenta Corporis & Sanguinis Christi divinam rem esse, quia Panis & Vinum in divinam transeunt su [...]stantiam, S. spiritu perficiente, nempe in Corpus Christi spiritale: sed ex alia parte non definere substantiam & naturam Panis & Vini, sed ea permanere, in suae proprietate Naturae. Quoniam scil. postquam Panis in divinam substantiam transivit, [NON INTERIIT INTEGRA PANIS NATURA QUAM SUBSTANTIAM QUOQUE VOCAT, NEC DESIVIT: SED] in suae proprietate Naturae permansit ad alendum Corpus idonea, quod est praecipuum con [...]ecti panis munus. Note, That in the Paris Edition; they have put in those words printed in the Black Letter (id est, Accidentia) and omitted those that I have caused to be set in Capitals: But in the Original leaf, which I have left in S. Martin's Library to be seen by any that pleases, and which was cut out for the sake of this passage, it stands as I have said: and as it is truly represented in the Holland Edition. The species of the Bread is in its Essence and Nature distinct from the Body of Christ adjoyn'd to it, although the reason of the Eucharist requires that the inward substance of the Bread should be converted into that Body after a manner that exceeds all Imagination. But yet this change hinders not but that the BREAD which is seen still RETAINS its own NATURE, BEING, and ESSENCE, or SUBSTANCE, together with the proprieties of its true Nature, among which one is the faculty of nourishing our Bodies, &c. Whence it follows that it was rightly observ'd by Gelasius, that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was a Divine thing, because the Bread and Wine being perfected by [Page xiv] the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine substance, viz. the spiritual Body of Christ; but on the other side, that the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of the BREAD and WINE do not cease to be, but continue still in the propriety of their own Nature.’

And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of Baluze 2 Lettre à Monsieur le Presid. Marca. S'il est vray, ce qu [...] j'ay de la peine à croire, que seu Monsigneur ait composé les Traittez que M. Faget a fait imprimer sous son nom, dont il se vante dans la Preface & dans la Vie d'avoir les Originaux escrits de la main de l'Auteur, nous ne scaurions empescher que seu Monsigneur ne passe dans l'Esprit de beaucoup de Gens pour HERETIQUE, a [...] sujet de l'Eucharistie. Monsieur Baluze's Animadversion easily have concluded, ‘That if this be indeed the work of Monsieur de Marca, 'twill be impossible to hinder him from passing with many Persons for a HERETICK as to the point of the Eucharist. ’ But before I quit this Instance, I cannot but observe with reference to this Treatise, what care the Romanists take to hinder the sentiments of learned Men in this Point from coming to a publick knowledge: And which might give us some cause to suspect, that their great concern is not so much whether they do indeed believe Transubstantiation themselves, as not to let the World know that they do not.

This has been heretofore shewn in another Treatise with reference to S. Chrysostom; whose Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. Appendix, p. 127. n. v. Epistle to Caesarius some of the Sorbonne Doctors caused most shamefully to be out out of Monsieur Bigot's Edition of Palladius, because it too plainly spoke the Doctrine of the Protestants as to this point. And the same has almost happened to this Treatise of Monsieur de Marca here mentioned: See the Preface to the Reader before the Edition of the same Treatises 12 ^o Anno 1669. and Monsieur Baluze's Letter to the Bishop of T [...]e o [...] this occasion. p. 5. Before it came to a publick sight, the passages that seemed most visibly to oppose [Page xv] their Doctrine, were either changed or suppress'd; The Original leaves cut out by them having fallen into my Hands, may be seen by those that desire it in S. Martin's Library. (of which the passage before cited is one) as appears by the Paris Edition now extant of them. But See Monsieur Bdluze 2. Lettre pag. 15. the Providence of God that brought to light the other, has discover'd this cheat too; For before the alarm was given, and that the Chancellor, Mais enfin le refus que Mrs. de Sorbonne luy [...]nt fait de luy domer leur approbation—▪ luy ont fait ouvrir les yeux, s'estant laissé entendre, quoyqu' un peu tard, qu'il a fait une Sottise. ibid. the Sorbonne Doctors, but especially Monsieur Baluze by his Letters to the President de Marca, the Archbishop's Son, upon this occasion, had awakened the Abbé Faget to consider more nearly what he had done; Et p. 16. Je dis, un peu tard; parce qu'il avoit de jafait des presentes de son livre, & que le libraire en avoit aussi debité quelques uns. several Presents had been made of the intire work as it was in the Authors MS.; and, if we may credit their own relations, the Printer who was a Protestant and the same that printed Baluze Lettre à Monsieur l'Evesque de Tulle, p. 5. Monsieur Claude's Books against the Perpetuire, had obliged that learned Person with a Copy; by which means both the genuine sentiments of Monsieur de Marca in opposition to Transubstantiation are preserved, and their fraudulent endeavours to suppress his opinion discovered.

To this eminent Person I will beg leave to subjoyn a fifth, and he too no less known to the World both for his Learning and Reputation, nor less a Heretick in this point, however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other: and that is Father Sirmond the Jesuit. In his life of Paschasius Radbertus, he tells us, ‘That this Monk was the first Sirmond. Vit. Pasch. Radbert. who explained the genuine sense of the Catholick Church in this mystery:’ and indeed if what Eclaircisseme [...] de l'Euch. c. 19. p. 431, &c. Blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true, that it was for Impanation, not Transubstantiation; [Page xvi] the Jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgment of him, though not in that sense that he is usually understood to have done it.

But however that be, certain it is that this learned Father so little believed the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as to this point, that he freely confess'd he thought it had herein departed from the antient Faith; and at the desire of one of his Friends wrote a short Treatise to confirm his Assertion. This though it be not yet made publick, is neverthess in the hands of several Persons of undoubted integrity: I will mention only one, whose learning and worth are sufficiently known to the World, viz. Monsieur Bigot: who discoursing with Father Raynauld at Lyons about this matter, the Jesuit confess'd to him that it was true, that he had himself a copy of his Treatise which he would communicate to him, and that it was Father Sirmond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his Book, de bonis & malis Libris, where he observes, ‘That Men of great parts love to innovate, Ingenia praeclara in rebus difficilibus aliquid semper de suo comminis [...]ntur. Nam praeclara ingenia multa novant circa scientias. Theoph. Raynaudi S. J. Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris: Lugduni 1653. p. 251. and invent always somewhat of their own in difficult matters.’

When Monsieur Bigot return'd to claim the performance of his promise, the Jesuit excused himself to him that he could not light upon it; which when he afterwards told to Father Chiflet another Jesuit of Dijonois, he again confirmed to him the truth of the relation, and voluntarily offer'd him a Copy of the Treatise, which he told him was transcribed from Father Sirmonds Original. This Monsieur [Page xvii] Bigot has not only acknowledged to some of his Friends of my acquaintance, but promised to communicate to them the very Treatise; and I dare appeal to the candor of that worthy Person for the truth of what I have here related, and whose name I should not have mentioned, but only to remove all reasonable cause of suspicion in a matter of such importance.

And what I have now said of Father Sirmond, I might as truly affirm of a fourth Person of as great a name, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, whose Treatise against Transubstantiation has been seen by several persons, and is still read in the MS. But because I am not at liberty to make use of their names, I shall not any further insist upon this example.

My next instance will be more undeniable, and it is of the ingenious Monsieur de Marolles Abbot of Ville-loyn, well known in France for his excellent Writings and great Abilities. A little before his death, which happen'd about the beginning of the Year 1681. being desirous to free his Conscience as to the point of the Holy Eucharist, in which he supposed their Church to have many ways departed from the right Faith, he caused a Paper to be Printed, in which he declares his thoughts concerning it; and sent it to several of his most learned Acquaintance, the better to undeceive them in this matter. One of these Persons, to whom this Present was made, having been pleased to communicate to me the very Paper which by the Abbot' s order was brought to him, it may not perhaps be amiss to gratifie the Reader' s curiosity, if I here insert it at its full length.

[Page xviii]

The Abbot means, that now at his death he hoped he might speak freely what he durst not in his Life-time do. Permission hoped for to speak freely for the Truth.

I Cannot but exceedingly wonder that a certain Preacher, who reads the Holy Scriptures, and will maintain nothing but by their Authority, should nevertheless undertake to defend against all Opposers by the Scriptures, the Real Presence in the Eucharist out of the act of receiving; and think himself so sure to overcome in this Occasion, as to talk of it as a thing certain, and in which he knows he cannot be resisted.

It would certainly be more safe not to be too much prepossessed with anything. I will not name the Person, because I have no mind to displease him, But in the mean time, neither Sense, nor Reason, nor the Word of God have suggested to him one word of it; unless the Apostle was mistaken when he said, If ye are risen with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ is sate at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above and not on things upon the Earth. Coloss. 3. 1, 2. For how could he speak after this manner, if Jesus Christ be still upon Earth by his real Presence under the species in the Eucharist?

When he ascended into Heaven, he said not to his Disciples which saw his wonderful Ascension; [Page xix] I shall be with you always by my Real Presence under the species of the Eucharist, which shall be publickly exposed to you. In his Sermon at the Supper which he had just now celebrated, and which immediately preceded his Passion, Jesus Christ according to S. John says expresly to his Apostles, that he was about to leave them, that he should not be long absent, that he would send to them the Comforter; but not one word of his Real Presence in the Eucharist, which he had so lately instituted under the Bread and Wine, to be a Mystery of our Faith for the nourishment of the Soul to life Eternal, as ordinary Bread and Wine are for the nourishment of the Body to a temporal Life, and that too for ALL the faithful, as is clearly signified by those Words, Drink ye all of this. Whereupon I have elsewhere remark'd the custom of Libations which were in use time out of mind throughout the whole Roman Empire, and which custom was establish'd in honour of the gods: As may be seen in the Version of Athenaeus in 1680; and as I had observed long before upon Virgil and Horace, though there was but little notice taken of it. Which makes me think it very probable, that our Saviour intended to sanctifie this Profane custom, as he did some others, which I have remarked in the same place.

When Men undertake to prove too much, they very often prove nothing at all: To maintain that Jesus Christ is intire in the Eucharist with all his Bodily extension, and all his Dignity, so as he is in Heaven; so that under the Roundness of the Bread there is nothing that is Round; [Page xx] under the Whiteness there is nothing White; this is what the Scripture has not said one word of, They are indeed meer Visions, and which are not so easie to maintain as Men may think. The Priest who celebrates breaks the Host in three pieces; One of these he puts into the Cup, of the two others he communicates, in memory as 'tis plain of what we read, That Jesus the night in which he was betray'd took Bread, and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body which is broken for you, Do this in Remembrance of Me. 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24. In the Mass there is here no more Bread, they are only the appearances of Bread, that is to say, the Accidents, and which are not tied to any Substance. And yet so long as there is but one Atom of those Accidents which they call Eucharistical species in the Consecration that has been made, the true Flesh of the Lord Jesus is so annex'd to them, that it remains there whole and intire, without the least confusion, and may be so in diverse places at the same time. I doubt not but those who teach us this Doctrine have thought of it more than once; but have they well consider'd it? for there is not one word of it in all the Sacred Writings.

Is it nothing that Jesus Christ said to his Apostles but a little while before his Passion, when he was now about to celebrate his Holy Supper with them, You shall have the Poor always with you, but me ye shall not have always, Matth. 26. 11. His Real Presence in the Eucharist, out of the act of communicating, not excepted?

[Page xxi] They say to the People, Behold your Creator that made Heaven and Earth: And the People seeing the consecrated Bread in the Ciboire wherein 'tis carry'd abroad, says, Behold the good God going in procession to confound the Hereticks: and according to their natural inclination, they adore with all their Hearts they know not what, because so they have been instructed; and the better to maintain their prejudice intire in this matter, they become mad: But alas! they know not what they do, and we ought to pity their Excess.

On the other side, who can tell whether the Priest has consecrated, or indeed whether he be capable of consecrating? Is it a point of Faith to believe, that among so many Priests, not one of them is a Cheat and an Impostor? This certainly cannot be of Faith; and if this be not, neither is that which exposed with so much Pomp, to carry the true Body of the Lord through the Streets, of Faith. Thus the belief is at best but Conjecture; and then whatsoever in such cases is not of Faith is sin, according to the Apostle, Rom. 14. 23.

I know not what colour can be sufficient to excuse so strong an Objection, unless Men will absolutely resist the Holy Scripture, and right Reason founded upon it.

'Tis further said, that Jesus Christ is in many places at the same time, in the Hosts which are carried in very different manners; But neither for this is there any Text of Scripture. You will say, this may be; I answer, the Question here is not of the Infinite power of Jesus Christ, but [Page xxii] of his Will, and which we must obey when it is known to us; and of this as to the present point we read nothing in the Holy Scripture. The shorter way then would be to say, that the Sacrament of one Parish is not the same with that of another, although both the one and the other concur in the same design to worship God; as the Paschal Lamb of one Family, was not the Lamb of another, although both the one and the other were to accomplish the same Mystery. Thus for instance, on Corpus Christi-day, the Sacrament of S. Germain d' Auxerrois, where the perpetual Vicar consecrates the Host, and Monsieur the Dean, the first Curé, carrys it the Procession under a rich Canopy crown'd with Flowers, this Host is not the same with that of S. Paul's which is carried after another manner, viz. the Image of that Apostle made of Silver gilt, falling from his Horse at his Conversion, under the Sacrament of Jesus Christ hung up in rays of Gold, and carried under the covering of another stately Canopy; and so of all the other Churches.

As for the stories of several Hosts that have been stabb'd with Penknives, and have bled, they serve only to bring in some superstition contrary to the word of God, which never pretended that there was material Blood in the consecrated Bread, because it is the Body of Jesus Christ in a mystery of Faith.

For what is said of an Infant that was seen in the stead of the Host, and of the figure of Christ sitting upon a Sepulchre instead of the same Host, are meer Fables suggested by the Father of Lies.

[Page xxiii] It is further reported of certain Robbers that carrying away the Vessel in which the Host is kept, they have thrown the Host it self upon the ground, and trampled it under foot, sometimes have cast it into nasty places, without any fear that it should avenge it self; This is a most horrible thought, and of which we ought not to open our mouths, but only to detest so dreadful a profanation.

The same must be said of those Hosts which have been cast up, as soon as received, whether by sick persons, or sometimes by debauched Priests, disordered with the last nights intemperance; both which have sometimes happened, not to say any thing of those other terrible inconveniences, remark'd in the Cautions concerning the Mass. All which shew that Men have carry'd things too far, without any warrant from the Word of God.

It is not therefore so easie, as some imagine, to maintain the Doctrine of the Real Presence out of the Use, against the Opinions of any Opposer.

In the mean time the Truth is terribly obscured, and few give themselves the trouble to clear it. On the contrary it seems that among the many Writers of the Age, there are some who make it their whole business to hide it, and to keep themselves from finding it out, as if they desired never to be wiser than they are. The vanity of lying flatters them but too much in all the Humane passions which sway them.

There are nevertheless some faithful Disciples, and Apostolick Souls who are exempted, to obey [Page xxiv] God by his Grace, and to give glory to his Name. It was not long before his departure that David said, Every man is a lyar: Psal. 115. 2. and S. Paul to the Romans 3. 4. to show that God only is true, adds immediately after from Psalm Li. 4. 50. 6. Thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Such was the Opinion of Monsieur de Marolles as to this point: I should too much trespass upon the Reader's patience to insist thus particularly upon others of lesser note. The Author of the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, has fully shewn not only his own Opinion, but the Tradition of all the Ages of the Church against it: And though I dare not say the same of whoever he was that set forth the Il nous suff [...]t qu [...] [...]. C. qui est la Verit è meme nous ait assuré que ce Sacra [...]ent est verit abl [...]nt son Corps, & qu'il ait ordonne de manger sa chair & boire son sang: car il faut absolument qu'il y soit, puis q'il il nous ordonne de l'y manger, sans s'embarasser l'Esprit de quelle maniere & comment cela se fait 2. Part, p. 102. Moyens surs & Honnestes, &c. that he did not believe Transubstantiation himself, yet this is clear, ‘That he did not desire any one should be forced to believe it; or indeed be encouraged to search too nicely into the manner how Christ is Present and Eaten in the Holy Sacrament.’

Whether Monsieur de Meaux believes this Doctrine or not, his authority is become of so little importance, that I do not think it worth the while to examine. Yet the first French Advertissement n. 14. p. 22. Mr. B. Speaking of that Edition, ‘ il n'y avoit en aucun lieu de l'Article, ni le terme de Transubstantiation, ni cette Proposition, que le pain & le vin sont changez au corps & au sarg de J. C. dans la derniere [Edition] apres ces mots, le propre Corps & le propre sung de J. C. il ajoure ausquelles le pain & le vin sont changez; cest ce qu'on appelle Transubstantiation ^a’ Answer to his Exposition observes, that in the suppress'd Edition of [Page xxv] it he had not at all mentioned ‘ that the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ’ those words in the close of that Paragraph which we now read, viz. ‘that the Bread and the Wine are changed into the proper Body, and proper Blood of Jesus Christ, and that this is that which is called Transubstantiation,’ being put in Monsieur de Meaux Letter of his alterations; Vind. p. 13. & 117. pour l'ordre, & pour une plus grande netteté du discours & du style. for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile, since.

But now for his Vindicator, 'tis evident, if he understands his own meaning, that he is not very well instructed about it. Vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Expos. Pag. 83. ‘It is manifest, says he, that our dispute with Protestants is not about the manner, How Jesus Christ is Present, but only about the Thing it self, whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ be truly, really, and substantially present after the words of Consecration, under the species or Appearance of Bread and Wine, the substance of Bread and Wine being not so present.’

In which words, if his meaning be to exclude totally the ‘manner, How Jesus Christ becomes present in the Eucharist,’ as his expression is, from being a matter of Faith, it might well have been ranged amongst the rest of their new Popery 1686. But if he designs not to exclude the manner of Christ's Presence, but only the mode of the Conversion, as he seems by some other of his words to insinuate, viz. whether it be by Adduction, &c. from being a matter of Faith, he ought not then to have deny'd the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, which their Church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular Conversion so aptly called Transubstantiation; but more precisely to have explain'd his Schoolnicety [Page xxvi] and which is altogether as unintelligible, as the Mystery which 'tis brought to explain.

I might to the particulars hitherto mentioned, add the whole Sect of their new Philosophers, who following the Hypothesis of their Master Des-cartes, that Accidents are nothing else but the Modes of Matter, must here either renounce his Doctrine or their Churches Belief. But I shall close these remarks, which have already run to a greater length than I designed, with one instance more, from a Prelate of our own Church, but yet whose truly Christian sincerity will I am perswaded justifie him even to those of the Roman Communion: and it is the learned Archbishop Usher, The same is affirmed by Monsieur du Mo [...]lin of several Priests in France: Disp. Sedannens. de Sacr. Euch. par. 4. p. 846. Nec abs re de [...]tentione presbyteri dubitatur, cum plurimi Sacerdotes canant Missam re [...]ictante Conscient [...], quales multos vidimus qui ejurato Papismo satebantur se diu cecinisse Missam [...] Missa alie [...]issimo. who having been so happy as to convert several Roman Priests from their errors, and inquiring diligently of them, what they who said Mass every day, and were not obliged to confess Venial Sins, could have to trouble their Confessors so continually withal; ingenuously acknowledged to him, that the chiefest part of their constant Confession was their Infidelity as to the point of Transubstantiation, and for which as was most fit, they mutually quitted and absolved one another.

And now that is thus clear from so many instantes of the greatest Men in the Roman Church, which this last Age has produced; and from whose discovery we may reasonably enough infer the like of many others that have not come to our knowledge, that several Persons who have lived and enjoyed some of the greatest Honours and Dignities in that Communion, have nevertheless been Hereticks in [Page xxvii] this point; may I beseech those who are still mis-led with this great Error, to stop a while, and seriously examine with me two or three plain considerations, and in which I suppose they are not a little concerned.

And the first is, Of their own danger: but especially, upon their Own Principles.

It is but a very little while since an ingenious Person now living in the French Church, the Abbé Petit publish'd a Book which he calls ‘ Les Veritez de la Religion prouvees & defendnes contre les anciennes Heresies, par la virité de l'Eucharistis. 1686. The truths of the Christian Religion proved and defended against the antient Heresies by the Truth of the Eucharist: And what he means by this truth, he thus declares in his Preface, viz. the change of Que du pain divienne le Corps [...]u fils de Dieu, & du Vin son sang. Preface p. 7. the Bread into the Body of the Son of God, and of the Wine into his Blood. He there pretends that this Doctrine however combatted by us now, was Quoiqu'il n'y ait point, presentement de verites plus incontestables que les trois grands articles de nostre foi, qui sont contenus dans le symbole, c'est à dire, la divinite de J. C. la divinite du S. Esprit, & la Resurrection: Cependant l' ose dire que la presence réelle de J. C. au Saint Sacrament etoit une verité encore plus indubitable dans les premie [...]s siecles de l'Eglise. Pres. p. 5. yet more undoubted in the Primitive Church than either the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, or the certainty of our future Resurrection. And this he wrote as the Title tells us, Traitté pour confirmer les Noveaux Con [...]ertis dans la soi de l'Eglise Catholique. To confirm the new Converts in the Faith of the Catholick Church;’ meaning according to their usual figure, the Roman. How far this extravagant undertaking may serve to convince them I cannot tell; this I know, that if [Page xxviii] we may credit those who have been that Abbot' s most intimate acquaintance, he believes but very little of it himself, unless he also be become in this point, a new Convert.

But now if what has before been said of so many eminent Persons of their Church be true, as after a due and diligent examination of every particular there set down, I must beg leave to profess I am fully perswaded that it is; 'twill need no long deduction to shew how dangerous an influence their unbelief must have had, in some of the chiefest instances of their constant Worship.

For 1. It is the Doctrine of the Concil. Trid. Sess. vii. Can. 11. siquis dixerit in ministris dum Sacramenta conficiunt, non requiri intenlionem, saltem saciendi quod facit Ecclesia, Anathema sit. Council of Trent that to make a Sacrament, the Priest must have, if not an Actual, yet at least a Virtual Intention of doing that which the Church does: And in the Vid. de defectibus circa Missam, c. de defectu Intentionis. In Missali. R. Rubricks of their Missal, the want of such an Intention in the Priest is one of the defects there set down as sufficient to hinder a Consecration. Now if this be true, as every Roman Catholick who acknowledges the Authority of that Synod must believe it to be; 'tis then evident that in all those Masses which any of the Persons I before named have said, there could have been no Consecration: It being absurd to suppose that they who believed not Transubstantiation, could have an intention to make any such change of the Bread into the Body of Christ, which they thought it impossible to do.

Now if there were no Consecration, but that the Bread continued meer Bread as it was before; then Secondly, All those who attended at their Masses, and Adored their Hosts, pay'd the supream worship of God to a bare Wafer, and no more. How far the [Page xxix] modern plea of their good Intention to Adore Christ in those sacred Offices, may excuse them from having committed Idolatry, it is not necessary I should here examine. They who desire a satisfaction in this matter, may please to recur to a late excellent Treatise written purposely on this Subject, and A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host. Lond. 1685. where they will find the weakness of this supposal sufficiently exposed. But since Vid. Catharin. in Cajet. pag. 133. Ed. Paris. 1535. Where he quotes S. Thomas and Paludanus for the same Opinion: This Book of his was seen and approved by the Pope's order by the Divines at Paris: as himself tells us in the review of it. Lugdun. 1542. many of their own greatest Men confess that if any one by mistake should worship an Unconsecrated Host, taking it to have been Consecrated, he would be guilty of Idolatry; and that such an Error would not be sufficient to excuse him; may they please to consider with what Faith they can pay this Divine Adoration to that which all their Senses tell them is but a bit of Bread; to the hinderance of whose Conversion so many things may interpose, that were their Doctrine otherwise as infallible, as we are certain it is false, it would yet be a hundred to one that there is no Consecration: in a word; how they can worship that which they can never be secure is changed into Christ's Body, nay when, as the examples I have before given shew, they have all the reason in the World to fear, whether even the Priest himself who says the Mass does indeed believe that he has any Power, or by consequence can have any intention, to turn it into the Flesh of Christ.

And the same consideration will shew, Thirdly; How little security their other Plea of Concomitance, which they so much insist upon, to shew the sufficiency of their Communicating only in one kind, viz. ‘ that they receive the Blood in the Body,’ can give to the Laity, to satisfie their [Page xxx] Consciences that they ever partake of that Blessed Sacrament as they ought to do. Since whatever is pretended of Christ's Body, 'tis certain there can be none of his Blood in a meer Wafer: And if by reason of the Priest's infidelity, the Host should be indeed nothing else, of which we have shewn they can never be sure; neither can they ever know whether what they receive be upon their own Principles, an intire Communion.

And then Lastly, for the main thing of all, The Sacrifice of the Mass; it is clear that if Christ's Body be not truly and properly there, it cannot be truly and properly offer'd; nor any of those great benefits be derived to them from a morsel of Bread, which themselves declare can proceed only from the Flesh and Blood of their Blessed Lord.

It is I know an easie matter for those who can believe Transubstantiation, to believe also that there is no hazard in all these great and apparent dangers. But yet in matters of such moment Men ought to desire to be well assured, and not exposed even to any possible defects. I do not now insist upon the common remarks, De defectibus circa Missam: De defictu panis. Si panis non sit triticeus, vel si triticeus, sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tantâ quantitate, ut non maneat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui corruptus: non conficitur Sacramentum. Si sit consectus de aquâ rosaceâ vel alterius distillationis, dabium est an conficiatur? Et de defect. vini. Si Vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressum, vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum, non conficitur Sacramentum. which yet are Authorized by their own Missal, and may give just grounds to their fears; ‘That if the Wafer be not made of Wheat but of some other Corn, there is then no Consecration: If it be mixed not with common, but distill'd Water, it is doubtful whether it be Consecrated. If the Wine be sowre to such a certain degree, that then it becomes [Page xxxi] incapable of being changed into the Blood of Christ;’ with many more of the like kind, and which render it always uncertain to them, whether there be any change made in the blessed Elements or no; Da Moulin, in the place above cited, mentions one that in his time was burnt at Loudun for Consecrating a Host in the name of the Devil. Thes. Sedann. Th. 97. n. 10. p. 846. Vol. 1. the Relations I have given, are no [...] of counterfeit Jews and Moors, who to escape the danger of the Inquisition have sometimes become Priests, and administred all the Sacraments for many years together, without ever having an intention to Administer truly any one of them, and of which I could give an eminent instance in a certain Jew now living; who for many Years was not only a Priest, but a Professor of Divinity in Spain, and all the while in reality a meer Jew as he is now. The Persons here mention'd were Men of undoubted reputation, of great learning and singular esteem in their Church; and if these found the impossibilities of Transubstantiation so much greater than either the pretended Authority or Infallibility of their Church; certainly they may have just cause to fear, whether many others of their Priests do not Live in the same infidelity in which these have Died, and so expose them to all the hazards now mentioned, and which are undeniably the consequences of such their Unbelief.

But these are not the only dangers I would desire those of that Communion to reflect on upon this occasion. Another there is, and of greater consequence than any I have hitherto mentioned, and which may perhaps extend not only to this Holy Eucharist, but it may be to the invalidating of most of their other Sacraments. Eugenii IV. decret. in Act. Concil. Florent. Ann. 1439. Concil Labb. Tom. 13. p. 535. Concil. Trident. Sess. VII. Can. 2. It is the Doctrine of the [Page xxxii] Roman Church that to the Validity of every Sacrament, and therefore of that of Orders as well as the rest three things must concur, ‘a due matter, a right form, and the Person of the Minister conferring the Sacrament, with an intention of doing what the Church does.’ Where either of these is wanting, the Sacrament is not performed. If therefore the Bishop in conferring the Holy Order of Priesthood has not an intention of doing what the Church does, 'tis plain that the Person to be ordained receives no Priestly Character of him; nor by consequence has any power of consecrating the Holy Eucharist, or of being hereafter advanced to a higher degree. Now the form of conferring the Order of Priesthood they determine to be this; Ibid. pag. 538. Catech. Concil. Trid. de Sacr. Ord. n. xxii. p. 222. Item, n. L. p. 228. The Bishop delivers the Cup with some Wine, and the Paten with Bread into the Hands of the person whom he Ordains, saying, ‘ Receive the Power of offering a Sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. By which Ceremony and words, their Catechism tells us, He is constituted an Interpreter and Mediator between God and Man; which is to be esteemed the chiefest Function of a Priest. ’ So that then the intention necessary to the conferring the Order of Priesthood is this; to give a Power to consecrate, i. e. to Transubstantiate the Host into Christ's Body, and so offer it as a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead.

If therefore any of their Bishops, for instance Cardinal du Perron, or Monsieur de Marca, did not believe that either the Church or themselves as Bishops of it, had any Authority to confer any such [Page xxxiii] Power, they could not certainly have any Intention of doing in this case what the Church intends to do. Having no such Intention, the Persons whom they pretended to Ordain were no Priests. Being no Priests they had no Power to Consecrate. All the Hosts therefore which were either offered or taken, or worshipped in any of the Masses celebrated by those Priests whom these two Bishops Ordained, were only meer Bread, and not the Body of Christ; And as many of them, as being afterwards advanced to a higher dignity, were consecrated Bishops, received no Episcopal Character, because they were destitute of the Priestly before. Thus the danger still encreases: For by this means, the Priests whom they also Ordain are no Priests; and when any of them shall be promoted to a higher degree, are uncapable of being made Bishops; And so by the Infidelity of these two Men, there are at this day infinite numbers of Priests and Bishops, who say Mass, and confer Orders without any manner of power to do either; and in a little time it may be there shall not be a true Bishop or Priest in the whole Gallicane Church. But,

II. A second Consideration which I would beg leave to offer from the fore-going instances is this: What reliance we can make upon the Pretended Infallibility of their Church; when 'tis thus plain that so many of the most learned Men of their own Communion did not only not believe it to be Infallible, but supposed it to have actually Erred, and that in those very Doctrines that are at this day esteemed the most considerable Points in difference between Us.

[Page xxxiv] It is plain from what has been said in the foregoing reflection, that disbelieving Transubstantiation, they must also have lookt upon all the other Consequences of it, viz. the Adoration of the Host, the Sacrifice of the Mass, &c. as Erroneous too. Nom though it be not yet agreed among them, nor ever likely to be, where the supposed Infallibility of their Church is seated, yet since all manner of Authority has conspired to establish these things; Popes have decreed them, Councils defined them, and both Popes and Councils anathematized all those that shall presume to doubt of them; 'tis evident either these Men did not believe the Church to be Infallible, as is pretended; or they did not believe the Roman, to be, according to the modern phrase, indeed the Catholick Church.

III. And upon the same grounds there will arise a third Reflection, which they may please to make with us; and that is, with what Reason they can press us with the Authority of their Church in these matters; when such eminent persons of their own Communion, and who certainly were much more Obliged to it than we can be thought to be, yet did not esteem it sufficient to enslave their belief.

It is a reproach generally cast upon us, that we set up a private Spirit in opposition to the Wisdom and Authority of the Church of God: and think our selves better able to judge in matters of Faith, than the most General Council that was ever yet assembled. This is usually said, but is indeed a foul Misrepresentation of our Opinion. All we say is, that every Man ought to act Rationally in matters of Religion, as well as in other concerns; to employ [Page xxxv] his Understanding with the utmost skill and diligence that he is able, to know God's will, and what it is that he requires of us. We do not set up our own judgments against the Authority of the Church; but having both the Holy Oracles of God, and the Definitions of Men before us, we give to each their proper weight. And therefore if the one at any time contradicts the other, we resolve, as is most fitting, not that our own, but God's Authority revealed to us in his Word, is to be preferred. And he who without this examination servilely gives up himself to follow whatever is required of him; He may be in the right, if his Church or Guide be so; but according to this method shall never be able to give a reason of his Faith; nor if he chance to be born in a False Religion, ever be in a capacity of being better instructed. For if we must be allowed nothing but to obey only, and not presume to enquire why; He that is a Jew must continue a Jew still; he that is a Turk, a Turk; a Protestant must always be a Protestant: In short, in whatsoever profession any one now is, in that he must continue, whether true or false, if reason and examination must be excluded all place in matters of Religion.

All this is lately granted by the Catholick Representer. Cap. VI. And indeed after all their clamours against us on this occasion, yet is this no more than what themselves require of us when 'tis in order to their own advantage. Is a Proselyte to be made, they offer to him their Arguments: They tell him a long story of their Church; the Succession, Visibility, and other Notes of it. To what purpose is all this, if we are not to be Judges, to examine their pretences whether these are sufficient marks of such a Church as they suppose; and if they are, whether they do indeed agree to theirs, and then upon [Page xxxvi] a full conviction submit to them. Now if this be their intention, 'tis then clear, let them pretend what they will, that they think us both capable of judging in these matters, and that we ought to follow that, which all things considered we find to be most reasonable, which is all that we desire.

And for this we have here the undoubted Examples of those Eminent Persons of their own Communion before named; who notwithstanding the Authority of their Church, and the decision of so many Councils esteemed by it as General, have yet both thought themselves at liberty to examine their Decrees, and even to pass sentence too upon them, that they were erroneous in the Points here mentioned. And therefore certainly we may modestly desire the same liberty which themselves take; at least till we can be convinced, (and that by such Arguments as we shall be allow'd to judge of,) that there is such an infallible Guide whom we ought in all things to follow without further inquiry, and where we may find him, and when this is done I will for my part promise as freely to give up myself to his Conduct, as I am till then, I think reasonably, resolved to follow what according to the best of my ability in proving all things, I shall find indeed to be Good.

IV. I might from the same Principles, Fourthly, argue the Reasonableness of our Reformation, at least in the opinion of those great Men of whom we have hitherto been speaking: And who thinking it allow'd to them to dissent themselves from the received Doctrine of their Church, which they found to be erroneous, could not but in their Consciences justifie us, who, as a national Church, no way subjected [Page xxxvii] to their Authority, did the same; and by the right which every such Church has within it self, reformed those Errors, which like the Tares were sprung up with the Good Seed. This 'tis evident they must have approved; and for one of them, the Abbot of Ville-loyne, I have been assured by some of his intimate Acquaintance, that he had always a particular respect for the Church of England, and which others of their Communion at this day esteem to be neither Heretical nor Schismatical.

V. But I may not insist on these things, and will therefore finish this Address with this only remonstrance to them; That since it is thus evident, that for above 1200 years this Doctrine was never establish'd in the Church, nor till then, in the opinion of their own most learned Men, any matter of Faith; since the Greatest of their Writers in the past Ages have declared themselves so freely concerning it as we have seen above, and some of the most eminent of their Communion in the present have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not believe it; since 'tis confess'd that the Scripture does not require it; Sense and Reason undoubtedly oppose it, and the Primitive Ages of the Church, as one of their own Authors has very lately shewn, received it not; They will at least suffer all these things to dispose them to an indifferent Examination, wherefore at last it is that they do believe this great Error? Upon what Authority they have given up their Senses to Delusion; their Reason to embrace Contradictions; the Holy Scripture and Antiquity, to be submitted to the dictates of two Assemblies, which many of themselves esteem to have been rather Cabals than Councils: [Page xxxvi] [...] [Page xxxvii] [...] [Page xxxviii] And all to support a Doctrine, the most injurious that can be to our Saviour' s Honour; destructive in its nature not only of the certainty of the Christian Religion, but of every thing else in the World; which if Transubstantiation be true, must be all but Vision: for that cannot be true unless the Senses of all Mankind are deceived in judging of their proper Objects, and if this be so, we can then be sure of nothing.

These Considerations, if they shall incline them to an impartial view of the following Discourses, they may possibly find somewhat in them, to shew the reasonableness of our dissent from them in this matter. However they shall at least I hope engage those of our own Communion to stand firm in that Faith which is thus strongly supported with all sorts of Arguments; and convince them how dangerous it is for Men to give up themselves to such prejudices, as neither Sense nor Reason, nor the word of God, nor the Authority of the best and purest Ages of the Church, are able to overcome.

A TABLE OF THE Principal Matters Contained in this TREATISE.

PREFACE.

THE occasion of this Discourse. Page i
The method made use of for the explaining the nature of this Holy Eucharist. iv
No Proof of Transubstantiation in Holy Scripture. v
The rise and establishment of it. vi, vii
Several of their greatest Men before the Council of Trent believed it not. vii, viii
And many have even since continued to disbelieve it. x
[Page] So, Picherellus. x
Cardinal du PERRON. xi
F. Barnes. xii
Monsieur de MARCA. xiii
F. SIRMOND. xv
Monsieur L—. xvii
Mons. de Marolles. ib.
Others. xxiv, &c.

Consequences drawn from these Examples:

I. Of the danger of the Papists, especially upon their own Principles. xxvii
With reference to this Sacrament: and therein to the
- 1. Consecration. xxvii
- 2. Adoration. ib.
- 3. Communion in one kind. xxix
- 4. Mass. xxx
With reference to their entire Priesthood. xxxi
II. Against the Infallibility of the Roman Church. xxxiii
III. Against its Authority. xxxiv
IV. As to the Reasonableness of our Reformation. xxxvi
V. That these things ought to dispose those of that Communion to an impartial search into the grounds of their belief as to this matter. xxxvii

PART I.

The Introduction.

Of the Nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General. Pag. 1
Christ's design in the Institution of it. 2
That he establish'd it upon the Ceremonies of the Jewish Pas [...]over. 3, 4, 5, 6
The method from hence taken to explain the nature of it. 6, 7

[Page]CHAP. I.

Of Transubstantiation; or the Real Presence established by the Church of Rome. 8
What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this point. ib.—This shewn upon the Principle before laid down, to be repugnant,
- 1. To the design and nature of this Holy Sacrament. 12
- 2. To the expression it self, This is my Body. 14
The Papists themselves sensible of it. 18
That the Sixth of S. John does not at all favour them. 20
—This Doctrine shewn further to be repugnant,
- I. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church. 24
- II. To the right Reason. 32
- III. To the common Sense of all Mankind. 36
Conclusion of this Point, and transition to the next. 37

CHAP. II.

Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England. 41
The notion of the Real Presence falsly imputed, by a late Author to our Church. 42
In answer to this Four things proposed to be considered,
I. What is the true notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England. 43.
[Page] II. That this Notion has been constantly maintained by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines. 46
—So those abroad; Calvin. 47
—Beza. 49
—Martyr, &c. 51
—For our own Divines; consider the express words of the twenty ninth Article, in K. Edw. VI. time. 52
—Archbishop Cranmer. 53
—Bishop Ridley. 55
—That the same continned to be the Opinion of our Divines after. 56
Shewn
- 1. From the History of the Convocations proceeding as to this point in the beginning of Q. Eliz. Reign. ib.
- 2. From the Testimonies of our Divines.—Bp. Jewell. 59
- —Mr. Hooker. 60
- —Bp. Andrews. 62
- —A. B. of Spalatto. 64
- —Bp. Montague ib.
- —Bp. Taylour. 66
- —Mr. Torndyke. 69
Whose Testimonies are cited at large: Of
- 1. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.
- 2. Bp. Morton.
- 3. A. B. Usher.
- 4. Bp. Cosens.
- 5. Dr. Jo. White.
- 6. Dr. Fr. White.
- 7. Dr. Jackson.
- 8. Dr. Hammond.
Whose Authorities are refer'd to; 71, 72
III. That the alterations which have been made in our Rubrick, were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions, as is vainly and falsly suggest [...]d. 72
[Page] IV. That the Reasons mentioned in our Rubrick, concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time, is no way invalidated by any of this Author's Exceptions against it. 77
1. Not by his First Observation. ib.
2. Nor by his Second. 79
3. Nor by his Third. 80
4. Nor by his Fourth. 81
The Objection, of this Opinion's, being downright Zuinglianism; Answered. 82
And the whole concluded. 84

PART II.

CHAP. III

Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome.

Two things proposed to be considered;

I. What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this point is. 86
Our Authors exceptions against it, Answered. 87
II. What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this matter. 91
Their Doctrine stated. ib.
[Page] The Defence of it, unsufficient: shewn in Answer,
- 1. To his Protestant Concessions. 93
- 2. To his Catholick Assertions.
  - First. 96
  - Second. 99
  - Third. ib.
  - Fourth. 100
  - Fifth. 102
  - Sixth. 103
  - Seventh. 104
  - Eighth. ib.
- 3. To the Grounds he offers of their Belief. 105
The Lutherans Practice no Apology for theirs. 106
Ground
- First.
- Second.
- Third.
- Fourth.
- Fifth.
Answer'd.
- 108
- 109
- 113
- 114
- 115
Some Arguments proposed, upon their own Principles, against this Adoration. 117
Conclusion. 125

ERRATA.

PAG. xvii. l. 10. fourth r. sixth. p. xviii. l. 10. in r. on. p. xxii. l. 33. r. they are. p. xxiv. l. 5. r. That thou. p. 13. marg. Hammond. l. 6. p. 129. p. 64. marg. Casaubon. ib. l. 19. Body is of Christ. p. 76. l. 24. dele. which. p. 80. l. 15. then that. p. 91. l. 27. r. this Holy. p. 98. l. 16. for then r. the. p. 112. l. 18. Catholicâ. l. 20. asks.

A few lesser Faults there are, which the Reader may please to correct.

[Page 1]A DISCOURSE OF THE Holy Eucharist, With particular Reference To the two GREAT POINTS OF THE REAL PRESENCE, AND The Adoration of the HOST.

INTRODUCTION.

Of the Nature of this HOLY SACRAMENT in the General.

TO understand the true design of our Blessed Saviour, in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament, we cannot, I suppose, take any better course than to consider first of all, what Account the Sacred Writers have left us of the Time and Manner of the doing of it.

[Page 2] Now for this St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 11. 23. ‘ That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betray'd (having first eaten the Passover according to the Law, Exod. 12. Matt. xxvi. 20.) took Bread, and when he had given thanks he brake it, Matt. xxvi. and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body which is broken for you, This do in Remembrance of Me. After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supp'd, saying, This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood: This do ye, as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me.’

Such is the Account which St. Paul gives us of the Original of this Holy Sacrament: Nor do the Evangelists dissent from it; only that St. Matthew with reference to the Cup, adds, Drink ye ALL of it, Matt. xxvi. 27. to which St. Mark subjoins a particular Observation, and which ought not here to be pass'd by, ‘That they ALL drank of it,’ Mark xiv. 23.

It is not to be doubted, but that the design of our Blessed Saviour in instituting this Holy Sacrament, was to Abolish the Jewish Passover, and to establish the Memory of another, and a much greater Deliverance, than that of the first-born, now to be wrought for the whole World in his Death. The Bread which he brake, and the Wine which he poured out, being such clear Types of his Body to be broken, his Blood to be shed for the Redemption of Mankind, that it is impossible for us to doubt of the Application.

And as God Almighty under the Law, designed that other Memorial of the Paschal Lamb, now changed into a so much better and more excellent Remembrance, to continue as long as the Law its self [Page 3] stood in force: So this Blessed Eucharist, establish'd by Christ in the room of it must no doubt have been intended by Him, to be continued in his Church, as long as the Covenant seal'd with that Blood which it exhibits, stands: And therefore, that since that shall never be abolish'd; 'tis evident that this also will remain our Duty, and be our perpetual Obligation to the end of the World.

This is the import of our Saviours Addition, Do this in Remembrance of Me; and is by St. Paul more fully expressed in those Words, which he immediately subjoyns to the History of the Institution before recited, 1 Cor. xi. 26. ‘ For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew, i. e. in the Jewish Phrase, set forth, Commemorate the Lords Death till his coming.’

And that this Holy Sacrament now establish'd in the place of the Jewish Passover, might be both the better understood, and the easier received by them; it is a thing much to be remarked for the right explaining of it, how exactly he accommodated all the Notions and Ideas of that Ancient Ceremony to this new Institution.

I. In that Paschal Supper, the Master of the House took Bread, and presenting it before them, instead of the usual Benediction of the Bread, He brake it, and gave it to them, saying, See Dr. Hammond on Mat. xxvi. lit. E. Casaubon in Mat. xxvi. 26. &c. This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt. In this Sacred Feast, our Saviour in like manner takes Bread, the very Loaf, which the Jews were wont to take for the Ceremony before mentioned; breaks it, and gives it to his Disciples, [Page 4] saying, This is my Body which is broken for you; alluding thereby, not only to their Ceremony in his Action, but even to their very manner of Speech in his Expression, to the Passover before them, which in their Language they constantly called, [...] Vid. Buxtorf. Vindic. contr. Capel. p. 14. Hammond in Mat. xxvi. l. e. &c. the Body of the Paschal Lamb.

II. In that Ancient Feast, the Master of the House in like manner after Supper took the Cup, and having given thanks, gave it to them, saying, Allix preparat. a la Sainte Cene. cap. 2. pag. 16. This is the Fruit of the Vine, and the Blood of the Grape. In this Holy Sacrament our Blessed Lord in the very same manner takes the Cup, he Blesses it, and gives it to his Disciples saying, This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood; his Action being again the very same with theirs; and for his Expression, it is that which Moses used, when he ratified the Ancient Covenant between God and the Jews; [Exod. xxiv. 8. compared with Hebr. ix 20.] saying, This is the Blood of the Testament.

III. In that Ancient Feast, after all this was finish'd, they were wont to sing a Dr. Lightfoots Heb & Talmud. Observat [...]on Mat. xxvi. ver. 26, 27. T. 2. p. 258, 260. Hymn, the Psalms yet extant, from the cxiii. to the cxix. thence called by them, the Great Hallelujah. In this Holy Supper, our Saviour and his Disciples are expresly recorded to have done the like, and very probably in the selfsame words. [See Matt. xxvi. 30. Mark xiv. 26.] In a word, Lastly,

IV. That ancient Passover the Jews were commanded to keep in memory of their Deliverance out of Egypt. The bitter Herbs were a [...] remembrance of the bitter servitude they underwent there, Exod. i. 14. [Page 5] The red Wine was a [...] Memorial of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh: And for this they were expresly commanded by Moses, Exod. xiii. 8. to [...] SHEW, i. e. to annunciate or tell forth to their Children what the Lord had done for them. And so in this Holy Sacrament, Christ expresly institutes it for the same end, [...]. Do this, says he, in remembrance of me; which St. Paul thus explains, 1 Cor. xi. 26. ‘ For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do (or rather, do ye) [...]. SHEW (the very word before used) the Lords death till his coming.’

So clear an Allusion does every part of this Sacrament bear to that ancient Solemnity; and we must be more blind than the Jews themselves, not to see, that as that other Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ from the Practise and Custom of the See Dr Hammonds Practical Catechism Lib. 6. pag. 115. Oper. fol. Lond. 1684. Jewish Doctors, who received their Proselytes by the like washing; so was this Holy Eucharist establisht upon the Analogy which we have seen to the Paschal Supper, whose place it supplies, and whose Ceremonies it so exactly retains, that it seems only to have heightned the design, and changed the Application to a more excellent Remembrance.

I know not how far it may be allow'd to confirm this Analogie, That it was one of the most ancient Traditions among the Vid. Fagium. in Annotat. in Exod. xii. 13. where he renders their words thus, ‘ Et in eadem die viz. xv. mensis Nisan, sc. Martii, redimendus. est Israel in disbus’ Messia. Vid. Vol. 1. Critic. M. p 498. Jews of old, that the Messiah should come and work out their deliverance, The very same night in which God had brought them out of Egypt, the night of the Paschal Solemnity. But [Page 6] certainly considerable it is, that as God under the Law, the same night in which he deliver'd them, instituted the Passover to be a perpetual Memorial of it throughout their Generations; so here our Saviour instituted his Communion not only in the same Night in which he deliver'd us, but immediately after having eaten His last Passover; to shew us, that what that Solemnity had hitherto been to the Jews, this Sacrament should from henceforth be to us; and that we by this Ceremony should commemorate ours, as they by that other had been commanded to do their Deliverance.

This the Holy Scriptures themselves direct us to, by so often calling our Blessed Saviour in express terms, ‘ The Lamb of God, Joh. i. 29.’ St. Peter speaking of our Redemption wrought by Him, tells us, that it was not obtained by ‘ corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but by the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot, 1 Pet. i. 18.’ And St. Paul so clearly directs us to this allusion, that no possible doubt can remain of it; ‘ Christ, says he, our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the Feast,’ 2 Cor. 1. v. 7.

And now after so many Arguments for this Application, as, being joined together, I think I might almost call a Demonstration of it; I suppose I may without scruple lay down this foundation both for the unfolding of the nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General, and for the Examination of those two great points I am here to consider in particular, viz. That our Saviour in this Institution addressing himself to Jews, and speaking in the direct [Page 7] form of the Paschal Phrases; and in a Ceremony which 'tis thus evident he designed to introduce in the stead of that Solemnity; The best method we can take for explaining both the words and intent of this Communion, will be to examine what such men to whom he spake must necessarily have conceived to be his meaning, but especially on an occasion wherein it neither became him to be obscure; and the Apostles silence, not one of them demanding any explication of his words, as at other times they were wont to do, clearly shewing that he was not difficult to be understood.

This only Postulate being granted, which I think I have so good reason to expect; I shall now go on to examine by it, the first great Point proposed to be consider'd, viz. Of the Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, and that

1st. As established by the Church of Rome.

2dly. As acknowledged by the Church of England.

[Page 8]

PART I.

CHAP. I.

Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, Or the Real Presence Establish'd by the CHURCH of ROME.

TRansubstantiation is defined by the Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap 4. & Can. 2. Council of Trent, to be ‘A WONDERFUL CONVERSION of the whole Substance of the Bread, in this Holy Sacrament, into the whole substance of the Body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood; the Species or Accidents only of the Bread and Wine remaining.’

For the better understanding of which Wonderful Conversion, because the Church of Rome, which is not very liberal in any of her Instructions, has taken Catechismus ad Parochos. Par. II. cap. de Euch. Sacr. n. 39. 41, 45. particular care that this should not be too much explain'd to the People, as well knowing it to be a Doctrine so absurd, that even their credulity could hardly be able to digest it; it may not be amiss if, from the very words of their own Catechism, we examine a little farther into it.

Now three things there are, which, they tell us, must be consider'd in it:

[Page 9] I. Catech. ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Primum. ‘That the true Body of Christ our Lord, the very same that was Born of the Virgin, and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, is contained in this Sacrament.’

‘Now by the true Body, they mean not only his Human Body, and whatsoever belongs to it, as Bones, Sinews, &c. to be contain'd in this Sacrament; Ibid. n. xxxi. Sect. Totus Christus ut Deus & Homo in Eucharistia continetur. But the intire Christ, God and Man; so that the Eucharistical Elements are changed into our Saviour, as to both his Substances, and the consequences of both, his Blood, Soul, and Divinity its self, all which are really present in this Sacrament; Ibid. n. xxxiii. Sect. Per Concomitantiam in Euch. quae sint. the Body of Christ by the Consecration, the rest by Concomitance with the Body.’

Again: When 'tis said, ‘ Ibid. n. xxxix. Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euchar. &c. That the whole Substance of the Bread is changed into his whole Body, and the whole Substance of the Wine into his whole Blood; this is not to be so understood, as if the Bread did not contain the whole Substance of his Blood, as well as of his Body, and so the Wine, the whole Substance of his Body, as well as of his Blood; Ibid. n. xxxv. Sect. Christus totus in qualibet particula, & n. xlii. &c. seeing Christ is intire in each part of the Sacrament, nay in every the least Crumb or Drop, of either part.’

II. ‘The Ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Secundum. second thing to be consider'd for the understanding of this Mystery, is, That not any part of the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains; tho nothing may seem more contrary to the Senses than this; in which they are certainly in the right.’

[Page 10] III. ‘ Ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Tertium & n. xliv. Sect. Accid. sine subjecto const. in Euch. That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine, which either our Eyes see (as the Colour, Form, &c.) or our other Senses perceive (as the Tast, Touch, Smell) all these are in no Subject, but exist by themselves, after a wonderful manner, and which cannot be explain'd.’

For the rest, the Conversion its self, ‘ Ibid n xxxvii. Sect. Primo [...]atione. It is very difficult to be comprehended, How Christs Body, which before Consecration, was not in the Sacrament, should now come to be there, since 'tis certain that it changes not its place, but is still all the while in Heaven. Nor is it made present there by Creation, Ibid. n. xxxix. Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euch. &c. nor by any other Change; For it is neither increased nor diminish'd, but remains whole in its Substance as before. Ibid. n. xliii. Quonam modo Christus existat in Euchar. Christ is not in the Sacrament Locally; for he has no Quantity there, is neither Great nor Little. ) Ibid. n. xli. Sect. De Transubstant. curiosius non inquirendum. In a word, Men ought not to inquire too curiously, how this Change can be made, for it is not to be comprehended, seeing neither in any natural Changes, nor indeed in the whole Creation, is there any Example of any thing like it.’

Such is the Account which themselves give of this Mystery: From all which we may in short conclude the State of the Question before us, to be this; That we do not dispute at all about Christ's Real Presence, which after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner, we acknowledg in this Holy Eucharist, as we shall hereafter shew; nor by consequence of the Truth of Christs Words which we undoubtedly believe: But only about this Manner of his Presence, viz. Whether the Bread and [Page 11] the Wine be changed into the very natural Body and Blood of Christ, so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain; But that under the Appearance of them is contain'd that same Body of Christ, which was Born of the Blessed Virgin, with his Soul and Divinity; which same Body of Christ, tho extended in all its parts in Heaven, is at the same time in the Sacrament without any Extension, neither Great nor Small, comes thither neither by Generation, nor by Creation, nor by any local Motion; forasmuch as it continues still at the right Hand of God in Heaven, at the very same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated Host, or Chalice; nay more, is whole and intire, not only in the whole Host, or the whole Chalice; but in every the least Crumb of the Host, and every the least Drop of the Chalice, here upon Earth.

And here it might well be thought a very needless, indeed an extravagant undertaking, to prove that those Elements, which so many of our Senses tell us; continue after their Consecration the very same, as to what concerns their natural Substance, that they were before, are in reality the very same: That what all the World Sees, and Feels, and Smells, and Tasts, to be Bread and Wine, is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent; had it not entred into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to joyn in the maintaining of a Paradox, which has nothing to defend it, but that fond Presumption they have certainly done well to take up, That they cannot possibly [Page 12] be in the wrong, and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right.

To shew that those words, which they tell us, work all this Miracle, and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Doctrine, have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend; I must desire it may be remembred what I before remark'd, That this Holy Sacrament was establish'd by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passover, and upon the very Words and Ceremonies of it. So that, if in that all things were Typical; the Feast, the Customs, the Expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before, and of which this sacred Ceremony was the memorial; we ought in all reason to conclude, that both our Saviour must have designed, and his Apostles understood this Holy Sacrament to have been the same too.

Now as to the Nature of the Passover; we have already seen that it was appointed by God as a Remembrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt, when he slew all the first-born of the Egyptians, Exod. xii. The Lamb which they ate every year in this Feast, was an Eucharistical Sacrifice and Type of that first Lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance, and whose Blood sprinkled upon the Posts of their Doors had preserved their Fore-fathers from the destroying Angel, that he should not do them any mischief. The Bread of Affliction, which they broke, and of which they said, perhaps in the very Vid. Cameron. Annot. in Matt. xxvi. 26. in illa verba, [...], inter critic. pag. 780. I. 24. same manner that [Page 13] Christ did of the very same Loaf, Take, eat, this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt; they esteem'd a Type and Figure, of that unleaven'd Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there; and upon that account called it Allix Serm. pag. 503. ‘ The Memorial of their delivery out of Egypt.’ Hammond Pract. Catechism. lib. vi. pag. Ed. fol. The Cup of Blessing which they blessed, and of which they ALL drank in this Feast, they did it at once in memory both of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh, and of the Blood of the Lamb, which being sprinkled upon their doors, preserved their own from being shed with that of the Egyptians.

Now all these Idea's with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted, could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament: That when He, as the Master of the Feast, took the Loaf, Blessed, and brake it, and gave it to them, and Bid them in like manner henceforward, Do this in Remembrance of Him; He certainly designed that by this Ceremony, which hitherto they had used in memory of their deliverance out of Egypt, they should now continue the memory of their Blessed Lord, and of that deliverance which he was about to work for them. That as by calling the Lamb in that Feast ‘The Body of the Passover,’ they understood that it was the remembrance of God's mercy in commanding the destroying Angel to pass over their Houses when he slew their Enemies; the memorial of the Lamb which was killed for this purpose in Egypt; so Christ calling the Bread his Body, nay, his Body broken for [Page 14] them, could certainly mean nothing else but that it was the Type, the Memorial of his Body, which as yet was not, but was now just ready to be given for their redemption.

This is so natural a reflection, and in one Part at least of this Holy Sacrament so necessary too, that 'tis impossible to explain it otherwise. ‘ This Cup, says our Saviour, is the New Testament in my Blood;’ That is, as See Exod. xxiv. 8. Heb. ix [...]0. And this Allusion is applied by S. Peter, 1 Ep. i. 2. Vid. Hammond. Annot. in loc. lit. a. Moses had before said of the Old Testament in the very same Phrase, the seal, the ratification of it. Now if those words be taken literally, then 1st. 'Tis the Cup that is Transubstantiated, not the Wine; 2ly, It is changed not into Christ's Blood (as they pretend) but into the New Testament in his Blood; which being confessedly absurd and impossible, it must in all reason follow, That the Apostles understood our Saviour alike in both His Expressions; and that by consequence we ought to interpret those words, This is my Body which is broken for you, of the Bread's being the Type, or Figure of his Body; as we must that of the Cup, That it was the New Testament in his Blood, i. e. the sign, or seal of the New Testament.

So naturally do all these Notions direct us to a figurative interpretation of his Words; the whole design of this Institution, and all the Parts and Ceremonies of it being plainly Typical, in Remembrance (as Christ himself has told us) of Him. But now if we go on more particularly to inquire into the Expression its self, This is my Body which is broken for you, That will yet more clearly confirm this interpretation.

[Page 15] It has before been observed, That these words of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament, were used by him instead of that other Expression of the Master in the Paschal Feast, when in the very same manner he took the very same Bread into his Hands, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to those who were at the Table with Him, saying, This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt. And can any thing in the world be more plain, than that as never any Jew yet imagined, that the Bread which they thus took every year, was by that saying of the Master of their Feast changed into the very substance of that Bread which their forefathers had so many Ages before consumed in Egypt, in the night of their deliverance; but being thus broken and given to them, became a Type, a Figure, a Memorial of it: So neither could those to whom our Saviour Christ now spake, and who as being Jews had so long been used to this Phrase, ever imagine, that the pieces of that Loaf which He brake, and gave them, saying, ‘ This is my Body which is broken for you, Do this in Remembrance of me,’ became thereupon the very Body of that Saviour from whose Hands they received it; and who did not sure with one member of his Body, give away his whole Body from himself to them; but only designed that by this Ceremony they should remember Him, and his Body broken for them, as by the same they had hitherto remembred the Bread of affliction which their Fathers ate in Egypt.

I ought not to omit it, because it very much confirms the force of this Argument, That what I have here said of this Analogy of the Holy Eucharist, to the [Page 16] Jewish Passover, was not the original remark of any Protestant, or indeed of any other Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this point: But was objected to them long before the Reformation, by the Vid. apud Author. Fortalitii Fidei, Lib 4. Consid. 6. Impos. 10. Those who have not this Book, may find the Quotation at large in the late Edition of Joan. Parisiensis, in Praefat. pag. 73, 74. Jews, themselves to shew that in their literal Interpretation of these Words, they had manifestly departed from the intention of our Blessed Saviour, and advanced a notion in which 'twas impossible for his Apostles, or any other acquainted, as they were, with the Paschal forms, ever to have understood him. And if Epistol. xxiii. ad Bonifac. Vol. 2. pag. 29. Oper. Ed. Lugd. 1664. St. Augustine, who I suppose will not be thought a Heretick by either party, may be allow'd to speak for the Christians; he tells us, we are to look upon the Phrase, This is my Body, Just, says He, as when in ordinary conversation we are wont to say, This is Christmas, or Good-Friday, or Easter-day; Not that this is the very day on which Christ was born, or suffer'd, or rose from the dead, but the return or remembrance of that day on which Christ was born, or suffer'd, or rose again.

It is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new Missionaries produce these words on all occasions; and thereby shew us how fond they would be of the Holy Scripture, and how willingly they would make it their Guide in Controversie, did it but ever so little favour their Cause. Can any thing, say they, be more express? This is my Body; Is it possible for words to be spoken more clear and positive? And indeed were all the Expressions of Holy Scripture to be taken in their literal meaning, I will not deny, but that those words might as [Page 17] evidently prove Bread to be Christs Body, as those other in St. John, I am the Bread that came down from Heaven, argue a contrary Transubstantiation of Christ's Body into Bread, John vi. 48, 51. or those more usual instances, I am the true Vine; I am the door of the sheep; That Rock was Christ; prove a great many Transubstantiations more, viz. of our Saviour into a Vine, a Door, and a Rock. But now, if for all this plainness and positiveness in these expressions, they themselves tell us, That it would be ridiculous to conclude from hence, that Christ was indeed turned into all these, and many other the like things; they may please to give us leave to say the same of this before us, it being neither less impossible, nor less unreasonable to suppose Bread to be changed into Christ's Body, than for Christ's Body to be changed into Bread, a Vine, a Door, a Rock, or whatever you please of the like kind.

But I have already shewn the ground of this mistake to be their want of considering the Customs and Phrases of the Jewish Passover, and upon which, both the Holy Eucharist it self, and these Expressions in it were founded: And I will only add this farther, in confirmation of it; That in the Stile of the Hebrew Language in general, there is nothing more ordinary, than for things to be said to Expressions of this kind are very frequent in Holy Scripture. The seed is the Word of God, Luke viii. 11. The field is the World; the good seed are the children of the kingdom: The tares are the children of the wicked one, Matt. xiii. 38. The seven Angels are the Angels of the seven Churches; and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches, Rev. i. 20. With infinite more of the like kind. Be that which they Signifie or Represent. Thus Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's Dream, [Page 18] Gen. xli. 26. The seven good Kine, says he, are seven years; and again, The seven good Ears of Corn are seven years, i. e. as is plain, they signify seven years. And so in like manner in this place; Christ took Bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, Eat, this is my Body which is Broken for you: That is, this Bread thus Taken, and Blessed, and Broken, and Given to you; This Bread, and this Action, signifies and represents my Body which shall be Broken for you.

And indeed, after all this seeming assurance, it is nevertheless plain, That they themselves are not very well satisfied with their own interpretation. See the Preface. We have shewn before, how little confidence their greatest Schoolmen had of this Doctrine; those who have stood the most stifly for it, could never yet See their Opinions collected by Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistiâ, lib. 1. cap. 9. 11, 12, 13, 14. agree how to explain these words, so as to prove it: And Cardinal Bellarmine alone, who reckons up the most part of their several ways, and argues the weakness too of every one but his own, may be sufficient to assure us, that they are never likely to be: And might serve to shew what just cause their own great Tract 2. de Verbis quibus Conficitur. Catharinus had so long since to cry out, upon his Enquiry only into the meaning of the very first word, This: ‘ Consider, says he, Reader, into what difficulties they are thrown, who go about to write upon this matter, when the word THIS only has had so many, and such contradictory Expositions, that they are enough to make a man lose his Wits, but barely to consider them all.’

[Page 19] 'Twas this forced so many of their See their Testimonies cited in the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation; in the Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England, p. 63, 64, 65. In the Preface above, &c. greatest and most learned men before Luther, ingenuously to profess, That there was not in Scripture any evident proof of this Doctrine; and even Cardinal Cajetan since to own, That had not the Church determined for the literal sense of those words, This is my Body, they might have passed in the Metaphorical.

It is the general acknowledgment of their See Bellarmin's words in the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, pag. 56, 57. To which may be added, Salmer. Tom. 9. Tr. 20. Suarez. Disp. 58. Sect. 7. Vasquez. Disp. 201. c. 1. &c. greatest Writers at this day, That if the Pronoun THIS in that Proposition, This is my Body, be referr'd to the Bread, which our Saviour Christ held in his Hand, which he bless'd, which he brake and gave to his Disciples, and of which therefore certainly, if of any thing, he said This is my Body, the natural repugnancy that there is between the two things affirm'd of one another, Bread and Christs Body, will force them to be taken in a figurative Interpretation: For as much as 'tis impossible that Bread should be Christ's Body otherwise than in a figure. And however, to avoid so dangerous a Consequence, they will rather apply it to any thing, nay to nothing at all than to the Bread; yet they would do well to consider, whether they do not thereby fall into as great a danger on the other side; since if the Relative THIS do's not determine those words to the Bread, 'tis evident that nothing in that whole Proposition do's; And then how those words shall work so great a change in a Subject to which [Page 20] they have no manner of Relation, will, I believe, be as difficult to shew, as the change its self is incomprehensible to conceive.

And now after so plain an evidence of the weakness of that foundation which is by all confessed to be the chief, and has by many of the most Learned of that Church been thought the only Pillar of this Cause; I might well dispense with my self from entring on any farther examination of their other pretences to establish it. But because they have taken great pains of late to apply the Concil. Trid. Sess. xiii. sixth Chapter of St. John to the Holy Eucharist, tho' it might be sufficient in general to say that no good Argument for a matter of such consequence, can be built upon a place which so many of the See them thus ranged by Albertinus de Euch. lib 1. cap. 30. pag. 209. Two Popes; Innocent III. Pius II. Four Cardinals, Bonaventure, D' Alliaco, Cusan. Cajetane. Two Archbishops, Richardus Armachannus, & Guererius Granatensis. Five Bishops, Stephanus Eduensis, Durandus Mimatensis, Gulielmus Alti [...]iodorensis, Lindanus Ruremondensis, & Jansenius Gandavensis. Doctors and Professors of Divinity in great abundance; Alexander Alensis, Richardus de media villa, Jo. Gerson, Jo. de Ragusio, Gabriel Biel, Thomas Waldensis, Author. tract. contr. perfidiam quorundam Bohemorum, Jo. Maria Verratus, Tilmannus Segebergensis, Astesanus, Conradus, Jo. Ferus, Conradus Sasgerus, Jo. Hesselius, Ruardus Tapperus, Palatios, & Rigaltius. Here are 30. of the Roman Church, who reject this Application of this Chapter. For the Fathers, see the Learned Paraphrase lately set forth of this Chapter, in the Preface: All which shews how little strength any Argument from this Chapter can have to establish Transubstantiation. most Eminent and Learned of that Communion have judged not to have the least Relation to this matter; yet I will nevertheless beg leave very briefly to shew the Weakness of this Second Attempt too; and that 'tis in vain that they rally these scatter'd Forces, whilst their main Body continues so intirely defeated.

[Page 21] It is a little surprizing in this matter, that they universally tell us, That neither the beginning nor ending of our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter belongs to this Matter; that both before and after that passage which they refer to, 'tis all Metaphor; only just two or three words for their purpose, Literal. But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch, is, that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument, is two thirds of it Figure, and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis.

‘ I am, says our Saviour, the living Bread which came down from Heaven; This is Figurative: If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever: That is, they say, by a Spiritual Eating by Faith: And the Bread which I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation, of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament.’

It must be confessed, that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed, and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received, not examined; and may therefore pass well enough amongst those, with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides, is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration. But for us, who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse; [Page 22] nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing, is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character; and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment, as indeed ‘ Who can bear it? V. 60.’ They will please to excuse us, if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority, as 'tis much more reasonable than theirs, V. 62. ‘ Do's this, says he, Offend you?’ Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh, and drink my Blood scandalize you? Mistake not my design, I mean not any carnal eating of me; that indeed might justly move your Horrour; ‘ It is the Spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life.’

He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter, may please to recur to the late excellent A Paraphrase with Notes, and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John, Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it, and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it. I shall only add, to close all, that one Remark which De Doctrin. Christian. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it, and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture, and illustrates with this particular Example: ‘ If, says he, the saying be Preceptive, either forbidding a wicked action, or commanding to do that which is good, it is no Figurative saying: But if it seems to command any Villany, [Page 23] or Wickedness, or forbid what is profitable and good, it is Figurative. This saying, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you, seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing: It is therefore a FIGURE, enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance, that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes.’

And now having thus clearly, I perswade my self, shewn the Weakness of those Grounds, on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd; I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it: Only in a Word, to demonstrate, that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error, I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more, to shew this Doctrine opposite, not only to Holy Scripture, as we have seen, but also,

1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church.
2. To the Right Reason, and
3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind.

[Page 24]

I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church.

Now to shew this, I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers, through whose hands this Tradition must have past: He that desires such an Account, may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion, in a little A Treatise of Transubstantiation, by one of the Church of Rome, &c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell. 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language. I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception, and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth, and whose consequence will be as evident, as their certainty is undeniable. And,

I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers; It is not deny'd, but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no Such are [...], but never [...]. And Note, there is hardly any of these Words, which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism. words (except that of Transubstantiation, which not one of them ever used) to set off so great a Mystery: And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone, since the Reformation, searcht into, one might find Expressions among them, as much over-strain'd. See Treatise first, of the Adoration, &c Printed lately at Oxford; Which would make the World believe that we hold, I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account; just as truly, as the Fathers did Transubstantiation. And [Page 25] doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England, as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages.

But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures, when they come to teach, not to declaim, and we shall find they will then tell us, That these Elements are for their It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged. Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published. The rest may be seen in Blondel, Eclaircissements Familiens de la Controverse de l▪ Eucharistie, Cap. iv, vii, viii. Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè, i. Part. Cap. iv, v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog. lib. xi. cap. ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv. Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie, liv. 2. cap. ii. substance what they were before, Bread and Wine: That they retain the true properties of their nature, to nourish and feed the Body: that they are things inanimate, and void of sense: That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images, Figures, Signes, Symbols, Memorials, Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ. That in their Use and Benefit, they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every faithful Receiver, but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner, as we confess: That, in propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ, although they do outwardly press with their teeth the Holy Elements; but rather eat and drink the Sacrament of His Body and Blood to their damnation.

II. Secondly, For our Saviours words which are supposed to work this great Change, 'tis evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church, [Page 26] that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words This Arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter Greeks, viz. That they take these Words only [...], Historically. See his Book de Concord. Lib. 3. Cap. 27. And indeed all the ancient Liturgies of that Church plainly speak it; However both He and Goar endeavour to shift it off; in which the Prayer of Consecration is after the words of Institution, and distinct from it. So in Liturg. S. Chrysostom. Edition. Goar. pag. 76. n. 130. 132. are pronounced the Words of Institution. Then pag. 77. numb. 139. the Deacon bids the Priest, [...]. Who thereupon thus consecrates it; He first signs it three times with the sign of the Cross, and then thus prays [...]. And so the Cup afterwards. of Consecration; but to be the same in this Holy Eucharist that the Haggadah, or History of the Passover was in that ancient Feast; That is, were read only as an account of the Occasion and design of the Institution of this Blessed Sacrament, not to work any Miracles in the Consecration. And for the The same seems to have been the custom of the African Church, whose Prayers now used, see in Ludolph. Histor. l. 3. cap. 5. Where is also the Expression mentioned, n. 56. Hic Panis est Corpus meum, &c. African Churches, they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner, as themselves confess to be inconsistent with Transubstantiation, viz. This Bread is the Body of Christ.

III. Let it be considered, Thirdly, That it was a great debate in the Primitive Church for above a thousand Years, Whether Christs Glorified Body had any Blood in it or no? Now how those Men could possibly have questioned whether Christ's See this whole matter deduced through the first Ages to St. Augustine, whom Consentius consulted about this very matter, in a particular Treatise written by Monsieur Allix de Sanguine Christi, 8vo. Paris 1680. Glorified Body had any Blood at all in it, had they then believed the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really [Page 27] changed, into the Blood of his Glorified Body, as is now asserted, is what will hardly, I believe, be ever told us.

IV. We will add to this, Fourthly, their manner of opposing the Heathenism of the World. With what confidence could they have rallied them as they did, for worshipping gods which their own Hands had made? That had So Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 12. Arnobius, lib. 1. Minutius Felix. p. 26. Octav. Julius Firmicus, pag. 37. Edit. Lugdunens. 4to, 1652. Hieron. lib. 12. in Esai. St. Augustinus in Psal. 80. & in Psal. 113. Lactantius Instit. lib. 2. cap. 4. Chrysostom. Homil. 57. in Genes. &c. neither Voice, nor Life, nor Motion; Exposed to Age, to Corruption, to Dust, to Worms, to Fire, and other Accidents. That they adored gods which their Enemies could spoil them of, Thieves and Robbers take from them; which having no power to defend themselves, were forced to be kept under Locks and Bolts to secure them.

For is not the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, in a higher degree than any of their Idols were, exposed to the same raillery? Had their Wafer, if such then was their Host, any voice, or life, or motion? Did not their own Hands form its substance, and their Mouths speak it into a God? Could it defend its self, I do not say from publick Enemies, or private Robbers, but even from the very Vermine, the creeping things of the Earth?

Or should we suppose the Christians to have been so impudent, as notwithstanding all this, to expose others for the same follies of which [Page 28] themselves were more notoriously guilty; yet were there no And yet that none did, the Learned Rigaltius confesses. Not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor. c. 5. Heathens, that had wit enough to recriminate? The other See Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Et de carne Christi, c. 4. 5. Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. Arnob. l. 2. Orig. contr. Cels. l. 1. Articles of our Faith they sufficiently traduced; That we should worship a Man, and He too a Malefactor, crucified by Pilate; How would they have triumph'd, could they have added, That they worshipped a bit of Bread too; which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idolatry than any the Heathens were guilty of? Since this Doctrine has been started, we have heard of the Reproaches of all sorts of Men, Jews, Heathens, Mahometans, against us on this account. See du Perron de l'Euchar. l. 3. c. 29. p. 973. Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before? Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Confusion? Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavour'd to be represented, we had long ere this seen the whole World filled with the Writings that had proclaimed their shame, in one of the greatest instances of Impudence and Inconsideration, to attacque their Enemies for that very Crime, of which themselves were more notoriously guilty.

V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point, than their See this fully handled in a late treatise called, The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared &c. 1687. way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens. It was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of Eutyches, who imagined some such kind of Transubstantiation of the humane nature of Christ into the Divine, to produce the Example of the [Page 29] Eucharist; That as there the Bread and the Wine, says P. Gelasius, ‘ Being perfected by the Holy Spirit, pass into the Divine Substance, yet so as still to remain in the property of their own Nature, or substance of Bread and Wine;’ So here the This Argument is managed by St. Chrysostome Epist. ad Caesarium Monachum. By Theodoret Dial. 2. pag. 85 Ed. G. L. Paris, 1642. Tom. 4. Gelasius in Opere contra Eutychen & Nestorium. He thus states the Eutychian Heresie, ‘Dicunt unam esse naturam,’ i. e. Divinam. Against this he thus disputes, Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christs divina res est.—Et tamen non desinit substantia vel Natura Panis & Vini.—Satis ergo nobis Evidentur Ostenditur, hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur.—Ut sicut in hanc sc. in divinam transeant S. Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae, sic, &c. Humane Nature of Christ still remains, though assumed by, and conjoyned to the Divine. Which words, as their Editor has done well to set a Cautè upon in the Margent to signifie their danger, so this is clear from them, that Gelasius, and so the other Writers that have made use of the same Argument, as St. Chrysostome, Theodoret, &c. must have thought the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist no more to have been really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ, than they did believe his Humane Nature to have been truly turned into the Divine; For that otherwise the parallel would have stood them in no stead, nay would have afforded a defence of that Heresie which they undertook to oppose by it.

VI. Yet more: Had the Primitive Christians believed this great Change; how comes it to pass, that we find none of those Marks nor Signs of it, that the World has since abounded with? See the contrary proved, that the Fathers did not believe this, by Blondel, de l'Euch. c. 8. Claude Rep. an. 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite, part. 1. c. 4. No talk of Accidents existing without Subjects, of the Senses being liable to [Page 30] be deceived in judging of their proper Objects; in short, no Philosophy corrupted to maintain this Paradox. No Adorations, Processions; Uows paid to it, as to Christ himself. It is but a very little time since the Under Greg. ix. Ann. 1240. vid. Nauclerum ad Ann. cit. Bell came in play, to give the People notice that they should fall down and Worship this new God. The Instituted by Urban iv. Ann. 1264. Feast in honour of it, is an Invention of Yesterday; the Adoring of it in the Streets no Indeed, in all Probability, a hundred years later. older: Had not those first Christians respect sufficient for our Blessed Saviour? Or, did they perhaps do all this? Let them shew it us if they can; But till then, we must beg leave to conclude, That since we find not the least Footsteps of any of these necessary Appendages of this Doctrine among the Primitive Christians, it is not to be imagined that we should find the Opinion neither.

VII. But this is not all: We do not only not find any such Proofs as these of this Doctrine, but we find other Instances directly contrary to this belief. In some Churches they So in that of Jerusalem. See Hasych. in Levitic. l. 2. c. 8. burnt what remained of the Consecrated Elements; So in that of Constantinople. Evag. Hist. l. 4. c. 35. In others, they gave it to little Children to Eat: Vid. apud. Autor. Vit. Basilii, c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1. This Custom was condemned in a Council at Carthage, Anno 419. Vid. Codic. Eccl. Afric. Justel. c. 18. In some, they buried it with their Dead; In all, they permitted the Communicants to carry home some Remnants of them; they sent it abroad by Sea, by Land, from [Page 31] one Church and Village to another, without any Provision of Bell or Taper, Canopy or Incense, or any other mark of Adoration; they sometimes made Vid. St. August. Oper. imp. contr. Julian. lib. 3. c. 164. Poultices of the Bread; they mix'd the See an instance of this in Baronius, Ann. 648. Sect. 15. The 8th General Council did the same. In Act. Syn. Wine with their Ink; all which we can never imagine such holy Men would have presumed to do, had they indeed believed them to be the very Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord.

VIII. Lastly: Since the prevalence of this Doctrine in the Church, what Opposition has it met with? What Schisms has it caused? What infinite Debates have there risen about it? I shall not need to speak of the Troubles of Berenger in the Eleventh: Of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and others in the Twelfth Century. Of Wickliff, Hus, &c. who continued the Opposition; and finally, of the great Reformation in the beginning of the last Age; by all which this Heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any Knowledg in the Church. Now is it possible to be believed, that so many Centuries should pass, so many Heresies should arise, and a Doctrine so full of Contradictions remain uncontested in the Church for almost a Thousand years? That Berenger should be one of the first that should begin to Credit his Senses, to Consult his Reason, or even to Defend his Creed?

[Page 32] These are Improbabilities that will need very convincing Arguments indeed to remove them. But for the little late French trick of proving this Doctrine necessary to have This is the Foundation of the Authors of the Treatises, De la Perpetuite: Answered by Mons. Claude. been received in the Primitive Church, because it is so in the Present, and if you will believe them, 'tis impossible a Change should have been made; I suppose, we need only turn the terms of the Argument to shew the Weakness of the Proof, viz. That from all these, and many other Observations, that might be offer'd of the like kind, 'tis Evident that this Doctrine at the beginning, was not believed in the Church, and let them from thence see, if they can conclude that neither is it believed now.

Thus contrary is this Doctrine to the Best and Purest Tradition of the Church: Nor is it less, Secondly,

II. To Right Reason too.

It were endless to heap together all the Contradictions that might be offer'd to prove this; ‘That there should be Length, and nothing Long; Breadth, and nothing Broad; Thickness, and nothing Thick; See Mr. Chillingworth against Knot, c. iv. n. 46. Whiteness, and nothing White; Roundness, and nothing Round; Weight, and nothing Heavy; Sweetness, and nothing Sweet; Moisture, and nothing Moist; Fluidness, and nothing Flowing; [Page 33] many Actions and no Agent; many Passions, and no Patient; i. e. That there should be a Long, Broad, Thick, White, Round, Heavy, Sweet, Moist, Flowing, Active, Passive NOTHING. That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ, and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ; neither the Matter, nor the Form, nor the Accidents of the Bread, be made either the Matter, or the Form, or the Accidents of Christ; that Bread should be turned into Nothing, and at the same Time with the same Action turned into Christ, and yet Christ should not be Nothing; that the same Thing at the same Time should have its just Dimensions, and just Distance of its Parts one from another, and at the same time not have it, but all its Parts together in one and the self-same Point; That the same Thing at the same time should be wholly Above its self, and wholly Below its self, Within its self, and Without its self, on the Right-hand, and on the Left-hand, and Round-about its self: That the same thing at the same time should move to and from its self, and yet lie still; or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. That there should be no Certainty in our Senses, and yet that we should know something Certainly, and yet know nothing but by our Senses; That that which Is and Was long ago, should now begin to be; That that is now to be made of Nothing, which is not Nothing, but Something; That the same thing should be Before [Page 34] and After its self. These and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, and most of them the avow'd Consequences of Transubstantiation, and I need not say all of them Contradictions to Right Reason.’

But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible; and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine; and such are these; See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel, Eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l'Eucharistie, cap. 8. p. 253. That a thing already existing should be produced anew: That a finite thing should be in many places at the same time; That a Body should be in a place, and yet take up no room in it; That a Body should penetrate the dimensions of another Body; That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit; That a real body should be invisible and impassible: That the same thing should be its self, and the figure of its self: That the same thing should be contained in, and participate of its self; Monsieur Claude Rep. au. 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite, part. 1. c. 4. n. 11. p. 73. Ed. 4to. Paris 1668. That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject, after the manner of a Substance. All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions, without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist, as some do now.

And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here: but alas! the Repugnancies extend [Page 35] to the very Creed it self, and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith, the Fundamentals of Christianity. How can that man profess that he believes our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi. Ages since, of the Virgin Mary, whose very Body he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes? That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven, and behold he is yet with us upon Earth? There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead? And behold he is here carried through the Streets; lock'd up in a Box; Adored first, and then Eaten by his own Creatures; carried up and down in several manners, and to several places, and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket.

These are no far-fetch'd Considerations; they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief; and if these things are impossible, as doubtless, if there be any such thing as Reason in the World, they are; I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith, to reflect a little upon them, and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous, that the least degree of an impartial judgment, would presently have shewn them the falseness of it.

But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter; but has given us, Thirdly,

[Page 36]

III. The Conviction of our Senses against it.

An Argument this, which since it cannot be Answered, they seem resolved to run it down; as the Stoick in Lucian, who began to call names, when he had nothing else to say for himself.

But if the Senses are such ill Informers, that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment, would these Disputers please to tell us, What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion? Was not Christianity first founded upon the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles? Or were not the Senses judges of those Miracles? Are not the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, the most Fundamental Articles of our Faith? Have we any other Argument to warrant our belief of these, but what comes to us by the ministry of our Senses? John xx. 27, 29. Did not Christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own Rising?

The Romanist himself believes Transubstantiation because he reads in the Scripture, or rather (to speak more agreeably to the method of their Church) because he has been told there are such Words there, as, Hoc est Corpas Meum: Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this Doctrine, is it not evident that he [Page 37] cannot be sure there are any such words there, if he may not trust his Senses: And if he may, is it not as plain, That he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them?

Let us suppose the change they speak of to be Supernatural; Be it as much as Miracle as they desire: The very Character of a Miracle is to be known by the Senses. Nor God, nor Christ, nor any Prophet or Apostle, ever pretended to any other. And I shall leave it to any one to judge what progress Christianity would have made in the World, if it had had no other Miracles but such as Transubstanation to confirm it: i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted, but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted, and impossible to be performed.

But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natural Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist; let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others; as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony, a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion.

Our Church indeed teaches us to believe, That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance; but it teaches us [Page 38] also that 'tis the Body and Blood of See the Church Catechism, and Article Twenty eighth. The Communion-Office, &c. Christ, which every faithful Soul receives in that Holy Supper: Spiritually indeed, and after a Heavenly manner, but yet most truly and really too.

The Primitive Fathers, of whom we have before spoken, sufficiently assure us, that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pretended; but for this Divine and Mystical, they have openly enough declared for it.

Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change, and that a very great one too made in this Holy Sacrament. The Bread and the Wine which we here Consecrate, ought not to be given or received by any one in this Mystery, as common ordinary food. Those Holy Elements which the Prayers of the Church have sanctified, and the Divine Words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them, though not Transubstantiated, yet certainly separated to a Holy use and signification, ought to be regarded with a very just Honour by us: And whilst we Worship Him whose Death we herein Commemorate, and of whose Grace we expect to be made partakers by it, we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the Types and Figures, by which he has chosen to represent the one, and convey to us the other.

Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our Piety, if we Adore our Redeemer in Heaven, yet omit nothing that may testifie our just esteem of [Page 39] his Holy Sacrament on Earth: Nor suffer the most Zealous Votary for this new Opinion, to exceed us in our Care and Reverence of Approaching to his Holy Table.

We acknowledg him to be no less Really Present, tho after another manner than they; nor do we less expect to Communicate of his Body and Blood with our Souls, than they who think they take Him carnally into their Mouths.

Let our Office of Communion be examined; let the Reverence and Devotion, with which we Celebrate this Sacred Feast, be consider'd; all these will shew how far the Church of England is from a light esteem of this great Mystery; indeed, that it is impossible for any to set a higher Value and Reverence upon it.

I shall close this with the Declaration of One, who after many Years spent in great Reputation in their Communion, was so happy as to finish his Days in our Church; upon his first receiving the Blessed Communion among us: ‘ Andr. Sallii Votum pro pace, c. 23. p. 90. Ed. Oxon. 1678. Tantam magnorum Praesulum demissionem, tam eximiam Principum & Populi Reverentiam, in Sacra Eucharistia administranda & recipienda, nusquam ego vidi apud Romanenses, qui tamen se unos Sacramenti istius cultores jactant.’ That He never saw in the Church of Rome, so great a Reverence both in Administring and Receiving this Holy Eucharist, as he found among us; [Page 40] insomuch, that he supposed it would hardly be believed among them, what from his own Experience, he recounted concerning it.

Porro haec quae narravi & trita nimis ac vulgo nota Videbuntur fratribus nostris Reformatae Ecclesiae: Nova omnino & fortè incredibilia Apparebunt Romanae Congregationis Vid. ibid. pag. 90. cap. xxiv. n. 7. Alumnis; quorum scilicet auribus perpetuò suggeritur per suos Instructores, nullam apud Protestantes existere fidem praesentiae Christi realis in Eucharistiae Sacramento, nullam Devotionem aut Reverentiam in eo Sumendo.

And this may suffice for the first thing proposed; Of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or of the Real Presence professed and established in the Church of Rome. Our next Business will be to inquire:

II. What that Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist is, which is acknowledged by the Church of England.

[Page 41]

CHAP. II.

Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England.

IT may sufficiently appear from what has been said in the foregoing Chapter, what just reason we have to reject that kind of Presence which the Church of Rome supposes of Christ in this Holy Eucharist. But now in Answer to our Reflections upon them on this Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Eucharist. Oxford. 1687. Occasion, a late Author has thought fit to make the World believe, that we our selves, in our Opinion of the Real Presence, are altogether as absurd as they are; and that the same Exceptions lie against our own Church, which we urge against theirs: All which, if it were true, would but little mend the matter, unless it may be thought sufficient for a man to prove, that he is not mad himself, because most of his Neighbours are in the same condition. Indeed herein he must be allowed to have reason on his side, that if the Case be so as he affirms, we, of all men living, ought not to press them with such Contradictions, as our own Opinion Tract. I. pag. 15, 16. stands equally involved in.

'Tis true, he confesses for what concerns the Church of England, as it stood in the latter Tract. I. §. 26. end of King Edward the oth's time, and as it may perhaps be thought to stand now, since the Ibid. §. 4. reviving of the Old Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament at the end of our Communion-Office; it seems not to lye open to such a Recrimination: But taking our Opinion of the Real Presence from the Expressions of our own Divines, [Page 42] and of those abroad, such as Calvin, &c. whose ‘Doctrine, amongst all the rest, the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with, especially since the beginning of the Reformation by Q. Elizabeth;’ it plainly implies, ‘ That the very Substance of Christ's Body; That his Natural Body, that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, is present as in Heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver, or to the Symbols:’ which not only contradicts the present Declaration of our Church; viz. ‘That the Natural Body of Christ is not in this blessed Sacrament;’ but will also lay a necessity upon us to quit our Reason too that we give for it; viz. ‘ That it is against the Truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than One at One time;’ and on which we seem to found our Faith in this matter.

This is, I think, the design of the former of those Discourses lately Printed at Oxford, as to what concerns the Real Presence; and in Answer to which, that I may proceed as distinctly as possible, I shall reduce my Reflections to these Four Generals:

1. What is the true Notion of the Real Presence, as acknowledged by the Church of England.
2. That this has been the Notion constantly maintain'd by the Generality of our Divines.
3. That the Alteration of the Rubrick, as to this matter, was not upon any such difference in their Opinions, as this Author seems to surmise.
4. That the Reason alledged by it, concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in [Page 43] several places at the same time, is no way invalidated by any of his Exceptions against it.

But before I enter on these Reflections, I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of our Adversaries, in repeating continually the same Arguments against us without either adding of any the least new force to them, or even taking notice of those Replies that have more than once been made against them. The Publisher of this Treatise has not been so indiligent an Observer of what has past under his Eyes, with reference to these kind of Controversies, as not to know, that this very Objection, which is the Foundation of his First Discourse, was made by his Old Friend T. G. above Nine Years since; and fully answer'd by his Reverend and Learned Adversary not long after. And therefore that he certainly ought either quietly to have let alone this Argument already baffled, and not have put the World in Mind where that Debate stopp'd; or, at least, he should have added some new strength to it. But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before; to take no notice either from whose Store-house he borrow'd it, or what had been returned to it; This is in effect to confess, that they have no more to say for themselves: And 'tis a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up, but what they know very well we can answer, and that they themselves are unable to defend.

But to return to the Points proposed to be consider'd: And,

First, To state the Notion of the Real Presence, as acknowledged by the Church of England.

[Page 44] I must observe, 1st. That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament, as either to leave Heaven, or to exist in several places at the same time. We confess, with this Author, that it would be no less a Contradiction for 1. Tract. p. 19. §. 27. Christ's Natural Body, to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever, than by that which the Church of Rome has stated; the repugnancy being in the thing its self, and not in the manner of it. 2dly, That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive, there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine, distributed to the Communicants; which alone they take into their Mouths, and press with their Teeth. In short, ‘All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase, is Answer to T. G's Dialogues. Lond. 1679, pag. 66. only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace, so in and with the Elements, as by the faithful receiving of them, to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels, might be called their Bodies, while they assumed them; or rather, as the Church is the Body of Christ, because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers, so the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, are the Real, but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ.’

Thus has that learned Man, to whom T. G. first made this Objection, stated the Notion of the Real Presence profess'd by us; and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter, is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii. Article, and of our Church Catechism; but also from the whole Tenour of that Office which we use in the celebration of it. In our Exhortation to it, this Blessed Eucharist is expresly called ‘The Communion [Page 45] of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ:’ We are told, ‘that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament; then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood.’When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread, he bids the Communicant ‘Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving.’ In our Prayer after the Receiving, ‘We thank God, for that he doth vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries, with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us, and that we are very Members, incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son.’ All which, and many other the like Expressions, clearly shew, that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Pauls Phrase, a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood; or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii. ‘That to such as rightly and worthily, and with Faith receive the same,’ the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi. time, the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form, which our Author observes to have been since left out. ‘And with thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe Tract. I. 2. to Bless and Sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ—’ i. e. as the Sense plainly implies, may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces [Page 46] which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us; which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address▪ ‘Hear us, O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee, and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution, in remembrance of his Death and Passion, may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood.’ Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity, that had not our Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none; He would hardly have suffer'd his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint, Pag. 3. about so small a Variation.

I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said: But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants, or that we are therefore concern'd to defend. And if there be indeed any, who as our Author here expresses it, do believe Christs natural Body to be as in Heaven, so in the Holy Sacrament; they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubrick of our Church, ‘That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here, it being against the truth of Christs natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.’

In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I proposs'd,

Secondly, To shew in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary, that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintain'd by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines.

[Page 47] And here, because our Author has thought [...]it to appeal not only to our own, but to the forreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us, viz. ‘That the very Substance of Christs Tract. I. §. 7. Body, that his Natural Body, that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, &c. is present, as in Heaven, so Here in this Holy Sacrament; i. e. in both at the same time:’ I must be content to follow his Steps, and enquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers; next of our own Country-men in this Particular.

And first for Mr. Calvin, and his followers, I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter. On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit, that, ‘ Calvinistae negant corpus & sanguinem Christi, verè, realiter, & substantialiter praesentem esse in Eucharistiâ. Becani manuale. l. 3. c. 9. p. 501. Ed. Luxembergi. 1625. The Calvinists, says he, deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really, and substantially present in the Eucharist:’ On the other, Here is one will prove, that they believe his very Body, his natural Body, now in Heaven, to be nevertheless at the same time in the Holy Sacrament. It were to be wish'd that they would let us once know what 'tis they will stick to, and not by such contradictory charges shew to all the World, that both their Accusations may be false, but that it is utterly impossible they should both be true.

And indeed in this very instance they are both CALVIN. false; The Calvinists hold neither the one or other of these Extreams. In the Edition of his Institutions printed at Basil 1536. Mr. Calvin thus delivers his Opinion, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Dicimus verè & Efficaciter exhiberi non autem naturaliter. Quo scil. significamus non substantiam ipsam corporis, seu verum & naturale Christi corpus illic dari, sed omnia quae in suo corpore nobis Beneficia Christus praestitit. EA est corporis PRAESENTIA quam Sacramenti ratio postulat; Edit. Basil. 8 ^o. 1536. Eucharist. ‘We say, that they are truly and Efficaciously [Page 48] exhibited to us, but not naturally: By which we signifie, not that the very Substance of his Body, or that the true and natural Body of Christ are given there, but all the Benefits which Christ did for us in his Body. THIS is that PRESENCE of his Body, which the nature of the Sacrament requires.’

But because I do not find these words in the Editions of that Book since, least any one should thereupon conclude that he had also changed his Opinion; we may observe the very same delivered by him in Dilucida explicatio &c. Contra Westphalum. Edit. Anno 1561. another of his Books, and which will be so much the more considerable, in that it was written purposely for the clearing of this matter. Now in this he affirms, ‘ Christi corpus non modò semel fuisse datum in salutem nostram, dum ad expianda peccata immolatum in cruce fuit, sed quotidiè nobis in alimentum porrigi, ut dum ipse habitat in nobis, bonorum eriam ejus omnium s [...]cietate fruamur.—Apud Hospin. Hist. Sacram. Part 2da Ann. 1561. p. 477. That Christs Body was not only once given for our Salvation, but is also every day reached out to us for our Sustenance, that so, whilst he dwells in us, we may also enjoy the Fellowship of all his goods.—’Then he explains How Christ is our food, viz. Rursum alimentum à nobis vocatur hoc sensu, quia incomprehensibili spiritûs Virtute nobis vitam suam inspirat ut sit nobis communis, non secus atque à radice arboris vitalis succus in ramos se diffundit, vel à capite in singula membra manat Vigor. Ibid.—Imprimis obstaculum de corporis immensitate submovere necesse est. Nisi enim constet finitum esse caeló (que) comprehendi nulla erit dissidii conciliandi Ratio—p. 478. Christus sicuti in gloriam coelestem semel est receptus, ita l [...]corum intervallo quoad carnem, est à nobis dissitus; Divinâ autem Essentiâ & virtute, gratiâ etiam spirituali caelum & terram implere.—Idem ergo Corpus quod semel filius Dei Patri in sacrificium obtulit, quotidie nobis in Coena offert, ut sit in Spirituale Alimentum. Tantùm de modo tenendum est, non opus esse descendere carnis Essentiam è coelo ut eâ pascamur, sed ad penetranda impedimenta & superandam locorum distantiam sufficere Spiritûs virtutem.—Commenta procul facessant; qualia sunt de Corporis ubiquitate, vel de occultâ sub panis symbolo inclusione, vel de substantiali ejus in terris prasentiâ. Hospin. p. 478. Haec omnia refert ex illo Calvini loco. because ‘by the incomprehensible Vertue of the Holy Spirit, he inspires his Life into us, that he may communicate it to us, no less than the vital juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree, or than Vigour flows from the Head into all the members.—He declares Christs Body to be finite, and enclosed [Page 49] in Heaven; and therefore as to his Flesh to be distant in place from us.—That it is not necessary that the Essence of his Flesh should descend from Heaven, that we may be fed with it, but that to remove all such impediments, and overcome the distance of places, the Virtue of the Spirit is sufficient—In short, that all inventions contrary to this are to be rejected, such as, The Ubiquity of Christs Body, the inclosing of it under the Symbol of Bread, and his Substantial presence upon Earth.’ BEZA.

By all which it sufficiently appears, that Mr. Calvin was no friend to our Authors Fancy; but evidently explained the Real Presence after that Spiritual manner we have before laid down.

For Beza, and the rest as he calls them, of the same Sect; we cannot better learn their Opinion than from the Acts of the Colloquy of Poissy, and which chiefly lay upon this Point. At this conference the most eminent Men of the Calvinian Party were assembled; the first of them which spoke, was Beza: In that part of his Discourse which referr'd to the Holy Eucharist, his words were much like those which our Author has quoted out of him. And by his own Exposition of them, we shall be better able to judg of his meaning, than by his Adversaries Gloss. ‘ See Hospin. Hist. Sacram. Part. 2. ad Ann. 1561. p. 515. Edit. Genev. 1681. Comment. de statu Relig. & reipub. in Galliâ ad Ann. 1561. p. 112. Et postea pag. 138. ita se exprimit in eundem planè sensum ‘affirmamus J. c. adesse in usu Coenae, in quâ nobis offert, dat & verè exhibet Corpus suum & sanguinem suum operatione Spiritus Sti. nos verò recipimus, edimus & bibimus spiritualiter & per fidem illud ipsum corpus quod pro nobis mortuum est, eùm (que) illum sanguinem pro nobis effusum.’ Edit. Ann. 1577. 8 ^o. Beze. Hist. Eccles. pag. 595▪ 596. For all this see Beza's own History ad Ann. 1561. p. 524. And when in the Conference D'Espense pressed them with departing from Calvin; Beza declared, that they were not at all contrary to him: That for the word Substance, which he sometimes used in expressing Christs Real Presence, it was only to signifie, that they did not feign any imaginary Body of Christ, or fantastick reception or communion of His Body in this Holy Supper; But that for the rest, they all believed, that no one could participate of him otherwise than Spiritually and by Faith, not in taking Him into the Mouth, or eating him with the Teeth. See pag. 599. Ibid. We do not say that [Page 50] in the Eucharist there is only a commemoration of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor do we say, that in it we are made partakers only of the fruits of his death and passion; but we joyn the ground with the fruits, affirming with St. Paul, that the Bread which by Gods appointment we break, is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us; the Cup which we drink, the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us; and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he carry'd up with him into the Heavens—’ Then descending to the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation: ‘It overthrows, says he, the truth of Christs Humane nature and of his Ascension—’So little did he suppose, that Christs natural Body could be at the same time both in Heaven and in the Sacrament. Hereupon he explains himself yet farther;— ‘But now if any one should ask of us, whether we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper? We answer, By no means. But yet if we respect the distance of place (as when we speak of his Corporal presence, and of his Humanity, we must) we affirm, says he, that Christs Body is as far distant from the Bread and Wine, as Heaven is from Earth—If any one shall from thence conclude, that we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper, he will conclude amiss: For this Honour we allow to God, that though the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere, and we on Earth and not elsewhere, yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner, and by the means of Faith.’

Thus do's Beza in like manner expound their Doctrine of the Real Presence, by a real communion of Christs Body and Blood, and flatly condemns our Authors [Page 51] invention, of his natural Bodie's being either in PETER MARTYR. the Symbols, or any where else upon Earth. The same is the account which Respondeo pro meâ parte, Corpus Christi non esse Verè et substantialiter alibi quàm in Caelo. Non tamen inficior Christi corpus verum, & sanguinem illius Verum quae pro salute humana tradita sunt in Cruce, fide spiritualiter percipi in Sacrâ Coenâ. Histoire Eccles. de Beze. liv. 4. p. 606. Anno 1561. Peter Martyr in the same conference gave of it; and of whom Vid. Hist. de Beze ib. p. 599. Comment. de stat. rel. p. 140. ad Ann 1561. Hospin. pag. 518. Espensius, one of the Popish delegates, confess'd ‘That no Divine of that time had spoken so clearly and distinctly concerning this Sacrament, as he did.’ And however See Hospin. of this whole matter pag. 520. Genebrard fasely pretends that the other Protestants dissented from him, yet 'tis certain they were so far from it, that they all Subscribed the very same Paper out of which he read his Declaration. But I will close this with the same words with which these Protestants did their final resolution in the Colloquy as to this matter; ‘We Affirmamus nullam locorum distantam impedire posse communicationem quam ha [...]emus cum Christi corpore & sanguine, quoniam Coena Domini est res coelestis; et quamvis in terrâ recipiamus ore panem & vinum, vera scil Corporis & sanguinis signa; tamen fide & spiritûs sancti operatione mentes nostrae (quarum hic est praecipuè cibus) in caelum elatae perfruuntur corpore & sanguine praesente. Et hee respectu dicimus, Corpus verè se pani conjungere, & sanguinem vino; non aliter tamen quam sacramentali ratione, neque locali neque naturali modo, sed quoniam Efficaciter significant Deum illa dare fideliter communicantibus, illósque fide verè & certo p [...]r [...]ipere. Hospin. l c. Comm. ibid. p. 142. Ubi subjicitur ‘Haec est perspicua de Corporis & sanguinis J. C. Praesentia in Sacramento Caenae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum sententia—’ Beze Hist. Eccles. pag. 615. where he adds, that they reject not only Tra [...]substantiatim and Consubstantiation, but also toute maniere de presence par laquelle [...]e corps de Christ [...]' [...]st colloquè maintenant reellement ailleurs qu'au ci [...]l. And then adds, why they thus use the word substance in this matter, and what they mean by it. See pag. 615. ad Ann 1561. affirm that no distance of place can hinder the Communion which we have with Christs Body and Blood; because the Supper of the Lord is a Heavenly thing, and though upon Earth we receive with our mouths Bread and Wine, viz. the true Symbols of his Body and Blood; yet by Faith, and through the Operation of the Holy Spirit, our Souls (of which this is [Page 52] the chief food) being carry'd up into Heaven, enjoy the Body and Blood present. And in this respect we say that the Body do's truly joyn its self to the Bread, and the Blood to the Wine, but yet no otherwise than Sacramentally, neither after a local or natural manner. But because they do effectually signifie, that God gives them to the Faithful Communicants, and that they do by Faith truly and certainly receive them.’

And thus far I have consider'd the forreign Divines produced by our Author, and in which we find the very same Explication which our Church gives of the Real presence. For our own Authors, I shall insist the rather upon them, both to take off any impression which the scraps here put together by those whose business it is to represent their own Sence, not their Authors, might otherwise be apt to make upon some Men; and also to shew the exact concord there has been ever since the Reformation amongst us as to this matter.

Now for what concerns our Divines in King Edward vi ^ths. time, we have our Authors own confession, that towards the latter end of the Reign of that excellent Prince, they seem to have deny'd any such Real and Essential presence as he would fasten upon those of Queen Elizabeth's after. ‘For as the first days of this Prince, says he, seem to have been more 1 Treatise §. xxvi. pag 19. addicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zwinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley and Peter Martyr.’ And indeed the Articles agreed upon in the Convocation at London 1562. plainly shew it; in the xxixth. of which we find this express Clause; ‘Since the very being of humane Nature doth require that the Body of one and the [Page 53] same man cannot be at one and the same time in many places, but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place; Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time. And since, as the Holy Scriptures testifie, Christ hath been taken up into Heaven, and there is to abide till the end of the World, it becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess, that there is a Real or Corporal Presence, as they phrase it, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.’ I shall therefore produce only a Witness or two of this King's Reign; and so pass on to those that follow.

And 1st, A. B. Cranmer in his Answer to Gardiner, A. B. CRANMER. Bishop of Winchester, objecting to him, That he deny'd the Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist, replies, That it was ‘a thing he never said nor thought.—My book in divers places saith clean contrary, Answer to Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. Fol. London, 1551. That Christ is with us spiritually present; is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, although Corporally he be departed out of this World, and gone into Heaven, pag. 5.—As he giveth Bread Pag. 5. to be eaten, with our Mouths, so giveth he his very Body to be eaten with our Faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chawed and digested; but all is spiritually with Faith, not with Mouth, pag. 9.—As the washing outwardly Pag. 9. in Water is not a vain Token, but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same; so likewise is not the Bread a vain Token, but sheweth and preacheth to the godly Receiver, what God worketh in him by his Almighty Power secretly and invisibly. And [Page 54] therefore as the Bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord's Supper, so is the very Body of Christ inwardly by Faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do; which eating nourisheth them unto Everlasting Life.’And in his Treatise of the Holy Sacrament, Lib. 3. where Assertio verae & Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis, J. Christi Servatoris nostri. Lich [...], 8 vo. 1601. he sets himself particularly to state this very Question, How Christ is present in this Holy Sacrament, He declares, Cap. 2. ‘That whereas the Papists suppose Christ to be under the Species of Bread and Wine; we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these Holy Elements. They think him to be received by the Mouth, and to enter with the Bread and Wine; We assert, that he is received only by the Soul, and enters there by Faith. That Christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred Mystery, p. 116. That since his Ascension into Heaven, he is there, and not on Earth, p. 118. and that he cannot be in both together, 128.—In short, he gives us this Rule for interpreting the Expressions of the Fathers, where it is said, That we eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ; That we receive in the Holy Sacrament, the very body that hung on the Cross, &c. cap. 14. p. 180. These, says he, and other Expressions of the like kind (which speak Christ to be upon Earth, and to be received of Christians by eating or drinking), are either to be understood of his Divine Nature (which is every where); or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually. For he is figuratively only in the Bread and Wine; and spiritually in those that receive this Bread and Wine worthily. But truly, and as to his Body and Flesh, he is in Heaven only; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.’

[Page 55] Thus did this Learned and Holy Martyr understand Bp. RIDLEY our Doctrine of the Real Presence; and the same was the Idea which his Companion both in Doctrine and Suffering, Bishop Ridley, has left us of it. In his Discourse of the Lord's Supper, pag. 33. he tells us, ‘That Ridlei de Caenâ Dominicâ Assertio; Geneve apud Jo. Crispinum. 1556. the Substance of the Bread continues as the Matter of this Sacrament; but so, that by reason of its change, as to Use, Office and Dignity, it is turned Sacramentally into the Body of Christ; as in Baptism, the Water is turned into the Laver of Regeneration—That the Humane Nature of Christ is in Heaven, and cannot in any manner lye hid under the form of Bread, p. 34.—Then he enquires, whether therefore we take away the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament? p. 35. And utterly denies, that this is either said or thought by him. The Substance of the true Body and Blood of Christ, says he, is always in Heaven, nor shall it depart thence before the end of the World. Now this Substance of his Body and Blood being conjoyned to his Divine Nature, has not only Life in it self, but can, and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it, and believe in his Name.—Nor is it any hindrance to this, that Christ still remains in Heaven, and that we are upon Earth. For by Grace, that is, Life (as S. John interprets it, c. 6) and the Properties of it, as far as may be profitable to us in this our Pilgrimage here below, he is with us to the end of the World. As the Sun, who though he never leaves his Orb, yet by his Life, Heat, and Influence, is present to us:’ pag. 36, 37.

Hitherto then there can be no doubt, but that both the Church and the Divines knew no other Real Presence than what has been before acknowledged to [Page 56] be still our Doctrine. We must now go on to the times of tryal, the days of Q. Elizabeth, and her Successors, when our Author supposes, ‘that Men of different Judgments had the Power.’ Now for proof of 1. Tract. §. IV. pag. 4. this, besides the Expressions of particular Men, which we shall presently consider, we have Two General Presumptions offer'd to us; One, ‘That Dr. Heylin, and others, have observed, he says, of this Queen, that she was a zealous propugner of the Real Presence;’ which may be very true, and yet but little to the purpose, if she propugned it in the same sense that her Brother King Edward the 6th, and the Church of England had done before, and not in the new Notion imposed upon her by this Author, but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion. The other, ‘That upon the Re-view made by her Divines of the Common-Prayer and Articles, they struck out of the One 1. Treatise. pag. 2. §. I. and again, p. 22. §. XXXI. the Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament, and the Passage before mention'd (being of the same temper as the Declaration in the Liturgy), out of the xxixth Article; and which has accordingly been omitted ever since.’

And here I cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this Author, in dissembling the true Account that has so largely been given by our late accurate Compiler of the History of our Reformation of this whole matter, only for the advancing so pitiful an Insinuation of what I dare appeal to his own Conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise. I will beg leave to transcribe the whole Passage; and shall then leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with Books, and so interested in this matter, could have lived so long in the world without hearing [Page 57] of so eminent a matter in our Church-History as this.

The Author is treating about the difference between the Article establish'd in King Edward the six's time, Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Refomation, Vol. 2. Pag. 405. Ann. 1559. Edit. 2. 1683. and those in Q. Elizabeth's.

‘In the Article of the Lord's Supper there is a great deal left out; For instead of that large Refutation of the Corporal Presence, from the Impossibility of a Bodies being in more places at once; from whence it follows, That since Christ's Body is in Heaven, the Faithful ought not to believe or profess a Real or Corporal Presence of it in the Sacrament. In the new Article it is said, [That the Body of Christ is given and received after a spiritual manner; and the means MSS. C. Cor▪ Christ. Cant. by which it is received, is Faith.] But in the Original Copy of these Articles, which I have seen subscribed by the Hands of All that sate in either House of Convocation, there is a further Addition made. The Articles were subscribed with that precaution which was requisite in a matter of such consequence: For before the Subscriptions there is set down the Number of the Pages, and of the Lines in every Page of the Book to which they set their Hands.’

In that Article of the Eucharist these words are added; ‘Christ when he ascended into Heaven made his An Explanation of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament. Body Immortal, but took not from it the Nature of a Body: For still it retains, according to the Scriptures, the Verity of a Humane Body; which must be always in One definite place, and cannot be spread into many, or all places at Once. Since then Christ being carry'd up to Heaven, is to remain there to the end of the World, and is to come from thence, and from no place else (as says S. Austin) to judge the Quick and the Dead: None of the Faithful ought to believe [Page 58] or profess the Real, or (as they call it) the Corporal Presence of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist.’

‘But this in the Original is dash't over with minium; yet so that it is still legible. The Secret of it was this; The Queen and her Council studied (as hath been already shewn) to unite all into the Communion of the Church: And it was alledged, that such an express Definition against a Real Presence, might drive from the Church many who were still of that Perswasion; and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation, and to say, that Christ was present after a spiritual manner, and received by Faith. To say more, as it was judged superflous, so it might occasion division. Upon this these words were by common consent left out. And in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them; of which I have also seen the Original.’

‘This shews, that the Doctrine of the Church subscribed by the whole Convocation, was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real or Corporal Presence in the Sacrament; only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it. Though from this silence, which flowed not from their Opinion, but the Wisdom of that time, in leaving a Liberty for different Speculations, as to the manner of the Presence; SOME have since inferr'd, that the chief Pastors of this Church did then disapprove of the definition made in King Edwards time; and that they were for a Real Presence.’

Thus that Learned Historian. And here let our Adversary consider what he thinks of this Account; and whether after so evident a Confutation from plain [Page 59] matter of Fact of his Objection before it appear'd, we may not reasonably complain both of his Weakness and In-sincerity; neither to take any notice of such a plain History of this whole Transaction, or to imagine that so vain a Surmise of Q. Elizabeth's being a great propugner of the Real Presence, would be sufficient to obviate so clear and particular an Account of this matter.

But though this might suffice to shew the continuance of the same Doctrine of the Real Presence in this Queen's, that was before profess'd in her Brother's Reign; yet it may not be amiss to discover a little further the truth of this matter, and how falsly this Author has alledged those great Names he has produced. I will therefore beg leave to continue my Proof, with an Induction of the most Eminent of our Divines that I have at this time the Opportunity to consult, to our own days.

And first for Bishop Jewel; though the part he had Bp. JEWEL. in the Convocation before mention'd, may sufficiently assure us of his Opinion; yet it may not be improper to repeat the very words of a Person of his Learning and Eminence in our Church. In his Reply to Harding thus he expresses the Doctrine of the Church of England, as to the Real Presence: ‘Whereas Mr. V ^th Article of the Real Presence against Harding, pag. 237. Lond. 1611. See also his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, pag. 219, &c. Harding thus unjustly reporteth of us, that we maintain a naked Figure, and a bare Sign or Token only, and nothing else—He knoweth well, we feed not the People of God with bare Signs and Figures, but teach them, that the Sacraments of Christ be Holy Mysteries; and that in the Ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the Cross.—We teach the People, not that a naked Sign or Token, but that Christ's Body and Blood [Page 60] indeed and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it; that we verily drink it; that we verily be relieved and live by it: that we are Bones of his Bones, and Flesh of his Flesh; that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him:—Yet we say not, either that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is done away, or that Christs Body is let down from Heaven, or made Really or Fleshly present in the Sacrament. We are taught according to the Doctrine of the Old Fathers, to lift up our Hearts to Heaven, and there to feed upon the Lamb of God—Thus spiritually and with the Mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood; even as verily as his Body was verily broken, and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross—Indeed the Bread that we receive with our Bodily Mouths, is an earthly thing; and therefore a Figure; as the Water in Baptism is likewise also a Figure. But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented, and there is offer'd unto our Faith, is the thing it self, and not Figure. To conclude, Three things herein we must consider: 1st, That we put a difference between the Sign and the thing it self that is signified: 2. That we seek Christ above in Heaven, and imagine not him to be present Bodily upon the Earth: 3. That the Body of Christ is to be eaten by Faith only, and none otherwise.’

I shall not trouble the Reader with any more of our Divines who lived in the beginning of this Queen's Mr. HOOKER. Reign, and subscribed the Article before-recited; but pass on directly to him whom our Author first mentions, the Venerable Mr. Hooker, and whose Judgment having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men, Tr. I. cap. 2. §. 10. Pag. 6. ought not to be lightly accounted of by us.

[Page 61] And here I must observe, that this. Learned Person is drawn in only by a Consequence, and that no very clear one neither, to favour his Opinion. The truth is, he has dealt with Mr. Hooker just as himself, or one Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods, in answer to the Protestants Plea for a Socinian, pag. 54. of his Friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable Chillingworth; has pick'd up a Passage or two that seemed for his purpose; but dissembled whole Pages in the same place that were evidently against him. For thus Mr. Hooker in the Chapter cited by him, interprets the words of Institution: ‘If we doubt, says he, what those admirable words may import, let him be our Teacher for the meaning of Christ, to whom Christ was himself a School-master. Let our Lord's Apostle be his Interpreter; content we our selves with his Explication; My Body, the Communion of my Body; My Blood, the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear and easie, than that as Christ is termed our Life, because through him we obtain Life: So the parts of this Sacrament are his Body and Blood, because they are Causes instrumental, upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth?—The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament—And again, p. 310. he thus interprets the same words; This Hallow'd Food through the concurrence of Divine Power, is in verity and truth unto faithful Receivers instrumentally a Cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make my self wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving Grace as my sacrificed Body can yeild, and as their Souls do presently need. This is to them and in them my Body.’

[Page 62] And this may suffice in Vindication of Mr. Hooker. Those who desire a fuller Account, may find several Pages to the same purpose in the Chapter which I have quoted. The next our Author mentions, is the Learned Bishop Andrews, in that much noted passage, as he Bishop ANDREWS. 1 Tract. pag. 7. §. xi. n. 1. calls it, in the Answer to Bellarmine.

And indeed we need desire no other Passage to judge of his Opinion in this matter; in which 1 ^st. He utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist. 2. He professes that a Presence we believe, and that no less a True one than the Papists. 3. He plainly insinuates that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was much the same as in Baptism; the very allusion which the Holy Habemus Christum praesentem ad Baptismatis Sacramentum, habemus eum praesentem ad Altaris Cibum & Potum. Augustin. Stola, quae est Ecclesia Christi, lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lava [...]ro regenerationis. Origen. Statim baptizatus in sanguine agni Vir meruit appellari. Hieron. Christi sanguine lavaris, quando in ejus mortem Baptizaris. Leo. P. &c. Fathers were wont to make, to express his Presence by in this Holy Sacrament; which since our Adversaries can neither deny, nor yet say is so real, as to be Essential or Corporeal; they must of necessity allow that there may be a true Presence (which is all the Bishop affirms▪) without such a Substantial one as this Author here contends for.

But to shew that whatever this Bishop understood by the Real presence, it could not be that Christs glorified Body is now actually present in this Sacred Mystery, will appear demonstratively from this, that he declares it is not this Body which we either Represent or partake of there; insomuch that he doubts not to say, that could there be a Transubstantiation, such as the Church of Rome supposes, it would not serve our turn, nor answer the design of this Sacrament. 'Tis in his Sermon on 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. ‘We will mark, saith he, something more: That Epulemur doth here See Sermon vii. on the Resurect. pag. 454. Serm. L [...]nd. 1641. refer to Immolatus: To Christ not every way consider'd, but As when he was Offer'd. Christs Body [Page 63] that now is, true; But not Christs Body as now it is, but as then it was, when it was offer'd, rent, and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as now he is glorified; for so he is not, he cannot be Immolatus; For as he is, he is immortal and impassible; But as then he was when he suffer'd death, that is passible and mortal. Then in his passible State, he did institute this of ours, to be a memorial of his Passible and Passion both. And we are in this Action not only carry'd up to Christ (sursum Corda) [so that Christ it seems is not brought down to us] but we are also carry'd back to Christ, as he was at the very instant, and in the very Act of his offering. So, and no otherwise, doth this Text teach; So, and no otherwise do we Represent him. By the incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He as at the very act of his offering is made present to us, and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the Benefits of it. If an Host could be turned into him now glorified as he is, it would not serve; Christ offer'd is it. Thither must we look; to the Serpent lift up: thither we must repair; even ad Cadaver: We must Hoc facere, do that is then done. So and no otherwise is this Epulare to be conceived. And so I think none will say they do or can turn him.’

Whatsoever Real presence then this Bishop believed, it must be of his crucified Body, and as in the State of his death; and that I think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by Arch-Bishop Cranmer, and both of which we willingly acknowledge; either Figuratively, in the Elements; or Spiritually, in the Souls of those who worthily receive them.

And from this Account of Bishop Andrew's Opinion, [Page 64] we may conclude what it was that Casaubon and KASAVBON, [...]ING JAMES, A. Bishop of Spalato. King [...]ames understood by the Real Presence, who insist upon that Bishops words to express their own Notion and meaning of it. Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch Bishop of Spalato; who in the next § Vol. 3. de Rep. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 200, 201. to that cited by our Adversary is very See the 1. Tra. §. xi. note 2. pag. [...]. earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament, and by consequence ties not Christs natural Body to the Bread; and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner. As for the term Corporaliter, which he there uses, and which Melancthon and some others had used before him, that may be well enough understood in the same Sence, as vere or realiter; and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers. As when St. Coloss. ii. 9, 17. Paul says of Christ, that in ‘Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead Bodily;’ that is really, in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle. And again, The Body of Christ; that is the substance, the reality, opposed to the types and figures See Ham [...]d in Coloss 1. Annot. d. of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition [...] is often used for Essence as well as Body, and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things. Arch-Bishop LAWD.

Nor can I see any more reason to understand Arch-Bishop Lawd in any other Sence. He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast; but he do's not say, that Christ's natural Body which is now 1 Tract. §. xiv. pag. 8. In Heaven, is also in this Holy Sacrament, or in the worthy receiver; nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be. MONTAGVE Origenes Eccles. Tom. prior. par. poster. p. 247. 249. 250. &c. Panis in Synaxi fit corpus Christi;—Sed et Corpus Christi CREDEN [...]ES [...]. Ad eundem utrumque modum & mensuram; sed non Naturaliter;— [...]que nec Panis ITA est Corpus Christi; Mystice tantum, non Physice. vid. plur. And the same must be said of Bishop HALL. Bishop Hall, Bishop Montague, and Bishop [Page 65] Bilson; in whose expressions as they are quoted by MONTAGUE BILSON. our Author, I find nothing that proves the Sence he would impose upon them; and whose works had I now by me, I might possibly be able to give some better account of them. Though after all, should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries, or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point, have said more than they ought to do, I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued, rather than be set up for the measure either of their own, or our Churches Opinion.

And now I am mentioning these things, I ought Bishop FORBES. not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking, and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted, in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes; concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one, than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person, who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did; ‘I do not deny, but his earnest desire of a general Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL; in the Preface. Peace and Union among all Christians, has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome: But though a Charity that is not well ballanced, may carry one to very indiscreet things; yet the principle from whence they flow'd in him, was so truly good, that the Errors to which it carry'd him, ought to be either excused, or at lest to be very gently censured.’

There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy, which he would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England; and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto [Page 66] mentioned; Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke. For Bishop TAYLOR. Bishop Taylor, I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication; since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion, and that in the very Book he quotes, and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the Real Presence, that he could not Polemical discourses. p. 182. London. 1674. but have known that he mis represented him. I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise. ‘The Doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protestants in this Article is; That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine; the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental, i. e. in a Spiritual Real manner. So that all that worthily communicate, do by Faith receive Christ Really, Effectually, to all the purposes of his Passion—It is Bread and it is Christs Body: It is Bread in in Substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd, as the Symbols are p. 183.—It is here as in the other Sacrament; for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration; so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ: but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace, but remains the same in nature—We say that Christs Body is in the Sacrament really, but Spiritually. They (the Papists) say it is there really, but Spiritually. For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question. Where now is the difference? Here; By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit; by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other Sence but that of faith or spiritual susception—They [Page 67] say that Christs Body is truly present there, as it was upon the Cross, but not after the manner of all, or any Body—But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful, by Blessing and Grace; and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence.’

Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own, but, as he expresly terms, it of the Church of England' s, and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter. Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable, by how much the more zealous an Advocate he Treatise 1st. p. 20th. makes him of his Cause, when all this that I have transcribed, was in the very same Section, and almost in the same Page with what he has cited. For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishops Book, where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual, whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms, and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament; it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this: There be several sorts of Real Presences; the Papists, the Lutherans, the Church of England, all allow a Real Presence in the Sacrament, but after dif [...]erent Manners; it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more, to shew what kind of Real Presence she undertook to maintain, and he knew no word more proper to express it by than Spiritual, which does not therefore imply a Distinction from, but Limitation of the other Term Real. And thus he explains it, N. 6. and 7. of that Section, where he shews that the Spiritual is also a Real Presence, and indeed Pag. 183. more properly so than any other. In short, thus he concludes the State of the Question, in the same Section, Pag 186. [Page 68] on, between us and the Church of Rome, so that now, says he, The Question is not, ‘Whether the Symbols be changed into Christ's Body and Blood or no? For it is granted on all sides: But whether this Conversion be Sacramental and Figurative? Or whether it be Natural and Bodily? Nor is it whether Christ be taken Really, but whether he be taken in a Spiritual or in a Natural Manner? We say the Conversion is Figurative, Mysterious, and Sacramental; they say, it is Proper, Natural, and Corporal. We affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith, by the Spirit, to all real Effects of his Passion’(this is an Explication a little different from our Authors) ‘They say he is taken by the Mouth, and that the Spiritual and the Virtual taking him in Virtue or Effect, is not sufficient, tho' done also in the Sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic Saltus.’

If this does not yet satisfie him that he has injur'd this Learned Man in the Representation of his Opinion, directly contrary to his Sense, I will offer him yet one Passage more, taken from another part of his Works, and which, I hope, will throughly convince him. It is in the 5th. Letter, to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the Church of Rome. He had proposed to the Bishop this Question. ‘Whether, without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry, we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour, as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host, according to his Humane Nature, in that Host?’ The Question is certainly every way pertinent to our present Purpose; let us see what the Answer is that he makes to it. ‘We may not render Divine Worship See Pole [...]ic. Disc. Append. Pag. 69. 70. to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature, without danger of Idolatry, because he is not there according to his Humane Nature, [Page 69] and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens, which must needs be Idolatry.’ Well, but Treat. 1st. Pag. 10. still it may be the Bishop does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini, but only the Corporal or Natural Manner of that Body: Let us therefore hear how he goes on. ‘For Idolum nihil est in mundo, Saith St. Paul, and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a No [...]ens. For it is not true; there is no suchthing. What, not as Christ there, no way as to his Humane nature?—’ No, he is saith the Bishop, ‘present there by his Divine power, and his Divine Blessing, and the Fruits of his Body, the real effective Consequents of his Passion; but for any other Presence, it is Idolum; it is nothing in the World. Adore Christ in Heaven; for the Heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things.’ This then is Bishop Taylor's Notion of the Real Presence: and now I am confident our Author himself will remit him to the Company of those Old Zuinglian Bishops, Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest, who lived before that Q. Elizabeth had propugned the Real Presence of his new Model into the Heads of the Governours of the Church of England.

And now I am afraid his Cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndyke can support it. And how Mr. THORNDYKE. unlikely he is to do it, he might have learnt from what has been answered to T. G. on the same Occasion. T. G. Dialogue 1st. Pag. 21. T. G. Had in his first Dialogue quoted the same place which our Author has done since, to prove his belief of the Real Presence: His Answer to [...]. G's. Dial. Pag. 92. Adversary confesses this, but produces an [...]her that explains his meaning; ‘ THORNDYKE Laws of the Church. Ch. 4. Pag. 30. if it can any way be shew'd, says he, that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of [Page 70] them, then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist. But if the Church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements—may make them the Body and Blood of Christ, so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit; then is it not the Sence of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance, because supposing that they remain, they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are dispos'd to receive it, no otherwise than his Flesh and Blood convey'd the Efficacy thereof upon Earth. And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally, that is to say, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.’

Thus Mr. Thorndyke expresses himself as to the Real Presence: But yet after all, I will not deny but that this Learned Person seems to have had a particular Notion in this matter, and which is far enough from what our Author would fix upon him. He thought that the Elements by Consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ, much after the same manner as his Natural Body was by Incarnation; and that so the very Elements became after a sort his Body. ‘The Church See his Just Weights and Measures, 4 [...]. Lond. 1662.—Pag. 94. from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, as operatory in changing the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ; but by that Word of God whereby he hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament, and commanded the use of it; and by the Execution of this Command. Now it is executed, and hath always been executed by the Act of the [Page 71] Church upon God's Word of Institution, praying that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ. Not by changing them into the Nature of Flesh and Blood; as the Bread and Wine that nourished our Lord Christ on Earth, became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God, by becoming the Flesh and Blood of his Manhood, Hypostatically united to his Godhead, saith Gregory Nyssene. But immediately and ipso facto, by being united to the Spirit of Christ; i. e. his Godhead. For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation, the Elements by Consecration being united to the Spirit; i. e. the Godhead of Christ, become both one Sacramentally, by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ, to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian.’

And thus have I consider'd the several Divines produced for this new Conceit concerning the Real Presence; and shewn the greatest part of his Authors to be evidently against it; some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them; but not one that favours what they were alledged for; viz. to shew that they believed, Christ's Natural Body to be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament; only after another manner than the Papists. It were an easie matter to shew how constant our Church has been to the Doctrine of the true, real, spiritual Presence which it still asserts, and which it derived from its first Reformers, whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other Witnesses; as may be seen by the short Specimen I have put together in the Reformatio legum Eccles. ex Authorit. Henr. 8. & Edw. 6. Lond. 1641. Tit. de Sacram. cap. 4. pag. 29.— Morton de Euch. part. 2. Class. 4. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 224. Lat. 1640. 4 [...].— Fr. White against Fisher, pag. 407. Lond. 1624. Fol.—A B. U [...]er's Answer to a Challenge, c of the Real Presence, p. 44, 45. Lond. 1625.—Id. Serm before the House of Commons, pag. 16, 19, &c—Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. part. ult. Answer to this Question; the Importance of these words, T [...]at the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received; p. 130. Edit. Lond Fol. 1684.—Dr. Jackson's Works, Tom. 3. pag. 300, 302. Lond. 1673 Dr. Jo [...]'s Way to the True Church. Lond. 1624. §. 51. N. 10 pag. 209. Cosens Hist. Transubst. p. 3, 4, 12, &c. Edit. London, 1675. 8vo. Margent. But I have insisted too long already on this matter; and shall therefore pass on to the Third thing I proposed to consider; viz.

[Page 72] Thirdly, That the Alterations which have been made in our Rubrick, were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions, as is vainly and fasly suggested.

To give a rational Account of this Affair, we must carefully consider the Circumstances of the Times, the Tempers and Dispositions of the Persons that lived in them; and what the Designs of the Governing Parties were with reference to them; and then we shall presently see both a great deal of Wisdom and Piety in the making of these Alterations; allowing the Opinions of those who did it, to have continued, as we have seen, in all of them the same.

When first this Rubrick was put into King Edward's Liturgy, the Church of England was but just rising up out of the Errors and Superstitions with which it had been over-run by the prevalency of Popery upon it. It had the happiness to be reformed, not as most others were, by private persons, and in many places contrary to the desires of the Civil Power; but by a Unanimous Concurrence of the Highest Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical, of Church and State. Hence it came to pass, that Convocations being assembled, Deliberations had of the greatest and wisest Persons for the proceeding in it, nothing was done out of a Spirit of Peevishness or Opposition; the Holy Scriptures and Antiquity were carefully consulted; and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them; and a diligent distinction made of what [Page 73] was Popery, and what true and Catholick Christianity, that so the One only might be rejected, the other duly retained.

Now by this means it was that the Ancient Government of the Church became preserved amongst us; a just and wise Liturgy collected out of the Publick Rituals: Whatever Ceremonies were requisite for Order or Decency, were retain'd; and among the rest, that of receiving the Communion kneeling for One, which has accordingly ever since been the manner establish'd amongst us. But that no Occasion of Scandal might hereby be given, whether to our Neighbour-Churches abroad, or to any particular Members of our own at home: That those who were yet weak in the Faith, might not either continue or fall back into Error, and by our retaining the same Ceremony in the Communion that they had been used to in the Mass, fancy that they were to adore the Bread as they did before: For all these great Ends this Caution was inserted; that the true Intent of this Ceremony was only for Decency and Order; not that any Adoration was thereby intended, or ought to be done unto any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood, which were not there, but in Heaven, it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at One time in more places than One.

And this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the Rubrick to have been the first Cause and Design of it. Thus it continued the remainder of King Edward's time: But now Queen Elizabeth being come to the Crown, there were other Circumstances to be consider'd. Those of the Reformed Religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied, both by this publick Declaration, which had stood so many years in the Liturgy of our [Page 74] Church; and by the Conversation and Acquaintance of our Divines, forced by the dispersion in the foregoing Reign, to seek for refuge among their Brethren in other Countries, of our Orthodox Faith, as to this Point. Our own Members at home had heard too much of this matter in the publick Writings and Disputations, and in the constant Sufferings of their Martyrs, not to know that the Popish Real Presence was a meer Figment, an Idolum, as Bishop Taylor justly stiles it; and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored. There was then no longer need of this Rubrick upon any of those Accounts for which it was first establish'd; and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside. That great Queen desired, if possible, to compose the Minds of her Subjects, and make up those Divisions which the differences of Religion, and the late unhappy Consequences of them had occasion'd. For this, she made it her business to render the publick Acts of the Church of England as agreeable to all Parties as Truth would permit. The Clause of the Real Presence inserted in the Articles of her first Convocation, and subscribed by all the Members of it (to shew that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter) was nevertheless, as we have seen, struck out for this end their next Session. The Title of Head of the Church, which her Father had first taken, her Brother continued, and was from both derived to her, so qualified and explained, as might prevent any Occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons. That Petition in the Litany inserted by King Henry viii. ‘ From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities, Good Lord, &c.’ struck out: And in conformity to what was done in the Articles as to this Point, this Rubrick also was omitted, lest it should give Offence to those who were still [Page 75] zealous for their mistaken Principles and Worship. This was the Wise and Christian Design of that Excellent Princess; and how happy an Effect this Moderation might have had, if the Bishop of Rome had not by his Artifice and Authority with some of her Subjects, prevented it, the first Years of her Reign sufficiently shew.

Thus was the Occasion and Reason of its omission in Q. Elizabeth's time, as great as the necessity of its first Insertion in King Edward's. And in this state it continued all the Reign of that Queen, and of her two Successors, King James and King Charles. 1st, I shall not need to say by what means it was, that new Occasion was given for the reviving of it. We have all of us heard, and many of us seen too much of it. How Order became Superstitious, and Decency termed Idolatry: The Church of England traduced as but another Name for Popery; and this Custom of kneeling at the Communion, one of the strongest Arguments offer'd for the Proof of it. And now when Panick Fears had found such prevalence over the Minds of Men, as to destroy a King, and embroil a Kingdom into a Civil War, of almost Twenty Years continuance; and tho by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored, yet the minds of the People were still unsetled, and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion; what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter, and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of, than to revive that ancient Rubrick; and so quiet the Minds of the People now, by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before?

This I am perswaded is so rational an Account, as will both justifie the proceedings of our Governours in [Page 76] these Changes, and shew the dis-ingenuity of those, who not only knowing, but having been told these things, will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering, or uncertainty of Opinion, than to a necessary and Christian Accommodation to the Times. For the change in the Prayer of Consecration, I have already said, that 'tis in the Words, not the Sense: And if our Governours thought the present Expressions less liable to exception than the former, they had certainly reason for the Alteration. For the other Exceptions there is very little in them, whether the Minister lay his Hand on the Sacred Elements, when he repeats the words of Institution, as at this time, or only consecrates them by the Prayers of the Church, and the Words of Christ, without any other Ceremony, as heretofore: Whether with the Church of Rome we use only the words of Christ in the distribution; or with most of the Reformed Churches, the other Expression, ‘ Take and eat this, &c.’or (as we chuse rather) joyn them both together: Whether we sing the Gloria in Excelsis Deo—before or after the receiving; but because the chiefest Mystery he thinks lies in this, That whereas in King Edward's days the Rubrick called it an Essential Presence, which we have now turned into Corporeal; I must confess I will not undertake to say what the Occasion of it was; if they thought this latter manner more free from giving Offence than the other would have been, I think they did well to prefer it. Let every one entertain what Notion he pleases of these things; this I have shewn is the Doctrine of the Church which we all subscribe, ‘That the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here;’ i. e. in the Sacrament; and if there can be any other Real Presence than such as I have shewn to have been the [Page 77] constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubrick, I shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it, than I shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him.

And now after so clear an Account as I have here given of the several changes that have been made in our Rubrick, were I minded to recriminate, and tell the World what Alterations have been made in their Mass, & those in Points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us, I much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it. And something of this I may perhaps offer as a Specimen of the wisdom of this Author in the choice of his Accusation before we part; In the mean time I go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd.

4thly. that the Reason mention'd in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christs natural Body's existing in several places at the same time, is no way invalidated by any of this Authors exceptions against it.

Now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken Notion of the Real presence falsely imputed to us, will admit of a very short and plain consideration.

1 ^st. He observes ‘That Protestants, but especially our Treatise 1st. §. xx. n. 1. pag. 13. English Divines generally confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable Mystery.’ Well, be it so; what will he hence infer? Why ‘this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by Humane Reason.’ But supposing they should not think it so from being Opposite and Contradictory to, but because the manner how Christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from, [Page 78] and above our Humane Reason; might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable, and incomprehensible Mystery? Whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible Nonsence. 'Tis a strange Affection that some Men have got of late for Contradictions; they are so in love with them, that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a Mystery, to be the Revelation of something to be believ'd in Opposition to Sense and Reason. And what by their Notions and Parallels, have advanced no very commendable Character of Christianity; as if it were a Religion full of Absurdities; and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1 ^st. with reference to this very Subject, the rather Bishop TAYLOURS Polem. Disco. of the Real presence. Sect. ii. pag. 231. to be believed because it is contrary to Reason. But if this be indeed our Authors Notion of Mysteries (and the truth is Transubstantiation can be no other Mystery) we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own Church, and not send it abroad into the World as ours too. We are perswaded, not only that our Worship must be a reasonable Service, but our Faith a Reasonable Assent. He who opposes the Authority of Holy Scriptures, ‘says Bishop Taylor, against manifest and certain Reason, do's neither understand himself nor Ibid. them.’ Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation, and what is opposite to the one, can no more be agreeable to the other, than God can be contrary to himself. And though, if the Revelation be clear and evident, we submit to it, because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to Reason, whatever it may appear to us; yet when the contradiction is manifest, as that a natural Body should be in more places than one at the same time, we are sure that interpretation of Holy Scripture can never be the right which would infer this, but especially when there is another, and much more reasonable, [Page 79] that do's not. And in this we are after all justified by one whose Authority I hope our Author will not question, even his own self; ‘If, says he, we are Treatise 1st. §. 29. pag. 21. certain there is a contradiction, then we are certain there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation; and when any Revelation, tho' never so plain, is brought; we are bound to interpret it so, as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility.’ And let him that sticks to this rule, interpret Christs words for Transubstantiation if he can.

‘But do not our own Authors sometimes say, that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against Transubstantiation, yet if it can be shewn that God has revealed it, they are ready to believe it?’ Perhaps some may have said this, because for that very Reason that there are so many contradictions in it, they are sure it cannot be shewn that God has revealed it. But if he means, as he seems to insinuate, that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with, they thought it possible nevertheless, that God might have revealed it, and upon that supposition, they were ready to believe it; I answer from his own words, that their supposa [...] then was Absurd and impossible; since he himself assure us, that ‘None can believe Treatise 1st. § xx. n. 3. pag. 14. a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows to be certainly false, or which is all one, certainly to contradict. For these we say are not verifyable by a divine Power; and Ergo, here I may say, should a divine power declare a truth, it would transcend its self.’ Which last words if they signifie any thing and do not transcend Sense, must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain Contradiction, to be revealed.

II. Observation, But our Author goes on, ‘I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include [Page 80] a Perfect Contradiction, can no more be effected by divine Power than another, or than many others the like may. Seeing then we admit that some seeming Contradictions to Reason may be verified by the Divine power in this Sacrament, there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other.’

Now not to contend with him about words; whoever told our Author, that we allow'd that there was any thing in this Sacrament, as received by us, that seemed to us to include a Perfect Contradiction? Perfect Contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine Power, that is, are all of them impossible. And for this we have his own word before. Now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us, that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction, must really be a perfect contradiction; unless contradictions are to be discover'd some other way than by seeming to our Reason to be so. And such it not only seems, but undoubtedly is, for the same One, natural, finite Body, to be in more places than one at the same time; if to be and not to be, be still the measure of Contradictions. He that says of such a Body, that it is in Heaven and on Earth, at London and Rome, at the same time, says in Effect that 'tis one and not one; finite and not finite; in one place and not in one place, &c. All which are such seemingly perfect contradictions, that I fear 'twill be a hard matter to find out any Power by which they can be verify'd.

III. Observation, He observes Thirdly; ‘That those Treatise 1st. §. xxii. p. 15. who affirm a Real and Substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant, contradistinct to any such other Real presence of Christs Body, as implies only a presence of it in Virtue, and Spiritual Effects, &c. must hold this particular seeming Contradiction to be True, or some other equivalent to it.’

[Page 81] If by the Real Presence of the very Body of Christ, he means, as he before explains it, That Christ's Natural Body, that very Body which is now in Heaven, should be also at the same time here upon Earth; it is, I think, necessary for those who will affirm this, to hold some such kind of Contradiction, as he says: And 'tis for that very Reason, I am perswaded, he will find but few such Persons in the Church of England; which so expresly declares, that Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven, and not here, upon this very account, ‘ That it is contrary to the truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than one at the same time.’ However, if any such there be, as they herein depart from the Doctrine of their Church, so it is not our concern to answer for their Contradictions.

IV. He observes, lastly: ‘It seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them (the Tract. 1. §. xxviii. p. 20. Divines he means of the Church of England) have not laid so great a weight on this Philosophical Position, as wholly to support and regulate their Faith in this matter by it; as it stands in opposition not only to Nature's, but the Divine Power: because they pretend not any such certainty thereof, but that if any Divine Revelation of the contrary can be shewed, they profess a readiness to believe it.’

I shall not now trouble my self with what some of our Divines may seem to him to have done in this matter; 'tis evident our Church has laid stress enough upon this Contradiction. Indeed where so many gross Repugnancies both to Sense and Reason are crowded together, as we have seen before there are in this Point, it ought not to be wondered if our Divines have not supported and regulated their [Page 82] Faith wholly upon this one alone. We do not any of Us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what God can, or cannot do; we leave that to the bold Inquisitiveness of their Schools. But this we think we may say, that if there are any unalterable Laws of Nature, by which we are to judg of these things; then God can no more make one Body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time, than he can make one, continuing one, to be ten thousand, than he can divide the same thing from its self, and yet continue it still undivided. And if any of our Divines have said, that they cannot admit that one Body can be in several places at once, ‘till the Papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by Testimony of Holy Scripture, or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church, or by apparent Reason.’ We need not suppose that they said this, doubting whether it implied a Contradiction, but because the certainty of the Contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such Proof. This is evident in B. Taylor, who thought that God could not do this, because it implied a Contradiction: Real Presence, §. xi. n. 1. p. 230. and Ibid. n. 27. He saith 'tis utterly impossible. So also Dr. White professes, that according to the Order which God has fixed by his Word and Will, this cannot be done: Confer. pag. 446, 447. and before, pag. 181. to this Objection, That tho in Nature it be impossible, for one and the same Body to be in many places at once, yet because God is Omnipotent, he is able to effect it: We answer, says he, It implieth a Contradiction, that God should destroy the nature of a thing, the nature of the same thing remaining safe: See more, p. 180, 181. White' s Works, Lond. 1624.

And now I know but one Objection more that is, or can be offered against what I have said, and which having answered, I shall close this Point: For if this be all the Church of England understands, when it speakes of a Real Presence, viz. A Real Sacramental [Page 83] Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Signs, and a real Spiritual Presence in the inward Communion of them to the Soul of every worthy Receiver; will not this precipitate us into downright See 1. Treatise, pag. 23. §. xxxii. p. 24. §. xxxii. p. 25. §. xxxvi, xxxvii, &c. Zuinglianism, and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they? Indeed, I am not able directly to say whether it will or no, because I find the Opinion of Zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter. But yet, First, If by Zuinglianism he means that which is more properly Smalcius de Coen. Dom. p. 347. Id Disp. 9. de Hypocr. p. 289. Volkelius lib. iv. cap. 12. p. 304, 319, &c. Socinus in Paraenesi, c. iv. Sclichtingius disp. de Coen. Dom. p. 701. Socinianism, viz. a meer Commemoration of Christ's Death, and a Thaksgiving to God for it; 'tis evident it does not, forasmuch as we positively confess, that in this Holy Sacrament, there is a Real and Spiritual Grace communicated to us, even all the benefits of that Death and Passion which we there set forth. And this, or somewhat very like it, I find sometimes to have been maintained by Zuingl. See de Provid. Dei, cap. 6, &c. Zuinglius. But now, Secondly, If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real Presence, as denies only the Coexistence of Christ's Natural Body now in Heaven, at the same time in this Holy Sacrament, but denies nothing of that Real and Spiritual And this our Author seems to insinuate: See the places above cited: And indeed others have alledged this as the true Opinion of Zuinglius: See Calvin. Tract de Coen. Dom. Defens. Sacram. Admonit. ad Westphal. & Passim. alibi. Vid. insuper libr. de Orthod. Consens. c. 7. And especially Hospin. p. 42, 55, 177, &c. Hist. Sacr. part 2: Communion, of it we have before mentioned; this is indeed our Doctrine, nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill Names he is able to put upon it. But yet I wonder why he should call this Zuinglianism; since if the common name of Catholick, or Christian Doctrine, be not sufficient, he might have found out a more ancient Abettor of this Real Presence, than Zuinglius, and the truth is, one of the most dangerous Opposers both of their [Page 84] Head and their Faith that ever was; I mean St. Paul, who has not only clearly, express'd himself against them, as to this Point of the Eucharist, 1 Cor. x. 16. but in most of their other Errors left such pernicious Savings to the World, as all their Authority and Infallibility, let me add, nor all their Anathema's neither, will not be able to overcome.

I shall close up this Discourse of the Real Presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament, with a plain familiar Example, and which may serve at once both to illustrate, and confirm the Propriety of it. A Father makes his last Will, and by it bequeaths his Estate and all the Profits of it to his Child. He delivers Vid. Cosens Hist. Transubstantionis, cap. [...]. §. 5. p. 57. it into the Hands of his Son, and bids him take there his House and Lands, which by this his last Will he delivers to him. The Son in this case receives nothing but a Roll of Parchment, with a Seal tied to it from his Father; but yet by virtue of this Parchment he is intituled to his Estate, performing the Conditions of his Will, and to all the Benefits and Advantages of it: And in that Deed he truly and effectually received the very House and Lands that were thereby conveyed to him. Our Saviour Christ in like manner, being now about to leave the World, gives this Holy Sacrament, as his final Bequest to us; in it he conveys to us a right to his Body and Blood, and to all the Spiritual Blessings and Graces that proceed from them. So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist, as we ought to do, we receive indeed nothing but a little Bread and Wine into our Hands; but by the Blessing and Promise of Christ, we by that Bread and Wine, as really and truly become Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood, as the Son by the Will of [Page 85] his Father was made Inheritor of his Estate: Nor is it any more necessary for this, that Christ's Body should come down from Heaven, or the outward Elements which we receive, be substantially turned into it, than it is necessary in that other case, that the very Houses and Lands should be given into the Hands of the Son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them; or the Will of the Father be truly and properly changed into the very Nature and Substance of them.

[Page 86]

PART II.

CHAPTER III.

Of the Adoration of the Host, as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome.

WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse; in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject, as to consider,

First, What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this Point is; and what our Adversaries Exceptions against it are.

Secondly, What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and whether what this Author has said in favour of it, may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this Matter.

For the former of these, The Doctrine of the Church of England, we shall need go no farther than the Rubrick we have before-mention'd; wherein it is expresly declared, with reference to this Holy Sacrament, ‘That no Adoration is intended, or Rubr. at the end of the Communion. ought to be done, either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood: For that the [Page 87] Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are in Heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at One time in more places than One.’

This then being sufficiently cleared, let us see what this Author has to observe against it.

1. ‘He supposes that we will grant, that if there Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39. p. 27. were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament, then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account.’ He means, that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present, He ought to be adored; and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant.

2. ‘Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body, Ib. §. x [...]. i. e. of its being there ad modum Corporis, or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body, be deny'd; as it is, not only by the English Divines, but by the Lutheran and Roman: Yet let there be any other manner of Presence (known from Divine Revelation) of the very same Body and Blood; and this as Real and Essential, as if Corporeal; and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus, than so, Present.’

Now to this I shall at present only say, That the Supposition being absurd, do's not admit of a rational Consideration. Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body, which is confess'd not to be bodily present there, supposing it to be there some other way; ought to have no other [Page 88] satisfaction than this, that they suppose an Impossibility, a thing which cannot be; and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given. Some I know have been more free, and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal, have resolved contrary to our Author: But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera; and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence.

3. He observes, lastly, ‘That the Church of England Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli. hath believed and affirmed such a Presence (he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist) to which they thought Adoration due.’ I presume it was then in the Times of Popery; for since the Reformation, I have shewn before, that she has always held the contrary. But our Author will prove it, and that since the Reformation; ‘For, he says, he Ibid. has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers, and those of no mean Account neither, that have been of this Opinion.’ This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church: But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it; then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary. But we will examine his Evidence.

First; ‘Bishop Andrews, he says, declares, that Treatise 1. §. xlii. p. 28. tho we adore not the Sacrament, yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament, besides and without the Sacrament: and assures the World, that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present, and truly to be adored in it.’ How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before; and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there: viz. As in all other [Page 89] Holy Offices, in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us, but especially in this Sacred Mystery. And thus we all adore him, both in and with, and without the Sacrament; we confess him to be truly present, and therefore truly to be adored by us. But now for Christ's Natural Body, (of which, and not of Christ himself, our Dispute is) if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd, let it be remembred, that according to this Bishop, it must not be his Glorified Body, his Body as it now is; but his Body Crucified, his Body as See above. offer'd for us, and in the State of his Death; so He expresly affirms; and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible.

His next Witness is Bishop Taylor: ‘We worship, Treatise 1. §. xliii. p. 28. He means, says this Author, the Body, or the Flesh of Christ [in the Eucharist].’ But is he sure the Bishop meant so? If he be, I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing. For being consulted, as we have seen above, ‘whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter, at the end, p. render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host, according to his Humane Nature in that Host?’ He expresly declares, ‘We may not render Divine Worship to Him as present in the Blessed. Sacrament, according to his Humane Nature, without danger of Idolatry, because he is not there according to his Humane Nature; and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens, which must needs be Idotry.’ And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion, who himself in his next Treatise, cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence, Treatise 2. p. 9. §. vi. n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness [Page 90] of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament. But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion, is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions, as if it were their own: And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholick Faith, since I have read of a The Story was publish'd in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant, printed with permission at Grenoble, 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words. Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l' un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc, qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires & meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. & en l' Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers. Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion; & obtenu un Bref de Rome, portant qu' en core qu' il eut etc receu au giron de l'Eglise, il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans, pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye Eglise, & qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene. Le Bref fût obtenu, afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit, & decouvrir les meneés qui se faisoient dans le Royaume. Protestant Minister, who in the Troubles of France being brought over to the King's Interest, was secretly reconciled to the Church of Rome, and permitted so far to dissemble his own Opinion, as not only to continue in the outward profession of the Protestant Religion, but even to exercise the Functions of his Ministry as before; and that by the express leave of his Holiness, for three whole Years, the better to carry on the Catholick Cause in betraying the Secrets, and managing the Debates of his Brethren.

As for Bishop Forbes, and the Arch-bishop of Spalatto, it is not to be wondred if Men that had entertained the Design of reconciling all Parties, were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it. And for Mr. Thorndyke, we have seen that his Notion of the Real Presence was particular, and widely different both from theirs and ours; and therefore that we are not to answer for the Consequences of it. But however, to quit [Page 91] these just Exceptions against them: Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine or not of the Church of Rome, which I shall bring him three of their Authors to affirm or deny? If he will, then Transubstantiation is not their Doctrine, for I have already quoted above twice three of their most Learned Men against it. To adore an Unconsecrated Host by mistake, is Idolatry; for so S. Thomas, Paludanus, Catharine, and others, assure us: To worship the Host, supposing their Doctrine of Transubstantiation false, a worser Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty of; so several of their Writers confess. But now if our Author will not allow this to be good arguing against them, with what reason do's he go about to urge it against us?

Secondly; We must in the next place consider what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to this Point is; and whether what this Author has advanced in favour of it, may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this Adoration.

For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, I find it thus clearly set down by the Council of Trent: Concil. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. 5. p. 57. Nullus ita (que) dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ semper recepto Latriae cultum, qui Vero deo Debetur, huic Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. Ne (que) enim ideò minùs est Adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo D. ut sumatur institutum: Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem INEO adesse Credimus, quem Pater aeternus introducens in Orbem Terrarum, dicit; Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. Hebr. I. ‘There can be no doubt, but that all the Faithful of Christ, after the manner that has ever been received in the Catholick Church, ought to give that Supreme Worship which is due to the true God, to his Holy Sacrament. For it is nevertheless to be adored, because it was instituted by our Lord [Page 92] Christ that it might be received; Foras much as we believe the same God to be present in it, of whom the Eternal Father when he brought him into the World, said, And let all the Angels of God worship him.’ That therefore, according to this Council is to be worshipped, which Christ instituted to be received; and in which they believe Christ to be present: But 'tis no other than the Holy Sacrament, as these Trent-Fathers here expresly and properly stile it; which we all confess Christ instituted to be received, and in which they suppose Christ to be present: And therefore 'tis the Sacrament which is to be adored. Which reasoning I find Card. Pallavicini thus improving in his History of this Council: ‘It Card. Pallavicino Istoria del Concilio di Trento: parte seconda, l. 12. c. 7. pag. 298. Ora è notissimo, che, accióche un Tutto s'adori con adorazione di Latria, basta che una parte di quel tutto meriti questo culto.—Come dunque non douremo parimente adorare questo Sacramento, il quale è un Tutto che contiene come parte principale il Corpo di Christo. is well known, says he, that to make a Whole Adorable with the Supreme Adoration, it is sufficient that One part of that Whole merits such a Worship.’ This he illustrates in the Example of Christs Humanity; and thence concludes, ‘How then ought we not in like manner to adore this Sacrament which is a Whole, that contains as its principal part the Body of Christ?’

It is therefore, as I conceive, the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, for the Reason here given, is to be adored, with that Supreme Adoration that is due to the true God.

Now to warrant their Practice in this Matter, our Author thus proceeds in proof of it:

[Page 93]I. He premises some Propositions, which he calls,
Answer to his second Discourse.
Protestant Concessions.
II. Some others, which he stiles, Catholick Assertions. And then,
III. Goes on to shew what warrant they have for that Belief on which this Adoration is founded.

I shall distinctly follow him in every one of these.

In his first Part, which he calls, Protestant Concessions, I. Part, Protestant Concessions. I will go on with him thus far:

1st. §. I. pag. 1. ‘That Supreme and Divine Adoration is due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’

2dly, Ibid. §. II. ‘That where-ever the Body of our Lord now is, there must also his whole Person be.’

‘And therefore, 3dly, Ibid. §. III. That where-ever Christ's Body is truly and really present, there his Divine Person is supremely adorable.’

But now for his next Assertion; §. V. n. 1. p. 2. ‘That it is affirmed by many Protestants, especially those of the Church of England, that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present, not only in Virtue, but in Substance in the Eucharist. See Treatise 1. p. 5. §. 7.’ If he means, as in his former Treatise he explain'd himself, that the very natural Body of Christ, that Body that was born of the Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, and is now in Heaven, is also as to its Substance truly and really present on Earth in the Holy Eucharist, or to the worthy Receiver: I have in the foregoing Chapter fully shewn this new Fancy to be neither the Doctrine of [Page 94] the Church of England, nor the Opinion of those very Writers whom he produces for proof of it. And as to the Disc. 2. p. 8. §. vi. n. 1. adoration of it upon any such account, I have just now declared his Mistake of them in that Point too. And I shall not follow our Author's ill Example in repeating it all over again.

For his §. vii. p. 10. fifth Remark, ‘That the Lutherans affirm that Christ's Body and Blood are present, not only to the worthy Communicants, but to the Consecrated Symbols, and whilst so present, which is during the Action of the Lord's Supper (i. e. says he, as I conceive them from the Consecration, till the end of the Communion) are to be Adored.’ I answer; First, As to the former part, it is confess'd that the Lutherans do indeed suppose Christ to be present, not only to the worthy Communicants, but also to the Consecrated Symbols. But now, secondly, for the other part, that during the Action of the Lord's Supper, He is to be Adored there; this is not so certain. For, 1. I do not find any thing establish'd amongst them as to this matter, neither in the Confession of Auxpourg, nor in any other publick Acts of their Church. 2. I find several of their Divines utterly denying, that Christ's Body is to be Adored in the Holy Sacrament; and our See below, Disc. 2. p. 16. Author himself confesses it. Tho now, 3. Conrad. Schlusselburgius, Catal. Haeret. l. 3. arg. 45. p. 205. Item Arg. 103. p. 280. It. arg. 174. p. 327. Francof. 1605. And Hospinian quotes it of Luther himself, that it was his Opinion, Concord. discor. p. 358. n. 16. Genev. 1678. I will not deny but that some others of them do allow, if not that Christ's Body, yet that Christ himself is to be Adored after a peculiar manner in the Action of the Lord's Supper; and as far as I conceive, do by the Action mean, as our Author here represents it, from the Consecration to the end of the Communion. So that then, with this Limitation, his Proposition I presume may be admitted; ‘That the Lutherans do acknowledg, [Page 95] that Christ is present during the Action of the Lord's Supper; and therefore it is by several of them supposed, that he ought to be adored in it.’

As to the sixth and last Concession, which he draws §. vi. p. 10, 11. from Monsieur Daille's Apologie, ‘That tho we do not our selves belive the Real Presence of Christ' s Body in the Signs, yet neither do we esteem the belief of it so criminal, as to oblige us to break off Communion with all those that hold it; and therefore, that had the Roman Church no other Error but this, that it would not have given us any sufficient cause of separation from it; we are ready to admit it;’ always supposing that the belief of it had not been press'd upon us neither, as a necessary Article of Communion; nor any Anathema pronounced against us for not receiving it. And for the other part of it which he subjoyns, ‘That a Disciple Ibid. pag. 11. giving Divine Honour, upon mistake, to another Person, much resembling our Saviour Christ, would have been no Idolater;’ from whence he would infer, ‘That therefore allowing a Consecrated Host to be truly Adorable, a Person that should by mistake adore an unconsecrated One, would not be guilty of Idolatry.’ We are content to allow it; tho what use he can make of it in this Controversy, unless against his own Brethren, S. Thomas, Paludanus, and others, I do not understand; since he knows we utterly deny any Host, consecrated or not, to be fit to be worshipped. And this may serve for his first Foundation of Protestant Concessions,; which were they every one as certain as his first is, that Christ is to be adored, I cannot see what his Cause would gain by it; and he has not by any Application of them in this Treatise, given us the least reason to think that they [Page 96] are of any moment in it. But some Men have a peculiar faculty of amusing the World with nothing: and I remember, I once heard a judicious and modest Man give this Character of an Author much resembling ours, with reference to his Guide in Controversy, that for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning, it had the least in it of any he ever met with. But I go on,

II. To his Catholick Assertions. 2. Part. Catholick Assertions.

And first: ‘ Catholicks (as he calls them) affirm in the Eucharist after the Consecration, a Sign, or Pag. 13. §. ix. Symbol to remain still distinct, and having a divers Existence from that of the thing signified, or from Christ's Body contained in or under it.’ This 'tis true the Papists, or if you please, the Catholicks do affirm; because that otherwise they could not call it a Sacrament. But now, if we enquire what that which they call a Sign, or a Symbol in this Holy Sacrament is, we shall find it to be neither such as our Blessed Saviour establish'd, nor indeed any thing that can in propriety of Speech be so termed.

For our Saviour Christ, 'tis evident that the Symbols instituted by him, were Bread and Wine: They were these that he took and blessed, and gave to his Disciples; and commanded them also in like manner to take, and bless, and give to others in remembrance of him; and as the Symbols of his Body and Blood in this Holy Eucharist. But now for the Papists; they destroy the Bread and the Wine; they leave only a few aiery, empty Species, that is, appearances of something, but which are really nothing, have no substance to support them.

[Page] The Symbols establish'd by Christ were Festival Symbols, a matter apt for our Corporal Nourishment; so signify to us, that as by them, viz. by Bread and Wine, our Bodies are nourished to a Corporal Life; so by the Body and Blood of Christ, which they both represent and communicate to us, our Souls are fed to Life Everlasting. But for that which hath no Substance, i. e. nothing which can be converted into our Bodily Nourishment; how that can be a Symbol of this Spiritual Food, I do not very well understand. Indeed our Author tells us, ‘That tho after Consecration, Pag. 14. §. x. the Substance of the Bread and Wine is deny'd to remain, yet is Substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness, nor the softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread, nor nothing visible or tangible, or otherwise perceptible by any Sense, is involved in it:’That is to say, that the Symbol or external Sign then in this Eucharist, is according to them, a hard, soft, frangible, gustible, odoriferous, nutritive, visible, tangible, perceptible nothing. Verily a fit external Species indeed to contain, a one, manifold; visible, invisible; extended, unextended; local, illocal; absent, present; natural, supernatural; corporal, spiritual Body.

Secondly; Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament, he tells us, ‘That this word Sacrament, is Pag. 14. §. xi. not to be taken always in the same sense; but sometimes to be used to signify only the external Sign, or Symbols; sometimes only the Res Sacramenti, or the thing contain'd under them, which is the more principal part thereof.’ This indeed is a sort of new Divinity. I always thought hitherto, that when we talked of a Sacrament, properly so [Page 98] called, we had meant an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace: and that this particular Sacrament had been a whole composed of the External Species, (whatever they are) as the Sign; and the Body and Blood of Christ as the inward part, or thing signified. Thus I am sure the Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs us. First, for the name; it tells us, that ‘ The Latin Doctors have thought Catech. ad Parach. part 2. de Sacram. n. iii. & v. p. 92. that certain Signs, subjected to the Senses, which declare, and as it were set before the Eyes, the Grace which they effect, may fitly be called Sacraments.’ And for the nature of them, thus it defines a Sacrament from S. Austin, ‘It is the sign of a holy thing;’ or more fully, as I before said; a visible sign of an ‘ invisible Grace, instituted for our Justification.’ So that neither then Symbols alone, nor the invisible part, or Grace alone, can with any manner of propriety be called a Sacrament; but the Sign referr'd to the Grace; and as it is the Symbol instituted by Christ for the conferring of it.

This therefore can with no good reason be called a Catholick Assertion; being neither general nor true: But however, since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of Speech, and that, I confess, the Catec. Conc. Tr [...]d [...] part 2. de Euch. §. viii. nota p. 144. Catechism of the Council of Trent does lead him into it; let us see what use he can make of it. Pag. 15. §. xi. ‘And as Protestants much press, so Catholicks (Roman Catholicks) willingly acknowledg a great difference between these two, The worshipping of the Sacrament, as this word is taken for the Symbols; and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament.’ There is, no doubt, a great difference between these two: but then they who tell us, the Sacrament is to be Adored, if they will speak rationally, [Page 99] must mean neither the one nor other of these, but the Host; that is, as Card. Pallavicini expounds it, The whole, of which Christ's Body is a part; in the language of the Council of Trent; the Sacrament IN WHICH they believe Christ to be present, and for that Cause adore it; as the Cardinal again argues; See above, pag. 91, 92. that, To make a Whole Adorable, it is sufficient that one part be so; and therefore since the Body of Christ is adorable, the Sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped. It is therefore a meer shift to tell us that the Sacrament is to be adored; i. e. Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Nor will the remark of our Author help us out, that tho the Chapter indeed calls it the Sacrament IN Pag. 16. §. xiii. WHICH is Christ's Body, yet the Canon speaks more precisely, and calls it Christ in the Sacrament; unless he supposes the Council to have been infallible in the Canons only, and not in the Chapters; as some have thought, that they may be out in their Proofs, but cannot be in their Conclusions. But however, since he so much desires it, for my part I shall be content to allow them this too; for I should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their Errors. But yet so as that it be esteem'd only a private Opinion this, not a Catholick Assertion.

Thirdly; Catholicks, he means the Papists still, P. 21. §. xvii. ‘ground their Adoration, not upon Transubstantiation; as if Transubstantiation defeated, Adoration is so too; but on a Real Presence with the Symbols, which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them.’ By which Assertion, if he means only to make this Discovery, That Christ's Real Presence, together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine, is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration, as if he were there only with the [Page 100] Species of the Bread, the Substance being changed into his Body; I have no more to say to it. But if he would hereby make us believe, that 'tis all one whether Christ be adored, as supposed here by the Lutherans in this Holy Eucharist, and as imagined there by the Papists; I must then deny his Assertion; and desire him to keep home to his own manner of Real Presence, and which I shall presently convince him, will leave them in a much worse condition than their Neighbours, whom he would draw into the same Snare with them. And therefore, whereas he concludes,

Fourthly; ‘That supposing Transubstantiation to be an Error, yet if the Tenent of Corporal or Real P. 22. §. xviii. Presence (as held by the Lutherans, or others) be true; Catholicks (he would say Papists) plead their Adoration, is no way frustrated, but still warrantable:’ I must tell him, that the Adoration of those among the Lutherans, who worship Christ in this Sacrament upon the account of his Real Presence in, or with the Bread, tho it be an Error, yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs, who suppose the Bread to be turned into Christ's Body; and because it may not be thought that I speak this out of any prejudice against them, I will here offer my Reasons for it.

1st, They that adore Christ as really present, together with the Bread, do no violence to their Senses: They confess, that what they see, and taste, and feel, and smell, is really Bread and Wine. Whilst the Papist in denying the Bread and Wine to remain; or that what he sees, and feels, and smells, and tastes, is what all the World perceives and knows it is, contradicts his Senses, and in them the Law of Nature, [Page 101] that Means which God has given us to direct and lead us into the search of Truth; and by Consequence errs against infinitely greater Means of Conviction, and so is more inexcusable than the Other.

2dly; They who worship Christ, as supposing Him to be together with the Bread in this Holy Eucharist, are erroneous indeed in this, that they take Christ's Body to be where really it is not; but yet their Object is undoubtedly right, and in that they are not mistaken. But now for the Papist; he adores, 'tis confess'd, what he thinks to be Christ's Body; and would not otherwise adore it: But yet still 'tis the Host that he adores, the Substance that is under those Species which he sees; and which if it be not Christ, but meer Substance of Bread, the Case is vastly alter'd between the Lutheran and Him. The former adores Christ, only as in a place where he is not; the latter not only do's this, but moreover adores a Substance for Christ which is not his Body and Blood, but a meer Creature of Bread and Wine.

Monsieur Daille therefore might rightly enough say of a Lutheran, ‘that his Adoration is mistaken, P. 23. §. xix. not in this—that it addresseth it self to an Object not adorable, but only that by Error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not; and so becomes only vain and unprofitable:’ And yet our Author has no manner of Reason from thence to pretend, that a Papist who terminates his Adoration upon a Substance which really is not Christ's Body, but only mistaken by him to be so, shall be in the same Condition: there being an apparently vast difference between worshipping Christ in a place where he is not, and worshipping that for Christ which [Page 102] really is not Christ, but only a created Substance.

And this in truth our Author seems to have been sensible of, and therefore thinks to evade it, by saying, ‘That they do not worship the Substance that is in Ibid p. 23. that place, under such Accidents whatever it be, (which if Bread should happen to be there, he confesses would make them Bread-worshippers) but they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body, and not Bread.’

Well, be this so: But what now if they are mistaken in their Supposition: They worship, he confesses, the Substance-that is under those Accidents, supposing it to be Christ's Body; but still, mistaken or not, that Substance which is under those Species, whatever it be, they do worship: And if they have, as he thinks, a rational ground for this Supposition, which we shall see by and by, yet this will only excuse them from being formal Idolaters; but will not hinder but that their Worship is still directed to an undue Object, if that which is under the Species be indeed but Bread, and not Christ's Body as they imagine. And this then may serve to argue the falseness of what he lays down as his

Fifth, Catholick Assertion: ‘That supposing both P. 22. §. xix. the Lutherans and Papists mistaken in their Opinion, yet there can be no pretence why the One should not be as excusable as the others.’ Since as I have said; 1st, They err more grosly in abandoning the conviction of their Senses, which the Lutherans do not; 2dly, They worship a Substance for Christ, which really is not: To which if this be not enough, I will add yet two other Reasons: 3dly, That they make the Consecration, without [Page 103] which Christ is not present upon their own Principles, to depend on such uncertainties (as I shall more fully shew anon) that they can never be sure that Christ is there, which the Lutherans are free from: And lastly; They Anathematize those who dissent from them as to this Point, and so make a Schism in dividing the Unity of the Church, which the Lutherans are so far from doing, that they neither establish any Doctrine of Adoration at all, nay many of them do not believe it; and upon occasion, freely communicate with those who dissent from them in their belief, both of their way of the Real Presence, and of the Adoration. And for the same reason I cannot totally assent to his

Sixth Assertion: ‘That supposing there be no P. 25. §. xxi. such Real Presence as either of them believes, yet that their adoration of Christ, who is a true Object of Supreme Adoration, and only by them mistaken to be in some place where He is not, cannot be termed any such Idolatry, as is the worshipping of an Object not at all adorable.’

This as to what concerns those of the Lutherans who adore Christ in the Sacrament, is true: But for the Papist it is not. He intends, I allow it, to worship Christ, but he mistakes an Object for Christ, which is only a piece of Bread. He worships his Host, supposing it to be our Saviour's Body, but his Error is gross, and he not only mistakes Christ to be in a place where he is not, but he mistakes that to be Christ which indeed is not, but only a simple Wafer. His Worship therefore is not like the Manichees worshipping of Christ in the Sun; but rather as if the Manichee should, from some mistaken grounds, have fancy'd the Sun it self to be turned [Page 104] into Christ's Body; and then in defiance of all Scripture, Sense, and Reason, should have fallen down before it; but with a good Intention not to adore the Sun, but the Body of our Blessed Lord under the Species or Accidents of the Sun. This is the true Parallel; only that herein still the Manichee would have been the more excusable of the two, by how much the Sun is a more likely Object to be mistaken for Christ's glorified Body than a Morsel of Bread; and less capable of being discovered by our Senses and Examination not to be so.

It remains then, that these Lutherans only adore Christ where he is not; the Papists not only do this, but more-over they adore that for Christ which really is not, but a meer created Substance. Both the One and the Other are Erroneous; but the Papist's Mistake, renders him at the least guilty of material Idolatry, whereas the Lutherans is only an undue Application of his Worship as to the Place, but right as to the Person. Let us see,

Seventhly; How far their Mistake will excuse them, in answer to his seventh Assertion: ‘That however a Manichaean may be guilty of Idolatry for P. 26. §. xxii. worshipping Christ in the Sun; and an Israelite for worshipping God as specially resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel, because it is adoring a Fancy of their own, without any rational Ground or Pretence thereof; and however meerly a good Intention, grounded upon a culpable Ignorance, can excuse none from Idolatry, or any other Fault; yet if Catholicks, (i. e. the pretended Roman Catholicks) can produce a rational Ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist, tho possibly mistaken in it, they are to be exexcused [Page 105] from Idolatry.’ Which Proposal is so just, that I am very willing to allow it; and shall be heartily glad that the Grounds of their Mistake may in the End prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them. But then it must be remembred too, that he confesses if these Grounds be not reasonable, but as he says of the Manichees, their adoring of the Host be indeed an adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground; So that their ignorance in this Matter is culpable, then by their own allowance they are Idolaters.

This therefore brings me to the last Thing to be enquired into.

III. What Grounds they have for this Adoration? and whether they be such as, should they be mistaken in it, will be sufficient to excuse them?

And thus after a great deal of Preamble, but very little to the purpose, we are at last come to the main Question. I have already so largely shewn our Reasons against Transubstantiation, or that Real Presence on which this Adoration is built, that I shall not need to insist here. Yet because the stress of this Controversy depends principally on [...]his last Part, I will,

1st, Examine the strength of those Grounds which this Author has offer'd, to warrant their Adoration.
2dly, I will propose an Argument or two upon their own allowed Principles against it.

[Page 106] But before we proceed to these Points, we must vet have one touch more upon the old String: ‘For Pag. 26. §. xxiii. the Lutherans, he says, being allow'd to have such a plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration, whereby they become Absolved by other Protestants from Idolatry, in adoring our Lord as present there, I see not why the Grounds of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs.’

In Answer to which, the Reader may please to remember, that I have before said, that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle, that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration; but for this rather, that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain, they do not mistake their Object, but pay their Adoration indeed to Christ, only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not. But, 2dly, this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lutherans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists. Indeed, were the difference See Ibid. no greater than between a Con and a Trans, it would, I confess, be hardly worth the while to contend about it. But when we come to the Point it self, we may observe these four Advantages, among many others of the Lutherans side. 1. They confess for the outward Elements, that they are really what they appear to be, Bread and Wine; and so they do no Violence to their Senses; which, as I have said, is a great aggravation against the Papists. 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scripture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration: All which the Papist contradicts, but the Lutheran does not. 3. From the words of [Page 107] Christ, This is my Body; we all of us confess may be inferr'd, that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament: But whence do's the Papist infer the destruction of the Substance of the Bread; so that what is taken, and blessed, and given, is not Bread, but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread? This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no manner of colour to; and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend, as he do's, whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture, or our own Senses, that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence, as the Lutherans have for theirs. To all which let me add, 4thly, that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament, by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol, and which is another unanswerable Argument against them, whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain, do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament, but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established, and so have no Objection on this side neither to convict them.

But yet notwithstanding all this, ‘Do not some Pag. 26, 27. of our Writers confess, that the Papists Interpretation is more rational than the Lutherans?’ I Answer; What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions, and in particular Hospinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius, I cannot tell: But sure I am, we are not bound to answer for all that any Protestant Author has said. And if these Reasons I have here given for the contrary are valid, they ought to be more regarded, than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian.

[Page 108] Well, but still the ‘ Papist do's not ground his Pag. 27. Adoration upon Transubstantiation, but on Corporal Presence; and so they must both be excused, or neither.’

This is a fetch to very little purpose: For let me ask this Author; He confesses he founds his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence: Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others, or no? If he do's, then 'tis evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation, must with him stand or fall together; and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Presence, he do's it upon the account of Transubstantiation. If he do's not believe this, 'tis plain he is no Papist, nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome, which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner, exclusive to all Others, and Anathematized all that dare to deny it.

Laying aside therefore this Comparison, and which in truth will do them but very little kindness: ‘Let us view more particularly what rational Pag. 27. §. xxiv. Grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and of the Adoration of him upon that account.’

I. Ground: And the first is Divine Revelation: Ibid. For which our Author offers the two usual Instances, of the words of Institution, and the 6th Chapter of S. John; both which therefore I have at large discoursed on above, and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief.

But yet since our Author reminds us; Pag. 27, 28. ‘ That against these no Argument taken from our Senses or [Page 109] Reason is valid:’ I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too, See Treatise 1. p. 14. ‘That none can believe a thing true upon what Motive soever, that he knows certainly to be false, or which is all one, certainly to contradict—So that if our Reason then P. 21. Treat. 1. makes us certain of such a contradiction, we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation; and when any Revelation, tho NEVER SO PLAIN, is brought, we are bound to interpret it so, as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility.’

From which Principle it seems to me to follow, that were Hoc est Corpus meum, as evident a proof of Transubstantiation, as their own Authors confess it is not; yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature, and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind, no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do; we are then BOUND to interpret them so, as to avoid these Impossibilities. And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case, and thither I refer the Reader.

II. Ground. Their second Ground is founded upon P. 28. §. xxv. the Authority of those Councils that have determined this Matter; ‘The Declaration, as he calls it, of the most Supreme and Universal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former Times for the decision of this Controversy, long before the birth of Protestantism.’

These are great Words indeed; but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable These are his Synods; at Rome, Vercelles, Tours; Rome again, An. 1059. and again, An. 1078. Synods of particular Prelats, such as are all those to which he refers us, assembled against Berengarius, were the [Page 110] most supream and universal Church-Authority. For his little Reflection, that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism, I must tell him, I doubt he is mistaken. The Religion of Protestants, like that of Papists, is composs'd of two great parts; Catholick Christianity, common in some measure to us all; and Protestations against Popery. Now 'tis true, for what concerns the latter of these, we allow Popery to have the advantage of us, as to the Point of Antiquity, nor are we ashamed to own it: It being necessary that they should have fallen into Errors, before we could protest against them; but as to the present matter, our Author in his Disc. 1. p. 55. §. lvii. Guide, to which he refers us, confesses that Berengarius, against whom these little Synods were called, proceeded upon Protestant Grounds, i. e. in effect was a Protestant as to this Point: And therefore 'tis false in him now to say, that these Councils were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism.

But I return to his Church Authority; and answer; 1. If this Doctrine be certainly contrary to Sense and Reason, as was before said, then he has told us before, that ‘ no Motive whatever, no Revelation, tho never so plain, can be sufficient to engage us to believe it.’ 2. For his Councils, the eldest of them was above a thousand Years after Christ, when by our own Confession, the Error, tho not of Transubstantiation, yet of the Corporal Presence, was creeping into the Church. 3. These Councils were themselves a Party against Berengarius, and therefore no wonder if they condemned him. 4. They were neither universal of the whole Church, or even of the Western Patriachate in which they assembled; and therefore we can have no security that they did not [Page 111] err, tho we should grant this Priviledg to a truly General Council that it could not. 5. 'Tis evident that some of them did err; forasmuch as the very In the first Formulary prescribed him by P. Nicholas 2. in the Siynod of Rome, 1059. He thus declares, Panem & Vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus & Sanguinem, D. N. J. Christi esse; & sensualiter non solùm SACRAMENTO, sed in Veritate manibus Sacerdotum, tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. The former Part of which Confession is Lutheran; the latter utterly deny'd by the C. of R. at this day. In the second Formulary prescribed him by Gregory viith, 1078. Confiteor Panem & Vinum—converti in veram ac propriam Carnem & Sanguinem J. C. D. N. Et post consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi—non tantùm per signum & virtutem Sacramenti, sed in proprietate naturae, & veritate substantiae. This speakes of a Conversion, but of what kind it says not; and Lombard and the other Schoolmen, to the very time of the Council of Lateran, were not agreed about it: and P. Gregory himself in his MS. Work upon St. Mat. knew not what to think of it. Formularies of Recantation prescribed to Berengarius, do not agree the one with the other; and one of them was such, that their own Jo. Semeca ad Can. Ego Berengar. not. ad Jus Canon. ‘Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresim quam ipse habuit; & ideò omnia referas ad species ipsas; nam de Christi Corpore partes non facimus. ’ So Hervaeus in 4. dist. qu. 1. art. 1. says, that to speake the more expressly against the Hereticks, be declined a little too much to the opposite side. So Ricardus de Media Villa in 4. dist. princip. 1. qu. 1. Berengarius fuerat infamatus quòd non credebat Corpus Christi realiter contineri sub pane, ideò ad sui purgationem, per verba excessiva contrarium Asseruit. Authors tell us it must be very favourably interpreted, or it will lead us into a worser Error than that which it condemn'd. 6. Were they never so infallible, yet they none of them defined Transubstantiation, but only a Corporal Presence; and so whatever Authority they have, it is for the Lutherans, not the Papists. 7. And this their own Writers seem to own; forasmuch as none of them pretend to any definition of Transubstantiation before the Council of Lateran; and till which time they freely confess it was no Article of Faith.

Such is the Church Authority which this Discourser would put upon us. But now that I have mentioned the Council of Lateran, as I have before observed, that it was the same Council which establish'd Pag. 28. [Page 112] this Error, that also gave power to the Pope to depose Princes, and absolve their Subjects from their Obedience; so I cannot but remak further in this place, the Zeal of our Author in the defence of its Authority. It is but a very little while since another of their Church, Lond. 1616. Pag. 362, &c. Father Walsh, in his Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, did not think that the Mr. Dodwel Consid. of present Concernment, §. 31. Learned Person of our Church, to whom he refers us, had so clearly proved these Canons to have been the genuine Monsieur du Pin utterly denies these Canons to have been the Decrees of the Council. Dissert. vii. c. iii. §. 4. Acts either of the Council, or even of the Papist himself, but that a Man might still have reason to doubt of both: But indeed, tho that Father be of another mould, yet there are still some in the World, and I believe of this Author's acquaintance, who like this Council, never the worse for such a decision; but think the third Canon as necessary to keep Princes in a due Obedience to the Church, as the first, de Fide Catholià, to help out the obscurity of the Text in favour of Transubstantiation.

But he goes on; and upon these Premises, ‘Ask Pag. 28, 29. §. XXV. us, What more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion can a private and truly humble Christian take, than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed, to submit to that Interpretation thereof, which the Supreamest Authority in the Church, that hath heretofore been convened about such matters hath so often, and always in the same manner decided to him, and so to act according to its Injunction?’

Now, not to say any more as to his Expression of the Supremest Church Authority, which it may be he will interpret not absolutely, but with this Reserve, that hath been convened about such matters; I answer from himself, 1. It is a more reasonable and secure [Page 113] course to follow that Interpretation which is agreeable to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind, and against which he tells us, not only the Authority of a Synod, but even a Divine Revelation is not sufficient to secure us. 2. These Synods, as I have shewed, besides that they were particular, were moreover Parties in the case. And then, 3. It is false to say that they always decided the same, or, that that which they decided is the same which the Church of Rome now holds in this matter. All which our Particularly Blondel, to whom this Author refers us, Eclairciss. de l'Euch. c. 20, &c. Albertinus de Euch. lib. 3. P. 947. Authors have fully proved, and this Discourser therefore ought to have answered.

III. Ground. ‘But now, he says, if these Councils P. 29. §. xxvi. be declined, as not being so ancient as some may expect; i. e. not held before some Controversy happen'd in the Church touching the Point they decided: They have yet another very rational Ground of their belief, and that is, the evident Testimony of the more Primitive Times.’ It would have been more to the purpose, if he could honestly have said of the most Primitive Times. But however his Modesty is the greater now, tho his Argument be not so strong. As to the Point of Antiquity, I have already fully discussed it above; and we are but Treatise of Transubstantiation, by an Author of the C. of R. very lately assured by one of their own Authors, that Antiquity is of our side in this Point. For the six or seven Fathers he has mentioned, S. Ambrose de Sacramentis. Euseb. Emyssen. de Paschate. some of them are spurious; others have been Cyril Hierosol. in the Relat. of the Conference at my Lady T. 1676. in the Paper sent my Lady T. p. 50, 51, 52. And for S. Ambrose de Sacr. allowing the Book, yet see the Explication of what is there said, given by himself, l. 5. c. 4. See a late Treatise of the Doct. of the Trinity and Transubst. compared, Part 1. p. 46, 47. expresly answered by us; and all of them at large by Monsieur Aubertine, Larrogue, and others. If this does not [Page 114] satisfy him, he may shortly expect a fuller account in our own Language; Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers. Cyrill's Authority examined, p. 13, 14. Ambrose's, p. 18, 19. Chrysostom's, p. 40. Greg. Nyssen's, p. 48. a Specimen of which has already been given to the World in Earnest of what is suddenly to follow.

IV. Ground. His next Ground is taken ‘from the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's Time, and at present also excepting his Followers.’ To which I answer; That this Ground is not certainly true; and if it were, yet certainly 'tis nothing to the purpose. 1. It is not certainly true: Indeed, that the latter Ages of the Western Churches before Luther, that is, from the time of the Council of Laterane, did profess the belief of Transubstantiation is confess'd: And that a great part of the Greek Church at this day do's the same, since their new Colledge at Rome, and their Money and Missionaries sent among them have corrupted their Faith, I do not deny: But that this was so before Luther is not so certain; and whosoever shall impartially read over the long debate between the late Monsieur Claude, and Monsieur Arnaud concerning this matter, will, I believe, confess that this can be no rational Ground for their belief. Ludolphus tells us of the Ethiopian Hist Ethiop. l. 3. c. 5. n. 48. Church, that at this day, it neither believes Transubstantiation, nor Adores the Host: and Tellezius confesses it, because they consecrate with these words, Ibid. ‘ This Bread is my Body:’ For the De Eccles. Graec. Stat. Hodiern. D. Smith, p. 116. Lond. 1678. Claude Reponse au 2. Traitte; liv. 3. c. 8. p. 434, &c. Charenton. 1668. Id. ult. resp. à Quevilly 1670. lib. 5. c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Histoire Critique de la creance & des Coutumes, des Nations, du Levant.—Voyage du Mont Liban. Remarques, p. 302, 303, &c. Larrogue Hist. de l'Eucharistie, liv. 2. c. 19. pag. 781. Edit. Amst. 12 ^o. Albertinus de Eucharistiâ, p. 988, 989. fol. Daventriae 1654. Greeks, the Muscovites, the Armenians, the Nestorians, Maronites, &c. [Page 115] those who please to interest their Curiosity in a matter of so little moment as to their Faith, may satisfy themselves in the Authors, to which I refer them. Tho now, 2. To allow the matter of Fact to be true, I pray, what force is there at last in this Argument, ‘The Church both Eastern & Western, in these last Ages have believed Transubstantiation; therefore the Papists have a rational Ground to believe it.’ That is to say, you Protestants charge us for believing Transubstantiation, as Men that act contrary to the design of Christ in this Holy Eucharist, that have forsaken the Tradition of the Primitive Ages of the Church; that destroy the nature of this Holy Sacrament, and do violence to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind: Be it so; yet at least we have this rational Ground for our belief, tho it should be false, viz. That we did all of us peaceably and quietly believe it, till you came with your Scripture, and Antiquity, and Sense, and Reason, to raise Doubts and Difficulties about it; nay more, we all of us still do believe it, except those that you have perswaded not to do so.

Spectatum admissi risum teneatis Amici?

V. Ground. Of no greater strength is his last P. 31. §. xxviii. Ground for their belief, viz, ‘That since Luther's Time no small number of Protestants, even all the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, have proceeded thus far, as to confess a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and Adoration of it, as present there.’ For, 1. If we did acknowledg this, yet it seems we are mistaken in it; and then what grounds can it be for a Papist to [Page 116] believe Transubstantiation, that we Hereticks by a Mistake do not believe it, but only a real spiritual Presence, and as such are Anathematized by them for our Error? 2. I have before shewn, that were this a rational Ground, yet it fails them too; for neither do the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, nor any other that I know of, either believe Christ's natural Body to be substantially present in the Holy Eucharist, or to be adored there: I am sure if there be any such, they cannot be the Genuine Sons of the Church of England in this Matter, who believe so expresly contrary to her formal Declaration, as this Author has himself observed.

And then for the Lutherans, to whom he again Ibid. Pag. 32. returns; it is hard to conceive what rational ground of Security they can derive from their practice; that because they commit no Idolatry in worshipping what they know certainly to be Christ, the Papist commits none for worshipping what he do's not know certainly is Christ; in truth what, if he pleased, he might know certainly is not Christ.

And now after a serious and impartial Consideration of the Grounds produced in Vindication of this Worship; tho I could have wish'd I might have found them as rational as our Author pretends them to be, and shall be glad, as they are, that they may hereafter prove sufficient to excuse them from the Guilt of formal Idolatry in this Adoration; yet I must needs say, I do in my Conscience think 'tis more ‘an excess of Charity, than any necessity of Argument, if our Writers do sometimes, either not P. 33. §. xxx. at all, or but faintly, charge them with Idolatry.’ And the Testimonies he produces, argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them, even such [Page 117] as to hope, almost against Hope for their sakes; than give any security to them in their Errors. And because I would willingly, if possible, convince them of it, I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two.

2dly; Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration, as may be sufficient to excuse them.

For, 1st, It is granted by this Author, ‘That a P. 26. §. xxii. meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance, cannot excuse them from Idolatry.’ So that if their ignorance then be really culpable, their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them. Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded, is their mistaken interpretation of those words, This is my Body; and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake, we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations.

1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church, that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do; so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed, they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation. And this must be allow'd, unless we shall say, that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense, whatever the Consequence be of so doing.

2. Our Author himself confesses, that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction, then it cannot be right; but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction.

[Page 118] 3. It is undeniable, that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense, and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion, which was confirmed by Miracles, known only by the evidence of Sense; and by Consequence of this particular Point, that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God, or can be rely'd upon as coming from him.

Now from these Principles I thus argue: If that sense of these words, This is my Body, upon which they ground their Adoration, do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions, then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them. But that it do's so, and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it, I thus shew. He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation, must believe the same natural Body, at the same time, to be in tenthousand several places upon Earth, and yet still to be but one Body, and that all the while in Heaven: He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts, and yet continuing still the same Body without any change, to be unextended, and have no distinct Parts, nor be capable of being divided into any: He must believe the same Body at the same time, to move, and to lie still: to be the Object of our Senses, and yet not to be perceptible by any: With infinite others of the like kind See above, Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation. Pag. 32, 33. as I have more fully shewn before. But now all these are gross Contradictions, contrary to the Nature of a Body, and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind; and no Man can, without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so: And therefore, notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those [Page 119] words, This is my Body, they cannot, by our Author's own Rule, without culpable Ignorance, not know that they are mistaken in this Matter.

Again: No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true, but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture, This is my Body. That these words are in Scripture, he can know only by his Senses: If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted, he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture. If they are to be trusted, he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false.

Since then it is confess'd, that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense; and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason, and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind, it is necessary to take them in some other meaning, it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know, that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words; and that such Ignorance will not excuse them, our Author himself has freely confess'd.

But, 2dly, let us quit this Reflection, and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation. Yet still it is confess'd by them: 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist. 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there; and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened; and by consequence, that what they suppose to be Christ's Body, is indeed any more than a meer Wafer.

[Page 120] From whence I argue;

He that without any Command or Warrant of God, pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature, can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry: But whosoever worships the Host, worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature; and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry.

Now concerning the former of these, how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature, be it considered, what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter; how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases. How therefore he that will come to him, must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches; and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it, ought not to worship with a doubting Mind; because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault, but the doing of which may, for ought he knows, be a very great Sin.

And for the second; Whether every Roman Catholick, who adores the Host, has not even upon his own Principles, very great cause to doubt, whether he adores Christ's Body, or only a bit of Bread, will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration; and which make it great odds, were their Doctrine otherwise never so true, whether yet one Host in twenty, it may be in five hundred, be consecrated.

1. With reference to the Holy Elements to be consecrated: If the Bread be not all, or at least the greater [Page 121] part, of Wheat-flower; if it be not mix'd with See all this in the beginning of the Missal, de defectibus circa Missam. pure Water; if the Bread be corrupted, or the Wine sour; if the Grapes of which the Wine was made were not ripe; if any thing be mingled with the Wine but Water; or if there be so much Water mix'd with it, that that becomes the prevailing Ingredient; in all these Cases, and many others which I omit, there is no Consecration. And of all this, he who adores either the Bread or Wine, can have no security. But,

2. Be the Elements right, yet if the Priest, being either ignorant, or in haste, or unmindful of what he is about, should by mistake, or otherwise, err in pronouncing of the words of Consecration; whether by Addition, or by Diminution, or by any other Alteration, there is no Consecration: The Bread and Wine continue what they were; and of this too he that worships them can never be certain.

3. Let the words be never so rightly pronounced, yet if the Priest had no intention to consecrate; if he be a secret Atheist, or Jew, or Moor: If he be a careless negligent Man; it may be do's not believe he has any Power to make such a Change, (as I have shewn that several of their greatest Men in this very Age have doubted of it): If he consecrate a number of Wafers for a Communion, and in his telling Mistakes, intending to consecrate but twenty, and there are one and twenty before him; in all these Cases, for want of a due intention in the Priest, there it no Consecration; but that which is adored, is only a little Bread and Wine.

4. Let the Priest have a good Intention, yet if he See above in the Preface. be no Priest; if he were not rightly Baptized, or Ordained; if he were a Simoniac, or Irregular, or [Page 122] a Bastard, &c. Or if there were no defect in his Ordination, yet if there was any in his who ordained him; or in the Bishops that ordained that Bishop that ordained him; and so back to the very Time of the Apostles, if in the whole Succession of Priests to this day, there has been but any one Invalidity, whether by Error or Wilfulness, or for want of a due Intention, or by Ignorance, or by any other means; then he that consecrates is no true Priest, and by consequence has no Power to consecrate; and so all is spoiled, and whosoever worships in any of his Masses, adores only a piece of Bread instead of our Saviour's Body.

When therefore so many Defects may interpose upon their own Principles to hinder this Conversion, that 'tis exceeding probable, nay 'tis really great odds, that not one Host in twenty is consecrated; it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for God, which upon their own Principles they can never be sure is so; nay, which 'tis twenty to one is not God, but a meer inanimate Creature of Bread and Wine.

'Tis this has forced their most Learned Men to See Bellarm. de Justif. c. 8. confess, that they can never be sure of a Consecration; and our Author himself to declare, ‘That they do not worship the Substance that is under the Accidents Pag. 23. of Bread and Wine, WHATEVER IT BE, but UPON SUPPOSITION that it is CHRIST'S BODY;’ Which is what Pope Adrian 6th, following Adr. VI. quodlibet. Sect. 10. Suppos. 2. herein the Authority of the Council of Constance, prescribed; that they ought always to adore the Host with such a reserve: ‘The Council of Constance, See Gerson, Tract. de Exam. doctr. consid. 6. says he, excuses those who in their simplicity adore an unconsecrated Host, because this condition is tacitly [Page 123] implied, of it be rightly consecrayed: And therefore he advises, let them so adore the Host, I. ADORE THEE IF THOU ART CHRIST.’ But now if, as the Apostle tells us in another case, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin; and, He that doubts, is damned if he eats: I shall leave it to any sober Christian to say what security there can be in such a Worship, which is neither advised, encouraged, or commanded in Holy Scripture; and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right Object; and therefore are forced to such Shifts and Reserves, as were they once admitted, might make any other Creature in the World as warrantably adorable as their Host.

How much better were it for them to adore their Blessed Saviour in Heaven, where his glorified Body most certainly is: Where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our Hearts unto him. Were his Sacred Body indeed substantially present in this Blessed Sacrament, yet still it would be in a manner to us imperceptible, in the state of his Death, and by consequence of his Humiliation; and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether, since we have received no Command concerning it, it were our Saviour's Pleasure that his Body should be adored by us in that State: So that there could be no Sin in the not doing of it. But now amidst so many Doubts, not only upon Ours, but even upon their own Principles, that they dare not themselves worship at a venture, that which yet they do worship; tho I shall leave them to their own Master to stand or fall at the Great Day, yet I must needs profess. I think there is very much hazard in it. A great Sincerity, and great Ignorance, may excuse a poor untaught, and therefore blindly obedient Multitude: but for their Guides, who lead them into Error, for those to whom [Page 124] God has given Capacities and Opportunities (as to those now among us he has done, of being better informed) I can only say, Lord, lay not this Sin to their Charge!

And this may suffice to have been said to the third Thing proposed, of their Rational Grounds for this Worship. For what our Author finally adds; ‘That Pag. 37. §. xxxiii. to adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord, but Bread, would be unlawful to be done by any, so long as the Person continues so perswaded—But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord, neither will the same Person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his Conscience, and in his not adoring.’

I Answer: It will then be time enough to consider this, when either the Church to which we owe an Obedience, shall require it of us, or they be able to prove that in such a Case the Church would not sin in Commanding, and not we in refusing to obey her. But, blessed be God, there is no great danger of either of these: Our Church is too well perswaded of the unlawfulness of such a Worship, ever to require it of us. And for that Church which has so uncharitably undertaken to Anathematize all those who will not own her Authority, and receive her Errors, tho never so gross, as Articles of Faith: We are so fully convinced of the unreasonableness of her Pretences, and of our own Liberty, that we shall hardly be brought to submit our selves to the Conduct of such a blind Guide, lest we fall into the same Ditch, into which she her self is tumbled. And it would certainly much better become our Author, and his Brethren, to consider how they can justify their Disobedience to their own Mother, than to [Page 125] endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same Apostacy, both to our Religion and our Church with them.

The Conclusion.

AND thus by the Blessing of God, and the Advantage of a good Cause, have I very briefly passed through this Author's Reflections, and I am perswaded sufficiently shewn the weakness and falsity of the most of them. If any one shall think that I ought to have insisted more largely upon some Points, he may please to know, that since by the importunate Provocations of those of the other Communion, we have been forced too often to interrupt those Duties of our Ministry, in which we could rather have wish'd to have employ'd our Time, for these kind of Controversies which serve so very little to any purposes, either of true Piety, or true Charity among us: We have resolved thus far at least to gratify both our selves and others, as to make our Disputes as short as is possible; and loose no more time in them, than the necessary Defence of our selves and the Truth do require.

I have indeed pass'd by much of our Author's Discourses, because they are almost intirely made up of tedious and endless Repetitions of the same things, and very often in the same words. But for any thing that is Argumentative, or otherwise material to the main Cause, I do not know that I have either let the Observation of it slip, or dissembled at all the Force of it.

It was once in my thoughts to have made some Reflections in the Close upon the Changes of their Rituals, in requital for our Author's Observations on the Alterations of our Liturgie; but I have insisted longer [Page 126] than I designed already, and shall therefore content my my self to have given the Hint of what might have been done, and shall still be done, if our Author, or any in his behalf desire it of me.

In the mean time I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of that Method which is here taken; from the Expressions of some of our Divines, and the Concessions of others, whose profess'd Business it was to reconcile, if possible, all Parties, and therefore were forced sometimes to condescend more than was fit for the doing it; and even these too miserably mangled and misrepresented, to pretend to prove the Doctrine of our Church contrary to the express Declarations of the Publick Acts and Records of it. This has been the endeavour of several of our late Writers, but of this Discourser above any. Had those worthy Persons, whose Memory they thus abuse, been yet living, they might have had an ample Confutation from their own Pens; as, in the very Instance before us, has been given them for the like ill use made by some among them, of the pious Meditations of a most Excellent and Learned Father of our Church; and who might otherwise in the next Age have been improved into a new Witness against us. I do not think that Bp Taylour ever thought he should have been set up as a favourer of Popery, who had written so expresly and warmly against it. Yet I cannot but observe a kind of Prophetick Expression in his Book of the Real Presence, which being so often quoted by these Men, I somewhat wonder it should have slipp'd their Remark: Where speaking of their Shifts to make any One they please of their side, he has these words; ‘And—I know no reason, Real Presence, §. xii. n. 28. pag. 261. says he, but it may be possible, but a WITTY MAN may pretend, when I am dead, that in this [Page 127] Discourse I have pleaded for the Doctrine of the Roman Church.’

We have now lived to see some of those WITTY MEN that have done but little less than this; tho how Honest they are in the mean time, I will not determine. But I hope this Design too shall be from henceforth in good measure frustrated: And therefore, since neither their New Religion, nor their New Advocates will do their Business; since it is in vain that they either misrepresent their own Doctrine, or our Authors in favour of it; may they once please either honestly to avow and defend their Faith, or honestly to confess that they cannot do it. Such shuffling as this, do's but more convince us of the weakness of their Cause; and instead of defending their Religion by these Practices, they only encrease in us our ill Opinion of that, and lessen that good'One which we willingly would, but shall not always be able to conserve of those, who by such indirect means as these, endeavour to support it.

FINIS.

Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell.

A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church: more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Se [...]s. By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo.

An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's [Sure Footing in Christianity] concerning the Rule of Faith: With some other Discourses. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D. D. 40.

A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BURNET, D. D. Octavo.

An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILB. BURNET, D. D. Octavo.

The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop: Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo.

The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland. Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil) in Matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Octavo.

The Decree made at ROME the Second of March, 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto.

A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts.

A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto.

A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto.

An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church]. Quarto.

A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de M [...]aux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 40.

A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 80.

A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented, being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented]; and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. Quarto.

The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto.

The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries. 240.

An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.

A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.

…

[Page] Imprimatur,

May 13. 1687.

GUIL. NEEDHAM.

TWO DISCOURSES: OF PURGATORY, AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

LONDON, Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, MDCLXXXVII.

THE CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Occasion of these Discourses, 1
The Doctrine of Purgatory derived from the Ancient Philosophers. 2
The Opinions of the Primitive Fathers concerning the state of Men after Death. 3
All vastly distant from the Doctrine of the Romish Purgatory. 5
Which had no foundation for the first 600 years. 6
How it then began to creep into the Western Church ib.
In the Other Churches not received at this day 7

SECT. I.

What it is that the Church of Rome means by Purgatory. 9
- Shewn—From the Council of Trent. ib.
- —From private Writers of that Church. 10

SECT. II.

That there is no Ground for such a Purgatory in Holy Scripture. 12
- [Page]Shewn in a particular Examination of the two main places alledged by them, viz.
  - 2 Maccab. XII. 13
  - Matt. XII. 32. 16

SECT. III.

That the Primitive Church for 600 years, knew nothing of the Romish Purgatory. 21
- Shewn in the Particular Examination of the several passages alledged from
  - Origen. 22
  - Gregory Nyssen. ib.
  - St. Jerome. 23
  - St. Hilary, &c. 25
  - St. Cyprian. 26
  - Gregory Nazianzen. 27
  - St. Basil. 28
  - Theodoret. 29
  - Tertullian. ib.
  - St. Austin. 30

SECT. IV.

That the Principles of Right Reason do not engage us to the belief of Purgatory. 31
- Shewn in the Examination of Cardinal Bellarmin's
  - First Reason. 31
  - Second Reason. 32
  - Third Reason. 34

SECT. V.

[Page]That the Doctrine of Purgatory is contrary to Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason. 38
- To Scripture. 39
- —Antiquity. 40
- —Reason. 43

DISCOURSE II.

OF Prayers for the Dead. 45

SECT. I.

Of the Practice of the Primitive Church in praying for the Dead. 46
- That the Primitive Christians pray'd for the Dead. ib.
- The Grounds on which they did it. 47.
- That this do's not at all favour the present Practice of the Church of Rome. 48

SECT. II.

The Allegations brought by those of the Church of Rome, to justifie their Practice of Praying for the Dead, examined; and their weakness Demonstrated. 51
[Page] The Pretences of the Nubes Testium considered, and in order thereunto,
The Case of Aerius inquired into. 52
The Authorities of the Fathers examined.
- Dionysius Areopagita. 56
- Tertullian. 58
- Arnobius. 59
- - Eusebius.
  - Theodoret.
    - ibid.
  - St. Ambrose.
- St. Jerom. 60
- St. Austin. 61
- Tertullian, Cyprian. 62
- St. Ambrose. 63
- St. Chrysostom. 65
- The Greek Church. ib.

CLOSE.

In which a short Apology is made, That we do not now Pray for the Dead, after the manner that we confess the Ancient Church did. 66

ERRATA.

PAge 3. line 4. Palinurus. p. 6. l. 30. Pozzuolo. p. 17. l. 1. it must be, r. there must have been. In the Marg. p. 28. l. 6. post [...], r. [...], &c. p. 60. l. 32. for Figments r. Pigments. Some of lesser moment there are, which the Reader will please to Excuse.

A DISCOURSE OF PURGATORY, &c.

INTRODUCTION.

THERE is so near a Connexion between the two Points of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead, as they are now establish'd in the Church of Rome, that it is impossible to state the one as we ought, without entring on some Consideration of the other. It has been so much the rather thought fit to give an account to the World of both these, in that the Opinions of the Primitive Fathers touching the state of the Souls departed, and the early Practice of praying for the Dead founded thereupon, being not well understood by the Generality now a days, seem to give our Adversaries a greater pretence to Antiquity in these Points, than in most others that are in debate betwixt us.

For what concerns the Latter of these, I shall in the next Discourse, say what I suppose may be sufficient to shew how little Grounds the Ancient Custom of Praying for the Dead in the Primitive Ages of Christianity, will afford to the Practice of those who pretend to be their Followers in the same Custom now. As to the business of Purgatory, which is our present concern, We willingly allow it to have been of very Venerable Antiquity; and to have exceeded not only our Reformation, but even Christianity its self for some hundreds of Years. The Truth is, [Page 2] the Church of Rome is beholding for this Doctrine, as well as for many other things in her Religion, to her worthy Ancestors the Heathen Poets and Philosophers: And tho I cannot tell how far Cardinal Bellarmin's Argument will Bellarm. de Purgat. lib. 1. cap. 11. p 612. Colon. 1620. hold good to prove it from thence to have been the dictate of right Reason it self, because this might engage us to give up the Cause to Paganism, not only in the Points of the Worship of Images and Inferior Deities, &c. which perhaps the Cardinal may be content to think the Voice of Nature too; but even as to all the other parts of their Superstition, in which they were more universally agreed than in their Notion of a Purgatory; yet for what concerns the thing its self, we do not deny but that many of them did certainly believe it.

Eusebius recounts it of Plato, that he divided mankind into three States: Some who having purified themselves Praeparat. Evangel. lib. 11. cap. 38. pag. 568. Ed GL. Paris, 1627. by Philosophy, and excelled in Holiness of Life, enjoy an eternal Felicity in the Islands of the blest, without any Labour or Trouble, which neither is it possible for any Words to express, or any Thoughts to conceive. Others, that having lived exceedingly Wicked, and therefore seemed incapable of Cure, he supposed were at their Deaths thrown down headlong into Hell, there to be tormented for ever. But now, besides these, he imagined there were a [...]. middle sort, who, tho they had sinn'd, yet had repented of it; and therefore seemed to be in a curable Condition, and these he thought went down for some time into Hell too, to be PURGED and Absolved by grievous Torments; But that after that, they should be deliver'd from it, and attain to Honours according to the Dignity of their Benefactors.

[Page 3] Now that they supposed those who were in this state migh [...] [...]eceive help from the Prayers and Sacrificings of the Living, the complaints of the Ghosts of In Odyss l. 12. Elpenor in Homer, and of In Aeneid. l. 6. Palniurus in Virgil abundantly shew. And indeed the Ceremonies used for their deliverance, as described by those Poets, Vid. ib. Odis 30. Virg. Aeneid. l. 5. so nearly resemble the practice of the present Roman Church, that were but their Poems Canonical, it would be in vain for the most obstinate Heretick here to contend with them.

It must then he confessed, that our Adversaries in this point have at least four Hundred Years Antiquity, not only against us, but even beyond Christianity it self. And I suppose I may without any injury to the memories of those Holy Men, who have been our fore-runners in the Faith, say, That 'twas the impression which these Opinions of their Philosophy had made upon them, that moved them when they became Christians to fall into Conjectures concerning the state of the Soul in the time of separation, not very much different from what they had believed before.

It is not necessary to recount the Errors of Origen as to this matter: who turn'd even Hell it self into a Purgatory, Bellarmin l. 1. de Purgat. c. 2. p. 573. and thought that not only wicked Men, but the very Devils too might be so Purged in it, as to come forth Angels of Light. St. Augnstine tells us, That the Platonicks were De Civitat Dei l. 21. c. 13. p. 793. to 5. Lugd, 1664. of an Opinion not much different from this, who though they would not have any Sins past unpunished, yet supposed that all Punishments, whether of this life or the next, were designed to amend, and therefore that whatever pains awaited men after Death, they were all Purgatory. And though this conceit of Origen has been condemned by the Church as Heretical, yet there remained other Opinions for some Centuries after, not much differing from it. See for all those, S. Austin de Civit. Dei, l. 21. c. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Some thought that all men whatsoever should in [Page 4] the end be saved; others, and among these See below Sect. St. Jerome himself, that all Christians should be delivered: August. Ench [...]. ad Laurent. c. 67. p. 64. To. 3. Some who restrain'd their Charity yet more, still allow'd Salvation to all that dyed within the pale of the Catholick Church; to which, others finally added this further condition, That they had not only stood firm to the Faith, but also been charitable to the Poor. Which last circumstance is the very same that Virgil from the Platonicks again required in those who should be translated to the Elisian Fields; in which therefore he places not only them whose Virtue and Piety had intituled to that Happiness, but also by their Alms had V [...]rgil Aeneid. l. made others mindful of them.

Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo.

But not to insist more particularly on these things, three Opinions there seem to have been among the ancient Fathers concerning the state of men after Death, more generally received.

Bellarmin de sanct. beat. l. [...] c. 5. p. 713. Owns it to have been the opinion of Tertullian. Lactantius and Victorinus Martyr: But Sixtus Sinensis more fairly confesses it of many others. Bibl. lib. 6. annot. 345. p. 714. edit. 1626. Colon 4 [...]. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Origen, Prudentius, Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. 1. That the Souls departed do not straightway go to Heaven, but remain in a quiet and pleasing state free of all troubles and pains, yet earnestly expecting their final Consummation in Glory.

2. Another Opinion there was, which from the credulity of See Eusebius H [...]st. Eccles. l. 3. c. 39. edit. Valerii. Papias became almost the Universal Belief of the first Ages of Christianity concerning the Justin Martyr, contr. Tryph. pag. 89. C Edit. Henr. Steph. Gr.—Irenaeus vid. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 39—Tertullian passim, &c. Millenary Kingdom of Christ; That our Blessed Saviour before the final Judgment should come down from Heaven, and raise from the [Page 5] Dead those of the faithful, whose Piety had been most eminent and approved; and with them reign a thousand years at Jerusalem, in great plenty, and with extraordinary splendour; and that this was that which St. John meant by the first Resurrection, and at the end whereof the other was to follow.

3. A third Opinion, and that too embraced by many This is asserted by almost all the Fathers of the Primitive Church. of the most ancient Fathers, was, That all men being raised up at the last Day, should pass through a certain [...]. Probatory Fire, in which every man should be scorched and purified; and some be tormented more, others less, according as they had lived better or worser lives here upon Earth.

Such were the Opinions of the Primitive Fathers as to this matter. It is evident to any one that shall please to compare these with the account I shall hereafter give of the present Roman Purgatory, how vastly different they were from what is now proposed to us as an Article of Faith. But yet from these Opinions it is, that those of that Communion, impose upon the unwary their pretence of Antiquity for this Doctrine; whilst whatever those Holy Men have written of a third place, meaning the place of Sequester 1st Opinion. before-mentioned; but especially of the 3d Opinion. Purgatory Fire of the end of the World, they presently apply it all to their own fancy, and which in those first Ages found no manner of entertainment,

It is, I know, generally pretended by those of the other Communion, that St. Augustine at least began to favour their Opinion. And indeed I will not deny but that he does sometimes speak of a Purgatory after this Life; But yet so as that it refers either to the same Purgation we before spake of, at the end of the World; or else to that Vid. August. loc. supr. citat. Enchirid. cap. 67. ad Dulcit. quaest. 1, &c. Grief which he imagined those Souls who had been passionately tied to the things of this World, might still retain in their place of Sequester: And which he therefore [Page 6] thought to be the meaning of that obscure place of S. Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 12. so confidently produced by our Adversaries on all occasions, in favour of their Doctrine. But all this he proposes with so much doubt and uncertainty, as plainly shews it to have been in this Fathers time so far from an Article of Faith, that he durst not affirm any thing at all concerning it.

Thus then had the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory no manner of foundation in the Primitive Church. About DC Years after Christ, Pope Gregory the Great first began to give countenance to it. The publick practice of Praying for the Dead continuing still in force in the Church, and those Opinions of the Primitive Fathers upon which that was first established, being now no longer received with that Universal Belief they had heretofore been, it was but natural to seek out some other grounds for a practice which they saw so generally received, and yet could not well tell what account to give of the reason of it. Let us add this, that about that time a sad Barbarity began every where almost to overspread the World: The Goths and Lombards in Italy, the Franks and Burgundians in. France, the Vandals and West-Goths in Spain, the Saxons in Britain, destroying almost all Learning out of the World. From henceforth Miracles and Visions govern'd the Church: The Flames of Aetna and Vesuvius, were thought on purpose to have been kindled to torment departed Souls. Some were seen Broiling upon Gridirons, others Roasting upon Spits, some Burning before a Fire, others shivering in the Water, or Smoaking in a Chimney. The very ways to Purgatory were now discovered; one in Sicily, another in Pozzueto, a third nearer home, in Ireland. One found out by the help of an Angel, another of the Devil. Insomuch that Pope Gregory himself was carried away with these illusions, and which some are not ashamed even at this day to support.

[Page 7] By these means came Purgatory first establish'd in the Roman Church, in the VI, VII and VIII. Centuries: But yet, still the Article continued rude and unpolish'd. Pope Gregory discover'd how certain Souls for their punishment were confined to Baths, and such like places on Earth, but he had not as yet found out any one common Place for them to be tormented in, in Hell. Nay for some Ages after, it seems not to have been risen to a matter of certainty, so far was it yet from being an Article of Faith. Insomuch, That in the XII. Century many doubted of it, as we may gather by that Expression of Lib. 8. Chron. cap. 26. Esse apud inferos locum Purgatorum, in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur QUIDAM asserunt. Otto Frisingensis, Ann. 1146. ‘That there is in Hell a place of Purgatory, wherein such as are to be saved, are either only troubled with darkness, or decocted with the Fire of Expiation, Some (says he) do affirm; plainly enough implying that all did not believe it.’

It is not necessary to say, what Opposition this novel Invention met with in the several Centuries in the Latin Church, from Claude Bishop of Turin, in the IX. Century, from Peter Bruges and Henry his Successor at Tholose; From the Waldenses in France and Piemont, among whom this Doctrine was never received, and who are therefore condemned by Cardinal Bellarmin himself on this account. I Bellar. de Purg. l. 1. cap. 2. p. 571, 572. will rather observe, that the Eastern Churches have continued all along free from this Error. For however the Pope and his Ministers so far prevailed with the Greeks in the Session. 25ta. Conc. Labb. Tom. 13. pag. 492. & p. 1135. Council of Florence, as to perswade them to yield to a kind of pretended Union in this matter; yet both their Apology penn'd by Vid. apud Sixt. Senens. Bibl. l. 6. Annot. 259. pag. 667. Marcus Eugenicus Arch-Bishop of Ephesus, and presented to Cardinal Cusan, and the Deputies of the Council of June 14. 1438. Basil the year before, wherein they positively declare, That they neither had received any such Doctrine from their Ancestors, and therefore neither would they ever accept it; plainly shews they had no such Tradition amongst them; [Page 8] And the proceedings of the same Marcus, and of the Greek Church after, neither of which would be drawn to consent to this Union, more fully confirm it. And it is well known how the Christians of Histoire Critique, pag. 5. 20. Edit. Franck fort, 1684. for the Greeks, Id. pag. 69. Cites Gabriel Sionita affirming the same of the Melchites, Purgatorium nullum existere pessime crediderunt. Id. pag. 72. That the Georgians believe a Purgatory, but not such as the C. R. See concerning the Armenians, p. 141. Job Ludolph. Hist. Aethiop. Lat. shews the same of the Ethiopians, that they deny a Purgatory, l. 3. c. 5. n 67, 68. See Bellarm l. 1. de Purg. cap. 2. pag. 572. Asia and Africa do not at this day consent with the Roman Church in this point, as some of their own Authors confess; tho others not so ingenuous, would endeavour to perswade the contrary.

But however this be, Purgatory is now become an Article of Faith, and of too comfortable an Importance to be easily parted with; nor have I the Vanity to hope I shall be able to argue those men out of it, who by this craft gain their Acts xix. 25. &c. Living, and will no doubt therefore be as Zealous in Defence of it, as ever Demetrius was of the great Goddess Diana upon the same account. But for those whose interest it rather is to be freed from these Terrors after Death, which serve only to enrich the Priests, and keep the Laity all their lives in Fear and Subjection; I hope to satisfie them, that these are only imaginary Flames, invented for gain, establish'd upon false grounds, and kept up by artifice and Terrors to delude the People, but which themselves many of them no more believe, than did that great Cardinal, who minded one day to pose his Chaplain, and proposed this Question to C. Richlieu. him; How many Masses would serve to fetch any Soul out of Purgatory? To which when he appear'd, as well he might, unable to reply; the Cardinal thus pleasantly solved the doubt, That just so many Masses would serve to fetch a Soul out of Purgatory, as Snow-balls would serve to heat an Oven.

But 'tis time now to come to a closer Examination of all these things, and in order thereunto, let us first see;

[Page 9]

SECT. I.

What it is that the Church of Rome means by Purgatory.

HAD the Doctrine of Purgatory been as clearly explain'd by the Council of Trent, as it was peremptorily defined in it, we should have had the less need to make the See it at the end of the Council of Trent, p. 225. Edit. Labbe Paris 1667. fol. present enquiry. In Pope Pius the IV's Creed, it is only said in general terms, That they constantly believe that there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detain'd, are helped by the Suffrages of the Faithful. Nor is their Decree concerning it at all more clear; it only adds, ‘That they are assisted by the Suffrages of the Faithful, but especially by the acceptable Sessio. 25. pag. 174. Sacrifice of the Mass; and therefore, that the Bishops should diligently take care that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory deliver'd by the holy Fathers and Councils, should be believed, held, and taught by all the Faithful in Christ.’

Indeed in the foregoing Sessions, we find two other things defined with reference to this Doctrine, but such as conduce very little to the better understanding of it. ‘ 1st. It Anathematizes Session 6. Can. 30. pag. 47. those who shall say, that after the Grace of Justification, the fault and guilt of Eternal Punishment is so remitted to the Penitent Sinner, that there remains no guilt of a Temporal Punishment to be paid by him, either now, or hereafter in Purgatory, before he can attain to the Kingdom of Heaven.’ And 2dly, In their Canons of the Mass they resolve, ‘If any one shall say that the Mass Session 22. Can. iii. pag. 135. is not a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or that it ought not to be offer'd for the Living and the Dead, for their Sins, Pains, Satisfactions, and other Necessities, let him be Anathema.’

[Page 10] And accordingly the Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, contains himself within the same Bounds. ‘Those (saies he) who depart this Life in Grace and Charity, but nevertheless indebted to the Expos. B sh. Condom, S [...]ct. viii pag. 15. Divine Justice some Pains which it reserved, are to suffer them in the other Life.—This is what the Council of Trent proposes to our belief touching the Souls detain'd in Purgatory, without defining in what their Pains consists, or many other such like things.’

The Misrepresenter calls it, ‘A Place or State where Souls departing this Life, pardon'd as to the eternal Guilt Papist Misrepr Sect. xxiii. pag. 30. or Pain, yet obnoxious to some temporal Penalty, or with Guilt of some Venial faults, are purged and purifi'd before their Admittance into Heaven.’

Alexander Natalis is yet more precise: He distinguishes what is of Faith in this Matter, and what not, and thus resolves. That it do's not at all belong to the Faith. In dissert. Saec. iv. dissert. xli. pag. 352. ‘ 1st, Concerning the Place, whether it be in this World, or upon Earth, or in the dark Air where the Devils are; or in the Hell of the damned; or in some place underneath nearer the Earth, that the Souls are purged. 2dly, Concerning the Quality of those sensible Pains which the Souls held in Purgatory undergo; whether it be true and corporeal Fire, or whether Darkness and Sorrow, or any other Torment inflicted by the Justice of God, punishing them after a wonderful, yet true manner. 3dly, Concerning the duration of these Purgatory pains, how long the Souls are detained there. For tho Soto thought that no Soul continu'd in Purgatory above ten years, yet it is a matter altogether uncertain how many years those Pains shall last.—The only thing therefore, he says, that is in Controversy between the Catholicks (as he calls them) and Protestants, is this, Whether the Faith teaches that there is a State of the Dead, in which they shall be expiated [Page 11] by Temporary Punishments, and from which they may be freed, or otherwise helped by the Prayers of the Church.’

But tho this then be all which these men suppose is to come into our inquiry; yet I must observe, that the Catechism set out by order of the Council of Trent, determines concerning the Pains themselves, that they are caused by Fire. ‘There is (says that Catechism) a Purgatory-FIRE Catechism. ad Paroch. part. 1. Artic. v. Sect. v. pag. 41. Colon. 1684. in which the Souls of the Faithful being tormented for a certain time, are expiated; That so a passage may be opened for them into their Eternal Country, into which no defiled thing can enter.’So that I do not see how they can chuse but allow the Pains of Purgatory to be determined by them to the particular kind of Fire.

St. Thomas is yet more precise; not only that it is Fire in which the Souls are tormented, but that it is the very In 4. Sent. dist. 21. qu. 1. art. 1. same Fire that Torments the Damned in Hell, and the just in Purgatory. And Bellarmin himself confesses, That almost all their Divines teach, that the Damned and the Souls in Bellarm. de Purg. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 646. Purgatory, are tormented in the same Fire, and in the same Place.

But yet, since they suppose that nothing ought to come into this dispute, but what is just defined in the Council of Trent; we will take the state of the Question according to their own desire, and enquire only in the words of Cardinal Bellarmin,

‘Whether there be any such place, (as they suppose) in which, as in a Prison, the Souls are purged after this Life, which were not fully purged before: that so being cleansed, they may be able to go into Heaven, where no unclean thing shall enter.’

[Page 12]

SECT. II.

That there is no Ground for such a Purgatory in the Holy Scripture.

TO demonstrate this, it will not, I presume, be expected that I should shew the weakeness of all those Places, which tho some of their Controvertists have alledged, yet the more learned among them freely confess to have nothing to the purpose in them. Cardinal Bellarmin has put together xix several Texts out of both Testaments; but yet was far from thinking them all to his purpose; confessing De Purgat. l. 1. c. 3. p. 578. a. either of all, or at least of all out of the old Testament, except the first, that they are but probable Arguments. Of these Alexander Natalis utterly rejects xvi; and one he mentions not, as indeed he needed not to do it, when Bellarmin himself had set a particular mark upon it, as impertinent. Ibid. cap 8. arg. ult. Sect. Utuntur nostri, p. 601. D.

The Misrepresenter unwilling to see his Cause reduced to two only places of Holy Scripture, restores again to its Authority 1 Cor. iii. 15. one of those which Natalis had rejected 1 Pet. iii. 15., and adds another which they had all of them over-look'd, but very unfortunately: For that 1st, They have ever been esteemed Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. v. p. 582. A. Natalis Alex. dissert. xli. Saec. iv. p 378. two of the most difficult ard obscure places of all the new Testament; and therefore, certainly must be very unfit to build an Article of Faith upon. And then 2dly, For St. Austin, upon whose Authority he would be thought to alledg them; 'tis evident that he utterly mistook the design of that Father, if he thought that he understood them of the Roman Purgatory, as both his words evidently shew, and his own Masters Vid. in loc. 1 Cor. 3. 15. pag. 377, 379. Natalis, has ingenuously confess'd for the one, and Bellarm. de Christi Anima, Lib. 4. cap. 13. pag. 455. per tot. Bellarmin for the other [Page 13] So that then I may reasonably presume to have answer'd the design of the present Section, if I can give a fair account of those two places which they all agree to be the principal supports of this Doctrine; and from whence some of them Natal. Alex. in loc. pag. 362. doubt not to say it may be demonstratively concluded.

Now the first of these, is that noted passage in the 2 Maccab. cap. xii. Where Misrepres. n. 23. p. 28. (they tell us) it is said, That Money was sent to Jerusalem, that Sacrifices might be offerr'd for the slain; and 'tis recommended as a holy Cogitation to pray for the Dead. This not only Bellarmin ranks in the front Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 3. Misr. Sect. xxiii. pag. 28. Natalis ub. supr. p. 364. of his Scriptnre proofs, but the Misrepresenter has again advanced it, and Natalis doubts not to call it a demonstrative Testimony.

But to all this our Exceptions are very just:

1st, That the Book it self is not of sufficient Authority to establish a matter of Faith.
2dly, That if it were, yet is not the Text by any means clear for the proof of that, to which it is applied by them.

1st, For the Authority of the Book it self.

Thus much our Adversaries themselves confess, and I See Mons. du Pin. Biblioth. dissert. prel. p. 59, &c. think we need desire no more; That this Book was never received by the Bellarm de Purg. l. 1. cap. 3. p. 575. Natalis Alex. saec. iv. par. 3. dissert. 41. p. 365. Jews as Canonical: That St. Jerome therefore rejected it our of the Canon of the Christian Church: That it was not of a Bellar. ibid. p. 576. A. B. long time after received into it; insomuch, that in Canus l. 2. c. 10. ad. 4. Pope Gregory the Great's time, that is DC years after Christ, it was lawful to doubt of its Authority; for indeed, that Pope himself did not receive it as Canonical. And sure then it ought not to be thought unreasonable in us to doubt of the Authority of a Book, which being a part of the old Testament, was yet never received by the [Page 14] Jews as Canonical, and of whose Authenticalness therefore, the Primitive Christian Church for the first DC years declared themselves altogether unsatisfied. But

2dly, To allow the Book the Credit which they desire; yet still the Text is by no means clear for the proof of that to which it is applied by them. The Story its self is this, ‘That when Judas the day after the Battel came to bury 2 Maccab. xii. 39, v. &c. the Bodies of them that were slain, they found under the Coats of every one that had been killed, things consecrated to the Idols of the Jamnites, which was forbidden to the Jews by the Law. This discovered to them the cause of their Death, and how they were slain by God for their Sin. Hereupon Judas and all his men betook themselves to Prayer, and besought God that the Sin might wholly be put out of Remembrance. And Judas upon this occasion exhorted the People to keep themselves by their Example from the like Sin; and lastly, He made a Collection among them of a Sum of Money, and sent it to Jerusalem, to offer a Sin-offering unto the Lord.’

This is the Story, and the Design of all is very easy; That Judas considering the danger he had been in by the Sin of these men, pray'd to God that it might not be imputed to the People, and offer'd a Sin-offering for the Congregation according to the Law; remembring what the whole People had once suffer'd in the like case for Achan's Transgression. Joshua vii.

But our Adversaries will have this Sin-offering to have been for the Dead, and the History expresly says it was so. I answer, 1st, The History says no more than what we have set down, that Judas did this: For the rest, it is the conjecture of the Historian, not an historical Narration of what design Judas had in it. Now that this could not have been his design, is evident, 2dly, In that neither the Law of Moses, nor any other part of the Holy Scripture, makes any mention [Page 15] of any such Sacrifice either prescribed or allow'd of, for the Dead. And 3dly, Had the Law in some Cases approved of Sacrifices for the Dead, yet certainly it could not have done it in this, Idolatry being one of those Sins for which there was no Offering allowed, nor any Atonement to be made for it.

But what then is it that this Historian designed? I reply, it was this: That Judas by this Sacrifice made an atonement for the Dead, to the end that their Sin being forgiven, they might have a happy Resurrection. This he expresly declares, v. 44, 45. For considering (says the Historian) that there is an excellent reward laid up for those that dye Godly, ‘which was a holy and godly thought; [...]. he therefore made an expiation for the Dead, that they might be absolved from their Sin.’For many of the Jews then, as some Christians have done since, thought Offerings might be made for the forgiveness of those Sins after Death, that were not forgiven before. Therefore seeing that these Souldiers died in a grievous Sin before they had time to repent, the Historian supposed that Judas might have designed this Offering to expiate their Offence, that so they might obtain a Happy Resurrection. But now this was only the conjecture of the Historian, and as before we have seen very ill grounded, to be sure far enough distant from the Roman Purgatory. For 1st, This respected the future Resurrection [...], That the present Sufferings of the Dead. 2dly, The Prayers here spoken of, were offered for men who dyed in a Mortal Sin; but the Papists deny that any such go to Purgatory, or can receive any benefit from the Prayers of the Living. 3dly, Whatever becomes of all the rest; how was it possible that these Prayers should have been designed for the slain to deliver them out of Purgatory, when if we will believe the Papists themselves, their Souls were not there, but either in Hell, or in [Page 16] the Limbus, where they supposed the Souls of the Ancient Fathers were detained, till our Saviour Christ descending thither, set them free.

So that which way soever then we consider this passage, it cannot give us any manner of satisfaction. If we look upon it as a part of that History, the Book is not Canonical; nor was ever esteem'd so by the Jews, or by the Christians of the first 600 Years. If we take it as the History of what Judas did, this respected not the Dead at all; nor by consequence can it belong to Purgatory. If, according to the Opinion of the Relator, it regards the Dead indeed, but then with reference to their future Resurrection, not their present Punishment; and so is still impertinent. If finally, according to the Hypothesis of the Papists themselves, it is utterly impossible it should belong to Purgatory, because there was as yet no such place, and therefore these Souldiers could not be there, or by any Sacrifices be delivered from thence. And this I hope may be a sufficient reply to this first passage.

The other, from whence they also tell us their Doctrine of Purgatory may be demonstratively concluded, is in the xiith of St. Mat. v. 32. Where our Saviour speaking of the Sin against the Holy Ghost, tells us, ‘ That it shall not be forgiven neither in this World, nor in that to come.’

He would, I believe, be thought to make a very strange conclusion, that should without more ado argue thus abruptly from this Passage, Therefore there is a Purgatory: And indeed they themselves are sensible of it. And therefore Bellarmin confesses, that according to the Rules of Logic, Purgatory cannot be inferr'd from hence: But according to the Rules of Prudtnce he thinks it may, because that otherwise, he says, Christ must be said to have spoken improperly, which we ought not to suppose he did. But if there be nothing in this place to prove Purgatory, according to [Page 17] the rules of Logic, I suppose it must be some mistake then, in that which he told us before, that it may be demonstratively inferr'd from thence. For as for the rule of Prudence, that will at most make it but very probable.

But indeed this rule will fail them as well as the other, as we shall evidently see in examining the Proofs which they make from it. Now their Argument lies thus: ‘Our Saviour Christ says, that the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be remitted neither in this World, nor in that to come: We must therefore suppose that some Sins shall be remitted in the World to come, or else our Saviour spake improperly, which according to the Rules of Prudence we may not say. Now the World to come, must signifie the state of the Soul between the day of every mans Death, and the final Resurrection, because that after that, no Sins shall be remitted: And it must be to those who are in a middle state, because those who are blessed, are already forgiven; and those who are damned shall never be remitted.’

This is the sum of their arguing from this place: but now if it appear that we can have no manner of assurance of any of these suppositions; much more if it be clear that not one of them is true; Then I presume it will follow, that neither is it prudentially credible that our Saviour here intended to establish a Purgatory, but rather altogether certain that he did not.

1st, Then: Our Saviour says, that the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this World, nor in that to come; therefore, they conclude, some Sins shall be forgiven in the World to come.

I answer: It is most certain that some Sins shall be forgiven in the World to come, even all those that are forgiven [Page 18] in this, and for which therefore God shall not call us to account at the last Day. As if one should say, To him that repents and believes, his Sins shall not be imputed neither in this World nor in the World to come; that is, they shall never be imputed. And so both St. Mark and St. Luke interpret the Phrase, [...] Mark iii. 29. Luke xii. 10 He shall not be forgiven, says the one; he shall not be forgiven for ever, says the other: What is this to Purgatory?

But our Adversaries are more acute: Christ says the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven neither in this World nor in that to come; therefore some Sins that are not forgiven in this World, shall be forgiven in the World to come. This indeed is no consequence, according to the Rules of Logic, as Bellarmin acknowldges; but how then does it follow? Because that otherwise our Saviour Christ would have spoken improperly, which according to the Rule of Prudence we ought not to say. The Cardinal might have added, according to the Rule of Civility and good Breeding too. But still how does this appear? Why because that otherwise it would have been impertinent to say that it shall not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come, if no sins should be forgiven in the world to come, that are not forgiven in this.

I answer, 1st, He might have said it to exaggerate his Speech, and so the better enforce the hainousness of the Crime; and it is a thing very ordinary on such occasions to use many words, when one would have been sufficient: But 2dly, He might, and certainly did do it, to prevent the mistake of the Jews, and cut off all hopes of pardon for this sin: Two things there were which they understood by the [...], or world to come; the Kingdom of the Messiah, and the state after death; and in both these they thought a Remission might be had for some sins, that were not otherwise to be forgiven: Our Blessed Saviour [Page 19] therefore to take away all hopes of Remission for this Sin, and make the deeper Impression upon their minds, bids them not flatter themselves with any such fond Expectations; that this was a Sin that should never be forgiven them, neither in this World, nor in the World to come; i. e. neither now nor in the Kingdom of the Messiah; neither in the hour of Death, nor in the day of Judgment. But

2dly, They suppose, That the World to come must signify the time between every mans Death and the general Resurrection.

But now for this, there is no manner of Ground, either in the Holy Scripture, or in the Language of the Jews; nor can it be with any propriety so esteem'd. For the World to come, cannot be supposed to begin till this World ends, i. e. till the time be, that according to their own Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 5. p. 586. D Dico, post novissimum judicium non fore Purgatorium. Confession, Purgatory shall be no more. Whatever then our Saviour Christ means by the World to come, or however Sins shall be remitted there; it cannot be understood of Purgatory, which now is in this present World, and in the other shall be destroy'd.

3dly, They suppose, lastly; That the Persons whose Sins shall be forgiven, are not the perfectly just, in whom there is no spot of Sin remaining; nor yet the damned, whose Sins are irremissible; but such as are in a middle State, i. e. that depart with sanctifying Grace and Charity, but yet guilty of some lesser Sins, of which they are to be Purged.

I relpy, 1st, That there is not a word of all this so much as hinted in the Text; and any one might from thence as reasonably conclude for either of the other kinds, as they do for this middle sort. For as concerning the Just, it is not certainly at all absurd to say, that their Sins are then [Page 20] forgiven, when they are finally acquitted at Gods Tribunal, as they shall be in the World to come. And for the Wicked, since we here are told that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only Sin that shall not be forgiven; nay, our Saviour expresly says, That all other Sins shall be remitted; it may with much more agreement to the Text follow, that all men, be their Sins what they will, shall have Grace of Repentance whereby they may be pardon'd in the World to come, the Blasphemers of the Holy Ghost alone excepted, than that those only shall be forgiven, who die with venial Sins. But

2dly, What have we here to do with the Remission of Sins? Purgatory is a place, not where Sins are remitted, but where they are punish'd with the greatest Severity; nay, what is still more, punish'd after they are remitted; nay, what is still more extraordinary, therefore punished, because they are remitted. For if the Guilt were not remitted, the Sinner could not go to Purgatory, nor have the favour of being punish'd there. And therefore it is utterly impertinent from the Remission of some Sins in the World to come, to conclude there is a place where all Sins, even the least, are exacted, and that so rigidly, that there is no escaping thence, till either by their selves or their friends, they have paid the very uttermost Farthing. Mat. v. 26.

In short, if we will conclude any thing as concerning the Remission of Sins from this; the Rules both of Logick and Prudence will direct us to make one part of the Opposition answer to the other: And then it will stand thus. The Sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be at all forgiven, whether as to Guilt or Punishment, but shall be avenged to all Eternity. Therefore all other Sins upon Repentance shall be forgiven, both as to the Fault and Punishment, so as not to be required, neither now or hereafter. Any other Remission than this, the Scripture no where speaks of, nor do's this Text infer it: [Page 21] And to suppose without proof that there is any other, is in good earnest to beg the Question.

The sum of all, is what I before said: That our Blessed See Dr. Lightfoot upon the place. Saviour intended by this Phrase, to cut off all hopes of Pardon for this Sin, by telling them that it should not be remitted, neither by any Expiation in this Life, nor by any extraordinary Grace of God in the Age of the Messiah, or in the Life after this; which are the only notions of the World to come, that the Jews knew, and in both which they fanci'd some Sins not elsewhere remissible, might be forgiven.

And this may suffice to have been said to shew how far the Holy Scripture is from establishing this Doctrine as an Article of Faith; for sure, if these places which they call demonstrative, are so little to the Purpose, we can have no great Expectation from the rest, which themselves esteem but only probable proofs of it.

SECT. III.

That the Primitive Church for 600. years, knew nothing of the Romish Purgatory.

BUT if the Scriptures be thus silent in this matter, let us see if the Fathers of the Church in the first Ages of the Gospel received the present Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of their belief. I shall need to insist so much the less on this here, because the greatest part of the Authorities, that are usually produced to this effect, relate not immediately to Purgatory, but to Prayers for the Dead; and therefore will be more proper to be consider'd in the next Discourse. Those that speak precisely to this point are but few; and I shall take them in such order, as seems most natural for our Examination.

[Page 22] And the first I shall mention, is Origen. We ought so ORIGEN. much the rather to complain of the Sophistry of our Adversaries in making use of his Testimony; in that, either they themselves must deny that his Opinion concerning Purgatory, was the same with theirs, or they must confess that those Fathers and Councils who condemned him as an Heretick on this account, have in him pronounced their Sentence also. I have before observed of this Father, that he thought there were no Pains but Purgatory after this Life; insomuch, that after a certain time not only all men, tho never so wicked, but the Devils themselves should be purified by them, and so saved in the end. This Bellarmin elsewhere Lib. 1. de Purg. c. ii p. 573. C. confesses to have been his Opinion, and to this the place which he quotes out of him clearly refers: He that is saved, is Origen. Homil. 6. in Exod. Qui salvus fit per ignem salvus fit, ut siquid forte de Specie plumbi habuerit admixtum, id ignis decoquat & resolvat, ut efficiantur OMNES aurum purum, Bellar. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 608. B. saved by Fire, that so if by chance he has any thing of Lead mixed in him, the Fire may melt and separate it, that so ALL may be made pure Gold. And is not this a rare Testimony for Purgatory, which neither they themselves approve of, and which, both the Ancient Fathers Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Austin, nay, and even the 5th General Council its self, has condemned as Heretical?

And what I have now said of Origen, I must in the next GR. NYSSEN. place assirm of another Father, and he the first which Bellarmine produces on this occasion, viz. Gregory Nyssen, who has long since been observed as to this matter, to have favour'd the Heresie of Origen. Indeed we are told by Photius, that Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople in the VII. Century, wrote an Apology for him, in which he shews Codex 233. p. 904. Ed. G. L. that this was not the Opinion of Gregory Nyssen himself, but that his works had been corrupted by the followers of Origen, the better to countenance their Error; which so ever [Page 23] it were, it is the same thing as to the Authority of his Writings in this Controversy: And indeed the very places cited by Bellarmin shew, that this was the Purgatory he contends for; viz. such, in which all were to be purified, and at last saved for ever. He distinguishes two Orders of Men, of which one by the Discipline of Christ are purged here on Earth, Greg. Nyss. de mortuis Orat. pag. 635. [...]. 636. A. To. 3. Ed. GL. Paris 1638. Ibid. p. 636. [...]. B. Which Bellarmine from P. Francisc. Zinus, faultily renders, Aliis autem post hanc vitam purgatorio igne materiae labes abstergentibus. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 607. such are the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Disciples, Martyrs, and as many as preferred (says he) a Virtuous life before a sensual and material enjoyment; In the other he ranks, ‘ All other men whatsoever, who shall return, he says, to that Grace that was once given them, after that by the future Discipline (i. e. in the World to come, after the final judgment) they shall have cast off in the Purgatory fire their propension to matter:’ For so it is in the Original; and not as Bellarmin renders it; a Wiping away the spots of matter in a Purgatory fire after this life.

To these two I must in the next place subjoin St. Jerome, S. HIEROME. whom, tho' I will not with See Bellarm. de Purg. l. 2. c. 1. p. 631. A. Ruffinus accuse of being involved in the Error of Origen, yet Ibid. 632. C. Bellarmin himself cannot deny him to have been charged with an Opinion not very much differing from it, viz. ‘That All Catholick Christians shall in the end be saved, after they have been tried and purified in the fire.’ And this the very place which they cite in favour of their Purgatory, plainly shews [Page 24] to have been his Opinion; ‘ As we Sicut Diaboli & omnium negatorum at (que) impiorum, qui dixerunt in corde suo non est Deus, credimus aeterna tormenta; sic Peccatorum & Impiorum, & tamen Christianorum, quorum opera in Igne probanda sunt at (que) purganda, moderatam arbitramur, & mixtam clementiae sententiam Judicis. Comm. in Is. in [...]in. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 10. p. 608. A. believe (says he) the torments of the Devil, and of all that deny the Faith, and of those wicked men who have said in their heart there is no God, to be eternal: So for those who are Sinners and wicked, but yet Christians, whose works are to be tried and purged in the fire, we believe that the sentence of the Judge shall be moderate, and mixt with clemency.’ In which words, this Opinion which the Romanists themselves confess to be Erroneous, is plainly contain'd, viz. Of the moderate punishment of wicked men and sinners, if Christians; i. e. of their salvation after a certain time of Purgation in the fire of the last judgment; (for so the opposition to the Eternal punishment of the others, requires us to expound it): But for the burning of good men, whose sins are forgiven, and who depart this Life in a state of Charity, and in the Grace of God, such as are punish'd in the Popish Purgatory, of this there is no mention.

And the same is so evidently the meaning of the other passage alledged by Bellarmin from this Father, that there can Bellarm. ib. p. 608. D. Hieron. lib. 1. contr. Pelag. ultr. med. Si autem Origines omnes rationabiles creaturas dicit non esse perdendas, & Diabolo tribuit Paenitentiam; Quid ad nos, qui Diabolum & satellites ejus, omnes (que) impios & praevaricatores dicimus perire perpetuo; & Christianos, si in peccato praeventi fuerint, salvandos esse post poenas? be no doubt of it: ‘ If, says he, Origen says that all rational creatures are not to be destroyed, and allows repentance to the Devil; What is this to us, who say, that the Devil and his companions, and all wicked and prevaricating men shall perish for ever; and that Christians, if they are overtaken in their sins, shall be saved after Punishment?’

And hitherto we have considered such passages as the Error of Origen, sufficiently different from the Doctrine of [Page 25] the Romish Purgatory, has given occasion to. But there was another opinion in the Primitive Church, which I have mentioned above, and to which many other expressions of the other Fathers do allude, viz. ‘That all those who at the last day shall appear before the Judgment-seat of Christ, shall be proved by a certain terrible fire, by the force of which the good and bad shall be separated, and if any evil of their past life still adheres to the Good, it shall then in that Purgatory fire be intirely done away.’

Now to this belong those passages that are produced on this occasion from Lactantius, Hilary, St. Ambrose, Eusebius Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. c. 10. p. 607. &c. Emissenus, and some of St. Austin himself. I shall offer one proof of this in the last instance of Cardinal Bellarmin, St. Hilary, which he thus quotes, ‘ An unwearied fire is to be undergone by us, in which are to be endured those grievous punishments, of a soul Nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus, in quo subeunda sunt gravia illa expiandae a peccatis animae supplicia. Bell. p. 609. to be expiated from its sins.’ But the whole passage is indeed this: ‘St. Hilary in his Annotations on the 20 v. of the 119. Psal. My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments;’ applies it unto the future judgment; Hilar. in Psal. 118. Gimel: pag. 865. F. 866. A. Edit. Paris, 1652. An cum ex omni ocioso verbo rationem simus praestituri, diem judicis concupiscimus, in quo nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus, in quo subeunda sunt gravia illa expiandae a peccatis animae supplicia? B. Mariae animam Gladius pertransibit, ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes; si in judicis severitatem, capax illa Dei Virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit a Deo judicari? and among other observations has this passage, ‘ Seeing we must render an account for every idle word, do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through? In which those grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin? A sword shall pass through the soul of the B. Virgin Mary, that the thoughts of many Hearts may be revealed. If that Virgin who bore God, is to come into the severity of the judgment, will any one dare desire to be judged by God.’ This certainly is such a Testimony as had Bellarmin ever examined it, he [Page 26] would have been ashamed to have produced it for a proof of Purgatory.

The Authority of St. Cyprian, as it is commonly cited CYPRIAN. Bellarm. de Purg l. 1. c. 10 p. [...]08 D. by them, seems more considerable; ‘ 'Tis one thing to be purged from sins by a long time of torments, and to be mended a great while by fire; another by suffering to have purged all sins.’ But the truth is, this is as little to the purpose as any we have yet seen. St. Cyprian in that Epistle to Antonian, defends a certain new Decree of his Church that had been made in favour of those who fell in times of persecution, whereby they were admitted to penance, and by which it was feared by some, lest the Christians should be rendred more slow to suffer for the Faith. In this Epistle St. Cyprian shews Antonian, that though the Church had granted something of favour to these Libellatick Christians, yet still their condition was infinitely worse than that of the Martyrs, so that there was no cause to doubt but that every one ought to prefer Martyrdom, notwithstanding the new favour that was allow'd to them. And then entring upon the comparison, 'Tis one thing (says he) to stand in expectation of Cyprian. Epist. 55. Antoniano. pag. 109, 110. Edit. Oxon. Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad Gloriam perveni [...]e; aliud missum in carcerem non exire inde, donec solvat novissimum quadrantem, aliud statim fidei & virtutis accipere Mercedem: aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emundari, & purgari diu igne, (f. diutine) aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse; Aliud denique pendere in die judicii ad sententiam domini [...]; Aliud statim a Domino Coronari. pardon, (as the Penitents did) another to be arrived at their glory (as the Martyrs were): 'Tis one thing being clapt into the prison, not to go out thence till they have paid the uttermost farthing; (i. e. not to be admitted into the Church till they had past through all the several parts of the penance inflicted on them) another presently to receive the reward of their faith and courage: One thing to be cleansed by a long grief for sin, and to be purged a long time by fire; another to have purged away all sins by suffering. (All which still refers to the afflictions and troubles of the Penance they were to undergo, and [Page 27] concerning which all this discourse of St. Cyprian is; whereas the Holy Martyrs by suffering, were already cleansed from all their sins. There is nothing more ordinary than by the phrase of Fire to signifie any kind of afflictions: and if the conjecture of the Reverend Editor of the Oxford Cyprian, be accepted, as the authority of several Manuscripts, seems to render it exceeding probable, that instead of diu igne, it ought to be diutine: then it will follow, that this Father spoke nothing at all of fire, but only said this, That it is infinitely better with the Martyrs to be justified from all their sins in Heaven, than with the Penitents be put under a long course of severe discipline for them here in the Church on Earth.

And this Interpretation the Learned Rigaltius approves; And what S. Cypr. himself adds, plainly shews that it cannot See his Annot. in loc. p. 109, 110. refer to the Romish Purgatory, where going on still with the Antithesis, he adds, 'Tis one thing in the day of Judgment to expect with Anxiety the Sentence of the Lord, (as these Penitents were to do); another to be presently crown'd by the Lord, as these Martyrs were. Now this could not be said of the Souls in Purgatory, who if you believe them, are in no Anxiety about their future Sentence, but actually secure of their Salvation, as soon as they shall be deliver'd from those severe, yet temporary Pains in which they are.

For Gregory Nazianzen, both his Tom. 2. Op. G. L. p. 1037. C. Paris 1630. Scholiast Nicetas Interprets GREGORY. NAZIANZ. the Fire he speaks of, to be that of Hell, and the occasion of his words, and the Persons to whom he Addresses, shew it can be understood of no other. The Persons were the Novatians; the occasion to exhort them by the fear of this Punishment to return to the Communion of the Greg. Naz. Homil. 39. T. 1. p. 636. Church. Now for Schismaticks, if they continue obstinate in their Separation, I suppose the Church of Rome will allow there shall be reserved some worser Fire than that of Purgatory.

[Page 28] The next Father produced by Bellarmin, is St. Basil, St. BASIL. Bell. p. 608. C. who upon Is. ix. 18. says, That Sin is therefore by the Prophet compared to Grass, because Grass is the most fruitful among [...]. Herbs:—And then he goes on in the Words produced for Purgatory; If therefore we shall lay open [...]. Basil. in 9. Is. Tom. 2. p. 216. Ed G. L. Paris, 1637. our Sins by Confession, we shall make this Grass dry, and worthy to be devoured by the Purgatory Fire. Now that this Purgatory-fire cannot be that which the Romanists mean, is evident from this, that the Sin is not devoured by that, but being first devoured by Confession and Repentance, is here punish'd in this Fire. We must therefore seek out some other meaning, and for that we can take no better than what this same Commentary affords us; viz. That it signifies the Holy Spirit, operating upon the Hearts of the Penitent, and with his Coelestial Fire consuming those Sins which by Confession are dried, and made fit for that Holy Flame. So on the 6th of Isaiah, speaking of the Altar which the Prophet there saw, he says was signified by it, ‘A certain Coelestial [...], &c. To. 2. cap. 6. p. 172. B. Altar, namely the place of the purifying of Souls; from whence that Purgatory-fire is sent out to the sanctified Powers. With this Fire did the heart of Cleophas and Simon burn, when our Lord open'd to them the Scriptures. With this Fire are they heated, who are warm'd by the Holy Ghost, &c.’

As for the other Passage that is alledged from the same Comment, it is so clear, that by the purging, or rather the castigating Fire which he there speaks of, he understands Vid. ibid. pag. 216. E. [Page 29] those Evils and Afflictions that God was about to bring upon the Israelites for their Amendment, that I shall not need say any thing more to it.

For Theodoret, whom Bellarmin cites out of his Comments THEODOR. on 1 Cor. 3. He is indeed the clearest of all to their purpose: We believe, says he, this to be the very Purgatory Bellarm. pag. 608. C. D. fire, in which the Souls of the dead are try'd and purged as Gold in a Crucible. But now the misfortune is, that Theodoret has no such words; nay, though they themselves are the Editors of his Works, yet have they never yet dared to insert this pretended explication into them. It is indeed an instance of the peculiar confidence of these men in their pretences to Antiquity, not only to go on to alledg See Bellarm. l. 1. de Purg. c. 5. p. 591. B. Theodoret for an Abetter of their Doctrine, after they had been publickly challenged by a Nilus de Purgatorio, p. 144. Greek Author in his Tract against Purgatory concerning it; but especially, when his Comments on this very place of St. Paul, which themselves have set forth, interpret the Fire he there speaks of, to be Theodoret. in 1 Cor. 3. 12, 13. [...]. To. 3. p. 134. A. and below Lit. B. [...]. Et Lit. C. [...]. Edit. Paris G. L. 1642. the Fire of Hell; and the Day which is to reveal it, the Day of Judgment.

There are yet remaining two of the Writers of the Latin Church to be consider'd by us; the first Tertullian in TERTUL. his Book de Anima, c. 17. So Bellarmin alledges him; but it should have been the 35. But this Author is utterly forreign to his purpose: All he says is, That the Souls of Men shall be restor'd to their Bodies, some sooner, others later, in Christs millenary Kingdom, according to what their Sins or Piety have deserved: That if we live wickedly, the Judg shall cast us into the Infernal Prison, from whence we shall Et judex te tradat Angelo executionis, & ille te in carcerem mandet infernum, unde non dimittaris nisi modico quoque delicto mora Resurrectionis expenso, Pag. 291. Edit. Paris 1675. [Page 30] not go out, until every the least Offence has been paid for by the delay of our rising. And this was all that Rigaltius himself understood by it.

As for St. Austin, the last Father to be considered by us, St. AUSTIN. I have already said enough to obviate whatever Authorities can be brought from him. He was in the Opinion of those who believed a Probatory-fire at the end of the World; and to this, many of his Expressions refer. Again, he thought that those who departed hence, did not go straight to Heaven; and therefore, that those whose See his Enchiridion. cap. 67, 68, 69. Et in Quaest. ad Dulcit. qu. 1. See above, Introduction. Affections were very much tied to the things of this World, might still retain in their separate State some desires towards them, and be troubled for the loss of them: And by this we must explain some others of his sayings. But in all these he expresses himself with so much doubt and uncertainty, as plainly shews how little he thought any of these things to be Articles of Faith; and whatever they were, yet are they, to be sure, all of them vastly different from the Roman-Purgatory.

And now after so particular an Examination of the several Testimonies produced in favour of this Doctrine; I think I may venture to conclude with the same that I began this Section, That neither the Holy Scripture nor Fathers of the first 600. Years, do at all Authorize the Romish Purgatory. Let us see, finally, whether the Reasons offer'd for the establishment of it, will have a sufficient weight to engage us to believe it.

[Page 31]

SECT. IV.

That the Principles of Right Reason do not engage us to the belief of Purgatory.

AND 1st, thus they Argue. ‘There are some Sins in their own nature Venial, and worthy only of a Bellarm. de Purg. l. 1. [...]. 11. p. 609. C. temporal Punishment: But it is possible a man may depart out of this Life with such only: Therefore it is necessary that he may be purged in another Life.’

To this rope of Sand, rather than Argument, I reply; 1st, That the Supposition it goes upon, is false. 2dly, That the Conclusion it infers, is inconsequent. For the former of these; That some Sins are less than others, it is confessed; but that any Sins are properly Venial, we deny. To be Venial, is to be worthy of Pardon, or not to deserve Punishment; but whatsoever do's not deserve Punishment, can be no Sin, for all Sin infers an Obligation to Punishment; and therefore to be a Sin, and yet be Venial, is in proper terms no better than a flat Contradiction. Again, The Sins here spoken of, are supposed to be worthy of a temporal Punishment; but Sins that are worthy of a temporal Punishment, are not properly Venial; therefore, either the Sins here spoken of, must not deserve even a temporal Punishment, or they cannot be said to be properly Venial.

But 2dly, Be the Sins, as they desire, Venial; how do's it from hence follow, that it is necessary that these be punish'd in another Life? And why is not the Blood of Christ which cleanses the greatest Sins, a sufficient Purgatory for the least Infirmities? Venial Sins are by themselves confess'd to be intirely consistent with the Grace of God; nay, so consistent as not to destroy, or but even lessen it. Now [Page 32] for a Christian, who has lived so well as to be still in the Grace and Favour of God; that has received an actual Pardon of all his other Sins, through the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, so as to be absolutely certain of a Crown of Glory for ever; to think that such a one, I say, shall be punish'd with Torments, inferior in nothing but the Duration to those of Hell-fire its self, for such slips and infirmities as the best of men are encompass'd with, and which no man can ever hope perfectly to overcome; and this, notwithstanding all the Promises of Mercy and Forgiveness, which God has declared to us; this certainly is so far from being a Dictate of Right Reason, that it is impossible for any one that has any Reason at all, and is not exceedingly carried away with Prejudice for his Opinion, ever to believe it.

Again, 2dly, Thus they Argue: ‘When Sinners are reconciled to God, the whole temporal Pain is not always remitted with the Sin: Now it may happen, Bellarm: ibid. p. 610. C. and often do's happen, that in a Mans whole Life, he do's not fully satisfie for that temporal Pain; and therefore there must be a Purgatory wherein to do it.’

I answer, That this too proceeds upon a false Supposition, That God when he forgives our Sins, do's not also forgive the intire Obligation to Punishment, which by our Sins we stood engaged to; and which both Scripture and Reason contradict.

1st, That God do's sometimes afflict those Persons whose Sins he forgives, whether to prove, or to amend, or to secure them for the future, this 'tis confess'd we read in Scripture; and that this is most reasonable, cannot be deni'd upon the account of those excellent ends that are to be served thereby, both to the benefit of the Sinner, and to warn others by his Example not to offend. But where is there [Page 33] any mention of any thing of this kind either threatned or done in another Life? What end is there to be served in this? When Men go to Purgatory, they are already in the Grace of God, or otherwise they could not come thither; they are already forgiven their Sins, and secure of their Salvation. The punishments therefore of that place can serve no end, either of improving him that suffers them, or of keeping others by his example from offending. Add to this, That the Justice of God is already intirely satisfied by the Merits and Sufferings of Christ: So that then these punishments can be inflicted for no other purpose than for the delight God takes in punishing. But to say that God delights in the punishment of any, much more of good men, who are his Children, who love him, and whom therefore he both loves and intends to glorify to all Eternity; this is certainly to advance a notion unworthy of God, and contrary to all those kind and endearing Idea's which the Holy Scriptures have given us of him; and therefore ought not without evident proof, which is not so much as pretended to by them, to be admitted.

2dly, When we say that God forgives sin, we must understand by it one of these two things, viz. That he remits either the Stain, or the Guilt of it. For by sin there is only these two contracted. As for the stain or pollution of sin, That is not properly forgiven, but is wash'd away by God's sanctifying Grace upon our repentance and reconciliation to him: And for the Guilt, that is nothing else, but that obligation to punishment, which every Man by sinning, renders himself obnoxious to; so that to remit the Guilt, is to remit the obligation to punishment. To say therefore that God forgives the Guilt of sin, and yet that our Obligation to punishment remains, is in effect to say, that God forgives the Guilt, which he do's not forgive, which must be a Contradiction.

[Page 34] But may not God forgive the Guilt as to the Obligation it lays upon us to Eternal punishment, and yet retain it as to a Temporal one? No doubt he may; and had He declared that he would do so, we must have believed it. But then this would not have been properly to forgive the Guilt, but to commute it, to lessen it. And since neither has He any where declared that this is all he does when he forgives sins; nor does his Justice require that he should do no more; But especially, seeing wherever God speaks of the remission of sins, he does it without restriction, in the most large, comprehensive terms that can be imagined: We see no cause either to suspect his Goodness, or to lessen his Mercy by our own arbitrary and ungrounded limitations.

But 3dly, There is yet another Argument, and it is this: ‘The Opinion that takes away Purgatory, is not only Bellarm. de Purg. lib. 1. c. 11. p. 613. D. false but pernicious; for it makes men lazy in avoiding sinning, and in the doing of good Works. Whilst he that believes that there is no Purgatory, but that all sins are abolish'd by death to those that die in Faith, saith to himself, To what purpose do I labour in Fastings and Prayer, in Continence and Almsdeeds? Why do I defraud my heart of its delights and pleasures, since at my death, my sins, whether few or many, shall all be done away’

—Habeat jam ROMA Pudorem;

Tertius e Coelo cecidit Cato.—

For is not this rare Cant? To hear those who have taken away the fears of Hell, with a demure countenance exclaim against us as wicked, in throwing off so great an engagement to Piety as, if you will believe it, they esteem [Page 35] Purgatory to be? But yet since the point is brought at last to this issue, let us see the comparison.

1st. We who deny Purgatory, thus press the practise of good works upon our Auditors. That God, to whom we are engaged by all imaginable ties of Love, Duty, and Gratitude, expresly requires them of us, as the only means to retain his favour. That if we be zealous in his service now, we shall certainly receive an Eternal weight of Bliss and Glory in his Kingdom. But that if we be careless and negligent of our duty, nothing but everlasting torments shall remain for us. That, let us not deceive our selves, or flatter our souls with any new ways of Getting to Heaven; Without Holiness no man shall ever see the Lord. Repentance is the only thing that by Faith can reconcile us to his favour: And repentance cannot be true, except there be a true Love of God, and an utter detestation of sin, and a hearty contrition that we have ever committed it; and a stedfast resolution never to fall any more into it; and this improved in an actual, sincere endeavour, what in us lies, to abound in Good works, and fulfil that duty which he requires of us. That without this, 'tis not any power or Authority of the Church, Absolving us from our sins; any Pardons or Indulgences, either before or after our Commission of them, that can stand us in any stead, or restore us to God's favour and the hopes of Salvation. But that if we do this, then indeed we may assure our selves of his acceptance; we may raise our hopes to the blessings that he has promised; and that we may be the more encouraged to pursue them, may assure our selves that all those joys which he has prepared for us, and which it does not now enter into the heart of man but to conceive any thing of as he ought to do, are not at any great distance: As soon as ever we have finish'd our course here, we shall presently be translated, if not to a perfect fruition of them, yet to such an Antepast, [Page 36] as shall be more than a sufficient reward for all our endeavours in the pursuit of them.

This is the method of our Preaching: Let us now set Cardinal Bellarmin in the Pulpit, and see how much more effectually he will press these things upon his Congregation. And because I would not make the worst of the matter, we will not consider him in quality of a Jesuit, instructing the people by Artifice and Distinction, how to evacuate the whole morality of the Gospel, by stating precisely the point, How often a man is obliged to love God? Whether upon all Sundays and Holydays? or only once a year? or once in five years? or but any one time in a mans whole life? or finally not at all, neither living nor dying? This were, it may be, to carry matters too far; we will stop within the bounds of their more common belief.

And here first of all, as is most fitting, we must be sure to put them often in mind of the Obedience they owe to the Church: of the high opinions they ought always to retain of her, and of that intire submission wherewith they are to yield themselves up to her Conduct. That they be sure not to fail to go to Mass every Sunday and Holyday; that they eat no flesh on any of the Fasts of the Church, unless they are otherwise dispensed with to the contrary: That once at least every year they receive the Sacrament, and before they do so, that they fail not to go to Confession; That they make no doubt but by the Priests Absolution they are certainly forgiven their sins whatsoever they were; That indeed it were well that they were contrite for them; but if they are not, 'tis all one, Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance do's the same thing: That this therefore sets them free of all danger of Hell, so that be their lives what they will, there is no great fear of that; but yet that to secure their Piety, the Church has thought fit to discover to them another very terrible place called Purgatory, whither they [Page 37] must go to satisfie for their sins before they can get to Heaven. That, indeed, let them live how they will, hither they must come: But yet let them not be discouraged; there are several secret ways of avoiding it, with infinitely more security than the best Life in the world can give them. First, an Indulgence may be had, and that too before-hand, to secure the greatest sinner from ever coming thither. If this fail, yet they may enter themselves into some Holy fraternity, as for instance that of the Scapulary, and then they certainly get out of Purgatory the Saturday after they dye. At least, that let the worst that can happen, a good number of Masses when they are dead, infallibly does the business. 'Tis true, none of these things can be had without Money, and therefore the poor must take heed and have as few sins as they can to answer for; but yet that if they watch their time, an Indulgence will come at an easie rate, and the Church in Charity will fall her price, rather than refuse that Money that will be so much to the benefit of her faithful Children.

This is, I think, the difference between us: Let the world now judg, who it is that give the greatest encouragement to Vice, the Cardinal in these easie methods of Salvation, or We by retaining the old Scripture-way of Repentance and a Good Life. But the truth is, the Argument ought to have lain thus; The Opinion that takes away Purgatory, and leaves men that have lived well, in repose at their death, cuts off all the benefit of Masses, Prayers for the dead, and the like; not to say any thing of the dear concern of Indulgences, by which our Church and our Clergy in great measure subsist; and therefore tho' we know we have nothing to say for it, yet we are resolved we will not quit the belief of it: And this indeed is the honest Truth; but for the rest, 'tis in good earnest nothing to the purpose.

[Page 38]

SECT. V.

That the Doctrine of Purgatory is contrary to Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason.

HItherto we have seen how little grounds the Church of Rome has to establish this Doctrine as an Article of Faith; We will now go yet further, and shew not only, that there is no Obligation upon us either from Scripture, or Antiquity, or Reason, to believe this Doctrine; but that according to the principles of every one of these, we ought not to do it.

1st. For Scripture.

It is not a little to be consider'd in opposition to this Doctrine, that these Sacred Writings not only every where represent to us this present life as the time of tryal and exercise, of sufferings and afflictions; but also encourage us on this very consideration to bear them with Patience and resignation, That as soon as we die they shall all end, and we shall receive the blessed reward which God has prepared for them that bear them as they ought to do. ‘ I look upon Rom. viii. 18. it, says St. Paul, Rom. viii. 18. that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed.’ And again, 2 Cor. iv. 17. ‘ For the 2 Cor. iv. 17. sufferings of this present life work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.’ Many other places of this kind there are, in which our present sufferings are compared with, and opposed to, our future reward. Now if when all these encounters are ended, there be still another, and a more dreadful sort of tryal to be undergone elsewhere, How could the Apostle have used those kind of Antitheses; [Page 39] and have encouraged us to a constancy in our present afflictious, from the prospect of a time, when according to these Men there are yet greater and more severe ones to be undergone by us?

And this then may be a second Observation; That the Scrpture always speaks of the Death of good men as a Blessing, an immediate rest from their labours; and therefore sure understood nothing of those Torments to which the Church of Rome now condemns them. So Revel. xiv. 13. Rev. xiv. 13. I heard a Voice from Heaven saying unto me, Write; Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from HENCEFORTH, yea saith the spirit, that they may rest from their labours. 'Twas this assurance made the Holy men of old so desirous of their dissolution, That they might find an end of all those labours and evils which they suffer'd here: Phil. 1. 23. Phil. i. 23. I am in a straight, says St. Paul, betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is better, &c. Surely St. Paul never thought of Purgatory, when he talk'd thus of going to Christ; nor would he have appear'd so desirous of his Dissolution, had he known he should have been cast into such a fire as the Romanists suppose to be in this infernal Region.

Nor can it here be reasonably said, that this was the Apostles peculiar happiness; and therefore that tho' he indeed was secure of going immediately to Christ, yet others were not therefore to expect the like favour: For 2 Cor. v. 1. we 2 Cor. v. 1. find him promising the very same to all Christians indifferently; We know, says he, that if our Earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building with God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. And again, Verse 8. When we are absent from the Body, says he, We are Vers. 8. present with the Lord: By all which it appears, that when good Men dye, they go to the Lord; to Christ; to their Heavenly House; and that sure is not Purgatory.

[Page 40] To this agree those few instances we have of Just mens dying, in the New-Testament. Lazarus in the Parable, was in Abraham's besome; The Penitent Thief on the Cross was promised that he should be that day with Christ in Paradise: And we have good reason to believe that the same is the state of all others, not only from the passages already mentioned, and many more of the like kind that might have been offer'd; but also from this, that we have not in all the Holy Scripture the least intimation of any such place as Purgatory: That there is neither precept nor example of any one that either pray'd for the delivery of their friends departed, out of these pains, or any Directions left for any one hereafter so to do: Now certainly it is not easie to be imagined, that the Holy Penmen should have been so perfectly silent in this matter, had there been so great a Cause for it, as the delivery of their Souls out of Purgatory undoubtedly would have been; or had they then esteemed it so excellent and necessary a piece of Christian Charity, as it is now pretended to be.

And this Presumption against Purgatory the Holy Scriptures will afford us. If we look

2dly, To the Holy Fathers,

We shall find them proceeding exactly upon the same Principles: They thought the just when they were departed were presently in a state of happiness; That it was injurious to Christ, to hold that such as died in his Faith were to be pitied; That Christians therefore ought not by any means to be afraid of dying: ‘ 'Tis for him, says S. Cyprian, to fear death, that is unwilling to go to Christ. It is for See his Book de Mortalitat. p. 157. him to be unwilling to go to Christ, who doth not believe that he beginneth to reign with Christ.—Simeon said, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace; proving and [Page 41] witnessing that the Servants of God then have peace, then enjoy free and quiet rest, when being drawn from these Storms of the World, we arrive at the Haven of our everlasting Habitation and Security.—Let us therefore embrace the day that bringeth every one to his own House, which having taken us away from hence, and loosed us from the Snares of this World, returneth as to Paradise, and to the Kingdom of Heaven.’

I shall leave it to any one to consider, whether this Holy Father, who discoursed thus of our Dying, believed any thing of these tormenting Purgatory-fires, that now keep Men in Anxiety, and make the best Christians afraid to dye. And the same is the Language of all the rest. St. Chrysostom Hieron. in Os. com. 3. Augustin. Epist. 28. ad Hier. To. 2. p. 31. A. Et Tract. 49. in Joan. To. 9. p. 124. A. Auctor. Quaest. sub Justini nomin. Quaest. 75. p. 436. D. E. Paris, 1636. Chrysost. Hom. de S S. Bernice & Prosdoce. T. 1. Frontod. pag. 563. Paris, G. L. 1636. particularly inforces the same considerations, from those Psalms that were usually said at the Burial of the Dead. ‘ Return to thy rest, O my Soul, for the Lord hath been gracious unto thee. You see, says that Holy Father, how that Death is a Blessing, a Rest.—God calls it a Blessing, and dost thou Lament? What couldst thou have done more, if thou hadst been his Enemy?’

But to put this matter, as to the Point of Antiquity, beyond all doubt, I will remark distinctly two or three things.

1st, That several of the most Ancient Fathers not only believed the Souls of the Faithful to be in Happiness, immediately upon their departure, but to be carried immediately into Heaven. 1 So Athenagoras, 2 St. 1 Legat. pro Christianis. 2 Cyprian libr. de mortal. p. 157. vid. supr. 3 Orig. contr. C [...]ls. l. 6, 7. 4 Greg. Naz. Or. 10. To. 1. p. 173. 5 Chrysost. vid. supr. Cyprian, 3 Origen, 4 Gregory Nazianzen, 5 Chrysostom, [Page 42] 6 Cyril Alexandrinus, 7 St. Hierom and others. Now, 6 Cyril. Alex. in Joan 19. 30. [...]b. 12. To 4. [...]Ed G. L. Paris, 1638. p. 1069. B C. 7 Hier. Epist. 25. fol. 7 C To. 1. Edit. Erasm. certainly they who believed that just Men when they dye go straight to Heaven, could not have believed that they were for a long while after their Death tormented in Purgatory; and therefore all these at least must have been of an Opinion different from the Church of Rome, in this matter.

2dly, Another thing remarkable in some of the Ancient Fathers, is, That they utterly deny that the Soul is capable of being purged in another World; and this is, to be sure, expresly contrary to the present Doctrine of the Romanists in this Point. Thus Gregory Nazianzen speaking of the Judgment after Death; ‘ 'Tis better, says he, to be now chastised and purged, than to be deliver'd over to that Torment, when it shall be no longer a time of Purgation, but of Punishment.’ Where we see the Father expresly Opposes the time of Purgation in this Life, to the time not of Purgation, but of Punishment in the next. And St. Chrysostom, ‘ If the Soul be purged here, (i. e. from Sin) that Fire shall not hurt it, when it departs hence: But the Soul that goes hence in Sin, that Fire (not of Purgatory, but of Hell) shall receive.’ This was the Doctrine of those times; the Soul that was clear of Sin, by Gods Pardon and Forgiveness, no Fire could hurt; that which was not, no Fire could cleanse; but it was to remain in Torments of Hell for ever.

Nor may we omit to observe, 3dly, That the Fathers take no notice of Purgatory in such places, as had they believed it, they could not well have omitted it. Hence we see no mention of it in any of their Creeds or Councils, or Catechetical Discourses, in which the other Articles of their Faith are set down and explain'd. The 5th General Council, which condemned Origen for his Errors concerning the Pains after Death, never mentioned any other [Page 43] Purgatory in opposition to that which he had Heretically invented. But that which shews it yet more plainly to have been unknown to them, is, that not only St. Austin, but Pope Gregory himself, the great Patron of this Error, yet spoke of it with some doubt; not as they use to do of a Point firmly believed by the Church, but as a peculiar thing in which they were not themselves very well resolved. When the Fathers disputed against Origen, they none of them mention any of the Purgatorypains, which the Orthodox Faith taught, to distinguish them from those from which he erroniously had invented. When Epiphanius disputed against Aerius, concerning the Reason and Benefit of Praying for the Dead, is it to be imagined he could then have forgot the great concern of delivering the Souls departed out of Purgatory, had the Church then believed any such thing? To all which, if we finally add, That the Greek Church neither at this day do's, nor ever did receive this Doctrine, I cannot tell what clearer Evidence we can desire to shew, that this whole Business of Purgatory, is but an Error of the Latin Church, not an Article of the Catholick Faith.

3dly, For Reason.

I shall only offer this one Reflection: Whether there can be any Reason to think there should be such a place, and such punishments as Purgatory, for no end or purpose in the World. They who go thither, must be perfect in Charity, in the Grace of God, secure of their Salvation; their Satisfaction must have been made by Christ's Blood, and so God's Justice satisfied. Now when all this is already done, to what end is it that they should be tormented? Had there been any means by such a Purgatory, either to fit [Page 44] them for Heaven, or to satisfie the Divine Justice, there might then have been some pretence for it. But to think that God punishes Men only for Punishing-sake; and this too his own Servants, Men who are in his Favour, that have lived well, and upon that account are justified by him through the Blood of Christ; this is such an Idea of an Infinite Love, Mercy and Goodness, as sure can never be the Dictate of Right Reason; I think I may say, is utterly inconsistent with it.

[Page 45]

OF PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

WE have now pass'd through the former Part of our Undertaking, and found but little Reason to be concern'd for those imaginary Flames, which so much terrify those of the other Communion. It only remains that we descend to the great Argument that is most usually insisted upon by them, to prove at least the Antiquity of their Error, and that is from the undeni'd Primitive Custom of Praying for the Dead; and concerning which, I suppose, it may be sufficient to offer these two things.

1st, To give a general Account, What the Practice of the Primitive Church was; from whence it will appear how little Advantage the Church of Rome can derive to themselves by it.
2dly, To Answer those Allegations, that are from hence brought by them in favour of that Praying for the Dead, which is now practised by them in their Church.

[Page 46]

SECT. I.

Of the Practice of the Primitive Church, in Praying for the Dead.

NOW that I may give the clearer account of this, I must observe; 1st, That it is one thing to enquire whether we may not innocently Pray for the Dead; and another, whether we ought to do it? 2. That there is a great difference between Praying for the Dead in general, without defining what the particular intent of it is, and what Advantages accrue to the Dead thereby, and determining that we are to Pray for the Dead upon such a certain Account, as for instance, To delive their Souls out of Purgatory, and that our Prayers are effectual in order thereunto.

1. As to the former of these, We do not deny but that the Fathers did begin very early to Pray for the Dead; and some of them were so zealous for it too, that Epiphanius (as we shall see below) made it no small part of his Accusation of Aerius, that he opposed the Practice of it. But yet, we do not find that they pretended it was any part of a Christian's Duty to do this: That the Gospel has any where required it of us, or recommended it to us: In short, they did it as something which seemed to them very Pious and Fitting; but they tied up no Man's Conscience with any Decisions or Anathema's about it.

2. For the Benefit and Advantage of it, in this they were yet less agreed than in the other: Insomuch, that when Aerius, whom I before mentioned, earnestly demanded what good came to the Dead from our Prayers? Epiph. Heres. 75. l. 3. n. 3. p. 908. A. Edit. An. 1682. Ibid. n. 7. p. 911. C. Epiphanius chose rather to fly off to the Custom of the Church, to the necessity of these Prayers to distinguish the Condition [Page 47] of our Blessed Lord from that of all other Persons, and the like; than he would say expresly, how or wherein the Dead were profited by them?

Many were the private Opinions of those holy Men, as to this matter. Some who believed the Millenary Doctrine Tertullian. lib 3. contr. Mare c. 24. p. 412. Intra quam aetatem (sc. 1000, annorum) concluditur sanctorum resurrectio, pro Meritis maturius vel tardius Resurgentium. before mentioned, that the Dead in Christ should revive within the compass of a thousand Years, some sooner, others later, according as they had lived better or worser lives on Earth; flatter'd themselves, that by their Prayers they might hasten the Felicity of their Friends, and accordingly pray'd, Tertull. de monogam. c. 10. p. 531. A. Ambros. de Obit. Valent. T. 3. Te quaeso, summe Deus, ut Charissimos Juvenes matura Resurrectione suscites, &c. propter maturam Resurrectionem, for their speedy rising in Christs Kingdom.

2. Others supposed that in the General Conflagration of the World at the last day, All Men should pass through the Fire; That the better Christian any one had been, the less he should feel of the Torment of it: And these pray'd for the Dead, that God would have Mercy on them in that day, and not suffer them to be too much singed and burnt, not in the Fire of Purgatory, but in the General Conflagration at the end of the World.

3. Some believed that the Souls of just Persons departed, went not straight to Heaven, but were reserved in a certain place of Sequester, where they earnestly expected and continually wish'd for their Absolute Consummation with all the Faithful in Christ's Kingdom. And these pray'd that God would give them Ease, Rest and Refreshment, in the Bosom of Abraham, that they might be comforted with the blessed Company of the Holy Angels, and the Vision of our Saviour Christ, till the so much wish'd-for day of Judgment should come.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[Page 48] 4. And lastly, not to mention any more; others there were who thought that the Sentence was not instantly pronounced as soon as men died; or if it were, yet not so Peremptorily, but that still, till the last day, an encrease of Glory might be added to the Crown of Righteousness which God hath designed for the Just; and some diminution made of the Torments of the Wicked. Now these pray'd for the Dead out of this Hope, to render them either more Happy or less Miserable, to augment their Glory, or to diminish their pains for ever.

And all these were the private Opinions of particular men, no definitions of the Faith of the Church in this matter: Epiphan. ib. Sect. 7. p. 911. Many of the Holy Fathers declaring no other cause of their praying for the Dead than only to shew their Hopes of them, that they still lived, and therefore ought to have some Communion maintain'd with them: Or else to distinguish all, even the greatest Saints, from our Blessed Saviour, and shew his infinite Prerogative above them, whilst they pray'd for all the rest, to testifie their infirmity, and only gave thanks for him to manifest his Glory.

Having given this particular account of the Opinions of the primitive Fathers as to this Point, and to some or other of which I shall shew, that all the passages produced out of them, in vindication of the Doctrine of Purgatory may be applied; it will be no difficult matter to shew how little all this can favour the present Doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter.

1. The Primitive Christians, 'tis true, pray'd for the Dead, but they never put it into any of their Creeds, as the Council of Trent has done now. Nay Epiphanius himself, See Epiph. Tom. 2. l. 3. p. 1103. Vol. 1. N. 21. in the close of his Book, making a distinct recapitulation of what was the Catholick Faith, and what the Constitution of the Church, places Prayers for the Dead among Ibid. N. 23. p. 1106. the [Page 49] latter; and which were therefore used, because the Custom of the Church gave Authority thereunto.

2. The Prayers that are made for the Dead by the Church of Rome, are expresly determined to this particular end, To See Sess. 25. Conc. Trid. de Purg. Symb. Pii IV. &c. Help and Relieve the Souls that are detained in Purgatory. Whereas we do not find in the primitive Church any thing at all defined as to the immediate design and benefit of them; and are only sure of this, that it was not to deliver the Souls out of Purgatory.

Now this in general is Evident, in that we find them to have pray'd for the best Persons, for the Holy Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors; for the Blessed Virgin her self; for those whom they supposed at the same time to be in Happiness, and whom the Papists themselves do not suppose to have ever touch'd at Purgatory.

Thus we find in the Liturgies, said to be of the Ancient Church, that their Prayers were made for all these: The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie, having first described the Party deceased De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. Cap. 7. Pag: 347. 348. 350. A. B. C. 352. C. ‘ as replenisht with Divine Joy, and now no more fearing any change for the worse; being publickly pronounced a happy man, and verily admitted in to the Society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world;’ then brings in the [...], &c. Pag. 354. A. Bishops praying for him, ‘ That God would forgive him all the sins he had committed through Humane infirmity, and bring him into the Light and Land of the Living, into the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: Into the place where there is no more any pain, or sorrow, or sighing.’

In the Liturgy said to be St. Basils, we find them thus praying for the Dead; ‘ Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead, and are departed out of this Life, and of the [Page 50] Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles See all these Collected by A. B. Usher; Answer to a Challenge; Ch. of Prayers for the Dead; p. 185. &c. Edit. 1625. Constitut Apost. lib. 8. Cap. 12. until this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith; and particularly of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius, and the rest of the Saints of worthy Memory. Be mindful, O Lord, of them also, who have stood unto Blood for Religion, and by Righteousness and Holiness have fed thy holy Flock.’

In the Liturgy ascribed to the Apostles, thus they pray, ‘ We offer unto Thee for all the Saints which have pleased Thee from the beginning of the World; Patriarchs, Prophets, Just men, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Bishops, Priests, Deacons:’ Surely, I hope not to deliver all these out of Purgatory.

In the Liturgy of the Church of Aegypt ascribed to St. Basil, Liturg. Aegyptiac. ex Arabic. Convers. Usher. ib. p. 186. Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria, it stands thus: ‘ Be mindful, O Lord, of thy Saints; vouchsafe to remember all thy Saints which have pleased Thee from the beginning; our holy Fathers the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Preachers, Evangelists, and all the Souls of the Just which have died in the Faith; especially, the holy Glorious, the evermore Virgin MARY, Mother of God; and St. John the forerunner the Baptist and Martyr: St. Stephen the first Deacon and Martyr; St. Mark the Apostle, Evangelist, and Martyr, &c.’

‘In the Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, said to’ be St. Chrysostoms, we find the very same: ‘ We offer unto Chrysost. Liturg. Edit. Goar. in Euchol p. 78. Paris. 1647. Thee, this reasonable service for those who are at REST in the Faith; our Fore-fathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evngelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Religious persons, and for every spirit Perfected in the Faith: Especially, for our most Holy, immaculate, and most blessed Lady, the Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin MARY.’

I suppose, I need no other Evidence than these publick Records of the very prayers of the Primitive Church, to shew that they did not pray for the Dead, with any intent to the [Page 51] bringing them out of Purgatory; and by consequence that there can be no manner of proof derived from what those Holy men did, to justifie what the Church of Rome now does. Were it at all needful to enforce this from the Testimonies of private Writers, I could easily run them out into a greater length than I am willing to do. Cypri. Epist. xxxix. pag. 77. Ed. Oxon. St. Cyprian pray'd for Laurentinus and Ignatius, whom he in the same place acknowledges to have received Palms and Crowns for their sufferings. De obitu Valentin. Imper. St. Ambrose pray'd for the Religious Emperors Valentinian and Gratian; for Id. De Obit. Theodos. Imper. Theodosius; for his Brother Id. De Obit. fratris Greg. Naz. in Funer. Caesarii Or. 10. Satyrus; all which at the same time he declares he thought to be in Happiness. Gregory Nazianzen did the like for his Brother Caesarius: And all these and many other proofs might at large be produced, were it needful to insist.

But this will more properly be done in the next point; wherein I am to examine the proofs offered by those of the Roman Church in favour of their own present practice from the Custom of the primitive Fathers which we have hitherto been speaking of.

SECT. II.

The Allegations brought by those of the Church of Rome, to justifie their practice of Praying for the Dead, examined; and their weakness demonstrated.

BEfore I enter on this debate, it may not be amiss to premise what the true state of the Point in Controversy is; viz. Not whether the Primitive Fathers did not pray for the Dead, after the manner we have now seen; for that we have already confess'd they did: But whether they pray'd for the Dead upon the same principles that the Church of Rome does now, as supposing them to be in a state of Torment, undergoing [Page 52] the temporal Pains due to their Sins, and in which, therefore they were charitably to be relieved by the Prayers and Suffrages of the Living. This is that which our Adversaries are to prove to us; and I will now enquire what one of the latest of them in his Collections upon this Point, Nubes Testium: of Aerius, pag. 84. has offer'd to this purpose.

And here, 1st, I cannot but observe his loose proposing of the Point in debate, and the short account he gives of the Case of Aerius in this matter, whom he sets at the Ibid Head of his Enquiry. ‘ In the first Century, says he, about the year of Christ 50. Aerius went out of the Church, Nubes Testium, p. 84. and teaching many erroneous Doctrines, related by St. Epiphanius, Haer. 75. endeavour'd to draw Numbers after him. His principal Tenets were those wherein he condemned Prayers for the Dead, &c.—And a little below, Aerius condemned praying for the Dead: The Fathers practised it, and own'd it as advantageous to the Souls departed.’

That the Fathers practised praying for the Dead, and that many of them believed it advantageous to them, we have before freely allow'd: And that Aerius was to be condemned for what he did in Opposition hereunto, we shall hereafter shew: In the mean time this Gentleman ought to have known, that this is neither what they affirm, or we deny: If he will state the Question as he ought, it must be as we have before done it. ‘ Aerius condemn'd Praying for the Dead, to deliver them out of Purgatory; the Fathers practised it, and own'd it as Advantageous in order to this End:’ But this neither did Aerius condemn, nor the Fathers practice; and therefore, the state of this Question alone, had it been sincere, would have confuted his whole Chapter.

To give then such an account of Aerius, as may let us Bell. de Purg. l. 1. c. 2. D p 571 Petavius in Epiphan. pag. 328. n. 3. Natal. Alex. disp. 41. Saec. iv. pag. 346. part. 3. distinctly see what his Error was, and how little chargeable [Page 53] we are with it, however it has pleased the Writers of the Roman Church not without some ignorance, as well as much uncharitableness to impute it to us: I must first observe a small mistake in our Author, as to the point of his Chronology, whereby he is pleased to place Page 84. Aerius in the first Century, about the year of Christ 50. I shall not need to say that there must be something of an Error in this, because his own friend Natalis, out of whom he has transcribed Natalis Alex. Hist. iv. Sec. par. 1. p. 263. Paris 1679. every Article of this Chapter, will assure him, that he was contemporary with Epiphanius, and living at the time that that Father wrote: So that unless we shall suppose him to have been almost 400 years old, we must conclude that this Gentleman has placed him near 300 years before his time. But this only by the way: As for the Error its self with which Epiphanius charges him, it is this, ‘ That he opposed the mentioning the names of the dead: Epiphan. Her. 75. pag. 908. B. asking, to what purpose they did it? He that is alive prayeth, or offereth the Sacrifice; what shall this advantage the dead? But if the dead are indeed profited thereby, then let no man from henceforth trouble himself to live well; only let him oblige his Friends, or give Money to persons to pray for him, that none of those inexpiable sins he hath committed may be required of him.’ This was the case of Aerius: And had the Church indeed universally believed, as some of the Fathers did, that the Judgment after death was suspended till the General Resurrection, and that in the mean time the sins of the dead might be expiated by the Prayers of the living, he had but justly enough opposed so dangerous an Error. But this was not the common opinion of the Church, nor her design in those Prayers: which as the Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 7. [...]. page 347. Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy tells us, were made only for good men: either for such as had committed no notorious faults, or had repented of them, and so died in an assured hope of God's favour and acceptance. And [Page 54] therefore Epiphanius in answer to this Objection, gives Epiphan. ibid. n. vii. p. 911. other reasons why they pray'd for the dead; viz. to declare their Faith and Hope concerning them; to distinguish the infinite Prerogative of our Saviour Christ above all, even the chiefest of his Saints, by praying for these, but giving thanks only for him: And then for the benefit these Prayers did the dead, he tells him that tho' they were not of force to cut off all sins, which was the foundation of his objecting, yet they were profitable to them, to implore the Mercy of God for those who had been sinners, but repented; and to obtain for them a recompence for all in the resurrection of the just.

The Prayers therefore of the Church, for the rejecting of which Epiphanius here justly reproves Aerius, were not such as the Church of Rome now useth; it being not imaginable, had the Church then known any thing of praying of Souls out of Purgatory, that either Aerius could have ask'd the Question, To what purpose are these Prayers? Or Epiphanius being ask'd, not presently have replied, to deliver the Souls departed from the flames of Purgatory. The Prayers that Aerius condemned were those which the primitive Fathers made upon the account that from Epiphanius I have just now given: And which those of the Church of Rome do no less condemn than he did; whilst they so often tell us, that if there be no Purgatory, Prayers for the dead must be unprofitable: So says Contr. Gent. lib. 4. c. 91. Aquinas: That the manner of praying for the Apostles, Martyrs, &c. is by disuse deservedly abolish'd: Controvers. Theol. qu. 6. Schol. Sect. 7. So Mendoza: Nay, that to offer Sacrifices for those that are in bliss is plainly absurd and impious: So says Azorius Instit. Moral. Tom. 1. l. 8. c. 20. See these cited by A. B. Usher. Answer to a Chall. pag. 244, 245. Azorius; who in this certainly outruns Aerius himself, who only pretended that it was unprofitable; but never durst say it was impious and absurd.

[Page 55] It is therefore very improper in our Collector of the Primitive Fathers to insinuate as if we were Aerians upon the account of our not praying with them for the dead. Aerius rejected the Prayers that the Primitive Church made, upon those principles that we have said, and which the Romanists themselves reject and condemn with him: We reject those Prayers which the Church of Rome makes now for delivering Souls out of Purgatory. Had we lived in those times that Aerius did, we had readily complied with the Practice of those Holy men, upon such grounds as they used it: Had those Holy Fathers lived now in the dregs of the Church, and seen the abuse of the Romanists in this matter, I make no doubt but they would have censured both the Cause and the Practice of the present praying for the dead, as false and unfitting; I am sure Epiphanius elsewhere gives us sufficient reason to believe that he would; where speaking concerning the state after death, he tells us, ‘ That in the Age to come, after the death of a Man, there is no advantage Epiphan. Her. 59. pag. 501. D. 502. A. B. C. of fasting, no call to repentance, no demonstration of Charity;—There Lazarus does not go to the Rich man, nor the Rich man to Lazarus: Neither Abraham sends the poor man to labour that he may grow rich, nor do's the rich man obtain, tho' with Prayers, intreating merciful Abraham. Then the Garners are sealed, the time is ended, the combat finish'd, the Lists are empty, and the Crowns distributed. Those that have not yet encountred have no more opportunity, and they who have been overcome in the Lists are cast out. In short, all is perfectly ended when once we are departed hence.’

And now having thus prepared the way to the following enquiry; Let us see whether his Fathers will prove any better Advocates for their Cause, than this loose and imperfect state of the Question between us seems to promise. And

[Page 56] 1st. I must take notice that the greatest part of those he has here cited, say only in General, that they were wont to pray for the dead, that God would forgive them their sins, and instate them in the light and land of the living; or something of the like kind. Now it is evident from what has been before observed, that all these argue nothing more than what we have already confess'd to have been the practise of the Primitive Church, but give not the least Authority to those Prayers which are made in the Church of Rome to deliver the Souls departed out of Purgatory.

So Dionys. Areopag: ‘ The venerable Prelate coming, Nubes test. p. 85. Natalis Alex. saec. iv. To. 3. p. 392. Dionys. Hierarch. Eccl. p. 354. A. prays over the dead body, he implores the Divine Clemency to pardon all the sins committed by the deceased party, through humane frailty, and that he may be received into the state of bliss, and region of the living.’

This is indeed the sense of what the pretended Dionysius says, tho' not his Words: But then I must observe 1st, That this Prayer is made over those, who ‘ having lived Dionys. ib. p. 348. C. holy lives, are now come to the end of their combats, and therefore rest in Joy and in a certain Hope, and are already received into those most holy seats, to which all those in time shall be promoted, who are here endued with a Divine perfection.’ So that it must be an intollerable presumption Ibid 352. C. to pretend that this Prayer was designed to deliver the deceased out of a place of Torments, nothing inferiour to those of Hell fire, such as we are told Purgatory is.

2dly, The Author inquiring to what purpose these Prayers were made, answers, ‘ That the holy Bishop knowing the promises of God to those who had lived well, now pray'd that Dionys. Ibid. p. 356, 357. those sins which by human frailty had been committed by the person deceased, being forgiven, the rewards promised to the just might be accomplished in him.’ Here then is a plain account of the design of their Praying, but no way favourable to the business of Purgatory.

[Page 57] 3dly, Pachymeres in his Paraphrase, explaining what the meaning of those Hymns and Lessons was, which were read at the Funeral of such a one for whom they thus pray'd, says, ‘ 'Tis to signifie those eternal Mansions, to Dionys. Eccl. Hierarch. p. 366. D. which the party deceased is gone, and to exhort the living to strive after the like holy end.’ Now, surely these Eternal Mansions of the blest were not the Roman Purgatory; and it would have been but an uncomfortable Exhortation to have proposed to the Living, that they should use their utmost endeavours, that they might come into this place of Torments.

4thly, In his account of the Prayers themselves, he says, ‘ That the Bishop knows from the Holy Scriptures, that by the just Judgment of God, a blessed and divine Life is prepared Ibid. p. 370. for the just, the divine Goodness mercifully overlooking the spots which by humane frailty we contract, and from which no Man is free. And therefore knowing this, he prays, that whatever spots of this kind, he by his frailty may have contracted, that God would mercifully overlook them, and give him his sacred Reward.’ And the same was the Language of the Ancient Liturgies of the Church, which we have before cited; in which, having named the Holy Apostles, Martyrs and Confessors, which even the Romanists themselves will not send to Purgatory; they pray, that they may rest in the Country of the Living; in the ‘ delights of Paradice, in Gods Kingdom, in the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as [...]. Litur. Jacob. Bibl. Patr. St. James's Liturgy has it in the very words of Dionysius: Make them [...]. Lit. Marc. rest in the Tabernacles of thy Saints, says St. Mark [...]. Lit. Basil. & Chrys. in the light of thy Countenance, says St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom; Da illis requiem, Cyril. Heros. Liturg. Give them rest, says St. Cyril:’ Now, [Page 58] if these Prayers for this Rest were to this end, that God would deliver them out of Purgatory, and set them at ease, as the Church of Rome pretends, then certainly the holy Apostles and the blessed Virgin, must have been in a very ill Condition, who after 400 years (for so late, some of these Prayers must be confess'd to have been) were still esteem'd by the Church to lie in those Purgatory-flames; and it was great uncharitableness in St. Peter and his Successors, that they would not all this while open the Treasure of the Church, and by some powerful Indulgence set them at Liberty. Conclude we therefore, that there is no manner of Consequence in this Argument, The Primitive Fathers pray'd for the Rest of the Souls departed; therefore they thought them in Torment in a Purgatory-fire, suffering the temporal Punishment due to their Sins, and by these Prayers believed they could deliver them from thence.

And yet is this the most that the greatest Part of the Testimonies which are offer'd to us, say; and by Consequence are, as we see, wholly impertinent to the purpose of the Church of Rome: I shall need only name them, since the same Answer I have given to this first, will by Application serve for all the Rest.

So Tertullian, whose words our Natalis Alex. diss. 41. [...]ii Saec. p. 394. Nubes Test. p. 85. Collector thus renders, ‘ Ob [...]tiones pro defunctis, pro [...]natalitiis a [...] die facimus. De Corona c. 3. pag. 102. A. We make Oblations for the Dead, and keep the Anniversary of their Birth.—’He is speaking in that Chapter of several Customs of the Church, which Tradition and long usage had establish'd, but for which there was no Authority of Holy Scripture; and this he gives as one instance. But were these Oblations to deliver them out of Purgatory? I shall only desire him to consider the Interpretation which their own Editor gives of the Natalitia, which he renders Anniversaries, [Page 59] and then affirm it if he can. By the Natalitia, says he, is meant the Solemnities used to be kept in honour of the Le Prieur. Annot. in loc. p. 102. Martyrs, every year, on the Day when by dying to the World they were born to Heaven. It seems then these Solemnities Tertullian here speaks of, were for those who were already born to Heaven, for the Holy Martyrs; and not as is pretended, to deliver their Souls out of Purgatosy.

Nor does Natalis Alex. p. 395. Nub. Test. 86. Arnobius add any thing more: ‘ What reason was there that our Churches should be so outragiously thrown down, in which Prayers were offered to our Soveraign God, Peace and Mercy was implored for all, for Magistrates, Cur immaniter conventicula dirui (meruerunt) in quibus summus Oratur Deus, pax cunctis & venia postulatur, Magistratibus, Exercitibus, Regibus, Familiaribus, Inimicis, huc vitam degentibus, & resolutis corporum vinctione, lib. iv. Armies, Kings, Friends and Enemies, whether alive or dead.’Here is mention of Praying for the Dead; but as for Purgatory, [...].

What Eusebius speaks concerning the death of Constantine, Natalis Alex. ib. pag. 398 Nub. Test. 88. is no way more pertinent. He tells us that they offer'd up Prayers to God for the Soul of the Emperor; but that these Prayers were to deliver his Soul from the Temporal pains of Purgatory, he says not one word.

I have already consider'd Epiphanius, and we find in his reprehension of Aerius much against them, but nothing in their favour: As for what Natal. Alex. pag. 401. Nub. Test. 92. Theodoret relates of Theodosius the younger, that he pray'd for his Father and Mother, begging that they might obtain pardon for all their Sins of frailty. It still confirms that they did in those Days Pray for the Dead, and for the forgiveness of their Sins; but for the remission of any present Temporal Punishment which they thought they were undergoing for them, this we do not find that they Pray'd for.

For St. Ambrose, had his whole words been transcribed, Natalis Alex. p. 402. Nub. Test. 93. we should have seen at first view that they were nothing [Page 60] to the purpose. He Exhorts Faustinus, ‘ not so much to bewail his Sister, as to pray for her.’ What to deliver her Soul out of Purgatory? No surely, for in the words immediately foregoing, he tells him, ‘ That being taken for a time from us she doth pass a better life there.’ But this Haec ad tempus quidem erepta nobis meliorem illic Vitam exigit. Epist. 8. little oversight ought not in justice to be imputed to our collector; who Transcribes Natalis, and not the Fathers themselves; and could therefore give us no more than what he found in him.

The next from whom he supposes may be inferr'd the Natalis Alex. p. 402. Nub. Test. 93. Doctrine of praying Souls out of Purgatory, is St. Jerom: Who in the Epistle mention'd to Pammachius some time after the death of his Wife Paulina, particularly commends him that Vid. Arg Eras. P. 73. Tom. 1. he had sold all his Goods, and given them to the poor, and taken up the resolution of leading a Monastick life. ‘ Other Husbands, says he, dress their Wives Tombs with Violets, Roses, and Purple flowers, and by these services ease their disturbed mind: But our friend Pammachius pays no other duty to the Holy Ashes, and Venerable Bones, but by giving Alms, cherishing them by this sweet Odour, because he knows 'tis written, as Water extinguishes the Fire, so do Alms blot out sin.’ This is in some measure, St. Jerom's sense, but by no means suitable to the Elegance of his Expressions: But not to insist on that; was this Charity, to deliver her Soul out of Purgatory? Nay, but St. Hierome in the close of that very Epistle says, that she was with her Sister Bloe [...]ila Fol. 76. Edit. Eras. Tom. 1. already with the Lord: That they both enjoy'd a sweet and pleasant sleep: And in the very words cited, there are so many expressions of her present Quiet, as can never be reconciled to the Purgatory Torments. But this the Translator left out: ‘ Cherishing them (say he) by this sweet Odour:’ St. Hierom's words are these: ‘ With these Figments and these Odours he cherishes her dead Ashes NOW AT REST:’ Which plainly enough shews that he [Page 61] thought her in a state and place vastly different from the condition of Souls in Purgatory; all that St. Hierom then meant by this, was only thus much, that this Charity of Pammachius was most pleasing to Paulina, that her Soul rejoiced in it, as in a fragrant and delightful Odour; and that hereby he should engage the Mercy of God not for himself alone, but for his Wife too, in whose name he did it, and to whose Salvation it should therefore not a little conduce.

As to what is alledged of St. Austin's praying for his Natalis Alex. p. 402. Nubes Test. 94. Mother Monica, nothing certainly could have been more inauspicious to the Consequence that is pretended to be drawn from it; for besides, that in all which he says there is not one word of any Temporal Pains, which he desired she might be freed from; he expresly declares, ‘ That he believed Et credo jam feceris quod te rogo, sed Voluntaria Oris Mei approba Domine. St. August. Confession. l. ix. c. 13. Tom. 1. p. 61. B. God had already done all that he desired:’If therefore he desired to have her deliver'd out of Purgatory, He believed God had already done it, and therefore the Prayers he now made, could not be to obtain her Freedom. But this Circumstance our Author cautiously omitted, tho in the middle of what he set down; and that the charge of such false dealing may not always lye upon Natalis, I must here free him from it; this being the only passage in the whole Chapter which our Collector has not borrowed from him; and must therefore bear now the blame himself, unless he has some other Friend, that I do not at present know of, upon whom to lay the imputation.

I shall not need to give any Answer more to the other passage or two from the same Father; in none of which is there the least mention of any Purgatory Pains, or that the Prayers were made for their deliverance from them.

And hitherto then we have considered such Testimonies as cannot with any shew of Reason be pretended to make any thing for the Custom of Praying for the dead, now used in the Church of Rome. But now

[Page 62] 2dly, Some others there are that may seem more immediately to their purpose; in which they expresly desire Rest, Comfort, and Refreshment for the dead. I have already answered in great measure this Argument, by shewing that these things they prayed for, even for the Apostles and Martyrs, and the B. Virgin her self; and therefore that these expressions cannot be said to signifie that the persons for whom they prayed, were either in Purgatory or any other place of Torments. But I will now more expresly remove this difficulty, and to that end I must repeat what I have before observed, that many among the ancient Fathers supposed that the Souls departed, do not go straight to Heaven, but are kept in a place of Sequester, where they earnestly desire the accomplishment of the number of Christs Saints, that they may be consummated with them Nub. Test. vid. supr. in Glory. Now with reference to this Opinion it was, that they prayed to God to give them Rest: So Tertullian, and St. Ambrose, alledged by our Collector; to grant them repose; a quiet sleep: So St. Cyprian, i. e. as Tertullian himself explains it, ‘ That they might have comfort in the Bosom Lib. de An. c. 35. Id. lib. IV. contr. Marc. c. 34. of Abraham, till the time of the Resurrection shall come.’

If it shall be objected against this, That to pray for their rest implies as if they were not now in Ease, and so reduce us to a necessity of confessing either a Purgatory or some other the like place of punishment. I answer 1st, If this be so, then the B. Virgin, the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors were all at this time in Purgatory, above 300 years after their death; for thus we see they prayed in the Primitive Church by name for them, which yet the Church of Rome dares not say. But 2dly, In the continuance of their Prayers for the dead, they used the same supplications that they did at their first departure; and therefore pray for their rest and repose, as if they were but now just Lib. 2. de Purg. cap. v. p. 644. C. about to enter into it; and this account Cardinal Bellarmin [Page 63] himself gives us of it. To which let me add 3dly, That the Ancient Fathers thought, that in this place of refreshment there were divers degrees of it; and therefore they prayed that God would give them rest, not as if they were now totally destitute of it, but as desiring it might be increased to them in a yet higher degree: Or else 4thly, as Tertullians words seem to imply, they desired hereby their rest, i. e. the continuance of that rest they now enjoy'd to the day of judgment.

Nor is it any prejudice to this, that the dead were now out of a capacity of having their state ever alter'd, and therefore that it was in vain to pray for that happiness which they were already secure of, since as Bellarmin himself Lib. 2. de Purg. cap. v. ib. confesses, the Ancients thought it no way improper to pray for those things which they knew God was resolved to give: And we see our Blessed Saviour in his own short Prayer has commanded us to pray that God's Kingdom may come, which whether we pray or no, will in its due time most infallibly be accomplish'd.

Whether these Reasons may, any or all of them appear to be a sufficient vindication of such kind of Prayers I cannot tell: But this is certain, that the primitive Christians did pray for the rest of those whom they esteemed already in happiness, and by consequence that these Prayers do not argue a state of Torments from whence the dead were to be delivered by them. And because it may be of great moment to be well assured of this, I will subjoyn an undeniable instance of it, in one of the very particulars offer'd by our Collector, but with what sincerity I shall leave the Reader to judge, in favour of Purgatory.

St. Ambrose in his Oration on the Death of Theodosius, thus prays for him: ‘ Give perfect rest to thy Servant Theodosius, that Rest which thou hast prepared for thy Saints. Let his Soul ascend thither from whence it had its Origine; [Page 64] where it may be out of the power of Death, where it may know that Death is not an end of Nature but of Sin. I loved him, and therefore I pursue him to the Region of the living; nor will I leave him, till by my Tears and Prayers I bring him whither his Merits call him, into the Holy Mount of our Lord, where there is life without end.’

Thus our Collector tells us St. Ambrose prayed for Theodosius: But did this Holy Bishop think him as yet in Purgatory, and that by his Prayers he should set him at Rest from the Torments of it? Let us judge by what goes before in the same Oration: ‘ Theodosius of honourable memory, being Absolutus igitur dubio certamine, fruitur nunc Augustae memoriae Theodosius luce perpetua, tranquillitate diuturna, & pro iis quae in hoc gessit Corpore, munerationis Divinae fructibus gloriatur. Ergo quia dilexit augustae memoriae Theodosius Dominum Deum suum, meruit sanctorum consortio. freed from doubtful fight, doth now enjoy everlasting light, and continual tranquility; and for the things which he did in this Body, he rejoiceth in the fruits of Gods reward; because he loved the Lord his God, he hath merited the Society of the Saints.’ And again in the same Oration: ‘ He hath not laid down, but changed his Kingdom, Regnum non deposuit sed mutavit; in Tabernacula Christi jure pietatis asci [...]u [...], in illam Hierusalem supernam. being taken by the right of his piety into the Tabernacles of Christ, into the Heavenly Jerusalem.’ Now surely the Tabernacles of Christ, the Jerusalem that is above, are no Characters of Purgatory; and yet here St. Ambrose thought Theodosius at the same time that he pray'd for him. But St. Ambrose is yet more express; Manet ergo in lumine Theodosius, & Sanctorum caetibus gloriatur. ‘ Theodosius therefore (says he) remains in light, and glorieth in the Company of the Saints.’ Let the Reader now judge, whether the Prayers of this Holy Man for the rest of Theodosius, be any president for those Prayers that are made for the Rest of Souls, by the Church of Rome.

[Page 65] 3. There is yet one Witness to be consider'd, and upon which our Collector insists more largely than ordinary, and that is St. Chrysostome: Who in the places cited out of him Nub. Test. p. 88, 89, &c. speaks indeed of certain Benefits which came to the dead by our Prayers; and thereupon exhorts all persons to perform this Office to them. I have before mentioned an Opinion of some Fathers, that even the damned in Hell might be advantaged by the Prayers of the living; and if not be freed from, yet be at least alleviated in their torments. And in this excessive Charity St. Chrysostome was one of the forwardest; as is evident in the very Hom. 21. in Act. Tom. 3. in N. T. p. 202, 203. Hom. 3. in Ep. Phil. To. 6. in N. T. p. 32, 33. Homilies cited by this Collector, were I at liberty to insist on a thing so well known. We are not therefore to wonder if we find this Father so earnestly pressing this Charity of praying for the dead, which he thought of so great a force as even to relieve the greatest sinners. If this be either the belief or practise of the Roman Church, we shall not deny them a patern in this Holy Father; But if this be what they neither believe nor allow of, How impertinent must it be to produce his praying for the dead, on such Principles as they condemn, to be a witness of the Antiquity of their praying for the dead to deliver them out of Purgatory, which he knew nothing at all of, nor did at all intend by his Prayers.

4. As for what is finally added concerning the Greek Church, it is confessed that they do pray for the dead upon the same grounds, and after the same manner that the Ancient Church did; but that they pray for them as the Romanists would now insinuate, this is false, as we have before shewn; nor do the testimonies produced at all convince us of it.

And this may suffice to have been said to the several proofs that are offer'd by those of the Roman Communion in favour of this Error, concerning Prayers for the dead; for [Page 66] as for Isidore Hispalensis, he is beyond the period I have fix'd to my reflections; and for St. Perpetua's Dream which the Misrepresenter, from Natalis too, heretofore insisted upon, I may reasonably presume by our Collector's omission of it, that he thought it sufficiently answer'd by the Learned Author that first undertook the examination of his Pretences against us.

CLOSE.

AND now after so particular Examination of all these things, there is but One Objection more remaining that I can foresee may possibly be made against us, on this Occasion: For be it that we have reason to throw off the Romish Error of Purgatory, and by consequence those Prayers for the Dead which are made in that Church to deliver the Souls from thence; yet since we cannot deny but that the Primitive Christians did pray for the Dead for many other ends, and which we do not presume to condemn them for, Wherefore at least do we not continue the ancient Practice, and pray for them as those Holy Men of old did?

This perhaps may be a scruple that some may raise, and having answer'd it I shall conclude: And

1st, If he be one of the Roman Communion that makes this Objection, he may please to tell us, wherefore it is, That they of his own Church do not do this? Or why he should require us to follow the Ancient practice of the Church in those things which themselves do not think sufficient to oblige them to a Conformity? They may call us Aerians or what else they please upon this account; but if to follow the Error of Aerius, this be to become properly [Page 67] Aerians, we have before seen that they do so; nay they outstrip him in it; whilst that sort of Praying for the dead, which the Ancients used, he thought only needless and irrational; but there are amongst them those who See above. doubt not to call it impious and absurd.

I have before shewn what the Grounds were on which those Holy Men prayed for the dead: Now there is not one of these which is not at this day disclaim'd by the Church of Rome, no less than by us, and especially that which was the chiefest foundation of all, viz. The Opinion of the State of the Soul out of Heaven during its separation, they have in the Council of Florence flatly condemn'd. Now if it be then no crime in them to reject the Opinions of those Primitive Christians on which this practice was founded, nay to censure the very practice its self upon any other account but that which they now assert, and which the Ancient Fathers, as we have seen, never knew; how comes it to be more unlawful in us to do this, than it is in them; or why may not we as well give off Praying for the dead as the Ancient Church did, as they themselves not only leave it off, but even censure it to have been impious and absurd, which we never presumed to do? But

2dly, If the Person who makes this Objection, be of some other Communion, I have several Reflections to offer in our Justification in this Matter.

1st, Let his Reverence for Antiquity be never be so great, yet he will not I am sure, say either, that those holy Men were Infallible in every thing they did, or that we ought to receive at all adventures whatever can be proved to have descended from them. We do indeed confess, that this Custom of Praying for the Dead, was one of the most early Practices of the Church. But then we have seen what it was that introduced it: And their grounds are many of [Page 68] them such, as are now generally disclaimed by almost all Christians; such as that of Christs Millenary Kingdom; of the passing of all Men, through the Purgatory-fire at the end of the World; of the Souls of the just being in a place of Sequester out of Heaven till the last day, and the like; the rest so inconsiderable, as that we cannot by any means think them sufficient to warrant so dangerous a Practice. For what is it to engage us to this, that the Ancients thought hereby to distinguish the best of Men from our Saviour Christ? To testifie their Hopes of a future Resurrection? To maintain a kind of Fellowship and Communion with them? There are other ways enough to do all this, without engaging in such a piety as the Holy Scripture, is not so much as pretended to Countenance: the most that ever the Holy Fathers offer'd for it, being the Custom of the Church; and Tertullian expresly places it among those things which are no where written. How far such an Authority might then have obliged us to compliance with the Practice of the Church had we lived in those Primitive Times, it is not necessary to enquire; but since neither the Holy Scripture requires it, nor do's the Custom of the Church now exact it of us, nor do we acknowledg those Opinions on which it was heretofore used, nor can we see any Benefit that we are able to do the Dead by them; it is but reasonable to omit that, which might justly give offence to some, but cannot possibly bring advantage to any.

But 2dly, We have yet a more particular Reason, why it is by no means fitting at this time, thus to pray for the Dead; and that is, to prevent that danger which the present Practice of the Church of Rome would be apt to expose Men to, should we do it. To pray for the Souls departed as that Church do's, neither did the Primitive Fathers ever allow, and we have sufficiently shown how dangerously [Page 69] erroneous it is to do so. It is therefore by no means convenient to continue a Practice, whereby it might be very easy to lead Men into such gross Mistakes; and however, some might still be able to make the Distinction, and see a great difference in the Design and Intention of the same kind of praying; yet the ill use that is made, even of what those Holy Fathers did, sufficiently shews us how apt men are to confound those things together, that have so nigh a Relation as to the Practice, and the Act being the same, to lead them to believe that the Principle is so too.

In short, 3dly, We cannot imagine, if there were indeed any such great Piety in this Practice, as to deserve our Apology for the Omission of it, how it comes to pass that neither Precept nor Example of any such thing, is to be found in the Holy Scriptures: And to those, who make that the Rule of their Religion; we do not see that any more need be said than this, That we find nothing there to Authorize such a Devotion, and that, therefore we cannot think it fitting to make it a part of the Churches Service.

I shall close up all with the Words of our Church in her Homily upon this Subject: ‘Let these and such other Considerations Third part of Serm. concern. Prayer, p. 212. Ed. Ox. 1683. be sufficient to take away the gross Error of Purgatory out of our Heads; neither let us dream any more that the Souls of the Dead are any thing at all holpen by our Prayers: But as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the Soul of Man passing out of the Body, goeth straight ways either to Heaven, or else to Hell; whereof the one needeth no Prayer, the other is without Redemption. The only Purgatory wherein we must trust to be saved, is the Death and Blood of Christ, which if we apprehend with a true and stedfast Faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our Sins, even as well as if he were [Page 70] now hanging upon the Cross. The Blood of Christ, saith St. John, hath cleansed us from all Sin. The Blood of 1 John i. Hebr. ix. Christ, saith St. Paul, hath purged our Consciences from dead Works, to serve the Living God. Also in another place, he saith, We be sanctified and made Holy by the Hebr. x. offering up of the Body of Jesus Christ done once for all. Yea, he addeth more, saying, With the one Oblation of his blessed Body and precious Blood, he hath made perfect for ever and ever, all them that are sanctified. This then is that Purgatory, wherein all Christian Men put their whole Trust and Confidence; nothing doubting, but if they truly repent them of their Sins, and die in perfect Faith, that then they shall forthwith pass from Death to Life. If this kind of Purgation will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other mens Prayers, tho they should continue therein unto the Worlds end. He that cannot be saved by Faith in Christs Blood, how shall he look to be deliver'd by Mans Intercessions? Hath God more Respect to Man on Earth, than he hath to Christ in Heaven? If any man sin (saith St. John) we have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the Righteous, 1 John ii. and he is the Propitiation for our Sins. But we must take heed that we call upon this Advocate, while we have space given us in this Life, least when we are once Dead, there be no hope of Salvation left unto us. For as every Man sleepeth with his own Cause, so every Man shall rise again with his own Cause. And look in what State he dieth, in the same State he shall also be judged, whether it be to Salvation or Damnation.’

‘Let us not therefore dream either of Purgatory, or of Prayer for the Souls of them that be Dead; but let us earnestly and diligently pray for them which are expresly commanded in Holy Scripture, namely for Kings and Rulers, for Ministers of Gods Holy Word and Sacraments, for [Page 71] the Saints of this World, otherwise called the Faithful; to be short, for all Men living, be they never so great Enemies to God and his People, as Jews, Turks, Pagans, Infidels, Hereticks. Then shall we truly fulfil the Commandment of God in that behalf, and plainly declare our selves to be the true Children of our Heavenly Father, who suffereth the Sun to shine upon the Good and Bad, and the Rain to fall upon the Just and Unjust.’

‘For which, and all other Benefits most abundantly bestow'd upon Mankind from the beginning, let us give him hearty thanks, as we are most bound; and Praise his Name for ever and ever.’

Amen.

FINIS.

Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell.

1. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts.

2. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto.

3. An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church.] Quarto.

4. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, against the EXCEPTIONS of Monsieur de MEAUX, late Bishop of Condom, and his VINDICATOR. Quarto.

5. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto.

6. A Vindication of the Answer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church, and Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.

7. An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME, touching TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Wherein is made appear, That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH, This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto.

8. An Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Popish Representer].

9 The Lay-Christians Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto.

10. The Plaiu Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries, 24 ^o.

11. The Protestant's Companion: Or an Impartial Survey, and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established, with the main Doctrines of Popery. Wherein is shewn, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, for several hundred Years, and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves. Quarto.

12. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, in the two great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host. In Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject. To which is pre [...]ed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument. Quarto.

13. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Truth, mentioned by St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy, Chap. III. Vers. 15. Quarto.

14. A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church, with some Reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes, of which Eight are extant, the Rest will be published Weekly in their Order.

15. A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin's Second Note of the Church [Antiquity] against the Cavils of the Adviser. Quarto.

16. The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted. In Answer to the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Chapters of the [Popish Representer.]

17. A Short Summary of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. Being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled [Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proof].

…

[Page] Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus, A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry, &c.

Ex Aedib. Lambeth, Febr. 18. 1687.

Guil. Needham, R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cant. à Sacr. Domest.

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nature of Idolatry: In which a Late Author's True and Onely NOTION of IDOLATRY IS Considered and Confuted.

Si inter solos Pontificios versarer, &c. i. e. If I conversed with none but Papists, and considered their Religion corrupted with Old Wives Tales, and were altogether destitute of a Rule of Faith, by which to discern the vast difference between the Christian Religion, and the Trifles of Popery; and lastly, if no Histories were extant, shewing how these Dotages crept in: If it were thus, I say, then I frankly confess, that I should very much suspect the Christian Religion, nay I should utterly reject it as foolish and mean, and beneath the esteem of old Gossips; nor should I less hate the name of Christianity, than I do that of Popery.

Tentam. Physic. Theol. Auth. Samuele Parkero, P. 4.

LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street. MDCLXXXVIII.

THE PREFACE.

WEre we to judge of the Merits of a Book meerly by the good Opinion which the Author seems to have of it, we might reasonably believe, that the Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry, which I am about to consider, was not onely set forth in Defence of a truly Infallible Church, but that the Author of it thought himself delivering nothing but Oracles all the while he was composing of it.

If his Reasons had born proportion to the nature of his Attempt, we should easily have forgiven him, or rather we should have thanked him, no less than the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion would have done in such a case. He does indeed Treat men with Contempt, whom all the World knows to be above his Contempt, nor can I believe him to be so [Page ii] singular as not to know it himself; but yet had he reasoned well, we had yielded to him: for an over-bearing Spirit in an Adversary, neither makes us to submit to a bad Argument, nor to resist a good one.

It seemed something strange, that that Author should think to Trample upon us now, for pretending that the Church of Rome has defined Transubstantiation as 'tis understood by us, and that she has established an Idolatrous Worship in her Communion: For not only the greatest Persons of the Reformed Religion have brought this Charge against her, but to the truth of it himself has subscribed in his time. But it was much more amazing to find so new a Confidence supported by Arguments so weak, that 'tis not without reason that some of the Roman Communion are said to complain, That they have been Betrayed, rather than Defended by him.

How unsuccessfully he has managed his Design of Expounding Transubstantiation, has been shewn in a late Discourse proving Transubstantiation to be the peculiar Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and in the Preface to the Examination of the New Articles of the Roman [Page iii] Creed by Catholick Tradition. If I make it appear that he has miscarried as much in the point of Idolatry, his Theological part will then be considered; and for the rest, we do not by any means presume to meddle with it.

As for the Subject which I have undertaken, one would have thought, that a man who resolved to despise all that had ever written upon it, and not according to his Opinion, should have taken care, if not to produce something that could not be Answer'd, yet at least not to offer any thing that had been already Confuted.

But on the contrary, this Author, after all this noise, has for the most part been only an humble Transcriber of the Old Exploded Pretences; and which I may truly say were much more strongly, as well as more modestly urged by Dr. Godden against his learned Adversary. And when I consider how much more roughly this Author uses him, than that Doctor did, I am apt to think it might in some measure proceed from the sence he had that Dr. St. in discovering the Sophistry of his Old Antagonist, had before-hand confuted whatever this New one could find out again to revive the Controversie.

[Page iv] And for this I shall leave the following Discourse to be my Evidence; and of which I shall say no more here, than that in his own phrase: ‘I have delivered my Judgment, as I will answer Pag. 135. for my Integrity to God and the World.’ But now there is another thing, which I ought not in this place to pass by. It has been insinuated by this hot Reasoner, as no small Crime in us, that we charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, ‘Not only (says he) because of the Pag. 72. falseness of the Calumny, but the barbarous consequence that may follow upon it, to incite and warrant the Rabble, whenever Opportunity favours, to destroy the Roman Catholics and their Images, as the Israelites were commanded to destroy the Canaanites and their Idols. And in the next Page he tells us, That this Charge of Idolatry has ever been set 73. 74. up as the Standard against Monarchy.’

There are many more Passages of the like kind, in which he exercises his Gift of Eloquence: for I dare say he never learnt it, unless he has in his time studied to imitate a Tempest; for I know not what other Original he could propound to himself. This stile is the fittest in the World to his purpose, and will [Page v] perhaps be a Copy for the future to them that intend to speak neither according to Charity nor Truth; which are ever best heard in a Calm.

But however, if this too were for the declaration of his Judgment, we will no more complain of the Violence of his Expressions, than we do of the Force of his Arguments; only I would beg leave to say, that he should have been sure he could discharge the Church of Rome of that Guilt, before he had fix'd a Mark of Calumny upon the whole Body of the Reform'd, who accuse them of it; lest when men examine his Proofs, and find them defective, they be tempted to retort the Censure, especially considering with what Freedom and Violence he has been pleased to lay it upon us.

But now for his great fear that this should incite the Rabble to any Violence against those of the other Communion, I dare venture to say, there is not the least reason to be at all apprehensive of it. He knows very well how free the Christians of the first three Centuries were in laying the very same Charge against the Gentile World; and yet we do not [Page vi] find that they ever shew'd themselves either the less obedient to their Emperours, or the less charitable to their Neighbours, upon the account of it. And though I am verily perswaded that the Romanists, in the Invocation of Saints, and in the Worship of Images and Reliques, and of the Host, are guilty of Idolatry; yet I thank God I am not conscious to my self of one disloyal Thought to my King, or of the least Uncharitableness towards any of my Country-men, who differ from me in these Particulars.

And what I can thus truly profess in my own behalf, I doubt not but I may do for all others the true and genuine Members of the Church of England; and who by being such, must, I am sure by Principle, be both Obedient Subjects, and Charitable Christians. As for this Author, he has made as broad a signe that he intends to leave us, by insinuating, that the Charge of Idolatry ought to be followed with Blows, as by his concern not to have Idolatry charged upon the Church of Rome. We who do protest against certain Practices as Idolatrous, do also protest against violating either Loyalty or Charity, upon the [Page vii] account of Religion. This Author, it seems, likes us neither upon one account, nor the other; or this at least is to be said, that he has been thus long of our Communion, and has not all this while understood what we teach concerning a Christian's Duty to his Neighbour.

Did we indeed profess that of Idolatry, which some others do of Heresie, that 'tis a sufficient Ground for the Excommunicating of a King, and Absolving his Subjects of their Allegiance; had we ever been caught not in Otesian Conspiracies, but in Real Plots against our Soveraign upon this account, there might then have been just cause for such an Insinuation. But whilst our Principles are so Loyal, that we have even been laught at for our asserting them, and that too by some of those who would now be thought so zealous for their Princes Safety; it was a very unreasonable Apprehension, to think that the Charge of Idolatry (and that too begun in the time of a Prince of whom it was Misprision of Treason, but to say that he was guilty of it) should in the bottom have been the designe against the Monarchy, which we have so often declared, [Page viii] and in the very Person of our present King have shewn, we think our selves obliged to support, whatever his Religion be who is to sit upon the Throne.

And for what concerns our Brethren of the Roman Communion, it is well known that we are not of those who destroy men for Conscience sake. We have never been infamous either for Parisian Massacres, or Military Conversions. They are Others that have ruined at once both the Churches and the Servants of the Living God, out of Zeal for their Religion. We have indeed taken care to remove the Idols out of our Israel; but for the Worshippers of them, if they have suffer'd any thing, it has not been for their Idolatry, but for that which shews there is something else more dangerous to the English Monarchy than this Charge.

The truth is, when I consider how heinous a Suggestion this is, and what little foundation there is, either from our Principles, or our Practices, to support it, I am under some temptation to reply to this Author, as an ancient Father once did to a Heathen who accused them of such Cruelties and Filthiness in their [Page ix] Ceremonies, as none but themselves were capable of committing. ‘ Nemo hoc POTEST CREDERE, nisi qui POSSIT Minut. Felix. Oct. p. 34. AUDERE.’

And this I hope may serve for my Excuse, if I have at this time appear'd in defence of a Charge in which every true Member of the Church of England is so highly concern'd; and for which all Orders and Degrees among us, have been so contemptuously exploded by this Author. Or if I must still be content to bear the Censure of such as He, I shall at least comfort my self in this, that I can fall under no Reproach, but what must at the same time reflect upon all the great Names of the Primitive Christian Church, with whom I had rather suffer the angry Reflections of a few of our own Communion, than flourish with them, and gain their Applauses.

To say the truth, when such Learned Defenders of our Church are struck at, and that in so impetuous a manner as that [Page x] most deservedly esteemed Person he has so often mentioned, and I think never without something to raise his Repute amongst Honest and Judicious Men; I should be even ashamed not to be ill spoken of by such a one at the same time, if I had had the Honour of his Acquaintance.

As for what concerns the charge its self, I shall leave it to any one to judge, whether if the Roman Church be indeed guilty of what we say it is, we can discharge our Duty either towards God, or our Neighbour, as we ought to do, without endeavouring to convince them of their danger. And when others are so zealous for the Reputation of a few Men whose breath is in their Pag. 80. Nostrils; sure we may be excused if we express some Jealousie for the Honour of that God who has made both them and us.

It is indeed a most deplorable Spectacle to consider whether blind Superstition, and a Zeal not according to Understanding, has been able to carry otherwise good and pious [Page xi] Men. Nor is it the least of my Wonders, to consider Persons whose Learning I admire, and whose Sincerity I am unwilling to question, yet either by the Prejudice of Education, or by some other Causes to me unknown, so byassed in their Affections to the grossest Errors, that the most plain and convincing Arguments have not been able to prevail upon them.

'Tis hardly to be believed, but that they are themselves the Publishers of their own Doings, that in the clear Light of Christianity men should be so blind as to contend for giving Religious Worship to their Fellow Creatures, and set up senseless Images to be joyned in the very same Act of Divine Adoration with the great God the Creator of Heaven and Earth. And I would Vasquez in 3 part. D. Th. q. 25. disp. 110. to God their Impiety had stopp'd here; but indeed it has gone much farther; they have found out ways how not only all other things, Animate and Inanimate, may be warrantably adored with Divine Adoration, but even the Devil himself be Worshipped, without sin; by virtue of a good Intention [Page xii] to Honour God, and not certainly knowing it to be the Devil. And if we may believe a Man in his own Case, one of them once went much farther: He made no scruple to Worship the Devil whom he knew to be so, and that without taking any care (for ought appears by his Relation) to terminate his Worship finally upon God. And because it is indeed a singular instance, to shew to what Extravagance such Principles as we oppose, are apt to carry indiscreet Votaries, I will, to avoid all suspicion of falshood, give you a short account of it in his own words.

Father Gauffre being sent for to Exorcise Recit Veritable de ce qui s'est fait & passé ans Exorcismes de pi [...]ieurs R [...] ligienses de la Ville de Louciers en presente de Monsieur le Penitencier d' Evreus & de Monsieur le Gauffré. pag. 30, 31. This Book was printed at Paris, Anno 1643. With Permission. a terrible Devil call'd Arfaxa, which was got into the foot of Sister Bonaventure a Nun, she earnestly pray'd him that he would Confess her; for as the Father observes, the Devil had a particular desire to speak to him. After some Discourse had pass'd betwixt them, and they began to understand one another a little better, ‘I threw [Page xiii] my self (says the Father) upon my knees before him, telling him, that my designe was to confound my Pride by that of the Devils, and to learn Humility of them that had none. The Devil, enraged to see▪ me in that posture, told me, that he had received a Command to prevent me. But when I continued, for all that, to humble my self before him, he thought to take advantage of it, and told me, Thou dost this to Adore Me. I replied, Villain, thou art too infamous, I consider thee as the Creature of my God, and the Object of his Wrath; and therefore I will submit my self to thee, though thou dost not deserve it: and for that very reason I will immediately Kiss thy Feet. The Devil surprized at this Action, hindred me. Upon which I conjured him to tell me, as far as he could guess at it, what the Will of God was, whether that I should Kiss his Feet, or He mine? He answer'd, Thou knowest what Motion God gives thee; follow that. Immediately I threw my self upon the Ground, and Kissed his Feet: at which [Page xiv] he was in a Rage: And then I commanded Him by the Reliques of Father Bernard, to Kiss mine; which he did accordingly, with great readiness. After this, I continued upon my Knees before him, for about half a quarter of an hour.’

And now when these things are publickly taught and done in the Roman Church, is it not high time for us to speak, and to assert the Honour of God, and the Purity of his Religion? Shall others, without scruple, maintain and propagate their Errours, and shall it be a Crime in Us, even when attacked in the most violent manner, to defend the Truth? Nay, but let God be Served, though all the World be Dissatisfied.

In the mean time, whilst forced by these Considerations to assert our Religion, we pursue these Examinations, be it your parts (for whose sake we principally labour) to encourage our Endeavours by a firm adherence to that Form of Sacred Doctrine which you have received. As you have [Page xv] hitherto maintained an Unreprovable Zeal for your Profession, so go on more and more to contend ‘ Earnestly for the Faith Jude, v. 3. that was once deliver'd to the Saints.’ And above all, be careful to adorn your Holy Religion with a suitable Practice, ‘ That 1 Pet. 3. 16. they may be ashamed, who falsly accuse your good Conversation in Christ. For so is the Will of God, that with well doing Joh. 2. 15. ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.’ Let the same mind be in us, which was also in those Primitive Christians before-mentioned. Let us boldly assert the Truth, as those who know what Account they are one day to give unto God for it; but let us also be Charitable Mat. 5. 44. towards our Neighbours? and if they will rather be esteem'd our Enemies, let us remember, that even under that Name, we are yet to Love them. Let us still be careful to maintain the Character of the Best Subjects, as we have long asserted the most Loyal Principles: that as the Prosperity of our King makes up a considerable part of our Daily Prayers, so by a sincere discharge of all humble Obedience towards Him, He [Page xvi] may be convinced of the Malice of those who would insinuate any false Suggestions against us; and effectually see, that, excepting only our Duty towards God, we are much more Forward and Ready to do his Majesty Effectual Service, than any man can be, whose Loyalty is not Supported by Religion.

CHAP. I.

In which the Charge of Idolatry which we bring against those of the Church of Rome, is freed from those Odious Imputations that have been of late suggested against it.

IT may possibly appear to some not a little surprizing, that a Church which makes no scruple of practising what is Idolatrous, should yet be so very unwilling to lie under the imputation of it: There is nothing in all our Disputes with those of the other Communion, which they would be thought so highly to resent as this; the very mention of it has seem'd to Scandalize them; and if heat and confidence could have born us down, they had long since effectually deliver'd themselves from all suspicion of it.

It is not my business to enquire into the Reasons of this Proceeding, and which, when duly consider'd, will be found to have nothing in it, but what is exceeding natural. Men are always more forward to do ill things, than to avow them, or to own them under their proper names: Idolatry (as our Author says) is a scandalous Charge. By his leave, the Charge is not always [Page 2] scandalous, though the Crime be ever so, and the Charge reputed scandalous by them who are charged with it. Though a Church that does countenance the Commission of it, may by subtile Arguments and bold Denials keep up its Reputation well enough amongst those who are resolv'd at any rate to believe her, yet 'twere impossible she should long support her Interest, should she freely avow the doing of it.

But of all the Methods that have been made use of to put a stop to this Charge; there has been none so surprizing as what this Author has here found out; and could he but have made it good, I am perswaded there would not have been any more effectual. He represents it as inconsistent not only with the Principles of Charity towards our Neighbour, but even of Page 71, &c. Loyalty towards our Prince; and makes the very mention of it to be little less than a setting up of the Standard against Monarchy. And yet he is not so unacquainted Page 74. with the Principles and Dispositions of those of the Church of England, as not to know, that next to our sollicitude for the Honour of God, there are no two things in the World, we value our selves more upon, than that Character we have so justly obtained, of teaching the best Measures both of Duty to our King, and of Love, and Kindness, and Charity towards One Another.

I must therefore, before I proceed to vindicate our Notion of Idolatry, first say somewhat to remove this great prejudice that has been offer'd against it; And this I shall do,

I. By considering upon what weak Grounds this Author has undertaken to insinuate these Crimes against us.
[Page 3] II. By shewing what horrible Consequences would follow from it, should what he pretends indeed be true.

1. Of the weak Grounds upon which he has undertaken to insinuate such things against us.

Now all that he has to say for this odious Charge, if taken out of his turbulent and declamatory Stile, is but this: ‘That Idolatry is a Sin very heighnous to God, Page 71, 72, 73. and which he therefore, under the Law, commanded to be punished with Death.’ This is the sum of what he has dilated upon in three whole Pages; and against this I have many things to except. For,

1. What if Idolatry be a damnable Sin, may we not therefore say, without uncharitableness, that those are guilty of it, whom we effectually prove to be so? Must we therefore become mens Enemies because we tell them the Truth? I am sure a very little Charity would have taught him to have made a better Conclusion; nor can I imagine what greater instance of my Affection, I could shew my best Friend, if I saw him in such a course as I thought would render him eternally miserable, than to tell him freely of the danger of his Sin, and press him with the best Reasons I had to perswade him to forsake it.

It may be he will say, he does not deny but that we may charge men with great Sins, provided that they be truly guilty of them: But yet that the heighnousness of this Crime should make us careful not to do it, but upon very good grounds; for to this purpose I find he sometimes expresses himself: ‘So black a Crime as this (says he) is not Lightly to be charged Page 73. on any Party of Christians. And again, Before [Page 4] so bloudy an Indictment be preferred against the greatest Party of Christendom, the nature of the thing Page 73. ought to be very well understood.’ And if this be all he means, we readily acknowledge the reasonablness of it: but then he ought not to fly out into such Tragical common places against us for charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry; but to come close to the Point, and shew that we have not sufficient grounds for what we do. If those whom we accuse of this Crime, be indeed Page 70, 71. innocent of it, whether God had commanded Idolaters to be Stoned under the Law or not, we could not justifie our charging of them with it: but if our Arguments do prove them guilty, the heinousness of the Sin, and the danger of it, may be a good motive to dispose them seriously to weigh our Allegations, but I am sure it can lay no obligation upon us not to impute to it them.

2. As to the other insinuation, that God commanded Page 71. Idolaters under the Law to be put to Death: And for proof of which, we have two long passages transcribed out of Exodus and Deuteronomy; What would he infer from it? would he prove to us, that therefore they ought to be put to Death by us under the Gospel too? does he look upon these Precepts as Obligatory to us now? If so, I dare be bold to say, he has done more in one single Page, to stir up the People against the Romanists and their Images, than all those popular Page 72, 73. Divines he so complains of, in all the Books they have ever written upon this Subject. And yet this must be his Meaning, if it has any Meaning at all. For to examine this matter a little more closely: God (he says) commanded the Israelites in Deut. 13. 6. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own [Page 5] soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, &c. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him; But thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand shall be first upon him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die. Now either he looks upon this Precept as still in force, and would hereby insinuate to the People, that it is their Duty, if they think the Romanists guilty of Idolatry, utterly to destroy them; and this is certainly one of the most Seditious, as well as one of the most false Suggestions in the World: or if he does not believe this Command obligatory to us now, nor would insinuate any such thing by the repetition of it, what impertinence must it be to say that we cannot in Charity charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, because God commanded heretofore under the Law that all those that were guilty of it should be put to Death.

But though these kind of Precepts do not oblige us now, yet may not such a Charge be apt to stir up the deluded Rabble to think so; and so upon occasion encourage Page 72. them to destroy the Roman Catholicks and their Images, as the Israelites were commanded to destroy the Canaanites and their Idols? Answer, Yes; provided there were but a few such Orators as himself among them, to fill their heads with such Notions as these, and never tell them the impertinence of them. For instance: That these were onely the Political Laws of the Jews, and therefore can no more warrant us now to do any violence to our Neighbour, upon any such pretence, than because the Jews were commanded to do no work upon the Sabbath day, we may Numb. 15. 32, &c. therefore lawfully Stone any one that we see gathering [Page 6] a few Sticks upon it. But if the Question be, Whether the Charge of Idolatry, as it is managed by us against the Church of Rome, may not be apt to cause any such mischief? I say, it is not; and that for these Reasons: For,

1. Let him examin all our Books of Controversie, and see if he can find any of these old Laws produced, much less insisted upon, and inforced by us, to mislead the People into any such desperate Mistakes: On the contrary, we take all occasions to declare to them, that no pretences of this kind can warrant us so much as to withdraw our Affection from those who differ from us: That the Jews indeed esteem'd themselves Mat. 5. 43, &c. allowed to hate their Enemies; that is, those who were not of the same Religion with themselves, but Worshipped other Gods; and more especially those Canaanites, whom we are told it pleased God to destroy from Page 72. off the face of the earth for their Idolatry: but that our Saviour Christ has utterly forbid us to make any such distinction: I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them Verse 44. that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you. We set before them the Examples of the Primitive Christians; with what Charity they behaved themselves towards the Gentiles among whom they lived; with what an humble Obedience they submitted themselves to their Idolatrous Emperours, and underwent the most Tertul. Apol. cruel Persecutions for their Religion's sake, even when they had power sufficient to have asserted their Faith, and to have destroyed both the Idolaters and their Idols together. And by these Maxims we exhort them to walk; and according to these it is that we both now do, and I am perswaded shall always behave ourselves [Page 7] with all Christian Charity towards those of the Roman Communion, notwithstanding we both believe them to be guilty of Idolatry, and charge them accordingly. But

2. We do not only tell them, that those kind of Laws are now no longer in force, and that therefore we may not by vertue of them presume to run into any violence against our Brethren: but we teach them moreover, (what yet more shews the impertinent Malice of this Suggestion) that they never were intended, even under the Jewish State, to be in force against such Idolaters as they of the Church of Rome are. It is manifest to every one that has impartially considered the Notion of Idolatry, in the Old Testament, that there were two very different kinds of it: 1. One whereby they totally Apostatized from the Law, to Worship other Gods than the GOD of Israel; as when 'tis said that they fell off to Worship strange Gods; i. e. they renounced the Religion established by the Law of Moses, and took in another Religion, with all the Ceremonies and Sacrifices belonging to it, as the Aegyptian, Canaanitish, or Chaldaean: And such as these were concluded under the Sentence of the Law before mentioned. 2. But then another sort of Idolatry there was, in which they still pretended to adhere to the Law of Moses, and Worship the God of Israel, but yet after an Idolatrous manner, as when Jeroboam set up the two Calves in Dan and Bethel; parallel to which, is that Idolatry with which we charge those of the other Communion at this day. Now in this Case; though we find the Prophets severely exclaiming against their new Altars, yet we do not meet with any inforcement of this Precept for putting such Idolat [...]rs to Death, or that they are any [Page 8] where charged as guilty of it upon this Account.

In short, he that would know how innocent this Charge is, of any of those ill Consequences that are here brought against it, need onely look back to the State of the Church in the days of Constantine: there he will find our Primitive Fathers, freely accusing the Arrians of Idolatry, and sometimes warm enough too in their Disputes against them; but yet I believe all the Records of those times, will not furnish this Author with so much as one instance of any Bishop that ever put the Emperour in mind of this Law against them; or so much as insinuated to him, that he might warrantly destroy them out of his Dominions for their Idolatry. And sure our behaviour towards those of the Church of Rome, has not been so different from what theirs was against the Arrians, that any such violence should be fear'd from us now, as was never so much as urged by the hottest Opposers of Idolatry in those days.

But 2dly, If there be then no good Grounds for such Insinuations as these, which he has here offer'd onely to render our Charge of Idolatry odious, I am sure there is cause enough upon other accounts, to make them justly be detested by all good Men.

For 1. Not to say any thing of the sad Consequences that may arise from hence, should such insinuations as these ever be able to gain so much credit with his Sacred Majesty, as to make him entertain that ill Opinion of Us and our Religion, as we should justly deserve, were we such as we are here represented to be: Can any thing be more desperate, than to impeach at once the whole Body of a Great and Orthodox Church, of holding Principles so inhumane, ‘As to out do the very Cannibals themselves; and for which they have Page. 73. [Page 9] no other Grounds than the (rude and rash Assertions of some popular Divines, that have no other measure of Truth or Zeal, but Hatred to Popery. In short, of maintaining Fanatick Pretences, and such as have ever been set up as the Standard against Monarchy.’ What is this but, in other words, to say, that all the Orders and Degrees of Men amongst us, that have ever been concern'd in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, our Princes and our Nobles, the Houses of Parliament and Convocation, as many as concurred either to the Approving or Subscribing the Book of Homilies, or to the Establishing or the obeying of the Laws made in the last Reign, not to say any thing of those Learned Men who have from time to time written expresly on this Subject, were all in plain terms neither better nor worse than a Pack of Unlearned, Cruel, Barbarous, Cannibal, Fanatical, Antimonarchical Villains.

Certainly, a man had need have either a very good Cause, or a very hard Forehead, that can have the confidence to pronounce such a Sentence as this, and of which I will only say, in his own words, ‘That how inconsistent soever Idolatry may be with Salvation, Pag. 73. I fear so uncharitable a Calumny can be of no less damnable consequence.’ But however,

2. To allow this great Author to take any Liberty he pleases with us: What shall we say as to the Primitive Christians, whose Examples we follow, by whose Principles we manage this whole Controversie, and with whom therefore we must either stand or fall. Were all they a parcel of Seditious Fellows too? It cannot be deny'd, but that those Holy Men very freely charged the Gentiles first, and then the Heretical Christians, the Arrians, [Page 10] and others, with Idolatry. And the Passages of those Writers, Justin Martyr, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Greg. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, have been too often alledged, to need a Repetition here. And which ought not to be forgot, at the time that they did this, their Emperours were themselves of that very Religion which they so Accused. Now then, according to this Learned Gentleman, all these Holy Bishops and Martyrs were even as bad as we; and Antiquity has been so sottish as to celebrate the Praises, and recommend to us the Examples of a long Series of Factious Fanaticks, who for their Rudeness to their Emperours, and Cannibal uncharitable Censures of their Brethren, justly deserv'd all the Torments and Persecutions that they underwent. But,

3. Because those that pretend the highest regard to the Authority of the Fathers, can yet easily except against it, when they are pressed with it, what will this Author say to that of the Apostles? It cannot reasonably be doubted but that St. Paul very well understood the true nature of Charity, who so often and earnestly recommended it to his Disciples; and that he was no Friend to any Seditious, Anti-monarchical Principles, I believe his 13th Chapter to the Romans, will sufficiently demonstrate. Yet behold this very St. Paul charging the Emperours Religion as Idolatrous, exhorting all men to forsake it as such; and going up and down in all parts, preaching where-ever he came against it, on this account. And I desire this Gentleman to consider with himself what he can say in defence of this Holy Apostle, that shall not vindicate us too.

[Page 11] So that now then upon the whole it appears, that out of an over-eager desire to Traduce us, this judicious Author has in his Heat exposed all the Christians of the first three hundred years, the Catholicks of the following Centuries, nay the blessed Apostles themselves, besides the whole Body of the Reform'd Religion in this and the last Age, as the worst of Monsters, and such as deserve to be esteem'd any thing, rather than Christians.

Let those, whose Cause he has so unfortunately undertaken, consider this; and I am perswaded they will begin to grow asham'd of their Advocate. And how unjust soever they may esteem our Charge of Idolatry, yet they will not say, it is such as cannot be maintain'd against them, without inspiring us at the same time with all the horrible impulses of Cruelty and Barbarity against themselves, and of Faction and Rebellion against the Government; which some men would insinuate.

As for our selves, we earnestly beseech all those of the Church of Rome, against whom we at any time advance this Imputation, that they will as candidly consider our Arguments, as we can truly profess they are charitably proposed by Us; and whether they shall remain satisfied or not, that there is Reason in our Charge, yet to give us so much Credit with them at least, as to believe that we think there is; and shall be heartily glad to be convinced that we were mistaken in our Opinion.

[Page 12]

CHAP. II.

In which this Author's True and only Notion of Idolatry is Consider'd, and the Method laid down for a more particular Examination of it.

I Will now take it for granted, that under the shelter of so great an Authority as I have shewn to be equally concern'd with us, in all the scandalous imputations that can be raised against our charging those of the Church of Rome with Idolatry, I may venture to search a little more particularly into the nature of it, without being thought either a Cannibal or a Fanatick, or to have any design of setting up a Standard Pag. 73, 74. against the Monarchy, for my so doing; especially considering that I resolve not to encounter any Church or Party of men in the World on this occasion, but meerly to shew that this Man's Notion of Idolatry, though set off with such assurance as few Writers have ever equalled, is yet, after all, so far from being supported either by Scripture or Antiquity, that it is indeed utterly repugnant to both. And therefore that the Church of Rome is only Vindicated by him from the Charge of an Idolatry that no man ever produced against her, [Page 13] but for such Idolatry as we accuse her of, she may still fall under the weight of that, for any thing that has here been offer'd to the contrary.

According to this Author, Idolatry is neither more nor less than this: The Worship of the heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.

From whence it follows, that to make a Man an Idolater, these three things are required.

1. That he cast off all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.
2. That he believes there is no other Supream God than either the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or some other the like Visible and Corporeal parts of the World.
3. That in pursuance of this Apprehension, he worships these Visible and Corporeal Deities as the Supream God.

Now to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, and to believe no other Supream God, but some Visible and Corporeal part of the World, in opposition to a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, is, I think, to be an Atheist, though here is much ado to describe him. For to believe none but a Visible God, in opposition to an Invisible One, and to believe none but a Corporeal God, in opposition to a Spiritual God, is to believe no God at all; unless a man can suppose a Supream God, without Understanding, or any Perfection whatsoever of a Spiritual and Invisible Nature.

[Page 14] By consequence, for a man with these Apprehensions to worship this God which he has made to himself, is not well capable of any other construction, than that he takes some pains, and goes a little way about to expose all Religion and Worship to Contempt.

I would be very glad to understand our Author's Notion of Idolatry; and therefore if it were possible, I should be content that his Idolater should not be an Atheist for a while, that we might see what else we can make of him. For a man to take nothing else for the Supream God, but a certain Visible Being, from which he shuts out all Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, is certainly to be a downright Atheist, though his Atheism might have been described in fewer words. And yet on the other side, to worship something in good earnest as the Supream God, seems to imply that a man is not an Atheist: For an Atheist is one that does not so much as believe that there is a Supream God. But he surely believes a God, who worships any thing for the Supream God, whatever that be which he so worships.

Now if Thomas Aquinas were here, it would strangely perplex him to clear this matter. I do not mean to make good sense of the words, for that I take to be impossible, but to tell us by the words, what the Author's drift should be. For they make up a Nonsense so very stiff, that it will not bend one way or the other. And if I must understand something by every word that he says, I can have no more Notion of his Idolatry than I have of nothing. And if he had said, Idolatry is neither more nor less than Nothing, I had been as much edified as I am now. Unless he would give us to understand, that Idolatry is meer speculative [Page 15] Madness, which no body that has common sense and understanding, can possibly be guilty of.

For all that part of the World that either is or ought to be out of Bethlehem and the like Hospitals, do by the Supream God, understand something at least, that is not only able to help or to hinder, but knows also when to do one and t'other, and is willing to do accordingly. And therefore to worship any thing as the Supream God, and at the same time to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, is to worship a thing because I am sure it knows something, while I take care to be as sure at the same time, that it knows nothing at all. I can compare this to nothing, as I have already intimated, but to some extraordinary instance of Madness. For instance: If I should ever see a man fall down upon his Knees, and seem in good earnest to ask Blessing of a Post, and to call it Father, I should presently think of this Author's Idolater: for his Idolater is rather more than less mad than he that fancies a Post to be his Father. For men in their Wits, have at least as high an Opinion of what they take to be their Supream God, as they have of their Parents: And therefore to worship that as the Supream God, which no less wants the Perfections of a Spiritual and Invisible Nature, than a Post does, is a Misfortune that cannot light upon any Body but a Mad man.

So that our Author's Idolater is a man whom either all the World must acknowledge to be out of his Wits, or if you put him into his Wits, he is a meer Atheist; though I am confident he would not have described himself so wittily, as this Author has described him.

[Page 16] This Notion of Idolatry is to me so monstrous a Notion, that I am apt to look again and again into the Book, to see if the words be there in which he has deliver'd it. But when at last I find that they are undoubtedly there, I am taken with a new fear, that the Author did not mean what he says; and therefore that I do not understand his meaning, though I understand the meaning of his words.

In such a Case as this, I have nothing to do, but to take another Notion of Idolatry; which though it be not the true and only Notion of it, has yet plain sense, and comes as near to his, as a Notion that has Sense can come to one that has none. And it is this: That Idolatry is the Worship of the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, not so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead; but so as to suppose that as they are Visible Beings, so they have Invisible Natures too, and some Spiritual Perfections, which are indeed proper to the true God.

Now this Notion of Idolatry is, in one part of it, quite contrary to our Author's. For they who worship any Visible Deity as the Supream God, with this perswasion, that it has indeed Spiritual and Invisible Perfections, do not thereby exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead; because they have the Sense of such a Godhead in the Notion of that very thing which they worship. But though this is not the Idolatry which his Book speaks of, yet, as I said, 'tis the likest to it that I can think of. And if he does not mean what his Book says, 'tis a hunder'd to one but he means this.

But if I should be mistaken, 'tis no great matter; [Page 17] for if I can but shew that this is not the only Notion of Idolatry, it follows out of hand, that the Notion of his Book cannot possibly be so neither: So that one way or other I am sure to reach him, whether he and his Book have one meaning or two.

1. According to this Notion then, those who retain the sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, though they do worship the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, but this only as Inferior and Subordinate Deities, cannot be Idolaters. And therefore if the Gentiles, the Aegyptians, for instance, or the Chaldoeans, did believe One Supream God, and worshipped the Sun Moon, and Stars, upon the account of those Coelestial Spirits they supposed to reside in them, this worship was not Idolatrous.

In like manner, those Gentiles that worshipped any Corporeal Deity, or any thing Visible or Invisible besides the Supreme God, if they believed all the while that it was not the Supreme God, and did not worship it as such, they I say could not be Idolaters. And therefore I think if the Gentiles were Idolaters in worshipping any of their Deities, it must be because they had no knowledge of the true God. So that either St. Paul or this Author was out in the true and only Notion of Idolatry. For though St. Paul accused the Gentiles of Idolatry, yet he confessed, that they knew God. For (says he) Though they knew God yet they glorified him not as God. Rom. 1.

2. If we do but interpret the Cautions of the New Testament against Idolatry, by our Author's Notion of Idolatry, they will be Paraphrased so as I believe they never were done before his time, and I suppose [Page 18] will never be after it. For instance; When St. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, My dearly Beloved, flee from Idolatry; this was as much as if he had said, ‘ My dearly Beloved, Idolatry being neither more nor less than the Worship of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, or any Other Visible or Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, I intreat and earnestly require you to Flee from Idolatry. And therefore though I do not bid you worship the Heavenly Bodies, or their Images upon Earth, yet I strictly charge you, not to worship them as the Supreme God, or as if there were not an Invisible God above them All; if ever you should find it convenient to worship the Sun or Moon, or Stars, or any Representation of them here below.’

This would be an Admirable Paraphrase, and which I doubt not but our Author would be able to make good against all those that neither do, nor can, nor ought to understand these things. But whether our Nobility and Men of Quality are willing to come into this Number I think I need not say.

3. But because to Created Beings he afterwards adds Mortal Ones, of which more hereafter, I suppose he means Reasonable Beings, let us see how things will go upon these new Terms. ‘ Dearly Beloved, if ever you should worship Saturn or Jupiter, or such like men who died long since, still remember that they were once Visible and Mortal Men, and have a care not to worship them as the Supreme God.’

I mention here only dead Heathens, there being yet no Christian Hero's in St. Paul's time to whom any such worship was given, nor for some Ages [Page 19] after. Now I think this will pass as little as the Other with Men that ought and do understand. For besides the barbarous Stuff which this Notion makes the Apostle to speak, it presses a meer Monster upon us; That the Apostle supposes it utterly impossible for a Christian that does not at once renounce his whole Faith and Profession, to be guilty of Idolatry. St. Paul certainly was a very deep man in hiding his purpose, if by intreating the Christians to Flee from Idolatry, he meant no other thing than that they should not take and worship the Sun, or the Moon, or some dead man, as the Supreme God. And our Author is as deep a Man in finding out this hidden purpose of the Apostle, which till He arose no man was ever so happy as to do.

But indeed with all his Rhetorick he will never make himself and the Apostle of One mind in this matter. For thus St. Paul goes on: ‘ Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils; Ye cannot be Partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. Do we provoke the Lord to Jealousie? Are we stronger than He?’ Now if they who partake in Idolatrous Sacrifices are Idolaters, and if Idolaters have no Sense of a Supreme God, above the pretended Deities to whom they offer, they will not I conceive care one Jot whether they partake of the Lord's Table or not, nor be concerned about the Lord's Jealousie at all. And yet St. Paul plainly supposes, that if Christians should be guilty of Idolatry, they would yet probably be concern'd about God's Jealousie, and desire to partake of the Lord's Table.

[Page 20] Thus when the same Apostle wrote to the very same Persons not to keep Company, no nor so much as to eat with One called a Brother, if he were a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an IDOLATER, or a Railer, or a Drunkard. I cannot but wonder what an Idolater has to do in this Company, if this Author's Idolater, and St. Paul's Idolater were the same Idolater. For whatsoever the Fornicator, or Covetous, or Railer, or Drunkard, might pretend for a Title to Brotherhood; I am yet certain, that he is fallen even from all right to that Name, who worships the Sun (for instance) as the Supreme God, and so renounces God the Maker of the World, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Paul speaks of his Idolater as One within the Church, and One of those wicked Persons that were to be cast out of the Civil as well as the Religious Communion of it. But if there be no Idolater besides this Author's Idolater, who has renounced the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and lost all Apprehension of him, he has prevented the Apostle's direction, and is out of the Church by his own Act.

4. These things do, I confess, give me a great Prejudice against this Author's true and only Notion of Idolatry. And there is one thing which I believe will make him less fond of it himself, when he comes to consider it; and that is, that his Notion does by no means suit with the Sense of that Church, to which he designed a good Turn in all this. It is very well known how the Fathers of Trent, to Vindicate their Worship of Images from being Parallel to what the Gentiles heretofore paid [Page 21] to theirs, did, among other Differences, lay down this for one: ‘ That they do not believe any Divinity or Vertue to be in them, for which they ought to be Worshipped.’ For to believe this, their Catechism tells us, is to make the Images become Idols, and by consequence, the Worship of them to be Idolatry. Now if it be Idolatry to worship Images with such an Opinion, then it cannot be the only Notion of Idolatry to worship the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or any Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, or their Images as the Images of a pretended Supreme God: For without any thing of all this, one may believe Divinity and Virtue to be in Images, and worship them upon that account.

For Example: The Heathens had a mighty Opinion of Aesculapius after his Death, that in his Temples, and by his Images, he could cure Diseases. Let us suppose now a Person to fall down and worship one of these Images, in hopes of some Divine Virtue coming thence. Were this Worship Idolatry, or not? If it were not, then was the Council of Trent to blame, to make this an instance of the Gentiles' Idolatry; if it were, then in the opinion of the Roman Church, the account of Idolatry which this Author has given, cannot be the only Notion of it: For this was neither the Worshipping of any Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, nor of any Corporeal Image of the Supream God.

Lastly, In all the Accounts which the Missionaries of the Church of Rome have given us of the Heathen Nations where they have come, we find them generally acknowledging a Supream, Spiritual, and Invisible Godhead. And that if they worship the Sun, [Page 22] Moon, or Stars, it is not that they esteem them to be meer Visible and Corporeal Deities, much less think them to be the Supream God, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible God above them; but they worship them either as inferiour Deities, to whom God has committed the Government of the World under him; or they look upon God to be the Soul of the World, and that therefore the parts of it deserve Honour upon that account: or finally, they esteem God to be of so great Perfection and Excellency, that He is above their service, and that therefore they ought to pay their External Adoration to somewhat below him. Now I shall leave it to this Author to consider upon what grounds, according to his True and Only Notion of Idolatry, he will charge these men with this Guilt; or if out of his great Charity he shall think fit generously to acquit them of it, I will then send him to some of his Friends of the Roman Communion for better Instruction.

These and many other Reasons, that I might add, occur to me upon the very first view only, to make me suspect his Hypothesis. But now when I examine it more particularly, I find it yet more gross and unreasonable. The sum of what he offers for it, is an Historical Deduction of the State of Idolatry in the Old Testament, compar'd with the Accounts that are given of the Idolatry of the Ancient, especially the Eastern Nations, ‘Who acknowledged Pag. 99, 100. no other Deities, but the Stars, among whom the Sun was Supream; in opposition to which false Principle, Rabbi Maimon says, God enacted the Law of Moses. And according to this Law, it appears, [Page 23] That Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Pag. 80, 81. Supream God to any Created, Corporeal, or Visible Deity, or any thing that can be represented by an Image, which nothing but Corporeal Beings can; and to suppose such a Being the Supream Deity, is the only true and proper Idolatry.’

In opposition to which positive Conclusion, I will content my self at present to say, that there is not one word of truth in it; for that neither was the Religion of the Eastern Nations, such as he pretends, nor the Nature of Idolatry under the Law, what he represents it to have been. And to the end I may plainly clear this whole matter, I will distinctly shew three things.

First, That the Idolatry of those Nations whom he mentions, the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Arabians, &c. did not consist in Worshipping the Sun, Moon, and Stars, as the Supream God; So as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead. Nor therefore,

Secondly, Was this the only Idolatry forbidden to the Jews by the Law. But

Thirdly, That as the Jews retaining both the apprehension and worship of the God of Israel, were yet guilty of Idolatry for worshipping him after a gentile manner, so may Christians be now.

And therefore that the Church of Rome may justly be charged by us as Idolatrous, though we do not pretend in any wise to say either that she worships the Sun, Moon, and Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity as the Supream God; or that she has [Page 24] lost all Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.

And thus having established the true Notion of Idolatry, I shall last of all consider such Objections as may be necessary to be replied to for the clearing of it; and so leave the particular Charges to be made good by those who shall have occasion so to do.

[Page 25]

CHAP. III.

Of the Idolatry of the Ancient Heathens; especially, of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Persians; and that it did not consist in their Worshipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God; so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.

THis is the Fundamental mistake of our Author concerning his Notion of Idolatry; and which being overthrown, his whole Hypothesis built upon it, must fall together with it. For thus it is that he argues: P. 80. ‘God designed by his Law, to preserve the Jews from falling into the Idolatry of the Nations round about them: Against this, we find not only all its Precepts, P. 102. but even the Rights and Ceremonies of it, to have been directed. But the Idolatry of those Nations was no other than the Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars, or of some the like Visible and Corporeal Deities, P. 97, 100. so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead. And therefore this must be the true and only Notion of it in the Old Testament.’

[Page 26] I shall hereafter more fully shew the weakness of this Proof, when I come to demonstrate, That there were two sorts of Idolatry mention'd in those Holy Scriptures extreamly different the one from the other. And therefore that tho this were the true Notion of Idolatry in one respect, yet it would not follow that it was the only Notion, by reason of the other. And this I shall do in the next Chapter. My business at present is to shew, That what he has thus Confidently laid down, is so far from being the only Notion of Idolatry, that it is indeed no Notion of it at all; for that those very Heathens whom he insists upon for his Warrant in this matter, were not guilty of such an Idolatry as he pretends they were.

We have already seen his Definition of Idolatry, that P. 74. it is neither more nor less than this: ‘ The Worship of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God, so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.’ This he pretends is the only Scripture Notion of it. ‘ And thus Ibid. (he says) all Learned Men of all Nations, all Religions, P. 99. ever understood the old Notion of Idolatry, till this last Age, when Folly and Passion cast it at any thing that peevish Men were angry with. So Rabbi Mamion, the most Learned and Judicious of the Jewish Doctors Discourses at large, That the Ancient Idolatry was nothing but the Religion of the Eastern Nations, who acknowledg no other Deities but the Stars, P. 100. among whom the Sun was Supreme.’ And then he immediately subjoyns, ‘ That the Ancient Heathens worshipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes Ibid. or D [...]mons: So Diodorus Siculus says of the [Page 27] Egyptians; Herodotus of the Persians and Chaldeans; Strabo and Justin, of the Arabians, and Caesar of the P. 101. Germans. He confesses indeed, That there was another sort of Idolatry introduced afterward, the Worship of Men and Women; but this he takes to have been much more Modern, and a meer Invention of the vain and lying Greeks; but that whensoever it came in, it was grafted upon the old Stock, of giving the Worship of the Supreme God, not only to created, but to mortal Beings. So this Author.’ To which I Reply.

I. That as to this latter sort of Idolatry, seeing he has declin'd the Consideration of it, as being of too young a date to found the Scripture Notion of Idolatry upon it, I shall not insist upon it; tho I am by no means satisfied, either in his account of its Antiquity, or that it was a meer Invention of the vain and lying Greeks. For

1. It has been the Opinion of very Learned Men, that this kind of Idolatry was practised in Egypt soon after the Flood. And that the most Ancient Osiris, See Vossius de Idol. l. 1. c. 27. was no other than Mitzraim, the Son of Cham, whom they worshipped together with his Father, and from whom the whole Country is in Scripture called by his Name. In the cv. Psalm 23. it is expresly stiled, the Land of Cham: And Plutarch informs us, that in the Plutarch de Iside & Osiride. Sacred Rites of Isis, they call it [...], very probably upon the same Account. And that which makes this the more likely is, that in the Division of the World among the Sons of Noah, Gen. x. Arabia fell to the Lot of Cham; and in that Chush his eldest Son fixed himself, from whence the Country is called, the Land [Page 28] of Cush, in 2 Kings xix. 9. And then it may easily be conceiv'd that his second Son Mitzraim, should go into the next adjoyning Country, the Land of Egypt. Now if this be so, then it follows, not only that this sort of Idolatry was much more Ancient than is pretended; but that being practised in Egypt before the Children of Israels going down thither; it may be reasonably enough allow'd a sufficient Antiquity for us to derive something from it of the Notion of Idolatry, with reference to the times under debate. But,

2dly, As to the very Apis its self, the chief Deity of the Egyptians, and whom our Author contends to have been the Sun; it is not improbable, but that they meant P. 89. no other than the Patriarch Joseph by it; and whom they Honour'd with Divine Honours, upon the Account of his wonderful Preservation of them in the seven years Famine, Gen. xli. Thus Julius Firmicus expresly Interprets it, and what is more, adds, that this was Jul. Firm. p. 17, 18. according to the manner of their Country: ‘ The Egyptians (says he) after his Death, according to the appointment of their Country, built Temples to Him. And again, This Man is worshipt in Egypt, he is adored, &c.’ To him Ruffinus agrees; and St. Augustin, or Ruffin. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. c. 23. whoever else was the Author of that Book under his Name, De Mirabilibus Scripturae, informs us, ‘That the Egyptians upon this account, set up the Symbol of an Ox over the Sepulchre of Joseph, in Memory of their Deliverance.’ Thus Suidas interprets their Suidas in voce [...]. Cl. Alex. [...]. 1. Serapis; who as Clemens Alexandrinus (out of Aristeas) tells us, was the same with Apis; and both Suidas, Ruffinus, and Julius Firmicus, add, that his Statue was set up with a Bushel upon his Head, to denote the Plenty of Corn which he provided for them. [Page 29] And in the very Scripture it self, Joseph is either call'd, or at least compar'd to an Ox, Deut. xxxiii. 17. And some of the Rabbins have given this account of the very Calves of Jeroboam, that they were the Symbols of Joseph, set up by him in Honour of his Ancestors, from a part of whose Tribe, viz. that of Ephraim, he was himself descended.

Here it were an easie matter to multiply Proofs upon this occasion, to shew that the Idolatry of Consecrating Heroes into Gods, and Worshipping them as such, is by no means of so fresh a date, as this Author would have it thought to be. For what he adds, That ‘ whensoever it came in, it was grafted upon the Old Stock of Page 101. giving the Worship of the Supreme God, not only to Created, but to Mortal Beings:’

I answer, 1. That this is evidently contrary to all the accounts we have of their Worship; and according to which it appears, that the Heathens paid no other Worship to their Divi, or deified Men, than what the Church of Rome at this day does to her Saints; but as carefully distinguish'd between the Adoration of the Supreme God, and these Heroes, as the other do between Him, and those Blessed Men that Reign together with Him, as their Language tells us.

2. Whenever this Idolatry came in, 'tis evident that the very nature of it utterly overthrows his Only Notion of Idolatry before laid down; unless he supposes that they thought their Heroes, whom whilst they lived they knew to be but men, born into the World after the common order of Nature, and even dying after the same manner as all others, became after Death the Supreme God that made Heaven and Earth; and believed all this so firmly, as not only to give the Worship [Page 30] of the Supreme God to them, but to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of any God above them. For so (he says) a man must do, before he can be guilty of Idolatry.

Now if this be his Opinion, I would then ask this Learned Antiquary one small Question: Seeing the Number of their Heroes was very great, whom the same Persons at the same time worshipped; Did they believe every one of these to be the Supreme God that made Heaven and Earth, and give the highest Divine Honour accordingly unto every one of them as such? That they did this, no man of Sense will either say or believe; and yet if they did not, the true and only Notion of Idolatry is at an end; for which ever of their Heroes they believed to be the Supreme God, and Worshipped as such, they must have Adored the rest only as Inferior Deities, and with an Honour suitable to their Apprehensions of them.

Either therefore he must quit his true and only Notion of Idolatry, which he tells us is neither more nor less than, ‘The Worship of the Heavenly Bodies, the Page 74. Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God, so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and invisible Godhead;’ or he must give us some assurance that the Egyptians (for instance) worshipping of Joseph under the Symbol of an Ox, did believe him to be the Supreme Deity, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of any Superior Godhead, and did worship him accordingly; that is, that those men were so sottish as to think that a man who had lived and died amongst them, was the Great God that framed the world, and all things in it, many Ages before himself had any Being. But

[Page 31] II. To come to the Other, and (as he supposes) the more Ancient Idolatry, and in his Notion of which, I affirm him to have been utterly mistaken: And here I must observe, that it is not at all doubted, but that these Heathens did Worship the Sun, Moon, and Stars; that which I pretend is, that this Author is very much out in the Account which he gives of their Worship of them.

1. He affirms, That they worshipped these Heavenly Bodies as Visible and Corporeal Deities, so as to Page 74. exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead: Whereas on the contrary, they believed these very Bodies themselves to be animated by Celestial Spirits who resided in them, and rendred them thereby proper Objects of their Adoration.

2. That they worshipped these Visible and Corporeal Ibid. Deities, as the Supreme God; whereas they constantly acknowledged a First and Invisible Godhead, superior to them.

3. That they worshipp'd no other Gods but these, Page 97, 100. and amongst these the Sun as supreme; when on the contrary it is certain, even from the very Authors that himself produces, that they worshipp'd other Deities, both Heroes and Doemons, of which this Man yet pretends with so much assurance, that they had no Notion.

And all these are not only gross Errors for an Author who writes with such Confidence as if he would be thought to have been initiated into all the Religions of which he discourses, but such as utterly ruin all that he has to say to support his true and only Notion of Idolatry. But I must examine these Points more particularly. And

[Page 32] 1. ‘That these Nations did not worship the Heavenly Bodies as Visible and Corporeal Deities, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and invisible Godhead.’

This is an Assertion not only so monstrously absurd in its self, but so contrary to all the Accounts we have from Antiquity, of the Theology of those Nations to which he refers us, that I must once more confess, that I never lay under a greater Temptation to disbelieve my own Senses, or to suspect my understanding of plain words than now: On the one hand, I am sure our Author here defines Idolatry to be, ‘The Worship of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or some other visible and Corporeal Deity, not only as the Supreme God, but so at to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead:’ That is to say, that he who is an Idolater must worship them as mere Corporeal Parts of the Creation, void of all Understanding; for so I think Visible and Corporeal Gods must be taken, when opposed to all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead. And yet on the other hand, how to reconcile such a Paradox with either the common Reason of Mankind, as I have observed before; or the clear Evidences of the Gentile World to the contrary, as I observe now, I am not able to comprehend: But let our Author take his choice; for I will here again do more than I need, rather than be thought to omit any thing that was fit to be taken notice of. If he thinks good to own this Notion, I will then offer what may serve to confute it; but if being admonished of the Absurdity of it, he shall chuse rather to wrest his words to some other meaning than they naturally bear, I [Page 33] shall only have spent some little time in confuting that, which if he does not, I am certain no body else will ever affirm.

And to begin where himself does, with the Holy Scriptures, not only the most certain, but the most Ancient History in the World.

He produces indeed a few Texts from whence it may be concluded, that the Heathens of old, did worship the Sun, Moon, and Stars; but that they worshipped them (according to his Notion) as Corporeal Deities, and so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead; for this he has not so much as offer'd at one single Proof.

For 1. As to his first Instance, (and which indeed Page 77. is the first account we have) of Idolatry. The Scripture, 'tis true, tells us that Terah, Abraham's Father, worshipped Strange Gods; but that these Gods were Corporeal Deities, and that they worshipp'd them so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, of this there is not a word: See Josh. xxiv. 2. and I shall presently shew the contrary.

If we go on with him to the next (and as he thinks Page 78. the first plain) intimation we find of Idolatry in Palestine, ‘in the History of Jacob; after his Conversation with the Shechemites, where upon his departure Gen. 35. from that City by God's especial Command, he builds an Altar at Bethel to God, and commands his Family to put away their [...], or strange Gods.’ Neither here shall we find our Author's notion so much as insinuated, but as I will now prove, much to the contrary. It is not to be doubted, but that these Gods were the same that they worshipped in Syria when they [Page 34] were in the house of Laban; and that therefore the Images which Jacob buried, could be no other than the Teraphim, so usual amongst them, i. e. such as Rachel stole from her Father Laban, Gen. xxxi. 30. How far from hence it might be proved that their Idolatry did not consist merely in their worshipping of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, I shall not now dispute: Let us suppose these Teraphims to have been not only made by Planetary Influences, but designed to represent the Sun, or some other Heavenly Bodies; then, I say, it follows both from the History of Laban, and from the accounts we have of these Idols, that they did not worship the Sun as a Corporeal Deity, and by consequence that that cannot be the true Notion of their Idolatry, which is pretended to be. For,

1. As to Laban, we read Gen. xxxi. 53. that when he ratified the Covenant with Jacob, he called to witness not only the God of Abraham, but the [...], his own domestick Deity too, i. e. in our Author's opinion, the Sun, ‘ The God (says he) of Abraham, and the God of Nachor judg betwixt us:’ Now this plainly shews that Laban lookt upon his Father's God (and who was also the God of Tera before-mentioned, Josh. xxiv. 2.) not to be a mere Corporeal Deity, but as having an Intellectual Being incorporated in it, that was both capable of hearing their Oath, and of judging betwixt them, and without which he could never have called him to witness their Contract.

2. For what concerns the Teraphim, it appears from Holy Scripture, that the Chaldeans made use of them not only as symbols for Worship, but for Oracles too, and as such, were wont to consult them; it was for this, that Rachel is supposed to have stollen away her [Page 35] Father's Gods, Gen. 31. that so when he should come, and miss her husband, he might not be able to enquire of them which way to pursue after him. We read in Ezek. xxi. 21. That the King of Babylon consulted with his Teraphim, which St. Jerome calls consulting with Hierom in l. 7. in Ezek. p. 212. his Oracle, after the manner of his Country: And the Prophet Zachary x. 2. tells the People, ‘That their Teraphim had spoken vanity:’ Now how could this possibly be, had the Chaldeans worshipped only Visible and Corporeal Deities? Is not this an undeniable Evidence, that they acknowledged in the Heavenly Bodies, invisible Spirits to descend and influence their Teraphim, so as to make them speak?

Many are the accounts that may be given of these Idols, and which have been collected with much exactness Vossius de Idol. lib. 1. Selden de diis Syris Syntag. 1. c. 2. Dr. Pocock on Hosea xiii. 2. p. 725. by those great men, Gerard Vossius, Mr. Selden, &c. But I shall content my self to subjoin the Authority of one only Person, now living, and no way inferior to any that can be produced, ‘ It seems (saith he) to have been the Opinion of those Ancient Idolaters, that some spiritualities from superior Intelligences, and Heavenly Powers, did influence such Images as they made in such Figures as they thought acceptable to them, and dedicated to them; and therefore called such their Images themselves God, and thought them so, at least Deos Vicarios, Inferior Deities; Mediators between them and the Superior, and did offer Sacrifice, and burnt Incense, that they might draw down and entice (as it were) those spiritual Influences to reside on those Images, that so they might declare to them, and do for them what they desired. And elsewhere he says, That the modern Zabii Id. on Hosea iii. 4. not only pretend to succeed the old Chaldees in their Religion, but that as to their Rites about Telesms, and [Page 36] Figures, and Images, we cannot but easily believe, that they were derived to them from Ancient Times.’

And now that I mention the Zabii, I cannot but observe the wonderful acuteness of our Author in his Reflections upon them; he calls it ‘ the Dream of the Zabii;’ and he decretorily condemns all that is said by Learned Men on their behalf, merely because Page 76. ‘ He (a Person so acurately versed in all the Learning of the East) can find no Ancient Footsteps of any such people in the world;’ and that Dr. Spencer has discover'd Pag. 110, 111. for him, ‘ That the name is [...]no older than Mahomet, who call'd them Zabii, because they lay Eastward from Arabia; for so the word signifies, Easterlings.’

Thus this Author, and still, as becomes himself, he pronounces, Dictator-like, and is alway in the wrong; for the Question is not about the name of Zabii (which from henceforth must signifie Easterlings, tho the Learned Dr. Spencer had collected no less than five several significations of it, and every one supported by probable Conjectures); but about the People, or De Legib. Heb. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 1. rather the Religion; and to draw this matter out of the Clouds, and shew what an Admirable Critick we have got here, it is just as if a man should undertake to prove the Britains to be a people of no Antiquity, because they are now called. Welch, and that's but a Modern Name.

Now according to this true State of this Matter, it is evidently shew'd by that Learned Person I before Spencer ib. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. mentioned, that the Religion of the Zabii is not only of no Modern date, but is as Ancient, or even more Ancient than Abraham. Abulfeda calls it the most Ancient Religion; and Saidus Batricides attributes the Dr. Spencer ib. p. 240. Original of the Zabii, thus consider'd, in their Manners [Page 37] and Superstitions, to the time of Nachor, Abraham's De Conve [...], Indor. l. 1. c. 4. Grandfather. To this Subscribes the Learned and Inquisitive Hornbeck; and who thinks them to be the same with those that were anciently called Saboei; and Abul-Pharajius, cited by Dr. Spencer, thus confirms it, ‘ That which we certainly know of the Sect of the Hist. Dynast. D. 9. p. 281. Zabii, is, that their Profession is altogether the same with the Profession of the Ancient Chaldeans.’

As for the point before us; we are told that they Spencer ib. p. 237, 238. worshipped the Host of Heaven, supposing the Stars to be animated by Divine Understandings. Dr. Pocock adds, ‘That they lookt upon the Planets, as Mediators Not. in spec. Hist. Arab. p. 143. between the Supreme God, and Men;’ and cites ‘ Gregorius, Abulfaroeus and Sharestanius, for his Warrant; which last expresly says, That they worship Ibid. p. 146. the Bodies of the Planets, as the Habitations of the living, rational, and intellectual Substances, which they suppose to animate them.’

Now these are all plain and rational Accounts, why they should worship these Heavenly Bodies; but to talk of their worshipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, as Visible and Corporeal Deities, and that so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, is to represent their Worship contrary not only to Truth, but to common Sense and Reason too. But when Men are resolved to advance such Notions, as this Author does, they must have Proofs of the same kind. And this for the Chaldeans.

As to the Egyptians, Jamblicus informs us, That Jamblic. de Myster. Sect. 37. they worshipped indeed the Sun, Moon and Stars, as Visible Gods; but such as were compounded of Soul and Body, and they esteem'd those Planets to be Seats [Page 38] only of those Coelestial Spirits that were to take care of human Affairs.

It was a nice Question put by Porphyry, to an Egyptian Id. Sect. 1. c. 17. Priest, ‘ How the Sun, Moon and Stars could be Gods, seeing the Gods are incorporeal?’

Jamblicus answers, ‘ That the incorporeal Gods assume those Bodies, by which they become Visible.’And Syrianus asserts, The Coelestial Animals (as he calls Syrian. in Metaphys. l. 12. them) ‘to be the Images of the Maker of the World, and to communicate Sense to it.’

But it may be said, That these were Philosophers, and endeavour'd to make the best of their Idolatry. I answer, That Jamblicus declares, he delivers nothing Jambl. de Myster. Sect. c. 1. but according to the old Egyptian Books: And he delivers it for the true Egyptian Theology; That there was one Supreme God above all; next him the Demiurgus; Cap. 2. the third Principle he calls [...], and some think the Sun is meant by it, as the immediate Governor of the World. If so, there is great Reason why the Sun should be worshipped under the Names of Moloch and Baal, as being King and Lord of this inferior World. And thus neither did the Egyptians worship these Heavenly Bodies, so as to exclude all Sense of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.

If from both these Nations we pass finally to the Persians, Jac. Golius will give us the very same Account of them, viz. That the Ancient Persians did Gol. not. in Alferg. p. 20, 21. worship Coelestial Spirits, as having a particular presidency over the material part of the World.

And now, after so many plain Testimonies in this matter, were it yet needful to look into any other Countries, we should find the Case to be every where the same. Pliny pleads much for the Divinity of the Pliny l. 2. c. 6. [Page 39] Sun; but do's he believe it to be a Visible and Corporeal Deity, so as to exclude any Invisible and Spiritual Godhead? No, on the contrary, he calls it the Spirit and Mind of the World. He attributes Sense and Understanding to it; and affirms from Homer, That it sees and hears all. And indeed this is so often insisted upon by that Poet, that Eustathius from thence observes, Eustath. in Homer, Odyss. T. p. 1871. In Iliad. [...] p. 414. that the Sun was to be consider'd not only as a Luminary of the Heavens, but as a [...], a Spirit cloathed with such an illustrious Body. And in another place he takes notice of the decency of Homer, That he calls the heavenly Powers to be Witnesses of Oaths, and particularly the Sun.

 [...],

 [...],

 [...].

So little Truth is there in this first of our Authors Pretence, ‘ That the Ancients did Worship the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as Visible and Coporeal Deities, so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead.’ Let us see

2dly, Whether they who worshipp'd these Planets, P. 97. look'd upon them as the Supreme Deities, so as not to acknowledg any Divinity above them.

And here it must be confess'd, he has at least an Mor. Nevoch, l. 3. c. 29. appearance of Truth. For, as for the Chaldeans, Maimonides tells us of the Ancient Zabii, That they had no other Gods but the Stars; and that among them, [Page 40] they look'd upon the Sun as Supreme. From whence Hornbeck de Convers. Ind. l. 1. c. 4. Pocock Not. in Spec. Hist. Ar. p. 139. our Learned Pocock seems to think it not far from the Truth, to say, that possibly they derived their very Name of Zabii; Saba in the Hebrew, signifying an Host, as if one should say, [...], Worshippers of the Host of Heaven.

The same is the Account which Sanchoniathon, mentioned both by Eusebius and St. Cyril, gives of the Euseb. Praep. Evan. l. 1. c. 9. p. 30. Cyril. contr. Jul. l. 6. p. 205. c, Phoenicians, ‘ That they worshipped the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the only immortal Gods, among which the Sun was chief, called by them Beth-Samen, Lord of Heaven.’ And for the Persians, Herodotus tells us, That the Sun was their only God: [...]; Herodot. l. 1. to which Strabo and Trogus, in Justin, assent. And Hesychius, tho he rejects this, yet acknowledges him Strabo l. 11. Trogus apud Justinum l. 1. vid. Voss. de Joel. l. 2. c. 9. to be the first or supreme God amongst them [...] (says he) [...]. All which seems to be confirm'd by those Ancient Inscriptions collected by Gruterus and others, Apud Voss. loc. cit. vid. Hornb. de Con. Ind. p. 19. Elmenhorst. in Arnob. p. 27, &c. ‘DEO SOLI INVICTO. OMNIPOTENTI DEO.’ And again, ‘SOLI INVICTO & LUNAE AETERNAE.’ from all which it may be thought to follow, that (as this Author here tells us) the Gods which those Ancient Heathens worshipped, were nothing but the P. 97. Heavenly Bodies, or the Sun as the supreme Deity.

But yet if we enquire more exactly into these things, we shall find their Worship to have been much otherwise than what at first sight it appears to be; for to begin with those I last named, the Persians; and than whom none have been more famed for Adoring the Sun: Plutarch tells us that they had a Notion of a De Iside & Osiride. [Page 41] Deity whom they call'd Oromasdes, superior to him, and the Account of whom (derived to them from Zoroaster) he thus delivers to us. They believed that there were two contrary Principles, the one Good, the other Evil. The former of these they called Oromasdes, whom they also look'd upon as the [...], or Creator, as Agathias informs us; the other Arimanius. Between these two, they placed their Mithras, or the Sun, who was esteem'd by them, as much Inferior to Oromasdes, as Superior to Arimanius. To this Oromasdes, they ascribed the Creation of the Stars, and of the Good Gods, thus Plutarch: But Photius carries Photius Cod. 81. it yet a little further in his Account of a Book written by Theodorus, Bishop of Movestia, concerning the Persian Rites, he says, That they believed the first Principle of all, to be [...], and that he begat the other two, which with some little difference, he calls Ormisdas and Satan.

But not to insist upon these Accounts: We are told by a Learned Man in his Notes upon Alferganus, that Jac. Golius Not. in Alferg. p. 20. the Persians gave the Names of their Gods to their Months and Days, according to the Ancient Religion of the Persians and Magi, whereby they did believe their Gods to preside over them; it being a Principle amongst them, as well as among all other Nations of the East, that the things of this lower World are administred by Angels. The Spirit over the Sun, they called Mihrgian, from Mitro the Sun. But above all those, they believed there was one Supreme God.

Eubulus, who wrote the History of Mithras (which Porphyr. de antro Nympharum. was extant in St. Jeromes time) hath given a particular Account of the Cave which Zoroaster made in honour of another and superior Mithras, the Father and Maker [Page 42] of the World. Even Herodotus himself, whom this Author so confidently produces for his Warrant (but cites no particular passage of him) distinguishes their Jupiter from the Sun, and says, by it they understood the Herod. Clio n. 131. p. 56. whole Heaven in which the Sun is fixt; and sacrificed to him distinctly from the other. And so does Strabo, Strabo l. 15. p. 503. another of his Authors: Xenophon often mentions a [...], as a Deity superior to the Sun; especially, where speaking of Cyrus being admonished in a Dream See Dr. Cudworth. l. 1. c. 4. of his approaching Death, he tell us, that he sacrificed to his Country Jupiter first, and then to the Sun: And Plutarch brings in Darius in like manner addressing to him, [...]. Thou our Country Jupiter, or Supreme God of the Persians.

I might add here, That the same is the Opinion of See Dr. Still. Answ. to T. G. p. 110. those Persees, who stick to their Ancient Religion at this day. But these have been already collected by a very Eminent Hand. I shall conclude, therefore, with the form of that Proclamation, which Cyrus gave in favour of the Jews, and by which it plainly appears that they believed the same First and Soveraign Deity with our selves, Ezra i. 2. Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all Kingdoms of the Earth, and hath charged me to build him a House at Jerusalem. And in the next Verse, he calls the same God, The Lord God of Israel. And I hope this Author will not say that was the Sun, or any other Visible and Corporeal Deity.

I have enlarged my self the more on this part of Antiquity, because the Persians, if any, must have been found to worship the Sun, as the Supreme God. I shall be very short in other Nations, and so close this Consideration.

[Page 43] And for what concerns the Egyptians, I have already given some Account of their Theology; and we may learn from thence, how it came to pass, that the Sun (whom none of the Heathens looked upon as absolutely the supreme and highest Being) is yet so often spoken of by them as such. For as Jamblicus informs us out of See before. the old Egyptian Books, they believ'd one Supreme God above all, next him the Demiurgus, and then [...], or the Sun; whom they esteem'd the Supreme Visible God, and as he who had the Super-intendency over the visible World. To which I will add the Authority of Prophyry, and that the rather for that in his Epistle to Euseb. pr. Ev. lib. 3. Anebo, he seems to suspect that the old Egyptians look'd no farther than the Sun, Moon and Stars. But 'tis plain that this was only a difficulty, which he puts to the Egyptian Priest; since himself owns that they represented the Creator, whom they call'd Cneph, with an Egg in his Mouth, to signifie the Production of the World; and of which the Sun is but a Part.

And here I may not omit another Notion of the Egyptians, and which was not theirs only; and from whence we may again know how to understand those Porphyr. de Abst. l. 2. Sect. 34. who seem to represent the Sun as the Supreme Deity. It was a Principle in their Theology, that the Supreme God of all, is not to be worshipped by any External and Sensible thing, not so much as by Vocal Prayer, but only by pure Silence and Contemplation: But that Sacrifices and Hymns were to be made to Powers inferior to Him. Among these they esteemed the Sun, Moon and Stars to be the chief; from whence it was obvious enough to mistake, that because these were the highest Deities, to whom they paid any External Adoration, therefore they had no other superior to them.

[Page 44] And now there remains only the Chaldeans and Phoenicians, to be consider'd; and of these, both Gregarius Abulfarajus and Sharestanius, cited by our Not. in Specim. Hist. Arab. p. 143. Learned Dr. Pocock, gives us Accounts very different from that of Maimonides before mention'd; and that Judicious and Reverend Author, justly esteems the Credit of Abulfarajus, preferrable to R. Maimon's, for that he was better acquainted with their Writings, and read them in their own Language, which the other did not. And if what Sharestanius reports be true, That it was their Principle, that between the Supreme God and Us, Ibid. p. 140. there must be some Mediators; this again will furnish us with yet another Reason, why the Sun may easily have been mistaken for their Supreme Deity, because he was the principal Mediator betwixt God and them, and the Highest to which they paid any immediate External Adoration. And tho this Author is as positive, as if he had all the Evidence in the World for it, ‘ That God made an extraordinary Discovery of himself P. 76. to Abraham, as Lord of all things, in opposition to the Idolatry of his own Country,’ by which he would imply that the Chaldeans in those days did not suppose God to be the Lord of all things; yet is it (like the rest of his Book) all Imagination, without any thing to support it. For indeed we have all the reason in the World to believe that the Chaldeans had at this time the knowledg of the one true God. 1. It appears by manifest Computation, that Shem, from whom Tera and Abraham were descended, was yet living with them, and it is altogether unaccountable, either that himself should have lost the knowledg of the one true Supreme God; or that if he retain'd it, all the rest of his Family should have been utterly ignorant of it. [Page 45] 2. It is indeed said in Holy Scripture, Josh. xxiv. v. 2. that they worshipped strange Gods; but it is not said that they either worshipped them as the Supreme God, or had utterly lost all sense and apprehension of any such spiritual and invisible Godhead. 3. In all the History of God's calling Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, we do not find any thing to make us believe that God was pleased to make the discovery of himself to him, as Lord of all things, in opposition to the Idolatry of his Family. 4. It is hard to suppose, that when all the barbarous Nations, as we have seen, preserv'd the Notion of the True, Supreme God, only these Chaldeans should lose it; it was but on the other side the River, that we find the knowledg of God preserv'd in the Land of Canaan. And lastly, we do certainly know, that but two Generations after Laban, tho he did worship (as it is said of Tera) [...], strange Gods too, yet he retain'd with them a very good sense and apprehension of the Supreme God, as is plain from Gen. xxxi. where the God of Abraham is found to appear to him, v. 29. And again v. 53. he ratifies his Covenant with his Son Jacoh, swearing by the God of Abraham, as well as by the strange God, the God of Nahor.

To conclude; Macrobius, than whom none could Macrob. Saturnal. have taken more pains to shew the universal Worship of the Sun, was yet so far from thinking that it excluded all sense and apprehension of a Supreme God, that he plainly says in the beginning, that he intended to treat only of the Dij qui sub Coelo sunt, the lower sort of Worldly Gods; and in his Commentary upon the Dream of Scipio, he plainly acknowledges a higher Divinity, whom he calls the Prima Causa, & Omnipotentissimus [Page 46] Deus; The First Cause, and most Almighty God.

I shall close all with a passage of Plutarch, which will at once shew both that the Heathens had a knowledg Plutarch de Iside & Osiride. of the Supreme God amongst them, and that it was He whom they all every where Adored as such, however differing in their Manners and Ceremonies from one another: ‘ No inanimate thing can be a God to men; but they who bestow upon us a continual supply of what is sufficient for us, have therefore been esteemed Gods by us; which Gods are not different among different Nations, as if the Barbarians and Greeks, the Southern and Northern People had not the same God; but as the Sun, and Moon, and Heaven, and Earth, and Sea, are common to all, but are called differently by different men; so tho there be but ONE WORD, or REASON, ordering all those things, and but ONE PROVIDENCE dispensing all things, and the Inferior Powers which are appointed over all, having had several Names and Honours from several Persons, and by the Laws of several Countries, have been every where worshipp'd throughout the whole World.’

I pass on finally to enquire,

3. Whether these Ancient Idolaters, as is pretended, did so Worship these Heavenly Bodies, as P. 97, 100. to Worship nothing besides, and in particular so as to exclude all Notion of Heroes and Doemons.

This indeed is an Assertion worthy our Author, who as he has hitherto advanced nothing but Paradoxes, so he resolves he will not now alter his Character by representing Antiquity truly at the last.

[Page 47] I have already shewn in opposition to this suggestion, how the Egyptians had their Divi, or Canonized men presently after the Flood; and that we have some reason to believe their principal Deities, viz. Apis and Osyris, to have been such; I will now add, that the first Dynasties of Manetho, of Gods and Demi-Gods upon Earth, confirms this, and to which the old Egyptian Chronicon in Syncellus adds yet more force. St. Cyril tells us from Sanchoniathon, that not only the most Ancient Greeks, but especially the Phoeniceans and Egyptians, from whom this Superstition was derived to all others (tho our Author, ever in the wrong, P. 101. Cyrillus Alex. contra Julian, l. 6. p. 205. C. D. will have the Greeks to be the Inventors of it) esteemed those the greatest Gods, [...], who had either found out some things useful for the life of man, or otherwise deserved well of their Country. [...]. And looking upon them as their Benefactors and Causes of great good to them, they worshipped them as Gods, and prepared Temples for that purpose, and consecrated Pillars and other Ensigns of Honour to their Memory. And as the Holy Father from the same Author goes on, These they greatly worshipped, and the Phoenicians especially, dedicated Festivals unto them.

But it was not enough for our Author merely to advance a most false Conclusion concerning these Gentiles, unless he also chuse an Evidence for it that speaks the direct contrary to his Assertion: For thus it became him to keep up a just decorum between his Principles and his Proofs, that so we may be satisfied, that he values Truth alike in both.

[Page 48] ‘ This (says he) is attested by all Historians, viz. Page 100. That the old Heathen Nations worshipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons.’ And the very first he instances, in is Diodorus Siculus for the Egyptians.

But this is perfectly to astonish us, and too plainly shews that some mens assurance is without bounds, as well as without reason: For what? Does Diodorus Siculus say that the Egyptians worshipp'd only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons? This is worse than to write History out of an Invisible Manuscript; 'tis indeed to write History directly contrary to the Visible Records out of which he pretends to have taken it: For let this Author look into Diodorus Siculus, whom I would willingly hope he has never yet read, and there he will find him in his First Book, Diodorus Siculus Ed. Hanov. G. L. An. 1604. so far from what he pretends, that on the contrary, he expresly distinguishes between two sorts of Gods among the Egyptians, and discourses of them in Order: And first of the Celestial Gods, p. 10. two of which he says the Egyptians first of all had, [...], the Sun and the Moon: Having discoursed of these, he thus formally concludes his Account, ‘And this the Egyptians say concerning their Celestial Gods, and Page 12. such as had an Eternal Generation.’

And then goes on immediately on the other sort, which this Author pretends Diodorus Siculus denies Ibid. them to have had ANY NOTION OF: [...]. But besides these (the Sun and Moon, &c.) they say there are other Terrestrial Gods, Mortals indeed by Nature, but for their Wisdom and Prudence, and the benefits [Page 49] they did to mankind, endued with Immortality; of which kind (says he) were some of the Kings of Egypt. In the next page he places amongst these, our Author's Friends, Isis and Osiris, whose History P. 13. he relates: And finally, to raise his ill choice to the highest Evidence, having given a long relation of these kind of Deities, he conclud [...] as directly against P. 101. our Author's other Assertion, ‘ That this kind of Idolatry was the Invention of the vain and lying Greeks,’ as if he had been retain'd on our side, by shewing expresly how they derived this kind of Idolatry from Diod. Siculus p. 20, 21. the Egyptians, by the means of Orpheus, who had been initiated in the Egyptian Rites; and then gives us this universal Conclusion, p. 21. [...]. That the Egyptians do in general say, that the Grecians have appropriated to themselves the most eminent of their Heroes and Gods, as well as of their Colonies.

So much would it have been for our Author's Reputation, if Diodorus Siculus too, had been an Invisible Manuscript.

2. The next Author he produces, is Herodotus, who, he says, affirms the same of the Persians and Chaldeans, that they worshipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons; but concerning the former part of his Assertion, I have already shewn, that they did not worship only the Stars, but acknowledged a Supreme Deity above them; and for the latter, the very same Herodotus who says this of the Persians, in his first Book, does directly contradict his Conclusion, ‘ That this was the sense of all the old Page 100, 101. Heathen Nations, but especially that the worshipping of [Page 50] Men and Women, was the Invention of the vain and lying Greeks,’ in the very next, where he tells us that they derived their Twelve Gods from the Egyptians, Herodotus, l. 2. c. 4. p. 91. who were the first Inventors of this Idolatry.

3. The same (he says) in the next place is affirmed by Strabo and Justin, of the Arabians: Had he been pleased to produce some passages from these Authors wherein they do say, ‘ That the Arabians worship only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons,’ we should have had less cause to suspect his Assertion; Strabo indeed says that the Arabians Strabo l. 16. p. 539. worship the Sun, but that either He or Justin have ever affirmed what this Author pretends, I am yet to learn; in the mean time this I am sure, that other Authors have given us a very contrary account of them. Lucan tells us, that their only God was Jupiter Ammon, whom that Learned Critick, Gerard Vossius Lucan l. 9. v. 517. does not without reason suppose to have been Cham, whose Eldest Son Chus, as I have before shewn, first planted himself there. Arrian in his History of Alexander's Expedition, says that they had two Gods, Arrian de Exped. Alep. l. 7. p. 486. [...], or the Heaven, and [...], or Bacchus; and that 'twas this encouraged that great Conqueror to invade them, that he might make himself a Third God amongst them; and this may be well enough consistent with the other Account, if what some Learned Men suppose, be allow'd; that these were their own proper Gods, whereas Jupiter Hammon, was rather the Deity of the Ammonites, among whom his Oracle stood, and to whom they only sent Ambassadors to consult upon occasion, it not appearing that the Arabians had any Temple for him in their own Country: So that here too our Author is mistaken, for that the [Page 51] Arabians had other Gods than the Stars, and were not Vossius de Idol. l. 1. c. 26. without all Notion of Heroes and Doemons.

4. His Fourth Instance is in the Ancient Germans, Caes. Com. l. 6. and of them I confess Caesar does say what he pretends, but then it is to be observ'd, that in the very same place, he utterly overthrows all the use this Author can be supposed to make of it, viz. to shew, ‘ That all the old Heathen Nations worshipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes or Demons;’ seeing in the very same place, he says of the Ancient Gauls, that they worshipp'd such kind of Gods as he denies any of the Heathen did, and that with a Superstition so like that of some of his Acquaintance, that I cannot forbear taking notice of it: ‘ The Gauls, says he, are very superstitious, and therefore if they fall into any dangerous distemper, or are concerned in War, or in any other danger, they straightway sacrifice, &c. For this purpose they have their particular Gods; Mercury to prosper them in their Journeys, or help them in their Traffick; Apollo to cure them in their sickness; Minerva to find out any Artificial Works; Mars for War, &c.’ And this our Author could not but know, since in the very Passage to which he refers, he opposes the Germans to them; the Germans (says he) differ much from this custom (viz.) of the Gauls, which he had just before recounted; for they esteem them only for Gods whom they see, and by whom they are manifestly help'd, the Sun, Vulcan, and the Moon.

But I have yet more to except against this instance; for however Cesar came to be so misinformed, the Ancient Germans had other Gods, even such as this Author denies to all the Ancient Idolaters. Tacitus mentions Hist. l. 6. Cap. 64. [Page 52] Mars as the chief God of the Tencteri, a Nation Cap. 9. bordering upon the Bhine; and in his Book de Moribus Germanorum, he speaks of Hercules as another of their Deities. That they also Worshipped Mercury, we learn from the same Author, whom in their Language they called Gota, or Wota, as Gotefridus Viterbiensis in his Chronicon observes, from whence also he supposes, that their word Got, signifying God, is derived; Vos. de Idol. l. 1. p. 240. tho in this, other Learned Men dissent from him.

And lastly, the same Tacitus mentions yet another De Moribus Germ. c. 2. God more Ancient than all these, the first Founder of their Country, Tuisto, whom they worshipped, with his Son Manus; and these, some think, were no other than Gomar, and his Son Thogorma or Aschenar, by whom Germany was peopled after the Flood, tho Vossius rather supposes them yet of a greater Antiquity, believing Tuisto to be Adam, and Manus, to whom also Tacitus assigns three Sons, Noah, by whom the World was again established after the Flood.

4. And this may suffice for his particular Authorities. His next are universal; for he says Eusebius in his Book de preparatione Evangelica, has shewn this to be the sense of all the Old Heathen Nations, Page 100. as may be seen in his Collections of their several Opinions, where he proves, ‘ That the Ancient Heathens only worshipped the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes or Demons.’

Good God! What can be done with such a Man as this? Eusebius has proved that all the Ancient Heathens worshipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons, which was a mere Invention of the vain and lying Greeks: And yet has this [Page 53] very Eusebius quoted Diodorus Siculus, for his account Euseb. praep. Evan. l. 2 c. 1. of the Egyptian Theology. He distinguishes with him their Gods into Coelestial and Terrestrial: Of the first, he Treats in his first Book from that Author; of the second in his next. The very Title of his Chapter is, Lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 45. An Epitome of the Egyptian Theology, and how it passed from them to the Greeks. In the beginning of it, he speaks how ‘ their Gods, who had been mortal Men, were for their Benefits they did to Mankind, and for their Wisdom, made immortal Deities.’ He exemplifies this Pag. 45, 46, 47, 48. in a large account of their Mythology; and then concludes expresly with his Author, [...]. That the Greeks had appropriated to themselves, the principal Hero' s, and Gods of the Egyptians. And yet this is the Author that has shewn at large, how all theold Heathen Nations P. 100. worshipp'd only Stars, without any Notion of Hero' s and Daemons.

His other Author is Macrobius, who he says, has proved it of all the Ancient Idolaters, that they worshipped the Sun as the Supreme Deity. He should have added to make good his Conclusion, and that so as to exclude all Notions of Hero' s and Daemons. P. 100. But this Macrobius never undertook to do: And I have before shewn, that in the very Book of his Saturnals, here mention'd, He was so far from shewing that they worshipp'd the Sun as the (absolutely) Supreme Deity, that in the beginning of his Discourse, he expresly restrains it to the Dii duntaxat qui sub Coelo sunt, or Sub-Coelestial Deities: And in his Comment upon Scipio's Dream, he acknowledges above the Sun and Heaven, many other Gods; viz. 1. An Eternal Psythe, the Creator both of the Heaven, and the [Page 54] Sun. 2dly, A perfect Mind or Intellect, and (as he calls him) Omnipotentissimus Deus, the most Omnipotent of all Gods.

5. He has two Authors whom he produces; our own Learned Selden, in his Book De Diis Syris, and Gerard Vossius, in nothing inferior to him, who have proved ‘ all the Idols mention'd in Scripture, to have been so many Appellations of the Sun, whom the Ancient Idolaters believed to have been the Supreme God, and Creator of the World, (and therefore of himself too, for he is part of it) as Baal, Baal-Peor, Bel, Molech, Baal-Zebub, and Mythras;’ tho I doubt this last was taken from some Invisible Manuscript of the Bible, for I do not remember that I have ever met with it in any of the Editions that are extant of those sacred Volumes.

But to let this pass too; Did Mr. Selden then, and Gerard Vossius in good Truth, undertake to shew, that all the Ancient Idolaters worshipp'd the Sun as the Supreme God, so as to exclude all Notion of Daemons and Hero's?

1st, Mr. Selden gives only a Critical Account of the Syrian Deities; and in several of them shews, that others at least have believed them to be somewhat else than the Sun.

2dly, Gerard Vossius is so far from favouring this Man's pretences, that on the contrary 'tis he, who has spent his whole first Book of Idolatry, to give an Account of the Ancient Hero's, that were consecrated by the Gentiles into Gods; 'Tis he that interprets the Egyptians Osyris to be Mitzraim; the Beel of the Chaldeans to be Nimrod; the Tuisco of the Germans, Gomer, or perhaps Adam. In short, he shews [Page 55] this sort of Idolatry to have been introduced among the Heathens the very Age after the Flood, even before God called Abraham from Uz of the Chaldees.

And thus have I consider'd this Author's Pretences to Antiquity; and I think I may say, there is nothing but Falseness and Vision, in all his Notions and Authorities. Upon the whole, I shall beg leave very briefly, to Conclude as to the Nature of Idolatry.

I. That seeing all these Ancient Idolaters, did acknowledg one Supreme, Invisible and Spiritual Godhead, their Idolatry did not consist in worshipping the Heavenly Bodies, so as to exclude all Sense and Appehension of any such thing.

II. That seeing they believed the Sun and other Heavenly Bodies, to be the Vehicles only of immaterial and spiritual Substances, who had the Superintendency over the Affairs of this lower World, and were to be applied to as Mediators between God and Them; their Idolatry did not consist in worshipping any Visible or Corporeal Deities, as the Supreme God, so as to exclude all Sense and Apprehension of a Spiritual and Invisible Godhead, Superior to their Deities. By Consequence,

III. That either this, which our Author here lays down, is not (as he pretends) the true and only Notion of Idolatry; or if it be, none of those Ancient Nations were Idolaters.

IV. Tho I dare not presume to establish true and only Notions in this Case; yet from what has been said, I think we may reasonably Conclude their Idolatry, to have consisted especially in these two things; [Page 56] Either, 1st, That they worshipp'd the true God by Corporeal and Visible Symbols; or that 2dly, together with the true God, they worshipp'd other inferior Deities; whether Intelligences, (which they supposed to reside in the Heavenly Bodies) or Daemons. And that by consequence,

To Worship the Supreme God in any Corporeal Representation or Image whatsoever; or to pay Divine Worship to any Created Being, whether Spirit or separate Soul; either as having the Power over this inferior World to Administer things in it, or as Mediators between the Supreme God and Us; this is, if not the only, yet at least a true Notion of Idolatry.

[Page 57]

CHAP. IV.

Of the Notion of Idolatry under the Law; and that it did not Consist in the giving the worship of the Supreme God to some Created, Corporeal or Visible Deity as supposing it to be the Supreme God.

THis was the next point I proposed to examine, and our Author thus delivers his Opinion of it. ‘That according to the Law, Idolatry is giving Page 80. the worship of the Supreme God to any created, corporeal, or visible deity, or any thing that can be represented by an image, which nothing but corporeal Beings can, and to suppose such a Being Pag. 81. the Supreme Deity.’

‘And though there may seem to be two sorts of it. First, either to worship a material and created Being as the Supreme Deity, or Secondly to ascribe any corporeal Form or Shape to the Divine Nature; yet in the result both are but One; for to ascribe unto the Supreme God any Corporeal Form, is the same thing as to worship a Created Being, for so is every Corporeal Substance.’

‘This is, I say, the TRUE and ONELY Notion of Idolatry.’

This indeed is Great and Magisterial, and would almost dispose a man to think, that there should certainly be at least something of Truth, where there is so very much confidence. But we have had [Page 58] already sufficient reason to suspect him, where he seems least to suspect himself. Here I cannot but wonder that a person of his Character should send abroad such Notions into the world for the Dictates of Holy Scripture, as are evidently contrary to the Tenor of it; unless he thought our Nobility and Gentry as little acquainted with that Book, as some of their Guides are said to have thought it fit they should be.

To make a man an Idolater according to the Idea this Author has given of it, two things are required, which I much question whether they ever yet concurred in any considerable number of men in the world, viz.

1. That he give the worship of the Supreme God to some Created, Corporeal, and Visible part of the Universe.
2dly, That he give this worship to it as esteeming such a Being to be the Supreme God.

I will not be so rude as to enquire by what Rules of Discourse he infers all this from the Second Commandment, that because God there forbids the Israelites to make any ‘ Graven Image, the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath or in the water under the Earth; to bow down before it and worship it;’ therefore, this Image must be the similitude of some visible and Corporeal deity; and that Deity be supposed to be the Supreme God, and be worshiped as such. He that can infer this from the Second Commandment, would doe well to tell us how he does it. But not to be importunate here. If this be the true and onely Idolatry, according to the Law, I would desire to know;

[Page 59] First, Seeing the Law was deliver'd by the Ministry of Angels, and these were no visible and Corporeal deities; what if the Jews had paid Divine Adoration to them? would this have been Idolatry according to the Law? If it would, I should be glad to know what part of his definition it is that makes it to be so?

Secondly, I have before shewn that the ancient Heathens, the Egyptians, Chaldeans, &c. though they worshiped indeed the Sun, Moon and Stars; yet they neither believed them to be the Supreme God nor the Image of the Supreme God; nor that they were onely visible, and Corporeal deities: They look'd upon them as the vehicles of Celestial Spirits, which dwelt in them; and as such they pay'd their Adoration to them. Now then was this Idolatry by the Law, or was it not? If it were not, how came the Israelites to be charged with Idolatry (according to this Author's own principles) for joyning with them in this Service? If it were, how will this agree with his true and onely Notion of Idolatry? Seeing they worship'd these Heavenly bodies neither as the Supreme God, nor so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible deity. But,

Thirdly, To come to the Holy Scripture it self we read 1 Kings 11. that Soloman in his old age turned away his Heart, and worshiped [...] —Vers. 4. Collat. cum Jos. 24. 2. Pag. 93. other Gods, viz. Ashtoreth, and Milcom, and Chemosh, and Moloch, i. e. according to this Learned Man's Notion, the Sun, and Moon, and I suppose he will not deny that herein he committed Idolatry. But now can any one believe that Solomon who had been so well instructed in the knowledge of the Lord [Page 60] God of Israel; he to whom God had twice himself 1 [...]ngs 3. 5.—9. 2. appeared; and whom he had endu'd with wisedom above all the men upon the Earth; finally who had not so long since built him a magnificent Temple at Jerusalem; where the Service of the true God was continued, even whilst he worshiped the Gods of his Wives. Can any one, I say, be so stupid as to believe that this Solomon gave the worship of the Supreme God to the Sun and Moon, as supposing them to be the Supreme deities, and that he did not onely not worship but likewise not so much as believe the onely supreme God? And yet this we must say, if we will allow this Author to have given us the true and onely notion of Idolatry.

Besides it is certain that whilst he was engaged in his Idolatrous worship, God did not utterly forsake him, but admonished him of it and threatned him with the loss of his Kingdom for serving strange Gods, which is inducement enough to conclude that he had still an apprehension of the True God. If Solomon did immediately upon this admonition give over his Impious worship, it shewed evidently that he retained the knowledge of that God who had twice appeared to him. For to suppose that he had quite lost all sense and apprehension of him just when he fell to Idolatry, and just recovered some sense of him upon this admonition, and that all the while between, he believed his visible and Corporeal deities, or some one of them to be the Supreme God, and had no sense of him who is truely so, is to make Solomon almost such a man as I before shewed our Author's Idolater to be according to the meaning of his words: I am [Page 61] sure it is not to make him one of the wisest men that ever was in the World. But supposing that Solomon went on for some time after this to worship his strange Gods, yet he must now at least have recovered some Sense of the true God, it being this admonition in all likelyhood, that sooner or later brought him to Repentance: And then our Author's Principles do from that time that he was admonish'd, acquit Solomon of all Idolatry, though he went on to serve the Gods of his Wives.

It is a shame to run this matter any farther, and I make no doubt but that I have all men of Sense whether of ours, or of the Roman Church with me in this matter against our Author. But that I may not seem onely to destroy his Idea, without fixing any other in the room of it; I now proceed to observe, That we find two sorts of Idolatry mention'd in the Old Testament; and (such is the misfortune of this positive man,) both of them utterly destructive of his true and onely Notion of it, viz.

I. The worshiping of the true God, by a material Symbol or Representation.
II. The worshiping of other Gods, than the God of Israel, and that whether it be so as,
1. Utterly to forsake the true God, and serve others onely, Or
2. To worship other Gods together with Him.

1st. That according to the Holy Scripture, it was esteemed Idolatry among the Jews, to worship the true God by any material Symbol or Representation.

[Page 62] And of this I shall desire no better proof, than those very instances which this Author so much insists upon, for the establishing of his Notion, viz. those of the Golden Calf, and of the Calves of Dan and Bethel. That the Children of Israel did commit Idolatry in the worship of these is on all hands agreed; And yet that both these were designed as Symbols of the true God, and not of any visible or Corporeal deities, will I think appear evident, almost to a demonstration, from these following reflexions.

1st. That it is altogether incredible that the ‘ Israelites in either of those Cases, could so soon have forgotten the true God, as to give divine worship to visible and Corporeal Beings, as supposing them to be the supreme Deity.’

If we consider their Circumstances when they worshiped the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. It was but a very few days since God had made a very great discovery of Himself to them at Mount Horeb, when he gave them the Law, and asserted Himself to be the Jehovah, their God which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, Exod. 20. 1.

And in the Case of Jeroboam's Calves, the knowledge of God in which they had been bred up; a continued publick Service of Him at Jerusalem; the Feasts and Sacrifices, and other Ceremonies which they observed in Obedience to his Command, the very Seal of his Covenant which they carried about them in their Flesh, not to say any thing of that Temple which Solomon had so lately built unto him; all these must certainly have made too deep an Impression upon their minds, to permit them so suddainly to fall away into such an utter forgetfulness of [Page 63] him, as to worship visible and corporeal deities as the supreme God, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of him who really is the supreme God. Such an Ignorance as this is hardly to be found, even among those Infidels that have never had any revelalation of the true God at all made to them: But that Men who had once been instructed in the knowledge and worship of him, should so suddenly fall off from both, as they must here have done according to this Author's true and onely Notion of their Idolatry, this I think is as incredible, as the notion it self, which he would prove by the supposition of it. But,

2dly. That the people did not fall into any ‘such Apostasie, but design'd in those Calves to worship the God of Israel, is evident from the Characters given of that deity whom they served by them.’

For as to the Golden Calf, we read Exod. 32. 4. that when it was set up they cry'd out, ‘This is thy God O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, and Aaron built an Altar before it, and made proclamation and said, to Morrow is a Feast to the Jehovah or the Lord.’

And so Jeroboam in the very same manner, having set up his Calves in Dan and Bethel, 1 Kin. 12. 28. ‘ It is too much for you (said he to the people) to go to Jerusalem; Behold thy God O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.’ Now may I desire this Learned Author to tell us. 1. Where in Holy Scripture do's he find the name JEHOVAH, or the LORD attributed to any other but the true God? Or if we should suppose the people to be Ignorant in this Case, yet could Aaron the High-priest be so forgetfull, as not to remember that this was that [Page 64] peculiar name which God assumed to himself, Exod. 6. 3. and of which our Author himself takes notice, p. 80. 81. 2. Whom should they then, and Jeroboam mean after by the Jehovah that had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, but him who at the delivery of the Law, appropriated this Character to himself, Ex. 20. 1. and who was under that Title worshiped by the Jews at Jerusalem where his Temple stood, and whither all the Tribes were wont to go up to worship him. It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Behold thy God, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.

3. Had Jeroboam hereby designed to set up a new God amongst them, how came it to pass that He used no Arguments with them at all as to that matter, but merely remonstrated to them the trouble of going up to Jerusalem to worship? Never sure were people easier persuaded out of their religion than the ten Tribes, if our Author thinks, that the distance of place made him chuse rather to return to the Idolatry of Egypt, than to be at so much pains to worship the true God.

3dly. But all this will farther appear, in that it is altogether incredible that the Egyptian Gods should be the God that delivered the Israelites out of the hand of Egypt; and sent all those Plagues upon their own servants. But especially that thick darkness under which they lay for three days, seems to be a very odd Effect for the Sun to have wrought. But to quit such Suppositions; Two things there are by which it undoubtedly appears that the Israelites in these Cases, could not have design'd any return to the Egyptian Idolatry. For,

[Page 65] 1. As to the Golden-Calf, it is said that they offer'd burnt offerings, and brought Peace offerings unto it. And Jeroboam sacrificed unto the Calves which he had made and Consecrated Priests with a bullock and seven rams to their Service.

Now all this was most agreeable to what God required in his Service: but so utterly repugnant to the Superstition of the Egyptians that our Author himself confesses God commanded their beasts to be offer'd in Sacrifice to him, in contempt of the Sacredness in which they were held by those Idolaters. He tells us ‘That to offer a young Ram was the greatest affront that could be put upon the Egyptians, who held a Ram not onely in religious esteem, but the most sacred of all their Holy Animals. And particularly upon the account of the sacredness. of these Animals, the Egyptians (says he) NEVER OFFER'D any of their Species in Sacrifice. In so much that when Pharaoh bid Moses go sacrifice to the Lord in the Land of Egypt, Moses answers that they durst not doe it, because Exod. 8. 26. it would be an Abomination to the Egyptians, so that they would stone them: that is, it would be a prophaneness and open affront to the Religion of the Egyptians if they should offer in Sacrifice those very Animals that the Egyptians had consecrated to the Honour of their Gods. And for the same reason the Israelites were also commanded to Sacrifice young-Bullocks, as well as Rams; for that next to a Ram the Bullock was the most Sacred of all the Holy Animals.’

Our Author is very large on this Argument; but I think what I have here offer'd, is little less [Page 66] than a demonstration against him as to this point; that the Jews in the Worship of their Calves did not return to the Idolatry of Egypt, seeing they offer'd such Sacrifices before them as by his own confession were an open affront to the Religion of the Egyptians.

2dly. It is evident from Holy Scripture, that the Idolatry of these Calves was a distinct Idolatry from that of worshipping the Heavenly Bodies; and according to the Estimate which God himself put upon it, much less heinous. And this we find in both the instances before mention'd. For as to the Golden Calf, Stephen says Acts 7. 41, 42. ‘That they made a Calf in those days, and offer'd Sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their hands; THEN God gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven.’ Now here must be a manifest difference allow'd between these two, seeing the one is represented as the punishment of the other, and what a ridiculous paraphrase would it make of these words, to suppose that they Adored the Sun in both; viz. ‘That for worshiping the Sun, under the Symbol of the Golden Calf, God gave them up to worship the Sun under the name of Moloch.’

As for Jeroboam's Calves, we find this also distinguish'd from that of worshiping the Heavenly Host. For thus the Idolatry of Ahab was aggravated against him; 1 Kings 16. 31. That ‘ as if it had been a small thing for Him to walk in the Sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat; He went and served Baal, and worshipped Him.’ Now if the Idolatry of the Golden Calves was the worship of the Sun too, (as this Author would have it,) then this passage concerning Ahab must be expounded in this [Page 67] manner; ‘That as if it had been a small thing for him to worship the Sun under the Calves, He even proceeded to such a height of Impiety, as to worship the Sun under the name of Baal.’ But 4thly, and to conclude this Point; That under the Calves they worshiped the true God, is evident from the whole Course of the History of the ten Tribes, and of the State of Religion under them. We find God as well revealing himself to these as to the other two. His Prophets came amongst them, and though they often inveigh'd against their Altars, yet never charged them as deserters of the God of Israel.

Nay, in many Cases we find those who worshiped the Golden Calves, yet accepted by God as zealous in his Service. I shall instead of many, offer onely one Example, that of Jehu. 2 Kings 10. 16. who as he was expresly design'd by God to be King over Israel, so he there bids Jehonadab, ‘come and see his Zeal for the LORD.’ Now the zeal he there meant was in destroying of Baal out of Israel. This he most Effectually did, as may be seen at large in that Chapter; and for the doing of it, had the Throne confirm'd by God to his Posterity for four Generations. I shall therefore make bold to conclude, that Jehu was no worshipper of Baal or the Sun, but of the God of Israel, whose Service he promoted, and for whom Elijah not long before had appeared in opposition to this very Baal, 1 Kings 18. 21. How long (says he) Halt ye between two opinions, if the Lord be God follow him; but if BAAL then follow him. And yet Jehu still worship'd the Golden 2 Kings 1 [...]. 29, 31. Calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan; He observed not to walk in the Law of the LORD [Page 68] God of Isral with ALL HIS HEART, seeing he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam which made Israel to Sin.

I conclude upon the whole, that that cannot be the true and ONELT Notion of Idolatry which this Author pretends, viz. ‘The giving the worship of the Supreme God to some Created Corporeal or visible Deity, as supposing it to be the Supreme deity,’ since (as we have now seen) to worship even the true God, under the worship of some Corporeal Symbol or representation, as the Israelites did in these Calves, is in the account of the Holy Scripture to commit Idolatry. I go on,

2dly. To shew: That to worship any other God, besides the God of Israel, whether it be so as to forsake the true God, or but onely to joyn the worship of any other with him; This is also according to the sense of Holy Scripture, to commit Idolatry.

Now this will appear from the Examples of this kind of Idolatry, that occur in those Sacred Writings; I shall mention onely an Instance or two in either kind. And,

1st. That to give divine worship to any other than to the God of Israel, though they do not worship that Being as the Supreme deity, but on the Contrary worship the true God together with it, is according to the Censure of the Holy Scripture Idolatry.

This was the Case of Solomon in some of the last years of his Life, For however, at the persuasion of his Wives; he neglected very much the Service of [Page 69] the true God, yet we do not find that he utterly forsook either the Worship or the Acknowledgment of him. On the Contrary, the Holy Scripture plainly enough insinuates, that he still served the God of Israel, and his fault was, that he did not serve him onely, but worshiped Moloch, and Chemosh and Ash [...]reth, and Milcom together with him. For thus speaking of his Idolatry it says, 1 Kings 11. 4. That his heart was not perfect, with the Lord his God: and again ver. 6. That he went not fully after the Lord as did David his Father, i. e. He did not wholly give up himself to serve the Lord, and him ONELT as his Father had done.

Another, and a more notable Instance of this we meet with in 2 Kings 18. Where the Kings of Assyria having led the ten Tribes into Captivity, and planted some of his own Subjects in their Countrey, we read ver. 24. that God sent ‘ Lions amongst them to destroy them,’ because they neglected to worship ver. 25. him. Upon this the King of Assyria ordered one of the Priests of Bethel to go up and teach them, ‘ the manner of the God of the Land; then one of the ver. 27. Priests whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they 28. should fear or serve the Lord. Howbeit every man made Gods of his own, and so they feared the Lord and served their own Gods and their Graven Images.’

Such was the State of these Samaritans, and their practice will furnish us with two very usefull Remarks upon this Occasion. For 1. Since these Samaritans were punished for not worshiping the God of the Countrey, i. e. of the God whom the Israelites [Page 70] were wont to worship; it follows that the God of the Israelites was not the same with the God of the Samaritans: And therefore since these are supposed to have worshipped the Sun, it follows that the Israelites did not worship the Sun; but some other and him the true God.

2dly. That these Samaritans at the same time that they committed Idolatry in serving their own Gods, did also both know and fear the true God, and therefore their Idolatry could not consist in giving the worship of the Supreme God, to their created and visible Deities, as supposing them so to be. But their Sin was that they gave divine worship to their own false Gods, after they had been instructed in the worship of the true, and joyned both the one and the other in their Religious Service. But,

2dly. As it was therefore thought to be Idolatry, to worship any other being together with God, so must it much more have been esteemed so, to forsake the true God, and worship any other Corporeal and visible Deity.

An Instance of this we seem to have in Ahab, who 1 Kings 16. 30. seduced by Jezabel his Wife, did evil in the sight of the Lord, above all that were before him, and what this was we find in the next verse, viz. That not content with the Idolatry of Jeroboam, in worshiping God after an Idolatrous manner, he utterly forsook him and served Baal, and built a Temple and an Altar for him.

Now that Ahab had utterly laid aside the Service of the true God, seems evident upon two accounts, 1st. Of the Great persecution that he suffered his Wife 1 Kings 18. 4. [Page 71] to make of the Prophets of the LORD, 2 Kings 18. 4. When as Obadiah tells Elijah, he hid them in Caves from her fury. 2dly. From the miserable State of the Kingdom, in that time as we find Elijah reporting it even to God himself, 1 Kings 19. 14. ‘ The Children of Israel, says he, have forsaken thy Covenant, thrown down thy Altars, and slain thy Prophets with the Sword, and I even I onely am left, and they seek my Life to take it away.’

Indeed it is not to be doubted, but that the Idolatry of this time was very deplorable. But now wherein did it consist? Did Ahab worship Baal or the Sun as a Corporeal Deity, so as to exclude all Sense and apprehension of a Superiour, Spiritual and Invisible Godhead? This is not credible, seeing throughout his whole Reign we find him corresponding upon all occasions with the Prophets of the LORD, and therefore sure he could not be without some Sense and apprehension of him.

And what I have now shewn in the Example of Ahab I will yet farther confirm in another, that will perhaps be liable to less exception, and that is the instance of Manasse King of Judah. This King not content to forsake the God of his Fathers set up his Idolatry in the very Temple of the Lord; but yet neither had he lost all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and Invisible Godhead. He had been bred up by his Father in the knowledge of the true God, the Prophets of the LORD still continued to 2 Chr. 33. 10. put him in mind of his danger, and no sooner did he feel the punishment of his Rebellion, but he returned to his God, ver. 12. ‘ When he was in affliction he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself [Page 72] greatly before the God of his Fathers.’

And thus have I taken a short View of the several sorts of Idolatry which occur in the Old Testament, and from thence it appears, that this sin is consistent not onely with the acknowledgment but even with the worship of the true Supreme Deity, and therefore that it is a very false account, which this Author has here given us of it, viz. ‘ That Idolatry is neither more nor less than the Worship of the Pag. 74. heavenly bodies, the Sun, Moon and Stars or any other visible and Corporeal Deity as the SUPREME God; or as he elsewhere defines it, that Idolatry is the giving the worship of the Supreme God to Pag. 80, 81. any Created, Corporeal or Visible Deity, and to suppose such a Being the Supreme Deity is the ONELY, TRUE and PROPER IDOLATRY.’

But before I quit this point it may not be amiss to observe yet one instance more of Idolatry, (I am sure generally supposed at least to be so) and which I cannot tell whether it may properly be reduced to any of the foregoing kinds, and it is that of the Brazen-Serpent to which the Children of Israel burnt Incense in Hezekiah's time, as we may see 2 Kings 18. 4. This pious King observing their superstition caused it to be broke into pieces, and we find this recorded among the Rest of his Enterprizes, for Rooting Idolatry out of his Country. ‘ He Removed the High places and brake the Images, and cut down the Groves, and brake in pieces the Brazen-Serpent, that Moses had made: for unto those days the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it, and he called it Nehushtan.’

[Page 73] I do not believe that even this Author himself will have the confidence to say that this was an Image of either the Sun, Moon or Stars, or of any other Visible and Corporeal Deity, or that the people Worshiped it as supposing it to be the Supreme God, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and Invisible Godhead, and yet the learned men on both sides confess, that here was Idolatry committed, though it may be the people were far from thinking that they did so, and then it will remain ‘that to give any appropriate Acts of divine Worship to any Creature, whatever sense men have of the thing to which they give them, or their Intension be in so doing, is nevertheless esteemed by God to be Idolatry.’

[Page 74]

CHAP. V.

The objections against the Notion of Idolatry laid down in the foregoing Chapter consider'd, and refuted.

SInce I first began the examination of this Book, I have been under some temptations to doubt whether the Author of it really designed to serve the interest of those of the Church of Rome in the writing of it, or by a seeming defence of their Idolatry, intended onely to shew how little he could say in their behalf, and to give us an occasion by Answering his Arguments to convince the World upon what just Grounds we advance that Charge against them.

It does indeed a little startle me when I consider how base a thing it is, and unbecoming the Character of a Christian, to put on onely an appearance of Zeal in behalf of a Party, to whom it must be confess'd he has been highly Obliged, and whom therefore if he could not serve, yet at least he ought not to have betray'd. But then it seems to be something worse, I do not now say for a Christian, but for a Bishop that has not yet quitted either the Revenues or the Communion of the Church of England, nor retracted the subscription he once made of this very charge of Idolatry against those for whom he would now be thought to plead; to revile that Church which nourishes him, and whose Opinions we must [Page 75] suppose him to hold, till we see him as formally renounce them, as ever he once subscribed to them. And if on the one hand he seems to shew a great deal of bitterness against us in his Expressions, yet on the other, it must be confessed his Arguments are so extremely civil as not to carry so much as the appearance of Reason in them. And few of the Romanists have ever undertaken this cause, that have not said a great deal more in their own defence, than this Amphibious Advocate has offer'd for them.

But whether this Author designed to expose them or us or himself onely, as I am not much concern'd to know, so neither will I undertake to determine. This is plain, that had he meant to ridicule the Church of Rome never so much, he could not have taken a more effectual way of doing it. And whether our Nobility do, or can, or ought to understand Pag. 9. Transubstantiation or no, yet I am sure men of much meaner capacities than those Honourable Personages for the most part are, will be able to discern the truth of this remark. And that he must indeed have thought them not onely uncapable of judging Ibid. of Abstruse propositions, but even destitute of Common sense and reason, if he hoped to impose such discourse as this upon them for Arguing.

Now to make this appear, I shall need onely desire the Reader to observe with me these two things:

I. That the position he undertakes to defend is, that the notion of Idolatry in holy Scripture is neither MORE nor LESS than this. ‘ The worship of the Heavenly bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, Pag. 74. or any other visible and Corporeal Deity, as the [Page 76] Supreme God, so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible Godhead.’

II. That to prove this, it is not sufficient to shew, that this is Idolatry, or that the Jews did sometimes fall into it: But it must be shewn that they never committed any other Idolatry; and particularly that this was the Idolatry of the Golden-Calf, and of the Calves of Dan, and Bethel. For though the worship of the Heavenly Bodies, (as the Author represents it) were one sort of Idolatry, yet if the Scripture has charged the Jews with this Guilt for any other worship, wherein they did not adore the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other visible and Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, it will then follow that this, which is alledged, cannot be the ONELY Notion of Pag. 80, 81. Idolatry, and it must be false to assert, that Idolatry according to the word of God is neither MORE Page 74. nor LESS than this.

Now from these two remarks onely, it will presently appear what slender pretences some men will take up with to run out into the most excessive clamours against those whom they oppose. For, 1st. As to what he so largely insists upon, as if there were something very important at the bottom of it, viz. That the Jews were a people prone to Idolatry, Pag. 83. and that the design of God throughout the whole Law, was to preserve them from it, though it be a great truth, yet it is certainly in this place a great impertinence. Seeing neither do we deny this, nor can he make any use of it, in establishing his true and onely notion of Idolatry. For I hope he did not intend to argue thus, The Jews were very prone to Idolatry, and God intended his Law to restrain them [Page 77] from it; Therefore Idolatry is neither more nor less, than the worship of the Heavenly bodies, the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the Supreme Deity.

2dly. It will from hence appear, that all those passages of Holy Scripture, where God charges the Jews with worshiping other Gods, with serving the Hoast of Heaven, &c. conclude nothing, seeing it is confessed that they did fall into this Idolatry too; but that does not hinder but that they may have fallen into some other besides; and we are assured that so they did; nay, that they were suffered by God to fall into this, as a punishment for having committed the other, so St. Stephen expresly tells us, Acts 7. 41, 42. They made a Calf in those days, and offered Sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their hands. THEN God gave them up to worship the Hoast of Heaven.

Nor is it any more to the purpose, 3dly, to prove Pag. 99. that the Scripture says, that to worship the Sun and Moon is Idolatry; unless he could find out some Text where it adds, that they who worshiped the Sun and Moon, worshiped them as visible and Corporeal Deities with the Honor due to the Supreme God; and so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible Godhead, and that this is the true and onely Idolatry. But now this which was the onely point in question, he has prudently forgot, and whilst he lives will never be able to prove it.

In short if there be any thing more than noise and shew in what he has said, it must be in his Account of the two points before consider'd. viz. The Golden-Calf and the Calves of Dan and of Bethel: For as for the Brazen-Serpent and the honor paid to that, he is as silent as if there had been no such thing in his Bible.

[Page 78] For the former of these, the Golden-Calf, he expatiates very much, but sure never were Words put together with less pertinence than here. The thing to be proved is, that the Jews intended by this Calf Pag. 84, 85, &c. to worship the Egyptian Apis or Serapis or Osyris, that is, the Sun as the Supreme Deity.

But how does he go about to prove this. First, He learnedly shews that the Apis whom the Egyptians worshiped was not the King of the Argives, nor Son to Jupiter. And this I think may be foreign enough to what we are seeking, which is the design of the Jews in setting up the Golden-Calf. Secondly, He assures us 'tis much more propable that the Greeks borrowed the very word Apis from the Egyptians. Pag. 87. And thereupon he takes occasion to make a Learned reflexion upon our Translation of Jer. 46. 15. which it may be was one of the passages for which he has been wont to censure our version with as little Modesty as Understanding. For to say no more of it than this, if we have rendred this Verse amiss we have erred not onely with all the Learned Versions the Syriack, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and even the Vulgar Latin it self, but with the Original Hebrew too; and in all which there is this onely Difference, that what they call Valiant in one Number, we render Valiant Men in the other. And all this is still as impertinent to the Point in hand, as any thing can well be imagined to be.

And yet from this, Thirdly, He boldly infers, ‘ That the Calf must have been the Symbol of some Ibid. Egyptian Idol, and that the people thinking themselves betray'd or deserted by Moses after fourty days absence forced Aaron to restore to them the Symbols [Page 79] of their old Gods to go before them, instead of this new God that seemed to have deserted them.’ And this indeed is pertinent, but it has another terrible defect, viz. that it wants proof. In short the onely reason he has to offer for what he says, is this; That all their other worship seems to have been forced and constrained, but this is free and voluntary: And that there could be no other Ground of that great joy they shew'd on this occasion, but that they were restored to the Exercise of their former Religion. And to this I have many things to reply.

First, That this is at best but a plausible presumption, and such as if compared with the reasons I have alledged to the contrary, will not be thought to deserve the name of an Argument. For,

Secondly, Whereas this Author (always positive Pag. 88. if that might pass for proof) says, that there could be no other ground of this joy than that they were restored to the worship of their old Gods; I would fain know how he comes to be assured of this? I am confident were it fit to establish a Principle of this moment upon the sandy Foundation of our own Conjectures, one might be able to find out other reasons for it. For why might they not have had just cause of rejoycing to behold a Symbol of their own God set up amongst them, as well as if it had been a figure of an Egyptian Idol? what if despairing of Moses's return to them, as they design'd this Symbol to supply his place, to direct them in their journey, and to be an Oracle at which they might continually enquire God's pleasure, so they testified some transports of joy upon the erecting of it? Nay but,

[Page 80] Thirdly, What if we should say that we cannot discern any such extraordinary joy, more than what the Solemnity of a Feast Dedicated to the JEHOV AH for the setting up of a visible Symbol of his presence amongst them might very well warrant? The case in short was this; Moses delay'd to come down from the Mount, the people were impatient to continue on their Journey towards the Promised Land; but how to learn God's pleasure they knew not, and for this purpose they cryed unto Aaron, that he would make them a God to go before them; such as very probably they had seen in Egypt, and which might serve instead of an Oracle unto them. This Aaron makes, and for the Dedication of it appoints a Feast unto the Lord, and offers such Sacrifices as God indeed required, but which this Author himself confesses were an Abomination to the Egyptians: And upon the occasion of this Feast it was that it is said, They rejoyced in the works of their hands. Acts 7. 41. And again, The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play, 1 Cor. 10. 7. And what this joy was we find particularly expressed, Exod. 32. 19. They were singing, and dancing before the Calf. Now all this was very natural on such an occasion; and what ever sin they committed in it, yet I cannot see any necessity there is to conclude that there could be no other ground for such a joy than their returning to the Idols of Egypt. And the Arguments I have before given clearly shew that whatever it [...] was, it could not be that, seeing that the whole Solemnity was consecrated to the JEHOV AH, and performed in a manner utterly inconsistent with the Egyptian Idolatry.

[Page 81] As for the Calves of Dan and Bethel, our Author has (if possible) yet less to say against their being the Symbols of the God of Israel, than he had in the former Case. He produces onely the Learned Visorius Pag. 93. to prove that Monceius was mistaken in imagining that Jeroboam set up these Calves in imitation of Solomon's Cherubim. But now this is not our question, whether the Calves were made in imitation of the Cherubim, but whether the God of Israel, or the Gods of Egypt were worshiped by the Ten Tribes at Dan and Bethel? And yet without saying one pertinent word, he concludes, with as good Assurance as if he had made a demonstration of it; ‘ So that it is plain that these Calves were set up by him as Idols, or Symbols of a new or separate Religion from the Tribe of Judah.’

One thing indeed there is that may seem to deserve an Answer, and that is, why the people for three whole years did not comply with him, if he kept up the old Religion that had been established under David and Solomon? But now this is a gross Mistake in a person that would be thought so Learned in the Scriptures. The people did comply very readily with Jeroboam, and were far from refusing for any such time as is pretended. And that passage to which this Author must, I suppose, refer 2 Chron. 11. 17. is spoken not of the Israelites, but of the Kingdom of Judah; namely, that for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon.

And now let any reasonable man consider what a pitifull Vindication is this, to support so much Clamour and confidence? And how must all men of sense, even in the Roman Communion despise such trifling [Page 82] after what they have seen their own Dr. Godden perform upon this very subject? The truth is we ought to give that Learned Man his due. He has said what was to be said to excuse his Church from Idolatry; and his performance shews that he wanted nothing but a better Cause to have acquitted himself to every one's satisfaction. But he had a hard Mistress to serve, and he was not unsensible of it. But for this new Advocate his Arguments are as much short of the Doctor's, as his assurance is greater. There the D. of Paul's found something worthy his consideration, but here is nothing but a great noise, and a great deal of Anger and Scorn, without any just occasion, though in such a Case the Cause ought to be very plain. In short, I cannot imagine any other effect this Discourse can possibly have than to raise the Credit of Dr. Godden's; and after whom it is indeed a bold undertaking for another to engage: for could this Point have been defended, he was the Person that of any other seems to have been the most likely to have done it. But he too has fail'd, and because his performance was good, considering the matter of it, the worth of the man argues the badness of the Cause, and the impossibility of defending it.

[Page 83]

CHAP. VI.

That the Account which has been given of the Notion of Idolatry under the Law, is equally applicable to the Case of the Christians now. The Objection from the Cherubims answered: and the whole concluded.

I Am now come to the last point to be considered, and it is indeed so necessarily consequent upon the foregoing, that if what I have before said concerning the Notion of Idolatry under the Old-Testament be allowed, this cannot be denied: viz. That as the Jews retaining both the Apprehension and worship of the truely Supreme God, were nevertheless guilty of Idolatry, for worshiping him after a Gentile manner, so may Christians be now, and therefore that the Church of Rome may justly be charged by us as Idolatrous, though we do not pretend in any wise to say either that she worships the Sun, Moon, and Stars, or any other visible and Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, or that she has lost all Apprehension of a Spiritual and invisible Godhead.

I shall not much enlarge my self upon the proof of a Consequence, both in it self very plain, and which this Author is so far from denying, that his whole Book is built upon the Supposal that he makes of the truth of it; It is indeed the onely thing wherein he seems to have any reason, nor can any thing be more [Page 84] just than for the understanding what Idolatry is to search the Holy Scriptures, and see what is there declared to be so.

As for the New-Testament, we find the Apostles earnest indeed in their Cautions against Idolatry, but we do not see that they any where defined the Nature of it; They spake as to men who understood these things, and were acquainted with the Notion of Idolatry, and needed onely to be warn'd against falling into it. They give not the least intimation that it was not the same then, it had ever been esteemed before, or that Christians were to think any otherwise of it, than the Jews had been wont to do under their Law. All we can conclude from their Exhortations to the Christians to avoid it is, that Christians were capable of falling into it, and by consequence that Men who have not lost all Sense and Apprehensions of a Supreme, Spiritual and Invisible Godhead may for all that become Idolaters.

So that to know what the Scripture Notion of Idolatry is, we must with this Author search into the History of the Old Testament, and from thence I have shewn two Cases wherein Men may without excluding either the Sense or Worship of the true God, yet justly be charged with this Crime. I. By worshiping the true God, by any Corporeal Image or representation. II. By giving divine Worship to any other besides God, though they do not onely retain the Notion, but even the Adoration too of the true God together with it.

It were an easie matter to enlarge upon both these points here in the Application of them, but my design now is not to accuse any particular Church of this [Page 85] Guilt, but onely to shew in General what Idolatry it self is, and that the Church of Rome though it both knows and worships the true God yet may do it in such a manner, and give such worship to other beings, as justly to deserve the censure which has been brought against her, for any thing this Author has said to clear her of it.

Indeed as to the former of these ways whereby I pretend a Man may be guilty of Idolatry, viz. By worshiping God by any Corporeal Image or Representation, he has offer'd somewhat in prejudice of it. For did not God himself command two Cherubims to be pag. 125. 127. made, and used in his worship? and were not these Sacred Images set up in the place of worship, and does not this shew that God was so far from forbidding the use of Images in his Service, that he would not be worshiped without them?

But, to this I answer that God did indeed command two Cherubims to be made and placed at the two ends of the Mercy Seat; But that they were put there for any use to be made of them in his Service, or for any other purpose than to over-shadow the Mercy Seat, from whence God had promised to deliver his Oracles unto them, this we utterly deny.

Hence we find that when God had directed Moses how to make this Throne of his glory, Exod. 25. 22. he commanded him, To put the Mercy Seat above upon the Ark of the Testimony, and there (says he) I will meet thee, and I will commune with thee from above the Mercy Seat from between the two Cherubims which are upon the Ark, and in the VIIth. of Numbers ver. 89. It is said, That when Moses went [Page 86] into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to speak with God, he heard the Voice of one speaking to him, from off the Mercy Seat, from between the two Cherubims. Now here we may plainly see what the Object of Divine Worship was, not the Cherubim but the Invisible Majesty which spake from between them, and communed with Moses. The Mercy Seat it self was but the place where God had promised to meet them; The Cherubim were the Ornament, and covering of that, But neither the one nor the other of these were the Object of Divine Worship, or Figures or Similitudes of that God who alone was adored there.

And this the Learned Men of the Church of Rome confess no less than we, Aquinas having objected against Aquinas 12. Q. 102. Art. 4. ad 6. the Second Commandment, That the Cherubim were put in the Tabernacle and in the Temple: Answers that they were neither put there as representations of God, nor for any Worship to be paid to them. And explaining the Ark and all that belong'd to it as a Mystery, he says, That the Holy of Holies represented Heaven; The Ark was the Foot stool of the Divine Majesty; But that because God was Incomprehensible to any Creature, propter hoc nulla Similitudo ejus ponebatur, therefore was there no Similitude of him placed there the better to denote his Invisibility. As for the Cherubim he says they represented the multitude of Angels attending upon his Throne; and there was therefore more than One, that all worship might be excluded from them, to whom it had been commanded that they should worship onely one GOD. So far was Aquinas from thinking—that these Images were any Representations of God, or that any worship was to be paid to them, and the same has been [Page 87] confessed by others of no less note of that Church, Vasquez Lorinus, Azorius and even by his own Visorius, whom he has before alledged, but is not pleased to take notice of on this occasion.

But here our Author supposes he has something to boast of. For if we may believe him our own great Defender of this charge has given up the Cause as to this matter, and confessed that it was lawfull to worship TOWARDS an Image, but not to give worship pag. 130. to one. This is I fear a wilfull perverting of that Learned man's words. The Question was about the Jews Adoration towards the Ark, and the holy of Holies. His Answer is this; That they onely directed their worship towards the place, where God had promised to be signally present among them, which (says he) signifies no more to the worship of Images, than lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth when we pray, because God is more especially present there. What is there in all this to allow it to be lawfull to give worship TOWARDS an Image, but not to it? Nay he plainly deni'd that there were any Images for worship there, or any worship directed towards them. But there was a Symbol of God's immediate presence as on his Throne between the Cherubim, and this appointed by God himself, and thither the people directed their worship, and I desire this Author, if he can, to tell me what there was more in this, than there is in directing our worship towards Heaven when we pray. And whether according to his true and onely Notion of Idolatry, he may not as well say that we worship Apis or Baal or Maloch, i. e. The Sun, Moon, and Stars, in this, as that the Jews worship'd the Cherubim by that?

[Page 88] Nor is there any more Sincerity in what he calls his Second reply, and in which he represents him as allowing that the Cherubim might be Adored once a year by the high Priest, but not exposed to the people to worship. For in that very place he denies the Cherubim to have been any representations of God, But says that his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat; and adds in plain words, That they were never intended for objects of worship. And yet this Author insults and triumphs upon this, in a very glorious manner, as if the Cause had been gained by it. Had that Learned Man said that the high Priest adored the Cherubims once a year, then indeed there might have been some Colour forthose sweet Expressions of shameless shifts and pretences. But this he utterly deny'd; and he might as well have made him confess it to be lawfull to worship Images, though he disputed against it, and have brought him in allowing that 'twas no Idolatry so to do, as to represent him confessing that the high Priest adored the Cherubim once every year. But what defence can there be against such Adversaries, as will make men confess what they reject, and affirm what they deny; and yet when they have done, dare to appeal both to God and the World for their Sincerity?

And now from what has been said, I will venture to conclude in behalf of our Church, and of those Learned men of our Communion, who have been concern'd in this Controversie, that the Notion of Idolatry which both the one Teaches, and the others have Defended, is after all this Author's Clamours against it neither new nor unlearned, nor Fanatical, nor Anticatholick, nor Antichristian, nor any of those ill things he pretends; [Page 89] but the truly Ancient, Learned, and Catholick Notion of it. The Notion which God in his Holy Word has Established; Which the Jews received; The Apostles taught, and the Christian Church till these latter days, that mens interest prompted them to seek out to themselves new Inventions, constantly maintained. It was by this Notion that St. Paul censured the Worship of the Golden Calf as Idolatrous, and condemned the Gentile World of the same crime, Rom. 1. 21, 23. That though they knew God, yet they did not Glorify him as God, but changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an Image made like unto Corruptible Man, and to Birds, and fourfooted Beasts and creeping things.

This was the Notion that made our fore-runners in the Faith, chuse rather to suffer Martyrdom than to give Religious worship to any Creature whatsoever. And whatever this Author thinks of those Primitive Saints, I am confident he will find but very few besides, that will believe they Sacrificed their Lives to their Folly and Passion, and died onely to defend a mistaken Notion of Idolatry.

It was this Notion upon which the Ancient Fathers condemned the Arians of Idolatry; They did not believe Christ, to be either the Sun or Moon, or any other visible or Corporeal Deity, or the Image, of the Supreme and invisible Godhead. They believed him to be the most Divine and excellent Being after God, onely they denied that he was Coëternal and Coëqual with the Father; and yet those Holy, Orthodox Fathers censur'd them as Idolaters, because supposing him to be a Creature they worshiped him as a God.

[Page 90] And upon the very same Notion it is that the Reformed Churches have ever looked upon the worship of Images and Saints in the Church of Rome, as deserving the very same censure; And I cannot but wonder that this Author should charge the Invention of this Notion upon a person now living, which he must needs have known both our Church and the Writers of it have constantly asserted, before any of this Generation ever saw the light.

I should now add somewhat in Answer to those bitter reflexions he has made upon the same Reverend Person, whom he seems to have resolved at any rate to run down: But though the Charge be severe, yet is it so inartificially laid, as plainly shews there was no Achitophel in the Contrivance; And I will onely say that whoso shall consider the little Credit he had in those days, to which this Author refers, with them whom himself looks upon as the Contrivers and Managers of that Plot which he would be thought to lay to his Charge, will soon discover a great deal of ill will utterly ruined, for want of a little skill in the management of it.

But we ought not to wonder, if he who in the beginning of his Discourse flew out into such violence against all the Abettors of this Charge as a company of Fanatick, Anti-monarchal Villains has in the Close thought fit to fix some particular marks of his Displeasuere, upon the last and most Learned Assertor of it. This was the least he could do to make amends for the misfortune of a approving and Licensing that very Book which was written in Defence of this Charge. And it is well for us all that there are some [Page 91] men in the World, who as Ulpian tells us can do no injury, Sive pulsent sive concivium dicant.

How far this Author may be reckoned in the number of these I shall leave the final result of his Judgement in this case to satisfie the world, viz. That Idolatry made the Plot, and the Plot made Idolatry, and the same persons made both. For whether this can be the result of any man's Judgment that is well in his Head, I shall leave it to those who have no Distempers there to determine.

But he has delivered himself, as he will answer for his Integrity to God and the World. To this Judgment I now leave him: And though I fear it be too late to provide against the sentence of the Last, yet I heartily pray he may consider what he has done, and how he will stand in Judgment before the other.

FINIS.

Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers.

THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, truly Represented; in Answer to a Book intituled, A Papist Misrepresented, and Represented, &c. Quarto.

An Answer to a Discourse intituled, Papists protesting against Protestant Popery; being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants: And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse. Quarto.

An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences, between the Representer and Answerer. Quarto.

A View of the whole Controversie, between the Representer and the Answerer; with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply; in which are laid open some of the Methods, by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists. Quarto.

[Page] The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation, compared as to Scripture, Reason and Tradition; in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist, the first Part: wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation, in the Books called, Consensus Veterum, and Nubes Testium, &c. Quarto.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, and Transubstantiation, compared as to Scripture, Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist, the Second Part: Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable, to Scripture and Reason, and Transubstantiation repugnant to both. Quarto.

An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part, in the first Dialogue, between him and his Lay-Friend.

Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality: With an Answer to the Eight Theses, laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation; in a Book that came lately from Oxford.

Sermons and Discourses, some of which [Page] never before Printed: The third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury. Octavo.

A Manual for a Christian Souldier, Written by Erasmus, and Translated into English. Twelves.

A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book, whereby one (who hath a good Voice and Ear) may without other help, learn to Sing true by Notes. Design'd chiefly for, and applied to the promoting of Psalmody; and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts, with Directions for that kind of Singing.

A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By John Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, in Octavo, Price Three Pence.

A Discourse against Transubstantiation. In Octavo. Price Three Pence.

The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began, as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book. Quarto.

A Letter to a Friend, Reflecting on some [Page] Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G.

The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend, against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholick Letter. In four Dialogues. Quarto.

A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy, D. D. and late Minister of St. Lawrance-Jury, Lond. Jan. 7th. 1685/6. By W. Sherlock. D. D. Master of the Temple.

A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome. In Answer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters. By William Sherlock, D. D. Master of the Temple.

A Preservative against Popery: being some Plain Directions to unlearned Protestants, how to Dispute with Romish Priests. The first Part by William Sherlock, D. D. Master of the Temple.

…

[Page] THE Present State OF THE CONTROVERSIE BETWEEN THE Church of ENGLAND AND THE Church of ROME; OR, An Account of the Books written on both sides. In a LETTER to a Friend.

Imprimatur, Guil. Needham, May 7. 1686.

LONDON: Printed for Tho. Basset, James Adamson, and Tho. Newborough, 1687.

[Page 3]

THE Present State OF THE CONTROVERSIE BETWEEN THE Church of ENGLAND AND THE Church of ROME, &c. In a LETTER to a Friend.

SIR,

IN pursuance of my promise made to you, to send you such an account as you desire, of what has been lately published here, with reference to the Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome; I now give you the trouble of this Address.

It was you know the design of the Clergy of this City some years since, to reduce the matters in debate with the Dissenting Party, to a certain number of [Page 4] Cases, and in the plainest and most inoffensive manner that they could, to shew them how little cause they had to separate from our Communion upon any of those pretences, which were said to be the cause of Separation. I need not tell you what their Performances were, for you have read their Tracts, and are therefore able to judg, from your own knowledg, concerning them. As to the Success which they have had, we that live here, have not only observed that our Churches have been more charged since, but do also know, that several for whose sake those Discourses were principally intended, have declared themselves abundantly satisfied, both with the strength and temper that appear'd in them.

When this first undertaking was finished, their next resolution was to run through the principal Points of difference between the Papists and us after the same manner, that those who had not the liesure or opportunity to consult longer Books, might here in short be led to a true knowledg of the Controversie, and stand the firmer in the truth, by being better acquainted with the grounds of it. It was also hoped, that many who had hitherto been detained in their Errors for want not so much of a Will to embrace the Truth, as of Light to discern it by, might possibly take this opportunity of seeing with their own eyes, and discover that way of Error in which their ignorance or their prejudices had so long detained them.

But before they had finished this their second undertaking, the sudden and unexpected Death of our late Royal Sovereign broke their measures, and from thenceforth they thought fit to be of the Defensive side, and for some time published no more Discourses of this kind, but waited to see whether the Gentlemen [Page 5] of the Roman Communion would make any Attaques upon us, or be contented that the Controversie should rest as it was.

But because you desire an Account of all that has been done of this nature, I will let you know how far they advanced in their design, and give you a Catalogue of their Tracts, tho not just in the order as they came out, yet in that order which seems to have been design'd, and is most natural for you to peruse them. And in the first place, as a preparatory to all the rest, there is a little Tract intituled,

I. A Perswasive to an ingenuous Trial of Opinions in Religion, &c.

and which they who know the unreasonable prejudices of those of the Roman Communion, as to any free enquiry, cannot doubt to have been exceeding necessary. To which I must add,

II. The difference of the Case between the separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.

For both these Tracts, as you may easily discern, were design'd to remove such Mistakes and Prejudices as are common to Papists and to Dissenters, and were therefore thought to be a proper transition from the first undertaking to the second.

Then follow those Treatises that relate to the Questions about the Church, and for which our Adversaries of late seem the most concern'd.

[Page 6]

III. A Discourse of the Unity of the Catholick Church maintain'd in the Church of England.

IV. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England, made by the Papists, asking of us the Question, Where was our Religion before Luther?

V. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, being an Answer to three Questions,

1. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true sense of Scripture?
2. Whether a Visible Succession from Christ to this day, makes a Church which has this Visible Succession, an infallible Interpreter of Scripture?
3. Whether the Church of England can make out such a Visible Succession?

VI, VII. Two Discourses concerning the necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome.

Another sort of general Questions necessary to have been premised to the particular Disputes, do refer to the principle on which we are to proceed in the management of them.

And to this purpose there were published the two following Tracts,

[Page 7]

VIII. A Discourse about Tradition, shewing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what Tradition is to be rejected.

IX. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith, with respect especially to the Romish pretence of such a one as is infallible.

Thus far they proceeded upon general Points, and no farther, tho more were design'd to be debated, as one may see by the dividing and managing of the Arguments which they finished, and as I my self have been told by some that were best able to inform me.

But as these general Discourses were coming abroad into the World; the particular Disputes were prepared, and those that follow were published.

X. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship; or, a Scripture Proof of the unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the Supreme God.

XI. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome, especially as compared with those of the Church of England, in which it is shewn, that whatsoever the Romanists pretend, there is not so true Devotion among them, nor such rational provision for it, nor encouragement to it, as in the Church established by Law amongst us.

[Page 8] XII. A Discourse concerning the Invocation of Saints.

XIII. Of Prayer in an unknown Tongue.

XIV. Of Auricular Confession, as it is prescribed by the Council of Trent.

XV. A Discourse against Transubstantiation.

XVI. Of the Adoration of the Host.

These are the Tracts that were published in pursuance of that Design I mention'd before, since which time, our Divines have kept themselves, as I told you, upon the Defensive Part, their whole Work having been little else than to answer such printed Books, or Papers scatter'd about in writing, as the Romanists have from time to time sent abroad.

I need not tell you that at length we were surprised with a Book published by some Romanist, which has made no little noise all over the Kingdom, and has been the occasion of many more: But that which surprised us was this, that there was not the least notice taken in it, of those Discourses now mentioned, and not long before published in behalf of the Church of England against the Church of Rome.

The discreet Persons of that Communion acknowledged they were above Contempt; and it was the general perswasion of our Communion, that they would not admit of any just and reasonable Answer; and for this very reason, some appearance of an Answer [Page 9] was generally expected to save, if it might be, the reputation of the Roman Cause, or at least of the Ability of our Adversaries to maintain it, unless they should think fit to let the Controversie lye still, which if they had done, I believe our Divines had thought themselves obliged by the example, not to publish new Books upon it, but to content themselves with that diligence in their Parochial Stations, that might be sufficient to countermine any secret endeavours to draw People from the Communion of this Church: But it seems our Adversaries thought fit to begin a Dispute, and that without taking the least notice of what had been so lately done on our side: Which tho we wondred at, at first, yet we have given over wondering at it now that we are something used to their way of Controversie. For some of them (as the Representer knows) can without blushing for the matter, drop the Defence of Arguments, and the maintaining of Disputes begun by themselves; and yet they write on still, as if the Cause went for them, and they had not made one false step in the management of it.

But I must now give you a particular account how these Gentlemen began, and in what manner they carried on that Assault, of which it is possible they may have had some cause to repent them since.

The first that led the way, was one that calls himself R. L. with a Book full of Cunning and Dissimulation, intituled ‘A Papist Misrepresented and Represented.’ In which he runs through most of the Points in Controversie between us in a two-fold Character; in [Page 10] one of which he pretends to shew that which Papists are commonly misunderstood to be; in the other, that which, as he says, they really are.

The real design of this Method, you must know is this. Popery in its proper colours is so unlike Catholick Christianity, that it is in vain ever to hope to promote it, if it appear in its own shape. It is necessary therefore, that the Religion, like the Prophet, should come to us in Sheeps cloathing, and the Heresie to be made look as Orthodox as is possible. Some things are denied, others mollified, all disguised, and a double benefit thereby obtaind: Popery is to be received as a very innocent, harmless thing; and the Protestants, especially the Ministers and first Reformers represented to the World, as a sort of People that have supported themselves by Calumnies and Lies, and made a noise about Errors and Corruptions, which are no where to be found, but in their own Brains or Books, but which the Church of Rome detests no less than We.

But this Trick was quickly discovered, and the design laid open by an excellent hand, in a Treatise which he called

I. The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented; in answer to a Book intituled, A Papist Misrepresented and Represented, &c.

In which the Author passes through every Point of his Characters, and truly states the Question between us, and gives a short, yet sufficient account of our Reasons against their Tenets.

[Page 11] I shall not need enlarge my self to give you any account of this Controversie which has been lately summed up, to satisfie the World, that this Author has taken as little care to defend his Characters, as he shew'd Sincerity in the first drawing of them. The Books themselves that have passed on both sides are these,

Reflections upon the Answer to the Papist Misrepresented, &c.

II. A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants, being a Reply to the Reflections, &c.

Papists protesting against Protestant Popery; in Answer to a Discourse intituled, A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants.

III. An Answer to a Discourse intituled, Papists protesting against Protestant Popery, containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom' s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the Articles of the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images.

An Amicable Accommodation of the difference between the Representer and the Answerer, in return to his last reply.

[Page 12] IV. An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer.

A Reply to the Answer to the amicable Accommodation.

To which has lately been returned,

V. A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer, with an Answer to the Representers last Reply.

This is in short the Sum of what has hitherto pass'd in this Dispute, the Misrepresenter not having yet taken any notice of this new Antagonist, who it's thought by some, has summ'd up this Controversie so effectually, as to put an end to it. As for his second Part which he acted afterward under the Character of the Catholick Representer, I shall have occasion to give you some farther account of it when I come to those Pieces of our own Divines that have either been the occasion of, or the Answers to his Sheets and half Sheets.

[Page 13] The next that appeared upon the Stage, was the famous Bishop of Condom, the great Abettor, if not Founder of this new Sect of Expositors of their Religion, and the occasion of his appearance this. Our Misrepresenter being answer'd the first time, as has been said by the Learned Author of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented. The new Method of Expounding and Representing, i. e. Dissembling the good Old Doctrine of the Church began to sink; and the People who were principally design'd to be seduced by it, generally discovered the Snare that had been laid for them. It was now too late to recede into the old Popery again. The Misrepresenter had not only forsaken, but in good measure Anathematiz'd that, and profess'd that they abhorr'd it no less than we; and therefore to own it now, was in effect to confess that we had reason to reform those Errors which themselves were once ashamed to abet: So that what remained, was to put a good face upon the matter, and see if the Original Pattern, the pompous Exposition of this Bishop, with the long Relation of an Advertisement, and the glorious Trains of Briefs and Approbations before and behind, might not possibly support the undertaking, and keep up the credit of their new Popery, which must otherwise necessarily fall.

Such was the occasion, or rather the necessity of publishing this Bishpps Book, which you have seen under the Title of,

[Page 14] The Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in matters of Controversie.

To which there have been two Answers made, of one of which there has been no notice taken by the other Party: 'Tis called

I. An Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, &c. with Refletions on his Pastoral Letter.

The only Excuse I can think of for the other Parties not replying to this Answer, was because another came out before it, which is yet but a lame pretence, since the Book is not only a direct and full Answer to all that was offered by the Bishop of Condom, either in the way of Exposition or Argument, but has also a considerable variety of useful Reflections, which perhaps made it more advisable to let it alone, than to go about to consult it. The other is,

II. An Exposition of the Doctrine of [Page 15] the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Faith

This Answer was so exquisite in all its parts, that it could not fail of gaining a general esteem; but the suddenness in which it was dispatch'd, rais'd the admiration of all. And that which made it yet more taken notice of, was the preface prefix'd to it, in which the worthy Author (who had the advantage of informing himself of these matters, by living some time in France) gives a large account of this Bishops Exposition, and of a suppress'd Edition, which it seems had carried the Trick a little too far, and therefore was not permitted to see the Light, together with some other matters of Fact that very much laid open the Design.

But to those particulars wherewith you are already well acquainted, I beg leave to add another piece of History which I have learn'd concerning this matter.

You must understand then that the project of Converting the French-Protestants, which has been more or less carried on ever since Henry the Fourth's time, was more especially agitated at the conclusion of the [Page 16] Pyrenean Treaty almost 30 years since: The Spaniards being apprehensive of the French Power, and willing to divert it by an undertaking, which they thought might find them work at home, and not leave them at leisure to disturb their Neighbours. It was resolved there, at the same time that the Civil Power began to oppress them, the Church should offer some Terms of a Reunion to them, and all possible endeavours be used to encline them to accept it: To this end Money was secretly given to several of the Ministers, to favour this Project; but the Design being discover'd by a Minister of Bas-Languedoc, the Synod of Nismes, Ann. 1662. and that of Cevennes being assembled not long after, appeard so vigorously against it, that they were forc'd to lay aside the Design for some time. About Ten years after it broke out again; but the Ministers of Languedoc and the Synod of the Isle of France opposing it, as those of Nismes and Cevennes had done before, it came to nothnig.

Now this second attempt was dated precisely at the same time that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition began to see the Light: And that which convinces me that it was purposely contriv'd for the advancing this Design is this, that the Marshal de Turene, who was this Bishops Convert, and the principal Defender of this Exposition, was also at the same time the great Undertaker for this Project. 'Tis well known how to this end he sent a Person through the several Provinces of France, with private Instructions to those Ministers, which he thought he could most influence to close with it: [Page 17] And in effect he did obtain several of their Subscriptions, whom when the Protestant Synods would afterwards have censur'd for their so doing, the Kings Commissioners took their parts, and would not suffer them to do it.

And here I ought not to forget one particular which may be worth your knowledg, and that is this. Among others to whom the Marshal sent, one was the famous Monsieur le Blanc, he was at that time Prisoner at Sedan, and the moderation that he shewed in stating the Controversies of Grace, Free-Will, Predestination, &c. gave them great hopes that he might easily be drawn in to the favouring their Project of an Accomodation with the Church of Rome, by meeting one another half way. The Agent brought him a Letter from Monsieur de Turene to this purpose, but was mightily surprized, when instead of what he expected, hee found him stiff and inflexible, and absolutely resolved not to relax any thing. Indeed the very attempt that was made upon him, so disturbed him, that he could not be satisfied with his private resentment of it, but in the year 1673. published a Disputation to them, that the re-union which they had attempted with the Lutherans made nothing to one with the Papists, which he there shews to be impossible.

This with what you have read in the Preface to the Tract, which has occasiond this Digression, may seem to satisfie you, what the Quality of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition is, and what intreague [Page 18] it was designed to serve. You have the Politiques of the Clery of France, in which Book you may see the very Propositions that were made for this Accommodation, and which are a pure Original of New Popery, and so conformable to the French Expositor, and our English Misrepresenter, that you cannot doubt but that they all designed to carry on the same Design.

For the little value that is to be set upon the Approbations prefix'd to it: The Author of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, has I think said enough to satifie you: To which you may add, that in the late Divisions between the Jansenists and their Opposers in France, the Books on both sides have been very solemnly approved, and the Jansenists above any. And in the present Case, either the Approbations of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition signifie nothing, or those heretofore prefix'd to Cardinal Bellarmines Works, and their other learned Controvertists are become super-annuated; for all these cannot possibly stand together.

But I run too far from my business, and must return to our Expositor, who was not long without an Answer, entituled

[Page 19] IV. A Vindication of the Bishop of Condom' s Exposition, with a Letter from the said Bishop.

I will not tire you with giving my own sense of the Performances of any whose Titles I send you, and whose Books I leave you to judg of when you read them. I will only observe to you, that we are very much beholding to the Bishop, with confessing the particulars wich his Adversary had charged him with, and which there are many that before did hardly believe. And for his Excuses which he makes, the truth is, they are so little to the purpose, that he has gain'd but little credit even among his Friends by them. And if this be as they say, the first notice he ever took of any Adversary that appeared against him, he would do very well to have a care of setting out Vindications of his Works, at which he appears to be so horribly unlucky.

But for all this you may recur to the Reply that has been made by the same Author who wrote the Exposition of our Doctrine in his second undertaking, called

V. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of [Page 20] England, against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator.

In which besides an Answer to the Bishops Letter, and a particular review of all the several Articles in debate, you will find in the Appendix some Pieces that will gratifie your Curiosity, relating to the Point of the Invocation of Saints. And in the close of all, the Epistle of S. Chrysostome to Caesarius, which had been indeed very basely suppress'd by by them, but is now happily recovered, to the everlasting reproach of those who have so often and confidently urged the Authority of that Father for to support their new Heresie of Transubstantiation, and which he here in as plain words speaks against, as if Peter Martyr had not only first produced, but as some of them have said, had written the Epistle for him.

And thus far this Controversie has proceeded, which at present stops here, though the Reverend Father who writ the Vindication, had prepar'd us to expect that it should not long do so, But we now begin to think, that both the Vindicator and the Representer, are sensible that their design will not bear being driven on any further.

[Page 21] But tho we have done with the business of the Exposition, yet we must not so soon part with the Bishop. For since the Publication of that, these new Poperymen, have favour'd the World with two other of his Pieces, the

1. A Pastoral Letter to the New-Converts of his Diocess. The
2. A Treatise of Communion under one kind.

The latter of these which had drawn in French an admirable Answer heretofore, from that exact Historian, Monsieur Larroque; which 'tis said, the Bishop himself thought too strong to be answer'd with any advantage; has also not long since produced us a Treatise very worthy your perusing in our own Language, intituled

A Discourse of the Communion in one Kind, in Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux, of Communion, &c.

And in the two Discourses, I mean the Bishops and the Answer, you may expect to find whatever Artifice and Insincerity can do on one side, or Truth and Learning reply on the other.

For what concerns his Pastoral Letter, I have seen several Answers to it in French, and one particularly very accurately done, called Reponse à Monsr. L'Eveque de Meaux sur sa lettre Pastorale; which if you think fit, I will send you: I do not know that any one has particularly undertaken it here, any farther than what was done [Page 22] by the Author of the second Answer to his Exposition, who made some Reflections upon the Pastoral Letter too.

In this Letter, there is one notable passage; and the account of which, because you may not perhaps meet with elsewhere, I will run the hazard of another Digression to offer it you here. In the 3d page, there is set in Capital Letters, this notable Declaration, Not one of you hath suffer'd Violence, either in his Person or Goods. And page 4. So far, says he, have you been from suffering Torments, that you have not so much as heard them mentioned; I hear other Bishops affirm the same: You are returned peaceably to us, you know it.

I doubt not but this Passage a little surprised you, as it did all the World that ever read it; being so contrary to all the Accounts that have come from thence. Indeed His Majesties Brief alone may serve for a Confutation to so shameful an Assertion, and shew us how little we can rely upon those Gentlemen, when they talk to us of things that were done 12. or 14. years ago, that make no scruple of dealing thus with us in a matter of Fact, in the sight of the World, before whose Eyes these things are acted: Nay, to tell the very Protestants themselves, that they had suffer'd no Violence, that they knew it, when the contrary was as evident to them, as that their Host is not the Body of a Man; and no doubt the Bishop might as easily be able to prove the one, as with all his fine Words perswade the other.

But I will open to you the Mystery of this. You must know then, That, as far as I can learn, the Dragoons were not lodged in the Bishoprick of Meaux; but yet they came up to the very Gates of the City. Being thus in sight of their Danger, and expecting every minute when it would fall upon them, the Bishop thought [Page 23] that certainly now, if ever, they would be disposed to compliance.

With this advantage he invites them to a Conference, appears more moderate than even his own Exposition; and desires very little more of them than what any one might venture to subscribe. Such advances backt with so good an Authority as the Dragoons at the Gates, could not but prevail upon them; they subscribed as he desired, and so the Dragoons were dismissed without doing them any farther mischief.

In this state, they continued for about three months, when the Bishop began to Visit his Diocess, and especially, those parts in which there were the most Protestants. His carriage upon this review was very different from what it had been before. He was now no longer the free, relaxing, good natur'd Bishop of Meaux, that held the Conference with them, but rigid as any little Emissary. He threatned those, who refused to go to Mass, and assist at the other Offices of the Church; and tho several told him that this was not what he had promised them, yet he took but little notice of it. Mons. de Soguier, Lord of Charmoi, and Cousin to the late Chancellor Soguier, and several others more obstinate than the rest, both had the Dragoons quarter'd upon them in his Diocess, and are at this day Prisoners upon this Account. This I have read in some late French Pieces, which have taken notice of it; but the main of what I send you, is an extract of a Letter, which was written to a Friend of mine out of France; and who being himself not long since there, confirm'd to me several of those Particulars, as to this Bishops Diocess.

I presume you have heard how this Bishop, who in his Pastoral Letter dated March 24. denies, as you see, [Page 24] that there has been any thing of violence used to the Protestants in France, did in another Letter to a Person of Quality that had escaped thence, and whom he desired to draw back if possible to his Country, and his Church, both own and justifie the Persecution. This Letter was dated but Apr. 4. after the other. This Honourable person had such indignation against him for his double dealing, that he has permitted the Bishops Letter to him, to be printed; and which agrees as well with his Pastoral Letter, as his Exposition does with Cardinal Bellarmine's Controversies; the Old Popery from whence we reformed, with the New by which they would now seduce us.

A third subject there has been for a more important Controversie than either of the foregoing, occasioned by the Papers left by His Majesty concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church; and the Method of which lies thus:

The two Papers written by the late King Charles the Second.

1. The Answer intituled, An Answer to some Papers lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England.

To these there came out almost at the same time two Replies.

‘ A Defence of the Papers written by the late King of Blessed Memory.’

[Page 25] In which there is little remarkable besides the unhandsome levity of the stile, and the ungrateful drolls in a matter of so much seriousness.

‘ A Reply to the Answer made upon the Three Royal Papers.’

This is much more to be commended both for its strength and decency; and they would perhaps much more have served the interest of their Cause, and shewn their respect to His late Majesty, had they suffer'd no other to appear.

But to both of them the same worthy Author who wrote the former Reply, has very lately publisht a most Learned and Excellent Answer, and which I would very much recommend to your careful consideration, Entituled,

2 ‘ A Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England.’

A Discourse so Learnedly and clearly written, that we ought to thank our Adversaries for their importunity that has produced us so excellent a Treatise in a Point of such importance.

I think I have now set down all the Disputes that have proceeded to any length this last year: For the rest, they are either such as you may call Occasional Treatises only, or such as are not advanced into any set and regular debates.

I. Of the former kind I understand these following:

[Page 26] First, concerning St. Peter's Supremacy, a Discourse Intituled,

‘ A Sermon preacht upon Saint Peter' s Day, printed at the desire of some that heard it, with some Enlargements.’

The Occasion of which was this: Dr. Godden had the last year published a Sermon on this Subject which he preacht in the Q. Dowagers Chappel; whereupon the Reverend Author of this Discourse having likewise preacht on the same day, and upon the same Text, was prevailed with to print his too.

Another Subject that has Occasionally produced us two or three very good Treatises, is, ‘The Worship of Saints:’ Our late Misrepresenter and the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition having been pleased very much to palliate the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome as to this matter; and pretending that what they now do is no more than what was done even in the Fourth Age of the Church; it was necessary some particular discovery should be made of this Artifice, and it has accordingly been done very effectually in the following Tracts.

2 ‘Speculum B. Virginis; A Discourse of the due Praise and Honour of the Virg. Mary.’

In which is clearly set forth what we allow, and what the bold extravagancy of the Church of Rome has carri'd them to do in the Worship of the Blessed Virgin.

3 ‘ A Discourse of the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, with an account of [Page 27] the beginning and rise of it among Christians, in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux' s Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and Pastoral Letter.’

4 ‘ Wholsome Advices from the Blessed Virgin to Her indiscreet Worshippers.’

This last is but a Translation: It was written originally by a Papist, one Mr. Widenfelt, a Person of good Esteem and Reputation in his Country; who being Scandalized at the extravagant Practices of his Church in this matter, wrote this little Treatise to awaken their Consideration, and if possible, reduce the People from their usual extravagance, to the Temper and Moderation of the present Advocates for their Cause, as to this matter. But alas! He found them too fond of their Old Popery, to leave it so easily: Instead of doing any good upon them, his Book was censured in a very extraordinary manner, and the Honour of the Blessed Virgin vindicated against these new Hereticks, by her faithful Champion Father Crasset the Jesuit: A short Specimen of whose Book you may see at the end of the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; or if you had rather have it from their own Pens, as indeed none can better expose their Extravagancies of this kind, than they have done themselves, you may then consult a late Popish Book called,

‘ Contemplations on the life and glory of Holy Mary the Mother of Jesus; With a daily Office agreeing to each Mystery thereof. By [Page 28] J. C. D. D. To which he has since added, An Apology for his Contemplations, &c.’

But of all this, you will find a particular account in an excellent Preface prefixt to these Advices by the Translator of it; who professes himself to be a Layman of our Church, and has the character of a very worthy, as he has sufficiently shewn himself to be a very ingenious Gentleman.

It may be proper here to remark, that this Preface has been attacked by the Catholick Representer; or the Misrepresenter transformed: in his 4th Chapter of his Second part; and to which he has returned a smart Reply, called,

5. A Letter to the Misrepresenter of Papists.

Another occasional Treatise came forth not long since, intituled,

6. A Discourse concerning a Judg of Controversies in matters of Religion; With an Address to wavering Protestants, shewing what little Reason they have to think of any change of their Religion.

It was written in Answer to some Papers that had been sent to the Learned Author, by a Person of Quality, asserting the necessity of such a Judg. If I should tell you from whose Pen this Treatise came, you would need no other inducement carefully to read it. And to encourage you to it, I will only say thus much, that it has been generally received with great Applause [Page 29] here, and do's certainly as well deserve it, as any thing that has hitherto been publish'd among us.

Here has been published likewise a short Tract concerning the nature of the Catholick Church, and the Authority of it.

It is not level'd against any particular Author; but design'd to answer the little captious Arguments now much in vogue; and therefore, necessary to have been thus prevented: The chief points handled in it, are these three. 1. What is the Nature of the Catholick Church. 2. That the Church of Rome is not the Catholick Church. 3. That the Holy Scriptures, and not the Church, are the Rule of Faith. The Title of this Treatise, is this,

7. A plain and Familiar Discourse by way of Dialogue, betwixt a Minister and his Parishioner concerning the Catholick Church.

To these I may add a Treatise, concerning the defection of the Church of Rome from what it once was. It is an Answer to a Popish Paper, which the Author has Printed at the beginning of his Book, given about it seems by those of that party, and sent by way of Letter to a Gentleman: It is called,

8. An Answer to a late Paper given about by some of the Church of Rome.

Another Subject that has occasionally been handled, is, concerning Schism and Heresy: It is an Answer to some things in a Popish Pamphlet, called, Why are you a Catholick? The Author treats of the Nature of these two, and enquires to which Church it is that they really do [Page 30] belong: In short, Whether the Papists or we, are Schismaticks and Hereticks? The Title is this,

9. A Vindication of the Church of England from the foul Aspersions of Schism and Heresy, unjustly cast upon Her by the Church of Rome. In two Parts.

The last Subject that has occasionally, but yet more copiously been handled, and which upon that Account, I reserved to this place, is concerning the Worship of Images, &c. It began by this means. A Reverend Divine of our Church, took occasion from the late Pretences of our Misrepresenting the Opinions of the Papists, to set forth an excellent Catechism, called

10. A Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, with an Answer unto them.

It is not to be wonder'd that such a Book as this should be thought proper to be set forth; When the whole business of those of the other Communion, was to palliate by any means the true Doctrines and Practices of their Church; it certainly became us to represent them to the World, as indeed they are. This has here been done from their own Authors, and with great Sincerity. But notwithstanding this, the Misrepresenter that then was, in one of his Answers to the first great Controversy I have mentioned, took him to task for it: In the close of a new Edition of this Catechism, an answer was made to his Exceptions. Not long after this, the Misrepresenter began a new undertaking, [Page 31] to oblige the World with a Sheet a week, first; called the Second Part of the Papist Represented and Misrepresented; and after, of half a Sheet, which he has continued to the number of sixteen Chapters, under the new Character of the Catholick Representer. In his 1st, 2d, 5th and 6th Sheets or Chapters, he falls upon the Author of this Catechism, with reference to the Point of the Worship of Images, and of the Cross; which has produced us three short, but yet excellent Answers, called

11.

1. The Papists Represented and not Misrepresented, in Answer to the first Sheet of the Second part.
2. The like to the Second. And
3. To the Fifth and Sixth.

The business of all which is the same, viz. to shew what the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome is in the Points before mention'd, Of the Worship of Images, and of the Cross.

For the other sort of Tracts that have been written,

II. More immediatly in Answer to some of their set Discourses.

They have also been on different Subjects: Such as these.

(1.) Concerning Transubstantiation.

Upon which their late Attempts, either to set up that, or to ruin the other Mysteries of the Gospel, but especially, that of the Trinity, have occasioned several short, but accurate Discourses: I shall send you the Titles of them.

[Page 32] 1. The Answer to the Popish Dialogue between a new Catholick Convert and a Protestant, to prove the Mystery of the Trinity to be as absurd a Doctrine as Transubstantiation: By way of short Notes upon the said Dialogue.

2. The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared, as to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition: In Answer to the same, and in two Parts.

To which I will add for the Affinity of the Subject, two other Treatises, viz.

3. A Paraphrase with Notes, and a Preface upon the 6th Chapter of St. John, shewing that there is neither good Reason, nor sufficient Authority to suppose that the Eucharist is discoursed of in that Chapter, much less to infer the Doctrine of Transubstantiation from it.

4. An Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome: Wherein is made appear, that according to the Principles of that Church, this Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith.

To these Discourses upon this subject, we cannot more fitly add any thing, than what has lately been done on another relating to the Holy Eucharist, viz.

(2.) Concerning the Real Presence, and Adoration of the Host.

You ought to know very well what gave occasion to this Controversie; viz. the two Discourses set out by Mr. W—at Oxford on this Subject. As for the Answer to them, it was sent you into the Country, and bears this Title:

[Page 33] 5. ‘A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and of the Adoration of the Host; in Answer to the two Discourses set forth at Oxford on the same Subject.’

It was I believe expected that this Controversie would have either exposed our Church, had we own'd the extravagant notion of the Real Presence Mr. W—would put upon us, and which is indeed Cousin German to Transubstantiation; or have raised, it may be, a Civil War amongst us, if we did not. But I believe both their expectations will fail them; for certainly whatever some particular persons may have believed themselves, yet the Doctrine of the Church of England is plainly as the Answerer has represented it; and as we expect it will be farther proved in the other Reply which we are told is preparing at Oxford by an Eminent Person there to the same Book.

There is prefixt to this extant, a very large Preface, which has properly enough retorted Mr. W's—Argument; and shewn the World that if other Divines (as he pretends) have believed a Substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Holy Eucharist, 'tis more than many of the most Eminent of theirs have done, who are here plainly discover'd not to have believed Transubstantiation.

A third Subject that has given occasion to another Answer, is what they have called a Protestants plea for a Socinian. The design was to prove, that in interpreting Scripture by Reason, and not submitting to the Infallible Interpretation of what they call the Church, we make an Apology for the Socinians, and all other Hereticks whatsoever. The falseness of this Pretence has been at large shewn in the Answer which an Eminent person of our Church has lately put out to it, called,

[Page 34] 6. ‘ The Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods, in Answer to a Book, Entituled, A Protestants Plea for a Socinian.’

In which besides a full account of this matter, you will find many other Curiosities relating to the Method and Principles of the Socinians, which you have never it may be elswhere met with.

To these I may add the Answers that have been set forth by way of Notes on some Papers called, Lucilla and Elizabeth, or the Donatist and Protestant Schisms parallel'd. And, A Request to Protestants to produce plain Scripture directly authorizing certain Tenets, which he there subjoins. The Answers are called,

7. ‘ A Protestant of the Church of England no Donatist.’

8. ‘ An Answer to the Request to Protestants, &c.’

Which last Answer has had a Reply called, Protestancy destitute of Scripture proof, against which there is, I am told, a Defence of the Answer now in the Press.

There are some other little things which I ought not to forget, because they have done a great deal of good.

As, ‘ The plain mans Reply to the Catholick Missionaries.’

And ‘ An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representers second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-friend.’

Published by the Lay-man of whom I have spoken above. As for the Conference at the D. of P. which you [Page 35] have heard of, one Mr: G. who maintained the Roman side, tried to resolve the Infallibility of the Church into Oral Tradition, and afterwards boasted so unmeasurably of the Advantages he had made of the Controversie, that he drew upon himself a just rebuke in a Printed Paper called,

‘ A Letter to Mr. G. concerning the Conference at the D. of P.’

Which having produced two Letters from the other side, there presently came forth,

‘ A second Letter to Mr. G. in Answer to Two Letters lately published concerning the Conference at the D. of P.’

There is also lately published a Discourse by an Ingenious and worthy Gentleman, concerning the Authority of Councils, &c. to which is added a short but an effectual Answer to the Eighth Theses, by which Mr. W.—in his Part V. of Church-Government pretends to try the English Reformation. The Title is,

‘ Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality. With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Trial of the English Reformation, in the Book that came last Week from Oxford.’

After which there came forth a Discourse which is here exceedingly well received, and the Design whereof is sufficiently explained by the Title, Viz.

‘ An Apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in Answer to those who reproach her with the English Heresies and Schisms, or suspect her not to be a Catholick Church upon their account.’

[Page 36] I ought not to conceal the Answer to that Libel upon the Reformation which you have seen, called Pax Vobis; though it is not a just Answer to the Book, but a Preface rather to more that is to follow. The Title is

‘ Some Dialogues between Mr. G. and others, with Reflexions upon a Book called Pax Vobis.’

When the Answerer has finished his design, you may have what remains, as I am told under the same Title.

I shall conclude your Trouble at present with telling you of a Sett of Discourses concerning the Notes of the Church, as they are laid down by Bellarmine. Thus far the Design has proceeded already.

1. ‘ A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church, with some Reflexions on Cardinal Bellarmine' s Notes.’

2. ‘Bellarmine' s first Note of the Church, concerning the Name of Catholick examined.’

3. The 2d Note of the Church examined, viz. Antiquity.

4. The 3d Note of the Church examind, viz. Duration.

[...] perceive we may expect the rest in Order. I am Sir,

Yours, &c.

THE END.

[Page 37]

POSTSCRIPT.

WHen the Author let this Paper go out of his hands, there were some Discourses omitted, which he intended to add towards the close; but because it was published before he was aware, there was no other way left to supply the defects of the Letter, but by sending abroad this Postscript after it.

To those Discourses therefore that are mentioned in this Letter, these are to be added.

I. The plausible Arguments of a Romish Priest answered by an English Protestant.

which is a Book that seems to be contrived on purpose to make the most material Differences between both Churches, easie to be considered and sufficiently comprehended by Persons of the plainest Education. To which I must add,

II. A Discourse between two Protestants, in answer to a Popish Catechism, called, A short Catechism against all Sectaries.

in which Tract one shall find all that plainness which is fit to enlighten ordinary Capacities, together with that solidity of Reasoning, which cannot but gratifie Persons of the best Education and Abilities.

To the same purpose there was another Book published not long since, called,

III. A plain Defence of the Protestant Religion, fitted to the meanest capacity, being a full Confutation of the Net for the Fishers of Men.

Above a year since there were some Queries put to Protestants, which were answered in a Book that has this Title.

IV. Some Queries to Protestants answered, and an Explication of the Roman Catholicks Belief, in Four great Points considered. 1. Concerning their Church. 2. Their Worship. 3. Justification. 4. Civil Government.

[Page 38] Tho I omitted, how I know not, the Defence of the Dublin Letter, yet it ought to have been remembred in the first place. 'Tis an Answer to the Third Chapter of the Second Part of the Catholick Representer, and has this Title,

V. Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.

There is another Tract which ought to have been mentioned among the Discourses against Transubstantiation; in which, tho there is an attempt to explain the real Presence by a singular Hypothesis, that neither serves the turn of the Papists, nor is needed by Protestants; yet 'tis in many respects so very rational and useful, that I am glad I did not forget to mention it here. The Title is

VI. A brief Discourse of the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, against the Bishop of Meaux and Monsieur Maimbourg.

And here I must not forget a Book that will not be forgotten in hast, viz.

VII. The School of the Eucharist, with a Preface concerning the Testimony of Miracles.

The Answer to Mr. Sclaters Reasons, and to the Nubes Testium has been published in two Parts; the Reverend Author seeming to design to go through with the latter. The Parts are called,

VIII. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion, with an Answer to Mr. Sclaters Reasons, and the Collections made by the Author of Nubes Testium. The First Part.

The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images, with an Answer to the Collections made by the Author of Nubes Testium. The Second Part.

In the mean time, they that would farther know what little regard is to be had to that Collector, may look into the First Part of The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared: Of which Book I have given notice before.

There was published last Week another learned as well as smart Answer to Mr. Sclater, whose Consensus Veterum, will now no longer be spoken of with contempt, after it has proved [Page 39] the occasion of the Veteres Vindicati: A Book so excellent in it self, that it needs not the help of comparison with the Book it answers, to set it forth. And I heartily wish that unhappy man who has a particular Right to the Instructions of those Papers which his own have produced, may receive the greatest benefit by them. The Title is,

IX. Veteres Vindicati, in an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney, upon his Consensus Veterum, &c. wherein the Absurdity of his Method, and the Weakness of his Reasons are shewn, his false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off, &c.

Upon this occasion I will take leave to say, that altho many count it needless to answer Authorities that are borrowed out of baffled Books, that have been forty times urged, and as often reply'd to; yet we are obliged to those that will undergo this Task, not only because we know what Advantages our Adversaries desire to make, by saying, that such and such a Book that quotes the Fathers is not answer'd: But because our Arguments and Answers from Antiquity are not at a stand, tho theirs are. Ours, I do verily believe, need no improvement, but that now and then they are capable of it, is what several Books of the learned Men of our times are undeniable instances of.

By the Author of The plain Mans Reply to the Catholick Missionaries, there was another little Tract published, which was not inserted in its place. The Title is,

X. The Country Parsons Admonition to his Parishioners, perswading them to continue in the Protestant Religion.

To both these there has been lately published an Answer by the other side, to which we expect a Reply.

The next that lies before me is,

XI. The Judgment of private Discretion in matters of Religion, defended in a Sermon at S. Pauls in Covent-Garden, by Mr. Kidder.

And another Tract there is written by a Lay-Gentleman, entituled,

[Page 40]

XII. A modest enquiry whether S. Peter were ever at Rome, and Bishop of that Church; wherein the Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmin and others for the Affirmative are considered, and some Considerations taken notice of, that render the Negative highly probable.

Since the Fifth Part concerning Church Government which Mr. W—published, he has sent us from Oxford another Book concerning the Spirit of Luther, and the Celibacy of the Clergy: He seems to have a Set of Books which he intends to publish one after another, for the Diversion of this Age, and to leave the Defence of them to the next. For since his two Discourses concerning the Real Presence, &c. he has thought fit to publish two other Books, without taking any notice, or so much as offering to vindicate the First. Which Tergiversation will not I believe save his new Books from being answered, since there is so great a choice of Learned Men in that famous University, of which he is a Member, that some or other without doubt will be at leisure to attend his motions, and to do him right from time to time.

This Week was published the Examination of Bellarmin's Fourth of his Fifteen Notes of the Church, viz. Amplitude; and because the Answer of the Examination of the Second is just now come to my hand, I am not unwilling to do our Adversaries that kindness to publish it here, if it be a kindness to them, which will be better understood in a little time.

I have no more to add but that we may expect in a little time, to see two Discourses concerning Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead; a Subject which has not been throughly handled since the revival of these Controversies. It will be no injury to the performance to raise an expectation of it, if it be done by that hand, which I am told we are obliged to for it.

ERRATA.

PAg. 4. lin. 10. for charged, r. thronged. l. 19. for longer, r. larger. p. 10. l. 22. for he, r. is. p. 14. l. 19. for consult, r. confute. p. 17. l. 10. for prisoner, r. professor. l. 24. for them, r. shew. l. 30. for seem, r. serve.

FINIS.

A CONTINUATION OF TH …

A CONTINUATION OF THE Present State OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Imprimatur, Liber cui Titulus, [A Continuation of the Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome.]

Junii 7. 1688.

H. Maurice RR. in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr.

A CONTINUATION OF THE Present State OF THE CONTROVERSY, BETWEEN THE CHURCH of ENGLAND, AND THE CHURCH of ROME.

BEING A Full ACCOUNT of the BOOKS that have been of late Written on Both Sides.

The Second Edition.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church yard. MDCLXXXVIII.

TO THE Very REVEREND and WORTHY THE AUTHORS OF THE DISCOVRSES here Collected, IN Defence of the Church of ENGLAND.

GENTLEMEN,

AFter so much Pains as you have taken, and so much Good as by the Blessing of God on your Endeavours you have done to that Church of which I esteem it my happiness that I am a Member, may it be permitted to a private and obscure hand to return you this small Tribute, in acknowledgment of that Sense which not my self alone, but I dare say every single [Page] person of our Communion has of what we all owe to your Learning and your Integrity.

I present you here with a short view of your own Labours; or rather, I offer to the World a small Collection of those Discourses you have written in Defence of our Religion. And how unsuitable soever it may appear to usher a few Titles of Books into the World under the protection of so many great Names, yet I am confident the Consequence of this Undertaking cannot but be as Honourable to you all, as I heartily wish it may, and as I am sure it ought to be: When it shall be consider'd how vast a Number, and of what acurate and learned Discourses is here comprised, and for almost all which we are in the compass of about Three Years indebted to you.

It is indeed a matter of just wonder to all those who are acquainted with your method of living here, how persons engaged not only in a laborious attendance on their Parochial Cures, and a constant return of painful and acurate Preaching; but almost utterly [Page] distracted with that multitude of other Business which in these last Years has taken up the greatest part of your time, should yet find leisure to discharge all these, and at the same time to adorn the Press with so many Books as might alone have seemed more than enough to have employ'd your whole Industry.

But blessed be God, who has raised you up against such a time as this, and given us so great an Earnest of his Favour to us, that as we had never more need of Able, and Honest, and Firm Guides, than at this day; so I may venture to challenge any Age of the Church, to shew such a Number of truly Learned, and Pious, and constant Pastors, as the Church of England, and especially this City, do's now abound with.

May your Labours and your Examples always find such a success as they deserve, and as they have of late met with amongst us. And since we cannot now have any excuse for our Apostacy should we renounce our Holy Profession, after so much as you have done to convince even the most ignorant Persons amongst [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] us of the Truth and Purity of it; may we ever firmly adhere both to you and it: That when we shall appear before the Great Bishop and Pastor of our Souls, we may all of us give up our Accounts with joy.

This, as it is my hearty Wish, so I am perswaded it is the sincere Resolution of every one of those whom God has committed to your Care. And that in this Firmness we may be all of us established more and more, shall be the continual Prayer of him who in all thankful Duty will ever remain,

GENTLEMEN,

Your most Humble and Obedient Servant.

TO THE READER.

AS for those who shall please to peruse this Treatise, I have but very little to premise to them. They will here see an Exact Collection, as far as I was able to make it, of the Controversie on both sides between our Divines, and those of the Church of Rome. And in that, the Victory of Truth over Error. Never certainly was any Cause more entirely baffled than the Popish is at this time. Never was a Controversie more fully handled, and that in such a manner as to instruct even the meanest Capacities, than This has been in these last years. Insomuch that now there is scarce a person amongst us so ignorant, that is not able to make a Stand against the rudest Attacques of our Adversaries. Nay, our very Footmen esteem themselves, (and I think have satisfied the World that they are not mistaken) an equal match for Jesuits, i. e. for those who would at least be thought the most able Men of their Party, and dropt down from Heaven on purpose to oppose the Growth of Protestant Heresie.

[Page] What others may judg of this, I cannot tell: But, for my part, I cannot but from thence conclude, That certainly the Hand of God is with us for Good. And that He who has given us this Opportunity to understand the Weaknesses and Deceits of our Enemies; and endu'd us with so great and general a Resolution, never upon any Account whatsoever, to depart from our most Holy Religion, will also crown all our future Endeavours with such a Success, that the Generations to come shall rise up and call us Blessed; When they shall see our Firmness and our Labours in the Lord, and receive from our hands that pure and uncorrupted Truth, which I am persuaded those excellent Treatises I here mention, shall deliver down even to the very End of the World.

THE CONTENTS.

THE Occasion and Design of this Continuation. Page 1
The Whole Divided into II. Generals. 2

FIRST PART.

Of the Cases against Popery, begun in the lat ^e King's Time. ib.
The Catalogue of them reduced to the following Heads.
- 1. Preliminary Discourses. 2, 3
- 2. Of the Church. 4
- 3. Of the Rule of Faith. 5
- 4. Of Particular Points. ib.
An Account of the Disputes that have arisen, on the Occasion of the Discourse against Transubstantiation. 8

SECOND PART.

[Page]Of the Discourses that have been publish'd in Defence of the Church of England, since the Time of His Present Majesty: With an Account of the Popish Treatises that occasioned them. 9
These reduced to the several following Heads.

SECT. I.

Of the REPRESENTING Controversie.
The Papist Represented and Misrepresented. 10
The Bishop of Condom's Exposition. 12
Good Advice to the Pulpits. 16
And the Disputes occasioned by these Treatises.

SECT. II.

Of the pretended Agreement between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. 17

SECT. III.

Of the Disputes concerning the Holy EUCHARIST.
- 1. Real Presence. 19.
- [Page] 2. Communion in One kind. 20
- 3. Transubstantiation. 22

SECT. IV.

Of the Disputes concerning the CHURCH. 25
- 1. Of the Notes of the Church. 26
- 2. Of the Unity and Authority of the Church. 27
- 3. Of the Infallibility of the Church. 29

SECT. V.

Of the Prerogatives of St. Peter, and the Popes as his Successors. 31

SECT. VI.

Of the Reformation of the Church of England, and the Imputations of Schism and Heresie laid against us on the account of it. 34

SECT. VII.

Of the Disputes concerning the Rule of Faith: And in particular,
- 1. Of the Holy Scripture. 38
- 2. Of Tradition. 39

SECT. VIII.

[Page]Of the Disputes concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome. 49
- 1. In General. 50
- 2. In Particular.
- Worship of Images. 51
- Invocation of Saints. 52

SECT. IX.

Of the Disputes concerning the Validity of Orders,
- In the Church of England. 54
- In the Church of Rome. 55
That the Papists are upon their own Principles, uncertain whether they have any true Priests in their Church. ib.

SECT. X.

Of other Particular Points in Dispute betwixt us.
- Popish Treatises. 56
- Discourses of the Church of England. 57
A full Account of what pass'd on the occasion of the Conference between Dr. Tenison, and Father Pulton the Jesuit. 60

SECT. XI.

[Page]In which the several Treatises before mention'd are reduced to their distinct Arguments, for the direction of those who would fully satisfie themselves in any Particular Point in Dispute betwixt Us, and those of the Church of Rome, viz. 63
- 1. General Discourses. 65
- 2. Of Religious Worship.
- 3. Of Prayer in an Unknown Tongue.—66
- 4. Of the Invocation of Saints. Particularly of the B. Virgin.
- 5. Of Images and Reliques. 67
- 6. Of Idolatry.
- 7. Of Merits, Satisfactions, Purgatory and Indulgences. —68
- 8. Of the Sacraments.
- 9. Of Confession and Penance.
- 10. Of Extreme Unction. —69
- 11. Of Orders.
- 12. Of the Real Presence.
- 13. Of Transubstantiation. —70
- 14. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
- 15. Of the Adoration of the Host. —71
- 16. Of Communion in Both Kinds.
- [Page]17. Of the Rule &c. of Faith.
- 18. Of the Holy Scripture.—72
- 19. Of Tradition.
- 20. Of the Church.—73
- 21. Of St. Peter and the Pope.
- 22. Of the Reformation.—74
- 23. Of Schism and Heresie.
- 24. Of the Celibacy of the Clergy. 75

SECT. XII.

In which the whole is closed, with an Account of the Present Undertaking, to examine the Texts of Scripture alledged in favour of the Popish Errors. 75

A CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE Controversie.

IT is now some time since it has been very much desired, That a Full Account might be given to the World, of the several Tracts that have these late years been publish'd on the Points in Controversie between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. The Present State of the Controversie, set forth about two years since, being become very Imperfect; and serving rather to raise Mens expectations of some further Account to be given of this matter, than to satisfie their desires with what is there offer'd.

I will not pretend to have been so diligent an Observer of these Things, as not to have let many Discourses slip, in such a number as have appear'd on both sides: And must, therefore, humbly entreat the Representer's favour to me, if He find some defects in my present Undertaking; and that he will not impute that to a spirit of Misrepresentation in me, which really proceeds only from my Ignorance or Inadvertency. What Discourses have come to my Hands, I will faithfully give an account of; and if He, or any other for Him, will put forth an Appendix of what is wanting here, it will be much more to the satisfaction of the World, [Page 2] than to run over once more, his Common Place against me, as a The Cases against Popery. New and Upstart sort of Misrepresenter, and fancy that the Eyes of all the World are set upon him, to chastise me for my Unsincerity.

The present State of the Controversie gives an Account how the Divines of our Church, at the time of the late King's death, were engaged in a Design of publishing some Discourses on the several Points in Controversie between Us and the Papists; correspondent to what they had done, not long before, with reference to our Disputes with our Brethren the Dissenters. And how the favourable Reception their former Attempt had met with from these, encouraged them to hope their Labours would not be altogether unacceptable to those. But the Catalogue of what they have done in pursuance of this design, is imperfect; and it may not be amiss, before I proceed any farther, to give a more compleat one here.

A Full Account of the Cases that have been published on the Points disputed between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome.

I. PRELIMINARY DISCOURSES.

1. A Preservative to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion.

2. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England.

3. A Preservative against Popery: Being some plain Directions to unlearned Protestants how to dispute with Romish Priests. In Two Parts. By the Reverend Dr. Sherlock, Master of the Temple.

[Page 3] I place this Discourse here, because I do not see to what other Glass it could more properly have been reduced, though it is but just now publish'd, and perhaps, was never design'd by its learned Author, to add to the number of this kind of Treatises: But that which is more pertinent for me here to observe, is, That the former part of this Undertaking soon met with such an Answer as is now commonly given to our Books, when any at all is given, viz. one single Sheet from Father Sabran the Jesuit, and who is now well known by his late little Encounters of this Nature. It was called,

4. An Answer to Dr. Sherlock' s Preservative against Popery, &c.

To this an exact and solid Answer was return'd by a Protestant Footman, one W. Giles; and who may justly be offer'd to the World as an Instance of what use our late Discourses have, or might have been, for the Instruction even of the meanest Persons in the matters in Controversie between Us, and the Church of Rome. The knowledge which this ingenious and diligent Man obtain'd, being entirely due to them; and yet how considerable it is, I shall leave it to any one to judge, that will but have the Curiosity to examine his Performance. It is called,

5. A Defence of Dr. Sherlock' s Preservative against Popery, in Reply to a Jesuit' s Answer: By W. Giles, a Protestant Footman, living with Madam H. in Mark-lane.

This Defence, and the Preface of the Publisher of it, did put the Jesuit quite out of all Patience, and Decency; and made him forget himself so far, as once more to provoke the Reverend Dr. Sherlock, by publishing an Answer to both Parts of the Preservative against Popery, and to the Footman's Defence of the first, under this Title:

[Page 4] 6. Dr. Sherlock's Preservative considered, First Part, with its Defence, &c. By Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jesus.

This Answer was writ in such a violence of Passion, and does charge the Reverend Master of the Temple at such a rate with Ignorance, Calumny, and God knows what, that he hath at last condescended to chastise this ignorant Jesuit himself; and the World will very speedily see, that never Man set Pen to Paper with such a stock of Ignorance and Confidence together, as this Father Sabran. After which, if he shall still continue to write in spite both of good Learning, and of good Manners, it is to be hoped, that at least we shall be excused by all those who have any share of either, if we do not give either our selves or them the trouble of any farther Replies to him.

A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery: In Answer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jesuit. By William Sherlock, D. D. Master of the Temple.

II. Of the CHURCH.

1. A Discourse of the Unity of the Catholic Church, maintained in the Church of England.

2. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists, asking of us the Question, Where was our Religion before LUTHER?

3. The Protestant Resolution of Faith, being an Answer to three Questions:

[Page 5] 1. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sense of Scripture?

2. Whether a Visible Succession from Christ to this day, makes a Church which has this Visible Succession, an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture?

3. Whether the Church of England can make out such a Visible Succession?

4. Two Discourses concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome.

There was a Third Part intended by the Reverend and Learned Author of these two Discourses, which we have hopes that it will be published ere long under the same Title.

III. Of the Rule of Faith.

1. A Discourse about Tradition; shewing what is meant by it, and what Tradition is to be received, and what is to be rejected.

2. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith, with respect especially to the Romish pretence of such a one as is Infallible.

IV. Of Particular Points.

1. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship; or a Scripture-proof of the unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the Supreme God.

2. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church [Page 6] of Rome, especially as compared with those of the Church of England: In which it is shewn, that whatsoever the Romanists pretend, there is not so true Devotion among them, nor such rational provision for it, nor Encouragement to it, as in the Church Establish'd by Law amongst us.

3. A Discourse concerning the Invocation of Saints.

4. Of Prayer in an Unknown Tongue.

5. Of Auricular Confession as it is prescribed by the Council of Trent.

6. A Discourse against. Transubstantiation.

7. Of the Adoration of the Host.

These are the several Discourses mention'd in the former Present State, pag. 5, 6, 7, 8. Catalogue; to these I must add several others that have since been publish'd.

8. Two Discourses of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.

To which I may subjoyn a Discourse just now publish'd, viz.

9. Purgatory proved by Miracles, &c.

10. A Discourse concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass.

11. Of Extreme Unction.

And here it may not be improper to observe, that the Author of this Accurate Discourse, thought fit to premise to it an Address to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom, upon the occasion of some things just then publish'd by him in his Reply to our Expositor, relating to this Argument; but especially concerning Cardinal Cajetan's confessing that their only Text for this pretended Sacrament, that of St. James, made nothing for it. To this the Vindicator gave a half-sheet Reply, called,

[Page 7] A Letter from the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom, to the Author of a late Discourse concerning the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

And this produced another Letter in Reply to it, Intituled,

A Second Letter from the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Unction, to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.

Which put an end to this Debate: Though the Vindicator made us hope for a Reply to that Excellent Discourse; but I presume will not esteem himself obliged to be as good as his word.

12. A Treatise in confutation-of the Latin Service practised, and by the Order of the Trent Council continu'd in the Church of Rome.

13. Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith.

14. Of the Celibacy of the Clergy.

15. Of the incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome.

16. A Discourse concerning the Merits of Good Works.

17. An Historical Discourse concerning the Necessity of the Ministers Intentions in administring the Sacrament.

I shall perhaps be look'd upon to have referr'd many Tracts to the number of these Discourses against the Papists, that did not enter into the first design that was laid for them. But I know not to what Head I could so properly refer them, as to this; and if they help to make up the Collection of Particular Points in Debate betwixt us, it matters not by what Occasion, or with what Design they were first composed.

[Page 8] I do not know that any more of these Treatises have been particularly attack'd by those of the other Communion, except that one only against Transubstantiation: which having, after some years being let alone, given at last occasion to a formed Controversie, yet in agitation, I will, before I go any farther, remark what has hitherto passed concerning it.

The first that appear'd in Answer to it, was a Hot New-Convert, under the Glorious Title of,

Reason and Authority; or the Motives of a late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholic Church; together with Remarks upon some late Discourses against Transubstantiation.

But the Performance was so mean, so disproportion'd to the Strength and Merits of the Discourse he had undertaken to attack; that it is to be presumed, the weakness of the New Convert obliged some more able Controvertist to appear as his Second; and to publish not long after a new, and better Answer, call'd,

Transubstantiation Defended; and proved from Scripture, in Answer to the First Part of a Treatise Intituled, A Discourse against Transubstantiation.

And to make all sure; a Third about the same time undertakes the same Cause, in a Discourse which he calls,

An Answer to a Discourse against Transubstantiation.

It is no part of my Design to give any Character of these Treatises; I will only observe, that the Second, which seems to have been written with the most care, continues still unfinish'd; the Author (whoever he be) having not yet thought fit to publish his 2d Part. Now this I the rather remark, to satisfie those who have long expected our Reply to these Treatises, what has been in some measure the Cause of the deferring it: tho the multitude of [Page 9] other Discourses that have since been published on this Subject, may well excuse so small an Omission: However, since after almost a Years attendance, there is now but little Hopes of any thing more to be expected from this Antagonist, I may venture to promise the Reader that he shall not continue much longer without the Answer that has been prepared to what is already published; and which might long since have been finished, had not the Reverend Author desired to acquit himself of all his Task at the same time.

And this may serve in short to have been remarked concerning the first Part of this Design, of the Discourses which our Divines began to publish in the late King's time upon the Points in Controversie between us and the Church of Rome.

We must now pass to a more troubled and perplex'd Undertaking; and endeavour to reduce to the clearest Method we can, those many Tracts that have since come out in Answer to one another on both sides; and the number of which is now so great, that it is no easie matter to give an exact Account of them. And for the doing of this, I shall consider them not in the Order of their coming out, but reduce them as near as I can to the several distinct Subjects to which they refer.

Now the first Thing that began all our Late Disputes, was the Pretence so much insisted upon, of our MISREPRESENTING the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome: And it shall therefore be the first kind of Discourses I will here consider.

SECT. I.

Of the Treatises that have been Publish'd on the Representing and Expounding Controversie.

1. WHAT the Occasion and Design of this Uundertaking was, has already been remarked in the First Part of Present State, p. 10. the Present State: and therefore I shall not need to say any thing to it here. The Treatises that have passed on both sides, may be consulted in this following Order.

[Page 10] I. A Papist Misrepresented and Represented. The Representing Controversie.

R. The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented; in Answer to a Book intituled, A Papist Misrepresented and Represented, &c.

II. Reflections upon the Answer to the Papist Misrepresented, &c.

R. A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants; being a Reply to the Reflections, &c.

III. Papists protesting against Protestant Popery; in Answer to a Discourse intituled, A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants.

R. An Answer to a Discourse intituled, Papists protesting against Protestant Popery; containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux' s late B. of Condom' s Exposition of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, in the Articles of the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images.

IV. An Amicable Accommodation of the difference between the Representer and the Answerer, in return to his last Reply.

R. An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the difference between the Representer and the Answerer.

V. A Reply to the Answer to the Amicable Accommodation.

R. A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer, with an Answer to the Representer' s last Reply.

And here the matter rested when the first State of the Controversie was published; and it was then generally believed would [Page 11] have done so. But the Representer had by this time got too much assurance to be easily put out of Countenance; and tho by the longer time he took in his Answer to this last Treatise, than to either of the foregoing, and which his Performance sufficiently shews was not for any extraordinary pains he resolved to take in his Reply to it, he seems to have struggled a little with himself, before he could get the better of his Conscience, in going on at so pitiful a rate of Vindicating his pretences, yet at last there came out something that was to be called an Answer to our last piece, in a Preface to a further Continuation of his unjust Pretences against us, viz.

VI. The Papist Misrepresented and Represented; 3d part; with a Preface containing Reflections upon two Treatises; the one, the State, the other, The View of the Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer.

But to this too, the worthy Author of the View of the Controversie soon returned such an Answer as I find has not a little discomposed the Representer: and I believe no less troubles the Vindicator too of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, viz.

R. An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversie, &c.

To this the Representer has now satisfied us, that he never intends to reply: for having lately set out an Answer to another Discourse of which we shall speak hereafter, viz. The Apology for the Pulpits: he adds triumphantly in the Title, that it is not only an Answer to that Discourse, but also, A Vindication of the Representer against the Stater of the Controversie. But such a Vindication as this, could certainly never have come from any other Pen but the Representer's: and is by the same figure a Reply to this Treatise, by which he heretofore told us, that his Papist Represented and Misrepresented was enough to answer not only all our late Discourses against Popery, but a Papist Misr. part. 3. Pref. great part of all the Books and Sermons that had ever been writ or preached [Page 12] against them. The truth is, I can hardly forbear here to leave a while my design of pursuing the Treatises that have been Published on this Controversie, to expose the Confidence of this vain Man: But since the worthy Author of that Book which he pretends to answer, has thought fit to give him up as a Priviledged Person, who is past either sense of Modesty, or hopes of being reclaimed, I shall pay that deference to his Judgment, as not to trouble my self with any Vindication of his Discourse against so trivial and occasional an attempt against it. But if there be any of this Author's Communion who shall think fit in good earnest to attack this, or any other of those Discourses which he has published against them, I will then take the liberty to promise, That tho to our great regret, the incomparable Author of them be now in his Grave, and Dr. Claget. no longer in a state to vindicate his own Works, yet neither his Labours nor his Memory shall want a Defence, and let his Adversaries whenever they please begin the experiment.

And here I suppose we may now take a final leave of this first Controversie; The Papist Represented and Misrepresented. I will only add, That since this first attempt of his began, he has carry'd it on in two other parts, under the Title of the Catholick Representer. The second of which coming out weekly in several Chapters, has received a very full, and I suppose a satisfactory Answer; there being no care taken to reply to what our Divines have with great care and learning return'd to it. The third has been consider'd, as far as was thought necessary, by the Late Worthy and Learned Author of the Defence of the State and View of the Controversie before mentioned.

II. It was not long after the beginning of this, that the better The Expounding Controversie. to promote the same design, another Engagement of the like kind was set on foot, under the Title of

An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in matters of Controversie.

I need not say that this piece was Originally written in French, and published many years since by the Bishop then of Condom, now of Meaux. The prosecution that has been made of this matter in the Books that have been published on both sides, have given a [Page 13] very large Account of this to the world; and what is farther necessary for the understanding of the design of it, may be seen already set down in the former part of the Pag. 15, 16. Present State of the Controversie. I will therefore only perfect the Catalogue of what has past in this Enterprize also on both sides, by adding to that already given, those other Treatises, that have been publish'd since the former State was sent abroad.

1. An Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, &c. with Reflections upon his Pastoral Letter.

And concerning which I shall observe only, what was before remarked, That to this day no attempt has been made of returning one word in Answer to it.

2. An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Faith.

To this in a little time came out an Answer Intituled,

3. A Vindication of the Bishop of Condom' s Exposition, with a Letter from the said Bishop.

And to that not long after, a Reply, called,

4. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator.

And here this Controversie rested for some time, and it was by many supposed would have ended. But at last both the Bishop and his Vindicator resolved once more to venture into the world; [Page 14] and so after a long expectation, an Answer was published to this last Treatise, viz.

5. A Reply to the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; With a Second Letter from the Bishop of Meaux.

To this there have been two Treatises already returned, and we may in some time expect a Third to be added to them, as soon as the Author has discharged himself of a new O. W's Appendix in answer to the Discourse of the Real Presence, and Adoration of the Host. Adversary, which has since attacked Him on another account. The Vindicator it is hoped will not think much of a little delay in this matter; especially since I am Commissioned to promise him, that let Him make what hast he will, the last Part shall be got ready for Him, before He has finished any reasonable Answer to those already published.

If it be enquired here, Wherefore this last Defence was divided into so many Parts; I presume this account may be given of it; That the Vindicator having run his Answer into a greater length than the ordinary rate of these Discourses usually allows of, either no just Reply must have been made to it, which our Expositor was unwilling they should be able to object to Him; Or if there were, He thought it would be much more acceptable to the world, as well as less burdensome to Himself, to publish his Answer at several times, than to be opprest with so large a Volume, as it would have amounted to all together. What is already finished will be found under these Titles:

6. A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux and His Vindicator.

Part I. In which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux' s Exposition, is fully Vindicated; the dictinction of Old and New Popery, Historically Asserted; and the Doctrine [Page 15] of the Church of Rome in point of Image. Worship, more particularly consider'd.

Part II. In which the Romish Doctrines concerning the Nature and Object of Religious Worship: Of the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images and Reliques, are consider'd, and the Charge of Idolatry made Good against those of the Church of Rome upon the Account of them.

And thus far our Expositor has carried his Reply: whilst the Second of these Parts was writing, the Vindicator attacked the First according to their Modern way of Controversie, in a sheet and half; yet call'd it,

A Full Answer to the Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in a Letter to the Defender.

But the Author of the View of the Controversie being at that time engaged in a Reply to the Representer, and finding some congruity that the Answer to both of them should come out together, for the reasons given in the Preface to His Treatise; the Defender was left at liberty to go on with his design, and yet the Vindicator not suffered to complain for want of Consideration: The Reply I have in part mention'd before, but I will now give the Title of it at its full length:

An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversie. With a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Answer; shewing, That the Vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of Expounding and Representing Popery.

III. Having now given account of those two principal Controversies that have of late been carried on among us, of Expounding and Representing the Points in debate betwixt us and the Church [Page 16] of Rome; I cannot better close this Point, than with this remark, That in a very little time after the Bishop of Condom's Exposition was set forth by the Vindicator, we were also obliged with the Translation of another of that Prelate's Pieces, called,

A Pastoral Letter to the New Converts of his Diocess.

It is not necessary to say that the Bishop in this Piece pursued still the design of his Exposition. That has been already shewn in the Answer to it, which I before remarked, at the end of the other Reply that was made to His Exposition, and which still continues Unanswered. That which has made more Noise is his open declaring to the New Converts of his Diocess, that they knew there had been no such thing as a Persecution in France. And the falseness and unsincerity of which declaration has been sufficiently exposed, both in the former part of the Pag. 22. Sec. Defence, Answer to the Bishops Letter. State of the Controversie; and in the second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England: And thither I shall remit those that desire to inform themselves more particularly of this matter.

IV. I should here have dismissed this Argument, had not the great Misrepresenter that began this Point, lately pursued it in a Good Advice to the Pulpits. new Undertaking, and of which I cannot better give an Account, than in this place. It is not long since, that with the old design of exposing the Ministers of the Church of England to the Censures of the World, as Men who made it their Business, at any rate, to run down Popery, he set forth a malicious Discourse, call'd by him,

1. Good Advice tu the Pulpits, &c.

In which he takes together out of the Sermons published in the last years of the late King's Reign, whatever he thought would serve to make them odious. The Design was [Page 17] well enough laid; and the Circumstances of the Times consider'd, it were not to be wondred if some things should have pass'd more hot against those of the Church of Rome, than was to have been wished. But either our Ministers were then, as they have always been, very moderate; or this Author has been a very careless Examiner of their Excesses. However his Attempt soon met with a solid Confutation, in an excellent Treatise, Entituled,

2. An Apology for the Pulpits.

And in which our Divines are fully justified against his Exceptions.

To this he has lately set forth an Answer, called,

3. Pulpit-sayings; or the Characters of the Pulpit-Papist examined.

To which there is an Answer called,

4. Pulpit-Popery, True Popery.

And hitherto has this first sort of Controversie been carried on: A second thing which has given occasion to some Disputes these late years, and which, for the Affinity it has to the foregoing. I chuse next to mention, is,

SECT. II.

Of a pretended Agreement of the Church of England with the Church of Rome.

AND this too the Representer is reported to have had a principal hand in. It is no very long time since a Book was published in order to this end, and called in express terms,

[Page 18] An Agreement between the Church of England and Agreement between the C. of E. and the C. of R. the Church of Rome.

I think I needed not have made any change of my former Head for this Treatise; there being perhaps not a more foul Misrepresentation in the World, than what the great Chastiser of Misrepresenters has made here in such a pretence as this. But tho his Title be General, yet the main design of his Book was to expose a particular person of our Church, and whom indeed they have all the reason in the world, if they can by any means, to run [...]. Sherlock. down; for I know no man that does them and their Cause more mischief, by those excellent Treatises which he continues still to publish against them. However both the general and the particular design of this new Contrivance, has been effectually answered in the two Replies that have come forth to it, viz.

1. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in Opposition to a late Book, intituled, An Agreement, &c.

2. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion; from the charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome. By Dr. Sherlock.

But what this Author attempted in a more general manner, the Publisher of Discourses against us at Oxford, more particularly endeavoured with reference to the Holy Eucharist; in which, as he pretends, there is little or no difference between the true Sons of the Church of England, and those of the Other Communion: And which therefore shall be the next General Head of Controversies, to which I will now pass, viz.

[Page 19]

SECT. III. Of the Real Presence.

Of the Disputes which have passed these last years, concerning the Holy Eucharist. And here,

I. Concerning the REAL PRESENCE.

THis is the Point in which Mr. W. would fain piece up a kind of Agreement betwixt us, though all the World sees nothing can be more different than the Doctrine of the Real Presence as taught in the Church of England, and that of Transubstantiation, which is the Real Presence believed in the Church of Rome.

But however it be, Mr. W. doubts not to make it appear; That our Divines have asserted the very same Presence of Christ, in effect, in the Eucharist, that the Romanists maintain; in a Treatise, called,

1. Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist.

And the former of which wholly pursues the pretended Agreement I have now been speaking of.

To this there came out first a London Answer, in which his Quotations were fully examined, his Pretences considered, and the whole matter largely stated: And in return to his Allegations of some of our Church that believed their Real Presence, an Account was given of several that have lived and died in their Communion, that neither did nor could believe any such thing. The Title of it is,

2. A Discourse of the Holy-Eucharist in the Two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host.

[Page 20] Not long after this, a Person of great Worth at Oxford publish'd a second Confutation of the same Piece, but with this difference, That whereas the former Discourse examined at large his Quotations, this chiefly consider'd the Principles on which he proceeded, and the Arguments he brought to justifie his Pretences. It is called,

3. A Reply to Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford, concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist.

And here this Controversie rested till the last Term, when Mr. W publishing another Treatise upon the same Subject, viz.

4. A Compendious Discourse on the Eucharist:

Added to the End of it two Appendixes, in answer to the two Tracts that had been written against them. It appears by the Heat and Bitterness of these little Satyrs, how much those Books had troubled him, and how unable he is to command himself, even there where he pretends the most to do it. One would have thought after what the Representer had done, we had seen the height of what a licentious Pen could arise to in matters of such seriousness. But indeed this poor impotent old Man has convinced us of our Error, and shewn such an indecent Passion in the menage of his Answer, as is much more to be pitied than valued. But I shall leave it to those who are engaged with him, to take notice of these things: It is not to be doubted, but that in a little time their Answers will be finish'd; both the One and the Other, being, as I am informed, already in good forwardness.

II. COMMUNION in BOTH KINDS.

Having thus given an Account of what has pass'd as to the Point Of Communion in Both Kinds. of the Real Presence; the next thing that naturally offer'd its self, was the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But there has pass'd so [Page 21] much concerning this Controversie, that I was willing before I came to that, to consider all the lesser Debates that have risen relating to this Holy Sacrament.

The occasion of this Engagement was this: Monsieur de Meaux having some years since composed a famous Book upon this Argument, it was thought fit by those of the Church of Rome to translate that also, as well as the rest of his Tracts, into our Language. Accordingly we find it to have been publish'd some time since, under the Title of ‘ A Treatise of Communion under One Kind.’

Now however it might have been sufficient for us to have follow'd their Example, in translating that most accurate Answer of the late Monsieur Larrogue to it; yet one of our Divines was content to give it a new Consideration, in an excellent Book, called,

A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind. In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux, of Communion, &c.

And here this Flourish ended: The Translator (whoever he was) of the Bishop's Treatise, looking upon himself to be no more obliged to defend it against his English Adversary, than the Bishop thought himself to be to vindicate it against the Attack of his French Antagonists. But tho this Controversie proceeded no farther, yet the Subject has been lately again revived by a very Learned Hand, who having searched throughly into Antiquity as to this Point, has given us an accurate Collection, called,

A Demonstration that the Church of Rome and her Councils have erred; by shewing that the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind, contradicted the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ.

[Page 22]

III. Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Of Transubstantiation.

And now having cleared the way of all other Debates touching this Holy Sacrament, we are at last arrived to the great Point in dispute betwixt us, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But how to dispose of my self in so copious a Subject, and upon which so many Books have been written, is hard to resolve. I have already remarked what has passed on the occasion of the Discourse of Transubstantiation, the first that began this Debate. The next that gave occasion to the revival of this Controversie, was the Author of the Dublin Letter, who being answered by the Representer in his Second Part, cap. 3. a learned man of our Communion made good his Party in an excellent Discourse, which he calls,

Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers; being a Defence of the Dublin Letter, &c.

And that no pretence to Antiquity might remain unconsidered as to this matter, the same Learned Hand has since obliged us with a full view of all that can reasonably be desired from the Primitive Fathers as to this matter, viz.

A Full Vew of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist, wholly different from those of the present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation, &c.

2. A 2d sort of Discourses there have pass'd on this Argument in which our Adversaries of the Roman Communion, have made it their business to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be as full of Contradictions as that of Transubstantiatiom: But whether this be more likely to make us Papists or Socinians, to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or to disbelieve that of the Trinity, I shall not determine. However our Divines have resolved to shew that there is no manner of reason for them to do either; and the [Page 23] Tracts that have been published on this Occasion, are especially these. ‘On the Popish Part.’

A Dialogue between a New Catholic Convert and a Protestant, concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation. ‘On Our Part.’

1. An Answer to a late Dialogue between a new Catholic Convert, and a Protestant, &c.

2. A Second Dialogue between a New Catholic Convert, and a Protestant, shewing why He cannot believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, tho' he do firmly believe the Doctrine of the Trinity.

3. The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. In a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist. In 2. Parts.

4. Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture; or the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request.

3. Other Discourses there have been in great numbers on both sides as to this Point, and it shall suffice only to transcribe the Names of them. ‘Popish Tracts concerning Transubstantiation.’

1. A Seeker's Request to Catholic Priests and Protestant Ministers, for satisfying his Conscience in the Truth of what he ought to believe of the Lords-Supper.

[Page 24] 2. The Catholic Answer to the Seeker's Request.

3. The Catholic Letter to the Seeker. ‘Protestant Treatises against Transubstantiation.’

1. A Plain Representation of Transubstantiation, as it is received in the Church of Rome.

2. The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated.

3. An Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation.

4. A Paraphrase with Notes, and a Preface upon the 6th Chapter of St. John.

5. A Brief Discourse of the Real Presence.

6. The School of the Eucharist.

7. Six Conferences concerning Transubstantiation.

8. The Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request.

9. The Protestant's Answer to the Catholic Letter to the Seeker: Or, A Vindication of the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request.

To which we may add two Books, written indeed long since by two eminent Bishops of this Church, but thought fit to be Reprinted again, since Mr. W's attempts from Oxford about the Real Presence. The First is,

10. A Brief Declarationn of the Lord's Supper, written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London, during his Imprisonment. With some Determinations and Disputations concerning the same Argument, by the same Author.

11. Diallacticon Viri Boni & Literati, &c.

[Page 25] I mention this Book, (tho a Latin one) because it is a very excellent Of the Notes of the Church. Discourse written by Dr. John Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, in Edward V [...]'s days, and was very rarely to be met with till this Reprinting of it.

SECT. VI.

Another Subject which has open'd a large field to Disputes between us, and has accordingly been frequently insisted upon, is the CHURCH; with reference to the Marks, and Nature, and Prerogatives of it.

I. Of the NOTES of the Church.

HE must be very little acquainted with the late Methods made use of by those of the Church of Rome, in propagating their Religion among us, who knows not this to have been all along their great Endeavour, to fly, as much as possible, all particular Disputes, and keep themselves within the general Notions of the Church: That so applying whatever is, or is pretended to have been said of the Church Catholic, to their own particular Communion, they might more easily deceive unwary and ignorant Men. But in this too, as well as in all other Points in debate, they have not fail'd to meet enough to encounter their Pretences. And to the End it might be better seen how vain a Pretence it is in them to call themselves Catholics, and their Church the Catholic Church, as if (in the words of the Prophet) they were alone, and there were none besides Isa. xlv. 6. them: One of the first Controversies to be remark'd in this Point is, that of the NOTES of the CHURCH; and upon which they undertake to shew theirs, exclusive to all others, to be the Catholic Church of Christ Militant upon Earth.

The former part of the State of the Controversie gave an account of the beginning of these; how our Divines engaged themselves to a weekly consideration of them, till they had past through the largest [Page 26] Catalogue we have yet had of these Notes, viz. that of Cardinal Bellarmin. They were then advanced to the third only, but now the whole is finished; and those little Exceptions which our Adversaries thought fit to make to them, are fully answered, and they altogether compose a just Volume; and plainly shew, that were the Church indeed endued with all those Prerogatives they pretend it is, yet would it stand them in no stead, seeing, that according to their own Notes, the Church of Rome cannot possibly be the Catholic or Universal Church.

The Notes which on this occasion have been particularly examined, are these.

1. An Examination of BELLARMIN's First Note concerning, [The Name of Catholick.]
2.—His Second Note, [Antiquity,]
3.—His Third Note, [Duration,]
4.—His Fourth Note, [Amplitude or Multitude and Variety of Believers.]
5.—His Fifth Note, [The Succession of Bishops.]
6. His Sixth Note, [Agreement in Doctrine with the Primitive Church.]
7.—His Seventh Note, [Union of the Members among themselves, and with the Head.]
8.—His Eighth Note, [Sanctity of Doctrine.]
9.—His Ninth Note, [Efficacy of the Doctrine.]
10.—His Tenth Note, [Holiness of Life.]
11.—His eleventh Note, [The Glory of Miracles.]
12.—His Twelfth Note, [The Light of Prophecy.]
13.—His thirteenth Note, [Confession of Adversaries.]
[Page 27] 14.—His Fourteenth Note, [The unhappy End of the Church's Enemies.]
15.—His Fifteenth Note, [Temporal Felicity.]

To which is prefixed,

A Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church; with some Reflections on Cardinal Bellarmin's Notes.

And annexed,

A Vindication of the Brief Discourse concerning the Notes of the Church; in Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled [The Use and great Moment of the Notes of the Church, as delivered by Cardinal Bellarmin (de Notis Ecclesiae) Justified.

A Defence of the Confuter of Bellarmin' s Second Note of the Church [Antiquity] against the Cavils of the Adviser.

II. Of the UNITY and AUTHORITY of the Of the Unity and Authority of the Church. Church.

This is another Argument that has exercised the Pen of a very great Person amongst us: The occasion of his entring on the Debate, was given by the publishing of some Papers of His late Majesty, and which are in every Bodies hand, called,

1. The two Papers written by the late King Charles the Second.

[Page 28] To these an Answer was published, Intituled,

2. An Answer to some Papers lately Printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England.

It was not long before two of the other side appeared about the same time, in defence of the Royal Papers: The one very light, and in some places even ridiculous, and which shews, that the Author's Talent lies towards Controversie no more in Prose, than it appears by the Hind and Panther, that it do's in Verse; called,

3. A Defence of the Papers written by the late King of Blessed Memory.

The other, much more solid and grave than the former, Intituled,

4. A Reply to the Answer made upon the Three Royal Papers.

To both of which the Learned Author returned a most accurate and elaborate Discourse, viz.

5. A Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers, concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England.

And thus far this Controversie proceeded: But there have been some other Discourses besides these, published on this Subject: In particular, the excellent Discourse just published by the Reverend Dr. Sherlock, with this Title,

[Page 29] A Discourse concerning the Nature, Unity, and Communion Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church. of the Catholick Church: Wherein most of the Controversies relating to the Church, are briefly and plainly stated. Part 1. by William Sherlock, D. D. Master of the Temple.

To these, for the Affinity of the Subject, I cannot do better than adjoyn,

III. Such other Treatises as have been publish'd, relating to the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY of the Church.

Where first I will beg leave to mention some short Pieces which have passed betwixt a Country Parson, and a Romish Missioner. The occasion, as I am informed was this: The Minister having observed some Endeavours to seduce his Flock, thought it his duty to give them some seasonable directions; which he therefore published under this Title:

1. The Country Parson's Admonition to his Parishioners, with directions how to behave themselves, when any one designs to seduce them from the Church of England.

In which Tract, he advises his Parishioners, as far as possible, to avoid all Disputes about Religion: But if the Importunity of others shall force them to it, he then directs them how to bring the matter to a short issue, viz. by putting them to prove the pretended Infallibility of the Church of Rome. And this he manageth under the Title of,

2. The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries.

I ought not to conceal how acceptable those little Pieces have been to the World, nor what good they have done among those [Page 30] for whose use they were chiefly designed. And this those of the Of the Infallibility of the Church. other side have been so sensible of, that they have thought it worth their while to set out a pretended Confutation of them both; called,

3. The Plain Man's Answer to his Country Parson's Admonition: Together with the Missionaries Answer to the Plain Man's Reply.

To which the worthy Author of the Two first Treatises, has lately replied, under these Titles,

4. A Defence of the Country Parson's Admonition.

5. A Defence of the Plain Man's Reply.

And here I think this Controversie has ended. If any Answer has been published to these last Papers, It is more than I have yet seen or heard of; and I believe there is none. As for those separate Discourses that have come forth, relating to this matter, the Principal, if not all, are these that follow. ‘On the Part of the Church of England.’

1. The Pillar and Ground of Truth; a Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be THAT Church, and the Pillar of THAT Truth mentioned by S. Paul, in 1 Tim III. 11, 15.

2. A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversies in matters of Religion.

3. A Plain and Familiar Discourse by way of Dialogue, betwixt a Minister and his Parishioner, concerning the Catholic Church.

4. Reasons why a Protestant should not turn Papist, in a Letter to a Romish Priest.

[Page 31] 5. Monsieur Claude' s Conference with the Bishop of Of the Authority of the Church. Meaux.

6. An Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils.

7. Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith.

8. A Sermon on S. Mark' s Day, by Dr. Patrick.

9. Doubts concerning the Roman Infallibility.

10. A Short Discourse concerning the Church's Authority in Matters of Faith. ‘ On the Church of Rome' s Side.’

1. A Peaceable Method for the re-uniting Protestants and Catholics in Matters of Faith. Written in French by Monsieur Maimbourg.

2. Seek and ye shall find: or a search into the Grounds of Religion, &c.

3. Monsieur de Meaux' s Conference with Monsieur Claude concerning the Authority of the Church.

SECT V.

To these Disputes concerning the Church, I do not know any that I can so fitly subjoin, as those which regard the pretended Priviledges and Authority of St. PETER and of the POPES, as His Successors.

IT is now some time since an Eminent Person of the other Communion, Dr. Godden, began the Contest as to this matter, in a Sermon Preach'd by him in the Queen Dowagers Chappel, and called,

[Page 32] A Sermon of St. Peter, preached before her Majesty, the Of S. Peter and the Pope Queen Dowager, June 29. 1686.

In requital of this, a very Learned Man of our Church, set out a Sermon which he had occasionally Preach'd in his own Church, the very same Day, upon the same Text; intituled,

A Sermon Preach'd upon S. Peter' s Day; Printed at the desire of some that heard it, with some Enlargements, by a Divine of the Church of England.

I will not say any thing more of these Two Discourses, than this, That whoso shall please to read them, will find what is to be urged from that famous Text, Thou art Peter, &c. on either side; and when they compare them together, may judg as they shall find the evidence of Truth to incline them.

But of this large Subject much more has been set forth; and it shall suffice to give a very brief Account of it.

1. The Catholick Ballance; or a Discourse determining the Controversies concerning,

1. The Tradition of Catholic Doctrines.
2. The Primacy of S. Peter, and the Bishop of Rome.
3. The Subjection and Authority of the Church in a Christian State.

2. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion; with an Answer to Mr. Sclater' s Reasons, and the Collections of Nubes Testium.

3. A modest Enquiry, Whether S. Peter were ever at Rome, and Bishop of that Church?

[Page 33] 4. Sure and Honest Means for the Conversion of all Of St. Peter and the Popes Supremacy. Hereticks; and wholesome Advice and Expedients for the Reformation of the Church.

5. Dialogues between Philerene and Philalethe.

These are, I think, the chief Discourses that have been Published by our Divines relating to the Prerogatives and Authority that some pretend to, in behalf of St. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome, his Successors. As for those which have been sent abroad on this Head by those of the Other Communion, these are the Principal that have come to my Knowledg.

1. St. Peter' s Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture, and Greek and Latin Fathers: By Mr. Clenche.

2. The Popes Supremacy Asserted from the Considerations of some Protestants, and the practice of the Primitive Church, in a Dialogue between a Church-Divine and a Seeker. In Vindication of Nubes Testium.

Concerning this last Discourse, you must observe, that it does belong to the Controversie about the Nubes Testium betwixt the Representer and the Divine of our Church who answered that Collection. The Representer made a very faint defence of his Nubes against that Answer, but gave it a good Title, calling it, The Primitive Fathers no Protestants: To which Mr. G. shortly after replied in his Primitive Fathers no Papists; after which that Controversie rested, till the Representer peept out again with this Tract in defence of one point only of his Nubes Testium; but whoever will take the pains to look into it, will find that the Representer's Stock is quite spent, and therefore he is forc'd to patch up these Learned Dialogues out of his own Nubes Testium, and the Appendix, with the addition only of a few bold strokes (which F. Sabran would have call'd Calumnies) about Dr. Sherlock, &c. So that this Book deserves no Answer at all; however a very Learned [Page 34] Person of our Church having undertaken to answer Mr. Clenche's Book, and Dr. Godden's Sermon about the Pope's Supremacy, hath condescended to consider this Tract also, and the world will very speedily be obliged with a Compleat and Learned Answer to them all under this Title.

A Discourse of the Popes Supremacy, in Two Parts:

The First, In Answer to a Treatise Entitul'd, Saint Peter's Supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to Holy Scripture and Greek and Latin Fathers. And to a Sermon of St. Peter Preach'd before her Majesty, the Queen Dowager on St. Peter and St. Paul' s day, by Tho. Godden, D. D.

The Second, In Answer to a Discourse Entitul'd, The Pope's Supremacy asserted from the Considerations of some Protestants, and the Practice of the Primitive Church, in Vindication of Nubes Testium.

SECT. VI.

Such have been the Treatises that have pass'd on both sides concerning the Popes Authority. The next Point which seems to follow the nearest upon these, and which indeed is chiefly founded on Arguments drawn from the Pretences before mention'd, is that of our unwarrantableness in separating from the Church of Rome, and Chair of St. Peter: And concerning which much has been done on both sides.

AS for our Divines, the Treatises they have publish'd in Vindication of our Reformation from the Charge of SCHISM and HERESIE, have been these that follow.

[Page 35] 1. A Vindication of the Church of England from the Of the Charge of Schism and Heresie. foul aspersions of Schism and Heresie unjustly cast upon her by the Church of Rome. In two Parts.

2. An Answer to a late Printed Paper given about by some of the Church of Rome: In a Letter to a Gentleman.

3. An Answer to the Considerations which obliged Dean Manby to embrace what he calls the Catholic Religion.

4. Notes upon Lucilla and Elizabeth.

5. An Apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in Answer to those who reproach her with the English Heresies and Schisms, or suspect her not to be a Catholic Church, upon their account.

6. A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England, should not turn Roman Catholic.

7. An Answer to the Spirit of M. Luther, and the Original of the Reformation, lately Printed at Oxford.

8. Animadversions on Mr. W's Discourse of Church-Government. In two Parts.

9. Reflections on the relation of the English Reformation, lately Printed at Oxford: and on the Oxford Theses, Two Parts.

10. An Answer to a Book Intituled, Reason and Authority, or the Motives of a late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholic Church. Together with a brief Account of Augustine the Monk, and the Conversion of the English.

11. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began; as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own.

[Page 36] 12. The Queries offer'd by T. W. to the Protestants concerning the English Reformation, Re-printed and Answer'd.

Nor have those of the Roman Communion been sparing in this Argument, but have made this a Great Subject of Contention against us: As will appear by the following Account.

1. Lucilla and Elizabeth, or the Donatist and Protestant Schism Parallel'd.

2. The Sum of a Conference had between two Divines of the Church of England, and two Catholic Lay-Gentlemen, in 1671.

3. The Church of England truly represented according to Dr. Heylin' s History of the Reformation.

4. The Considerations which obliged Peter Manby Dean of London-Derry to embrace the Roman Catholic Religion.

5. Schelstrate his Dissertation against Dr. Stillingfleet, concerning Patriarchal and Metropolitical Authority.

As to this Book, since Mr. Schelstrate's Friends heve ventured to expose it in a Translation here, the Reverend and Most Worthy Dean of Paul's will not fail, if God continue him health and opportunity, to give an Answer; and I am sure the world will not be angry with me for raising their Expectations of the Dean's Answer, since they are satisfied that he will make them sufficient amends for them.

6. A Discourse concerning the Spirit of Martin Luther, and the Original of the Reformation.

7. Church-Government Part V. A Relation of the English Reformation, and the lawfulness thereof examined.

[Page 37] 8. Some Queries to Protestants concerning the English Reformation: by T. W.

9. The Schism of the Church of England Demonstrated in Four Arguments, formerly proposed to Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson the late Bishops of Ely and Chester, by two Catholic Disputants, in a celebrated Conference upon that Point.

This little Paper with a large Title was the other day Reprinted at Oxford by the Converts there. The foul dealings and egregious disingenuity concerning that Conference, as well as the weakness and falseness of its Arguments, have been fully shewn in an Answer we have received just now from Cambridg, from a Reverend Person who was particularly related to one of those abused Bishops. The Title of his Answer is,

The Reformation of the Church of England justified, according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, and other General Councils, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, being an Answer to a Paper Re-printed at Oxford, &c.

SECT. VII.

And these are the chief Treatises that have been publish'd on these more General Points. We come now to examine what has been done on the more particular Controversies. And first we will begin with that which is the Ground of all,

The RULE of FAITH.

MAny have been the Debates concerning this; both with relation to what we suppose to be the only Divine Rule, viz. The [Page 38] HOLY SCRIPTURE, and with reference to that other Of the Rule of Faith. which those of the Church of Rome have added to it, viz. The TRADITION of the Church. And,

1. As to the Point of the HOLY SCRIPTURE, these Discourses have pass'd of late concerning it: ‘On the part of the Church of Rome.’

1. The Protestant's Plea for a Socinian, justifying his Doctrine from being opposite to Scripture, &c.

2. Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs.

3. A Request to Protestants to produce plain Scriptures, directly Authorizing xvi Tenets held by them.

4. The 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Chapters of the Second Part of the Catholic Representer.

5. An Address to the Ministers of the Church of England.

6. A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Usefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith.

7. The Catholic Scripturist.

8. Pax Vobis. ‘On the Protestant Part.’

1. The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods, in Answer to a Book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant Plea for a Socinian.

2. An Answer to the Request to Protestants to produce plain Scriptures directly Authorizing their Tenets.

3. A Summary of the Principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in Answer to Protestancy destitute of Scripture proofs.

[Page 39] 4. The Lay-Christians Obligation to read the Holy Scripture.

5. The Peoples right to read the Holy Scripture, asserted; in Answer to the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Chapters of the 2d part of the Popish Representer.

6. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith; writ by Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about the year 1450.

7. An Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England.

8. A Vindication of the Answer to the Popish Address, presented to the Ministers of the Church of England; In reply to a Pamphlet, abusively Intituled, A Clear Proof of the Certainty and Usefulness of the Protestant Rule of Faith.

9. Some Dialogues between Mr. G. and others, with Reflections on a Book called Pax Vobis.

To which I must add another and fuller Answer preparing to that same little Piece, not yet Publish'd, viz.

10. The Protestant and Popish way of Interpreting Scripture impartially compared, in Answer to Pax Vobis.

2. For what concerns the other Point, TRADITION; it has been the great Endeavour of some of late to set up once more the Infallibility of it. But none with more Noise, by an Accident, which I am now to recount, than Mr. G. and the great Master of Controveesie, and Patron of this new Hypothesis, J. S.

It happen'd about a year and half since, that the forwardness of Mr. G. to engage in a Dispute wherein he was sure to have the disadvantage both in the Point, and in the Person that was to manage [Page 40] it against him, led him into a Conference with the Reverend and Learned the Dean of Pauls. I need not say what passed there, the whole having since been published: The Subject of the Debate, was the Infallibility of Oral Tradition. The Conference being over, Mr. G. (according to the perpetual Custom of the vain and assuming spirit of that Party) began to make great Boasts in the Coffee-houses, what Feats he had done, and how great a Victory he had gained; tho the Gentleman, for whose sake the Conference was held, declared himself much more confirmed in the Communion of our Church than he was before, and resolved to continue in it. This enforced the Dean to publish a short Expostulatory Letter, called,

1. A Letter to Mr. G. giving a true Account of a late Conference at the D. of P.

In return to this, Mr. M. who was with Mr. G. at the Conference, returned a Letter or two to Dr. Stillingfleet, concerning the Conference; and these produced a second from the Dean of St. Pauls, called,

2. A second Letter to Mr. G. in Answer to two Letters lately Publish'd concerning the Conference at the D. of P.

One of the Answers to the D. of P's first Letter, was called,

3. A Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing part of his First Letter to Mr. G.

To this a Person not yet concerned, put in a Reply, Intituled,

4. A Letter to a Friend; reflecting on some passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing part of his first Letter to Mr. G.

And here Mr. J. S. was thought fit to be entrusted with carrying on this weighty Controversie; which he did in several Letters, which he calls Catholic Letters; in Answer to the former Letter, to the second of the Dean's, and to a Sermon, which in pursuance of this Controversie, he preached at Guildhall. To these Dr. S. has since replied in a Treatise, which he calls,

[Page 41] 5. A Discourse concerning the Nature and Grounds of the Certainty of Faith, in Answer to J. S. his Catholic Letters.

It was expected that this excellent Discourse, which made such a discovery of the Vanity and Contradictions of that busy Man, would have stopt his Mouth for the future, especially since the Blackloist Heresy was now like to be brought on the Stage again. But J. S. was long since past such Modesty; and since, if the worst that can come, he can eat his words now again, as well as he did before, when he was cited to Rome, to be censured for those dangerous Heretical Opinions which he is now again broaching in England: He is for venturing on, and wrote a Fifth Catholic Letter (as he ridiculously calls it) against the Dean. But tho his Letter has, I believe, met with as few Readers as Himself has Admirers, and there is no danger in the World of its doing any Mischief, since I do not believe it possible to hire any Manof Sense to read three Pages in it; yet in Compassion, I suppose, to the poor head-strong Man himself, there is a very Learned Person hath undertaken to answer not only that Fifth Letter, but the other Discourses of the Romanists about Tradition, in

An Historical Discourse concerning Tradition.

This we may expect to have published shortly. In the mean time the Reverend Dean himself did take another and more effectual course to disprove J. S's Phantastical Demonstrations of Oral Tradition, by shewing, that tho we should allow Tradition to be as certain and Infallible a Rule as they desire, yet it would do them no service, who in all those Points wherein they differ from us, have no Catholic Tradition to warrant them; upon this, in a short time after the publishing his Discourse, he set forth the First Part of a Work which we suppose may put a final end to this Debate, viz.

[Page 42] 6. The Council of Trent examined and disproved by Catholic Tradition; in the main Points in Controversy between Us and the Church of Rome: With an account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them. Part I.

We are promised a Second Part, if God continue the Reverend Author Health and Leisure; we cannot but earnestly wish for it, since the First Part was so very acceptable, and so very satisfactory.

And thus far this Controversy has been carried on on both sides. I had almost forgot to observe, that tho the Dean of Pauls himself undertook Mr. J. S. his Catholic Letters; yet the Reflecter was not wanting to his own Defence as far as he was particularly concern'd in them. But in a Second Discourse defended his Letter against Mr. J. S. his Attack in his Second Catholic Letter: The Treatise is called,

7. The Reflecters Defence of his Letter to a Friend, against the furious Assaults of Mr. J. S. in his Second Catholic Letter. In four Dialogues.

In this Condition was this Controversy when the Continuation first appear'd abroad. But Mr. J. S. has since carri'd it a little farther in a new Piece, which he calls,

8. A Letter to the Continuator of the Present State of our Controversy.

And in which, tho one would think his main Design were what he adds in the rest of his Title, To lay open the folly of my extravagant Boastings, and the Malice of my wilful Forgeries: Yet, after two Leaves and a half, spent in railing at me, he insensibly falls to his old Adversaries, and spends the rest of his Pains upon them. And to their Correction I shall leave him, who are chiefly concern'd to take notice of his Insolence. As for my self, I heartily [Page 43] pity his Vanity; and shall neither trouble my self, the World, nor him, by taking the least notice of his Recitings.

Besides this long Encounter upon the Score of Tradition, other Discourses have been published on both Sides upon this Point, Whether the Church of Rome has indeed such an Antiquity as it pretends, for the Articles in dispute betwixt us? And such was,

First, The famous Collection of one of their earliest Converts, Mr. Sclater, Minister of Putney, in a Book which he call'd,

1. Consensus Veterum: or the Reasons of Edward Sclater Minister of Putney, for his Conversion to the Catholic Faith and Communion.

And to which a Reply was published, that has put an end to this Undertaking, viz.

2. Veteres Vindicati: In an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater Minister of Putney, upon his Consensus Veterum.

But the next Collection was more general, and has run into a longer Debate: It was called,

1. Nubes Testium: Or, A Collection of the Primitive Fathers, giving Testimony to the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

To this the same Learned Man who had before Encountred Mr. Sclater's Pretences, gave a short but exact Answer; and shew'd, That tho the Representer (for it seems his it was) called it a Collection of the Primitive Fathers, he might much better have entituled a Collection of Natalis Alexander, out of whom he stole the far greatest part of it. The Representer will, I hope, excuse this Reflection, which I make only for the sake of Truth, and to shew how unwilling I am in any thing to deserve being thought a Misrepresenter; which is now become as dangerous a Name, as ever that of Heretic or Schismatic was heretofore. The Answer is called,

[Page 44] 2. An Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium: Wherein is shewn, That Antiquity did not for the first five hundred years Believe, Teach, or Practice, as the Church of Rome doth at present Believe, Teach, and Practice.

And here we are to meet a very strange Accident, the great Chastiser of Misrepresenters, that honest, sincere Man that cannot endure false dealing, but was dropt down from Heaven to be the Scourge and Censor of a licentious Age, himself become a Misrepresenter: And by a strange kind of Metamorphosis, from an Angel of Light transforming himself into a Spirit of Darkness. In short, He was it seems enraged to the last Degree, to see not only his venerable Authorities all ruined, but his Treasury discovered, and the very places mark'd from whence he had stollen his Book, without so much as once acknowledging to whom he was beholden for it. And yet what should he do? Reply to it fairly he could not; for after all his shew of Antiquity, the Fathers were a sort of Christians that he was utterly unacquainted with; and had he been as well versed in them as he is in Natalis Alexander, yet could he not have fairly brought them to speak in behalf of his Church. He therefore resolved under a new form to pickeer with the Author, and see if he could prevent him by some cunning Stratagem from being in a capacity of shewing him any such trick for the future. And therefore now no more the Reverend Father he was before, but as a Zealous Brother of the other Extreme, tho yet a Misrepresenter still, he lets fly at the Principles of his Adversary; and undertakes out of his grand concern for the Protestant Interest, to shew our Divines that this Gentleman was one, who for all his Pretences in their behalf, really endeavour'd to set up Popery in Masquerade. And to this end came out a formal Piece called,

3. A Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England in order to a Union.

[Page 45] But to the great surprize of this Gentleman, his Adversary, who it seems was as well acquainted with Henry Hill's Press, as Natalis Alexander's History, and by a sort of Beauties so essential to the Representer, that do what he can he is not able to disguise himself, presently found out what an Ass was crept into the Lyon's Skin. And to let the whole World see what an honest fair dealer this Representer is, he quickly gave an account of it in Print, in his Answer to the Pamphlet, Intituled,

4. A Vindication of the Principles of the Author of the Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium, from the Charge of Popery: In Answer to a late pretended Letter from a Dissenter, to the Divines of the Church of England.

To this I do not know that the Representer has yet replied: But in defence of his Nubes Testium we have an Answer that every way befits the Character of its Author: It is call'd,

5. The Primitive Fathers no Protestants: Or a Vindication of Nubes Testium from the Cavils of the Answerer.

And that has produced us another Defence: viz.

6. The Primitive Fathers no Papists: In Answer to the Vindication of the Nubes Testium. To which is added an Historical Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints, in Answer to the Challenge of Father Lewis Sabran the Jesuit.

And here it was thought this Controversy would have ended, till the other day the Representer peept out with his Defence of one Chapter of his Nubes Testium, which I have already mentioned under this Title, ‘ [Page 46] The Popes Supremacy Asserted.’

To which an Answer will be shortly in the Press.

And here this Debate might have ended, had not a short Postscript at the Close of the first Answer to the Nubes Testium, engaged our Worthy Author in a new Quarrel with Father Sabran a Jesuit; and who is now grown more famous in the World from his New Antagonist the Protestant Footman, who as we have before observed, undertook the Defence of the Reverend Master of the Temple from such pitiful Cavils, as indeed were not worth the while of the Learned Man himself to take notice of; and are abundantly answer'd by his new and more proper Antagonist.

In his Sermon before the King at Chester, this Jesuit told his Majesty and the Auditory, that he follow'd the advice of St. Austin when he recommended himself to the Blessed Virgins Intercession, and advised them to do the same: And for this quotes his Thirtyfifth Sermon de Sanctis. Upon this there began a hot Debate in Letters betwixt F. Sabran, and the Answerer, concerning this Authority of St. Austin; and at last from a particular Passage, rose up to a General Point, of the Practice of the Primitive Church as to the Invocation of Saints. The Pieces themselves may be consulted in this Order.

1. A Letter to a Peer of the Church of England, clearing a Point in a Sermon Preach'd at Chester, in Answer to a Postscript joyned unto the Answer to Nubes Testium.

2. A Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuit, in Answer to his Letter to a Peer of the Church of England, &c.

3. A Reply of Lewis Sabrand of the Society of Jesus, to the Answer given to his Letter written to a Peer of the Church of England, &c.

[Page 47] 4. A Second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran, Jesuit, in Answer to his Reply.

And here the Controversy about St. Austin's Sermon was either ended or dropt, the Jesuit being now ferretted by the Second Letter out of all his starting holes. But Mr. G. in his Primitive Fathers no Papists, taking into Consideration a Challenge, which the Jesuit had made him in one of his Letters about Invocation, published an Historical Discourse to prove that Invocation of Saints was neither the Doctrine nor the Practice of the Primitive Fathers. Upon this the Jesuit begun again, after having taken a little breath, and in a whole Sheet undertakes to answer that large Historical Account, with this Title,

5. The Challenge of Father Lewis Sabran made out, against the Historical Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints.

To which Mr. G. very soon after replied in

6. A Third Letter to Father Lewis Sabran, Jesuit; Wherein the Defence of his Challenge concerning Invocation of Saints, is Examin'd and Confuted.

In this Letter Mr. G. made such Discoveries of the strange Disingenuity, and confident Ignorance of the Jesuit, that he was resolved to rid his Hands of such an Adversary as had neither Learning nor Good-manners, and therefore told him in the Conclusion of his Letter that he would trouble himself no more with answering such an Adversary. Upon this the Jesuit, whose only stock is Confidence, being turn'd off by his Learned Adversary, was forc'd to address his next Reply to a Third Person, and pitcht upon Mr. Needham, because he had Licensed Mr. G's Third Letter to him; and directed a Letter to him with this Title,

7. A Letter to Dr. William Needham; In Answer to the Third Letter by him Licensed, Written to Father Lewis Sabran, of the Society of Jesus.

[Page 48] To which Mr. G. did finally Reply in an Address to the Jesuit's Superiors; and this it's supposed will end this Controversy, it is call'd,

8. A Letter to the Superiors, (whether Bishops or Priests) which approve or License the Popish Books in England; particularly to those of the Jesuits Order, concerning Lewis Sabran, a Jesuit.

And all these Engagements the first Answer to the Nubes Testium produced: But tho we now quit our Author, yet we must not therefore leave the Subject. For about the same time that the former Answer appeared, another Learned Person of our Church began to consider it by Parts, in several Letters to a Person of Quality: And the Account of which I will now give, as far as the Pieces are come to my Knowledg. The first that appeared, was called,

1. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion: With an Answer to Mr. Sclater' s Reasons, and the Collections made by the Author of the Pamphlet intituled, Nubes Testium. In a Letter to a Person of Quality. The first Part.

The next he Entituled,

2. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion, concerning Images: With an Answer to the Collections made by the Author of the Pamphlet, Intituled, Nubes Testium. In a Letter to a Person of Quality. The 2nd Part.

What Notice has been taken of the former of these, I am not able to say; but the latter has produced us an Answer, Entituled,

[Page 49] 3. A Discourse of the Use of Images, in relation to the Church of England and the Church of Rome; in Vindication of Nubes Testium.

To which our Author has replied in

4. A Third Letter to a Person of Quality, being a Vindication of the former; in Answer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, A Discourse of the Use of Images.

And to that in pursuance of his First Design, has lately added a Fourth, which he calls,

5. A Fourth Letter to a Person of Quality; being an Historical Account of the Doctrine of the Sacrament, from the Primitive times to the Council of Trent, shewing the Novelty of Transubstantiation.

To conclude this Head, I shall only add one General Discourse on this Subject, which I have before mention'd, and can never name too often, viz.

Of the Authority of Councils, and the RULE of FAITH.

[Page 50]

SECT. VIII. Of the Nature of Idolatry.

Having hitherto pursu'd the business of the Rule of Faith, and the Treatises that have been publish'd on the Occasion of it; we will now go on to the more special Examinations that have been made by both these Rules; viz. Scripture and Tradition, of the particular Points in debate betwixt us. And because I have just now mention'd some such Examinations of the two great Rocks of offence to us, The Worship of Images, and the Invocation of Saints; it may not be amiss first of all to see what has been further done upon these Arguments, and the other instances of what we esteem,

The IDOLATRY of the Church of Rome.

THere is perhaps nothing in all our Disputes with those of the other Communion, which they so unwillingly care to enter on, as this. They look upon the very Name of it to be a kind of Reproach to them, and would be thought as heartily, as we our selves can desire, to detest the Guilt of it. But yet 'tis too evident to be deny'd, that our Charge is very justly brought against them; and by consequence that it ought not to be doubted, but that our Separation from them must have been most reasonable, if it can indeed be made appear, as we are perswaded we have plainly shewn, that we could not have continued in their Communion, without joyning with them in the Practice of one of the greatest of Sins, viz. Idolatry.

[Page 51] But before we come to the Particulars in which this Charge is brought against them, it is fit we should first state the general Notion of IDOLATRY; and this has been effectually done, but very lately. The Reverend the Bishop of Oxon, having in a Treatise which he published for the abrogating of the Test and Penal Laws, given us just occasion to do so. This Book is so well known, and the Answer to it was so lately published, that I shall not need say any thing more of either, but only add their Titles, which are these, viz.

1. Reasons for Abrogating the Test.

2. A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry: In which a late Author' s true and only notion of Idolatry is consider'd and Confuted.

I must not forget to observe also, that the Bishop in his Tract pretending to give a new and very strange Account of the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that part of his Book received two particular Considerations, the one in the Preface to the Reverend Dean of Paul's Book, Entituled, The Council of Trent examined and disproved by Catholic Tradition: The other in a Learned Discourse, under this Title,

3. Transubstantiation the Peculiar Doctrine of the Church of Rome.

I am told we owe this Book to a very ingenious Nonconformist; and as we cannot but thank him for the Discourse he has given us, so he deserves to be thanked for his design of answering the other part of the Bishop's Book about the Nature of Idolatry; in which he was prevented, as I am told, by the other Discourse about the Nature of Idolatry coming out while that good design was under his hands. I cannot but wish that our Brethren had begun sooner to assist us in such a large Controversie as we have been obliged to manage, and that others amongst them would follow the Example, which this Learned Author has so worthily set before them.

[Page 52] Another Writer hath given us a very ingenious short Answer to both parts of the Bishop's Book, and calls it,

4. A Discourse concerning Transubstantiation and Idolatry, being an Answer to the Bishop of Oxford's Plea relating to those two Points.

As for the particular Instances wherein we make good this charge of Idolatry against them; I have before mentioned that of the ADORATION of the HOST, and the Discourses that have been published on that Argument. The two Points See above, Page 6. 19. remaining, and of which something was said under the last Head, are, the WORSHIP of IMAGES, and the INVOCATION of Saints.

I. Of the WORSHIP of IMAGES.

Upon which Point, besides the two Letters written in Answer to the Nubes Testium, the following Discourses have also been set forth, viz. Of the Worship of Images.

1. The Fallibility of the Roman Church demonstrated from the manifest Error of the second Nicene and Trent Councils; which assert, That the Veneration and Honorary Worship of Images is a Tradition Primitive and Apostolical.

2. A Discourse concerning the second Council of Nice, which first introduced and established Image-Worship in the Christian Church; Anno Domini 787.

For the other Point,

II. The INVOCATION of SAINTS.

Many Discourses have been Published, and a full account given of this Matter; and if we may judge by the slender Returns [Page 53] that have been made to them, little is to be said in Vindication Of the Invocation of Saints. of this Superstition. The Treatises that I have seen, are these that follow.

1. Speculum B. Virginis: A Discourse of the due Praise and Honour of the Virgin Mary.

2. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints; with an Account of the Beginning and Rise of it among Christians; in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux' s Appeal to the ivth Age, in his Exposition and Pastoral Letter.

3. Wholesom Advices from the B. Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers.

This Piece was only a Translation which an Ingenious Lay-man of our Church put into English, and set a large Preface before it: To this the Catholic Representer gave an Attack in the 4th Chapter of his Second Part; and thereby obliged our Author to make a smart Reply upon him, called, ‘A Letter to the Misrepresenter of Papists.’

4. An Account of the Life and Death of the B. Virgin, according to the Romish Writers, with the Grounds of the Worship paid to her.

5. The Life of S. Mary Magdalene of Pazzi, a Carmelite Nun; with a Preface of the Nature, Causes, Concomitants, and Consequences of Extasie and Rapture; and a brief Discourse added, about discerning and trying Spirits, whether they be of God.

6. An Abridgment of the Prerogatives of S. Ann, Mother of the Mother of God.

[Page 54] 7. The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in some Observations upon the Life of Ignatius Loyola.

8. The Virgin Mary Misrepresented by the Roman Church, &c. Part I. Wherein Two of her Feasts, her Conception, and Nativity, are considered.

We are in hopes that the Excellent Author of this most ingenious and diverting Discourse will e're long oblige the World with a Second Part, and teach the Papists at length to grow ashamed of their intolerable Superstitions towards the Virgin Mary.

As for those of the other Communion, it is but little they have published in particular on this Subject, besides what I have already mentioned. But two Pieces there are which I ought by no means no forget, viz.

1. Contemplations on the Life and Glory of H. Mary.
2. An Apology for the Contemplations, by Dr. I. C.

Which Apology was fully answered in the ingenious Preface to the Book called, An Account of the Life and Death of the Blessed Virgin.

[Page 55]

SECT. IX. Of the Validity of Orders in the C. of E.

I shall mention but one Particular more, on which we have of late, as heretofore, been attack'd by those of the Roman Church, and effectually Vindicated our selves, both against their Calumnies, and their Reasons; and that is as to the Validity of ORDERS in the Church of England.

THE Occasion of reviving this Matter, was given by a little Scurrilous Libel that went abroad, under the name of, ‘ The Church of England truly Represented.’

And in Reply to whose Calumnies, Three Discourses have been Published, two of them new, the other only reprinted, viz.

1. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders.

2. A Defence of the Ordinations and Ministry of the Church of England; in Answer to the Scandals raised or revived against them, in several late Pamphlets, and particularly in one intituled, The Church of England truly Represented, &c.

3. A short Defence of the Orders of the Church of England, as by Law establish'd; against some scattered Objections of Mr. Webster of Linne.

[Page 56] But this Subject hath been most largely and learnedly handled by the Learned Mr. Brown, of S. John's College in Cambridge, in his Sermon ad Clerum; and in another Sermon Preached before the University on Commencement Sunday; Translated into Latin; and both together Printed at Cambridge under this Title.

4. Concio ad Clerum habita coram Academia Cantabrigiensi Junii 11. An. 1687. pro Gradu Baccal in S. Theologia; Ubi vindicatur Vera & Valida Cleri Anglicani, Ineunte Reformatione, Ordinatio. Cui accessit Concio habita Julii 3. 1687. de Canonica Cleri Anglicani Ordinatione Latine reddita & aucta; a Th. Brown, S. T. B. Coll. D. Joh. Evang. Soc. annexum est Instrumentum Consecrationis Matth. Parker, Archiep. Cant. ex MS. C. C. C. Cantabr.

I hear the worthy Author hath been very earnestly requested to Translate these Latin Sermons into English; and I am told, that he delays it only upon the account of some Answer that the Papists have been talking they would give to them, being desirous to make his Translation and Vindication one trouble. I cannot therefore but in the behalf of those who are so desirous to have these Sermons in English, request our Adversaries, That if they have any thing to say to them, they would make a little more haste with it. And for the mighty Master of Controversie, who I hear hath resolved to answer a Paragraph in one of them, I must needs tell him, That Nine Months is more by Eight and an half, than an ordinary Controvertist would have taken to answer such a Piece in.

But in this Controversie we have not been merely upon the Defensive Part, but have attack'd their Orders, as well as defended our own. This a Learned Man of our Church hath done in a Book under this Title,

[Page 57] 5. Roman Catholics uncertain whether there be any Miscellany Treatises. true Priests or Sacraments in the Church of Rome.

SECT. X.

Having thus reduced the Principal Treatises that have been set forth, to their Particular Heads, as far as in so great a Confusion of Matter I could well do it; it remains only to add here such Treatises on both sides, as I have before pass'd by, or could not be so readily brought to any special Consideration.

NOW those of this kind, which have been set forth by the CHURCH of ROME, are these,

1. Question of Questions.

2. Why are you a Catholic?

3. Propery Anatomized; or the Papists clear'd from the false Imputation of Idolatry and Rebellion.

4. Veritas Evangelica; or the Gospel Truth asserted in xvi useful Questions.

5. Pope Pius Profession of Faith vindicated, &c.

6. Dr. Sherlock sifted from his Bran and Chaff.

7. The Pharisee unmask'd.

8. Assertio vii Sacramentorum; by King Henry viiith, against Luther.

9. A Reformd Catechism, by P. Manby.

[Page 58] 10. Animadversions on the Rishop of Bath's Sermon, &c.

To these they have, because not at leisure to write new Books, or for some other better Reason, added an old Book written by one F. Huddleston, a Benedictine; it is called,

11. A Short and Plain way to the Faith and Church, &c.

To this there is an Answer almost finished by a very Learned Person, who will demonstrate to the World, how little that Book had in it to convince.

On Our Part have appear'd of this Miscellany kind, these that follow.

1. Remarks on Popery Misrepresented, with reference to the Deposing Doctrine.

2. Pope Pius's Creed, with Comments.

3. The Additional Articles in Pope Pius's Creed, no Articles of the Christian Faith.

4. A few plain Reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England should not turn Roman Catholic.

5. Thirty plain, but sound Reasons why Protestants differ from Popery.

6. A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgement of their Adversaries; and that their Religion is the surest way to Heaven.

[Page 59] 7. A Pacifick Discourse of the Causes and Remedies of the Differences about Religion, which distract the Peace of Christendom.

8. The Missionaries Arts discover'd.

9. A Request to Roman Catholics to answer certain Queries on several of their Tenets mention'd.

10. A Brief Account of the first rise of the Name Protestant, &c.

11. An Historical Relation of several great and learned Romanists that have embraced the Protestant Religion.

12. A Catechism truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome; with an Answer to them.

13. The Plausible Arguments of a Romish Priest Answer'd by an English Protestant.

14. A Discourse between two Protestants, in Answer to a Popish Catechism, call'd, A Short Catechism against all Sectaries.

15. A Plain Defence of the Protestant Religion, fitted to the Meanest Capacity: being a full confutation of the Net for the Fishers of Men.

16. Some Queries to Protestants Answer'd: and an Explication of the Roman Catholic' s Belief in Four great Points consider'd; 1. Concerning their Church. 2. Their Worship. 3. Justification. 4. Civil Government.

17. The Judgement of Private Discretion in matters of Religion, defended in a Sermon at S. Paul' s Covent-Garden, By Mr. Kidder.

[Page 60] 18. The Protestant Resolved: Or a Discourse, shewing the Unreasonableness of his turning Roman Catholic for salvation.

19. A Discourse, wherein is held forth the Opposition of the Doctrine, Worship, and Practices of the Roman Church, to the Nature, Designs, and Characters of the Christian Faith.

20. Two short Discourses against the Romanists, by Mr. Dodwell, Cambden Professor in the University of Oxford.

21. An Answer to a Discourse concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy, printed at Oxford.

22. A Letter to a Lady: furnishing Her with Scripture Testimonies, against the principal Points and Doctrines of Popery.

In return to the last of these Discourses, Father Darrell the Jesuit has been pleased to set out a Single Half Sheet, which he calls,

A Letter to a Lady: wherein he desires a Conference with the Gentleman who writ Her that Letter.

This is indeed a new way of answering Books, and becoming the busie, assuming spirit of that Society. One would wonder, after so little Success as they have hitherto met with in these Encounters, what should move this Reverend Father to be so forward to come into the same List with Goodwin, Pulton, and a few others of the same Character. For tho abundance of Noise in a Conference, and of Misrepresentation after, may help out a weak Cause, and an Illiterate Defender of it, when they are sure beforehand of the person for whose sake it is held; yet methinks they should be more wary than to run upon such Hazards, where, in all probability, they are not like either to gain their Proselyte, or [Page 61] to have the opportunity of these kind of Subterfuges to assist them.

However, tho I have neither the Honour to know the Lady, or the Author of that Letter; yet for this good Father's satisfaction, I will venture for once to promise him, That if her Ladyship does desire it, not only the Author of that Letter will be ready to meet him, but to shew how willing we are to encourage a hopeful Design, let him chuse his Gownman between Blackwall and Hide-park Corner, and I dare say there is not one among them all that on this or any other occasion will decline to shew him how little reason he has for his forwardness.

I am now hastning to an End of this Undertaking; and, I think I cannot better finish it, than with a short Account of a Controversie which made no small Noise in the World, between the Reverend Dr. Tenison, and Father Pulton the Jesuit.

About Michaelmas last they met at a House in Long-Acre, on the acount of a Boy whom Mr. Pulton had perverted from our Religion. Great things were presently talked, as usual on such occasions, concerning this Conference; and the Papists fail'd not to boast of a mighty Conquest made over the Doctor. This forced him to resolve on a Publication of what passed, tho otherwise as little fit, as designed to be communicated to the world. Each Party set forth his own Account, and first Mr. Pulton his, in two Books, called,

1. A true Account of the Conference, &c.

2. A true and full Account of a Conference held about Religion, between Dr. Thomas Tenison, and A. Pulton one of the Masters in the Savoy.

Dr. Tenison's was Entituled,

3. A true account of a Conference held about Religion, at London, Sept. 29. 1687. between A. Pulton Jesuit, and Thomas Tenison, D. D.

[Page 62] This was followed on the Jesuit's part, with a new Discourse, called,

4. Remarks of A. Pulton, upon Dr. Thomas Tenison's late Narrative, with a Confutation of the Doctor's Rule of Faith; and Reply to A. Cressener's pretended Vindication.

To which Dr. Tenison reply'd in a second Treatise, viz.

5. Mr. Pulton consider'd, &c.

And this produced another Discourse from another hand, viz. Mr. Meredith, who was present at the Conference, called,

6. Some farther Remarks on the late Account given by Dr. Tenison of his Conference with Mr. Pulton.

As for what is added in Mr. Pulton's 3d. Treatise in Answer to A. Cressener, the meaning of it is this: Mr. Cressener a Schoolmaster, being present at the Conference, Mr. Pulton in his account of it, gave him some occasion to complain of his Relation, as to that part of it which concerned him; and therefore, to justifie himself, he published a short Treatise, to which Mr. Pulton there refers, viz.

7. The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit and Schoolmaster in the Savoy.

And thus this Controversie ended; but yet I must not leave it, till I have taken notice of another that it begat, and that no less memorable than the foregoing. For upon the occasion of this Conference, a Paper was taken notice of much used by the puny Controvertists of our days, called,

[Page 63] 1. Speculum Ecclesiasticum: Or an Ecclesiastical Prospective Glass:

Written, as we are told, by a Souldier of that Party, T. Ward; and to which Dr. Tenison procured a young Man, a Friend of his, to write an Answer; which he did, Entituled,

2. The Speculum Ecclesiasticum consider'd, in its false Reasonings and Quotations.

But before this was published, the Doctor obtained a Copy of a Defence which the Soldier had prepared of his Quotations, but was not yet come from the Press; and to finish all at once, an Answer was set forth to that too at the same time ere it could appear abroad in the world. This the Soldier resented, and expressed his sense of it in a Letter to Dr. Tenison; which, together with a Reply to it, were published under the Title of,

3. An Answer to the Letter of the Catholic Souldier, in a Letter from C. D. to A. B. the Examiner of his Speculum.

However, not long after, the Defence was publish'd with a dreadful Name, viz.

4. Monomachia: Or, A Duel Between Dr. Thomas Tenison Pastor of St. Martins, and a Roman Catholic Souldier.

And so I think this worthy Controversie ended.

[Page 64]

SECT. XI.

Having now run through the several Heads of Controversy that have of late exercised the Pens of our Learned Men in Defence of our Religion, it may not be amiss to stop here awhile, and by a brief Recapitulation of the Whole, see what more remains to a compleat Vindication of our Selves against all the Tricks and Artifices, as well as against the Arguments of our Adversaries.

IT is sufficiently evident from the foregoing Collection, what slender Returns those of the Church of Rome have made to the many excellent Discourses, which themselves (without any provocation of ours) have extorted from us. And what prejudice they have hereby done to their Religion, I am confident they themselves are not unsensible. I need not say what a Number of Disputes they have altogether let fall; how many of our Books, to this day, remain Un-answered, and are ever likely to be so. In a word, what Trifles many times they have set forth under the arrogant Title of FULL ANSWERS to those they have thought fit to take Notice of. And now at last, to compleat all, they seem to have utterly deserted the Controversie; and, too late, to see that Truth and Learning are not to be run down by those who are utterly destitute of the One, and, as far as we may be allowed to guess by their performances, have but very slender pretences to the Other.

The truth is, Popery is a Religion fit only for an Inquisition to maintain, and Dragoons to propagate. Ignorance and Barbarity brought it into the World; Interest and Passion maintain and keep it up: No sooner did Learning begin to revive, but Popery began immediately to decay; and ever since, the One has still decreased in proportion, as the Other has flourish'd. And to think at this [Page 65] time a day seriously to dispute a Nation so resolute and knowing as Ours, again into the Errors of it, plainly shews either that our Adversaries have a very mean Opinion of our Understandings, or I am sure deserve that we should have no very great one of theirs.

But whatever they once may have flatter'd themselves withal, I am confident they now begin to be satisfied, That Popery is a Religion that will not thrive in our Northern Climate. And tho they are pleased sometimes to divert themselves with our Divisions, and, it may be, did from thence conceive some hopes of promoting their Interest amongst us; yet I doubt not but they now see, that we are not so much divided amongst our selves, as we are all of us heartily united against them.

As for the Divines of the Church of England, how firmly they have adhered to the Protestant Interest, is not unknown to any. Their Preaching, their Conversation, but, above all, their Writings declare it to the World: And how fouly, by consequence, they were heretofore either mistaken, or misrepresented, when they were exposed by some (who I believe wish'd them so) as Papists in Masquerade, or at least as Popishly affected.

Never perhaps was there a Controversie more successfully managed than this has been in these late Years. Till now, these Points were handled in such a manner, that if the Learned applauded the performance, yet the Vulgar were but little the better for it. But in these Discourses, Strength of Argument, and Plainness of Discourse seem to vie with one another. The Arguments so sound, as to convince all Gain-sayers; and yet the Plainness so great, that the meanest Persons may comprehend the force of them. And thus have they pursued not one or two Points, but I may warrantably say, the whole Controversy betwixt us. Insomuch that from henceforth we may well excuse them any farther trouble, till either our Adversaries shall think fit to answer their Discourses, or to advance some other Arguments than those which have already been obviated and confuted.

But indeed there is no great likelihood of either of these; and I dare venture to promise my Reader, that let those of the Church of Rome attacque him where they please, let them in writing or discourse offer what they are able to him, he shall here in this [Page 66] Collection, which I therefore on purpose make of several of these Treatises under their proper Heads, find more than enough to answer all their Allegations.

I. GENERAL DISCOURSES: Or such as consider the most part of the Points in debate betwixt us.

1. The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented.
2. Answer to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition.
3. Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England.
4. Two Defences of the Exposition.
5. An Answer to the Compiler of the Nubes Testium.
6. The Primitive Fathers no Papists.
7. Pope Pius's Creed with Comments.
8. The Additional Articles in Pope Pius's Creed, no Articles in the Christian Faith.

II. Of RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

1. A Discourse concerning the OBJECT of Religious Worship.
2. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome.

III. Of PRAYER in an UNKNOWN TONGUE.

[Page 67]1. A Discourse of Prayer in an Unknown Tongue.
2. A Treatise in Confutation of the Latin Service, &c.

IV. Of the INVOCATION of SAINTS.

1. A Discourse concerning the INVOCATION of SAINTS.
2. Second Defence of the Exposition, Artic. III.
3. An Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery.
4. Mr. Gee's third Letter to Father Sabran.
5. The Primitive Fathers no Papists.
6. A Discourse in Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the IVth. Age. Paticularly of the B. VIRGIN.
See several Discourses collected, pag. 52, 53.

V. Of IMAGES and RELIQUES.

1. The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images.
2. The Vindication of it.—See above, pag. 48.
[Page 68] 3. The Fallibility of the Church of Rome demonstrated, from the manifest Error of the Second Nicene and Trent Councils, in the Point of Images.
4. A Discourse concerning the 2d. Council of Nice, which first introduced and established Image Worship in the Christian Church.
5. Second Defence of the Exposition, Part 2. Art. IV.
6. Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery.

VI. Of IDOLATRY.

A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry, in Answer to the Bishop of Oxon.

VII. Of MERITS; SATISFACTIONS; PURGATORY; and INDULGENCES.

1. Two Discourses of Purgatory, and PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
2. Purgatory proved by Miracles.
3. Apology for the Pulpits. Appendix of Indulgences.
4. The Primitive Fathers no Papists.
5. Summary of the Controversies for Purgatory.
6. A Discourse concerning the Merits of Good Works.

VIII. Of the SACRAMENTS.

[Page 69] An Historical Discourse of the Ministers Intentions, in Administring the Sacraments.

IX. Of CONFESSION and PENANCE.

A Discourse of Auricular Confession, as prescribed by the Council of Trent.

X. Of EXTREME UNCTION.

1. A Discourse of Extreme Unction.

XI. Of ORDERS.

1. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England.
2. Concio ad Clerum, &c. See pag. 54, 55.
3. A Defence of the Ordinations and Ministry of the Church of England.
[Page 70] 4. A short Defence of the Orders of the Church of England.

To these Learned Discourses we shall shortly have added another upon the same good Subject from the Reverend and Learned Dr. Prideaux, Prebendary of Norwich, intituled,

5. The Validity of the Orders of the Church of England made out against the Objections of the Papists in several Letters to a Gentleman of Norwich that desired satisfaction therein.
6. Roman Catholics uncertain whether there be any true Priests or Sacraments in the Church of Rome.

XII. Of the REAL PRESENCE.

1. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points, of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host.
2. A Reply to two Discourses, printed at Oxford, &c.

XIII. Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

1. A Discourse against Transubstantiation.
2. Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.
[Page 71] 3. Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church, relating to the Eucharist, &c.
4. Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture.
5. A Paraphrase, with Notes and a Preface on the vith of St. John.
6. The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated. See many other Tracts above, from pag. 22.
7. Veteres Vindicati, in Answer to Mr. Sclater.
8. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, in Answer to Mr. W.
9. Fourth Letter to a Person of Quality. See above, p. 48.
10. Transubstantiation the peculiar Doctrine of the Church of Rome, see p. 50.

XIV. Of the SACRIFICE of the MASS.

1. A Discourse concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass

XV. Of the ADORATION of the HOST.

1. A Discourse of the Adoration of the Host.

XVI. Of COMMUNION in BOTH KINDS.

[Page 72]1. A Discourse of Communion in One Kind, in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux.
2. A Demonstration that the Church of Rome and her Councils have Erred, touching Communion in One Kind.

XVII. Of the RULE &c. of FAITH.

1. A Discourse concerning a Guide in Matters of Faith.
2. The Protestant Resolution of Faith.
3. Of the Authority of Councils, and of the Rule of Faith.

XVIII. Of the HOLY SCRIPTURE.

1. An Answer to the Request to Protestants.
2. A Summary of the Principal Controversies betwixt the Church of England, and the Church of Rome.
3. The Lay-Christian' s Obligation to read the Scripture.
[Page 73] 4. The Peoples Right to read the Scripture.
5. The Protestant and Popish way of Interpreting Scripture, impartially compared; in Answer to Pax Vobis. See other Discourses above, p. 38, 39.

XIX. Of TRADITION.

1. Discourse about Tradition.
2. An Historical Discourse concerning Tradition.
3. The Council of Trent examined and disproved by Catholic Tradition. See more Discourses above, p. 40, 41, 42.
To which I must add an Excellent Treatise omitted in its proper place, but which ought not by any means to be forgotten, called,

4. A Treatise of Traditions. In 2 Parts.

XX. Of the CHURCH.

1. A Discourse of the Unity of the Catholic Church maintained in the C. of E.
2. A Discourse of the Charge of Novelty, brought against the Ch. of E.
3. The Notes of the Church. See above, p. 26.
4. Of the Unity and Authority of the Church: See Discourses above, p. 28.
[Page 74]
To which we must add a Book since published, which ought by no means to be forgotten, being (as we are assured) the Genuine Issue of the Great and Admired Bishop Sanderson; It is called,

5. A Discourse concerning the Church, in these following Particulars, 1. Concerning the Visibility of the True Church: 2. Concerning the Church of Rome: 3. Concerning Protestant Churches: 4. An Answer to the Question, Where was your Church before Luther?
6. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church.
Several Discourses, p. 29, 30, 31.
7. Two short Discourses against the Romanists, by Mr. Dodwell.

XXI. Of St. PETER, and the POPE.

1. A Sermon Preach'd upon S. Peter' s Day.
2. The Catholic Balance.
3. A Discourse of the Pope's Supremacy, in two Parts.
To which we may add a Tract since Printed, with this Title,

4. Pope Gregory the Great his Opinion of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, taken from his own Writings. See other Discourses above, p. 32, 33, 34.

XXII. Of the REFORMATION.

[Page 75]1. Two Discourses concerning the Necessity of the Reformation.
2. An Answer to the Spirit of Martin Luther, and the Original of the Reformation.
3. Reflections on the Relation of the English Reformation, Printed at Oxford. See other Discourses above, p. 35, 36.

XXIII. Of SCHISM; and HERESIE.

1. A Vindication of the Church of England, from the foul Aspersions of Schism and Heresie, 2 Parts.
2. An Apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, &c. See other Discourses above, p. 35, 36.

XXIV. Of the CELIBACY of the CLERGY.

1. A Discourse of the Celibacy of the Clergy.
2. An Answer to a Discourse concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy; Printed at Oxford.

[Page 76]

SECT. XII.

And now after so full an Account of these Discourses, and of the several Controversies that have been handled in them; I have only remaining for the Close of all, to give a short Account of that Excellent Undertaking in which our Divines are at this time engaged; and which being finished, I do not see what more can be desired in order to our full Satisfaction in this Matter.

I Have before recounted how by a joint Labour they run through the Consideration of the pretended Notes of the Church, on which the Romanists establish their usurped Authority. No sooner were those ended, but they presently resolved upon another, and a more useful Project, which was to search into our Adversaries Books; and collect all those Passages of Scripture which are usually alledged by them to maintain their Errors. And by giving the true Explication of them, at once to secure their Flock from their false Glosses, and let them into a better understanding of those Sacred Books. In this Undertaking they have already made a considerable Advance, as will appear by the following Catalogue:

1. POPERY not founded on SCRIPTURE: Or, The Texts which Papists cite out of the Bible for the Proof of the Points of THEIR RELIGION, examined, and shewed to be alledged without Ground.

[Page 77] After which follow the Texts themselves, which they bring for,

2. The Obscurity of the Holy Scriptures.

3. The Insufficiency of Scripture, and the Necessity of Tradition.

4. The Supremacy of St. Peter, and of the Pope, over the whole Church, in Two Parts.

5. Their Doctrine of Infallibility.

6. The Worship of Angels and Saints departed. In Two Parts.

7. The Worship of Images and Reliques.

8. The Seven Sacraments, and the Efficacy of them. In Two Parts.

9. The Sacrifice of the Mass. Two Parts.

10. Transubstantiation.

11. Auricular Confession.

12. Satisfactions. Two Parts.

May they go on with Success to finish this Good Work; whilst we (for whose sake they take all these pains) encourage their Endeavours, by a firm adherence both to them and to their Doctrine, and by our constant contending for the Faith we have received from them, declare to all the World, that their Labour has not been in Vain in the Lord.

FINIS.

[Page 78]

A Postscript of N. N. to Mr. John Sergeant, occasion'd by his Letter to the Continuator of the Present State of the Controversie.

Mr. Sergeant,

HAving perused your Letter to the Continuator of the Present State of our Controversie, I perceive, that you are mightily concern'd at the Historical Discourse concerning Tradition, which he mentioned to be writing, and that you Letter to the Continuator, &c. p. 13. would gladly find some way to save our Friends this vast labour, and excuse them from this Impossible Task [of answering you]. I quickly apprehended your meaning, that you had a great desire not to be answered; and therefore in pure Complaisance to you, the first time I met with the Author of the Historical Discourse, I desired him, in yours and my own Name, that he would excuse himself the writing of that Book, and told him, That I understood by your Letter, that you would take it extreamly kindly at his hands, if he would not give himself the trouble of answering you.

But this Courtship would do no good upon him; so that I was forc'd to alter my strain, and began to threaten him; Sir, said I, if you dare to answer Mr. Sergeant, he will be reveng'd of you, for he has a plaguy sharp Pen, and will not spare you. All the answer I had to my Threats, was to be laught at, he assuring me he would venture that. Upon this, I told him, it was no jesting matter; that if he did provoke you, you would turn the rough side of your Tongue to him; and ask'd him, whether he could digest the being call'd Rogue, or Lyar, or Mad Dog? his answer [Page 79] was, that he could not very well: why then, said I, Look you, Sir, you shall have these, and ten times worse, if you dare to answer Mr. Sergeant; and upon this I out with your Letter, and shew'd him how smartly you could handle your Pen. How will you like, Sir, quoth I, to be call'd hot brain'd Letter to the Continuator, &c. p. 1. Calvinist in Masquerade, par boyl'd by the scalding Zeal against Popery; into a stanch Protestant? To be call'd P. 2. a wilful and bold Calumniator? To be told, you are a Careless, P. 2. Open, and Confident Liar? To be nick-nam'd, a Knight of the Post, that writes without fear, shame, or wit? To have your Book call'd, P. 3. a little ridiculously malicious Satyr, wholly made up of Vapour, Insolence, silly Amplifications, Ironies, Invectives, and open Falshoods? To be nick nam'd, a Thersites with a P. 5. steel'd Impudence? Sir, said I, if Mr. Sergeant could bestow all these Complements in so very few Pages upon the Continuator, for no reason in the world, what must you expect, if you should dare to provoke him by an Answer? Be wise then, and learn so much Wit as to sleep in a whole skin, and thank me for my good Advice. Now would you think it, Mr. Sergeant, that any man could have dar'd to have withstood all this! And yet this strange man did, and bragg'd withal, that neither this, nor more than this, should fright him from answering you.

I had but one other Argument left to persuade him, and concluded, that it would do his business for him. Well, Sir, said I, to be short with you, why will you run your head against a Wall? Mr. Sergeant does assure me, that his Fifth Letter is P. 5. an Elaborate Discourse, and that it is (in one word) P. 8. Unanswerable; why then will you be medling with a Book that cannot be disprov'd, that is unanswerable? I always took you for a prudent man, shew it now, and let Mr. Sergeant alone: for he says, the Best P. 8. [Page 80] Wits of our Nation have also declared in his favour, that his Letters are unanswerable: (k) That he is inform'd his P. 8. Fifth Letter, in particular, has sold so well, that there are not an hundred left of them. Nay more, that F. W. had said, that these same Letters (which you will be daring to meddle with) had laid Dr. Stilling fleet so flat, that he would never be able to rise again. And can you not be quiet, without bringing the best Wits of the Nation, and F. Warner, a Jesuit, upon your head? They have declared already against you, and they will in honour stand up for John Sergeant, and then what will become of you? But all this was lost, Mr. Sergeant, upon him, and was so far from silencing him, that he seem'd to grow proud of having the honour of baffling John Sergeant, and the Best Wits of our Nation: And for F. Warner, he had like to have call'd him F—for daring to take Dr. Stillingfleet's Name into his mouth, who had so lately, and so thoroughly expos'd him in his Appendix to the Council of Trent's Examination.

In short, As to the selling of your Letter, he told me, that if he were not mis-inform'd, 'tis no great wonder your Bookseller should not have above an Hundred remaining, seeing there were but 300. in all Printed, and those at your own cost, and a considerable number of which you gave in Presents to your Friends, who therefore were obliged, in Gratitude, to commend it.

And now Mr. Sergeant, you see what pains I have taken in your behalf; and tho the Continuator neglects you, and this other Author defies you, yet that your Letter has not been without some effect upon me. What the issue of it will be, we shall see in a little time, as soon as this Historical Discourse concerning Tradition comes out: In the mean while, all I can further do, is heartily to wish you, what I fear you will much more need than the Continuator do's Sincerity, A Better Cause, and a more Civil Pen; and remain, Sir,

Your very Humble Servant, N. N.