A DISCOURSE CONCERNING The Idolatry OF THE CHURCH of ROME: WHEREIN That CHARGE is Justified; AND The Pretended Refutation of Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Discourse is Answered.

By DANIEL WHITBY, D. D.

Mirum videtur quare in uno articulo qui non est principalis artriculus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri, propter quem fides pate at contemptui omnium sequentium rationem. Scotus in 4 sent. dist. 11. q. 3. lit. B.

LONDON, Printed for Tho. Basset, at the George near St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet, and Ja. Magnes near the Piazza in Covent Garden, 1674.

TO THE Most Reverend Father in God GILBERT LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

May it please your Grace.

IT is the Custom of the Adver­saries of our Church to thrust out their Errors into the World, under some great name; that by the Protection of some honorable Person, to whom they Dedicate their Books, they may render them [Page]more plausible in the Eye of the World, and add greater weight and Authority to their gross Fal­shoods.

My Lord, We live in such an age, in which Truth stands in greater need of a Patron than Falshood it self: and though this little poor Treatise be not worthy to bear your great name in the front, yet the Truth I here defend, will I doubt not, be owned and supported by your Grace; whose great design in this World is to support the Church of England. 'Tis the same Faith, and the same Doctrin I here deliver which your Glorious Predecessors in both your Sees of Canterbury, and London; Cranmer and Ridley owned and asserted even unto Blood. 'Tis a defence of that great learned man, who has made it his business, now [Page]for some years, to defend the Writings of the renowned Archbishop Laud; for whose memory and wri­tings you have often expressed so great Veneration. These conside­tions are enough alone to prove the fitness of this address. But besides these, your Grace may justly chal­lenge the labours of all your own Ʋniversity; You have obliged them to that degree, that the Gifts of half their Benefactors, amassed into one summe, would scarce equal your famous Theatre. And as they fail not to give God thanks for so great a Patron, at the times of publick solemnity, so am I under the same Obligation, for that support you bestowed on me for some years to­gether, whilest I was a member of Trinity Colledge, and before I had the happiness and honor to be rela­ted [Page]to my Lord of Sarum. Who­soever knows this, will certainly ex­cuse my boldness: and if to make this address be impudence; yet not to have done it, would have been ingratitude.

God preserve your Grace for the Chruches sake. I am Your Graces humbly devoted Servant. D. W.

TO THE READER.

Courteous Reader.

I Think my self obliged to give thee an account, 1. Why I un­dertake to answer this Dis­course. And 2. Why having undertaken to return an An­swer to it, I have omitted, part, the first; of which, the true account is briefly this, since the Printers would not undertake the Printing of the whole, before the Term expired, I was contented do defer that part, which I conceived to be least material, to the Term ensuing. That which first moved me to frame this Answer to T. G. was this, having perused this Author, and having found him laying the most scandalous accusations and im­putations of Sophistry and Legerdemain, Falshood and Contradiction to the Doctors charge, I knew not how to think that any person, who professed Chri­stianity, or valued either his credit or his cause, should lay such imputations upon others, and be him­self the person Guilty: Nor yet could I be easily perswaded, that any person in so good a cause as ours, in which Authorities and Arguments do press for an admittance, and Men of ordinary Capaci­ties, must be abundantly supplied with them; much less that the incomparable Dr. Stilling fleer, that prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning, should be­take himself to such dishonourable Arts. Besides I [Page]knew that his Integrity and sense of honour was so great, that he must scorn such sordid dea­ling; and that it was his business to detect the Frauds and religious Cheates of Rome; and there­fore I presumed he would not imitate her when he did confute her. Wherefore my curiosity enga­ged me to examine all that was devised to blast his Credit, and having found it to be written in the old Roman Style, and to contain nothing, but the pure quintessence of Calumny, I thought it cha­rity to ease the Doctor, and to declare unto the World what was the fruit of this inquiry.

And should this work be so unhappy, which I hope it will not, as to rob the World of the Ingenious and Triumphant Labors af the Learned Dr. yet I have two things to apologize.

1. That the Dr. hath given us the greatest evi­dence, that he can write most admirable Books up­on the meanest Subjects, and in answer to the most trifling and inconsiderable Scriblers; so that what ever Adversarie he vouchsafes to answer, he almost equally obligeth and instructeth all that read him, but most of all his adversary, whose Name he res­cues from obscurity, whilst he vouchsafes to men­tion it.

2. That with I have performed will give us this advantage to the common cause, viz. That through the strength and goodness of it, a little inconsi­derable David may worst the best Goliah of the Roman Church.

In prosecution of this subject, I have set down the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, not from the sayings of her private Doctors, but from her Coun­cils, Catechisms, and Authentick Liturgies, that so I might obstruct all possibility of pleading, that I do falsly represent her Tenets. But though I use [Page]this method, I do not think it either sophistical or useless, to represent unto the World what are the Doctrines and Practices, which have so far obtain­ed in the Church of Rome, as to be Doctrines and Practises of no small Credit & Authority amongst them they being held and defended by their most able Writers, and taught and practised with as much freedome in the Church of Rome, as are the con­trary Doctrines. And to omit those many instan­ces which do not so immediately concern the present Controversy.

It is a very common and prevayling Doctrine, among the Doctors of the Church of Rome, that the blessed Virgin, is the Mother of Mercy, not on­ly by vertue of her intercession, but by way of distribution, and of Dispensation, and that Christ having reserved the Kingdom of Justice to himself, hath granted the Kingdom of mercy to his Mother; and that he hath given to her what Assuerus promised to Queen Hester, viz. The half of his Dominions, or his Kingly Office: This Doctrine is delivered by Thomas Bonaventure, Gerson, Gabriel Biel, Antoninus, Bernardinus, Gorrhan, Holcoth, Rutilius Benzonius, Bla­sius Viegas, Osorius, Paulus Cararia, and ma­ny others whose words are cited by Dr.From p. 356. to p. 363. White, p. 321.323.398.399. p 478.481. p. 480. p. 486. Crakanthorp, and Bishop Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge, from page 478 to page 496. Where also you may find them teaching, that the Dominion of the blessed Virgin is equal to the Dominion of her Son, that all power in Heaven and Earth, was given to her, that she is con­stituted over every Creature, and whosoever boweth his knee unto Jesus, doth fall down al­so and supplicate unto his Mother: so that the glory of the Son may be judged not so much to [Page]be common with the Mother, Ibid. as to be the very same. That the mighty God did (as far as he might) make his Mother partner of his Di­vine Majesty and power; giving unto her of old the Soveraignty both of Coelestial things and Mortal. p. 478. That in the redundance of effu­sion of Grace upon the Creatures, the Lords power and will is so accommodated unto her that she may seem to be the first in that, both Dia­dem, and Tribunal. p. 481. And that all things are subject to the command of the Virgin, even God himself. p. 482. They also teach, that by sinning after Baptisme, men seem to have contemned and despised the Passion of Christ: That so no Sinner doth deserve that Christ should any more make Intercession for him to the Father; without whose Intercession none can be delive­red either from Eternal Punishment or the tem­poral, nor from the fault which he hath vo­luntarily committed. And therefore that it was necessary that Christ should constitute his well­beloved Mother a Mediatrix betwixt us and him. And so in this our Pilgrimage, there is no other refuge left unto us in our tribulations and adversities, but to have recourse unto the Virgin Mary our Mediatrix that she would ap­pease the wrath of her Son. Ibid. That as he is ascen­ded into Heaven, to appear in the sight of God for men (Heb. 9.24.) So she ought to ascend thither, to appear in the sight of her Son for sinners: that so mankind might have alwayes before the face of God a help like unto Christ for the procuring of his Salvation. And that she is that throne of Grace, p. 484. whereof the Apostle specketh, Heb. 4.16. Let us go boldly unto the Throne of Grace that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need. [Page]That she comes before the Throne of Grace not en­treating but commanding.p. 486.

In the Psalter of our Lady we have these Addres­ses, Blessed are they whose hearts do love thee, Ps. 31. O Virgin Mary; their sinns by thee shall be mercifully washed away. Have mercy upon me O Lady, Ps. 50. who art called the Mother of Mercy; and according to the bowels of thy Mercies, cleanse me from all mine Iniquities. Save me Lady, by thy name; Ps. 53. Ps. 71. and deliver me from mine unrighteousness. Give the King thy judgement, O God, and thy mercy to the Queen his Mother. Oh come let us sing unto our Lady;Ps.. 94. Cant ad Virg. M. post Psal. Let us make a joyful noise to Mary our Queen that brings Salvation. Oh our Omnipotent Lady, thou art my Salvation, thou hast freed me condemned to death; thou art the beginning and the finisher of my Salvation. There you may find them teaching that by her, Ps. 118. Ps. 41. Ps. 136. De Ar­can. Ca. thol. ve­rit, l. 7. c. 10. White, p. 357. Sinns are purged; by her, true satisfaction is made for sinns, the Death and Passion of Christ, and of the blessed Virgin, saith Petrus Galatinus, con­duced to the redemption of Mankind. The Stellarium Coronae beatae Mariae, saith, she bought us; and as Christ Redeemed Mankind by his Flesh and Blood, so she redeemed the same with her Soul.

These Doctrines and many other of the same Blasphemous stamp, are taught and held by many Doctors of the Roman Church: these books and doctrines are written and licensed by that Church, and so have Catholick permission; no censure ever passed upon them, no Expurgatory Index hath cleansed them from these horrid Blasphemies; but it is still left free for any of the Doctors of that Communion to maintain and propagate them; and for any of the members of that Church to practise sutably to these conceptions. To ascribe all [Page]this power and Authority to the Blessed Virgin, and all this vertue to her Death, to give her the praises of it, and accordingly to trust in her, to pray unto her for the blessings she hath purchased, and for the distribution of those Favours, which naturally do result from this advancement; and when they address themselves unto her, to use the most extra­vagant expressions contained in the Ladys Psalter, and in other books of the like nature with it. Whence it will follow,

1, That any person, who acts according to these Doctrines, and puts up these Petitions, doth not deviate from that Tradition, which the Catholick conceives to be his only rule of Faith (id est) a person may be guilty of horrid Blasphemy and Idolatry, and notwithstanding be a good Roman Catholick.

2. It follows that no man ought to be condem­ned for writing or asserting any of these Tenets, or for using any of the formes contained in those books, for Oral Tradition cannot be conceived to condemn what is allowed and practised, without cen­sure in the Church of Rome.

3. Hence evident it is, that private Catholicks may unavoidably be subject to these evil practises; for seeing in these matters they cannot have the judgement of the Church, and must not be permit­ted to act according to their private judgements, what remains but that they follow the judgement of their Priest, which as we have seen, is often impious and Blasphemous.

4. Hence evident it is, that neither these opini­ons, nor practises can ever be condemned by the Church of Rome; for to make the contrary Te­nets pass into Tradition, or to make them Articles of Faith, is to empower the Church to coyn new Articles, and to pretend Tradition where it is not [Page]to be had: So that all these Blesphemous and Idola­trous Devotions must be as lasting as the Church of Rome.

Secondly, I have observed this method in my whole discourse. 1. To confirm the propositions which I have laid down by Scripture, and by reason, and then to introduce the Judgement of the Fa­thers. Whereas T. G. is very sparing both as to Scripture and Reason, and doth endeavor to supply his want of Reason and of Scripture, by some im­pertinent citations from the Fathers. This I con­ceive to be a very weak and disingenious way of arguing; for, if the Testimonies of some few Fa­thers be not sufficient to confirm an Article of Faith, and to give us the true sense of any text of Scrip­ture, he must confess, that what he thus discour­seth is weak and infufficient to prove what he hath undertaken to demonstrate: but if he shall assert this method to be good and cogent, then it will clearly follow,

1. That the Doctrine of the Trent Council must be false, for they have certainly decreed that Doctrine which was asserted by Pope Innocent the first, S. Austin, and which was the current Doctrine of the Church of Christ for many hundred years. I wave the Opinion of Austin and of Innocent the first, saith Maldonate which flourished in the Church six haundred years, In Joh. 6. n. 116. viz. that the Eucha­rist was necessary even for Infants, the things is now unfolded by the Church, and by the use of many ages, and the decree of the Trent Coun­cil that it is not only unnecessary for them, but that it cannot lawfully be given to them.

2. It must be false which is defined by the Coun­cil of Florence, and is received by the whole Church of Rome, that Saints departed before the Resur­rection do see the face of God in Glory, for we [Page]have proved, and Sixtus Senensis doth acknow­ledge, that this definition was,Bibl. l. 6. An. 345. Repugnant Ingenti numero illustrium Ecclesiae Patrum.

3. Hence it will follow that the Trent Cate­chism and all the Roman Doctors who generally urge that of Jacob, The Angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads, to prove that Angels may be Invocated, embrace that exposition of these words of Scripture which is heretically false; as I have proved, Chap. 10. Sect. 6.

Thirdly, I have not entred into that deep di­spute betwixt him and the Doctor, whether jubere doth signify to command or entreat; and whether imperare be to enjoyn or supplicate. I Judge it is sufficient advantage to our cause, that, if Jubere and imperare should not be rendred to entreat and supplicate, but to command, the Romanists must un­avoidably be guilty of Idolatry. T. G. indeed in­forms us, that it is not the dead words, but the intention of the speaker that makes them to be prayer; for otherwise a Parrot might be taught to Pray as well as a Christian, and thence he manfully con­cludes that in these expressions, Nos a peccatis om­nibus solvite jussu quaesumus. Cassand. Consult. tit. de meritis & intercess. Sanctor. p. 971. Jube filio O foelix puerpera, jure Matris Impera Redemptori, &c. They only pray to Saints to pray for us. As if a man should call his Prince a Tyrant, and his Bro­ther Knave, and being brought before the Judge should plead, that by a Tyrant he meant only a King, and by a Knave a Servant; and since it was not the dead words, but the intention of the speaker that made them significative (for otherwise a Parrot might be hanged for speaking what he did) he hoped that he had spoken nothing which might give offence, especially seeing he had more Authors ready to pro­duce to justify this sense and acceptation of these words, than had the Church of Rome for this inter­pretation [Page]of jubere and imperare; if when the Sentence were thus passed upon him, Jubemus & imperamus hunc suspendi, he should plead that it did only signify that they entreated him to be hanged: I say should such a plea be made, it would be as significant as is this Answer of T. G. And all that any man can say against the Plea of such a trifling Sophister will equally conclude against this pittiful defence which he hath offered,Josh. 10.12, 14. and hath confirmed by a false citation of that place of Jo­shuah which doth not say that God obeyed, as from the Vulgar he translates it: but that God hearkened to the Voice of man.

Fourthly, In this discourse I have not waved any thing which had the least appearance of an ar­gument, but have returned a full (and as I hope, a sa­tisfactory) Answer to all that hath been offered by T. G. and all that I desire of him is, that if be should be pleased to Reply he would not nibble at some few Expressions, as is the manner of the Ro­man party, but would return a perfect Answer to the whole, and then I do not doubt, but, he will Suffer me to rest for some convenient Season.

Thy Friend and Servant D. WHITBY.

Errata.

PAg. 4. l. 5. for Surerstition r. superstition. p. 11. l. 12. honerem r. honorem. p. 33. l. 18. mby r. may. p. 40. l 27. from r. for. p. 45. l. 5. [...] r. [...] p. 55. l. 16. over­throws r. overthrow. p. 56. marg. configere r. confingere. p. 60. l. 23. ef r. of. ibid, marg. creatura r. creaturam. p. 78. [...] r. [...] p. 86. l. 23. sguiritual r. spiritual. p. 90. Marcarius r. Macarius. p. 91. Symbol a r. a Symbol. p. 93. po r. do. p. 340. Chap. 11. r. Chap. 12.

THE IDOLATRY Of the Church of ROME.

CHAP. I.

The CONTENTS.

That according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, 1 the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry. 1. In Worshipping the Host, §. 1. And 2. In Praying to de­parted Saints, §. 2. The Method used to Justifie this Charge, §. 3. The Notion of Idolatry considered Negatively in two Pro­positions. 1. That to render any Person Guilty of Idolatry, it is not Requisite that he should Conceive the Object of his Worship to be the Great Creator, or the chiefest Good, §. 4. 2. That Worship may be Guilty of Idolatry which is not Given to a Creature, with an Intent to Ascribe unto it that Wor­ship which Agrees to God alone, §. 5. Ido­latry is then Committed when any Honour due to God alone, is Attributed to, or is Conferd on that which is not God, §. 6.

THe Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land as it is Delivered in her In­junctions, Canons, Orders, Or­dinances and Constitutions, her Li­turgies, and Publick Homilies com­manded to be Read in every Parish Church, and to be Subscribed and Received by all that Exercise the Ministerial Fun­ction, and by them to be acknowledged to con­tain a Good and Wholesome Doctrine, and Need­ful for the Times in which those Homilies were Published, is this:

That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry in Worshipping the Host: 1 The Rubrick after the Communion, speaks thus: The 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. The Constitutions and Canons of the Convocation held A. D. 1640.Can. 7. and Published by the Authority of our Royal Martyr Charles the First, affirm: That at the time of Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery, it was carefuly Pro­vided that all Means should be used to Root out of the Minds of the People, both the Inclination thereunto, and Memory thereof: Especially of the Idolatry com­mitted in the Mass, for which cause all Popish Altars were Demolished.

That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry by Praying unto Saints Departed:§. 2. 2 Thus in the Homily touching the Peril of Idolatry, we have these words. Terrentius Vorro sheweth, That there were 300 Jupiters in his time, I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the Honour due to God: Then follows this Apostrophe. ‘Oh Heaven, Earth, and Seas, what Madness and Wicked­ness [Page 3]against God are men fallen into! What dis­honour do the Creatures to their Creator and Maker! And if we remember God sometimes, yet because we doubt of his Ability, or will to help us, we joyn to him another Helper, using these sayings: Such as Learn, God and St. Ni­cholas be my good speed: Such as Neese, God help and St. John: To the Horse, God and St. Loy save thee. Thus are we become like Horses and Mules, which have no Understanding. For is there not one God only, who Governeth the same? and by his goodness maintaineth and serveth them? be not all things of him, by him, and through him? Why dost thou turn from the Creator to the Creatures? This is the manner of the Gentil-Idolaters: but thou art a Christian, and therefore by Christ alone hast access to God the Father, and help of him only. These things are not written to any re­proach of the Saints themselves, but against our foolishness and wickedness, making of the true Servants of God false Gods, by attributing to them the Power and Honour which is Gods, and due to him only. And for that we have such opinions of the power and ready help of Saints, all our Legends, Hymns, Sequenses, and Masses did contain stories, Lauds and praises of them, and prayers to them; and this we do al­together agreeable to the Saints, as did the Gentile-Idolaters to their false Gods. If answer be made, that they make Saints but In­tercessors to God, and means for such things as they would obtain of God: That is even after the Gentile-Idolatrous usage, to make them of Saints Gods, called, Dij medioximi, to be mean Intercessors and helpers to God.’ This is the [Page 4]Doctrine appointed to be read and taught in every Parish Church of England. In the Injun­ctions of Edward the Sixt, published 1547. All Pastors are enjoyned to teach for the reproof of Surerstition and Pilgrimage made to Saints, that all goodness, health, and grace, ought to be both asked and looked for only of God, as of the very Author and Giver of the same, and of none other. And in the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth 1559. We have the same reiterated, viz. To the intent that all Su­perstition and Hypocrisie crept into divers mens hearts, may vanish away, they shall teach, that all goodness, health, and grace, ought to be both asked and looked for only of God, as of the very Author and giver of the same, and of none other.

And now to evidence the Truth and Justice of this imputation;§. 3. we shall first shew what is the nature of Idolatry; and what actions may be duely charged with it. Next we shall faithfully relate the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome from her own Catechism, Church-service, and Authentick Councils. Thirdly, we shall consi­der what T. G. and others of that Church have offer'd to excuse her practice from this imputati­on; And then shall leave it to the judgment of all impartial and discerning Readers, whether we have not such convincing clear and pregnant reasons to pronounce her guilty of this most hai­nous sin, that the most subtil wit cannot evade, nor the most obstinate deny.

And first to shew wherein the nature of Idola­try consists, and to confute and baffle all the tricks and Salvo's which the adverse party hath of late invented to excuse their practice in this matter from this hainous guilt, we assert, as follow­eth.

That to render any person guilty of Idolatry, Prop. 1. it is not necessary that be should conceive the Creature which he worships to be the great Creator, and the chiefest good, the end and the beginning of all things, or to conceive that which he worships is no Creature. For first, if this were requisite to render any person guilty of this crime, then no man could commit Idolatry, who knows, and doth acknow­ledge the true Jehovah to be the only God; Though he should Sacrifice to Devils, and to stocks and stones; Though he should worship the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all the host of Heaven, with all the Rites and Ceremonies that have been used by the Heathen world: nay should he have as many petty and inferior Gods as Aegypt, Rome, or the whole Heathen world did ever own; and should perform that homage, which according to the custom of those Nations where they were received was due unto them; yet would he not be guilty of the least Idolatry, because he could not possibly conceive them to be the great Creator, or the highest God, and yet conceive the true God to be only so.

2. Hence it would clearly follow; that those Christians who refused to Sacrifice or offer Incense unto the Images and Statues of the Heathen Emperors, and to those Daemons which they wor­shiped as inferior beings, and subject to that being, whom the Heathens stile [...], or the Supream and highest God were mise­rably out, and wretchedly deceived in their ap­prehensions, for it is evident by all their wri­tings, and by the accusations of their Adversaries, that they refused to pay this homage to them, be­cause they thought it was Idolatry: whereas according to this Rule it was not possible that they who owned the true Jehovah in contradi­ction [Page 6]to all others, could commit that sin, or ju­stly be suspected of it. 3. The Christians con­stantly pronounced the Heathens guilty of Ido­latry in worshiping their lesser Deities. And when the Arians and Nestorians sprung up, they with one voice pronounced them guilty of the like hainous crime; because, by giving that ho­mage which the Orthodox conceived due to God, to him whom they affirmed to be only man; they didBasil Hom. 27. Ed. Paris. P. 510. [...], (i.e.) they in­troduced that Idolatry the Heathens practised; the Angelitae, asNomo Can. Tit. 12. c. 8. Cod. Can. Ecc. Univ. Cant. 139. [...]. Epiph. Haer. 79. p. 1061. B. Photius, or the Angelicks, as St. Au­stine stiles them who prayed to Angels, and by them thought to have access unto the Father, The Church of God did antiently condemn [...], as being guilty of oc­cult Idolatry. The Collyridians who offerd Cakes unto the blessed Virgin, were said to do a devilish work, and introduce a custom which made them guil­ty of Idolatry; and yet it is exceeding manifest, that neither any of those Heathens did conceive those petty Gods as they are pleased to stile them, the supream being, or the great Creator of the world; nor could the like conceptions of Christ, the blessed Virgin, or the Angels be any ways con­sistent to that Christianity which the Arians, An­gelicks and Collyridians did constantly profess. As for the Heathens their Daemons were account­edPlutarc. de Def. Or. p. 416, 417. [...], the Ministers of God [...], Secundary Gods, [...], Mini­string Spirits, [...], senApuleus de demon. Socratis. p. 45. potestatis Mediae, a middle sort of Intercessors, Sen Ep 110. p 840 inferioris notae & de plebe Dii, inferior vulgar Gods. Secondly, they held them to beAustin de C. D. l. 9. c. 3. D [...]i facti & a summo Deo conditi (i.e.) such as received their beings from the supream God, who therefore by the Latines was so often stiled Divum Pater, and by the Greeks, [Page 7] [...], and the like. And Third­ly, they say the Heathens had their [...]. Julian. apud Cyril. Alex. l. 4. p. 115. Commis­sion from God, and only were his undergover­nours, and by him placed over Towns and Coun­treys. Fourthly, they held the worship due unto them, to be a middle and inferior kind of wor­ship, [...], saith Hierocles: that is, God must be worshiped with Latria: but those inferior Daemons with Dulia; and that to worship them [...]. Hieroc. p. 10. according to that Dignity they had received from their God and Father, was the true worship due unto them: and hence they gave this caution in pay­ing homage to them, [...], Hierocles, page the 10. not to give more than was consistent with their Dignity. TheThis was their Doctrine [...], Theodoret in c. 2. ad Coloss. An­gelicks did not doubt but that those Angels, whom they used as Intercessors, were the Crea­tures and Ministers of God, nor could they hope to reap advantage by their Intercession; had they intended by so doing, to confer upon them the worship proper to that jealous God, who will not give his glory to an other.

The Arians had the same apprehensions of Christ Jesus, they stile him Dei instrumentum, [...], his Ministers, his Creature: from whence it follows, that they could intend to offer up no other worship to him, but what was proper to a Creature: And hence the Fathers tell us, that they performed to the [Page 8]Sacred Trinity, honorificentiae imparis officiumRulg. l. 2. ad Monim. c. 2. unequal honours, and could not be induced to worship Christ, [...], with worship equal to the Father. [...]. Gregor. Nyssen. l. 4. Contr. Eunom. p. 588.13. And that if any man conceived these words of the Evangelist St. John, that all should worship the Son, as they worshiped the Father; to contain a precept or injunction, to give unto the Son a worship equal unto that we give the Father, he was exceedingly mistaken.

4. The Apostle tells the Church of Corinth, that he who in the Temple of an Idol did eat and drink of what was Sacrificed to the Idol, did drink the Cup of Devils, and was made par­taker of the Devils Table, and had Communion with them. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. and so was guilty of Idolatry: to introduce and to confirm this charge, he layes down this assertion, vers. 7. that they who did sit down to eat and drink of what was offerd to the golden Calf, were by so doing guilty of Idolatry, and upon this account he thus exhorts those persons who endulged them­selves in this unlawful practice, be ye not Idolaters as were some of them.

Whence it is clear, that St. Paul judged this practice well deserved that imputation, and yet it is as certain that they who used it, were indu­ced to do so upon this presumption, that they conceived the Idol to be nothing, 1 Cor. viii. 4. x. 19. and therefore not the great Creator, and the chiefest good.

Hence therefore we infer the vanity and fals­ness of those descriptions of Idolatry, which are delivered by the Doctors of the Roman Church, who being conscious to themselves and having openly confessed, that to theCon­stans est Theologo­rum sen­tentia i­maginem eodem honore & cultu ho­norari & coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago A­zor. Instit Moral. To. 1 l. 9. c. 6. Images of Christ and of the Cross, and of the blessed Trinity, they give that worship which they stile Latria, and which is properly Divine, excuse themselves from this enormous guilt, by saying that they do not give this worship to them as to God, and make the formal reason of Idolatry consist in giving Divine worship to the Creature, upon this apprehension, that it is a God. Idolatry, saithL. 2. de Idol. c. 1. Gregory of Valence is a Superstition, whereby we tender Divine honour to the Creature, as to God: Latria, or that Adoration which agrees to God alone, is the most profound prostrati­on and inclination of the will attended with an ap­prehenssion of God as the first principle, last end, and chiefest good. So BellarmineL. 2. d [...] Eccâ Tri­umph. c. 12. p. 1503 B. Those words of Christ, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, &c. must thus be understood: Thou shalt not worship false Gods, as the Heathens do, but that true God who is but one, to whom alone theou shalt exhibite Divine worship, as to the true God: SoManual l. 1. c. 7. qu. 1. Becanus, whence he infers, they are not to be counted guilty of Idolatry by Invocation and Adoration of Saints departed, quia non adorant eos tanquam Deos: Just weights, chap. 19. The like mistake to say no worse, we find in Mr. Thorndike when he asserts, that this is requisite to make the Romanists Idolaters, Viz. to take the Elements for God.

That worship may be guilty of Idolatry, Prog. 2.5.5. which is not given to a Creature with an intention to make that Creature be esteemed for a God, or with an in­tention to ascribe unto that Creature the excellency which agrees to God alone; This proposition may [Page 10]be confirmed by what we have discoursed upon, the first, being certain that the Eunomians, Ari­ans, Nestorians, did not intend by any wor­ship they performed to Christ, to work in any this estimation that he was a God, but that above all things they did endeavour to perswade the contrary, and they who sate at meat in Idols Temples, and by partaking of things Sacrificed to them were guilty of Spiritual whoredom or Idolatry. Believed themselves, and taught to others this assertion; that an Idol was nothing in the world. And it is apparent also that accord­ing to this principle the holy Martyrs might have worshiped with all kinds of honour, not only Emperors and Kings, but even ther Prince of De­vils, without the imputation of Idolatry; Pro­vided they did not inwardly intend by any act of worship to procure unto them the estimation of a Deity. 4. They who resort unto the Hag and thePec­cant in primum precep­tum qui somniss, auguriis caeceris (que) vanissmais is rebus fri­dem dem ha­bent. Ca­tech. Rom part 3. c. 1. ss. 7. Magician, the Sorcerer and Wizard, do not believe, much less endavour to work this esti­mation in the hearts of others, that they are truly God. And yet the Chuch of Rome con­demns them, who (thinking they can do what they pretend to) consult these wicked Artists, as persons guilty of Idolatry. T. By the like reason, no married man commits Adultery by lying with another woman, provided he intends not to con verse with any other under the notion of a wife: a fine expedient in this debauched age, to make new converts to the Church of Rome. And in like manner no Subject will he guilty of Rebellion though he desert his Prince, follow the Ensigns of his Enemy, and fight in his defence against his Soveraign, provided he in­tend not by so doing to procure to his Enemy the estimation of a King.

These false opinions being thus removed,§ 6. we assert, That Idolatry is then committed, when any honour due to God alone is attributed to, or is conferd upon any thing that is not God: and that all actions which give unto the Creature the honour due to the Creator only, are Idolatrous: And this description of Idolatry, is that which was received by the antient Schoolmen, till the disputes of Prote­stants constrained them to renounce and vary from it. Thus in the judgment of2a 2ae. qu. 94. Art. 1.3. Aquinas it is Idolatry, cuicun (que) Creaturae divinum cultum exhibere, honerem divinum Creaturae impendere divinum cultum exhibere, cui non debet exhibe­ri; To impart divine worship to any Creature, or any thing to which it ought not to be given. All divine worship given to a Creature is Idolatry: SoPart. 2. qu. 160. Alexander Halensis, to omit divens others. This also is the definition, or description of Ido­latry we have received from the antient Fathers of the Church.Vid. voss de I­dol. l. 1. c. 3. p. 9. Rainold de R. Ecc. Idol. l. 2. c. 9. §. 4. Tertullian and Nazianzen, St. Augustine, and almost all the Greek and Latine Fathers with one voice consent to this. Idolatry is then committed when divine honour is ascribed to another; hence that of Hilary the Deacon, Idolatry usurps the honour hue to God, and gives it to the Creature: Idolola­tria Dei honorisi­centiam usurpat & vendieat creatuax in cap. 5. ad Ephes. This Thirdly may be evi­dently proved from Scripture, for that the Gen­tiles were guilty of this hainous crime, cannot be doubted by the Christian: now their Idolatry did in the judgment of St. Paul consist in this, that they did homage to those beings which by nature were not Gods: but Creatures only. Secondly, the first commandment in the affirmative,Gal. 4.8. com­mands us to have the true Jehovah for our God, and consequently to give unto him that worship which is due to God; when therefore in the Negative it doth enjoyn us to have no ether God [Page 12]besides him, it must be deened to enjoyn us also to give unto no other that worship which we owe unto him; and by which we acknowledge him to be our God: and even reason will instruct us, that he who doth ascribe Gods worship, he gives his glory to another; and acknowledgeth ano­ther God, as much as any man can do. For we know no other way whereby we can acknow­ledge any thing to be a Deity, but by ascribing to it in our thoughts or actions that worship which is due to God alone.

CHAP. II.

The CONTENTS.

Prop. 1. That if the Sacrament continue after Consecration to be Bread, the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry. Prop. 2. That if it really be doubtful whe­ther it be Bread or not, she cannot be ex­cused from that Crime. Prop. 3. That we have just cause to doubt of every particular Host, according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that it is not duely consecrated, and conse­quently, that the Sacrament is after Con­secration, Bread and Wine. Prop. 4. That were it certain that every par­ticular Host contains Christs real Flesh and Blood, yet have we no just warrant upon that Supposition, to adore it with Latria.

THe Church of Rome expresly doth enjoyn us to give the Worship of Latria Nullus ita (que) du­bitandi lo­cus relin­quitur quin om­nes Christi sideles Latrix cultum qui vero Deo debetur huie Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant: ne (que) enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuer it a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5. huic Sanctissi­mo Sacramento to the Holy Sacrament, § 1. as the Trent Council hath defined, that is, unto that very be­ing vvhich the Priest puts into the mouth of the Communicant, and vvhich he must svvallovv dovvn into his Stomack, for that they call the Holy Sacrament. Hence presently they tell us, [Page 14] That this Holy Sacrament ought not to be the less a­dored, because our Lord commanded that it should be taken: This practice vve conceive to be Idolatry, and to make good the charge vve lay dovvn these preparatory Propositions.

We may be guilty of Idolatry in paying divine Homage to a Creature, Prop. 1. though we conceive that Creature to be God, and sointend to give that wor­ship only to God; for if such a vain conception which we may have just reason to reject, but can have no inevitable and certain reason to embrace can be sufficient to excuse this guilt: then he who thus conceits touching the vilest Creature, can­not justly be charged with Idolatry, what ever act of worship he should pay unto it; admit we then the Heathen Jupiter, the World, the Sun, the Earth and whatsoever else was worshiped by the ignorant and superstitious world, as their su­pream Creator, to be the vilest Devils: pitty we may their ignorance and folly, but no man should accuse them of Idolatry, for paying Ado­tation to a Subject which in their apprehensions did so well deserve it;p. 363. and what T. G. so often mentions as an Aggravation of that worship which Pagans gave to their inferior Daemons, viz. that they esteemed them to be Gods, would be their best excuse, and the extenuation of their guilt. And those expressions of the Prophets which re­proach the Jevvs and Heathens for saying to a stock or stone thou art my God, Jet. 2.27. Hos. 4.12. if they be literally under­stood, as many Roman Doctors do conceive they ought to be, will be so far from proving that they were Idolaters, that they will perfectly ex­cuse them from this crime; because, according to that supposition, they worshiped only that which they conceived to be God. The Collyridi­ons, if we be well informed by Baronius, concei­ved [Page 15]the blessed Virgin vvas a real Deity, and yet St. Epiphanius calls them a Sect of Idol-makers who offered their Cakes unto her.Haer. 79. p. 1061. B. The [...] Just. Mart. A­pol. 2. p. 69. Samari­tans who worshiped Simon Magus; The Romans, who, if Justin Martyr may be credited,p. 91, in honour of him did erect a Satue with this inscription Simoni Deo Sancto, to Simon the Holy God, and many others, who, asHic sgi­tur a mul­tis quasi Deus Glo­rificatus est, Iren adv. Hea­res. l. 1. c. 20. Ima­ginem quo (que) Si­monis ha­bent fa­ctam ad­figuram Jovis, & Helenea in figuram Minervea & has ado­rant.ibid. Irenaeus tells us, did glorifie him as God, and had his Image made like to that of Jupiter, which they adored; all these I say must be excused from Idolatry, for they all did it upon this presumption that be vvas the highest God, God over all Principalities and Povvers, and all other virtues. Thirdly, If this were so, this error in the understanding would equally take off the guilt of other Sins. This would excuse the theft of him who robbs his wicked Brother of his goods; provided that he think with our Phanatick, that all Dominion is founded upon Grace, and that avvicked person hath no right to any thing he possesseth; for, as he that worshipeth the Host upon this false presumption that it is no Creature, but the great Creator, conceives he wor­shipeth only God, and doth not give his worship unto another: So this Phanatick conceives he taketh only what is his by right of grace, and what his wicked Brother hath no right unto, and so cannot be guilty of that theft, which necessa­rily is the taking of what is anothers, and is not mine own; Again the Rebel who unsheathed his Sword against his King will not be guilty of Re­bellion, provided he erroniously conceived as did the Presbyterian; That the Kings Majesty was not the highest power, but that the power of the Parlia­ment was equal with him, and Co-ordinate, or ifd or if [Page 16]he think, as did the Irish Rebels, that being excom­municated by the Pope, he becomes presently a Ty­rant, and hath no further right to his Dominions: For if the Adorer of the Host (provided that it be a Creature) must be excused from Idolatry, because he therefore only worships it; because he [...]al [...]ly thinks it to be God, why may not both these sorts of Rebels be absolved from such an hainous imputation? Since though the King is really the highest power, and not withstanding the interdi­ction of the Pope, continues so to be; yet they do only fight against him under the notion of a Tyrant, or of a power Co-ordinate. Fourthly, St. Austin speaks of some who worshiped the Sun, as thinking it was Jesus Christ, or that Christ was in the Sun, and yet he sticks not to condemn this worship as a contempt of the Crea­tor. To this example (urged by Dr. St. to evince, that if the Host after the Consecration did continue Bread, the Romanist must be guilty of Idolatry in paying of Latria to it, as were the Manichees in giving of that worship to the Sun) T. G. returns this answer, that the disparity is so clear, p. 327. that not to see it was in the Dr. a very gross mistake, and he appeals unto the Reader for the truth of what he frith, viz. That they worshiped the Sun, whom they falsly thought to be Christ (even as the Papists worship the Sacrament which they falsly think to be Christ) i. e. what they had in their minds and purposes to adore was the Sun, but the Catholicks do not believe the bread to be Christ, or worship the Bread which they believe to be Christ; no their mistake, if there was any, would be that they believed the Bread not to be there at all, and therefore what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore would not, nor could not be bread, but the only true and eternal Son of God — Answer, [Page 17]even so the Manichees did not conceive the Sun to be a Creature only,Mans­cheai dice­bant se colere De­um Pa­trem & fi­lium ejus Christum, sed quia per deum Intellige­bant lu­cem cor­poream, per Chri­stum so­lem istum Corpore­um nihil habebant Dei & Christin [...] solum no­men. Bel [...] larm. nor did they worship that Sun which they conceived to be a meer Creature; nay, their mistake, if there were any would be this, that they believed no Creature to be there at all, or else that Christ resided in the Creature; what therefore they had in their minds and purpo­ses to adore would not, nor could not be a Creature, but the true and eternal Son of God; but Second­ly, this senseless pittiful excuse will free the Hea­thens from this imputation, for they did not be­lieve their Jupiter to be an evil Spirit, or a Crea­ture, but the God of all things: they did not worship him whom they believed to be an evil Spirit; no, when they appeared before his Image, and there addressed their worship to him, they believed no evil Spirit to be there at all; and therefore what they had in their minds and pur­poses to adore, would not, nor could not be an evil Spirit, but the true and only God. T. G. proceeds to say the difference then in the mistakes is this; That the Manichees had for the formal Term of their worship an undue object, viz. A Crea­ture instead of the Creator; but Catholicks in case of a mistake would have no other formal object of Adoration in their minds, but the Creator himself. Answer, 1 What means this ignorant and simple Tattle of the formal term of worship, but to amuze the Reader, and make him hope that he faith something, when he hath nothing but a mess of non-sence to return unto the Doctors argument? Divinity and Metaphysicks are wholly strangers to this rude expression; in Logick a material term is the word. Homo, The formal term is what the word doth signifie, so then the sense runs thus, the Manichees had for the signification of this word, worship, an undue object, admirable non-sense. [Page 18](2) What is the formal object, but the reason for which the outward or the material object is Adored? This being so, is it not clearer than the Sun, that they who had this apprehension in their minds, that what we call the Sun was also Jesus Christ, and for that only reason did Adore it, had equally no other formal object, as they who had this apprehension that the Host was Christ, and therefore did Adore it: and if the Host con­tinue Bread, must not the Adoration terminated on it, be terminated on a Creature, must not the formal term of the Latria or worship which is given to it, be an undue object.

If this erroneous conception will excuse the Authors of it from being guilty of Idolatry, then first the Israelites could not be rightly stiled Idolaters for worshiping the golden Calf, for ma­ny of the Roman Doctors assert, they did it upon this presumption, that the Calf was God, and yet the holy Scripture doth expresly say they were Idolaters, 1 Cor. 10.7. by doing thus, and that they offered Sacrifice unto the Idol, which sure is little better than Idolatry.7 Act. 41. To this instance of the golden Calf, he answers thus, The Israelites believed the golden Calf to be God, P. 329. but Catholicks (though sup­posed to be mistaken in their belief) would not wor­ship the Bread for Christ, because their mistake would not be in taking the Bread for God, as the Israelites did the Calf: but in this that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all, but in place thereof the only true and eternal God; and so although the object (or rather Subject) materially there present would in such a case be Bread, yet their act of Adoration would not be terminated formally upon that, but upon God. Answer, as if this also were not their mistake who held the Calf to be God, that they conceived no Creature to be there at [Page 19]all, but in place thereof the only true and eter­nal God, (for can it be possible that the Israe­lites should conceive the Calf to be God, and not conceive that when they worshipped him as God, they had no Creature to be the object of their worship) and so although the object materially present would in such a case be the golden Calf, yet the act of Adoration would not be termina­ted formally on that, but upon God?

5ly. T. G. proceeds to tell us in the words of Dr. Taylor, that if they thought Christ were not present, P. 329. they are so far from worshiping the Bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry so to do, which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical. Answer, even so had not the Heathens thought that a good Spirit was present in their Images, had not the Manichees and the Egyptians thought that God and Christ were present where we see the Sun; had not the Israelites thought that God was present where they saw the Image of a Calf, they would have been so far from worshiping the Calf or the ma­terial Sun, that they themselves would have pro­fessed it to be Idololatrical to do so; which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical. And whereas he proceeds to add from Dr. Taylor, P. 330. that before they pass an Act of Aloration, they believe the Bread to be anni­hilated, or turned into his substance who may law­fully be worshipped, and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry, as they who understand better: it is manifest this doth as much excuse the Heathen, as it doth the Papist, for they also before they pass an Act of Adoration, do believe that what they worship, is the God of Heaven, who lawfully may be worshipped; and having such conceptions, they according to this [Page 20]argument must be esteemed as much enemies of Idolatry, as were those Christians, and those Prophets which reproved them for it, and passed so wicked and unjust a censure on them. Baro­nius tells us that the Collyridians conceived that the blessed Virgin was a real Deity,Apparat. 43. and that she had nothing humane in her, and so before they ventured to Adore her, they believed her humane nature was annihilated, or turned into his sub­stance who may lawfully be worshipped; and yet, if we may credit Epiphanius, it was no bet­ter than an Idol-making Heresie and they were Diabolical Idolaters: So that those passages of that ingenious and learned Prelate, serve only to demonstrate that the highest judgment, and the most pregnant subtile wit must strangely shuffle, and most assuredly miscarry, when it endeavours to excuse the Church of Rome from being guilty of Idolatry: when the same Reverend Person undertook to shew the vanity and folly of what he had delivered on that Subject to excese the Papist, when he proceeds to shew the grourds by which his judgment was established, Real pre­sence. p. 347. no man could more apparently assert, or more convincingly demonstrate what the Roman Catholicks alledged to free them from this Sin,1 b. p. 340.341, 342. would free the worst of Heathens, For he intreats them to consider, first, that no man without his own fault, can mi­stake a Creature so far as to suppose him to be God; (especially not such a Creature as a piece of Bread.)

Secondly, That when the Heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon, they did it upon their confidence that they were Gods, and would not have given to them Divine Honour, if they had thought otherwise. Thirdly, That no man in the world upon these grounds, except he that is malicious and spightful, [Page 21]can be an Idolater: for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him, he can be no Idolater; if he have not, he is spightful, and malicious, and then all the Heathens are also excused as well as they. Fourthly, That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime, then the persecutors that killed the Aplstles, thinking they did God good service, and Saul in blaspheming the Religion, and persecuting the Servants of Jesus, and the Jewes themselves in Crucifying the Lord of Life, who did it ignorantly, as did also their Rulers, have met with their excuse upon the same account.

T. G. proceeds to urge from Mr. Thorndike thus,P. 332. (and truly he hath nothing worth conside­ration in his whole discourse, but what is bor­rowed either from Dr. Taylor or Mr. Thorndike) they who know that the God-head of Christ is the reason, for which his Flesh and Blood is worshipped in the Eucharist, cannot take that worship for Idola­try, because his Flesh and Blood is not present in the Eucharist, as they who worship it there, think it is: For they know, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is no Idol to Chistians wheresoever it is worshipped. Answer, This argument is so ridiculous and childish, that I am tempted to believe this wor­thy person was deserted in this matter by God, because he had deserted the Doctrine of the Church of England; for so far are we from knowing that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is made no Idol by the Christian wheresoever it is worshipped, that we do know that the whole Church of Christ condemned the Arian, Photini­an, Nestorian, and Eunomian as Idol-worshippers, because they did Adore his Flesh and Blood, this argument therefore is built on that foundation which gives the lie to the whole Christian World.

Secondly, This argument doth as much excuse the Heathens and the Manicheans as it doth the Papist, for they that know the Deity of Christ, is the reason why he was worshipped in the Sun, have as much reason to excuse the Manichees for worshipping the Sun, upon this supposition that Christ was there, as they have to excuse the Papist for worshipping the Sacrament, upon a like false supposition that Christ is there.

But now comes in a Demonstration, P. 329. so full of dazling light, that nothing can withstand its evi­dence, and thus it runs; what ever is taken for an object of worship, the understanding must affirm to be.

But Catholicks in the belief of Transubstantiati­on do not in their minds affirm the Bread to be. Therefore the object of their worship is not Bread but Christ: Answer, what T. G. ignorantly stiles a Demonstration, is such a miserable Sophism, so childish and ridiculous that nothing can be more: what Freshman knows not, that a true Syllogism hath but three terms, and cannot possibly admit of more, it being built on this foundation, that quae conveniunt in aliquo tertio, &c. But he hath been so liberal as to afford us five of six, and give us a conclusion from the premises, which never was contained in them. Let us put it into to better form, and see if it have any strength or evidence; thus then, what ever is taken by the Roman Ca­tholick for any object of his worship, must be offirm­ed by the Roman Catholick to be. But Bread in holy Eucharist is not affirmed by the Roman Catho­like to be. Ergo, Bread in the holy Eucharist is not taken by the Roman Catholick for any object of his worship. This Demonstration is so exceeding­ly convincing, that we grant the whole. For though we do unanimously judge that Papists in [Page 23]the Eucharist do worship Bread, and so are guilty of Idolatry; yet no man ever thought that they imagined they did worship Bread, or take Bread for the object of that worship which they call Latria; to shew the vanity and folly of this pretended Demonstration, let us see what service it will do unto the Heathens: what ever is taken for an object of Divine worship the understanding must affirm to be so, for neither the Aegyptians had made the Sun the object of that worship, nor yet the Israelites the Calf if their understanding had not first affirmed them to be so. But Heathens do not in their minds affirm an evil Spirit, or a Creature to be an object of Divine worship, but do conceive the ob­ject of their worship to be God: therefore the object of the Heathens worship is not an evil Spirit or a Creature but God. This is that weighty Demon­stration which our Author boasts of. Having now fully answered all the exceptions of T. G. I will assume the confidence to say, that not­withstanding all his out-cryes of a clear disparity, and his malitious imputations of want of Rea­son, and Conscience, in the Dr. who asserts the contrary, I have made it clearer than the light, that he hath not been able to say one word which is not manifestly false, or doth not equally excuse theThis consel [...]d by Gathe­rings in these words. Audi in hos [...]in com adoratur Christus ad Deus, non simplicitur, sed ut existens ful [...] his speciebus; cum igitur ibi non existat Christus, sed Creatura pro Christo invenitur, cui exhibetur Latria; Idolatria est, Idoloatre enim etiam hae errant ratione, qui caelum, puta, aut aliquid aliud adorabant, putantes se ibi adorare Deum, quem animam mundi dice­bant juxta Varronis Theologiam. Cathar: advers. nova dogmain Caje­tani Tit de veneratione storump, 134.135. Heathen and the Roman Catholick; and consequently that the discourse of Dr. St. was strong and nervous, and such as only Rats can answer, and shall content my self with this one corollary, that T. G. may be highly confident and [Page 24]boast of Demonstration, when he vents nothing besides plain non-sense, and apparent folly.

And now to put an issue to this proposition, if men may properly be said to do, and equitably may be charged with doing what they did not in­tend, because their action in effect is that which they conceived it not to be, as is apparent from a Thousand Scripture instances, then may the Papist be equitably charged with Idolatry, and properly affirmed to commit it; provided the material object of his Latria should be only Bread, although he doth not in the least intend to give the highest worship to Bread, for since Idolatry is only Latria given to, or terminated on the Crea­ture, and seeing Bread is most assuredly a Crea­ture, Latria terminated upon Bread can be no other than Idolatry. but if men must be thought to do only what they intend, then every action must be good, provided it be well intended; and Murther, Theft, Rebellions, Perjuries, Equivoca­tions must be sacred actions, provided they be done for the promotion of Gods glory, and the propagation of the Roman saith; which Do­ctrines thought they are taught, and daily pra­ctised by the members of the Roman Church, yet are they villanies too dangerous to be espoused by the English Papists.

To attribute by way of honour, Prop. 2. §. 2. worship, or respect, that knowledge to a Creature, which for any thing we know unto the contrary, is only due to the Cre­ator, is to be guilty of Idolatry. For first, That which is not of Faith is Sin. Rom. 14.23. what therefore is a sin, because it attributeth to the Creature what may be due to the Creator only, must be the sin of giving to the Creature what is due to God; and so, being an Act of Wor­ship, must be the sin of Idol Worship; for as [Page 25]the man who doth assert what he conceives to be uncertain for a certain truth, is by all Casuists esteemed a Lyar, though what he doth assert should prove a truth, because he doth assert that for a certain Truth, which he conceives may be a Lye: And as that Woman who performs the duties of a Wife to any person of whom she doubts that he is not her Husband, is to be esteemed an Adulteress, although he be indeed her Husband with whom she thus converseth, be­cause by doing of this Action, whilst the doubt remaineth, she doth that Action, which for any thing she knows unto the contrary, may be plain Adultery. So he that performeth that honour to a Creature, which he suspecteth only to be due to God, must be pronounced guilty of Ido­latry, however he perform that Worship only which is due unto the Creature, because by doing of it whilst any cause of doubt remaineth, he shews an inclination to perform it to the Crea­ture, though it belonged not to him; and in effect doth say. I have just reason to suspect this Worship doth belong to God alone, yet will I give it to a Creature.

Suppose the Bread, when duely consecrated, Prop, 3. §. 3. were certainly converted into the Body of our Lord, yet since, according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, this consecration often is, and may be hin­dred by many secret defects which do not fall under the Cognisance of him that Worships; a man may rationally doubt of every particular Host presented to his adoration, that it is only Bread. ThisCarnet­tus qui­dem, cum tale quid ab eo quae­retetur, respondisse dicitur, Merito dubitari de eo posse, nec vel se, vel alium quenquam teneri, temerè credere, aut salutem suam credendo in diserimen adducere; quod vel ipse seilicet, vel alius quis in individuo sacerdos; vel hoc, vel certo alio consecrationis suae rempore, panem Transtubstantiando Christi corpus conficiat. Sratui forsitan posse in genere, at (que) indefinitè, quod Transubstantiatio sit, & quod ab aliquo, alicubi Sacerdore tale quid, aliquando fieripossit. Epistopus Eliensis, Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7. Garnet openly confessed, and therefore though they stande obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other, at some [Page 26]time or other, by some Priest or other, yet they think no man is obliged to believe, that any Priest now, or at any one certain time, does con­secrate effectively. And this concession is not very liberal, if we consider what is acknowled­ged by Suarez, Multae sut causae propter quas po­test acci­dere, ut Christus non sit praesens: ut si sacer­dos non sit bapti­zatus, vel non sit ritè ordinatus, quod pen­det ex multis ali­is causis, quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus; ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus. Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65.2. That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects, which will obstruct Christs presence in the Holy Sacrament. For as we are informed by the Roman Missal, if the Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ con­secratione requiruntur. Verba autem consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec, hoc est enim corpus meum, & hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, misterium fidei, qui pro vobis, & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum: Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrati­onis corporis & sanguinis, & in ipsa verborum immutatione, verba idem non significarent: non Conficeret sacramentum. Miss. Rom. de Defec. Miss. p. 35. Priest happen to diminish, or alter any of the words of Consecration, so that the sense be varied, or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted; in all these cases Christ is not pre­sent in the Sacrament, but it remaineth Bread, now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words, and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration, seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in aSi quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis & verba consecrationis proseruntu [...] damnandum esse, aut lingua tan­tum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil. Trid, Sess. 22. Can. 9. secret voice, and not to be heard, and in the [Page 27]Latine Tongue, none of the People can be cer­tain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread.

Secondly,Si panis non sit triticeus, vel, si tri­ticeus, sit admixtus granis al­terius ge­neris in tanta quan titate, ut non ma­neat pa­nis triticeus, vel sit alioqui corruptus: non conficitur Sacramentum. ibid. pag. 34. If the Bread be corrupted, or if it be not Wheaten-Bread, then is it not converted into Christs Body; and if the Wine be sowre, or turned in­to Vinegar, if it be made of unripe Grapes, if it be mixt with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine, then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ. Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament, can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects, it is not easie to conceive.f

Thirdly,Siquis non inten­dit confi­cere, sed delusorie aliquid a­gere non consecrat, quiarequi­ritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36. If the Priest have uo intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine, if in this matter he acts dilusorily, if he be asecret Atheist, a Moor, a Jew, in all these cases the person Worshiping must give Latria to a Creature; if none of all this happen, yetQuic­quid ho­rum defi­cit, scilicet mat eria debita, for ma cum intentione, & ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente, non consicitur Sa­cramentum. ib. p. 34. if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptized with due form of words, or if the Person that Baptized him, doth not intend to do as the Church doth, if he be not a Priest, (which often happens saith Pope* Adrian) and certainly falls out, when he that doth Ordain him, doth noth not intend to do so, or faultreth by dimi­nution of, or by addition to the form of Ordi­nation, so that the sence is changed, or made im­perefct; or lastly, if the Bishop that Ordain'd [Page 28]this Priest that doth now Consecrate, were not himself Ordained and Baptized with due matter, form, and intention, or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him, or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter; that is, if this hath happen'd out in six­teen hundred years, then will the Elements re­main still Bread and Wine, as wanting Consecra­tion by a real Priest, for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood, he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest, can give but a supposed Priesthood, and they that do receive their Priesthood, or do derive it from such as have received it from them, can receive nothing but a shadow, it being undeniably cer­tain, that the unsupplyable defect of any neces­sary antecedent, doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it. So that no R. Catholick can be assured he doth not Wor­ship Bread, without he can have no assurance, there being no necessity that they should be true.

From the consideration of all these defects, it is exceeding evident, That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and daily practice the adoration of the Host, are unavoid­ably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry, and have just reason to suspect (although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the ge­neral be certain) that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine. On this Ob­jection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph, as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter, and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest. weakness: And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert, that by his first reply unto it, he hath quite [Page 29]overthrown the Roman Cause, and given all con­sidering persons, such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome, that nothing can be more prevailing. For thus he speaks, The absurdness of the assertion, that another mans de­fect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry, whether I will or no, might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a seruple. This I confess is a most clear and cer­tain truth, that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime, only by reason of anothers fault or wickedness: But then it must be more absurd to think I shall be damned only by reason of the defect or wickedness of others, which yet all R. Catholieks stand bound as firmly to believe, as any other Doctrine of that Church; for it is certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Quoties infans aut adultus versatur in vitae periculo, potest sine solemnita­te à quo­cunque Baptizari servata tamenforma & intentione Ecclesia, Ritual. Rom. de Bap. P. 7. That where the perfect form of Baptism, or the intention of b doing what the Churth doth, is wanting, the person that is brought unto the Fout is not Baptized: And it is also the definition of that Church,c That Baptism is ne­cessary to Salvation, and consequently, that no unbaptized person can be Saved; and hence the Roman Ritual speaks thus,d That Holy Baptism, the Gate of Christian Religion and Eternal Life,e[Page 30]is necessary to the Salvation of all Men, is testified by truth it self in these expressions, unless a Man be born again, &c. and therefore in the due mini­stration of it, the greatest diligence is needfull. (2) It is most certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Sinners are not absolved by the Priest, unless thee Priest intend to do it; and yet that Church defineth, That thisSiquis dixerit, in ministris, dum Sacra mentum conficiunt & confe­runt non requiri in­tentionem saltem fa­ciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema, sit. Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Cap. 1. Can. 11. f Est au­tem hoc Sacramen­tum Paeni­tentiae lap­sis post Baptis­mum ad salutem necessarium. ut nondum regeneratis ipse Baptismus. ibid. Stss. 14. Cap. 2. Sacrament of Penance is necefsary to Salvation to those that after Baptism do fall; and tells the penitent,g he must not so far flatter or deceive himself, as to expect to be absolved by God, by reason of his Faith, if the Priest doth not in his mind intend truly to absolve him, and to act seriously in the matter. So that T. G. and all of his perswasion, must recant this principle which he hath here laid down, and which shines with the brightest evidence, or else he must renounce the Church of Rome, and one would wonder at the stupidity of our R. Catho­licks, that they can think of this without the greatest horrour and amazement: for if this be not true, then their Religion must be false, and if it be, then how great soever be the Piety and Virtue of their Lives, yet if their Priest be a se­cret Atheist, if he be impious enough not to be serious; or if he be so negligent, or so malicious as not to intend their absolution, they must in­fallibly be damned to all Eternity. [Page 31]Secondly, His instances are all impertinent, and insufficient to take off the scruple upon several accounts, as for example,P. 259. T. G. askes what certainty hath a Husband that the person he takes for his Wife, is so indeeds and yet a Husband may pay the conjugal debt.

Answer, The case is no way parallel, for here is no apparent cause of doubt, for otherwise the duty ought not to be paid, but there is almost in­finite reason to suspect Christ is not present in the Sacrament; once in a Thousand instances per­haps it happeneth that a Man may be cheated with another Woman; but here it is an Hundred to one that we are cheated in our supposition of Christs Real and Corporal presence. For since the power of the Priest to Consecrate, depends upon the due Baptizing, and due Ordination of all that Line which was before him; should we allow to every Ordaining Bishop 16 years, yet must that Line contain an Hundred Bishops at least, and if but one neglect in matter, form, or the intention of the Priest, hath been committed in the Baptizing, or Ordaining of one of the whole Hundred Bishops, the Bread must certain­ly be Bread; so that the want of due intention, form or matter, being as common, and as like to happen in any single instance, as a cheat put upon the Husband; the disparity in this must be as great as that of One to an Hundred; and if we do again consider that according to the Canon of the Nicene Council, One Bishop, and Two Priests are requisire to the Ordaining of a Priest, then the disparity runs thus; as Three hundred to one, so is the possibility of being cheated in the Sacra­ment, to that of being cheated in my Bed: But [Page 32]then if we consider that throughout theCent. 9. In eodem concilio de vita & honestate sacrificu­lorum, quorum mores a Disciplina Majorum lapsi ad luxum li­bidinem­que plus quam pro­fano licet, tende­bant, leges latae sunt. Avent. lib. 4. p. 359. Isti octo Pontifices sequentes brevi tempore sederunt, nescio nota­bile aliquid de ipsis dicere, quia non nisi scandalosa de ipsis reperi. Fascic. p. 67. Quod proinde seculum ab Historicis infaelix inscribitur. Genebrard. ad Ann. Christi. 899. Ninth, b Tenth, andc Eleventh Ages. The Priests and Bishops of the Roman Church were so abomina­bly wicked, that Tongue cannot express suffici­ently their vileness; that by their own confession 50 succeeding Popes were rather Devils, and Apostates, than Apostolick Persons, that their Sa­crificators wered Antichrists, Magicians, Invaders of the holy Function, guilty of Simony and Perjury, Monsters and Prodigies of vice, and that on those accounts the Ages mentioned are called the un­happy and the most desperate times, wherein the very e Abomination of Desolation had usurped the Temple. If we consider that their ignorance was so exceeding great, thatf few knew what it was they read. I say if these things be imparti­ally [Page 33]considered; it must be highly probable to men of ordinary reason, that if the forementio­ned defects do certainly obstruct the Sacrament of Ordination, there is not any Priest now living in the whole Church of Rome. This answer also shews that all his other instances are also wretch­edly impertinent, and therefore cannot possibly deserve to be particularly considered.

Were it most certain that every particular Host were duly Consecrated, Prop. 4. Sect. 4. and certainly contained Christs real Body, yet have we no good warrant upon that supposition to Adore it with Latria:P. 127. For as the Dr. excellently argues, the reason of all Ado­ration given to the Sacrament is this, that Christ hath said, this is my Body, which words if they im­ply Transubstantiation cannot be understood of any other change than of the Bread into Christs Body; and if this sense were to be put upon them, why mhy I not imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the Institution? That the mere humane nature of Christ is there, then that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end, and where it makes not the least manifestation of it self: To this discourse T. G. returns this Ansvver,P. 23 [...] That where there is a General command without ex­ception [Page 34]to Worship the word made Flesh, there he hath given a sufficient indication of doing it wherever we are certain by faith, that he is so present. Ansvver, But what is this to the Doctors Argu­ment, which proceeds upon this ground, that the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist is no sufficient evidence, that in the Eucharist it is united to the word; for if Christs Body may be eaten, and not eaten, eaten by them who have received the Host, and not eaten by them who have not yet received it; If it may be under the species of Bread, and not under the species of Bread, under the species of Bread, as it is in the Sacrament, and not under the species of Bread, as it is in Heaven; why may it not be united to the word, and not united to the word, united to the word, as it is in Heaven; but not united to the word as it lyes senseless on the Altar. And therefore the belief of Catholicks, that the Divi­nity is thus united to the Sacrament, is no suffici­ent motive to Adore it with Latria, because I can have no sufficient reason to think it true.

Secondly,P. 113. The Dr. Argues thus, if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypo­statically united with the Divine nature, then the conversion is not merely into the Body, but into the person of Christ; and then Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him, as there are Ele­ments consecrated. This clear perspicuous Argu­ment is saith T. G. A notable piece of new mystical Divinity, p. 141. and expres'd in hard words; and atten­ded with a contradiction. Answer, can it be expe­cted that any man should speak of a Subject that is it self made up of infinite contradicti­ons, and not speak sutably to the Subject? if T. G. would assert the contrary to what the Dr. argues, must he not say that all the Consecrated [Page 35]Elements (perhaps a 1000) are but one Body, and seeing all these Elements are Christs Body, must not he say that a 1000 Christs bodys are but one Christs body? is it not impudence and disin­genuity to cry out of hard words upon the men­tion of Consecrated Elements, and Conversion into the person of Christ, when we are speaking of that change which they all Transubstantiation, and say that it is made by Consecration of the Ele­ments; or because we use that term of hypostatick union, when we are speaking of that union which is so called by all Divines that treat upon that Subject? and is delivered to us in that very word by the whole Church of Christ?P. 241.242/ It doth not follow saith T. G. any more then because the Bread the Flesh, the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body, and hypo­statically united to him; it follows, That there were as many Bodies hypostatically united to him, as there were several meats eaten by him: no saith he, this Argument carries not the shew of probability. Rep. Sure I am, this answer hath but the shew of a simi­litude; for the Elements of Bread are changed into Christs whole Body, but all the several meats Christ eat were not changed into Christs whole Bo­dy, but only into some part of it; but the simili­tude is good against him, for as the several meats which by Conversion became parts of Christs Body, were not the self same parts, but divers: So the several Wafers which by Conversion be­come Christs whole Body, are not the same whole Body, but divers; thus doth T. G's. similitudo turn tayl upon him. And that the Doctors Argu­ment is perfect demonstration is most evident, for it depends upon this proposition, that if one Consecrated Element by one Christs Body hypo­statically united to him, then must Two, be Two, [Page 36]and Ten be Ten, and many Consecrated Ele­ments many Bodys; which is a evident as this, if one Twenty shillings in a bag be one pound, then must Two, be Two pound, and ma­ny Twenty shillings in a bag, must be many pounds.

CHAP. III.

The CONTENTS.

Prop. The Bread and Wine are not Transub­stantiated, 1. Because we do not drink blood. 2. Because we do not eat mans Flesh. 3. Because mankind was not re­deemed by the first Sacrament. 4. Because the Scripture after Consecration calls it Bread and Wine. 5. Because our senses have no evidence of such a change.

IN the participation of the Eucharist we do not eat the humane body of our Lord which suffered on the Cross; nor drink of humane blood, Prop. 1. Sect. 1. but what we eat and drink is true substantial Bread and Wine: for, 1. If Christ had given to his Disciples blood to eat, he must have taught them to have done what was forbidden in the Law of Moses, where­as he both exactly did observe that Law,Mat. 23 3. and taught his own Disciples to observe what ever by the Scribes and Pharisees was taught them from the Law of Moses, which was in force till all things were fulfilled by the death of Christ. Secondly, Christs own Disciples after his Resur­rection were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time; and so were also many Thousands of the Jewish converts. 21 Act. 20. St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish Cu­stoms, that till a vision had informed him better,10 Act. 14. he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law: and when in a visi­on [Page 38]on he was bid to stay and eat, he presently cryes out, as a man tempted to an unlawful act; not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is un­clean. St. James gives an account to Paul of the great zeal that all the Jewish Converts had for the Law of Moses, Act. 21.20. in these words; Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law; he declares how highly they were all offended with him, because they were informed that he taught that they were not obliged to yield Obe­dience to the Constitutions and customs of the Jewish Law, vers. 21. They are (saith he) in­formed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to Circumcise their Children, nei­ther to walk after their Customs: And Thirdly, he exhorts him, for their better satisfaction; so to act,v. [...]4. as that he might induce them to believe that he also walked soberly and did keep the Law. And yet St. Peter before this vision, had assembled to celebrate the Holy Sacrament, and all these Jewish converts so zealous of the observation of the Ceremonial Law did very frequently receive this Cup of Blessing; Act. 20.7, 11. and upon every Lords day at least, did meet together to break Bread; Whence evident it is that they did not look upon that action as any violation of the Law of Moses, and so could not imagine that by participation of this Sacrament they drunk what properly was blood. For they could not be ignorant that blood was by this Law forbidden,Lev. 3.17 it having said, it shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations through­out all your dwellings, Lev. c. 7. v. 27. that ye eat neither Fat nor Blood; and that, whatsoever s [...]l it he that eateth any manner of Blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his People. Nor could they be both zealous [Page 39]observators of the Law, and quarrellors with those that did not keep it, and yet transgress it themselves. The Sect of Nazarens continued in the Church of Christ 400 years, for of theSectae il­lius memi­nit H [...]ro­nymus in Epist. ad August & August ip­se l. 4. con. Crescon. Danaeas in August. de Haeres. p. 75. Nazarens, St. Jerom and St. Austin do make mention, they multiplyed and spread themselves throughout the Eastern Church; and yet this Sect observedb all the Law of Moses, and held it necessary to Salvation so to do, and therefore none of them did think that by participation of the Holy Sacrament they fed on blood, and so transgressed it.

Again, when the Disciples met together to consult of what was needfull to be observed by the Gentile Converts, the better to avoid the Scandal of the Jews, they strictly charged them to avoid things strangled, and abstain from Blood; Acts 15.28, 29. and judged it necessary so to do: Now had they fed on Blood in Holy Mysteries, no Christian com­municant could have observed this precept, and nothing could have been more foolish than to give injunctions to avoid that Scandal, which in their Holy Rites they daily ministred. This therefore is a signal and triumphant evidence, that they who first imposed this Decree, and they who undertook to keep it, were utter strangers to this idle dream of Transubstantiation. The ancient Chri­stians did for many Centuries abstain from Blood, & look upon it as a thing forbidden by this Canon, which enjoyns this abstainance, and reckons it amongst [...], or things necessary, of which we have sufficient Testimony from that [Page 40]Law of Leo the Emperour, where having forbid­den the use of Blood stuffed in the entrails of Beasts, he affirms, That in the Old Law and in the Gospel, it was always esteemed impious to eat it: and in the Canons called [...]. Canonum Apestol. cap. 62. Apostolical, it is forbidden to a Clergy-man to eat Blood, under pain of deposition, to a Lay-man under pain of Excommunication: And hence the Penitential Books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did tast this forbidden Dish: And that they did so, is known and con­fessed by Pamelius, Rhenanus, and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian, Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis [...]s ulentis habemus; and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants, they, to evince the impudence and false­ness of that charge, did constantly return this answer,Nobis homicidi­um nec videre sas nec audire tantum (que) abhumano sanguine cay [...]mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem nove­rimus, Minu [...]. par. 34. cum notis Ouzel. porro quale est ut quos sangui­nempecoris hor [...]ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis? Tertul. Apol. c. 9. vid. Eusib. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c 1. That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts, could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men: whereas, had they conceived that, by partaking of the consecrated Cup, they drank of humane Blood, this answer could not have excused them, nor could it with sincerity be urged by them, since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts, they daily fed upon his Blood, who was the Man Christ Jesus, and to depose a Priest from eating [...], (i.e.) Flesh that con­tains the Blood, as the fore-mentioned Canon doth, would in effect, be to depose him for per­taking of the Holy Sacrament, that being most emphatically [...], or Flesh with Blood, according to the Roman Doctrine. And [Page 41]therefore this opinion, that it was lawfull for Christians to eat Blood, found little or no coun­tenance in the Church of Christ, till the time of Berengarius, when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge; besides, the ancient Fathers ob­jected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing,Quod Saturni fi­li [...]dignum est mali & nex [...] ho­minis [...]an­g [...]in [...] g [...] ­natur ip­so [...] credo decu [...]sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam, & Bello­nam sa­crum suum haustu hu­mani cru­oris imbu­ere, & Co­mitialem morbum hominis sanguine, id est, [...]orbo graviore sanare. Minuc. p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo & ejusmodi [...]t ag [...]es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit, (est apud Herodotum opi [...]) defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foede­rí comparasse, nescio quid & sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9. That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood, and used that barbarous custom, as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness, now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood, to the performance of all works of Pie­ty, as Pliny saith they did, by the participation of the Holy Sacrament. Had they thus used hu­mane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls, and of their Bodies too, asErat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat. Sed quia intus sani palpeoris co­haerentibus non patebant, medicum eos ferro aperire voluine ne (que) hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam, sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Ca­taplasmare cum jam puer quin (que) aut fere ampliu [...] esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August. l. 3. Sec. adv. Julian. Op. S. 164. they did use the Holy Sacrament, what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and argu­ments; and what could lay upon them an im­putation of greater impudence and folly, then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised? Besides, this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence, that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernitious Spirits, be­causeHodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat. Tertul. Apol. c. 9. a draught of humane Blood, or the Oblation of the Blood of Man, was deemed an acceptable [Page 42]service to them, and that which would appease their anger, and because their Priests were Con­secrated by drinking humane Blood. Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice; and if both Priest and People did as often drink it, as they did celebrate the Sacrament, what could these charges be, but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them?

Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh,Arg. 2. §. 2. and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross, he had delivered that which could not have been thought of, and much less practised without the greatest horrour: For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh, he had enjoyned them to do that which is repug­nant unto humane nature, and hath been con­stantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens, a barbarous and inhumane thing. Hence that ex­pression of our Saviour Christ, That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh, was by the unbelieving Jew, rejected as a thing impossible,Joh. 6.52. how can this Man say, they give us his Flesh to Eat? And if they deemed it a thing impossible, that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one mans Flesh, well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so. Nay, when his own Disciples heard it,verse 60. they presently cried out, This is an hard saying, who can hear it: they judged it so absurd a Proposition, and were so highly scan­dalized at it, that notwithstanding all the con­viction they received from their Eyes and other senses, that he was the true Messiah, they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to re­ject him,verst 66. for from that very time many of his Disci­ples went back, and walked no more with him. [Page 43]So that our Blessed Saviour, to obviate and to remove this Scandal, doth in the judgment of the Fathers, presently expound himself in a Spi­ritual sence, and doth assert, that this corporal eating was unprofitable, and not the thing he did exhort them to, for thus Eusebius doth para­phrase his words, [...]. Euseb. l. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcell. Ancyr. M. S. Bibl. Oxon. do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed, as if you must eat of that, neither imagin that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood, but understand well, that the words which I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuites, p 48, 49, 50, 51. Life; This also is the Expositi­on of Tertullian, Origen, St. Augustin, Athana­sius, to omit divers others: And of this Exposi­tion they give this account,August. de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15, 16. that those expres­sions taken literally, command what is an im­pious and Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spirituali­ter ea quaedicuntur adverterit, si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, &c. oc­cidit haec litera Origen in Lev. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. wicked think, and are a killing Letter, and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sence. And we are informed byHorum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati: ca autem imma­nitas coepit a Simone Mago, ut Narrat. Clem. de rebus geftis Petri, qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis car­nem filii hominis, & biberitis ipsius sanguinem, &c. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst. in haec verba Minuc. infans farre contectus, ut decipiat incautos, apponitur. Wowerius, out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens, that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians, Quintilians, and others, who mixt the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread, had its first rise from Simon Magus, misunderstanding those very words of John, except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man [Page 44]and drink his Blood, &c. Now if this oral man­ducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repug­nant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it, can we suppose it would pass down so glib, not only with the Jewish, but all the Gen­tile converts? and yet we do not find, that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament, or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians, that they were Canibals on this account, or that they did devour humane Flesh. When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews, can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood? or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradi­tion, and so received by the Church of Christ, could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a killing Letter, and the injunction of the greatest wickedness? could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted, by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood? or could those Hereticks have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christs Blood? But then if we conceive this person, we thus devour, to be also God, and therefore look upon this action as [...], or the devouring of our God and Maker, it is so full of horrour, scandal and amazament, that nothing can be more; for what this Doctrine doth assert, was in the judgment of theEcquem tam amen­tem esse putas, qui illud quo vescatur Deum cre­dat esse? de natura Deorum. C. 3. Orator, such an incredible madness, as humane nature ne­ver could be guilty of: And Averroes upon this single score pronounceth, thatb among all Religi­ous [Page 45]Sects, the Christians were the worst and most ri­diculous, because, that God they Worshipped, they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces, Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahumetan can cast upon us, we are by them reproached asChristi­anos atro­ciores esse in Chri­stum quam Judaeos (ait Ak­med Ben. Edris Ma­hummed:) hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse, il­los vero carnem e­jus edere & sangui­nem bibe­re, quod ipsa expe­perientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat. V. Hot­ting. Apol. de Luch. §. 14. p. 220. [...], or the devourers of our God; and they are wont to say, that by thus eating of his Flesh, we use him worse then did the Jews that Crucified him. The ancient Fathers do agree in these, with Cicero and Averroes, and say with them, That to adore what we do eat, is the extreamest sottishness, and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens, as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions, and of the Gods they Wor­shiped, that what they Worshiped, they did also Sacrifice, and that they did devour him whom they adored, as Tatian and Minutius suggest. And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing, That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations. Theodoret also doth affirm, That [...] Quaest. 55. in Genesin. God foreseeing Men would fall to such extre­mity of madness, as to Worship Beasts, the better to restrain that Wickedness, did suffer us to eat them, which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry, because, saith he, it is the evtreamest of all folly, to Worship what we Eat. He again adds, That f God divided Beasts into clean and unclean, that Men abhorring what they judged unclean, and eating what they called clean, might Worship neither; for can any Man of sense, saith he,f conceive that to be God, which he abominates [Page 46]as unclean, or which he offers to the true God, and himself doth Eat. Thirdly, he adds, That God enjoyned the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Crea­tures which the Aegyptians Worshiped as Gods, Serm. 7. de Sacrif. To. 4. P. 585. that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice, and not be guilty of such extream stu­pidity and folly, as to conceive them to be Gods. Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ, it must have given greater scandal, and been a fitter matter of reproach to Christians, then was the scandal of the Cross, and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal, as that other of the Cross. The Jews and Heathens, who cast this always in their Dish, That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross, would not have stuck to load them with this more hainous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore, at least when this was frequently ob­jected to them, as the extreamest madness, they must have presently retorted, That you Christians confessedly do the same, your God is also deemed your Sacrifice, and you do first adore, and then devour him: The ancient Fathers of the Church, who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they payed un­to a Crucified Saviour, would surely have afford­ed some Apology for that, which in the Judg­ment of Heathens, Turks. and Christians, seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find, that Christs Disciples, or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal, since no malitious Jew, or subtile Gentile, did in the least accuse the Christi­ans of what they all conceived a crime so mon­strous; although they were not wanting to seek [Page 47]occasions of reproach against them, and to di­vulge false stories of them, and were particular­ly upbraided with doing (what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them) must be the Christi­ans constant practice. Lastly, Seeing the ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this [...] or God-eating, as the Heathens did, and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest mad­ness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice; And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid. It must be infinitely certain, that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles, or the received tradition of the Church of Christ.

If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body,Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood, then was his natural Body bro­ken, and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion; for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion, and what he then administred was, if we may believe his words, [...], (i.e.) his broken Body, and [...], or [...], (i.e.) his blood shed or ex­travasated; now since his body was then whole, and not yet broken on the Cross for us, seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels, and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out; and therefore what he did then admini­ster, could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken, and his blood shed for us, his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence, as Pro­testants do plead for. Add to this, That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Sup­per, then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory, [Page 48]or it was not; if it was not, then it is not now: and then their Dream of the Mass is va­nished, if it was propitiatory at the last Supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour. For Christ expresly saith, that he then gave unto them his body, which was given for us, Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins: which if we literally understand, his future passion must be vain and needless, so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine.

If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacra­ment is Bread,Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it,1 Cor. 10.16, 17. at the least five times: The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ, for we are all partakers of this Bread. Let a man examine himself, 1 Cor. 11.28. and so let him eat of that Bread, for as often as you eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you shew the Lords Death, &c. Wherefore, verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which expressions it is five times said, that what we eat and do partake of, what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body, and sheweth forth his Death, and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacra­ment, is still bread. And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour, whilst he was alive, and had his blood within his Veins, should be esteemed sufficient to make us all be­lieve that his whole body, and so his hand was in his hand, and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed, and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross, and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes [Page 49]of his Disciples was also broken for them, and many thousand contradictions more? and yet that what the Holy Ghost, who knew the mean­ing of our Saviours words as well as any R. Ca­tholick, hath called so often Bread, and seems to all our sences so to be, should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread. If Christ had said, This is my Body, and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread, we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter: But when it is so oft in Scripture affir­med to be Bread, and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord, and it is ab­solutely necessary, that one of these two affirma­tions should be acknowledged to be Tropical, that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever, should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case, but that it should be thought as ra­tional, all other circumstances being equal, to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason, as to determin according to the verdict of them both, is most apparently absurd. Add to this, that the Apostles buis­ness in this place, was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament,1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. and used it as Common Bread, and so discerned not the Lords Body; and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eat­ing of this Bread: and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime, and to discover the vileness of this pro­phanation, to have expresly told them, That what they thus prophaned, was the very Son of God that suffered for them; this being a most signal ag­gravation of their guilt; whereas to say so often [Page 50]that it was Bread, was to extenuate the Crime, and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do; but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks, had he believed as they do.

God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body,Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represen­ted it unto their sences, and made it apparent to their eyes, ears, feeling, or their experience that he wrought it; there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture, or any humane Writer; the Devil himself is not so im­pudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences, and make them seem to see, hear, or tast, what really they do not. To this convincing evidence and demonstration, T. G. returns this sorry answer,P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers, ought to be objects of our sence, but this is not done upon such an account, but for the Sanctification of those that believe already, and for these it is enough, that Christ hath said it is his body, they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences: Answer, 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversi­on of unbelievers, but for the benefit of those that did believe, and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses, the Manna, the water of Jealousie, the Ʋrim and Thummim, &c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought on the diseased Chri­stians; if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind, what reason have we to esteem this so? Besides is not a Miracle, [...], or a sign? sure I am the Scripture often calls it [Page 51]so, and is not every sign declared by St.Signum est res praeter speciem quam in­gerit sen­sibus aliud aliquid, ex se faciens in cogita­tionem venire. De Doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 1. Austin to be something sensible, whereby we do perceive what is not sensible, what therefore is no object of the sence, can be no sign or Miracle. Se­condly, we cannot possibly obtain a greater evi­dence that any Revelation is Divine, than is the evidence of sence, whence it doth follow, that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our sences: as T. G. asserts; for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance, that the delive­rers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery: and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought, the Prophesies they delivered, the Doctrine they taught? and that by sence? should any of them be questioned, must not we recur unto the sences of the Primi­tive Christians to confirm them? and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith, and our Traditions? must we not be surer of the proof, than of the thing proved? And consequently of the evidence of sense, than that of Faith, which deriveth from it? if not, why, Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed, who believe and have not seen, 20 Joh. 29 than Thomas who first saw and felt, and then believed? is it not because they do it upon lesser (though sufficient) evidence? and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy. Thirdly, should it be otherwise, how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see, but have not the like fulness of perswasion in what they believe? That being once assured of the objects of sence; they can admit of no greater certainty, whereas after all our boasts of a Plero­phory of Faith, we have still need to strive and labour to encrease it? Since then the certainty of [Page 52]Faith is proved inferior to that of sence. It is not possible we should have greater reason to be­lieve a Revelation, or any matter of our Faith, than to believe our sences as T. G. suggests: hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words, this is my body, are contained in Scripture, or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christs Body, than that assurance which the sences of all Christians do afford us, that it remaineth Bread. And Thirdly, hence it follows, that we can have no greater rea­son to profess the Christian Faith, than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation.

Answer, 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said, this is his Body, and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so, although it be against the sence and reason of mankind that he should do it: This will oblige us also to believe, that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incar­nation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock, which ministred water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness, for of that it is ex­presly said [...],1 Cor. 10.4. or that Rock was Christ; 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood, because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15.50. which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit. We unbelieving Prote­stants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood; & yet the Sacra­ment should be his very Flesh and Blood, but as for you, you know the danger of not believing God more than your sences, and your reasons, and there­fore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter. 3. This will oblige us to be [Page 53] Anthropomorphites, and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and in­effectual, for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God, but also doth in very many places attri­bute unto him the parts and members of an hu­mane body, what then will you oppose against them? sence, and reason? T. G. will give this answer for them, that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their sences, or their reason. Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture, which seems to contradict their Doctrine? alas! that which is often stiled Bread must not be thought to be so, because Christ hath once said it is his body, and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage [...], which may be rendred, God makes, or searcheth, God loves, or seeks the Spirit,4 Joh. 24. should carry it against so many which more expresly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body? or shall we fly unto Tradition; alas! is it not that which is derived from the sences of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived? and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites, must not their eyes, and tast, and smell, and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiati­on? Fourthly, This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy, viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them, gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah, for all his Miracles were on­ly motives to believe that Law should be abolish­ed, which God hath often said should last, [...], or for ever. Doth nor he tell them [Page 54] that the things he had revealed belonged to them, and to their Children for ever, Deut. 29.29. Exod. 12.17. that they might do all the things of this Law. Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute; Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations? 23 Lev. 14 And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not alwayes signifie an infinite duration, but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period. and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sence and reason. Will not this answer justifie the Protestants when they produce so many instances to shew, that when a thing in Scripture is stiled this or that, the meaning only is, that it doth signifie what it is said to be: for to omit those passages so often cited,40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38, 39. viz. The three branches are three days: The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn, are seven years: The four great Beasts, are four Kingdoms: Thou art that Golden head: The Seed is the word, the Field is the World, the Reapers are the Angels; the Harvest is the end of the World; the Rock is Christ, &c. Should we omit, I say all these, and many other instances of this familiar Trope, it would be easie to produce many expressions of the like import with them: For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt,5 Ezek. 5. and cut, and bound up in his skirt, this is Jerusalem? And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David, 2 Sam. 23. [...]7. this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives? Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture, and in Jewish Writers? doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover? doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament? and was it not fa­miliar with the Jewes to say of their unleavened [Page 55]Bread, this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat, and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis, or the memorial of the Passo­ver:Buxt. de Caena Dom §. 25. And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread, designed to signifie and represent his Body broken for us, and to conveigh the blessings he had pur­chased, by the oblation of it on the Cross, This is my Body?

Fifthly, This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites, the Valentinians, and the Manichaeans, who thought Christs Body to be only the appearance of a Body, and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion. This fond imagination, the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums, which overthrows this an­swer, and the whole Doctrine of Transubstanti­ation; nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's. Principles. 1, The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle, that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sence; and that to doubt the certainty of what our sences appre­hend, is to endanger all Religion.

Tertullian discourseth thus,Non li­cet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate, ne & in Ghristo de fide co­rum deli­beretur. Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum. Recita Johannis testa io­nem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus, quod manibus nostris pal­pavimus &c. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum & aurium & manuum sensus natura mentitur. de anima Cap. 17. B. C it is not lawful to doubt of our Sences, least the same doubt be made concerning Christ, least peradventure it should be said, he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him. Recite the Testimony of St. John,, what we have heard with our Ears, and our Eyes have seen, and our Hands have handled of the word of Life, that declare we to you. The Testimony verily is false, if nature do [Page 56]deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears, and Hands: And in his Book de Carne Christi, he speaks thus,Sed & qui car­nem Chri­sti putati­vam intro­duxit ae­que potuit nativita­tem quo (que) phantasma configere, ut & con­ceptus, & praegnatus & partus Virginis & Ipsrus ex­indeinfan­tis ordo [...] haberen­tur, eos­dem ocu­los, eos­demque sensus fe­fellissent quos car­nis opinio elusit. cap. 1. He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ, hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity, and to assert the Conception, Pregnance, and the Virgins Birth, and the whole Order of the Infant was Phantastical: for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Sences which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh. 2. They argue thus, that if Christ had no real Flesh, and if he did not suffer really, the Sacrament cannot duely be stiled the Image, Fi­gure, Symbol, Type, Similitude, Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh.c Christ (saith Tertullian) said, This is my Body, (i. e.) the fi­gure of my Body; but it had been no figure, unless the Body had been true: for a Phantasme can have no figure. But what he would have Bread to signifie, he hath sufficiently declared, calling Bread his Bo­dy: and therefore thus he sums up his discoursed against the Phantasme of Marcion; We have proved the verity of Christs Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine: And Maximus, who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus,Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part. 2. If Christ, as these Men say, were without Body and Blood, of what kind of Elesh, or of what Body, or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and [Page 57]Cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Disci­ples by them to make a Commemoration of him? Theodoret against the Eutichians, disputeth thus: [...]. 2. [...]. 4. p. 84, 85. That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead, because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body. Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ, that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood, they had much weakned their argument by those expressions; for what is more convincing then this inference, if Chri­stians in the Sacrament, do eat Christs real Flesh and Blood, then must his Flesh and Blood be re­al; if they do eat Christs real Body, he had a real Body. Secondly, Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christs real Body, as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth. Thirdly, why do they all expresly say, the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols, and Remembrances of his Body and Blood; and that of them he said, This is my Body and my Blood, seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true, but must admit a Figure. But Secondly, These Hereticks can never be confuted by Men of T.G's. Principles, for hath the Roman Catholick one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon, so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul, which tells us, that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread, and yet no real bread, so Christ was [...], in the shape of Man, and yet no Man, as we have there the likeness of Wine, and yet no Wine, so Christ whilst he conversed in the World, was [...], in the similitude of Man, [Page 58]but yet no Man. If you should urge against them sence and reason, they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them; or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body, they may answer, it was in Scripture called a Body, because it seemed to be so: For this is that very answer which R. Catholicks do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine.

But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say,§. 6. we must not in this matter trust the Judgment of our our Sences.Hom. 82. The words of Chrysostom are these, Let us obey God in all things, and not gainsay him, though what is said, seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes. Let his word obtain more credit from us, then our thoughts or sight. And let us behave our selves in the Mysteries, not be­holding only those things which lye before us, but holding fast his words. For his Word is infallible, but our sences are easie to be deceived. That never fails, but this most frequently mistakes. Because therefore the word saith, this is my Body, let us obey and believe, and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding. Answ. These words are Hy­berbolical and high, but must be soberly interpre­ted, viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sence, but we must certainly believe, that howso­ever the Sences do perceive nothing but common ordi­nary Bread and Wine, yet by Gods power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation, and that by those sensible things, spiritual blessings are conveighed unto us. That this is the true sence of this expression, and that it cannot be de­signed to intimate the change of Bread into Christs Body, so that the accidents of Bread alone remain, is evident, First, from the words [Page 59]immediately following: [...]. Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41. For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible, but by things sensible, things which are intelligible; for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible, viz. Water, the gift, to wit, Re­generation and Renovation is performed. Where note, I, That the [...], or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament, is said to be conveighed [...], by things sensi­ble, (i.e.) by such things sensible as Water. Wherefore the things sensible are no more Tran­substantiated, then is that Element in Baptism. Secondly, the thing intelligible, or the [...], conveighed by Baptism, makes but an acciden­tal change, a renovation, consisting not in the conversion of the nature, but in the addition of Grace to Nature. So the [...] conveighed by this holy Sacrament, must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread, but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spi­ritual Grace. And therefore what he here decla­reth touching the Holy Eucharist, he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words, let us be­lieve Gods word, for it is more certain then our sight; for the sight is oftentimes deceived, whereas Gods word can never fail. And speaking of the poor he saith, when we are charitable to them, let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself, for his words are more certain then our sight. So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue, that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated, and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ, as that the Sacramental Signes are changed into his Body and his Blood. This is apparent Secondly, from what he doth affirm of all good Christians, viz. [...]. p. 514. l. 16. [...]. 1 B. l. 13. [...]. p. 513. l, 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ, that they are nourished and so mixed with [Page 60]him, that they are Christs own Flesh and Body' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly; from what he adds of wicked Men, viz. 1.k That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries, which is impossible, if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body. And Second­ly, That the Table, and the place which they resort to, islthat same very Table, and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Dis­ciples did eat the Passeover, viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands. And there­fore may he not be thought to say his Sacramen­tal Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross, because it doth conveigh unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it? Hence in this Homily, he doth not only call the Bread and Wine*the Symbols of Christs Body, but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting, that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine, (i.e.) the fruit of the Grape.

The words of Cyril, Catech. Myst. p. 237, 238. viz. Consider this is not meer Bread and Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the words ef Christ himself. And although sence do suggest this to thee, (viz. that it is [...], Common Bread) yet let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the thing by [Page 61]thy tast, but know, and hold for most certain, that this Bread which is seen of us, is not Bread, though the tast judge it to be Bread, but the Body of Christ, and that the Wine which is seen by us, although it seem Wine to the sence of tasting, notwithstanding is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ. I say, these words. if we consider well the context, cannot admit of any other sence then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom: For 1. he doth expressly tell us, that Christ pronounced [...], of [...] Cotech. Myst. 4. p. 237. D. the Bread, this is my Body, and im­mediately before these words he gives this cauti­on, look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine. Now even Romanists themselves con­fess,Beharm. de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 19. that if the words, this is my Body did make this sence, This Bread is my Body, this Sentence must either be taken tropically, that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively, or else it is plain­ly absurd and impossible: for it cannot be, that Bread should be the Body of Christ. It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est, or Is, saithTom. 7. c. 20. Salmeron, that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures, which by the Latines are termed Disparata; there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope. And therefore should we have been con­strained to fly to a Trope: if he had said, this Bread is my Body, this Wine is my Blood, because this had been a predication of Disparates, as they call it. 2. That you may be assured that by de­nying it to be [...], and [...], he only meant to say it was not Bread without the Grace of Christ, and the assistance of his Spirit to conveigh the Blessings Christ hath purchased, but did not mean that it was Bread converted into the real Body of our Lord; He tells us the mutation is like to that of Ointment used in Bap­tism, Be careful, saith he, that you do not think [Page 62]this is meer Oyntment: Catech. Myst. 3. p. 235. A. for as the Eucharistick Bread, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, [...]. is not yet meer Bread, but Christs Body: Even so that Holy Oyl, (as one may say) is not after the Consecration meer and common Oyl, but it is the Grace or Gift of Christ, and is effective of the presence of the Holy Ghost: It is not common Bread, saith he, it is therefore Bread, it is Christs Body, as the Oint­ment is the Grace of Christ: but Grace it is, not by Conversion, for it remaineth Ointment still, but by the Accession of Grace unto it, and by the presence of the Spirit with it. 3. He adds, That when Christ said, Catech. Myst. 4. p. 287. c. except you eat my Flesh, &c. the Jews were scandalized, as thinking, that he had advised them to Sareophagy, not understan­ding his words Spiritually. This Eating of Christs Flesh must therefore be Spiritual, and not Sarcophagy, or Eating of Christs real Flesh, which yet we cannot rationally deny, if we do literally interpret that passage of St. John; or with the Romanists, conceive that what we in the Holy Sacrament do eat, is that same Flesh of Christ which hung upon the Cross.

Lastly, if both these Fathers had intended to assert, that notwithstanding the Judgment of our Sences to the contrary, we stand obliged to be­lieve the Sacrament to be that very Flesh and Blood which Christ did offer on the Cross: We have two others to oppose against them, who do expresly argue, that it remains still Bread and Wine, because our sences judge it so to be,Quod er­go vidistis panis est & Calix quod vobis etiam oeuli vestri ren [...]tiant, Aug. in Ser. de Sacr. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. & Ratranum de Corp. & Sang. Domini, vel in Serm. de verbis. Domini ut citatur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacr. c. 5. That which you see (saith St. Augustine) is the [Page 63]Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you. The Sacramental Signs do still retain their Essence and their Nature, saith [...]. Theod. Dial 2. c. 24. Theodoret, And both our Eyes and Feeling tell us, they are what they were before. We conclude then with that of Chrysostom,Hom. 29. in Joh.by these Sences we exactly learn all things, and we are conceived worthy of credit in teaching what we have received from the informations of our Eyes and Ears, as not being guilty of fiction or falshood in those matters.

CHAP. IV.

Contains 1. The judgment of Antiquity a­gainst Transubstantiation. 2. An an­swer to T. G's. allegations from the Fa­thers. 3. The pretended Confessions of the Protestants. 4. The Confessions of many Roman Catholiks, that Transub­stantiation is a novell upstart Doctrine. 5. The Judgment of Antiquity, decla­ring with unanimous consent, that the Sacrament is but the Figure, Type, the Symbol, or Memorial of Christs Blood and Body, and not that self same Body which suffered on the Cross, and that same Blood which he then shed, as to the Nature and the Substance of them. 6. A Corollary in vindication of the Dr. from the vain Cavils of T. G.

HAving thus confirmed our Doctrine from Scripture, Common Sence, and Reason, we might by infinite Demonstrations shew, that it hath also the perpetual consent of all Anti­quity: Why else do they inform us, That [...]. Justin. Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Paris. 1636. the substance of our Flesh is nourished and augmented [Page 65]by this Holy Sacrament. (is a truth so clear, thatSpecies Sacramen­tales per candem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum per quam possunt converti in Cineres vel in ver­mes & i­deo mani­festum est quod nu­triunt, A­quin. part. 3. qu. 77. Act. 6. Roman Doctors do confess it, and there needs nothing but experience for confirmation of it to any that dares question or dispute it.) For nei­ther can the accidents augment or nourish; nor can we without Blasphemy assert, That Christs whole Body is properly converted into the sub­stance of all those that do receive it. Why do they tell us, that albeit the Sacramental Signes do change their names after the Consecration, yet do they stilld retain their former Natures? Why do they tell us, Thate of that Sacrifice which Christ did offer on the Cross, we neither do nor may partake? why do they say, that bread is by our Saviour stiled his body,26 which is made up of many Cornes, and that Wine his blood, which is pressed out of many Grapes? Why do they fre­quently pronounce, that Christ affirmed of the bread, this is my body, and of the Wine, Et quo­niam [...]embra ejus sumus & per cre­aturam nutrimur, creatura avtem ipse nobis praestat solem suum ori­ri faclens & pluens quemadmodum vulr, eum calicem qui est Creaturae N. B. suum sarguinem qu [...]effusus est, ex quo nostra auget corpora; Et eum panem qui est a creat [...]ura suum corpus confirmav [...], ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtes calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sarg [...]inis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostre substartia. Quomodolcarnem negabunt esse capacem [...]onationis Dei qui est vita aterna, quz san­guine & corpore Christ nutritus; Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Pd. Colon. 1625. this is my blood? I might be endless in these Interro­gatives, but I shall only add three things.

First, That when the Encratitae held it unlaw­ful to drink Wine, the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument, That Christ himself drank Wine, and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament. Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine, saith Chrysostom, that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresie: for, because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water, declaring, that when he delivered the Mysteries, he delivered Wine; and that when he rose and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries, he used Wine, he saith, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine. Now the Vine produceth Wine, not Water. Chrysost. Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. [...], Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris. 1641. Be ye sure (saith Clemens to the Encratitae) he al­so did drink Wine, for he blessed Wine when he said, take, drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the Vine; but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine, he shewed again, saying to his Disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom.Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa, & paenè [...]m­nia Scrip­turarum illarum Sacramen­ta lignis & [...]guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradi­cationis, quae jam per Do­nm [...] ­strum Jesu d [...]clatate est. Contr. Adiman Coy. 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus, sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra, Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem fil [...]s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo, de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres, nec tamen ait Petra significabat Ch [...]istum, [...]sed ait Petra erat Christus, quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur, spiritualem illam vocat. Ib. Cap. 12. Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine, this Argument would have been frivolous and vain. Had not they held as the Church of England, their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ.

Secondly. The Manichees to prove the contra­diction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour, that none was able to cause the Soul to perish, that of Moses, that the Blood was the Soul. To this St. Austin answers, those words may be expounded thus, the Blood is, that is, it signifies the Soul: this he confirms. 1. by this general assertion, that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching, which is now decla­red by Christ: and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly con­verted into what they signified. Seconly, this he illustrates by a double instance. † So is Blood the Soul, as the Rock was Christ, they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, he said not the Rock signified Christ, but the Rock was Christ. 2. I may expound it thus, saith he, * Blood is the Soul, that is, it signifies the Soul, because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body, since then as the Rock is Christ, and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what th [...] Typified in the New, so is the Bread Christs Bo [...]; It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgment it is Christs Body, not by conversion into Christs real Body, but by signification of it:k [Page 68]yea by such signification as excludes Christs body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread; for, else the Manichees might have re­plyed upon St. Austin, and given him the baffle thus, as the sign not only signified Christs real Body, but contained it too, so must the Blood not only signi­fie, but really contain the Soul: Therefore it is ap­parent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation; and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants. Thirdly, The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christs humane nature was absorpt and changed into the Deity, this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only, but o­thers that it was thus changed at his Conception, whence they affirm, that whilst he lived on Earth, he had the form and shape of man, but not his proper nature. For Illustration and Confirma­tion of these Heresies, they urge [...] ΟΡΘ. [...]. ΕΡΑ. [...]. ΟΡΘ [...]. ΕΡΑ. [...], ΟΡΘ. [...]. ΕΡΑ. [...], ΟΡΘ. [...], Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84, 85. the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures, had they been really changed into Christs Flesh and Blood, no greater Confirmation of their Heresie, no fitter illustration of their Tenet could be well imagi­ned. for thus the similitude would run.

First, That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread, and not the real substance; even so, in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh, but not the very nature.

Secondly, Even as in the Eucharist, the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ; so likewise after Christs ascension, the humane nature is absorpt, and converted into the Deity. What is it therefore that the Fathers answer, do they confess the thing, and say Tran­substantiation was the Tradition of the Church, and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures, but that no like Tradition, nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians; which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's. prin­ciples? No, they expresly say, and that in words as plain, & full, as any Protestant could use, that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justisie;Certe imago & similitudo corporis & sangui­nis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur, satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profi­temur, celebramus, & sumus. Ut sicut in hance, scilicet in divinam transeant (Sacramenta) Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam, per­manentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis eff [...]eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant, Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich: —sicut enim panis divinâ illum Sanctificante Gratiâ liberatus est quidem ab appellatio­ne panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiam si natura panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora sed unum fili [...] corpus predicatur, sic & hic divinâ naturâ in corpore, insidente (Gr. [...] Mss. Exemp. Bibl. Florent.) Chrysost. ad Caesarium Monachum. [...] Theod. Dial. 1. p. 18. Because the Bread and Wine, though after consecration they become signs and Images of Christs true body and his blood, yet [Page 70]they abide in their proper substance, and still retain the nature of Bread and Wine, and that the change is wrought upon them, not by destruction of their na­tures, but by addition of grace to nature, and so [...] Theodo­rit 2 p. 84.85. the Hereticks (say they) are caught in their own Nets. For then the paralel runs thus, as the Symbols are called another thing, because Gods grace is added to them, but still retain their proper nature, and the same substance which they had before, Even so Christs humane body, although by reason of its union to the God-head, it may sometimes have those names whi [...]h signisie the nature and properties of God ascribed to it; yet must it continue in its former nature, reality and substance. And as the Bread and Wine are not converted into Christs real body by reason of the grace annexed to them, but do retain their former natures: so neither is Christs body changed into the Deity by reason of its union with it, but still retains its former substance, nature and proprieties.

Having thus shewed the judgment of the anci­ent Fathers, we now proceed to the considerati­on of those Testimonies which T. G. citeth from them to evince the contrary. And here we have just reason to complain, that nothing is produced which is not answered in Morton, Down, in Bi­shop Taylor, White, and all our modern Writers on this subject: and that if we lay aside his spu­rious Authors, and his false citations, we have but little left to answer. And

First,P. 152. That the passages of St. Ambrose de Sa­cramentis are supposititious, is proved already by Albertinus de Sacramento. Euch. p. 507. So is that book de Caena Domini, which bears the nam of [Page 71] Cyprian by the confession of theAuthor Sermon's de caena Domini non est Cyprianus sed aliquis posterior Be larm [...]. 4. de Eu­charist. c. 26. Au­thor Ser­monis de caena do­mini est ignorus. Garetius de ver [...]ita­te corpo­ris Christi Fol. 181. v. Cochum p. 75. Roman Do­ctors: the same we have just reason to assert of Cyril, (for if we may believe† Gesner or Samler, sundry written Copies entitle them to John Bi­shop of Hirusalem, one, who lived well near Eight hundred years after Christ,) and of Eusebius Emissenus, as is confessed by Bellarmine, Baronius, and by Antonius n P [...]ssevinus, who having told us the chief reason that moved them to the Printing of this Book, was this fifth Homily which T. G. cited; he adds that the said Homily must be spuri­ous, because it speaks against Pelagius who flourished in the dayes of Austin; (i.e full Forty years after the death of Eusebius) and haply it was upon this account that T. G. cites this passage, not by the name of Hom. 5. de Pasch. as in Eusebius it is: but as it is in Hierom, under the name of Serm. de Corp. Dom. that so we might not take it for that Homily, which is so manifestly spurious.

Secondly, were they assuredly the works of these Renowned Fathers, whose names they have usurped a Title to, by false Translations, and by concealing of those words, which make against the Doctrine of the Roman Church; they, almost all of them, are made to say the contradictory to what they really affirm. Thus Tertu [...]ian is suborned to say, thatAccep­tum pa­nem & dl­stributum Discipulis corpus il­lum iuum fecir di­cendo. hoc est corpus meum [...] far T. G. then follows) id est, figura corporis mel. Figura autem tion [...]uiset nisi veritaris esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phanta [...]pia figuram capere non posset. Cur autem panc [...]m corpus suum appallat & non magis Peponem quem Marcion cordis leco liabuit? non intell [...] gens veterem fuis elstam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Hiere miam, adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum, dicentes, venite, con­jiciamus lignum in panem ejus, scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. Advers. Marcionem. l. 4. Cap. 40. vid. etiam. l. 3. c. 19. our Lord having taken Bread, made it his own Body, by saying, this is my [Page 72]Body: but these words must be concealed, that is, it is a figure of my Body; whereas it could have been no figure of Christs body, unless that body had been real: and those that presently ensue must not be mentioned, viz. Bread was an ancient figure of Christs body, it being said by Jeremy, come let us put wood into his Bread (i.e.) the Cross into his body.

Moreover it is told us that St. Ambrofe saith, that when the Consecration is performed, the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ—he spake the word and it was made; but then we must not know the words that do immediatly follow, to inform us that it is so made Flesh, as we are made new Creatures, and that that change is a like instance of the power of God; the words are these,Manda­vit & cre­atum est. Tuipse eras vetus creatura, postea quam consecratus es nova cretura esse accipe ergo Huemadmodum Sermo Christi creaturam omuem mutare consuevit, & mutat quando vult inslituta naturae. Ambros, de Sacram, l. 4. c. 4. Thou thy self was't an old Creature, but after Confecration thou beginst to be a new: see then after what manner Christs words do at his pleasure change all Creatures, and alter natures Institutions. Agree­ably to this St.Non so­lum nos Christia­nos factos esse sed Christum in Job. Trasc. 21. Austin saith, that we are made not only Christians, but even Christ himself. AndDe pass. Serm, 14. Leo that the body of the Regenerate (fit caro Crucifixi) is made the Flesh of the Crucified. And [...]. in Act Hom. 23. Chrysistom that after Baptism of men we are made Angels, andd Paulinus, that we are made the blood of Christ. From all which passages we have just reason to conclude with Cyril, [...], [Page 73] that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature; and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted.

Secondly, we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words, and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, viz.p if there be so great force in Christs words, that by it things begin to be, that which before they were not; how much more operative must it be, to cause, that things be what they were, and yet be changed into another. Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose, and are thus cited by Guitmund, Yvo, Algerus, Gratian, and Anselm, and in the old Edi­tions of Lanfrancus, though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted; and to abet this fraud, Lanfraneus in a new Edition is pro­duced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection. We must not know what also here he doth affirm, That q as we do receive (in Baptism) the likeness of his death, so (in the holy Sacrament) do we receive the likeness of his preti­ous blood.

Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith,T. G. p. 305, de Sacram. l. 6: c: 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, not as men are by Grace, but as the Son of the sub­stance of his Father; so it is his very true Flesh, as [Page 74]him self hath said which we receive, and his very true Blood, which we drink. But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine, viz. ThatIn simi­litudinem quidem accipls Sa­cramen­tum, sed vere natu­rae grati­am virtu­temque conseque­ris. de Sacr: l, 1, c. 6. we re­ceive this Sacrament in a Similitude, but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature: whence it is evident, that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood, because it doth convey the vertue of them; which is more evi­dent form that which follows, to wit, thatQuo­modo dis­cendit pa­nis vivus de Caeso. Resp quia idem Do­minus no­ster Jesus Christus consors est & divini­tatis & corporis & to quia accipis Pa­nem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento. ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature, thou who receivest Bread, dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity. And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm, that as Christ said, that which we receive is truly Flesh, and is true drink, but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially; and as when Christ declared, that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c. That Flesh & drink he spake of, was true Flesh and drink; but the receiving, the eating, and the drinking of it, was Metaphorical; so may it be here: and hence* Fulgeutius and others tells us, that we do eat it in our Baptisme, and therefore as we are said to eat it there, so also, may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament.

Lastly we must be told, how the same Ambrose doth assert, that the Word of Christ, which of no­thing could make that to be, which was not, can change those things which are, into that which be­fore they were not; And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature, but of signification, and of the vertue of the Sacrament, is evident [Page 75]from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter,viz. ThatT. G. p. 304. Non cor­porealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benedicti­on in ver­borum cae­lestium alia [...]pecies nominatur post conse­crationem corpus Christi significa­tur. c. 9. de his qui initiantur. it is not Corporal meat, but Spiritual, and that before the benediction it is named another kind, but after Consecration it signifies Christs body; or that elsevvhere he tells us, that the power of God so operates to change them, as that they still continue what they were before. Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ, which of nothing could make that to be which was not, can it not change those things which are, into those things which they were not; For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things, than to change their natures? vvhere evident it is, that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Ele­ments is opposed to the mutation of their nature; and therefore it is evident, that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mu­tation of the nature of Bread and Wine, but by addition of a new nature to them, (i.e.) by the addition of new qualities and vertues, in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us, that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature. And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith, and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature, and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed. Or this kindDe Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504. Albertinus hath colle­cted above Thirty instances.

Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread, is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes, T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things, as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood, &c. Answ. But this &c. con­ceals three instances produced by Ambrose, which [Page 76]only signifie an accidental change, viz.Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra na­turam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne cla­ret natu­ram vel maritino­tum flu­ctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam? Marath fluvius a­mariss [...]mus erat ut si­tiens po­pulus bi­bere non posset. Mi­fit Moses lignum in aquam, & amari tu­dinem su­am aqua rum natu­ra deposuit, quam infusa subito gratia temperavit. Sub Haeliseo pro­pheta, uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi, & statim mersum est. Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum, misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam, & ferrum natavit. utique & hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus. cap. 9. de his qui initiantur. The sweet­ning of the waters of Marah, the swimming of the Iron, and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan. Whence it is evident that all the in­stances produced leave it uncertain, whether St. Ambrose did intend a proper change of substance, or only a change of qualities and vertues. Se­condly, had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change, it would not hence have fol­lowed that he did intend to prove the Sacra­mental Symbols were so changed, but only a majori, to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change, which was but accidental: Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine, he proves,u we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body, which change is only accidental, and fromx the supernatural production of our Lord by vertue of the holy Ghost, he in this very Chapter proves, we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptized person. So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes, by examples of a change substantial.

Ob. St. Ambrose saith, [...], in Act. Hom. 23. the Symbols are not what nature formed them, but what the Benediction con­secrated them. Answ. True, because they are not only so, but by this more excellent and Spi­ritual change, obtain a name which is more ex­cellent, denominations being taken from the better. Thus Chrysostom affirms, That such is the power of Baptism, that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo, De Pass. Dom. Ser. 14. That the Baptized person is not the same-before and after Baptism. And Epiphanius, That when we are endowed with Temperance, the Flesh it no more Flesh. [...] Haeres. 66. Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue, that either Bap­tism or Te [...]perance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian.

Ob. He affirms further, That by this Benediction nature is changed. Answ. True, but then that word, not only in the Authors before menti­oned, but in St.De Virg. l. 2. Hax­amer. l. 3. c. 2. Ambrose, doth very often sig­nisie only a change of quality and virtue: For he affirms, That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her, and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature (i.e.) their fierceness and rapacity; and in this very place he saith, That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed, because that it was driven back.

We must be told that Chrysostom doth say,T. G. p. 303. that things that lye before us are not the works of humane power, we only hold the the place of Ministers, but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ. But then we must not know, that in this very Homi­ly the Consecrated Elements are stiled the Symbols of Christs Body; In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36 and that disputing against Mar­cian and Valentinian, who held Christ had no real Body; he confutes and stops their mouth by say­ing, [Page 78] That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body. Whereas, could he have truly said, we have their real Flesh and Blood, he had then spoken what would have more effectu­ally confuted their absurd position.

2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresie of the Encratitae, P. 511. l. 10, 15. by shewing, That when our Lord delivered the Myste­ries, he delivered the Wine, and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verifie this say­ing, I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome.

Nor Thirdly, That Christ in those Holy My­steries doth give himself unto the Faithful, but to none other. P. 514. l. 28. But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom, the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding; for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist, that these things are not the works of humane po­wer, we Protestants acknowledge, as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries, and to make that to be food of the Soul, which naturally can only feed the Body. He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these mate­rial Symbols must be God. And hence St. Chry­sostom informs us the case is just the same in Bap­tism, That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water, Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8. but that it is Lord of Angels [...], who works all things there. That man doth nothing [...]; but that it is the power of God that work­eth all things. And whereas he adds, that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them. St. Cyril doth inform us,Catech. Mystag, 5. that whatsoever the Ho­ly Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed. St. [Page 79] Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr, Euch. l. 2. P. 545. Clemens, That the Devil doth [...], (i.e.) transmute Women into Whores. Nyssenus, that Regeneration, [...]. (i.e.) doth change us into the Sons of Light, and of the day. And Chrysostom himself informs us, That to make the barren Womb to bear, is an example of this Transmutation. Such therefore we may rational­ly conceive that change to be of which St. Chry­sostom here speaketh.

Gaudentius must tell us,T. G. p. 306. That the Maker and Lord of natures, who produceth Bread out of the Earth, doth again of Bread, (because he can and hath promised to do it) make his own Body, and he who made Water of Wine, maketh of Wine his own Blood. But then we must not know,Tract. in Ex. 2. that in the same place he asserts, That when our Saviour said, This is my Body, he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine: Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith, I am the true Vine, he did sufficiently declare, that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood; or that we eat his Flesh, when we receive his Doctrine: which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine, and shew the change of which Gaudentius speaks, to be Spiritual and Mystical. For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine, they are not properly Christs Body, if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion, it is not the Truth: For as Gandentius there telleth us, figura non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis, (i.e.) a figure is the imitation of the truth, but not the truth. Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori, thus, he that made Water to be sub­stantially Wine, can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood.T. G. p. 507.

We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth [Page 80] Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins. [...]. p. 2. But then we must not know, that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Me­nandrians, who held, that Christ suffered only in appearance, & had no real Flesh, & therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christs flesh, least admitting the figure, they should be forced to admit the truth and substance; and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus,V. usher Not. in E­pist. ad Smyr. p. 50 That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character, nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen, whereas, when Christ shall come to Judgment, they who have pierced shall see him. Secondly, We confess the Eucharist to be Christs Body and his Flesh; and only do dis­pute the manner how, of which Ignatius saith nothing. We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christs flesh and Blood, as knowing that it may be truly, what it is Spiritually: for Christ is the true Vine,Job. 15.1. Joh. 1.8. Heb. 8.2. Luk. 16.12 and the true Light; Heaven is called the true Tabernacle, and Spiri­tual Blessings, the true Riches; and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome, produced by Alberti­nus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854.

Moreover it is objected,T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec. c. 37 that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm, That he believes [...], (i.e.) The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word. Answ. True, but then it is as true, that this transmutation may be as well by the ad­dition of Grace to Nature, as by the substantial mutation of that nature, it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil, Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487. Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and other Fathers, that [...], and transmutari, are [Page 81]terms indifferently used as well of a mutation, which only doth respect the qualities, States and conditions of the Subject, as the nature of it; and of this we have many instances in the un­doubted works of Gregory: Who tells us, That the Soul made virtuous, isIn Inscr Psal. c. 8. [...], trans­muted, and that [...] in Cant. Hom 8. Regeneration is a transmuta­tion of it into that which is Divine; and thatibid. Hom. 9. when we appear in Glory, we shall undergo this transmutation: nay, in this very place he twice asserts, That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body, doth change our body into its self, or its own nature. [...], ibid. So then, these words cannot infer, That the Sacramental Bread and Wine re­ceive by Consecration any other change.

He tells us further, that the virtue of the be­nediction doth [...], change or transelement the nature of things which do appear. Answ. This word is also used ordinarily, to signifie not any change of substance, but of qualities and virtues only: and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances pro­duced,l. 2. p. 488 of which no less then twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen, declaring, that by Rege­neration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature; and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures; So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word, that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated, as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christs real and substantial body. And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen.

The passage cited from St. Cyril saith,T. G. p. 306. That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine, and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood. But then the same St. Cyril doth also say,Catech. 2. he who raised Laza­rus when four dayes dead, can he not much more easily raise thee, (viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness) who dost live and breath? And again,Catech. 4. the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Ser­pent, and shall not dead Man be restored unto him­self again? And both Ambrose and St.Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis. Au­stin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine, That God can change our mortal into im­mortal Glorious bodies. If then it be ridicu­lous from any of these passages to argue a sub­stantial change wrought in us by Regeneration, or the Resurrection, it must be also vain to ar­gue a substantial change from the like instance, used to illustrate the change, which is by Con­secration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols. (2) The words immediately preceding do clear­ly evidence, that Cyril argues a majori: For saith he, If God could make this change from Wa­ter into Wine [...],Catech. 4. Myst. shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood: whereas had he con­ceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Sym­bols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine, that phrase had been improper and absurd; for of two equal changes it cannot rea­sonably be affirmed, he that is able to perform the one, is much more able to perform the other. (3) I have already largely proved, that Cyril here intended only an accidental change, and shall yet further make it evident from two considera­tions. 1. That in the following Catechism he [Page 83]speaks thus, we pray unto the God of Mercies, [...] that he would send his Spirit into the things that lye be­fore us, and would make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood: For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed: not that it is substantially changed; for he af­firmeth of the Baptismal Oyl and Water, that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit: And yet no Romanist will hence infer, that they do not retain the nature both of Oyl and Water. 2. In his first Catechism he affirms, that as the Eucha­ristick Bread and Wine before the Consecration, remains meer Bread and Wine, but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ, [...]. After like manner truly are the mea [...] used in the Pomps of Satan, in themselves (pure or) simple, but by invocation of the Daemons, they are made impure. As therefore the mutation of these meats, is only a mutation of their qualities, not of the substance of them: so must the change of Bread and Wine, with which it is compared and equalled, be supposed to be. In fine,P. 2 [...]. to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more then our sences; and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholicks, he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius, viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like un­to the fleshly Image, or the invisible Deity, or the Characters of his Members; for this is of a round form, and insensible according to power. And yet because he was pleased to say, through Grace, This is my Body, every one believeth his saying, For, who believeth not that it is his very true Body, fall­eth from Grace and Salvation. Answ. by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius, we are like to see, and others to know, nothing but the detestable fraud and falshood of T. G. For [Page 84] Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him, That who believeth not that it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace: But his words are these, [...] Epiphanius Anch. p. 60 He that believeth not that Christ is true, doth fall from Grace. Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christs words may yet believe, that Christ is true in all his say­ings, as much as they from whom he differs. Secondly had he considered well the context, he would have found this passage is a strong argu­ment against him: For Epiphanius in this very Section, affirmeth Man to be like God, [...], (i.e.) in a similitude or figure, but not according to nature; for, saith he, men have not the Image of God [...], or equally; and yet what God hath constituted we will not substract, [...], ib. for he is true, who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him, and we have many like examples; and then immediately fol­lows the example of the Eucharist. Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this, That we are like unto God after his Image, but yet not according to nature, even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ, it is plain, that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood, [...], according to the Image or representment, not according to nature. Thridly, St. Epiphanius affirms, that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine, this is mine, his words are these, [...] ipsum panem. Petav. [...]. Now since that [...], or the things Christ took and blessed, con­fessedly were Bread and Wine; the [...] which doth answer to them must be so. I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers, but I have chosen only to answer what [Page 85]the very places did suggest, that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited, or else did chuse to cite them, though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them: and to con­vince the Reader, that the Judgment of the Fa­thers must be clearly for us, seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine.

We have now done with his Fathers, and briefly shall consider what he hath to [...]ay from Protestants.

And thus he begins,P. 299. That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Ʋniversal Church from the time of Berengarius, that is 600 years ago, is scarcely denied by any I know of. Answ. One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance, I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton, in the Treatise of the Mass:Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3, 4. A.D. 1159 Where we have this confession of Peter Lumbard, Master of the Sentences, whether the conversion be substantial or not, I am not able to determine. And Scotus affirming,Si quae­ratur qua­lis sit con­versio (viz. pa­nis in Eu­charistia) an forma­lis, an sub­stantialis. an alterius generis, definire non sufficio. Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct. 11. Lit. a. that the Article of Tran­substantiation was no Doctrine of Faith, before the Council of Lateran. And Suarez saying, that some School-men held, that Transubstantiation was not very ancient; Scotus, to wit, and Gabriel Biel among others. And Erasmus, that it was but lately determined in the Church. And lastly, Cardinal Perroon, (who did not look upon it asb c [Page 86]a thing very commendable to oppugne the re­ceived Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ) asserts,Card. Per­roon. En. Sa. H [...]r­rang. Au­ti [...]rs E­states p. 33 De Christ. Eccles Suc c [...]s. p. 19 208. That if it had not been for the Council of Laterane, it might be now lawful to oppugne it. Pious and Learned Bishop Ʋsher shews out of an­cient and authentick Records, ‘That after the times of Berengarius many continued, even there where Satan had his Throne, who privately em­ployed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation. Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited,T.G. p. 301. for they only do confess, that St. Ignatius said what we all grant, & what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine, as we have already proved.p. 300. Perkins is also falsly and impertinently cited: for he doth not affirm, that this particular Heresie of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years. Nay, he expresly doth assert, That it was not concluded in the days of Lumbard,Problem. p. 155, 156 nor then received as an Article of Faith, and that for a whole thousand years, the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation, and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure. That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen. T.G. p. 301. Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian, p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation, is a notorious falshood: what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian, p. 58. is most expresly for the contrary; and of Origen, p. 260. they speak thus, recte in Caena Domini sub pane & vino sumi asserit corpus & sanguinem Domini, (i.e.) Origen rightly doth assert, that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine, we take the body and blood of Christ.’ What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Authour, precationis primae Praepar. ad Missam, which is a spurious [Page 87]piece, as they themselves have noted from Eras­mus. Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit. The true Ambrosius is reckoned among the Fathers, that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point, p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Came­rarius I can say nothing, because I know not where to see them: But we have great reason to suspect, that they also are cited more Romano (i.e.) with great impertinence and falshood. And I am certainly informed from Oxford, that what is cited as from Ʋrsin, is really the words of Ʋrsins Adversary. Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party.

Having produced these Testimonies of the Fa­thers, which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious, and these confessions of the Protestants, which are insignificant or false, or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini, Eusebius, Emissenus; and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream. He thus concludes, that to deny what is confir­med by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fa­thers,P. 308, 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable. But alas, this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome, and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm. For First, it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome, that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine, viz. Peter Lombard, Scotus, Biel, Erasmus and Peroon. And Secondly,In Primi­tiva Ecclesia non e­rat de fide substanti­am panis in co pus Christi converti Job. Yribarn. in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp. 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith. Thirdly,b That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church, the words of Christ might more simply, plainly and truly be [Page 88]understood and expounded. Fourthly, the Cardi­nal of Distinct. 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds, that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain, doth not evidently follow of the Scripture, nor to his seeming of the Churches determination. Fifthly, Your Secular Discourse Modest. p. 13. Priests affirm, that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society, (and what Catholick would not believe them?) that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantia­tion. Sixthly, It is no wonder, saith Ante­quam quaestio illa de Transub­stantiatio­ne in Ec­clesia pa­lam agita­retur mi­nimè mi­rum est, si unus aut alter aut etiam ali­qui ex ve­teribus mi­nus consi­deratè & Rectè hâc de re sen­serint & scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia, if one or two, or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so con­siderately and rightly. AndHinc dis­cimus non essemiran­dum si Augustinus Theodoretus, & alii Veteres quaedam dixerint, quae in spe­citem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confess­eth it is not to be wondred at, if St. Austin, Theodoret, and other of the Ancients, speak something which in show seems to favour the He­reticks. The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ, This is my Body, in a figurative sence, as much as any Pro­testant can do; and which forced these Confessi­ons from so many Cardinals, Bishops, School­men, Priests and Jesuites are these;g by Bread Christ represents his Body, saith Tertullian; and again,h Christ hath called Bread his Body, that thereby thou mayest understand, that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body. And again,L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. St.Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth, That it was Wine, even the Fruit of the Vine, which the Lord saith was his Blood. Our Lord, saith St.Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100, & 106. Clemens, did bless Wine when he said, Take drink this is my Blood, [Page 89] and that it was Wine which was blessed, be sheweth again saying, I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine. 2.Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. & 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John, doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols, when he saith, Eat my Flesh, and Drink my Blood, an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises. And again, there is a donable Blood of the Lord, Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal, by which we are redeemed froim destru­ction, and another Spiritual, by which we are Anointed. Origen speaks thus,Nec ma­teria panis sed super illum di­ctus sermo est, qui prodest non indig­ne Domi­no come­denti il­lum, & haee qui­dem de typico Symboli­coque cor­pore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the mat­ter of bread, but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof, and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body. To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flou­rished in the 4th, the first whereof shall beEuseb. l. 8. c. 1. Eu­sebius, who saith, 'That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensa­tion, commanding them to make the Image of ‘his own Body, and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body. And thatEuseb. Demonst. l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice, by the Symbols of his Body and Blood, according to the Ordinances of the New Testament. And lastly,Demo [...]ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first, and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations, celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church, signifie unto us by the bread and wine, the Mysteries of his body and blood.Serm. in illud qui­oun (que) dix­erit ver­bum. p. 979. Athanasius faith, 'That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh, that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual: For how many men might his body have sufficed, that it might be the food of the whole world? it is as if he should have said, that which is given for the [Page 90]world, shall be given for meat, that it may be Spiritually given to all.’ In the Church, saith [...] Macar. Aegypt, Hom, 27, p. 164. Marcarius, ‘is offered bread and wine, the Type of his Flesh and Blood; and they which are partakers of the visible bread, do Spiritual­ly eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover, saithOrat. 2 de Pasch. To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen, but as yet in a Figure, though more clear then in the Old Law: For the Passover of the Law, (I will be bold to say it) was but a more obscure figure of a figure.’ Else­where he calls the Symbols ‘theIn Epita. Gorgon. p. 187. Antitypes of the precious body or blood of the Lord: under the Type of bread the body is given to thee, and under the Type of wine the blood. So St.Catech. Myst. 4. p. 237. Cyril Hieros.’ Constit. l. 5. c. 16. Pseudo Clemens saith, ‘That Christ having given us the Mysteries figura­tive of his precious body and blood, &c. went up into the Mount of Olives: and thatConstit. l. 6. c. 23. the My­stical and unbloody Sacrifice, is celebrated by the Symbols of his body and blood. And he adds, That in the Participation of this Sacra­ment they used this thanksgiving,’ L. 5. c. 16 We give thee thanks our Father, for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, & for the precious body, of which we celebrate these Signs by his command to announce his Death. Of the same Judgment were the Latine Fathers, forDicit Sa­cerdos: fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Ambrose in the fourth Book of the Sacraments, Chap. 5. affirmeth, that in his time this clause was in the publick Service, make this Oblation to be set to our account acceptable and reasonable, which is the figure of the [Page 91]body and blood of the Lord. And again,b Christ here saith, he is offered in the Image, in Heaven in the Truth. Hilary the Deacon saith,Nam & M [...]ses [...]e­ce p [...]o san­guine vi­tuli in pa­tera as­persit fili­os Israel, dicens hoc est Testa­mentum—hoc figura fuit Testamenti — Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est: Quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est, in cujus typum nos calicem Mysticum Sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis nostri & animae percipimus. In 1 Cor 11. The blood is a witness of divine benefit, for the Figure of which we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the preservation of the Body and the Soul. Gelasius saith,d indeed the Image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries.

In the Fifth Century, St. Chrysostom speaks thus, [...]. Hom. 82. in Mat­thaeum T. 2. p. 510. if really Christ dyed not, Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. of what is this Cele­bration Symbola;Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750.see how he studies to make us alwayes mindful of his death, hence by the Sacra­ments he calls to mind his passion. Again, it is a carnal thing to doubt how Christ could give his flesh to eat, we ought to understand it Mystically and spiri­tually: his words were spiritual, and had nothing carnal in them.

Theodoret speaks thus, [...] Theodoret Dial. 1. T. 4. p. 17, 18. G. 12. Our Saviour changed the names, and gave unto the body that which is the name of the Symbol, and to the Symbol the name of [Page 92]the body. So when he had named himself the Vine, he called that which was the Symbol the blood. And when the Heretick desired to know the reason of this change of names, he gives it thus, Christ would have those who are partakers of the Divine Mysteries, not to attend unto the nature of the things they see, but by reason of the change of names to be­lieve that change which is made by Grace: For he that called that which was Wheat and Bread, his natural body, and again calls himself a Vine; he honoured the Symbols which are seen with the appellation of his body and his blood, not changing the nature, but adding Grace unto it. And ween the Heretick had granted that the Sacrament con­tained the Symbols of a real body; [...]. Id. Dial. 2. T. 4. p. 84. This is well answered saith the Orthodox: For every Image ought to have his Architype, and Painters imitate the na­ture, and paint the Images of things visible.

Gaudentius saith, thatTract. 2. in Exod. v. Supr. in the Bread the figure of Christs body is reasonably understood. St. Hie­rom, that the Lord did not offer Water, but Wine for a Type of his blood. St. Austin saith,In Ty­po sangui nis sui non obtulit a­quam sed vinum. l. 2. adv. Jovinian. p. 27. F. the Lord did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And most emphatically in these words,i a preceptive speech for bidding a crime, or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative, but if it seems to command a crime, or forbid a good, then it is figurative. Ʋnless ye eat [Page 93]the flesh of the Son of Man, Si pre­ceptiva locutio est aut flagi­tium, aut facinus vetans; aut utlli­tatem aut beneficen­tiam ju­bens, non est figura­ta. Si au­tem flagi­tium aut facinus vi­deatur ju­bere, aut utilitatem, aut bene­ficentiam vetare, si­gurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit Christus, Joh. 6.53. Carnem, &c. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo precipiens passi­oni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter reconden­dum in memoria. quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit. L. 3. de Doctr. Christian. c. 16. &c. Seems to com­mand a wickedness, it is therefore a figure com­manding us to Communicate with the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory, that his flesh was crucifyed and wounded for us. Againl the Sacraments are signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another. Again (the Israelites) did m drink of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: see therefore, faith remaining, how the signs are varied, there the Rock was Christ, to us that which is placed upon the Altar is Christ. Lastly,n thou hast Christ present by faith, and in the sign, by the Sacrament of Baptism, and the meat and drink of the Altar. Ac­cording to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples, me you shall not have alwayes, how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there? † send thy faith and thou dost hold him.

To conclude, the Fathers po expresly say, that Christ pronounced of the Bread, this is my body, and of the Wine, this is my Blood, which, say the R. Doctors, had our Lord affirmed, we must [Page 94]have understood him figuratively and metaphorically. ‘For proof hereof,B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. §, 6, behold a Torrent of anci­ent Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus, Tertulli­an, Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Agustine, Cyril of Hierusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Gaudentius Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore, thirteen to the dozen, whose say­ings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech.1. Accipi­ens panem corpus su­um esse confiteba­tur. Irenae­us l. 4. c. 57, The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body. The second Christ to have called Bread his body. Third, that Christs speech was spoken of Bread. The fourth, that that which he brake, was Bread. The fifth,2. Christus panem corpu [...] su­um appel­lat Tertul­lianus. adv Judeos, that it was Bread which he brake. The sixth, that it was Bread of the Lord, & not Bread the Lord. The seventh, that the words (my Body) were spoken of the Bread. The eighth, that Christ saith, of the Bread this is my Body, And the same Father, as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds,3 Nec mat­teria panis est. sed su­per illum d [...]ctus ser­mo qui prodest non indig­ne come­dent i. Orig in mat. 15. illustrates the matter thus: So (saith he) did Christ call his Body Bread, as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat; (except the grain of Wheat die, it bringeth forth no fruit.) The ninth, that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the consecrated Bread, this is my 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 [Page 95] Body. The eleventh,11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dix­it Christus Cyprian. Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth, that he blessed Wine, when he said drink, and the last; the Bread strengthning mans Body, was therefore called the Body of Christ.’ To these citations add that of Cyprian and † Theophilus, the Lord calleth Bread his Body, which is made up of many grains, 12. Clem. Alex. Pae­dag. l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian, or † Ammonius having taken the Bread, then afterward the cup of Wine, and testified it to be his Body and Blood, 13. Panis, quia con­firmat corpus, ideo cor­pus Chri­sti nuncu­patur. Ist: dor. l. 1. de officiis. cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof; Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death: That also of* Theodoret, that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body, and that which was mixt his blood; And as if this was be­yond all dispute, he puts this question to the He­retique,* knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body, and makes him answer; yea I know it. By all which passages,Dominus corpus su­um punem vocat. Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were no other­wise conceived, than as if Christ had plainly said, this Bread is my Body, and this Wine is my Blood: In Evan, l, 1, p, 152, L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words,Mox ac­cepto pa­ne deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sangui­nem resta­tus man­ducare il­los jussit, &c. Am­mon. Harmon. Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body, to be Metaphorical and figurative, as any Protestant now doth: note also by the way, that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor, for saying, they believe Bread to be God, for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words, the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet, which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable [Page 96]to no exception, since they import this only, that the Romanist believes that to be a God, which we be­lieve is Bread, and to one of that perswasion, the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith, but to proceed.

To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils. The first, is that of Carthage (held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops: (whereof St. Austin, and Aurelius were two) which thus decrees, that [...], Cod. Can. Eccles. Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. (as also the Lord commanded it,) that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water. The second is that of Trull, whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words. [...], Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag. p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large, that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water, because Bread is the figure of the Lords body, and the Wine a figure of his blood. In Can. 40. Concil. Carthag. p. 426, 427. Zonaras saith the same. In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called [...]. the holy Image of Christ, and the true Image of his natural body, and the Image of his flesh given by God. And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe, witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day, before they did receive the Sacrament, where we have these words, viz.Aeifrick Saxon Homily. v. Usher. Answ. to the Jesuits challenge. p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffe­red [Page 97]in, and the body that is hallowed to housel, the body truly that Christ suffered in, was born of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in humane limbs, with a reasonable soul living, and his spiritual body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many Corns, without blood and bone, without limb, without Soul; and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but spiritu­ally. This mystery is a pledge and a figure, Christs body is truth it self. And again, Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering, and said, this is my body and my blood. Yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue, the Bread to his own body, and that Wine to his blood, as he before did in the Wilderness, before that he was born to men, when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood. The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods; out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick: in the one one whereof directed toImpress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali & Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shir­burn, we read thus. That housel is Christs body, not bodily but spiritually. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering; and said by the blessed Bread, this is my body: and again by the holy Wine, this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins. In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, thus, The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, and saith that the Bread was his own body, and that the Wine was truly his blood, hallow­eth daily by the hands of the Priest, Bread to his body, and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so, nor the self-same body [Page 98]that Christ suffered in: nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us, in bodily thing, but in spiritual understanding.

But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church, and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen, and of the Fathers of the Socie­ty aforesaid, to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Pro­testants, to shew the unreasonableness of this de­nyal, I would propose this case to his considerati­on and the Readers, viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past, and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess, that for the last Two hundred years the contrary, to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law, and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law, held the same with the latter; Nor had there ever been any disagreement, or opposition among them in that point; whether it be not a sufficient proof, that what they taught to be the sence of the Law, was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning? The Testi­monies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough: how much more when strengthned by the confession of the ad­verse party it self? Now if this be so in the de­livery of the sense of a human Law, where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be, and often are of different judgments; how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received, and the succeeding age is still [Page 99]bound to receive what they delivered? surely, if we add to this the confession of the very Ad­versaries themselves, the proof (as St. Ireneus saith) must be true and without contradiction: for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers; and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers, was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish, the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church, and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ, sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate; wherefore I shall conclude with that most perti­nent exhortation of the learned Origen. Haec qui audire nesci [...] de­torqueat ortasse & averta [...] auditum, secundum illos qui [...]icebant [...] bis carnem suam man­ducare sed vos Si fi­ [...] estis Ecclesiae si Evange­licis imbu­ti myste­riis si ver­bum caro fastum habitat in vobis, agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis vo­luminibus scripta sunt. & ideo tanquam spirituales & non tanquam carnales examinate & intelligite quae dicuntur. Si [...]nim tanquam car­nales ista suscipitis laedunt v [...]s & non alunt-Est & in N. Testamento litera quae occidit &c. ut supra. Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom, 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church, if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries, and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you, acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns, and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual, and not as carnal men, for if as carnal you receive them, they will hurt, but will not nourish you. There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it, for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said, except you eat the flesh, &c. the letter killeth.

Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome (for that is most absurdly cal­led the Church-Catholick. p. 252.) is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation. [Page 100]Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers, that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide, i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church, and that theDe Tran­substantia­tione pa­nis in cor­pus Chri­sti rara est in antiquis scriptori­busmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer, l, 8. v, in­dulgentia. thing as well as name of transubstantiati­on is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers, Nay, they spake nothing of it: And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies, and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define, and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine, which they have now condemned as Heretical. 2. How can we know what is the present judgment of the Church of Rome, but by our eyes and ears, since therefore one of her determinations is, that all our senses in the Eucharist do actually deceive us, how can we be infallibly assured of her judgment by what she hath declared to be fallacious?

CHAP. V.

The CONTENTS.

The Host was not worshipped with Latria in in the primitive Church. 1. Bec [...]use we have no command in Scripture for this worship, §. 1. 2ly. Because the Holy Scripture and the Fathers have spoken things ex­tremely contradictory to this worship. §. 2. Thirdly, Because the Antient Fathers have not informed us of this Worship. §. 3. Fourthly, Because they have both said and practised many things which are very in­consistent with this Opinion, that it ought thus to be Worshipped. §. 4. An Objection Answered. §. 5. The Instances produced by T. G. to prove this practise are con­sidered. §. 6.

THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation being overthrown,Sect, 1. the Adoration of the Host must fall together with it.p, 222. But since T. G. affirms, That it was Ʋniversally practised and re­commended by the Fathers of the primitive Church, both Greek and Latine, whereas it was not pra­ctised or commended by any single person for Eight hundred years after the coming of our Sa­viour; We shall proceed to evidence the vanity and the absurdness of this practise, and the un­conscionable falshood of this bold assertion. And, 1. The commandment to Worship God alone [Page 102]is so express (saith Bishop Taylor) the distance betwixt God and what our senses represent as bread, of Tran­subst. p. 338. so vast, the danger of Worshipping that which is not God, or of not Worshipping that which is God, is so formidable, that it is infinitely to be presumed, that if it had been intended that we should have Worship­ped the Holy Sacrament, the Holy Scripture would have call'd it God, or Jesus Christ, or have bidden us in express terms to have Adored it, that either by the first, as by a reason indicative, or by the second, as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant, direct, or consequent, to have paid Divine Worship to it. To strengthen and confirm this Ar­gument it may deserve to be considered, 1. That the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul are very punctual in the Relation of what our Saviour did, or enjoyned in this Institution; they all in­form us that Christ commanded them to eat the Bread and drink the Cup which he had given to them; and had he given them to be adored, would they, who mention things so obvious, forget to tell us that either Christ intended they should be Adored, or that they were Adored by them? that which induced St. Paul to mention this Institution, and to assert that he received it from our Lord, was the irreverence of those that did participate,1 Cor. 11, 18, 28. and their want of prepara­tion to receive those Holy Mysteries. To cure this disease he tells them, that the Holy Sacra­ment was Christs own Institution, the charge he left behind him that very night in which he was beirayed, and that the Institution was intended for the Commemoration of our Saviours death; all which is proper to beget within us a greater Reverence and care in celebration of these holy mysteries; but yet it cannot be denyed that this consideration, viz. That what they thus irreve­rently [Page 103]treated, was that very Son of God which suffered for them, and that it was that Host which they and all good people did Worship for their God. I say, this one consideration would have been infinitely more proper and effectual to aggravate the sin of those who slighted it, and irreverent­ly behaved themselves at the participation of this Sacrament. This therefore was omitted by St. Paul upon no other score but the absurdity and falshood of the thing.

Secondly, consider with what expreseness the Scripture doth inform us that Christ is God, true God, God blessed for evermore, and yet because his conversation in the World was in the habit and likeness of a Man, and his Divinity was hid under the veil of humane flesh, and because this Jesus was made subject to an ignominious and accursed death, the Scripture thinks it not sufficient to ascribe unto him in 100 places the nature & proprieties of God, and to leave us upon Record,Mat. 2.11, 8, 2, 9, 18, 15, 25, 20, 20, 28, 9, 17. examples of his Adoration by the wise Men of the East, and by his own Disciples, and by divers others. I say the Scriptures think it not sufficient to have done all this, and therefore they inform us that this is the decree of Heaven, that to the name of Jesus every knee should bow, Phil, 2, 10, Joh, 5.23.1 Heb. 6. and that all should honour the Son, even as they ho­nour the Father, and that when this first born came into the World Gods Angels were comman­ded to Adore him: now it is evident the humane nature did not so much conceal the Deity, as do the accidents of Bread, for God sometimes did appear unto his Prophets in a human shape, but never in the shape of Bread and Wine. Christ while encompassed with our flesh, gave signal de­monstrations of his Divine perfections by Mira­cles, and by declaring that he knew the thoughts [Page 104]of those with whom he did converse, but in the Sacrament Christ giveth not the least appearance or demonstration of his presence; He doth not rescue his most Sacred body from the Mouse or Rat, or from the Sacriligious hands of Theives, and Sorcerers. Here then was greater reason to have told us as often, that the Sacrament was God, and was to be adored, as they have told us Christ was God, and was to be adored Since therefore we have no precept or example in the Holy Scrip­ture for adoration of the Sacrament, nor any in­formation that the nature and properties of God do belong unto it; seeing it is asserted of the Rock, 1 Cor. 10.4, 6, 15.1 Pet. 2.4, and of the Church that they are Christ, and of the Saints, that they are made Partakers of the Divine nature; but it is not once asserted of the Sacrament that it is Christ, or that it partakes of his Divinity, but only that it his body; we have just reason to conclude that it neither was adored by Christs Disciples, nor was intended so to be.

If that which Romanists adore were truly Christ,Arg. 2. § 2. Brevint, p. 72, one might safely aver (what even to think were Blasphemy) ‘That neither Prophets nor Holy Fathers in their Speeches against Hea­thenish Gods, either considered well what they said, or ever thought well of their Saviour. And First, to begin with their Original, when the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against them who worship Gods made by a Carpenter, of a Tree which the worshipers had Planted, and after hewen into pieces, whereof one was to heat an Oven, and the other to make a God. Can any rational Man think that the Holy Ghost did foresee, That all true Worshippers in the time of the Messias, were to adore a God every mor­ning made of, and every morning inclosed with­in, [Page 105]somewhat of that Wheat that first Coun­trey Men had sown, and Bakers baked into Wafers, of which afterwards an Apothecary was to take some to wrap Pills in, and the Priest all the rest to Consecrate into a God? And if the taking that for a God, which before the Consecration was but a Stock, is a Pagan blind­ness, fit for a Prophet to wonder at, v. 18. Is the adoring that for a Saviour, which imme­diately before the uttering of some few words, was a thin wafer, such clear understanding as may become a Catholick?’ C 14. v. 20. The Authour of the book of Wisdom makes the Pagan folly chiefly to consist in this, That they took him now for a God which a little before was not honoured as a Man. Pagans melt Brass, they cast it, they set it up, ‘they fasten it, saith Minucius, tis yet no God: they polish it, they adorn it, neither is it yet a God: But see now, they Consecrate it, and Pray to it, then as soon as Men will have it to be a God, it is a God. p. 26. What! were these wise men blind not to perceive, that Pa­gans might return the same Raillery? Christi­ans, they sow Wheat, they cut, gather, and thresh it, 'tis no Christ yet: they grind it, they sift it, they bake it, 'tis but a wafer: they set it upon an Altar, they elevate it, they cross it several times; no wonder yet: at last they speak five words upon it; presently ten Miracles break forth, and among an hundred Wafers, which are all like to one another, that which they are pleased to think upon, is their Savi­our.’ And though a little before it was not honoured as a Man, it is now taken to be God. ‘Besides, all the Reproaches and Ironies which Holy Prophets or Christian Fathers throw on Idols, fall twenty times more heavy on what is [Page 106]adored at Mass.’ For example, if you laugh at Laban for serving Gods which a man or woman can steal away, and say with them that comment on that place,Synopsis. Summa caecitas Deos vocat quos fur­tim auferri posse agnovit, T. 1. in Gen. p. 447. or with St. Chrysostom, O Hyperboly of madness, are thy Gods such as can be Stollen, art thou not ashamed to say, why hast thou stollen away my Gods? Or if you laugh at Micah for crying out so miserably,Jud. 18.24: you have taken away the Gods that I have made, as others do; ‘if you deride the Babylonians for carrying their Gods upon their Shoulders, who otherwise could not help themselves, nor move out of the place where they were seated, as the Prophet Esay doth.’ Isa. 46.7: Or if you rally upon the Priests of Bell and Nebo, Isa. 46.1. ‘because their Gods fall to the ground, and are carried away Captive.’ If with the Royal Psalmist you endeavour to expose them by saying,Psal: 115.5, 6, 7. that they have mouths and can­not speak, Eyes but cannot see; Feet, but cannot walk: If with the Prophet Jeremy, you give these demonstrations, that they are no Gods. First,Baruch. 6.12. because they cannot save themselves from rust and moth, though they be covered. Secondly, That they are not able to escape from War, and Thieves and Robbers. v: 15.57. And Thirdly, That the Priests make fast their Temples with Locks and Barrs, v. 18, 19.20. least their Gods be spoiled with Robbers. They light them Candles, yea more then for themselves, of which they cannot see one; and their hearts are gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth; and when they eat them and their Clothes, they feel it not. And Fourthly, That they are born upon Shoulders, v. 26, & 27 having no Feet, whereby they declare unto Men they are nothing worth. Fifthly, That if they fall, they cannot rise up again of themselves, neither if one set them upright, can they move them­selves. [Page 105]Sixthly, That their Gold and Silver, v. 58. and Garments wherewith they are Clothed, they that are strong do take and go away with all. v. 72. And last­ly, if you add, That you know them to be no Gods, because afterwards they shall be Eaten. All these considerations do sufficiently expose the vanity, both of these Idols, and of those that worship them. But then what R. Catholicks esteem their God, is capable of all these Ironies, and by all these considerations you may know assuredly that it is no God.

For First, ‘it falls oftner to the ground then ever Nebo did, witnessDe de­sect. cir [...]a Miss. p. 3. Si hostia, &c. locus! ubi cecidit mundetur! & aliqu [...]n­tum abra­datur. the injunction of scra­ping the ground where it falls, and cleansing it.’ And being fallen to the ground, it cannot rise again, witness the same command toReveren­ter accipi­atur. take it up. ‘It is sometimes stollen away, as the poor Gods of Laban were, and it doth nothing to defend and help it self, witnessDecretal. l. 3. Tit. 44 c. 1. Pope Innocents Decree that it be so well kept that no rash hand approach it; andAler. G [...]ald in Ep ad Ca­rol. V. [...]gid. in Itin. IP­SUM DEI CORPUS. Geraldinus, his com­plaint to Charles the 5th, That the very Body of his God was not safe from Thieves and Magicians, and from the fire of the Wicked. It is sometimes carried away captive box and all, as were the Heathenish Gods whom Pagan Rome had con­quered, witness St. Lewis the 9th. who being beaten,’ and in great distress, rendred it for a Pawn into the hands of the Aegyptian Sultan, insomuch that to this day the Aegyptian Escutche­ons by way of Triumph, bear upon it a Pix with a Wafer in it. In their processions it is carried upon their Shoulders, as was Bell and Nebo, or if the Journey be long, it is hung about the Neck.Ritual. Rom. p, 72. ‘To it agrees the whole description, which the Psalmist gives us of a Pagan Idol, for it hath Eyes and cannot see, it hath hands and handles [Page 108]not, being deprived of the actual use of all its faculties and sences, and so of all theLampa­des coram eo plures, vel saltem una, die noctuque perpetuo collucea [...]. Ritual. Rom. p. 64. Si ho stia consecrata amure, &c. p. 34. lights that burn before it, it beholds not one.’

This God is also worshiped, and afterwards ‘his heart is gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth, and when they eat or drink him he feels it not. Witness that Injuction of the Roman Missal,’ ‘That if the Host be taken by a Mouse, or any other Creature, and cannot be found, they do endeavour to take, kill and burn that Creature, and cast the Ashes under the Altar. And that when either Flies or Spiders chance to fall into the Chalice,Si musca vel ar [...]nea &c. p. 35. be­cause these little Beasts cannot drink so little, but they drink him whole, and have him in their little Guts, the Priest must by all means swallow down these Flies and Spiders, if he can do it without the endangering of his Life, or fear of Vomiting. Once was the time that Aegypt was made ashamed of their chief God,Theod. Hist. Eccles. l: 5. c. 22. when they saw Mice creeping out of his Belly; what would they have said, if they had seen their God creeping down, as the Mass God doth, into the Belly of those Mice or Flyes?’ God doth in Scripture often threaten a wicked Church or Nation, that he would spue them out of his Mouth: And were this Doctrine true, the Wicked of the Church of Rome might do the like to him; nay, they might not only vomit up their God, but cause him to be burnt, wit­ness the constitution of the Mass,De desect. circa Miss. Occurrent. p. 38. That if the Priest do vomit up the Eucharist, and find the Species whole, he should then reverently eat the Vomit; but if the Species appear not, he should burn it.

Thirdly, If T. G. rightly had asserted, that this was the continual practise of the ancient [Page 109]Church, the ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries would not have quite neglected to in­form us of it: some time or other, it is like, they would have styled it God, or Jesus Christ, or have declared that it was, or ought to have been Wor­shipped by them. For the absurdness of the thing to sense and reason, is so great and obvious, that it seems plainly to require more Apologyes than they bestowed to vindicate, and to wipe of the scandal of the Cross. At least it would have been remembred by Justin Martyr, or Tertullian, who undertake to give us an account of what the Christians practised in this case; and yet nei­ther the Romanists themselves, nor their new Champion T. G. do cite one passage from them to confirm this practise. In the Fourth Century, it was the chief concern of all the Fathers to op­pose the Arians, and all their under-Sects, and their chief Argument was this, thatcommu­nis est illa S. Patrum argumen­tatio qua verum & a qualem Patridcum esse pro­bant fili­um quod, summo il­lo genere adoratio­nis quam [...] vocant, afficiatur Petavius. Theol. Deg. l. 2. c. 12.55. Christ ac­cording to the precept of the Holy Scriptures and the practise of all Christians was adored, and therefore could not be a Creature. Now had the Adoration of the Host been the continual practise of that Age they lived in, how could they all forget and wave an Argument so plain and obvious, and so convincing as this practise doth afford; it being natural thus to conclude, Christ in the Sacrament is Worshipped with Latria, and this Adoration is there tendered upon presumpti­on of his Deity, and therefore he is God. Since then the Fathers of those times did newer use this Argument, certain it is the practise of the Church did give them no occasion so to do.

Thirdly, the Marcionites and Valentinians de­nyed that Christ did take upon him real flesh, and the great objection which forced them thus to slight the senses of all those that saw him, andP. 97. 98. Apol. c. 39. [Page 110]all the evidence of reason in this case, was this, that they conceived itTurpe hoc deo, & indig­num hoc dei filio, & stultum. Tertul. de carne Christi c. 4. D. improper for the Son of God to be conceived in the Womb, or come forth of it; The Manichees were also startled with the same objection, 'tis an unworthy thing saithAugust. contra Faustum Man. l. 3. cap. 6. Faustus ex utero credere Deum, & Deum Christia­norum, to think that God, and especially the God of Christians should issue from a Womb. The Synod held at Ephesus amongst the impious speeches of Nestorius. takes special notice of this one, that he could not [...] Concil. E­phes. Acts 3. Extr in Ep. Syn, ad Cler, CP, p. 335. [...], ib, Acts 1, p, 265, endure to Worship one that was two moneths old, or nourished by Milk. And yet a­mongst all these and many other Hereticks, who were so highly scandalized at the humiliation of our Saviour, and at his sufferings on the Cross, we find not one that ever did except against this Adoration of him in the Sacrament, against the cating of their God, the mixing of him with their spittle, or with the ferment of the most de­praved Stomach. During Eight hundred years we have not one complaint or scruple that the Christians God was pittiful immured and shut up in the shape of Bread and Wine, deprived of the use of all his faculties, and exposed to the Teeth of Vermin, which gives just reason to be­lieve that what the Christians of those times did practise, gave no occasion to them to discourse these things, or to be scandalized with them. Besides in answer unto these exceptions, we do not find that any of the Fathers urged this pra­ctise, or undertook by saying that Christians did Adore him in the shape of Bread, did lodge him in their Stomachs, and the like, to shew that he might properly be God, and regularly Worship­ped, although he lay concealed in the Womb, and was subjected unto the like infirmities with other children. Since then no other instance had [Page 111]been more proper to oppose to these objections then this Adoration of the Host, & yet the Fa­thers constantly declined it, we may be certain that they had no such practise, and that they did not hold that Doctrin from whence this practise took its rise.

Fourthly, If this had been the judgment of the Ancient Church, why did theyHoc quod reli­quum est de carni­bus & pa­nibus in ig­ne incendi praecepit quod nunc videmus in Ecclesia sensibiliter fieri igni (que) tradi qua­cun (que) re­manere contigerit incon­sumpta Hesyck l. 2. in Lev. c. 8. burn the Host? For can we possibly imagine any thing more hainous, then is the burning of that God we Worship? To prove that Calvinists do offer the most vile affronts to holy Saints and Martyrs, theBellarm. de Reliq. storum. l. 2. c. 1. To. 1. controv. 7. Roman Doctors hold it sufficient to affirm they burn their bodies and reliques, and cast their ashes into Rivers: And is it not a greater evi­dence of the abominable contempt these Fathers offered to our blessed Lord, that they did burn and bury that most sacred body which was united to the Divinity. To shew the great stupidity of Heathens in thinking that which they had made was God, the Prophet Esay tells them, that part of the same Wood which makes the Image is burned in the Fire; and the ProphetBaruch. c. 6. v. 55. Jeremiah layes down this strong conviction, that the Heathen Idols ought not to be esteemed Gods, because when Fire fell upon their Temples they could not escape, but were consumed by it. And can we then imagine that all Christians, during this cu­stom were such sots as to imagine that to be God, which was not only subject to be consumed by, but was by them committed to the flames for this intent and purpose? was it not easie to re­tort upon the Christian that of the Prophet Esaiah that part of the same Corn which was con­verted into the Host, and of the Wine which was converted into the blood of Christ, served only to be meat and drink, and to descend into the Stomach and the draught.

Fifthly,v. Daille de Cultu Lat. l. 7. c. 30. If this had been the judgment of the ancient Church, why did they put the Host into the [...], Balfamon, p. 460. Sepulchers of dying friends, or bury what they could not eat, since humane nature doth ab­hor to offer such affronts unto that God we Wor­ship? The Prophet Esay to express what great contempt the Heathens in the time of Christ should shew unto their Idols, saith that they shall cast them to the Moles and to the Batts, & could a Christian cast his God unto the Worms, or lodge him with a stinking Carcase, and not be deemed to contemn him in a viler manner?

Sixthly, We read thatVituli pulverem quem ado­raverat Israel, in contemp­tum super­stitionis, in potum accepit populus, ut discat contemnere quod in secessum projici viderat, Hieron ad Fab. p. 20. Moses took the Calf and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the Water, and made the Children of Israel drink of it. Isa. 1.2. v. 20. Exod. 32. v. 20. The ancient Fathers tell us, this was done to teach them to contemn what they saw consumed and go down into the draught; whereas this Romish Doctrine confutes both Moses and the Fathers, and lets us know that what we devour may be God, & that that whichSi quicquid ingreditur in os, in ventrem abit & in secessum ejici­tur & ille cibus qui Sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque observatio­nem juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit & in secessum ejicitur Orig. in Mat. 15. p 17. Origen assures us goes down into the draught, is that which also ruleth in the Heavens.

Seventhly, Let it be considered, that if the primitive Church had ever practised this Adora­tion of the Host, the Heathens would sure have retorted all those Arguments upon their heads, by which they did reprove the Heathens for their Idol-worship, for the Christians upbraided them with Worshipping the works of their own hands, to [Page 113]which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain forms did Consecrate them, and made by invocation, as they supposed, a Divinity to dwell there. They objected to them, that they Worshipped that which could neither hear, nor see, Just. Mar­tyr. Apol. 2. nor smell, nor tast nor move, and in particular [...] things having not the shape of God, they upbrai­ded them with Worshipping what they had baked in the Furnace, and that which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injuries of Ratts and Mice, and Worms and creeping things, that can be taken by Enemies and carried away, that is not able either to revenge or help it self. Is it not the extremity of madness saith St.Tom. 5. p. 51. 7. Chrysostom to think men do not say or do what's filthy, when they go about to bring their Gods into the Images of Stone or Wood, and there to shut them up as in a Prison. Dost thou not see saithRecog­nit. l. 5. f. 30. Clement, That that which thou Adorest cannot see, dost thou not hear that it cannot understand? Your Gods are baked in the Potters Furnace saithArnob. l. 6. p. 200. Fornaci­bus inco­cta f guli­nis. Arnobius, and wrought into those forms in which you see them. ‘As for your Gods they may be burnt, or broken, or perish saith Lactantius, for they are often broken by the fall of Houses, and often are consumed by fire; what madness there­fore is it to fear that whose Ruine, Theft, or Incension may be rather feared? what vanity to hope for help from them, who are not able to defend themselves? what perverseness is it to fly unto their aid, who being injured are ume­venged, unless revenged by their Worshippers.’

‘How great stupidity is it not to see it is a wickedness to think or say that men are keepers of the Gods.Ap [...]l. p. 4 [...] Sol. 2. c. 4. Justin M 'Tis a shame to to Worship those whom thou defendest, and to hope for succour from them, whom thou thy [Page 114]self preservest, saith St.’ Ad Len [...]e­tr p. 239. Cyprian. These ar­guments are frequent in the mouths of An­cient Father; and had the Church then thought and practiced, as they have done at ‘Rome in these last Ages, might not the Heathens have replyed, why may not we as well as you? do not you Worship that with Divine Honours; and call it your God, which can be barnt and broken, which your selves form into a round or square figure, which the Oven first hardens, and then your Priests consecrate, and by invo­cation make to be your God, which can see no more, then the Silver and Gold upon our Ima­ges? Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat, which can grow Mouldy and Sowre, which you keep under Locks and Barrs, for fear your God should be frollen? True it is,’ that if we are beaten from our Cities, we carry our Gods with us, But doth not your, Roman Ritual command the Priest that undertakes a long and dangerous journey, p. 72. to put his God up into a bag, and hang that bag about his Neck, that so he may be carried with him? Let me then answer. you in the words of your Arnobius, Contra Gentes l, 2 how impudent and shameless is it to reprehend that in another which you do your selves?

And whereas some reply,Sect. 5. that Christians hid this practice from the Heathens, the vanity of this ex­ception will be evident from this consideration, That many who embraced the Christian Doctrin, were by the heat of persecution driven back to Paganism, who therefore were concerned to save their credit by divulging what they thought lya­ble to most exception in the Christian practice: But this exception is so abundantly confuted by Monsieur Daille, De culius objecto l. 2 c. 25. p 31 that it is needless any further to consider it. To conclude therefore, the Synod [Page 115]of Constantinople held, A. D. 754. and consisting of the flower of the Eastern Church, determins thus,Syn, [...]. Act 6.7. [...]. p. 756. Concil. T. 5. That Christ commanded an Image, ex ellent matter, or the substance of Bread to be offered, not having humane shape, least Idolatry should be in­troduced. Now who knows not that the sub­stance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria, and it that Christ God-man was properly con­tained in the Sacrament, there could be no suspi­tion of Idolatry in the adoration of it. What I have thus discoursed, I judge sufficient to con­vince the Reader; that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church.

What T. G. offers to the contrary is,§. 6. that St. Basil saith, the words of invocation, when the Eu­charistical Bread was shewed,T G. p. 222, 223.are Apostoli [...]al Tra­dition. Ergo the Host was worshiped with La­tria. St. Austins Mother assisted at the Altar, from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp a­ced. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with Latria. Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with [...]a­tria. He might have added that Protestant: do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord, they do uncover and shew it to the people, they therefore do adore it with Latria. These are the wretched Sophisms by which this univer­sal practice is confirmed; and they prove only this, That the abettors of them do not renounce their sence and reason only, when they do be­lieve this Doctrine, but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject.

Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us,p. 224. That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist, that the Heathens, because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries, objected to them, [Page 116]that they Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus: Nothing is so notorious, as is the weakness of this Infe­rence. For if this argument be valid, the Hea­thens thought that Christians Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus, because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries, therefore all Christians Wor­shiped what seemed to be Bread and Wine, this must be also valid; the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn, because they met on Saturday, August. con [...]a Faust Ma­mich. l. 20. c. 13. (as the same Austin in the same place informs us) therefore all Jews Worshiped Satur­day. 2. St. Austin saith, and he himself confess­eth, that the Heathens thus conceived, not be­cause they Worshiped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries, the bare use therefore, not the Worship of these things, was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination, as St. Austin deems it.

Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom, viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice, T G. p. 224. and the place round about the Altar, is filled in honour of him that lyeth upon it. And that of Nazianzen, p. 222. affirming, That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar, and with a loud voice be­sought, [...], him that was honou­red upon it. For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table, when by the invo­cation of his Holy name, the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated, and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithfull, who knows not, that the honour done to that which represents, and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord, is Honour done to him? And therefore these expressions only signifie that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the me­morials of Christs Body; and this we Protestants [Page 117]do as truly, but more safely then the Church of Rome, witness the preparations made before we do receive them, and the Reverence we use when we receive them; and witness lastly our con­fession, Eucharistiam, ut signum utile, divinitus institutum, venerandam confitemur, saith Alberti­nus. And that Nazianzen could intend no more, is clear from what he doth immediately subjoyn, viz.In Epi­taph Gor­gon. p. 187 That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lords Blood and Body, she pre­sently bedewed them with her Tears. What there­fore lay upon the Altar, was only the Antitype of Christs true Body. This also was the mind of Chrysostom, for he declares,Epistol. ad Caefar. Monach. That before the Bread is Sanctified, we name it Bread, but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is s [...]e [...]d from the name of Bread, and is esteemed wor­thy to be called the Lords Body, although the na­ture of Bread remaineth in it.

To the words of Chrysostom, p. 224. cited from Hom. 24. in Epist. ad Corinth I answer, That Chry­sostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christs Body, which we do, he also saith, we see this Body on the Altar. Nay, elsewhere he adds, [...]. A [...] Pop. Ant [...] ­oc Hom. 15 [...] ib. Hom. 24 Vide Al­bert. l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535, 536. we see it slain and jugulated.In Mat. Hom. 82. And when the Hereticks do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified, we stop their mouths saith he, by the consideration of these Mysteries; for if Christ be not [...]ead [...], what do these Symbols mean. Christs Body therefore is seen upon the Altar, not as to its substance (for there accor­ding to the Roman Doctors, its being is invisible) but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body; this then must be the mind of Chrysostom, that Body which is really in Heaven, and in the Altar, is seen, slain, and jugulated in effigie, do you adore.

Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason, in the citations following, we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Consci­ence could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confir­mation of this practise, [...] Dial. 2 p. 84.85. viz. The mystical symbols (Those words T. G. leaves out. do not receed from their nature, for they abide in their proper sub­stance, figure and from, and may be seen and touched as they were before, but they) are understood to be what they are made, and are believed and adored as being the things. they are believed; for can that be a Demonstration of this practise, which is a most convincing demonstration, that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practise is absurd and false? And that the Adorati­on of the Host, would be the Adoration of what conti­nues B [...]ead, as certainly, as the humanity of Christ con­tinues to retain its nature and its proper substance? had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words, which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, and consequently of the Adoration of the Host, that their, great Doctors are even forced to say, that by [...] substance, Theodoret doth understand no sub­stance, out only accidents, which are the opposite to sub­stance. And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure; though in this very place, he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure, and consequently that he grants unto the Heretick, that Christs humanity, is as to the substance and the nature of it, changed into the Deity, and that the accidents, form and figure of it only remain unchanged, that is, he grants. all that the Heretick asserts, and he endeavoured to refure.

For thus the Heretick dispu [...]es, ‘As the Symbols of the body and blood of Christ are other things before the invocation of the Priest; but after the invocation they are changed, and made other, so the body of Christ after the assumption is changed into the divine sub­stance:’ and thus the Orthodox doth answer, ‘thou art caught in thy own Net, for the mystical signs after San­ctification do not recede from their own natures.’

Again, the Orthodox puts this question, ‘are not the mysteries.Ibid. vid. p. 57. the signs of the body which truly is,’ this be­ing granted by the Heretick he makes this inference, ‘If the divine mysteries do truly represent the body, then the body of our Lord now is, and is not changed into the Deity, but only filled with his Glory.’ When there­fore is it affirmed by Theodoret, that this Sacrament is [...], a venerable Type. And that the [Page 119]Symbols are [...], or Symbols which are Worshiped. This phrase can signifie no more then this, That they are venerable Types and Symbols, such as deserve a reve­rence or honorary Worship from all Christians, which is a very common acceptation of the word; for thus Christian Temples are stiled by the Ancients.Concal. sub Menna act. 5. [...], or Venerable Temples, the Apostles Throat; Epist. Le­onis 2. [...], a Venerable Throne, and Baptism; Justini­an Novil. 6. [...], or Venerable Baptism.

The same uncenscionable dealing we meet with in that passage of St. Austin: for no Man eats Christs flesh, [...] be have si [...]s [...] adored;for in that very place he tells us, ThatIn [...]s [...]l, 98. p, 241. [...], G.H, the Jews interpreted the eating of Christs Flesh, like Fools ‘for they interpreted it carnally, whereas Christ did instr [...] his own Disciples, and say unto them, understand Spi­ritually what I say unto you, you shall not eat the Body which you see: and drink the Blood which they will shed that Crucifie me; I have commended unto you a Sacrament, that Spiritually being understood, will quicken you So that St.’ Austin in this very place asserts the con­tradictory to what the Church of Rome believes touching the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament, and calls them Fools that think Christ did intend what they ima­gine he hath said. Therefore it is manifest, that St. Austin in this place, speaks nothing of the adoration of Christs Flesh under the accidents of Bread, but only of the ado­ration of hs Flesh considered, as united to the God­head. and placed at the Right Hand of God

I astly, to that of Ambrose. De spir, Sa [...]cto l, 3. c. 12. By the Footstool, is under­stood the Earth, and by the Earth the flesh of Christ. which we Adore in the mysteries at this day, and which the Apo­stles adored in our Lord Jesus. I answer, that he saith no more than this, that in these mysteries we Worship Christ, and c [...]n [...]quently the flesh of Christ as being not divided from, him [...]u, he doth not say that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ, or that we do adore the mysteries which are Christ.

1. Therefore let it be observed, that St. Ambrose doth not say that we adore Christ only in this mysteries: but in mysteriis, or in the Celebration of the Sacraments; which it was the custome of Antiquity to do because they held these mysteri [...]s to be instituted by him, to con­vey unto us those blessings he had purchased by his blood, and did conceive hein Job, 9, 6.7. Cyril words it, doth invisibly swim in the waters of Baptism. And therefore in the Celebration of [Page 120]that rite, they eall upon us asPaulinus Epist. 4. Chrysost To. 6. in illud simi­le est reg­num czlo­rum. Captives to fall down before our King, and with hands lifted up to Heaven, to adore him, and mutually to exhort our selves, and say, come let us Worship before the Lord who made us. And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that Element of Water to be transmuted in­to Christs Body, and therefore Worshiped by the Christians of those times. Secondly, observe that Christs Sacred Flesh being united to his Godhead, and adored with it, the Worship which at the celebration of those Mysteries was directed to him, as sitting in the Heavens, must be the Worship of his Flesh; and this assuredly must be the meaning of St. Ambrose, who in his exposition of these words, seek those things which are above, serm. 58. &c. speaketh thus, ‘we ought not now to seek our Saviour upon the Earth,’ or according to the Flesh, it we would find and ‘touch him, but according to the Glory of his Divine Majesty that we may say with the Apostle Paul, but now we know not Christ ac­cording to the Flesh. And therefore Blessed Ste­phen by his Faith did not seek Christ upon the Earth, but did acknowledge him standing at the Right Hand of God, where, with the devotion of the mind he sought him.’ Now this no Protestant denies, that Christ, even in the cele­bration of the Eucharist, is to be Worshiped where he is, and where he is to be sought after by such as do desire to sind him, (i.e.) at the right hand of God.

CHAP. VI.

The Contents.

Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature the Homage due to the Creator, we become guilty of Idolatry. Prop. 2. To know the secrets of the hearts of persons, praying at all times and in all places of the World, is a divine and incommunicated excellency. Prop. 3. That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature, to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart, and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose that knowledge, is Idolatry. Prop. 4. Those outward Acts of Worship, which by consent of Nations, or by common Use, do signifie the honour due to the Creator, are Idolatri­cal, when given to a Creature. Co­rol. 1. That to offer Sacrifice, is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God. 2. That to vow to Angels or to Saints de­parted, is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. 3. Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible and not corporeally present Being, is the ob­lation of that Worship to it which is due to God alone. Objections Answered.§. 1.

HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and ju­stifie the Judgment of the Church of [Page 130] England, touching the Worshipping of the Host: I now proceed to shew the Equity and Justice of her Censure of the Roman practice, in refe­rence unto the Invocation and Adoration of Holy Angels, and of Saints departed. And what we have to say in this particular, as the foundation of this Charge, shall be contained in these ensuing Propositions.

Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature that honour and respect, or pay unto it that Love, Praise, Confidence and Homage, which is due only to the Great Creator, we become guilty of Idolatry: as is apparent, 1. From the evidence of Scripture; When Saul had know­ingly transgressed the Command of God, Sa­muel thus represents the greatness of his sin. Rebellion is [...] the sin of Magick;1 Sam. 15.23.and to resist is [...] double Idolatry, for both those words do signifie Idola; and Tera­phim is often used for Idolatry.Ponitur pro ipso cultu Ido­lolatrico, sen ipsa Idolola­tria. Kir­cher. con­c [...]d. p. 2307. This then is the clear import of the words, He that doth contumaciously resist, and wilfully refuse to do what God particularly enjoyns, is virtually guilty of the sin of Magick and Idolatry: for as by consulting the Magician, or using of that wicked Art, we do ascribe that knowledge of things had and future, to the Creature, which agrees to God alone; And as by worshipping of Idols, we put the Creature in the place of the Creator, and do impart his honour to the Idol; even so by this rebellion, and obstinate resistance of the will of Heaven, and by pre­ferring of our wills before it, we virtually say, our wisdom ought to be preferred before his counsel, our pleasure ought to be esteemed a­bove his will: and so we do advance our selves into the place of God, and give unto our selves [Page 131]that honour which is due to him alone, and do ascribe unto our selves the highest wisdom. And this we have acknowledge by the learned Estius: They sin, saith he,In Sentent. l 3 di­stinct. 33. §. 5. p. 129 against his precept Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, who will not yield subjection to God, but contemn his precept or Authority; of which sin Samuel pronounceth thus: To Rebel is as the sin of witchcraft, and not to acqui­ess is as the wickedness of Idolatry.

2. St. Paul expresly saith,Col. 3.5. Eph. 5.5. That covetousness is Idolatry; and that [...], (i.e.) the covetous man is an Idolater: and of the glutton he pronounceth, That his belly is his God, Phil. 3.19. not that they properly esteem it so, but that they chiefly are solicitous to make provisions for it, and direct all their care and study to that end. Id enim pro Deo habemus, cujus causâ omnia facimus (saith Grotius.)In locum. And this is manifest from what the Romanists do comment on the first Commandment: For seeing by this precept (saith the learned Estius) we are commanded to acknow­ledge God is our hope and confidence,Loco cita­to.they must by ne­cessary consequence offend against tis precept, who do not place their (utmost) confidence in God, but in the flesh, (i. e.) in health or riches, strength or friends, or any temporal concern And since this precept doth enjoyn us to love God with the highest love, he that by any act proceeding directly from the will, demonstrates an equal or a greater love unto himself, or any other creature, them he shews unto God, whom he standt bound to love and to prefer before all other things, he must offe [...]d against this precept and so be guilty of Idolatry, by having other Gods besides him

3. The Prophet Habakkuk c [...]mplains of some who sacrificed to their net,Hab. 1.16.and burned incense to their drags, (i. e.) they ascribed all their victories [Page 132]to their own strength, saith Grotius: They attribu­ted that to their own vertue, strength and industry, which should have been ascribed to God. So Vata­blus, They attributed to themselves what properly be­longs to God, viz. the good success of their affaris. This is the Comment of the Hebrews, saith the learned Drusius. And now by ascribing to themselves that properly belonged to God, they must be guilty of Idolatry, because they do ascribe that honour to the Creature which is due to the Creator only. And hence this sin is represented as the oblation of sacrifice and incense to a Creature, which is confessed to be Idola­try.

And that these actions do partake of the true nature of Idolatry, we have confirmed both from the evidence of Scripture, the judgment of the learned Fathers, the voice of reason, and the confession of our Adversaries. For when our Saviour saith,Mat. 6.24. that God and Mammon can­not both be served, because we cannot serve two Lords, he clearly intimates, that by sollicitude for worldly things, they become Gods and Lords unto us, and so we violate the precept of not having other Gods besides him. The Fathers do expresly say the like: Let us not think, saithHom. 2. in Judic. Origen, because we do not worship Images, that those things do not appertain to us, for that is God to any person which he prefers, admires, and loves be­yond all other things. One makes his mammon, saith St.In Rom. c. 3. He. 6. p. 43. Chrysostom, a second his lust, a third his belly, to be his God: I know thou dost not sacrifice thy Oxen to them, as the Gentiles do, but what is far more pestilent, thou offerest up thy soul unto them; thou dost not bend thy knee, nor worship them, but thou art more obedient to what thy belly and thy gold commands, than to the will of Heaven. Now even [Page 133]reason shews that love, hope, trust, obedi­ence, are parts of that internal worship which we own to God in the most excellent degrees; and which he more regards than building Tem­ples, and erecting Altars, than bending of the knee or body, or any other act of outward vvorship; and therefore in these acts doth more especially consist Gods vvorship: And therefore he that doth confer them upon any Creature, must do vvhat is more distastful to him, than if those outward Ceremonies should be imparted to that Creature. The Scripture therefore doth esteem the covetous person to be a vvorshipper of Idols, because as Heathens place their confidence in Idols, even so the a­varitious man doth place his confidence in gold and silver, vvhich are the matter of the Idols; he chiefly doth persue them, and for their sakes only doth other matters. And therefore vvhat the Pagan doth unto his Idol, that doth the a­varitious person to his glod, saith [...]: in Rom. c. 3. To. 6. p 43. Chryso­stom; and this vve have confessed by(d) Esti­us, Aquinas, and others of the Roman Church.

Secondly, This Proposition may also be con­firmed, (1.) From the definition of Idolatry; for if Idolatry consists in giving of that worship [Page 134]which is due to God, to that which is not God, by giving it to any Creature we must be guilty of idolatry, it being the most clear and most un­questionable truth that the most excellent Crea­ture is not God. 2. Whatever doth import and signifie the honour due to the Ceator, doth also signifie that excellency which is only due unto him: We cannot then perform that act of honour which imports this excellency to the best of Creatures, but we must honour it as our Creator; nor can we honour it as our Creator, but we must worship it as God, and by so ding we must be guilty of what the Ro­manists confess to by paying honor to a Crea­ture: But we can pay no greater honor to the most excellent of Creatures, than by ascribing to it that honor which is due to God alone: and therefore by ascribing of that honor to it, we must be guilty of idolatry: 4. By giving of that honor to God which doth import that excellence and perfection which agrees to God alone, we exercise that act of Worship which we call Latria; for since Dulia doth import on­ly the worship proper to the Creature, it cannot signifie that worship which is due to him whose dignity is infinitely greater than what the best of Creatures doth enjoy; if then we exercise that act of worship to the Creature we give Latria to it, and, in the judgment of our most rigid Adversaries, to give Latria to a Creature is to be guilty of Idolatry

To know the secrets of the hearts of persons pray­ing, Prop. 2. §. 2. is a divine and uncommunicated excellency. This is apparent 1. from express Scripture te­stimony, 1 Kings 8.39. 2 Chron. 6.29, 30. What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made by any [Page 135]man, or by all thy people Israel, when every one shall know his own sore, and his own grief, and shall spread forth his hands in this house: hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according to all his wayes, whose heart thou knowest; for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of the children of men: where first observe, That there it is asserted as a thing proper to God, not only that he knows the hearts of all men collectively taken, but distributively: (i. e.) that he alone doth know the heart of any man: for this is given as a reason why, when supplicati­ons are made by any man, God should render to him according to his wayes, because he only knows his heart; (i. e.) he only knows the heart of any single person. 2. Observe this knowledge of the heart is thus appropriated to God in refe­rence to whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man: Whence we infer, that whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man, God only knows the heart and the conceptions of the Supplicant; and therefore that this knowledge is not com­municated to Saints or Angels. 3. Observe, that to affirm this knowledge is ascribed to God alone, because he only hath this know­ledge from the perfection of his nature; where­as it is communicated to the Saints and Angels only by way of revelation, or by the vision of that God, who knoweth all things: Is 1. without all ground to limit what is univer­sally pronounced in the case of prayer. 2. It we admit this limitation, to say God only knows the secret of the heart of him that prayeth, hath no more of truth, than if I should assert God only hath a being he only acts, he only knows that Christ is come into the world, because he only [Page 136]acts, and hath his being from himself; our be­ings and our power of action is derived from him, and by his revelation only we do know that Christ is come into the world. 3. We may on like accounts assert. That even when the general hath paid his Souldiers, he alone hath money, because what money and of his Souldiers have, was given by him; and that the Master only of the School of Westminster knows Greek and Latine, because his Scholars have derived that knowledge from him. 4. If we admit of such a limitation, then the exclusive term will not refer to what is spoken, but to that which is not mentioned; not to the pre­dicate, viz. the knowledge of the hearts of men, which is expressed, but only to the manner of that knowledge of which the Text is wholly si­lent: Now this inter pretation gives such a for­ced and strained sense, as in a matter of this na­ture ought not to be admitted without the greatest evidence. Whereas the sence we plead for is the most plain and natural import of the words: For it is natural to conceive the sense of this expression should be this, thou, and no o­ther, knowest the hearts of men, whereas if we do paraphrase it thus, that many myriads of Saints and A [...]gels have this knowledge of the heart, but thou alone dost naturally know, what they receive from revelation; this Proposition, taken as it is expresed, viz. God only knows the hearts of men, will be both absolutely false and uncouth, and what is contradictory to it, viz. God only doth not know the hearts of them that pray, will be absolute­ly true.

2. 2 If such a knowledge of the heart was not an uncommunicated excellency, if it was only that which did agree to many thousands of blessed [Page 137]Saints and Angels, then could it be no proof of the divinity of Christ and of the holy Spirit, for what is answered to the Protestant by those who do ascribe this knowledge to the Saints in glory, might be with equal probability alledged to baffle and evade this evidence of Christs di­vinity, which is so often and so triumphantly suggested by the holy Fathers: And hence it is confessed by the greatQuod argumen­tum nul­lum esset omnino, si non Dei proprium id foret cogitatio­nes intimas & corda cognoscere. Theol. dogm. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. p. 39. §. 3. Petavius, that if this knowledge were not proper to God, their argument would certainly be weak and groundless. And yet the Fathers in his Argument are so exceeding full and copious, that it were endless to collect what they deliver. Our Lord, saithin Lu­cam. l. 5. c. 3. Ambrose, demonstrateth himself to be God, by knowing of the secrets of the heart. Take (saithSerm. 50. Chrysologus) these indications of our Lords divinity, hear how he penetrates the secret of thy heart, see how he dives into thy hidden thoughts. See, saith St.p. 2. Com. in Joh. p. 144. Cyril, how he is that God who is the [...]. Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E. [...]. ib. p. 144. searcher of all hearts: For to none other is it given to know the mind of man, as is apparent from that passage of the Psalmist, God is the searcher of the heart and reins: for there the Psalmist mentions it as a peculiar thing which only doth agree to the Divine nature, and to no­thing else: if it be proper unto God alone to know the secrets of the hart; then Christ, who was acquain­ted with them, doth very well deserve to be accounted [Page 138]God. So NovatianDe Trin. c. 13. p. 715.. In the like manner they are wont to argue and conclude the holy Spirit to be God, for if to know the secrets of men be a propriety of God, to search the hidden things of God, as doth the holy Ghost, must be a greater demonstra­tion of his Majesty; so Paschasius. If we especi­ally conceive him to be God who sees the secret thoughts of man, much more is he to be esteemed God, who searcheth what is hidden in the Fathers breast: SoHom. de Trin. Eusebius Emissenus. Quia nemo infe­rior supe­rioris scru­tatur in­terna, divi­nae enim solius est potestatis ecculta no­visse, simi­liter ergo scrutatur Spiritus Sanctus ut Pater. Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 2. c. 12. f. 108. B. Col. 2. L. It is recorded of God that he doth search the heart and reins, whence it is evident that in like manner this is performed by the holy Spirit, for no inferior doth search the hidden things of his superior: So Ambrose v. Petav. Theol. dogm. de Angelis, l. 1. c. 7. & de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. It would be endless to recite all that the Fathers have delivered to this effect; if then they taught as doth the present Church of Rome, and practised that invocation both of Saints and Angels, which doth apparently suppose them conscious to the requests and inward motions of the heart; is it not matter of the highest admi­ration, and a just reason to suspect the ingenui­ty or common prudence of such men, who did so often urge that as an instance of Divinity which they acknowledged to agree, and by their daily practice did ascribe unto the Creature: Wherefore we are constrained, in reverence to their great names and memories, to judge they never held this knowledge was communicated to Saints and Angels, nor practised that which doth suppose it: Which will be further evident if 3ly. we consider that they affirm without di­stinction or exception, that to perceive the se­crets of the heart is a thing proper unto God alone: this by the concurrent judgment of the [...]ather, being no more communicated to the [Page 139]Creature than was the knowledge of what was future and contingent. The Almighty Father on­ly knows the hidden things (saithLib. 5. in Ezech. cap. 16. pag. 191. E. Mat. 6.4. Psal. 7.9. 1 Kings 8.29. Jerome) alledg­ing for the proof of this these Texts; Thy Fa­ther that seeth in secret, &c God searcheth the hearts and reins. And Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. It is the property of God alone (saithIn Matt. Hom. 29. p. 201, 202. Ed. Savil. Jer. 17.9. 1 Sam. 16.7. Chrysostom) to know the secrets of the heart. For the proof of this, besides the pas­sages now mentioned, he add that of Jeremiah, The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it. And that of Samuel, Man looketh on the out ward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. And of this, saith he, we have many evi­dences. This he again repeats Hom. 24. in Jo­ban. and proves it from those words of Solomon, Thou only knowest the heart of man. [...] In Matt. Hom. 19. p. 134. If thou dost thy good works in secret, wilst thou have no spectactor of what is done? (saith the same Author) yes, thou wilst have, not indeed Angels or Arch-angels (much less Saints and Martyrs) but God over all Hence was it held a signal honor done to God, and a great act of faith to pray in silence:(p) He that doth pray in silence, saith St. Ambrose, brings faith with him, and confesseth that God is the searcher of the heart and reins, and that he can hear his prayer before that it is uttered by his mouth. (q) Let consider, saith Tertullian, the [Page 140]heavenly wisdome of our Lord in his injunction to prāy in secret, whereby he both requires the faith of man confiding that God omnipotent both hears and sees un­der our roofs, and in our secret places, and also that our faith be modest, so that we offer our Religion un­to him alone, whom we are confident doth see and hear us every where.

That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart: Prop. 3. §. 3. and to pay that honor to it which doth suppose such knowledge, is Idolatry. This I make good, 1. From the confessions of our Adversaries, and from the Argument they use on like occasi­ons. It is truly acknowledged by the Church of Rome. Catechism. Rom. part. 3. c.1. § 7. That Magick, Augury, and such like wicked Arts are sins forbidden by the first Com­mandment, and such as cannot be committed without gross Idolatry. Because, whoever doth expect or seek from evil Spirits, or any o­ther Creature, what the Magician promiseth, by seeking, hoping, or expecting that from them which only ought to be expected from God, they act towards that Creature as if they thought it to be God: For instance; he that attempteth to foretell what is future and con­tingent, without a revelation from God, he doth unduly do it,2a 2a q. 95. Art. 1. saith the learned Sylvius, ‘for since the causes of such thing are unde­termined, it is not possible we should attain to this knowledge of them from themselves, or from their causes, and whether we do speak of things contingent, or of the know­ledge of the conceptions of the heart, it is certain God alone can know them, it being said,Isa. 41.23. Thou only knowest the hearts of men; and again, Declare the things that are to come, that we may know that you are gods: he therefore [Page 141]that attempteth to foretell such things, we therefore say that he divineth, because after a sort he acts the God, usurping that which only doth belong to him.’ 2. From the two passages of Scripture cited by him, it is evident, That albeit God sometimes did reveal unto his Prophets the knowledge of things future, and of the secrets of the heart; yet is that know­ledge to be esteemed the property of God, and a sure indication of divinity, and therefore to ascribe this knowledge to a Creature, God ha­ving not revealed it to him, is to ascribe di­vinity unto that Creature, and to be guilty of Idolatry.

If it be said, the practice of the Church of Rome, however they by way of worship ascribe that knowledge to the Saints and Angels, which only doth agree to God, seems yet unduely to be charged with this crime, because they do profess this knowledge not to be inherent in them, but to be de­rived from God. I Answer, If this excuse may be admitted in this case, then must we free the Heathens, and many others from this crime, who always have been branded with it by the Church of God. For 1. The prayers and sup­plications which the Heathens made to their in­ferior Daemons, and the first fruits and offer­ings which they presented, to them, were only made upon this false presumption, [...] Celsus apud O­rig. l. 8. p. 399. Ed Spenc. That God by them dispensed earthly things, and that he had ap­pointed them to rule over a City or a Countrey, and [...], Orig. adv. Celsuns, l. 8. p. 381. that it was his pleasure that we should thus pray and [Page 142]offer to them; and yet both these first fruits and prayers were looked upon as pieces of Idolatry by Jews and Christians. The Nestorians held the Lord Christ to be a man, [...], by grace invested with Divinity; and if any Ari­ans did ever say that Christ was to be worship­ped with divine worship, they must esteem this honour to be given to him, not from the digni­ty of his nature, but from the pleasure of the Father, but notwithstanding they allowed him to be Deus factus; they were most constantly condemned by the Church of Christ, as wor­shippers of men, and persons guilty of Idola­try. Thus also the Magicians pretended to de­rive their knowledge of what was hidden and contingent from God, and yet they also stand condemned by the Church of Christ, and by the Roman Doctors, as persons guilty of Idola­try. And 4. This excuse will say the imputa­tion of falshood and unjust impeachment on the holy Scriptures; for nothing is more frequent in those sacred Records, than to impute to per­sons what their action did import, however they performed that action upon such presump­tions and vain imaginations, which if they had been true, must have excused them from the im­putation. The Heathen constantly professed they did not worship stocks or stones, but that spiritual Being, which by their [...], ditit Olympius Sophista Sozom. H. Ecc. l. 7. c. 15. v. Dion. Chrysust. S [...]rm. 12. consecration they conceived to be present in their Images, or which those Images resembled and represent­ed; and that prefession we have recorded by [Page 143]theHermes Aegyptius quem Tris­megisium vocant— visibilia & con­trectabilia simulachra velut cor­pora Dec­rum esse asserit. Inesse au­tem his quosdam spiritus invitatos, qui vale­quid, sive ad nocen­dum, sive ad deside­ria corum nonulla complenda, à quibus cis divint honores, & culius ob­sequia de­feruntur. Hos ergo siritus invisibliles per a [...]n qua [...]da [...] vi [...]bis re [...]s cor­poralis materiae copulere, ut sin quasi animata illis spiritibus d [...] ta & subdita simulachr [...]; hoc esse d [...]ci De [...]s facere. Augustimde Crivi [...]. P. lib. 6. cap. 23. v. cap 24. [...] Euseb praepar. l. 4. v. Arnch. l. 6. p. 195. Lactan l. 2. c 2. August. in Psal. 113. Conc 2. Fathers: and yet both the holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers do represent them as wor­shippers of wood and stone, because they vainly did conceive a Spirit to be present, when only wood and stone were there. Moreover they conceived the objects of their worship to be the great Creator, or some good Spirit, which he had appointed to act as his Vice-gerent in the world; and yet because those Spirits which they conceived to be the Minsters of God, were only Satans instruments, and most pernicious Creatures, the Scripture represents them as worshippers of Devils. The Israelites did not conceive the very Image they had made to be the true Jehovah, (i. e.) they did not think, that gold thus formed into the Image of a Calf, had really its seat in Heaven, and did from thence behold the dwellers upon earth; they did not really be­lieve it was the great Creator of the VVorld, and consequently that it made that very matter of which it was compounded, and that it per­formed all the wonders which their eyes had seen, before it had a being; they did not all conceive that man could at his pleasure make his Maker, or give a being to that God to whom he owes, and from whom he receives his being; and that they who were not able to preserve themselves, could make a being able to preserve the World, and to confer upon it whatever blessing could be wanting to future Ages. Nor did the Heathens, who are accused of the like crime in Scripture, entertain such [Page 144]foolish toughts. This is a truth self-evident, and writ upon the hearts and consciences of all considering men: and had I no conviction of the Idolatry committed in the Church of Rome, but only this, that they are forced to excuse their practice from Idolatry, by laying such prodigious imputations not only on thePerspicu­um igitur ex Scri­pturis est (quicquid somniet insanum Calvini caput) Ju­daeos simu­lachra pro Diis habu­isse. Greg. de Valentia. Jews, but the wholeMenda­cium est quod Gen­tiles ea Deos esse non put [...] ­rint. Bel­larm. de Eccl. Tri­umph. l. 2. c. 13. s. 10. & rursus causarum quibus mo­vebantur Ethnici ad creden­dum Idola esse Deos, prima est quia id eis diceba­tur à Pon­tificibus suis, secun­da, quia vi­debant to­tum ferè mundum is credere. Ihid. Heathen World, and to assert, they did continue such incredible portentous Sots for very many Ages; this were abundantly sufficient to justifie the Charge. For to impute to the whole World for many Ages, the belief of many things, the least of which no single person can imagine to be true, without a mira­cle of folly, is a triumphant demonstration that their case is desperate. For should any man be forced in defence of any Tenet to assert, that all the World did for some Ages past believe that twice two was six, or that every Ass they fed was the Creator of the World; I humbly conceive we should have reason to believe, he was some mad distempered person, and that on­ly the badness of his cause, and his own obsti­nacy, and not the evidence of truth, constrain­ed him to espouse a Tenet so reproachful to mankind. And yet this Tenet hath nothing more apparently repugnant to the sense and ap­prehensions of mankind, than that which is maintained by the Doctors of the Roman Church, viz. That all mankind did for two thousand years conceive, that was their Maker which they had new­ly made, and that at pleasure they could give a being to him, who hath his being from himself, and cannot possibly receive it from another. This therefore could not be the apprehension of the Jews and Heathens touching their Images and Calves; and yet I say, the Scripture doth expresly say, [Page 145]the Jews asked counsel of their stocks, Hos. 4.12. Jer. 2.27. Acts 7.41. and said unto the stock, thou art my Father, and to a stone, thou hast brought me forth; and that they sacrificed un­to the very Idolor Image of a Calf which they had made: and of the Heathens it affirms without distinction,Esa. 44.15, 17. That they fell down and prayed to the very Image they had made; because the homage they performed to these Images, upon presump­tion of a Deity, presiding in them, (that being an absurd and false imagination) was really performed to stocks and stones: an therefore on the same account this knowledge of the heart of all, that in all places pray unto them, being ascribed to Saints and Angels, upon as vain presumptions of such a revelation which God vouchsafes not to them, must be deem'd to be the same, as if they did conceive this knowledge to arise form the perfection of their natures, and upon that ac­count did put up their petitions to them.

Those outward acts of worship, Prop. 4. § 4. which by consent of nations, or by common use and custome of mankind, do signifie that honour they ascribe to God alone, and by the exercise of which they alwayes did intend to give him the glory due unto his name, are to be reckon­ed acts of worship proper to God, and he that doth per­form those acts of worship to a Creature, which by consent of nations have obtained to signifie the worship due to the Creator, and which in such a place or coun­try are only used to that intent, is by so doing an Idola­ter. For by doing of the same, which they conceive an act of worship proper to the Deity, he must be vertually conceived to will the same, and consequently to will the giving of that worship to the Creature, which alone is due to the Creator. For seeing all such actions have their import form custome and institution by whom soever they are exercised, and whatsover [Page 146]private apprehensions he may have that wor­shippeth, they must be thought to signifie ac­cording to that import which institution and custome gives them. If any man should use those words which naturally import, according to the common use and acceptation of the words, that hope and confidence, that love and duty which we owe to God alone, whatever private sense or meaning he may put upon them in his inward thoughts, he must be deemed to ascribe unto that object, to which he useth such expressions, the honor due to God. For this being the immediate use of words to signifie the thoughts and apprehensions of our hearts, he must be judged to use them in that sense which custome hath imposed upon them, because, they will not otherwise declare the apprehensions of the mind. Since therefore outward rites & cere­monies have their signification from the same o­riginal from which our words derive it, or else do naturally import as much, what reason can be given why the use of words, which do import Gods Worship, should be thought to signifie it; & yet the use of Rites should not be thought to do the same: And hence S. Augustine (saith Aqui­nas) gives this reason why we must nor sacrifice unto inferior Daemons (quia exterior a sacrificia it a signa sunt interiorum, 2a 2a q. 96. Art. 2. sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum) because exterior sacrifices are signs of the inte­rior, even as words are signs & indications of the things they signifie: now since all outward acts of Wor­ship are also signs of the interior respect and veneration of the soul, and are performed to ex­press the same, it follows that no act of out­ward Worship which doth by nature, custome, or institution, signifie the honour due to God, can be assigned to any other, without ascribing [Page 147]to it that inward veneration which alone is due unto him: and if this vvere not so, those vvi­ser heathens of vvhom St.De. Civ. Dei, l. 6. c. 10. Austin speaks, who understood that vvhat the vulgar people vvor­shipped vvere no Gods, and yet complyed vvith the common practice, could not be guilty of Idolatry; and they vvho understood them to be cheats and devils, and yet for fear of pu­nishment did offer sacrifice or incense to them, must be excused from that crime; because they did perform indeed the outward action, but not vvith an intent to pay the inward homage vvhich vvas due to God; but only to comply vvith the opinion of the Vulgar, or to preserve themselves from the unhappy fate of Socrates; and yet St. Augustine doth pronounce those vvise men guilty in anColebat quod re­prehende­bat, quod culpabat adorabat— [...]o damna­bilius quo illa quae mendaci­ter ogebat, sic ageret ut eum po­pulus ve­raciter a­gere exi­stimaret. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 6. c. 10. higher nature than they vvere, vvho thought them to be Gods; and2a 2a qu. 96. Art. 2. Thomas gives this clear and pregnant rea­son vvhy such a sentence should be passed upon them; viz. ‘Because this outvvard Worship vvas a sign of the interior: As therefore he that doth affirm by vvords the contrary to vvhat his heart conceiveth, must be esteemed guilty of a pernicious lye: So also he that doth exterior Worship to that vvhich he con­ceiveth in his mind is no due object of that Worship, is guilty of the like pernicious falsity;’ vvhich sure he could not be, if that exterior action did not import that invvard Worship of vvhich it is by institution and by common custome made the sign: and hence in Scripture, those actions which in their nature do not at all import religious Worship, yet be­ing tendred to that object vvhich by those acti­ons was used to be vvorshipped as God; I say such actions are in Scripture mentioned as indi­cations [Page 148]of Idolatry: (viz. to kiss the hand unto the Sun, to eat of what is sacrificed to false Gods, to feast and play before them, to bow the knee to Baal.) Moreover, to bow the body, or to use prostration to the wicked Ha­man, was that which Mordecai refused, and of this action he gives this account,Esth. 13.14. Thou knowest Lord, that it was neither in contempt, nor pride, [...], that I refused to worship Haman; but I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God, nor will I worship any be­sides thee, O God. Sith then we find this out­ward worship was refused, as being due to God alone; we must confess that it was due unto him, either because God hath enjoyned it should be given unto him alone, and then the Papists must confess they have Gods precept and injunction against their prostrations made to Saints, or to the Images of Saints; or else be­cause this practice was in those Persian Coun­tries used as a testification of Divinity, which they ascribed to their Governors, and upon that account refused not only by the Jews but Greeks, as you may see at large in Barnaby Brissonius: De Regno Persico, l. 1. p. 8, 15. and if this reason be allowed, it clearly follows, that all religious Rites which are in any Place or Nation used customarily, as testimonies of Divinity, cannot be used in that Place or Na­tion, to that which is not God, without Ido­latry: hence those who sate at meat in Idols Temples, however they conceived the Idol to be nothing, and so intended no such thing, are said to drink the cup of Devils, 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. to be partakers of the Devils table, and to have fellowship with Devils, because those actions were in those places used to signifie the worship of those Heathen Gods which mostly were not Gods, but Devils. Last­ly, [Page 149]should any person put the Crown upon a Subjects head, and the Sword into his hand, should he proclaim him King, and do whate­ver else was wont to signifie, and to confer the Royal dignity; would not that person justly be esteemed guilty of Rebellion; and of ascri­bing to the Subject what was due only to the King? though he should frequently protest that by so doing he intended no such thing, but only to do honor to the King, by giving it unto his Subject; and that all this honor which he gave unto the Subject, was only Relative, and transient, and propter principem, or for the greater honor of that Prince whose Minister he was, whereas the honor conferred upon the King by the like actions, was absolute and ter­minated on himself. If all these subtilties and quirks of wit would not excuse this person from Rebellion, I fear they will as little justi­fie the Papists in using of those Rites to Images, and Crucifixes, and paying their devotions to Saints and Angels in those expressions, which in the common acceptation of them, ascribe unto those Creatures the power of conferring what God alone can give. Now from this proposi­tion do arise these Corollaries.

That to offer Sacrifice,Corol 1. § 5. p. 389. is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God: For T. G. truly doth aver, That Sacrifice is not only by the custom of the Church, but all mankind, appro­priated to signifie the absolute Worship due only to God, and this St. Austin did conceive to be the com­mon apprehension of mankind. Hence he ex­presly saith, That no man certainly dares Sacrifi­ficium cer­tè nullus est qui au­deat dicere deberi nisi Domino soli—quis verò sacrificandum censuit nisi ei quem Deum, aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 10. c. 4. say that [Page 150]Sacrifice belongs to any but to God alone, and puts this Question, Who ever thought that he should sa­crifice to any person whom he did not know, or feign, or think to be God. And this is evident from Scripture,Ex. 22.20. which doth expresly say, He that sa­crificeth to the Gods, shall utterly be destroyed, ex­cept unto Jehovah, even unto him only. And there­fore when Manoah would have detained the An­gel with him, that he might prepare for him a Kid,Jud. 13.16 the Angel answered, If thou intendest to pre­pare a Sacrifice, it must be offered unto God. When the men of Lystra assayed to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, they rent their cloaths, and present­ly ran in among the people, crying out, that they were men; this being in the judgment of St. Paul and Barnabas, Act. 14.14 as well as of St. Austin, to perform the Worship proper to a Deity. But here T. G. assures us,P. 392. That it is far from the hearts of Roman Catholicks, when they speak of Sacrifice, as proper to God, to think that this is meant of external Sacrifice, as distinguished from prayer. Now here I cannot but admire at the gross ignorance of this Assertion, which doth abundantly disco­ver, that T. G. neither knows what is the im­port of a Sacrifice, nor what the Church of Rome asserts concerning it. For Sacrifice doth nei­ther in the nature of the thing, nor in the judgment of the Romish Church, include a pray­er, that is by them asserted to be In ob­latione Sa­crificii cu­juscunque sacerdotis duo possut censidera­ri, sc. ip­sum Sacri­ficium ob­latum, & devotio of­ferentis. Aquinas 3. part. q. 22. Art. 4. another kind of Worship, but Sacrifice as it denotes the out­ward action, isSacri­ficium est oblatio rei sensibilis—soli Deo facta per realem mutationem ad testan­dum supre mum illius Dominium & nostram subjectionem. Becan. Theol. Scholast. part. 3. c. 25. q. 2. the oblation of something sensi­ble, and this is that, say they, which is the (c) [Page 151] proper Sacrifice. But seeing this oblation doth also signifie the inward consecration, or the oblation of our selves to God, it therefore is to be esteemed, say they, a Worship due to God a­lone. And whereas T. G. tells us,p. 391. Ad oratio­ne n [...]s [...]cun­do [...]quiri­tur petitio. That this oblation contains the highest act of prayer, it is appa­rent that it is no prayer, for it is no petition which yet is made the Genus, and put into the definition of a prayer, both by heAqui. 2a 2ae. qu. 84 Art. 17 School­men and the Fathers: And I would gladly know what that man prays for, who only saith, Oh Lord, I offer up my soul and body to thy service. Sith therefore nothing more is requisite to the internal Sacifice, it is extreamly evident that prayer is no necessary part or adjunct of it. Prayer may indeed be used with Sacrifice inter­nal and external, and Sacrifice with prayer; but if that be sufficient to demonstrate that prayer is a part of Sacrifice, our Hoods, and Surplices must be a part of Common prayer, because we use them with it. Moreover it is evident, that when the Romanists assert that Sa­crifice is proper to God, they mean as well theI nagi­ni non con­venit cul­tus imer­nus verus Latriae, nec externus proprius, qualis est Sacrifici­um Bellar. l. 2. de I­maginibus, c. 24. Corporale Sacrifici­um ad La­triam per­tinet. A­lex. Ha­lensis part. 4. de Orat. qu. 26. Art. 5. p. 704. outward as the inward Sacrifice; for that Sa­crifice which they confess to be Latria, is the oblation of somewhat sensible, of(f) something that doth signifie the inward Sacrifice, and suffereth a real change. Now all these things can only be asserted of the outward Sacrifice; that there­fore in the judgment of the Roman Catholick is properly Latria, or that Worship which is due [Page 152]to God alone: Which I will further prove 1.Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 10. c. 19. From Aquinas and St. Austin, who do argue thus; ‘the outward Sacrifice doth signifie the inward and spiritual Sacrifice, and therefore seeing the inward and spiritual Sacrifice must be presented only to the highest God, the outward also must be offered only to him.’ 2. I ask if this external Sacrifice be not the worship proper to God, whether or no it be Idolatry to offer it to Saints and Angels, or to Heathen Emperors and Daemons: if it be not, why did the ancient Christians refuse to do it upon this account. Why was it alwayes deem­ed Idolatry even to cast a littleNon est tan [...]um in eo servitus Idoli, si quis dum­bus d [...]gieu­lis thura in bustum arae jaciat. Hieron. ep. ad Heliodorum. Incense up­on the Altar of an Heathen Deity? but if it be Idolatry to give this outward worship to a Creature; it must be only due to the Creator, as is apparent from what we have discoursed touching the nature and definition of Idola­try.

To vow to Angels or to Saints departed, Corol. 2. §. 6. is to as­cribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. For before this Superstition of the Church of Rome obtained, whoever offered up a vow to an in­visible Being, but he conceived or feigned it to be God? Wherefore this worship, when it be­gan to be thus used by the Roman party, was by the common practise and consent of Nations made to signifie the worship only due to God, and so their practise, who do ascribe this wor­ship to the Saints departed, must be deemed I­dolatry, because it is the giving of that worship to them which is due to God: and this in Thesi is confessed by the Roman Catholick: toVovere est propriè actus La­triae. A­quin. 2a 2a q 88. Art. 5. vow is to perform the worship of Latria, say the [Page 153]Schoolmen. They put God into theEst i­gitur vo­tum pro­missio deli­berata bo­ni cujus­piam meli­oris Deo facta; per hoc quod additum est Deo facta, di­stinguitur votum [...] promissione quae fit ho­mini. Estius in sent. l. 4. dist. 38. §. 1. p. 206.207. defini­tion of a Vow, and tell us that it is a Votum est quaedam promissio Deo facta. ibid. pro­mise made to God; and that it Votum soli Deo fit, sed pro­missio eti­am potest fieri homi­ni. id. only differs from a promise made to man in this respect, that it is made to God. It is confessed by Bellarmine, that in the holy Scriptures we have no instance of a Vow that was not made to God alone. Aquinas ibid. proves a Vow to be the worship of Latria, because the Prophetch. 19.21. Esa saith of the Aegyptians, they shall do sacri­fice and oblation, yea, they shall vow a Vow unto the Lord, and perform it; for to worship God, saith he (to wit, with Sacrifice and Oblation) is Latria, therefore to vow unto him must be so: and this con­cession of our Adversaries, may farther be con­firmed by Reason and Authority. For we do virtually ascribe unto those persons to whom our Vows are made, the knowledge of those Vows, and of the disposition of the heart whence they proceed; for otherwise we must suppose them equally inclined to assist the hypocritical and the sincerest Votary; and if we do suppose them ignorant of what we vow, our worship must be vain and fruitless: now hence it follows that we must pay this worship to him only who un­derstandeth what we vow, and is acquainted with the inward motions of the soul, which on­ly God, who is the searcher of the heart, doth know. Besides, the Romanist doth often vow that hisI humbly beg of thee, oh Mother of all Clemency, that thou wouldst vouch­safe to admit me into the number of those who have devoted themselves to thee, to be thy perpetual servants. Reflect. on the Devotion of the Romish Church, p. 420. whole life shall be devoted to the blessed Virgin, or some other Saint. Now in the judgment of St. Austin, thus to (n) consecrate [Page 154]our selves by a religious rite to any thing, is to per­form unto it the worship proper to a Deity.

Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible, Cor. 3. §. 7. and not corporeally present being, is the oblation of that worship to it which is due to God. For this, before the Superstition of the Romish Church prevailed, was alwayes used as an indi­cation of Divinity, and a thing proper to the Deity. Thus Dio tells us that Caligula was wor­shipped as a God, because they offered to him [...], prayers and supplications. The consecration of an Image was deemed by some Heathens, to fix within it some invisible and powerful being, and then by supplication to the consecrated Image it was made a God, ac­cording unto that of Martial:

Qui fingit sacros auro, vel marmore vultus
Non facit ille Deos,
L. 8. Ep. 24
qui Rogat ille facit.

'Tis not the carved Gold, or Marble stone
That makes the God, but Supplication.

It is adorned. saithEcce or­natur con­secratur o­ratur tum postremo Deus est. p. 26. Luk. 11.2. Minutius, and consecrated, and lastly it is prayed unto, and then it is a God: This may be farther proved from Scripture, Reason, and Authority: From Scripture thus; He only ought to be the object of our Prayer who is our Heavenly Father; for thus the Pre­cept runs, [...], when, or as of­ten as you pray, say, Our Father, &c. which Pre­cept must not be supposed to enjoyn all Christi­ans to use these words whensoever they do pray, for we do never find in any of the pray­ers which the Apostles made, that they did so; it therefore doth enjoyn us when we pray for any thing which in this Prayer is mentioned or [Page 155]contained, to pray unto our heavenly Father for it. 2. Obs. This form of Prayer must be supposed to contain all things which are the matter of a true and grateful Prayer, according unto that of Austin Dicen­dum quod oratio Do­minica perfectissi­ma est, quia sicut Angu­stinus dicit ad Probum, si rectè & congruen­enter ora­mus nihil aliud dice­re possumus quam quod in ista ora­tione Do­minica po­situm est. Aquinas 2a 2a q. 83. Art. 8. Ep. 121. c. 12., Run through all the words of holy Prayers, and you will be able to find nothing which is not included in the Lords Prayer: in this both Protestants and Roman Catholicks agree. Hence therefore I assume, if when we pray for any thing contained in this Prayer, we are en­joyned to pray to God, then all our acceptable Prayers must be directed to him, and whensoe­ver we do pray for any blessing, we must call upon him: besides, Our Father doth belong to every Petition, no other person being menti­oned in this Prayer; so that the sense runs thus, Our Father, &c. let thy Kingdome come. Our Father, let thy will be done, &c. And then the import of this injunction will be this, when you pray for the advancement of Gods Glory, or the promotion of his Kingdom, or the perform­ance of his Will; when you solicite for any Temporal blessing, or for the pardon of your Sin; or lastly, for the prevention of any Evil, or Temptation of what kind soever; when you desire any of these mercies for your selves or others, pray to your Heavenly Father for them. 3. None of these blessings must be asked of him to whom the Kingdom, Power, and Glory doth not of right belong. For this is added as the cause or motive of making these addresses to God, and where the motive or cause is want­ing, the effect must cease: Now to God only the Kingdome, Power, and Glory doth agree, Jude 25. We therefore must address our Pray­ers to him only for the obtaining of these bles­sings: And least you should object that this [Page 156]Argument excludes the third and second per­sons of the Sacred Trinity; let it be noted that all the Schoolmen do affirm, That the word Father in this Prayer must not be taken personally, but essen­tially, and so excludeth not the other Persons of the Trinity, but those things only which have not the same nature with them. 2. Prayer offered up in any time or place to an invisible, and for any thing we know, a Being absent from us as far as Earth from Heaven, doth ascribe unto that Being the knowledge of the secrets of the heart: now to worship any Being, whether Saint or Angel, with such a kind of worship which doth ascribe unto it the knowledge of the desires and secrets of the heart, both where and whensoever they are conceived or uttered, is to ascribe unto them by way, of worship what is not due to Saints or Angels, but alone to God, as hath been proved already, and may be further thus confirmed. (1.) If Saints departed were ac­quainted with the desires of our hearts, why did Elijah speak unto Elisha thus,2 Kings 2.9. Ask what thou wilst before I am taken from thee? The Scripture doth affirm that he was taken up into the Hea­vens, and therefore did behold the face of God. And Roman Catholicks themselves deny that he was held in Limbo, as they imagine other Pro­phets were: being in Heaven, his love unto Elisha and the Church of God was not dimi­nished, but enlarged, and therefore upon that account he had a stronger reason to ask what he desired then before. Besides, the Prophet being now with God in Heaven, his Prayers would more effectually prevail for any Blessing for his Friend: and therefore he had greater reason to have said, had he believed this Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, Ask what thou [Page 157]wilst when I am taken from thee. And therefore we have reason to presume, that he did not be­lieve this Doctrine, but rather thought that his departure would render all Elijah's future wish­es and add resses to him vain and ineffectual. (2.) From that known passage of Isaiah, Abra­ham nescivit nos, & Israel ignoravit nos. St. Au­gustine thus concludesSi tan­ti Patri­archae quid erga popu­lum ex his procreatum ageretur ignorave­runt, qui­bus Deo credentibus populus ipse ex corum stirpe promissus est, quomodo mortui suorum rebus atque actubus cognoscendis adjuvandisque miscentur?— ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum, ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus. De curâ pro mortuis. c. 13., If such great Patri­archs were ignorant of what was done towards the people that proceeded from their Loins, how should the dead be conversant in knowing or helping of their friends in what they do? There therefore are the Spirits of dead persons where they do not see what things are done or happen to men in this life.

2. I reason thus, this practice doth ascribe unto the objects of our Prayer such knowledge of the heart, and such a cognisance of all pe­titions presented to them at all times, and in all places of the world, which we have proved to agree to God alone, or such a presence in all places which is proper to him, and therefore it ascribeth to them the honor due to God alone. 2. If Saints departed do know the minds and inward thoughts of those who put up their pe­titions to them, they have this knowledge ei­ther from Revelation, or from the beatifick Vision; but they have no such knowledge either from Revelation, or from the Beatifick Vision. Ergo. And

1. God doth not ordinarily reveal unto them the knowledge of the hearts of their petition­ers: For if they do not want this Revelation, [Page 158]God, who doth nothing vainly, must not be supposed to impart it. But these blessed Spirits do not want it; for did they need this Reve­lation to perceive our minds (saith Bellarmine) the Church would not so confidently say to all the Saints,Votis pre­camur, cor­dium au­dite preces supplicum, Brev. in Com. A­post. p. 2. pray for me, (much less we offer to you the desires of our hearts) but sometimes would desire God, thus to reveal our prayers, and to acquaint them with the desires of our hearts.

2. If God thus reveal the Prayers of the Petitioner to the deceased Saints, what reason can be given (saith the forementioned Author) why all the holy Patriarchs and Prophets were not invoked by the Church of Israel before our Saviours advent? and he had reason to make this enquiry. For (1.) It is as easie to Almighty God to make this Revelation to the souls in Limbo (that Papal prison of the Antient Patriarchs and holy Prophets) as to the souls in Heaven, nor have we one example or declara­tion, that what God is supposed now to do, he was not willing to do then. (2.) Certain it is, the charity of those departed Patriarchs and Prophets towards their relatives and friends, and the whole Church of God, must be exceeding­ly advanced by their change, they must be more the friends of God, and their petitions must be more prevailing, then whilst they did conti­nue in the flesh: Wherefore the Jews had as good reason to invoke these Patriarchs and Pro­phets, as hath the Romanist to call upon the Chri­stian Martyrs. And God had equal reason to declare this was the duty of the Jew, and to re­veal their Supplications to the Patriarchs, as to declare this was the duty of the Christian, and to reveal their Supplications to departed Chri­stians. [Page 159](3.) What a ridiculous office do they impose upon the God of Heaven by this fond o­pinion? for when they pray to Apollonia for the tooth-ach. God must not only tell her that such a person supplicates, but also that his teeth do ake, and therefore he particularly imploreth her assistance, when they address themselves to any Saint in this odd language,Cum ad Imaginem Sancti ali­cujus quis Domini­cam orati­onem pro­nuntiat, ita tum senti­at se ab il­lo petere, ut secum oret sibi (que) postulet ea quae Domi­nicae ora­tionis for­mulâ con­tinentur. Catech. Rom. part 4 c. 6. s. 4. p. 586. Our Father which art in heaven, &c. which they familiarly do, as is acknowledged by the Roman Catechism. God must inform this Saint both of the person praying, and his prayer, and his intention by so doing, to oblige him to use those words in his behalf.O praeco accelera piae matri [...] praecare viscera. Propr. Fest. F. 2. When they desire any Saint or Angel to go unto the Blessed Virgin, this Saint must be informed first of the matter of the Prayer, then must he post unto the blessed Vir­gin, and she must go unto her Son, and he un­to his Father to present that request which he revealed. And are not these men very bold with God, to put such offices upon him, and make him Nuntio to all his Creatures?

2. The Saints departed do not know the hearts and the petitions of their Supplicants, by vertue of the beatifick Vision. This vain presumption depends on this, that seeing God, they must in him behold those things which in Idea are contained in him, or which his know­ledge doth perceive, and so the refutation of this dream will be sufficient confutation of it. And (1.) That which the holy Spirit only knows, these blessed Spirits do not know; but the things of God (i.e. his purposes and counsels, &c.) knoweth no man but the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.11. Ergo. If then the blessed Spirits, not­withstanding the beatifick Vision, do not see the mind and counsel of God without his revelati­on, [Page 160]why should we think that by beholding of God, they also do behold the supplications we put up unto them?De vita Contemp. l. 5. c. 4. Those words of Prosper, That nothing is so secret, as that the knowledge of it should be denied to the perfectly blessed: And that of Gregory, L. 12. Mo­ral. c. 13. That they who see that God who seeth all things, must themselves see all things. I say, those words do as much prove that blessed Spi­rits do know the secrets of Gods counsel, as that they see the supplications we put up unto them. To strengthen and confirm this Argu­ment, let us consider, (1.) That the Fathers do from this place conclude the holy Spirit to be God, because he is the searcher of the things of God; which Argument would be invalid, if this could truly be asserted of the blessed Spi­rits. 2.1 Cor. 2.12 Observe that the Apostle argues thus, That as no man knows the secrets of the heart of man, besides the Spirit of man within him, so none can know the secrets of the God of Heaven, but the Spirit of God. Now if the blessed Spirits do know the secrets of the heart of man, the Ar­gument would be invalid; for the Romanist might give the baffle to St. Paul, and tell him, That as the secrets of the heart of man are known not only to the Spirit of man, but also to myriads of blessed Saints and Angels, so may the secrets of God be known not only to the holy Spirit, but to many others. 2. The Scri­pture doth assure us, That those blessed Angels which always did behold the face of God, had not the knowledge of those things which are re­vealed to us by the Gospel; and that the curi­ous Wisdom which contrived that dispensation, was made known unto them by the Church: Eph. 3.10. 1 Pet. 1.12 and therefore Peter represents them, as stooping down to view this new discovery; which is a [Page 161]signal indication of the falshood of this fond conceit. That blessed Spirits seeing him who knoweth all things, must have the knowledge of those things he sees, and therefore of the pray­ers that are put up unto him, they being seen and known to God. (3.) That we may pray in faith, we must be certain that the blessed Spirits are acquainted with the desires of our hearts; for he that doth command us to pray in faith, and without doubting, cannot be want­ing to give us certain motives of this faith: and therefore God, who never is deficient in what is necessary, would certainly have given both to Jews and Christians sufficient revelation of his will in this particular, had he intended that they should pay this homage to the Saints de­parted; whereas we have no certain evidence, that they enjoy this knowledge, either from Revelation, or from Vision. And (1.) We are not certain that they behold our supplicati­ons in the beatifick Vision; for many of the Church of Rome do hold the contrary, and it is free for all her members so to do, and so this matter cannot be held as any Article of faith, or certain definition of the Church. 2. It is not certain that these blessed Spirits by vertue of this Vision do behold what is contingent, for this is generally denied by the Romish Doctors, and yet these things are seen of God as clearly as are the secrets of the heart. (2.) We can­not possibly be certain that God doth reveal them; for we cannot certainly conclude it from his Attributes, nor have we any certain revelation that he doth reveal our minds and thoughts unto them: for if we can certainly conclude it from his Attributes, then God would not be God, did he not thus reveal our [Page 162]supplications to the Saints departed. And Se­condly, Then to deny this Revelation, would be to sin against the light of nature; and then not only Protestants, but the prevailing part of Roman Catholicks, must sin against the light of nature, by holding they obtain this knowledge, not by Revelation, but from the Vision of that God who knoweth all things: but if by vertue of some Revelation, we are assured that our pe­titions are revealed to the Saints, why do they not produce it? Why doth T. G. confess, that Austin and others of the ancient Fathers, were uncertain what to determine in this case? Why do the greater part of Roman Catholicks de­ny what they have certain Revelation for? 3. Where is this Revelation to be found? In Scripture? No, they confess that this is whol­ly silent in this matter, and give us many Rea­sons why it was not mentioned in holy Writ. Have we this Revelation from Tradition? Why then do the prevailing part of Roman Ca­tholicks reject it? Sith then we have no certain­ty of what this practice doth suppose, either from Revelation, or from the beatifick Vision, we must be guilty of Idolatry, by our compli­ance with this practice.

3. That this is the concurrent judgment of the Fathers, and that they judged all supplicati­ons to invisible and absent Beings to attribute Gods Worship to them, may be evinced from two Considerations: 1. That they look'd up­on it not only as a Sacrifice, but as the best and greatest Sacrifice. By prayer we honour God, saith Clemens, Strom. l. 7. p. 717. A. Apol. c. 30. p. 27. B. and send up to him, [...] the best and the most holy Sacrifice: I of­fer to him a fatter and a better Sacrifice than he him­self enjoyned, viz. Prayer issuing from a chast body. [Page 163]an unspotted soul, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, so Tertullian. And this is verily St. Austin's judg­ment, in that place which Dr. Stillingfleet had cited to this effect, and all the tragedies and outeries of T. G. against him upon this occasi­on, are the most false and impudent that ever drop'd from Pen: To make this clear, it will be needful only to lay before the Reader Austin's words, viz. D [...] C. D. l. 10. c. 19. Qui autem putant haec visibilia Sacri­ficia Diis aliis congruere, illi vero tanquam invisibili invisibilia, & majori majora, meliori (que) meliora, qualia sunt p [...]ra mentis & bona voluntatis officia, profecto nesciunt haec ita esse signa illorum, sicut verba signantia vel sonantia sunt rerum, quocirca sicut o­rantes atque landantes ad cum dirigimus significantes voces cun res ipsas in corde quas significamus offerimus, it a sacrificantes non alteri visibile Sacrificium offeren­dum esse noverimus, quam illi, cujus invisibile Sa­crificium nos ipsi esse debemus: i.e. They that conceive these visible Sacrifices may agree to lesser Gods, but that to him who is invisible, the greater and the better God, invisible, greater and better Sacrifices do agree, viz. the duties of a pure mind, and a good will; these per­sons know not that these (outward Sacrifices) are the signs of them, (viz. of the invisible, the greater and the better Sacrifices) as our words spoken are the signs of things; as therefore when we pray or we give thanks, we direct our speech to him, N. B. to whom we offer the conceptions of the heart they signifie; so when we sacrifice, we know the outward Sacrifice ought to be offered unto him alone, to whom we ought to yield our selves a Sacrifice in visi­ble. Where 1. Doth not St. Austin say, That the invisible Sacrifices are greater and better than the outward Sacrifice; for what is it illorum can refer [Page 164]to, besides majorum and meliorum? Doth not he say, The duties of a pure mind and a good will are to be deemed invisible and better Sacrifices? And is not Prayer the duty of a pure mind and a good will? And must he not then say, that Prayer is a greater and a better offering than any out­ward Sacrifice? And 2. To put the matter be­yond all dispute,Qui ergo Divinita­tem sibi arrogant Spiritus, non cujus­libet cor­poris fumo, sed suppli­cantis a­nimo de­lectantu [...]. doth not St. Austin add, That these inferior Spirits who usurp Divinity require Sa­crifices, not that they are delighted with the smoak and vapour, but with the mind of him that prayeth? clearly concluding that to be the better and the higher service. Doth not he intimate that they usurp Divinity more by requiring Prayer than Sacrifice? And lastly, Doth not he affirm, That they who offer outward Sacrifice to him alone, to whom their inward ought to be ap­propriated, do also when (i.e. as often as) they pray or render thanks, direct their words (not to a Saint or Angel but) to him to whom they of­fer the things conceived in the heart? Which doth not only prove, That Prayer was by him liken­ed to Sacrifice; and that mental Prayer which the Trent Council will not permit us to deny to Saints, is an invisible and higher Worship than the outward Sacrifice, but also that the Christi­ans of his time did pray and render thanks to God alone, for else it had been obvious to re­ply to the similitude St. Austin gives us, That as we sometimes offer up our prayers and our thanks­givings to the Saints departed, so might we offer up the outward Sacrifice. And this will be sufficient to demonstrace, That T. G. in his whole An­swer to this place, hath not one word of truth. For 1.p. 391. It is a false suggestion, that Auctin's Argument runs thus, That external Sacrifice be­ing the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer. [Page 165]ought of all others to be reserved, as most proper to God. For his Argument is clearly this, To him only do belong the signs to whom belongeth what is re­presented by them, and therefore seeing we must offer up our selves to God alone, that outward Sacrifice which is the sign of this oblation, must be appropriated to him. That outward Sacrifice is the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer, St. Austin doth not say. 2. It is a false insinuati­on, that when St. Austin doth deny, that Sacri­fice is due to any other but the highest God, he doth not speak of Sacrifice distinguished from Prayer, for he styles it Sacrificium visibile; he doth op­pose it to the duties of a pure mind, as the less unto the greater; he represents it as the sign of the invisible; and therefore it is plain stupidity to think, he did not speak of the external Sa­crifice, as different from the internal, or di­stinguished from it. 3. It is prodigiously false that Dr. St sides with theDr. St. is forced to main­tain an Argu­ment of the Hea­thens a­gainst Au­stin. T. G. p. 390. Do you not think the Dr. [...] ­sed the utmost of his confi­dence to maintain for very good an Argument of the Heathens confuted by St. Au­stin in this very place. The Hea­then, saith Dr. St. ar­gued very well, I de­ny it, saith St. Austin. T. G. p. 390. Heathens against Austin for what the Dr. pleads for; viz. That Prayer was to be deemed an higher act of worship, than the outward Sacrifice, St. Austin doth expresly grant. 4 It is as false that Austin doth confute what Dr. St. approved, for Austin only doth confute this Tenet, That outward Sacrifice might be imparted to inferior Spirits. That which the Doctor doth approve, is this, That in all rea­son the duty of Prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God than any external Sacri­fice. And lastly, it is false that Austin doth deny what Dr. St. asserted, for he abundantly confirms it; but it is no wonder that persons given up by Gods just judgment to believe a lye, should be so prone to tell them.

2. The Fathers, when they lay down the defi­nition or description of Prayer, they alwayes do [Page 166]it with express reference to God, whence we may rationally conclude, that they conceived this act of Worship did properly belong to him: Prayer, saith St. Clemens, is a conversing with God: [...]. Bosil. Tom. 1. Orat. in Jusiti. Martyr. p. 318. Prayer is a request of some good thing which is made by pious men to God, saith Basil. whence elsewhere he asserts, that Prayer is not directed unto man, but God. [...] Greg. Nyss. de Orat. Dom. or. 2. p. 724. D. Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 30. Prayer is a confe­rence with God, saith Nyssen, and a request of good things which is offered with supplication unto God. Prayer is a Colloquy with God, and every one that prays, discourseth with God; so St.* Chrysostome: Hence on that expression of St. Paul, with all that call upon the name of the Lord, he notes, [...], that St. Paul doth not say, that call on this or that, i.e. of any thing but Christ; and on these words, Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, he comments thus; i.e. do all things, praying unto him for help; and before all thy business, making thy supplication to him: or he saith thus; say and do all things [...]. to. or according to God, and introduce not Angels. But T. G. hath some Arguments to prove that Saints and Angels have the knowledge of our hearts and actions; viz.

It is said Luke 15.7.Object. T. G. p. 419. There shall be joy in Hea­ven; and v. 10. There shall be joy before the An­gels of God, upon one sinner that doth penance. And the Saints in Heaven no doubt rejoyce as much at the conversion of a sinner, as the Angels do.

‘Not only the Angels of God,Answ. White a­gainst Fisher. p. 315. but holy men on earth rejoyce at the conversion of a sinner, Luke 15.24. 2 Cor. 7.9. Likewise Pa­rents, Ministers, and Friends rejoyce, &c. And yet it followeth not from hence, that holy men on earth, which rejoyce at the con­version of a sinner, see the secrets of the heart, 1 Cor. 2.11. So likewise Angels, which are ministring Spirits, Hebr. 1 14. may un­derstand by the signs and fruits of true repen­tance, the conversion of divers sinners, and consequently, they may rejoyce, without intuitive knowledge of the heart.’

2. ‘Our Saviours words, Luke 15.10. are [...], the conclusion of a parable, which must not be strained beyond the true scope. But according to the exposition of sundryAnbr [...]s. l. 7. in Lu­cam. Hi­lar. in Matth. 18 Isid [...]r. lib. Alleg. Chrysol. Serm. 168. Fathers, and some learnedCojet. & Titus Bo­strensis in locum. Papists: The hundred sheep, v. 4. represent the whole body of the Elect, consisting of Men and Angels: the ninety and nine sheep, not lost, were the An­gels, persisting in their prime integrity: The stray sheep, all mankind sinning in Adam. To recover this lost sheep, the Son of God (that good Shepheard, Jo. 10.11.) was incarnate, and by the gracious work of Redemption, he laid the same on his shoulder. Now there is great joy in Heaven before the coelestial Angels, for this recovery and salvation of mankind. So that no more can be inferred from this parable, but that the Court of Heaven, and in the same the holy Angels rejoyce, because of mans Redemption.’

3. When it is said that there is joy in Heaven, we may expound it, as Dr. Hammond doth, not of the joy of Angels, but of God: and had we no reason to confirm this sense, it is suffi­cient [Page 168]to destroy the force of what T. G. doth hence conclude from this citation, that it may fairly be expounded in that sense which render­eth it impertinent to his design: but since it is not said to be the joy of Angels, but that joy which is expressed [...] (i.e.) before the holy Angels; this doth sufficiently demon­strate that it is the joy of him, before whose face they stand continually. Moreover, it is confessedly God, who is compared to the Shep­herd, and to the Woman seeking the lost Groat; And therefore the similitude requires that the joy conceived, when the lost Sheep and Groat is found, should be ascribed to him.

‘Whereas our Savour himself saith,Object. T. G. ib. That the just in the Resurrection shall be as the Angels in Heaven, Matth. 22.30. (the equality as to knowledge, not depending upon the body) it follows by the Analogy of Faith that our prayers and concerns are known also to the Saints, now injoying the same blissful Vision with the Angels.’

Christ doth not only say,Answ. That the Spirits of just persons shall be like the Angels, but he ex­presseth wherein they shall be so, to wit, 1. In freedom from secular actions and passions. 2. Inglorious Adoption, or real Possession of all the priviledges of the Sons of God We can­not therefore hence infer a parity of qualities and operations betwixt the Angels and the Spi­rits of just men, but only a similitude of state and priviledges, asVerum haec autho­ritas (ut ingemiè fatear) so­lum aequat homines Angelis in hoc. quod nullum mu­trimonti u­sum ha [...]e­bunt, si [...]t nec Angeli; non tamen ibidem facit pare [...] quantum ad facialem visionem Det. Alph. de Castr. l. 3. c. Haer. v. Beat. v. Jansen. Harm. Evang. c. 117. Papists do themselves con­sess. 2. Christ doth not† say, The Spirits of [Page 169]just men are as the Angels now, but that at the Resurrection they shall be so.White, p. 380. ‘Now I ad­mire, what Papists can extort from hence for invocation of Saints; for there is no connexion between this Antecedent and Con­sequent, to wit, just men at the Resurrection shall live as Angels, remote from all the necessities of a worldly life, and they shall be as the Angels of God, free from material and corporeal passions, and equal to the Angels in fruition of blessedness:’ Ergo, The knowledge of our prayers which we make in this life, is not to be denyed unto glorious Saints, the fellows of Angels.

The smoke of the Incenses of the Prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God, Apoc 8.4. Ergo,Object. ibid. Our prayers and actions are not unknown to the Angels.

1. ‘This place of St. John proveth not,Answ. White, p. 314. ei­ther clearly or obscurely, That holy Angels hear the Prayers, or see the actions and af­fections of men. For the Angel mentioned, is expounded by the antient Expositors, and by the Romanists themselves, not of an An­gel by Nature, but of an Angel by Office; and by some of them, of an Angel by Type.’ In locum. Albertus in his Commentary. St. John, saith, Another Angel, that is Christ, who is the Angel of the Covenant, Esay 9. Dionysius Carthu­sianus, Docto­res Cae [...]be­lici — per Angelum isium in­telligunt Christum, qui magni consilii Angelus, & per incarnationis mysterium venit in mundum stetitqae ante Altare, id est, in conspectu Ecclesia. Dionys. Carthus. in Apoc. 8. Catholick Doctors, &c. by this Angel un­derstand Christ, who is the Angel of the great Coun­sel, and which by the mystery of his incarnation, came into the world, and stood upon the Altar of the [Page 170]Cross. Blasius Nec vero rectè. quidam è recentiori­bus argu­mentantur Angelum istum Chri­stum esse non posse, quod Chri­stus nun­quam An­gelus abso­lute dici­tur: satis enim est ut ex conse­quentibus facile in­telligi po­test Chri­stum esse, quae nifi Christe al­teri aptè accommodari non possunt, Cujus enim alterius est universae Ecclesiae in­censa, hoc est orationes in Thuribulo aurto tanta Majestatis specie patri offerre? Cujus praeterquam Christi fuit de igne quo Thuribulum aureum eaat impletum, partem in terras misisse, easque divini amoris igne inflam­masse, &c. Apuaret autem Christus sacerdotis personam gerens ut ejus pro nobis apud patrem intercessio at (que) interpellatio monstretur. Vieg. in Apoc. 8. Sec. 2. Viegas, a Jesuit, We may ea­sily perceive, that this Angel is Christ, because the thing here spoken of him, can agree to no other but Christ: for who but he, can with so great Majesty offer up to God the incense, that is, the Prayers of the Ʋniversal Church? who besides him, is able out of the perfuming pann, to send down into the Earth the fiery Coals of Divine Charity, and to inflame People with the burning Graces of the holy Spirit? With these agree(c) Ambrose, (d) Primasius, (e) Authertus, (f) Beda, Haimo, in Apoc. 8. Haimo, Hugo Card. Hugo Cardinalis, and the GlossesGlossae totum legunt hoc de Christe.. But if it were granted, that this Angel were a created, or mi­nistring Spirit, it cannot be proved that Angels understand the secret cogitations of mans heart any farther then the same are manifested by signs, neither is it consequent, that people ought to pray unto them, for Priests offer up the Prayers of the Church to God, and yet no man doth therefore invocate Priests.

It is recorded of the Saints enjoying the same bliss­full vision with the Angels, Object. ibid. that they had golden Vials full of odours, which are the Prayers of Saints, that is, of the faithful upon earth.

1.Answ. The Reverend Dr. Hammond, and many other Expositors, Ancient and Modern, tell us that the four and twenty Elders are not the [Page 171]Members of the Church triumphant. as T. G. without proof asserts; but the Bishops and the Elders of the Church militant. whose office it is to present the Prayers and Praises of the Church to God. Here it is more plainly declared, saith Beda, that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and gather­ed from the Nations; also he showeth in what Heaven they are, saying, they shall reign upon earth. So Ambrose on the Apcalyps, and Haimo.

2. Vossius will tell you, That here is nothing intended, but Eucharistal Prayers not Petito­ry; and that the four and twenty Elders only intimate, that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven, did render continual Doxo­logies to God for the Redemption of the world by his Son.

The Psalmist saith, I will sing unto thee in the sight or presence of the Angels, Psal. 137.2.Object. p. 418. The Angel of the Lord said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, against which thou hast had Indig­nation these threescore and ten years. And Michael is a great Prince which standeth for the Chil­dren of Gods people: Ergo, The Angels know the secrets of the heart, and are acquainted with the Prayers that men in any place put up unto them.

To these Objections I answer Ha, Ha, He: Answ. Valentia­nus. Fieri ne potest ut homo qui sic ratiocinatur homo sit. The Psalmist also saith, I will pay my vows in the presence of thy people: Ergo, All Gods people knew the secrets of the heart, &c. The Pha­natick saith, How long Lord wilt thou not remem­ber, and have mercy upon the Godly Party, who have been under persecution fourteen years: Ergo, The Phanaticks know the secrets of the heart, [Page 172]&c. And blessed be God, King Charles the Second is a great Prince, who standeth for his People against the Whore of Babylon. He there­fore knows the Prayers and necessities of all his People, he is acquainted with the secrets of the heart, and we may put up mental Prayers unto him. If T. G. have an estate worth begging, he may well fear that his performance here, and P. 222, 223. will rob him of it.

CHAP. VII.

The Contents.

The Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, touching the invocation of the Saints departed, delivered from their own Catechism and Liturgies, and the decree of the Trent Councel. Sect. 1. the Que­stion stated in seven Particulars. Sect. 2. The Idolatry of this practice proved; 1. Be­cause it doth ascribe unto them the know­ledge of the heart and of our confessions. 2. Because Prayer to an absent Being is the oblation of that Worship to it, which is pro­per to God. And so are Vows and Hymns. Sect. 3.3. Because the Apostles gave us no Precept or Example so to do. Sect. 4. The sequel of this Argument is confirmed, and the Objections answered. Sect. 5. And the Argument from Miracles confuted. Sect. 6.

HAving laid down these Propositions; let us now view the Doctrine and Practise of the Church of Rome, which the Trent Councel [Page 174]hath delivered in these words: viz. Mandat Sancta Sy­nodus om­nibus E­piscopis & clerieis do­cendi mu­nuscurám­que susti­nentibus, ut—fide­les diligen­ter instru­ant docen­tes eos — Bonum at­que utile esse suppli­citer eos invocare, —ad eo­rum orati­ones opem auxiliúm (que) confugere. Illos verò qui negant Sanctos, ae­terna felicitate in calo fruentes, invocandos esse; aut qui asserunt— eorum, ut pro nobis singulis orent, invocationem esse Idololatricam; vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversi ique honori unius Mediatoris Dei & Hominis Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse in coele regantibus voce vel men­te suppli [...]are, impié sentire—St quis autem his Decretis contraria do­cuerit aut senserit Anath ma sit. Sess. 25. c. 1. That it is good and profitable, humbly to invoke the Saints, and fly unto their prayers and help? and that whoso­ever doth deny, that Saints, who do enjoy eternal hap­piness in heaven, ought to be invoked, or do assert that to intreat them to pray for any single person is I­dolatry, or is repugnant to the word of God, or oppo­site to the honour of Jesus Christ our only Mediator; or that it is a foolish thing to pray unto them either with vocal, or with mental prayer, doth impiously think. This they command, all Pastors to teach to all their faitful people; and they pronounce Anathema on any person that shall teach or think the con­trary. The Roman Catechism informs us, That† the Holy Church of God doth teach us piously and humbly to fly unto the Mother of God, and to entreat her by her intercession to reconcile God to us sinners, and to obtain those good things for us which are neces­sary both for this present life, and that which is eter­nal. Wherefore we exiled sons of Eve, who live in this vale of tears, continually ought to intreat this Mother of Mercy, and Advocate of faithful Peo­ple, [Page 175]that she would pray for us sinners, and by this prayer to implore her help. Agreeable to this Do­ctrine are many Forms of Prayer recorded in the Antient Missals and Breviaries of the Church of Rome, and in those likewise which have been published, and corrected by the Decree and order of the Council held at Trent. For to St. Peter they pray thus:

Beate Pastor Petre,
Erov. Rom
clemens accipe
Voces precantum, criminúmque vinoula
Verbo resolve, cui potestas tradita
Aperire terris Coelum, apertum claudore.
Peter, blest Shepherd, graciously
Receive our Prayers, our bands of sin unty
By thy sole word, to whom the power is given
To open wide, and shut the Gate of Heaven.

To all the Apostles thus:Communt Apost. p. [...].

Vos sacli justi judices
Et vera mundi lumina,
Votis precamur cordium
Audite preces supplicum.
Qui Coelum VERBO clauditis,
Serasque ejus Solvitis,
Nos à peccatis omnibus
Solvite JƲSSƲ quesumus.
Quorum praecepto subditur
Salus & languor omnium,
Sanate aegros moribus,
Nos reddentes Virtutibus.
You that are Judges of the World,
And its true lights that brightly shine,
With heartiest wishes we intreat
Out humble supplications hear.
Ye that do shut Heavens Temple Gates,
And by your word unlock the same,
Our guilty souls from punishment
Release, we pray, by your command.
For in an instant your commands
Sickness and health do both perceive.
Heal therefore our diseased minds;
And every Grace in us increase.
—Virgo dulcedine plena
In te sperantes audi,
Miss. de Sanct [...] Genouefa f. 12.
miserando precantes.
Dele Peccamen: Vexatis praebe juvamen:
Omnibus & moestis solamen porrige semper.
To Genouefa thus:
Hear us that pray, blest Genouefe,
And pity those who hope in thee.
Blot out our sins. and send relief
And comfort in sad misery.
Cerne tua n familiam,
Miss. de Sancto Se­bast. f. 13.
quae orat flexis genibus,
Serva à peste patrian istam, & à malis omnibus
Audi famulos rogantes, ô Martyr Sebastiane;
Serva corpus, sana mentes hujus plebis Christianae:
Ne incurramus immane Baratrum confusionis,
Dona vespere & mane genitum compunctionis.
To Saint Sebastian.
Behold thy family which prayes with bended knee.
Preserve this Country from the plague, let it no evil see.
Hear the desires of thy folk, Martyr Sebastian
Preserve the bodies, heal the minds of people Christian,
That we the horrid Gulph may fly of sad con­fusion,
At night and morning let us sigh with deep [...] compunction.
Ista per te gens sit tuta
Et ne noceat acuta
Febris hac in patria;
Miss. Rom, Antiq.
Ex quo nostra spes est tota
In te Martyr, nunc remota
Sit pestis mortifera.
May we from this sharp fevers rage
Safe and unhurt hereafter be.
Its deadly influence asswage,
Since all our hopes are placed in thee.
Tu nostrum columen, tu decus inclytum,
Brev. Rom. Jan. 30.
Nostrarum obsequium respice mentium;
Romae libens vota excipe, quae pio
Te ritu canit & colit.
To St. Martina.
O thou our stay and chiefest ornament,
Regard the ready service of our minds,
Rome's vows receive; which in devotest sort
Doth praise and worship thee.
Promove nostras Domino querelas
Cast âque vota.
Prev. Rom An­tiq. Mart. 20.
Scis quot hic saevis agitemur undis,
Triste quos mundi mare defatigat,
Scis quot adnectat Satanas caroque
Praelia nobis.
To Joachim.
See our chaste vows we make to God, be paid.
And all our Prayers promote, when we complain
Tost in this Sea with many a cruel wave,
Thou know'st we weak and weather beaten are.
Thou know'st what combats we'are like to have
Which flesh and Satan, our sworn foes, prepare.
Sis pro nobis advocata,
Proprium Fest. Ordi­nis Mino­rum, f. 12.
causam nostrae
Paupertatis coram Deo sustine,
Et veniam de peccatis servis tuis obtine.
To the Blessed Virgin.
Be thou our Advocate with God, and plead
Our cause with him in thy poor peoples stead,
Obtain that pardon of our sins we need.
Quicunque in alta syderum
Regnatis Aula Principes,
Brev. R.
Favete votis supplicum
Qui dona Coeli flagitant.
To all Saints.
All ye that with the eternal King
As Princes reign above the Stars,
Favour the Prayers of Suppliants.

2. They do not only pray unto them, but they give laud and honor to them: And also do entreat them to hear and to receive their Praises.

Jacobe vindex Hostium
Huc,
Brev. R. in Festo S. Jacobi.
Coeli ab altis sedibus,
Converte dexter lumina,
Audiqu [...] laete debitas
Grates tibi quas solvimus.
To St. James they speak thus:
The praises due that we do pay
To thee, hear joyfully this day.
Ave salus hominum.
Miss Pro­p rtum Fest. p. 35. B. Ed. A [...]tu­tep. 1577.
Virgo decus virginum,
Te decet, post Dominum, laus & honor.
To the blessed Virgin.
Hail, oh thou happiness of Man
And Virgin, Flower of Virgin race.
All laud and honour be to God,
And to thee in the second place.

But of this no man can be ignorant, there being nothing more common in their Books and mouths, than Laus Deo & Beatae Vir­gini.

3. They also do confess their sins unto them. In the Reformed Roman Missal we have these words:

Confite­er D [...] om­nipotenti, Beatae Mariae s [...]mper Vir­gini, Beato Michaeli Archan­gelo, Bea­to Joanni Baptistae, Sanctis Apostolis Petro & Paulo, ominibus Sanctis & v [...]bis F [...]atres, qu [...] peccavi nimis cogicatione v rbo & opere. — Ideo precor Beatam Mari­am semper Virginem, Beatum Michaelem Archangelum, Beatum Joan­nem Baptistam, Sanctos Apostelos Petrum & Paulum, omnes Sanctes & vos Fratres crareprome ad Dominum Deum n sirum. Ordinarium Missae. p. 217. Ed. Antuerp. F. 1605. I confess to God Almighty, and to the ever Bles­sed Virgin, to Blessed Michael Archangel, to Bles­sed John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you Brethren, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed: And there­fore I entreat the Blessed Virgin, the Archangel Michael, St. John the Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the Saints, and you my Brethren, to pray for me to our Lord God.

This is the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, and it contains these seven particulars.

1. That it is good and profitable for every faithful man, and exiled Son of Eve, to pray unto the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints de­parted.

2. That it is good and profitable thus to in­tercede not only for the good and welfare of the Church in general, but for every single per­son.

[Page 180]3.August. Ser. 37. de Sanctis. Ser. 3. de pluribus Mart. In Com. plurium Mart. ex­tra tempus Pasch. Lect. 4. Whereas the ancient Church spake thus, As often as we celebrate the solemnities of holy Mar­tyrs, let us so expect by their intercession to obtain from the Lord temporal benefits, that by imitating the Martyrs themselves, we may deserve to receive eter­nal, (which words are still retained in the Ro­man Breviary) we are now taught to pray unto them, for all the blessings necessary to eternal life; nay we are told thatGunde mater mi­serorum quia pater saeculorum dabit te colentibus Congruen­tem h [...]c mercedem, & faelicem polisedem, Regnis in caelestibus. Prosa de Beata Ma­ria f. 30. apud Mis­sale Rom. Ed.A [...]tu­erp. 1577. God will give e­ternal life to those that do adore the Blessed Vir­gin.

4. It is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Saints departed may, and should be invo­cated, as well by mental, as by vocal Prayer. This was decreed at Trent; this Pastors are en­joyned to teach their People; and lastly, this we have confirmed by their practice in these words, With the desires of our hearts we pray unto you, regard the ready service of our minds.

5. These Practices and these Petitions are many of them built upon this supposition, that the Blessed Saints do hear our prayers, and are acquainted with our hopes, and with the prais­es which we offer to them; and consequently the Church of Rome, in whose solemnities these prayers are used, must be deemed to ascribe this knowledge to them. For what more fool­ish and absurd than constantly to call upon them to bear, behold, and to receive, to regard, fa­vour, and promote our prayers; when we com­plain, to pity, and consider them that pray, to be their Advocates, and plead their causes, if these addresses be not understood by those Bles­sed Spirits to whom they are particularly dire­cted? Who knows not that to be our Advo­cate, is to commend our cause to God, and to entreat that our desires may be granted? And [Page 181]who knows not that our cause cannot be thus commended, or our disires represented, till they first be understood? Moreover, seeing they do request these Blessed Spirits to receive their vows, and to take care that they be paid to God, to hear and to receive their praises; seeing they do consess their sins unto them, and therefore do entreat them to intercede with God in their behalf; seeing they do endea­vour to move them to commiserate their state, by saying, that they place their hopes and only confidence upon their intercession, they mast ac­knowledge that these Blessed Spirits are ac­quainted with their confessions and their vows, their hopes and praises: and therefore albeit this consequence should be denied.T. G. p. We pray unto the Saints departed, therefore they do hear us, yet this can never be denied, We pray unto them to hear, and to receive our prayers and praises, vows and confessions, and therefore we believe they do.

6. Hence it is manifest, that Papists do not only pray unto them, to intercede with God for blessings, but do desire that the Blessed Spi­rits would themselves confer them. Thus they entreat St. Peter by the power given to him, to unty the bonds of their iniquity; and the Apostles to ab­solve them from their sins by their command; and to their Guardian Angel they speak thus, Take hold of sword and buckler, and rise up to help me, say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. And therefore that they only do entreat them to pray for and with us, is a great untruth.

7. Seeing the Church of Rome allows of men­tal Prayers addressed to the Saints; seeing their Lyturgy speak thus, With the desires of our hearts we pray unto you, receive the ready service of [Page 182]our minds; seeing they do instruct us in all pla­ces, and upon all occasions, to fly unto their help and succour; seeing they do ascribe unto them the knowledge not only of their vows and praises, but of their inward hopes, they conse­quently do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart, and the internal motions of every supplicant, as far as these petitions and other actions do require it. This is that Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which we think justly charged with Idolatry.

For 1. To ascribe unto the Saints departed by way of worship, that excellency which is proper to God, is Idolatry; but to ascribe unto them by an act of worship, the knowledge of the hearts of them that pray unto them, is to ascribe unto them that excellency which is pro­per to God, by Propos. 2. Ergo.

2. Prayer offered and put up in any time, or place, to an invisible and incorporeal Being, is the oblation of that worship to it which is due to God, by Prop. 4. Corol. 3. but this devo­tion of the Roman Church, is prayer offered up in any time, or place, to an invisible and in­corporeal Being, and therefore must be the ob­lation of that worship which is due to God; and being offered to those Blessed Spirits which are confessedly Creatures, it must be the obla­tion of that worship which is due to God unto the Creature, which we have proved to be Idolatry.

3. To vow to Saints departed, is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator, by Prop 4. Corol. 2. but Papist vow unto the Saints departed, therefore they do ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. The Answer Bellarmine returns unto the Major of this Argu­ment, [Page 183]is this, That to vow, in sign of gratitude to the first and chiefest Good, and in recognition of a be­nefit received from him as the first Author of it, is the worship due to God; but we may vow to Saints, in sign of gratitude to them, considered as Mediators and Intercessors, by whom we do receive Gods bles­sings. But this distinction hath no foundation to depend upon; and with like reason we may distinguish thus of Sacrifice, (and of whatever else is proper to God) and say, That to offer Sacrifice to any thing, under the notion of the first and chiefest Good, is to ascribe unto it the worship due to God alone; but notwithstanding we may offer Sacri­fice to Saints, in sign of gratitude to them, consider­ed as Mediators and Intercessors, by whom we do ob­tain Gods blessings. Dicen­du n [...]quod vetum s [...]lt [...]e [...]s [...], sed promiss [...] p [...]si eti­am f [...]cri homini— & per hunc me­dum intel­li [...]dum est [...]v [...]n, qu [...] quis v [...] t ali­quid San­ctis vel Prael [...]r [...]is, ut ips [...] promissio facta Sanctis vel Praelatis cadat sub vo [...] [...] ria [...]er, in quintum scilicit home v [...]vet Peo [...] se impleturum quid Sanctis vel Prae­latis promi [...]tit. Aquin. 2a 2ae. qu. 88. Art. 5. Aquinas doth distinguish thus, That in a vow we have two things, 1. The matter of it, and that is the promise. 2. The form or essence, viz. the direction of that pro­mise to God: the matter of the vow, saith he, i.e. the promise we indeed make to Saints, and only vow to God, we will be faithful to this promise which we make to them. This Answer Bellarmine re­jects as being false, and contradictory to what they practise: For, saith he,Vota quae faunc Sanctis, termin [...]niu, etiam ad ips [...] Sanct [...]s, ita [...] w [...]re­vera ipsis v [...]ta fiant. L. 3. de cultu Sanctorum, c. 9. The Vows we make to Saints, are terminated on the Saints, so that we really do vow unto them. And again,Vo inomen est general, quad convent [...] D [...]. & Sancta, alia [...] name di core audent, v [...]e [...] Deo & B [...]a [...] Maria, & [...]iam si [...] [...] v [...] Beata Mariae. Ibid. The name of Vow is general, and agrees both to God and Saints, for otherwise men would not dare to [Page 184]say, I vow to God and to the Blessed Virgin, and sim­ply I vow unto the Blessed Virgin. And certainly no reason can be given, why I vow to God should be a formal Vow, and I Vow unto the Blessed Vir­gin should not be so. 3. They by this promise do ascribe unto the Saints the knowledge of our hearts, and of our promises, whence they desire them to hear, and to receive their vows, and so they do ascribe unto them Gods uncom­municated excellency.

4. To put up Hymns unto the blessed Angels, and the Saints deceased, is to be guilty of Idola­try. But Papists put up Hymns unto the Blessed Angels and the Saints departed, Ergo, The mi­nor is apparent both from the Roman Missal and the Breviary, where we find many Hymns dire­cted to those Blessed Spirits; the major may be thus confirmed. To pay that honor to these Blessed Spirits, which is due to God alone, is to be guilty of Idolatry. To offer Hymns unto them, is to pay that honor to these Blessed Spi­rits, which is due to God alone: Ergo. The major is apparent from Chap. 6. Prop. 1. The mi­nor I prove thus: To pay that honor to these Blessed Spirits, which Christians paid to God a­lone, is to pay that honor to them, which a­lone is due to God (for why should the whole Church of Christ, which, if we may believe the Romanist, received so great advantage by their addresses to these Blessed Spirits, refuse to pay unto them those Hymns and Praises which were due unto them, and which on this account are offered to them by the Church of Rome?) but to offer Hymns unto them, is to give that honor to them which Christians paid to God alone. For Origen doth in the name of all his fellow Christians say, [...]. Ita Orig­contr. Cels. l 8. p. 422. We offer up our Hymns only to God and his Son Jesus Christ.

[Page 185]5. To ascribe to all the Saints departed, and the holy Angels, the knowledge of the confessi­on of our sins, and upon that account to beg that they would intercede for pardon of them, is to be guilty of Idolatry.Ord. Missae p. 217. But the Romanist doth in the Service of the Missal, ascribe to all the Blessed Spirits the knowledge of the sins they do confess, and upon that account do beg that they would intercede for pardon of them: Er­go. The major may be thus confirmed; To ascribe to all these Blessed Spirits, now in Heaven, the knowledge of those confessions which we make on Earth, and those petitions we put up unto them, is to be guilty of Idolatry by Prop 2. Chap. 6. and Prop. 4. Corol. 3. of the same Chap­ter: But to ascribe unto them the knowledge of the confession of our sins, and upon that ac­count to beg that they would intercede for par­don of them, is to ascribe unto them the know­ledge of those petitions and confessions which we make on Earth: For this is to suppose, that albeit these Blessed Spirits are as distant from us, as is Earth from Heaven, yet are they as assu­redly acquainted with our confessions and pe­titions, as if they had been present with us, for who would move another to intercede in his behalf, by reason of that confession he hath made unto him, who did not think he knew both his confessions and petitions?

6 This may be strongly argued from two considerations: (1.) That the Apostles did not in­voke the Saints departed, or give us any Precept or Example so to do. (2.) That they abstained from this pra lise, because they did not think this honor to be due to Saints departed, but to God alone. And first▪ Th [...] the postles did not invoke the Saints departed, that they did put up no petitions to [Page 186]the Patriarchs and Prophets, or to the B. Virgin, or to the Proto-Martyr Stephen, or to James, the brother of our Lord, is evident from an impartial view or all their Writings and Epistles; for those Epistles, Acts, and Gospels, were writ­ten to promote the cause of Piety, and to in­struct us in the means and helps which they con­ceived most proper to preserve us from the as­saults and temptations of Sin, Satan, and the World,Joh. 20.31. they do assure us, That these things were written that we might believe, and believing might have life eternal:and so to give us those directions which were chiefly instrumental to obtain that end; whence it doth follow, that if they had conceived this practise to be so highly instru­mental to the promotion of our eternal happi­ness, as doth the Church of Rome, and the en­joyment of all those spiritual favours which they expect and beg from those blessed Spirits, they would not wholly have omitted what so highly did conduce to the obtaining of those blessings. The Church of Rome commands her Bishops, Syn. Trid. Sess. 25. Priests, and Curates, diligently to instruct the Flock committed to their charge in this impor­tant duty; and to inform them, that it is very good and profitable to fly unto their prayers for help and refuge; that we must daily invocate the Bles­sed Virgin and that it is a wicked and most hainous crime to doubt either her readiness to help, Cate [...]. [...]om. p. 584. or that her merits are most prevailing for this end. Their pra­ctise doth inform us that there is not any bles­sing which our Souls can wish for, but Christi­ans should implore it from them: And if their Doctrine were according unto Piety their pra­ctise must assuredly he so. For what more pro­per then to implore their aid, who are so high­ly instrumental to preserve us from our most fa­tal [Page 187]Enemies, and to procure all those blessings, which are needful both to the Piety of this pre­sent life, and to the felicity of that which is to come. St. Paul is in like manner large and copious in these instructions which he gives un­to the Pastors of the Church, and to the people committed to their charge: He informs us that we must all pray, and for all men; that we must pray with pure hands, and with hearts free from wrath and doubting: He tells us in what language we should frame our prayers, viz. in such a lan­guage that all that hear may understand. 1 Cor. 14. and say Amen to our Petitions: in what posture both men and women ought to pray: and that this duty ought to be performed in all places. And yet this person who descends to these minute particulars, speaks not one word of this im­portant duty, so pious and profitable in it self, so necessary to preserve us from the worst of Enemies, and to procure the greatest blessings: Nay, in all the Scripture which was written to make us wise, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. and thorowly instructed unto all good works, we have not the least mention of it: In those Epistles they frequently enjoyn us to be in­stant in prayer, to pray alwayes, with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, Eph. 6.18. and to watch thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all Saints: To continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving: To pray without ceasing: Col. 4.2.1 Thess. 5.17. 1 Tim. 2.1. Phil. 4 6. To put up supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks for all men To be careful for nothing, but in every thing with prayer and thanksgiving to let our requests be made known unto God. And to go unto that God for wisdom, who giveth unto all men liberal­ly,James 1.5.and upbraideth not. They also do exhort us to pray for others that they may be saved particu­larly, 5.16. 1 Joh. 5.16. for every brother, that hath not sinned unto [Page 188]death. Now surely they, who do so frequent­ly discourse upon this subject, and upon the lesser circumstances of this duty, would not have omitted to mention something of this so profitable practise, if they had really believed it so to be, For wherefore do they give us these directions, but to preserve us against the power of temptation, and the assaults of Sin and Satan? Why do they frequently enjoyn us to be instant in the performance of this duty but that we may obtain those spiritual blessings which without great danger to our souls we cannot want? If then the Invocation of the Saints departed, and especially of the Virgin Mary, be so highly profitable to these ends, why should these men, I say, be silent in this matter, who being guided by the Holy Spirit, could not forget to do it, and being as concerned for the Churches welfare, as the Trent Fathers, could not for want of zeal unto Gods glory, or the good of Souls, neglect to charge all Pastors di­ligently to instruct the people in this most profitable and pious practise? Why should these men, who both by precept and example do instruct us to request the prayers of living friends, be want­ing both in precept and example to move us to request the more prevailing prayers of Blessed Spirits? they who command us when we are infirm to have recourse unto the prayers of sur­viving Pastors, and to pray for one another, because the fervent supplication of a righteous man availeth much, why should they never send us to the B. Virgin, to the Patriarchs and Prophets, to St. Stephen and St. James, and other early Martyrs of the Church; whose Prayers, if we believe the Roman Church, are highly meritorious, and far more prevailing. Nay, they had the greater [Page 189]reason to inculcate this, because it was a novel practise, and never used by the Jewish Church; and therefore they had need of an Express to move and to encourage them to such devotions: Whereas it was the daily custom of all Jews to put up their petitions to the God of Heaven. Since therefore neither Paul, or Peter, or James, or John, Apostles, or Evangelists, have left us a­ny precept or example for this practice, we may be certain they did not approve it.

Moreover, to move us more effectually to the performance of this duty, they tell us, That the eyes of God are still intent upon the just, 1 Pet. 3.12. and his ear open to their prayer; that he is well acquain­ted with those inward groans and wishes,Rom. 8.26 which we do, or cannot utter; and is also able to perform exceedingly above what we can ask or think; Eph. 3.20. Marth. 7.7.11. James 1.5. that he is good and gracious to all that call upon him faithfully, that he will fulfill the desires of them that fear him: Thus also do the Latines teach concerning the Saints departed; they tell us in the words of Basil. [...], they confidently ascribe unto them Summan juvandi voluntatem, the greatest readiness to help, and the most prevailing merits: Catech. Rom. p. 585. and this they do most sutably to that presumption they have taken up; for all these things are the more needful to be taught, because both Scripture seems to say the contrary, affirming that Saints departed are ignorant of us, and our concern­ments here on Earth: and denying that any be­sides God can know the secrets of the heart. And secondly, the things themselves seem difficult to be believed; viz. That Creatures at so infinite a distance can be acquainted with what is done on carth; much more that they should at such a di­stance understand the secret motions of the [Page 190]heart. Why is it then that the Apostles, who do so often mind us of what we have less reason to suspect, viz. That God is able, and very ready to perform what we desire, and that he hears the secret groanings of our heart, should not in­form us of what is so exceeding hard, and yet so necessary to be believed of these Blessed Spi­rits? Whosoever diligently reads their Wri­tings, will find them praying earnestly to God for all those blessings to be conferred upon the Christians, which Papists do request from Saints and Angels, That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give to the Ephesians the spirit of Wisdome and Revelation in the knowledge of him, Eph. 1.17, 18. the eyes of their Ʋnderstanding being enlightned: That he would grant that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith, —3.17.18.19, that they might be strengthned by his Spirit in the in­ner man, that they being rooted and grounded in love, might be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of God which passeth knowledge, and be filled with all fulness of God. That the Phi­lippians love might abound more in knowledge, Phil. 1.9, 10, 11. and in all judgment, that they might approve things that are excellent, and be sincere, and without offence till the day of Christ; Being filled with the fruits of righteoussness, to the praise and glory of God. That the Colossians might be filled with the knowledge of the will of God in all wisdom, Col. 1.9, 10, 11. and spiritual understanding, that they might walk worthy of the Lord unto all well pleasing, being fruitful in every good work and increa­sing in the knowledg of God: Strengthened with all might according to his glorious power unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness: 1 Thess. 3.12, 13: That the Thessa­lonians might encrease in love, and have their hearts established unblamable in holiness before God.—2.1.11.12. That God would count them worthy of his [Page 191]calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: That the God of Peace would make the Hebrews perfect in every good work, to do his will, Heb. 13.20, 21. 1 Pet. 5.10. working in them that which is well pleasing in his sight: That the God of Grace would make them perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle them. These Supplications were their daily exercise, and had they thought the Invocation of the bles­sed Virgin, the Patriarchs and Prophets, the Proto-Martyr, and the brother of our Lord, would have been needful and effectual to the attainment of these things, for which they prayed so ear­nestly, why do they never once address them­selves unto them; why do they never pray as doth the Church of Rome, Brevari­um & Missal. that through the de­precation, intervention, patrocination, and intercessi­on of these persons, they may be worthy to ob­tain these blessings, why do they never pray by the merits of these persons to be delivered fromDeus qui beatum Ni­colaum P. —tribue q [...]ae [...]un us ut ejus mo­ritis & pracibus [...] Ochenna incend is liberemus. Miss. in sest. san [...]. Nich. Dec. xi. Deus q. [...] beatu [...]. Lo­dovicum— ju, quaesamus meritis & intercessione Regis Regan. [...] ­su Christ [...] f [...]l [...]ui facias nos esse can o [...]tes. in Fest. beat. Lud. Aug 25. Hell, and made partakers of the joys of Heaven, as doth the Roman Blashemy? Why do they no declare with them, that they do† place their confidence in the petitions of these prevai­ling Saints and blessed Spirits? Why do they not ascribe their mercys and deliverances to the ‖ merits of these Saints, as they most insolently do? Assuredly on this account, because they did not in their hearts approve the practise. Were blessed Paul alive to see his Prophesy so punctually fulfilled: That in these later times men should depart from the Faith, attending to errone­ous Spirits, [...], and to the Doctrine [Page 192]of worshipping departed Souls, how would he passionately cry out O foolish Romanists who hath bewitched you, &c. Lastly, St. Paul had such an ardent zeal to the promotion of the Gospel, that he omits no help which he conceives might give a blessing to his labours: He therefore passio­nately intreats the Christians to whom his writ­ings are directed,Rom. 15.30, 31.- That they would strive together with him in their prayers to God, that he might be de­livered from them, who did not believe in Judea, and that his Service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints: and that he might come un­to them with joy — and with them be refreshed: That they would alwaies, Eph. 6.18, 19. and with all perseverance pray for him, that utterance might be given unto him hat he might open his mouth boldly to make known the Mystery of the Gospel: Col. 4.1, 2, 3. That they would continue in prayer, that God would open unto him a door of ut­terance to speak the mystery of Christ: for which he was in hands that he might make it manifest, as he ought to speak. 1 Thes. 5.25.2-3.1.2. Finally Brethren, saith he, pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not Faith. So blessed Paul; and had he thought that his addresses to the Patri­archs, and Prophets, the blessed Virgin, the Quire of Angels, or the Saints made perfect, would have been more effectual to this end, would not his zeal have prompted him to have put up one re­quest unto them? or one Petition to his Guar­dian-Angel to be defended from these unreason­able men? If all these circumstances be consi­dered it will amount to an invincible convicti­on of the falshood of that determination of the Church of Rome, Juxta Catholicae & Aposto­licae Eccle­siae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. that this is the practise which was derived from the Apostles, and hath been still continued in the Church of Christ.

[Page 193]2. No other reason can be given why they did not practise, or commend the Invocation of the blessed Spirits besides this, that they concei­ved this worship to be that honour God had re­served for himself, and that they looked upon it as a vain and fruitless practice, The know­ledg of the heart, and of the Prayers that are put up by All men, at all times, and in all places of the Earth, being the knowledg proper to the God of Heaven, and not communicated to the Saints deceased. This will appear more evident if we consider and refute those shifts whereby they do endeavour to evade the force of this triumphant Evidence. And

‘1. They tell us thatSi Apo­stoli & E­vangelistae docuissent sanctos ve­nerandos, arrogantiae iis datum fuisset, ac si post mor­tem gloriam illam quaesivissent; noluit ergo Spiritus Sanctus expressis Scipturis docere invocationem Sanctorum. Eckius in Enchirid. loc. Com. ex edit. Alex. Weissenhorn. Alanus Copus Dial. 3. fol. 239. had the Blessed Apo­stles taught this doctrine it might have been objected to them, that they sought their own advancement, and honour by the propaga­tion of their Gospel, and proudly did en­deavour to be worshipped by their Christian followers.’

Repl. 1. This answer gives us some shew of rea­son why this Invocation was not enjoyned in Scripture; but it affords not the least shadow of a reason why it was not practised.

2. Either this Invocation was practised by the Church in the Apostles time or not; if not,Quem seu [...] ­per Eccle­sia Catho­lica adhi­buit. C [...]t. Rom. p. 3 c. 2. Sect. 8. then the Trent Council, and the Roman Catechism, falsly do assert, that this was the perpetual and A­postolick practice of the Church of Christ; if it was practised, then that practice must give rise unto the same Objection, viz. that the Disciples of [Page 194]Christ had brought into the world this custom on purpose to advance their honour, and to procure worship to themselves.

3. This doctrine had it been consistent with the Christian Faith ought more especially to have been often preached to the Jews to recon­cile them to that Faith, by giving them assurance, that they might have recourse unto the prayers of Father Abraham, and their beloved Moses, and that Noah, Job and Daniel, Elijah, Samuel and all the blessed Patriarchs and Prophets, who were so powerful with God on Earth, would upon their request be ready to procure for them the great­est Temporal and Spiritual blessings, since there­fore we have no such Revelation in any of these Writings or Epistles, which are especially di­rected to them, and were designed for their conversion and satisfaction; it may be well concluded this was no doctrine of the Christi­an faith.

2. Some others do assert, That the Apostles did abstain from giving any precept, or exam­ple of this Invocation, lest ‘Heathens should conceive, that for the multitude of HeathenNondum erat tem­pus in ipsi­us fidei exordiis e­am mundo doctrinam divulgandi ne Gentiles arbitra­rentur plu­res nos De­os colere. Alanus Copus Dial. 3. f. 239. & Eckius u­bi supra. Deities they worshipped, the Christians only introduced a multitude of Christian Gods.’ Repl.

1. This evasion is a meer conjecture, of which we have not the least hint in any of the Ancient Fathers, or the Church Historians, which is sufficient to crack the credit of it; for that such a change should happen in the worship of the whole Church of Christ, without the notice or observation of any single person, is incredi­ble. Besides, this figment thwarts that decla­ration of St. Paul, that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; and that profession, that he [Page 195] with-held not from them any useful Doctrine: Act. 20.20 it thwarts that Doctrine, and Assertion of the Church of Rome, that this hath been the constant custom of the Church of God, including the Apostles time. Besides, the reasons of abstaining from this practice, must continue as long as there were Heathen [...] to be converted to the Christian Faith, and so beyond the time of Constantine. Now albeit it be a certain truth, that Christians till after the days of Constantine abstained from this practice, yet cannot that Assertion consist with the pretences of the Church of Rome for Apostoli­cal Tradition, and derivation of these Do­ctrines, which they obtrude upon us from the Apostles of our Lord. 4. Either these Primi­tive Professors were not well advised, to let this fear of Scandal deter them from the publica­tion of a truth, so pious and profitable to the Church of Christ, or else the Roman Doctors are not so cautious in their attempts to propagate the Gospel as they ought to be, as not conceal­ing from the8. Dali. de cultu La­tin. To. 1. l. 3. cap. 25. p. 493. Pagans, whom they endeavour to convert, this so suspicious practice of their Church. In a word, if the Apostles and the Church of Christ which was converted by, and flourished under them, had no such practice, certain it is we have no reason now to do what they did never practise or command, for all in­structions we embrace as from them, must be what they did teach or practise; but if they did admit this practice, then could not Jews and Heathens want the knowledge of it, seeing the number of Apostates and hypocritical Professors was so great, and there were many who took upon them the profession of the Christian Faith,Cal 2 4. Phil. 1.16 only to spy out what they practised.

[Page 196]3. If it be said, they might abstain by reason of some precept, which forbad this Invocation. I reply, that which Gods wisdom doth forbid us to give unto the noblest of his Creatures, he by so doing doth declare that he reserves unto himself, and when we act against his precept, we may be certain that he will not reveal or ma­nifest that supplication which he hath forbid­den; and therefore they that tender to these Blessed Spirits this forbidden worship, must a­scribe unto them that knowledge which agrees to God alone, and that honour which he will not give unto another, and so be guilty of Idolatry. To conclude, If this Invocation were so beneficial to mankind, and was not de­rogatory to Gods honour, it might be well presumed, that Christ and his Apostles would have been careful to instruct us in it, for they neither wanted knowledge to perceive the bene­fit, or love sufficient to engage them to ac­quaint us with it.

Lastly,P. 420. Whereas T. G. objects, That ‘it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God, upon addresses made to the Saints, that those who call upon them are heard, and obtain what they desire; and that therefore it cannot be unlawful or Idololatrical to desire their intercession.’ Answ. This is an Argument in which the Romanists much triumph; but it is only what their Bro­ther Donatists had urged long before,L. de uni­tate Ecc. contra Pe­t [...]liani Donatistae Epistolam. and what St. Austin hath admirably answered. And first, I say, It is but a Translation of that Argu­ment, which formerly was used by the Donatists, in confirmation of their Schism; for thus St. Austin propoundeth their Objection:Non di­cat verum est qu [...]a hoc [...] dico, aut quia hoc dixit ille Collega meus aut illi Collegae mei, aut illi Episcepi vel Cle­rici vel Laici nosiri, aut ideo verum est quia illa & illa Mi­rabilia fecit Donatus, vel Pontius, velquilibet alius, aut quia homines ad memorias mor­tuorum nostrorum orant & ex­audiuntur, aut quia illa & illa ibi contingunt, aut quia ille Frater noster, aut illa Seror nostra tale visum vigilans vi­dit vel tale visun dormiens somniavit; removeantur is [...]a vel figmenta mendacium homi­num vel portenta fall icium Spirituum; aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si Hae­reticorum aliqua mira sunt fa­cta, magis cavere debemus quod cum dixisset Dominus quesdum futuros esse falleces qui non­nu [...]la signa faciendo etiam E­lectos si fieri posset fallerent, adjecit vehementer commen­dans & dit, ecce praedixi ve­bis, unde & Aposiclus adme­nens Spiritus autem manifes [...]e decet quia in novissimis tempo­ribus recedent quidam à fi [...]e intendentes Spiritubus seducte­ribus & Doctrinis Daemen [...]um. Ibid. c. 16. p. 116. I. K. Let him not say that therefore they are in the right, be­cause that Pontius, or Donatus, or any other, [Page 197]did such and such Miracles, or because men pray at the memorials of our Martyrs, (i e. the Mar­tyrs of the Donatists) and they are heard; and because such and such things do happen there; or because such a Brother or a Sister watching there saw such a sight, or dreamed such a dream. This is the Argument of T.G. and his Brother Donatists, and we Protestants crave only leave to answer what St. Austin doth, viz. (1.) That either the things are not true which are spoken, or if some Miracles be wrought by Hereticks, we ought to be more careful; because our Lord Christ having said, that there should come Deceivers, who should work such Miracles, Mat. 24. as to deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect; He adds, by way of vehement commendation, this, Behold I have foretold you; whence the Apostle admonishing us, saith, 1 Tim. 4. Now the Spirit manifestly teacheth, that in the latter times some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrinis Dae­moniorum, i. e. the Doctrine of worshipping the Spirits of dead men. Which Answer doth contain three things, (1.) That the truth of these relations may be well suspected; and so also may the truth of what T. G. delivers, as from St. Basil, Austin, and Theodoret: for, as I shall shew hereafter, we have just reason to suspect [Page 198]the falshood and depravation of these passages which he hath cited from Austin and Theodoret, and that St. Basil doth not say that any man was cured by the Invocation of those XL. Mar­tyrs, but only by praying with them, or by the intercession which they make of their own ac­cord, for those who frequent their shrines. (2.) St. Austin hath but two instances of any benefit received by Prayers put up unto the Martyr, and before he mentions them, he doth ingenuously confess,Quando alibi aliis­que nar­rantur non tanta ea commendat autoritas, ut sine difficultate aut dubi­tatione credantur quamvis Christianis fidelibus à fidelibus indicentur Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. p. 209. C. 1. That they are not backed with so good Authority, as that we should believe them without doubt or difficulty. (3.) We have just rea­son to suspect the truth of these relations, if we consider (1.) That St.Tom. 5. Hom. 88. p. 601. 602. Chrysostome declares that Miracles were ceased in his time, and hath a set discourse on purpose to inform us [...], i.e. why Miracles then ceased: which had they been so common in the Christian world, had been an idle Question, and no small prejudice unto the Christian cause. Especially, these being the chief Heads of what he answers, (1.) That though [...],p. 606. or such miracles as were the objects of our Senses ceased, yet God did still vouchsafe [...] his efficacious workings on the souls of Christians.p. 607. And (2.) That Signs were not intended for Believers, but for Ʋn­believers, and then immediately concludes [...], this therefore is the cause why Miracles are now ceased. (2.) Because it was more ordinary in these times to pretend Dreams and Visions, then to speak of any cures performed by prayers put up to Martyrs, as you may see in Gregory Nyssens Homily upon the XL Martyrs; and in this Chapter of St. Austin: And yet the Fathers do ingenuously confess, and were at last convinced that they were delu­sions. [Page 199] Many, both Priests and Idiots, saith Syne­sius, have been found among us [...],Ep. 5.4. p. 190. feigning some Dreams, which they call Revelations: Ei [...]. Tom. 5. p. 256. l. 29. Ed. Savil. The Dreams or Visions which have appeared in the shape of them that have departed this life at this time, have deceived and corrupted many, there being no such thing, saith Chrysostome. And that ofAug. Consess. l. 10 c. 42. Austin is very pertinent to this purpose; ‘Whom should I find, that might reconcile me to thee? Should I have gone unto the Angels with what Prayer? with what Sacraments? many endeavouring to return unto thee, and being not able to do it by themselves, as I hear, have tryed these things, and have fal­len into the desire of curious Visions, and were accounted worthy of Illusions.’ The second Answer is contained in the words of Austin, that God may permit some wonders to be done by Hereticks, and by Impostors, and hath de­clared that he will do so ‖; this therefore, saith he, is no confirmation of the truth, nor do these Wonders mani­fest the Church is Catholick, wherein they are perform­ed, but the Holy Scriptures: Shew us your Scriptures: Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. This answer will be sufficiently confirmed by these words of Dr.* Stilling fleet: ‘That after the true Doctrine is confirmed by Di­vine Miracles, God may give the Devil power to work, if not real Miracles, yet such as men cannot judge by the things themselves, whether [Page 200]they be so or no; and this for tryal whether we will forsake the true Doctrine confirmed by greater Mi­racles, for the sake of such Doctrines as are con­contrary thereto, and are confirmed by false Pro­phets, by Signs and lying Wonders: Now in this case our Rule of tryal must not so much be the Mi­racles considered in themselves, whether real or no, as the comparing them with the Miracles wrought in confirmation of that Doctrine which is contrary to this, which these words tend to the proving of. Therefore Gods people under the Law were to examine the drift and scope of the Mira­cles; and if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry; whatever they were, they are forbidden to hearken to them, as you may see most evidently Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. So now under the Gospel, the worship of the true God through Jesus Christ, and by the Doctrine revealed by him is the Stand­ard, whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders unto Miracles: So that let the Miracles be what they will, if they contradict that Doctrine, which Christ revealed to the World, we are to look upon them only as tryals of our Faith in Christ, to see whether we love him with our whole hearts or no.’ And accordingly we look upon these Miracles as tryals whether we will forsake the Head Christ Jesus, and give this worship of the Crea­tor to the Creature, and the like; and are suf­ficiently warded against the force of this assault by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with Signs and lying Wonders. 2 Thess. 2.9.

Secondly, What Austin saith unto the Dona­tists, we also say unto the Church of Rome, Shew us your Scriptures for this Invocation; haec sunt cau­sae nostrae firmamenta — The third Particular contained in this Answer is. That the Holy Spi­rit hath forewarned us that in the latter times this [Page 201]Doctrine of Damons should prevail: which Doctrine both the ingenious Mr. Mede, and [...]. adv. Antidico marionitas. Haer. 78. §. 23. A. Epiphanius do well interpret to be the Doctrine of worship­ping the Spirits of dead Men, and by the per­tinency of this Sense unto St. Austins present subject, we have good reason to conjecture that he approved their Opinion.

St. Austins second Answer to this Objection is as followeth; ‘Porrò si aliquis in Heretico­rum memo­riis orans exauditur, non pro merito loci sed pro me­rito desi­derii sui recipit si­ve matum sive bonum — nonne legimus ab ipso domi­no Deo nonnullos exauditos in excelsis montium Judaeae: quae tamen excelsa ità displice­bant Deo, ut Reges qui ea non everterent cr [...]lparentur, & qui everterent laudarentur; unde intelligitur magis valere pe [...]enti [...] assectium [...]u [...]m petitio [...]is locum. ib. p. 116. Col. 2. K. L Moreover if any person pray­ing in the memorials of Hereticks be heard, it is not for the merit of the place, but of his own desire that he receiveth any good. Do we not read that God himself hearkned to many of those Jews who pray­ed in the high places, although those places so dis­pleased him, that he rebuked those Kings that suf­fered them. Whence we may understand that the affection of the Supplicant is more prevailing, then the place of Prayer.’ And accordingly we say, That if any person praying to these Saints was heard, it was not for the merit of this prayer considered as directed to the Saints, but for the affection of his heart, and as it will not follow that it was lawful for the Jew to pray in those high places, or for the Christian to pray in the memorials of Hereticks, because that they who prayed there were sometimes heard: So neither doth it follow that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints departed, because of some few instances that they who have thus prayed, have received the desired Blessing.

Thirdly, saith St. Austin, De visis autem fal­lacibus le­gunt quae scri [...]ta sunt, & quia ipse Satanas se transfigu­rat tan­quam An­gelum lu­cis, & quia mul­tos sedux­erunt som­nia sua. Audiant etiam quae narrant pagani de Templis, & Diis suis mirabili [...]er vel facta, vel visa, & tamen dii Gentium Baemonia—Exaudiuntur ergo multi & multis modis, non solum Christ [...]ani Catho­lici, sed & Pagant, & Judaei, & Haeretici variis error [...]lus, & su­persti [...]ionibus dediti, exaudiuntur autem vel ab spiritibus seductoribus, qui tamen nihil faciunt nisi permit [...]antur Deo subli [...]iter a [...]que ineffabi­liter judieante quid cuique tribuendum sit, sive ab ipso Deo, vel ad poenam malitiae, vel ad solatium miseriae, vel ad monitionem quaerendae salutis aeternae. ib f. B. Col. 2. L.M. Let them hear what the Pagans tell of the Wonders done by their Gods, and at their Temples; and yet the Gods of the Heathens are but Daemons: and therefore many, not only Catholicks, but Pagans, Jewes, and Hereticks, may many wayes be heard, either by those seducing Spirits, which yet do nothing but with Gods permission, or else by God himself, either for castigation of their wickedness, or comfort of their misery, or in admonition of them to pursue eternal safety. Which Answer also doth suggest these things.

1. That the Argument is vain, because it will serve the Paegan, as well as it well serve the Dona­tist or Roman Catholick; and proves as much their Invocation of Daemons to be lawful, as the invo­cation of the Saints departed, which is now pra­ctised in the Church of Rome. ‘For, asQuibus­dam signis & mira­culis, & oraculis fi­dem divi­nitatis o­peratur. Apol. c. 21. §. 8. Ter­tullian saith, by Signs, and Miracles, and Ora­cles, they obtained to be reputed Gods. [...]. [...]om. 6. p 375 l. 20. They often by their skill have cured di­seases, and restored to health those that were sick; what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity, God forbid?’ So Chry­sostome. [Page 203] [...]. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. l. 5. c. 2. ‘The wicked Daemons, saith Eu­sebius, counterfeited by working many Mi­racles, the Souls of them that were deceased and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service.’ Fru­stra tan­tum arro­gas Christo cum saepe alios sciamus & scierimus Deos, & laborantibus plurimis dedisse medicinas, & multorum hominum morbos valetudi­ [...]ésque curasse. Arnobius l. 1. p. 28. In vain, say they, you arrogate so much to Christ, for we have often known that other Gods have given Medi­cines to, and healed the infirmities of many. More­over, these benefits they still pretended to re­ceive by vertue of those Supplications which they offer'd to them.(e) How many, saith Cel­sus, being troubled, that they had no children, have by them enjoyed their wishes? How many, being maim­ed in their body's, have been healed by them? Hence saith(f) Cecilius, they give us caution in dangers, and medicine in diseases, hope to the afflicted, help to the miserable, comfort in calamities, ease from la­bours.

2. This Argument is vain, because it serves the Heretick as well as Catholick. For what can be more glorious then what Philostorgius re­cords of [...]. Philost. Hist. Eccl. l 2. §. 8. p. 14. Agapetus one of his fellow Hereticks, That he wrought many miracles, he raised the dead, and healed many that were sick, and converted many [Page 204]to the Christian Faith. And of Theophilus, another of his brother Arrians, [...]. Idem. l. 3. § 4. p. 27. That his wonders were so great, and such convincing demonstrations of the Christian Faith, as to constrain the obstinacy of the Jews, and Silence all their contradictions. —

Lastly, Hence we may learn, that although Austin should have related some few instances of persons healed by Supplications tendered to the Saints, we cannot thence infer, as T. G. doth, that by so doing he commends them, or doth relate them as patterns for our imitation.

CHAP. VIII.

The Contents. The Judgment of the Fathers proved to be the same with that of Protestants, because they do assert that Prayer must be offered unto none but God, and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ. Sect. 1. And this As­sertion they prove, 1. Because God only can be called good. 2. Because he only can an­swer our Petitions, ibid. 2. They do af­firm, That by addressing a Petition to a Saint or Angel, we become guilty of distraction from God, and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ. Sect. 2. 3. That to pray unto a Creature, or to that which is no God, is to worship it as God, or give that honour to it which is due to God alone. Sect. 3. 4. They hence infer that Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, because we put up our Pe­titions to them. Sect. 4. 5. Because the invocation of the inferior Heathen Daemons was by the Fathers censured as Idolatry. And there is no desparity betwixt the in­vocation of those Daemons, and that invo­cation of the blessed Martyrs which is now [Page 206]practised in the Church of Rome, sufficient to acquit the Papist from that Guilt, if it be duly charged on the Heathens by reason of their Supplications tendred to inferior Daemons. Sect. 5. 6. The Fathers dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practise, and confute this Doctrine. Sect. 6. 7. Because the ancient Fathers prayed for all the Saints, without exception of Martyrs or Apostles, or the blessed Virgin. 8. Because the Fa­thers gave no Rules touching the Canoni­zing of the Saints departed. ibid.

TO what we have discoursed from the ho­ly Scriptures, and from the Principles of Reason, we shall now add the suffrage of those ancient Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church. Who do not only say expresly, that our Prayers should only be directed to God (asserting this without those limitations and distinctions which are now used by the Church of Rome) but also do it upon the very same enducements and motives which Pro­testants are wont to use for confirmation of this truth. Moreover, in their conflicts with the Arrians, and other Adversaries of the Church of Christ, they use those very weapons where­with we fight against the Church of Rome, and do pronounce that Doctrine and Practice which that Church contends for, to be the gi­ving to the Creature what is due to God.

And first, the Fathers do assert that prayer must be offered unto none but God, and by no other Inter­cessor but our Saviour Christ. When Celsus had pro­nounced [Page 207]that [...]. l. 8. p. 394. Heathen Daemons did belong to God, and thence inferred, we should entreat their favour. Origen replys two things. 1. That those Daemons being wicked Spirits could not belong to God. 2. ‘That this advice of [...]. Origen. contra Cels. lib. 8. p. 395. Celsus, to put up our Petitions to them, was to be utterly rejected, and by no means allowed by Christians: Be­cause, God only was to be made the object of our prayer, nor were we to sollicite any other than our great High Priest,’ to offer and pre­sent them to the Father. And hence in two Ca­tena's, both published by the Doctors of the Church of‖ Rome, we have this free confession of an antient Father [...], We Christians pray to God alone. And upon this account, they tell us the Psalmist uttered this expression, Attend unto the voice of my petition my King and my God: For unto thee will I pray; be­cause(a) Petitions were to be offered unto God alone, according to that Question of St. Austin (b) to whom else shall I cry but unto thee? and that ex­pression of(c) Dracontius esse nihil prorsus se prae­ter ubique rogandum: that nothing besides God should be invoked. And this assert on they do not barely offer, but also they confirm it by ma­ny pregnant Arguments; as first, He only must be prayed unto, because, he only can be called Good: [Page 208] [...]. Clem. A­lexand. Strom. l. 7. p. 721. since God alone is good (saith Clemens) it is rea­sonable we should sollicite him alone: for the Donati­on and Continuance of good things. (2.) because God only is present in all places, and so at hand to hear, and help us wherever we address our pray­ers to him. It is an absurdity (saith [...]. Orig. contra Celsum lib. 5. pag. 239. Origen) ha­ving that God with us, and nigh at hand, who filleth Heaven and Earth, to go about to pray to that which is not omnipresent. This I confess is spoken to de­monstrate, that intercessions were not to be made unto the Sun and Moon and Stars: but then it must be noted that this Father held both Sun and Moon and Stars to be intelligible Crea­tures, and in this very place asserts, that(f) they do offer up their Prayer to God, and from this very Argument concludes, we must not pray to them, because they pray to him. Whence it will follow that he conceived them as fit and able to be our Intercessors as the Saints departed, and that it was absurd to pray to any, who themselves pro­perly did pray for us. And (2.) he adds,(g) if a­ny Christian be not sufficient immediately to direct his Prayers to God, let him address them to the Word of God; making no mention of an address to be preferred either to Saint, or Angel, or to the B. Virgin in this Case. (3.) He adds that put the(h) [Page 209]Case that Sun, Moon, and Stars were hea­venly Angels, and Messengers of God, yet were they not to be adored for this, but he whose Messengers and Angels they were. Where by the way observe, that he insensibly slides from [...] to pray, to [...] which is to adore. Whence we may cer­tainly conclude, that in the Judgment of this Father, it was the same to pray to any person, and to adore that person, and that nothing may be invocated, which may not be adored. (Lastly) it is evident his reason will hold good as well a­gainst addresses made to Saints, as to the Sun and Moon, they being neither of them omni­present. (3.) They say he only must be prayed unto, who seeth and heareth every where? Let us consider (saithDe Orat. c. 1. Sect. 8. Tertullian) the Heavenly Wis­dom of our Lord in his Injunction to pray in secret, whereby he both requires the Faith of Man, confid­ing that God omnipotent both hears and sees under our Roofs, and in our secret Places, and also that our Faith be modest, so that we offer our Religion unto him alone, whom we are confident doth see and hear us every where. And Chrysostom, upon the same Expressi­on, finds fault with those that pray aloud, and bids us Imitate the Hymnes and Melodies of ho­ly Angels, who pray with us, although we do not hear them: for, saith he, [...]. Chrysost. Tom. 2. Homil. in Matt. 19. pag. 137. ‘thou dost not pray to Man, but to God omnipresent, to him that hears before thou speakest, to him that understandeth, what the Mind doth not utter.’

(4.) Because he only can Answer our Petiti­ons, and from him only can we obtain what we [Page 210]desire.Precan­tes sumus proomnibus Imperato­ribus vi­tam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domun tu­tam, popu­lum pro­bum, or­bem quie­tum, quae­cunque ho­minis & Caesaris vo­ta sunt. Haec ab a­lio orare non possum, quam à quo me scio consequn­turum, quoniam & ipse est, qui SOLƲS praestat, & ego sum cui im­petrare debetur, famulus ejus qui eum Solum observo. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Sect. 2, 3. ‘We beg for all our Emperors long life, safe Empire, valiant Armies, a faithful Se­nate, an honest People, and a quiet World, and whatsoever any man or Emperor could wish.’ So Tertullian: And then he adds, ‘These things I may not pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them: because, both it is he who alone is a­ble to give, and I am be to whom it apper­taineth to obtain that which is requested, be­ing his servant who observe him alone.’ From all which sayings it is evident these antient Fa­thers did not only think as we now do, that all our Intercessions should be made to God, but al­so that they did it for these very Reasons we alledg viz. that he alone is omnipresent, that he alone discerns the secrets of the Heart, that he alone is able to confer the Blessings which we want, and pray for.

(2) The Fathers do affirm, that by addressing a petition to a Martyr, Saint, or Angel, we be­come guilty of distraction from God, and of de­serting our Lord Jesus Christ. [...]. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 15. pag. 135. We cannot be induced, saith the Church of Smyrna, to forsake Christ, or worship any other Person; where first it well deserveth to be noted, that what is in the Greek [...] is in the antient Interpre­ter of the Acts of Polycarp, Alteri cuiquam Orati­onis [Page 211]precem impendere (we cannot pray to any o­ther.Act. Po­lyc. in Ap­pend. Ig­nat. Us­ser. p. 27.) And what the Jews objected; (that if the Christians could obtain the Martyrs body [...], deserting Christ they would begin to worship him) is by the Metaphrast thus rendred, huic fundenda esset oratio singulorum, they would all pray unto him. Now seeing this Translation was of such credit in the Western Church, that it was read in their assemblies; it is most certain that Church did antiently conceive (1.) that the Church of Smyrna did deny that a­ny genuine Christian would pray to any Saint departed. (2.) That to put up a petition to a Martyr was to renounce their Saviour. And (3.) that to pray to and afford religious worship to a Martyr was the same. And (4.) that we must only put up our petitions to the Son of God; because, he only must be worshipped. Secondly, observe the reason of this assertion of the Church of Smyrna; ‘We cannot worship any other, delivered in these words; For him being the Son of God we worship, but the Martyrs, as the Disciples and followers of the Lord,’ we highly love for their exceeding great affe­ction to their own King and Master. The Church of Rome could have informed them of a better Reason why they should affect them, (viz.) as being Intercessors, and Mediators for, and Patrons of the Christian Church, and the Pro­curers of all spiritual Blessings for them. She could have told them it was ignorantly done to comprehend that Service vvhich was due to the deceased Martyrs in this one expression, ‘We love them worthily: For if the Venera­tion and Worship of the Saints departed, nay, the Worship of their very Ashes, hath been the constant Custom of the whole [Page 212]Church of God; and if the Invocation of them be that, which Holy Scripture teacheth, and the Apostles have delivered, and which the Church of God hath alwaies practised,’ as is delivered in the * Catechism of the Church of Rome, Part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 8. it may be well admired that the Church of Smyrna which daily practised (say they) this veneration and invocation of the holy Martyrs, should, without distinction, appropriate all worship and adoration to the Son of God, in opposition to the Martyrs, and comprehend the Service they performed to the blessed Martyrs in a word which doth not in the least im­port the Veneration which they daily practi­sed.

(2.) Observe the Reason vvhich is given by the Church of Smyrna why they could not wor­ship any other, viz. Because they worshipped the Son of God: if any worship had been then paid to Martyrs, or any other Saints departed, by the Church of Christ, what could have been more stupid than this Way of reasoning? Now that this Doctrine is introduced into the Church of Rome we hear them speaking thus;Tantum abest ut Sanctis in­vocandis Dei gloria minuacur, ut eo maxi­mè augea­tur. Cat. Rom. part 3. c. 2. Sect. 11. We worship Saints and Martyrs in honour of the Son of God: So far do they esteem that honour which they pay to him from being any prejudice unto the Wor­ship of those blessed Spirits.

(3.) Observe the Argument which the Jews urged to move the Proconsul to retain the body, viz. That if the Christians could obtain it, it might be feared they would leave Christ, and worship Poly­carp. The Jews could not be ignorant of what the Christians practised in this case, by reason of those numerous Apostates who daily left the Church, and of that liberty they had to come to their Assemblies. Had then the Christians [Page 213]worshipped other Martyrs with Christ, and had they professed to do it for his sake and ho­nour, could this have been objected by the Jews with any sense and reason, that they would quit Jesus Christ, that they might wor­ship Polycarp? Must they not rather have ob­jected, that with Christ they would worship Polycarp? which since they did not, we may well suspect the practice of the Church gave them no reason so to do.

Athanasius discoursing upon these words of Jacob; The Angel that delivered me from all evil, defend the Lads, (which by the Arians were ur­ged to the same purpose as they are used by Ro­man Catholicks, viz. to prove that Invocation was not so proper to God, but that it might be used to Creatures, and therefore that it was no evidence that Christ was God) declares, that Jacob did not speak of a created Angel: (1.) Be­cause he joyns the Angel with God, and saith, [...] Athanas. Orat. 4. contra Arianos. p. 260. The God that fed me; the Angel that delivered me, which, though it be familiar with the Roman Catholicks, he looked upon as an absurd, illegal practice. (2.) Because no man, deserting of that God that fed him, would ask a blessing for his kindred of the holy Angels: whence it is evident, that in the judgement of this Father, to pray to holy Angels was to desert the God of Heaven, even when we made our first addresses to him, as here Jacob did.

[...] l. 4 c. 4. M. St. Hilary the Deacon saith, That the Ido­laters [Page 214]made use of thisSolent tamen pu­dorem pas­si neglecti Dei mise­râ uti ex­cusatione, dicentes per istos posse ire ad Deum, si­cut per co­mites per­venitur ad Regem. Age nun­quid tam demens est aliquis, aut salutis suae immemor, ut honori­ficentiam Regis vin­dicet comi­ti; cum de bdc re si­qui etiam tractare fuerint in­venti, jure ut rei dam­nantur Majestatis? & isti se non putant reos, qui be­norem no­minis Dei deferunt Cr aturae, & relicto Domino conservos adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod servetur Deo, nam & ideo ed Regem per Tribunos aut comites ītur, quia homa utique est Rex, & nescit quibus debeat rempublicam cre­dere. Ad Deum autem (quem utique nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit) promerendum suffrugatore non opus est, sed mente devota. Ʋbicunque eniae talis l [...]cu [...]us fuerit ej, respondebit illi. miserable excuse for them­selves, that by those inferior Deities they worshipped, they went to God himself, as we go to the King by his Courtiers. But, saith he, is any man so mad, or regardless of himself, to give the Honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, which if a man does he is condemned for Treason? And yet they think them­selves not guilty, who give the Honour due to Gods Name to a Creature, and forsaking God adore his fel­low-servants, as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself. But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants, because the King is but a man, who knows not of himself whom to imploy in his publick affairs. But to procure the fa­vour of God, from whom nothing is hid, (for he know­eth the merits, or works, of all men)we need no spokes­man, but a devout mind; for wheresoever such a one shall speak unto him, he will answer him. Where we have these three things considerable: 1. That to go unto God by a Creature, as we go to earthly Princes by their Ministers, is to be guilty of Rebellion against God, by giving of his Honour to a Creature, and by worship­ping the Minister as if he were the King 2. That this is to desert the God of Heaven. And (3.) That by doing thus, we do ascribe unto our fellow servants as great Honour as we can give to God himself. To this T. G. re­plies; p. 370 ‘First, That this Author speaks of those who gave the Honour due to God, to a Creature, and forsaking God adored their [Page 215]fellow-servants;’ very true: But then he adds, That he is guilty of all this, who goes to God by a Creature, as a man would recom­mend himself to the King by his Minister, which is the daily practice of the Romanist. This plaister therefore doth not heal the wound, but make it wider.

2. ‘As he who only makes use of a Courti­er to recommend him to the King, doth not give the Honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, so neither do Catholicks give the Honour due to God, to the Saints, who only require the favour of their prayers to God,P. 371. so T. G. Repl.’ This is as if he should have said, St. Hilary thou lyest: For he expresly saith, That to recommend our selves to God by a Creature, as we do to the King by his Courtiers, is honorificentiam Regis vindica­re Comiti. For as he who sets up a Vice-Roy or subordinate King in any Commonwealth, and gives the Honour of a Vice-Roy to him with­out the Kings Commission, doth give that Ho­nour to him which is due only to the King, and ought to be esteemed as a violater of his Kingly Power; so must he also be esteemed, who having no Commission from God and Christ, sets up subordinate Mediators, and Ma­sters of Request to God.Ibid. 3. T. G. doth charge the Doctor with a terrible blunder; because he rendreth, Suffragatore non opus est, We need not any to recommend us to his favour. Repl. 1. This is a Calumny, for what he rendreth thus, is Suffragatore non opus est ad promerendum Deum, which cannot otherwise be rendred. T. G.'s Translation is confuted by the Reason follow­ing, which (as the Doctor doth translate the words) is this, The devout person needs no spokes­man [Page 216]to obtain Gods favour, for if he speak himself, God will be sure to answer him. But according to T. G.'s it will run thus, We need not any to inform God, that so we may procure his favour, but a devout mind; which is sufficiently ridiculous. 3. To this Interpretation of Peroon Du Moulin answers thus,Novelty of Pop. p. 420 ‘To this word the Cardinal giveth an absurd Interpretation, saying, that it signi­fieth a Counsellor. Every one that hath some taste of the Latin Tongue will smile at this, knowing that this word was never ta­ken in that sense. The votes of every Roman Citizen in the Comitia or City Meetings were called Suffragia, and he who helped or fa­voured any with his vote, was called his Suf­fragator. Now it is clear, that the Author of this Book speaks of Colonels and Gover­nors, or Comites, which are used as Interces­sors, not as Counsellors.’

But T. G. doth object against St. Hilary; ‘If a devout mind be enough to recommend us to the favour of God, what need we the prayers of others, or the intercession of Christ?’ What Hilary would answer I am not able to divine; but if he were alive, he might well wonder, that speaking against them, Qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt Creaturae, he should be thought to exclude Christ Jesus, whom he so often denies to be a Creature. 2. As to the prayers of others, St. Chrysostom saith the same with Hilary in very many places.Chrysest. in Matth. T. 7. p. 768 ‘When we have suit unto men, saith he, it falleth out oft-times, that we cannot go straight unto the Lords themselves, and present our gift unto them, and speak with them, but it is necessary for us first to procure the favour of their Ministers, and Stewards, and Offi­cers, [Page 217]both with praying, and using all other means unto them, and then by their mediati­on to obtain our request. But with God it is not thus: For there is no need of Inter­cessors for the Petitioners; neither is he so ready to give a gracious answer being en­treated by others, as by our own selves praying unto him. And again,Serm. 7. de paenit. T. 6. Ed. Savil. p. 802. With God there is no such matter, without an In­tercessor he is entreated, it sufficeth only that thou cry in thine heart. Lastly,Serm. de profectu Evang. To. 5. p. 416. With God (saith he) thou hast need of no Inter­cessors; but although thou be alone, and hast no patron, thou by thy self praying un­to God shalt certainly obtain thy request. He useth not to yield so soon, being prayed unto by others for us, as when we our selves do pray unto him, although we be replenish­ed with a thousand evils.Serm. in Psal. 4. p. 524. Thus did he deal with the Woman of Canaan: When Peter and James came for her, he did not yield, but when she her self did remain, he presently gave that which was desired.’ All this, and much more to the same effect, we find in Chry­sostom; and yet in his fifth Homily upon the first of Matthew, exhorting us to pray [...]. To. 2. p. 34. by our selves, rather than by others, and giving us ex­amples of many, for whom the prayers of their good friends that lived with them, prevailed not; and the example of this Woman, who by her self prevailed, when James and Peter could not: He adds, [...], (i. e.) I speak not this that we should not request the prayers of holy men, (i. e.) of those we do converse with here on earth, as the examples mentioned do interpret it, but to prevent our sloth. The like might Hilary have answered to [Page 218] T. G.'s. objection. Lastly, that he might give some colour to his exposition of the words of Hilary, he very disingenuously and lamely re­presents his Argument, for he makes it to be only this, that because nothing is hid from God, there is no need of a suffragator. Whereas his Argu­ment runs thus, to make him favourable who is ac­quainted with the merits (or the works) of all men, there is no need of any Suffragator: now I conceive it is as well the business of an Intercessor, as of a Counsellor, to plead the merits, or good works, of him for whom he intercedes.

4. When [...], l. 8. p. 381. Celsus had affirmed, that by giving worship to those Daemons which were subject to the highest God, he would not be offended whose Subjects they were: Origen re­plies, [...], &c. [...] —Orig. contra Celsum. l. 8. p. 382. That he who doth not any work that is grateful to the Daemons, [...], doth ascend above the worship of them. And that be ascends above the portion of them, who by St. Paul are called Gods, (i. e.) the Angels, who, as they do, or any other way doth look, not at the things [Page 219]which are seen, but which are not seen; and who be­holding that the creature waiteth for the revelation of the Sons of God, &c. doth [...], (i. e.) doth speak well of, or wish well to them, and understanding that the creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the liberty of the Sons of God, is not himself distracted, or withdrawn from God, to worship any other with him, nor doth endure to serve two Lords. Wherefore, saith he, it is not a seditious speech of those, who being well content with one Lord Jesus Christ, do think and say, [...], they will not give Dulia to more Lords. Now that the strength and pertinency of this Discourse may be con­spicuous to the Reader, let it be observed thatEam verò Orige­nis doctri­nam fuisse, quod omnes Angeli sub­limésque virtutes in delore, & gemitibus sint ante­quam nos penitus li­beremur, non dubi­um est le­genti com­mentarium ejus hoc lo­co, & ca quae scribir libr. 1. de principiis, c. 7, 8. Esth. in locom. Vi­de Not. Spenceri. in l. 5. contr. Celsum. p. 63. Origen conceived this passage of St. Paul, which speaks of that corruption and vanity to which * the Creature was unwillingly subjected, was to be understood as well of Angels, as of infe­rior Creatures, as is apparent both from his Comment on the place: And from his first Book de Principiis, Chap. 7, 8. so that his meaning in these words must undeniably be this, the Chri­stian in his Devotions doth ascend above the Angels, and is not so distracted and withdrawn from God, as to worship Angels with him; but maketh God and his Son Jesus Christ the only objects of his Worship. 2.— [...]. Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. p. 383. We Chri­stians, saith he, do not decline the worship of any other with God, and by his word, because we think, [Page 220]God can be hurt, as a man may, by serving of ano­ther with him, but that we may not hurt our selves, by separating of our selves from the Portion of God. (3.) He adds, that— [...]. Id. p. 384. we have better reason to serve God only by his Son, by whose conduction we are brought to God; than to serve two Lords, or per­form what Celsus had affirmed to be grateful to God: (viz.) the worshipping of those who were his Subjects, and belonged to him (4.) He affirms, that when St.— [...]. Id ib. p. 382. Paul asserted that to us there is but one God the Father, from whom are all things, he speaks there of himself, and of all them who do ascend unto the highest God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, which persons he describes by these three Notes, 1. That they were such as did(f) inseparably and undividedly worship this God of Gods by Jesus Christ. 2. That they were such as came unto him by Christ alone. 3. That they were such as so ascended to him, as to (g) trans­cend even these blessed Spirits which are in Scripture called Gods. 5. He comprehends the Honor which the Christians gave unto the Angels, in the words [...], bene precatur creaturae, saith the Latine. Whereas St.(h) Austin tel­leth us, It is an injury to pray for them, unto whose prayers we ought to be commended. To these citati­ons T.G. returns this Answer, viz * ‘That the worship which Origen here contends, is not to [Page 221]be given to Angels is Divine Worship, pro­per to God alone.’ But 1. this Reply makes Origen dispute impertinently, and to say no­thing to the purpose. For Celsus only did con­tend for this, [...]. Orig. l. 8 p. 381 That together with the highest God, inferior Beings might be worshipped as his Sub­jects. ‘No, saith St. Origen, the Christian go­eth immediately to God by Christ, he comes unto him by no other, he ascends above the service of Daemons and of Angels, and doth not suffer himself to be distracted from God, so as to worship any other with him.’ If he intended to assert the Christians did not wor­ship Angels or Daemons with him, as his Subjects, the Discourse is pertinent, if he intended only to affirm that Christians did not worship Angels or Daemons with him, as his Peers, this doth not hinder the worship of them, as his Subjects, according to the plea of Celsus. 2. When he affirms ‘that Christians did ascend, or go to God, only by Jesus Christ, having no other [...] Conciliator, or Intercessor to give access unto him,’ when he affirms all this, in opposition unto that of Celsus, that it would be grateful to God to worship them who did belong un­to him, when he asserts ‘that Christians did as­cend, or go to God, [...], without dividing of their service betwixt him and any other, and more particularly, that in ascending to God they overlooked the blessed Angels, which are in Scripture cal­led Gods, and that both Reason and St. Paul had taught them so to do.’ What greater e­vidence can be desired to prove that the Chri­stians of his time did never call upon the Saints and Angels to be their Advocates with God? or tender any part of their Religious Worship [Page 222]to them, or think it reasonable to worship them, because they did belong unto God? 3. If this had been the mind of Origen, is it not to be wondred that he makes no distinction of the kinds of Worship, or of the parts and actions of it: but absolutely and indefinitely pronoun­ceth, that to worship any other with God, is to be distracted from him, and that Christians undevided­ly did worship God by Jesus Christ? For if the Christians of his time did also worship Saints and Angels, and go to God not only by Christ Jesus, but by them, these sayings, without li­mitation, are both absolutely false, and perfect condemnations of the Churches practise. But yet T. G. p. 358. assures us, ‘It is plain, Origen speaks only of divine worship, and not of such an inferior worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their holiness or relation to God, 1. From the Reply which Origen gave to that evasion of Celsus, viz. that none were to be honoured For Gods, but those to whom the Supream God doth communicate it.’ Repl. Since then, the plea of Celsus was that we ought to worship [...], the Relations of God, what an Impertinent was Origen to speak only of an other matter? 2. The strength of this ci­tation entirely depends upon the words, For Gods, which T. G. disingenuously adds unto the words of Celsus l. 8. p. 384, which are only these, [...], it is not lawful to worship any but those to whom he granteth to be honoured: But (3.) he expres­ly adds, that he speaks of the worship of the Gods, or the Daemons, or the Heroes, [...]. l. 8. p. 384. Let us [Page 223]ask Celsus, saith he, concerning those that are wor­shipped either as Gods, or Daemons, or Hero's, whence he is able to demonstrate that God hath granted to them to be honoured. And then having produced Alcinous as an instance of the first kind, he asks how it can be demonstrated that it was given to him to be worshipped as a God; and then he adds, this Question I would ask [...], i. e. of the Daemons and the Heroes. Then he proceeds to prove that [...], to be honoured, was a thing granted to Christ, which he confirmeth from that passage of St. John, that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father: i. e. as truly, but not equally, that being inconsistent with Ori­gens opinion, as you will presently perceive. Obj. ‘When Celsus objects,T. G. p. 358. that by the same rule that Christians gave honour to Christ, he thought they might give it to inferiour Deities, the account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son, (viz. because it is said, I and my Father are one) makes it yet more evident that he speaks of Divine Worship.’ Answ. In the close of this Argument we have the same cheat repeated which I observed before, for he ex­presly saith, that Celsus objected that they worship­ped Christ for God. Which is not only false, but flatly contradictory unto the very words of the Objection, viz. [...]. Celsus a­pud Orig. l. 8. p. 385. that if the Christians worship­ped nothing else besides God, they might seem reasona­ble in their contempt of others, but when they do ex­cessively extoll with honour him who was of late ori­ginal, and yet believe that they do not offend against [Page 224]God by reverencing of his Minister, they are unrea­sonable: Whence evident it is, that Celsus did not think they worshipped him as God, but as the Minister of God, and one besides God. 2. Hence it is also evident, that Celsus did not contend for Divine Worship to be given to his Heroes, but only that they might be worship­ped as the Ministers of God. And lastly, it is evident that [...]. l. 8. p. 386. Origen by that expression, I and my Father are one, did not intend to argue the Unity of Essence, but of affection only be­twixt God and Christ, as in this very place he doth distinguish, nor yet to say our Saviour was that God who was the Lord of all, for this [...] ib. p. 387. expresly he denies. And so this Answer can be no evidence that he speaks of Worship pro­perly Divine: But if we do at last admit it, what Argument is more ridiculous than this, Origen denies that there is the same reason to give ho­nour to Christ and to inferiour Daemons, Because, Christ is God, therefore he only doth deny the attri­buting of Divine Worship to them: For should a Roman Catholick object against us in the words of Celsus, by the same Rule that we Protestants give honour to Christ, we may give it unto Saints de­parted, and should the Protestant answer, No; Because Christ is God, could it be thence infer­red that Protestants denyed to Saints departed that honour only which is called Latria, but did allow that kind of worship which is called Dulia.

‘To pray unto a Creature,Arg. 3. or that which is not God, is in the Language of the the anti­ent Fathers to worship it as God, or give that honour to it, which is due to him alone; is it not the extreamest ignorance, saith [...] Clem. A­lex. Strom. l. 7. p. 721. D. Cle­mens, to ask of them who are no Gods, as if they were Gods; and of this imputation he gives two accounts.’ 1. That seeing God alone is good, he only should be called upon. 2. That prayer is a discourse with God. We find in Scripture (saith [...]. Orig. contra Cels. l. 5. p 233. [...]. Id. ib. Origen) That Angels are sometimes stiled God, but notwithstanding that these Gods do also minister, and bring the gifts of God unto us, we must not worship them [...] in place of God, for all our prayers and supplications (by whatsoever name we call them, for he mentions all the Kinds of Prayer,) they must be all sent up to God by that high Priest, who is above all Angels, and is God. Why so I pray you, but that all prayer is worship which alone be­longs to God, and Jesus Christ? And therefore to offer it to any Creature, or by any other Me­diator, is to ascribe that to him which is due to God alone: had he been of the Church of Rome he must have said with them, that notwithstand­ing you have that High Priest, yet may you send up your Petitions to the Saints and Angels, this is an honour to him not an Encroachment upon the office of this great High Priest; it is con­fessed you must not worship them instead of God, but notwithstanding you may put up to [Page 226]them Supplications, Prayers, Thanksgiving. Inter­cessions, you may say unto them Pater noster, and ask all temporal and eternal blessings of them, provided you do not pray unto them with abso­lute, terminative, and sacrificial Prayer, di­stinctions which in reference to this matter, the Fathers knew but little off.

The Fathers hence conclude that Christ is God,Arg. 4. and that the Holy Spirit is God, because, we put up our Petitions to them, and because that they are present to relieve us, being called upon.Si ho­mo tan­tummodo Christus qùomodo adest ubi­que invo­catus, cum haec homi­nis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut ud­esse omni loco possit? No vat. de Trinitate c. 14. p. 707. Si homo tantum­modo Chri­stus, cur homo in Orationi­bus Medi­ator invocetur, cum Invocatio hominis ad praestandam Salutem inesse­cax judicetur. Novatian. ibid. ‘If Christ were only man how comes he to be every where present when he is in­voked, since to be omnipresent is the proper­ty of God, and is not competent to humane nature? If Christ was only man, why is a man invoked in our Prayers, as if he were a Medi­ator? for the Invocation of a man is (by Chri­stians) judged inefficacious to the obtaining of Salvation, so Novatian:’ It was so by the antient Christians, but is it so esteemed by the Church of Rome? Is not the blessed Virgin by them styled(c) Salus hominum, or the Salvation of mankind? Do they not say that(d) God will cer­tainly confer eternal Life on them that worship her? Do they not bid the(e) Guardian Angel say unto their Souls, I am thy Salvation? It is written, saith Athanasius, be thou to me a God, Protector, and as house of refuge that thou mayst save me: which words if Arians conceive to have been spoken of the Son, (f) [Page 227] let them know that (Christians or) Holy Persons do not Petition any thing that was begotten to be an helper to them or a house of Refuge. What are they then who do declare that it is good and profitableCon­cil. Trid. Sess. 25. ad corum opem auxiliumque confugere to fly for refuge to their help and aid, whose daily pra­ctise is to fly unto the blessed Virgin, Ca­tech. Rom. Par. 4. c. 5. Sect. 8. ab eâque opem & auxilium implorare, i. e. and to petition her to be our helper? who do advise usSub Matris re­fugio fuge causa ve­niae. Prosa. Miss. f. 33. B. 34. A. to fly under her refuge for the pardon of our sin? Lastly, vvho say unto their Guardian Angel,Exur­ge Angele in adjuto­rium me­um. Miss. in Hon. Pr. Angel. f. 16. Arise O An­gel to my help. Origen lay's down this as a most certain Rule,(l) That to invoke the name of God, and to adore him is the same: Whence he infers that as Christ may be invocated, so also must he be acknow­ledged to be God: and he adds, that when Saint Paul doth mention those that in all places call upon the name of Christ, he proves the same.

Having thus manifested from the judgment of the ancient Fathers that invocation is a part of worship proper to God, and that it cannot be ascribed to Saints departed vvithout Idolatry, much less to the inferior Heathen Daemons: Pag. 1.5. We shall subjoyn what Dr. St. affirms, viz. That there ‘being other intermediate beings between the supreme God, and men whose office, as the Heathens did conceive, vvas this, to carry the prayers of men to God, and to bring down help from him to them, they thought it very [Page 228]fitting to address their solemn supplications unto them, this (I say) being so, there was the very same cause in debate betwixt the an­cient Fathers and the Heathens, vvhich is be­tween us and the Church of Rome.’ Here T.G. swells and cryes out [...]: this is a most in­jurious Calumny and such as scarcely ever dropt from the pen of the greatest enemies of Christianity: So he, this being his continual Custom to begin with false and disingenuous accusations, and to con­firm them by most impertinent and weak dis­courses. We therefore will a little draw the paralel, and then proceed to answer his imper­tinencies.

First thenOra­tio porrigi­tur alicui dupliciter. Ʋno modo quasi per ipsum im­plenda. A­lio modo sicut per ipsum im­petranda. Primo qui­dem modo soli Dec O­rationem porrigi­mus: quid omnes cra­tiones no­strae ordi­nari de­bent ad gratiam & gloriam consequendam, quae solus Deus dat. Secundum illud Psal. 83. Gratiam & Glorian dabit Dominue. Sed Secundario modo orationem porrigimus Angelis & hominibus— Aq. 2 2ae. q. 83. Art. 4. Aquinas thus propounds the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Invocation of departed Spirits; a prayer may be directed to a person so as that we do request him to fulfil, and by himself accomplish our desires, and thus we pray to God alone, or so as that we do sollicite him to beg or to obtain them for us, and thus we pray to Saints and Angels; now this is that very Office which the Platonists ascribed to their Daemons; ‘They saith* St. Austin, bring the prayers of men unto the Gods, and what they beg and do obtain, quae poscunt impetrata they bring back to men.’ And again, ‘They think them so to intermediate betwixt God and men, as that they carry out desires hence, illinc referunt impetrata, and from thence bring back what they have obtained.’ Hence are they often stiled by them Advocates and Mediators, Intercessors, and Pararii i. e. the ob­rainers of our Suits.

[Page 229]2. On this account they thought it reasona­ble to honor them with supplications.‘Ficinus tradit Pla­tonem u­niversan. Deorum Synagogam unico Re­gi subdere prout vult sengulis imperanti, Jubere primum Deum ado­ri propter seipsum, se­quentes vero, qui participes ejus Dii queque di­cuntur a­mari tan­quam illi similiores, honorari etiam ut Vicarios, i­mo & advocari lanquam Conciliatores. Pla­to, saith Ficinus, subjected the whole number of Gods unto one King, who as he pleased did command them all, and he commanded that the chief God should be worshiped for himself, the other who are also called Gods by parti­cipation to be loved as likest to him, and to be honoured as his Vicars, and to be addressed to as to reconcilers.’ And Plato hath himself determined,(n) That they ought to be honoured with our Prayers, by reason of their laudable Province: which he saith is double. 1.(o) To be our Inter­preters to God. 2. To carry up the Prayers and Sa­crifices of men to God, and to bring back the com­mands and answers of God to them. (p) We ought to pray unto them to be propitious to us, so Celsus. 3. They did not think them to be Gods properly so cal­led, but only the ministers and servants of God, as I have proved above.† All things are done, saith Apuleius, by the will, majesty, and authority of the hea­venly beings, but by the ministry, work, and obsequi­qusness of the Daemons. Hence do they stile them, virtutes & ministeria Dei magni [...] i. e. Gods [Page 230]Ministers and Messengers. Hence do they rank them in the second and third place from God, and put this Office on them quia nullus Deus miscetur homini, because no God, that is, properly so cal­led, doth immediately converse with man; this is so plain that Austin doth acknowledg that the difference betwixtHos si Platonici malunt De­os, quam Daemones dicere, eis­que annu­merare, quos a sum­mo Deo conditos Deos scri­bit eorum autor & magister Plato, di­cant quod volunt non enim cum eis de ver­borum controver­sia labo­randum est.— & rursus, Quamvis nominis controver­sia videa­tur. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 9. cap. 23. Plato's good Daemons, which he acknowledged to be made by the highest God, and the good Angels was only in the name. Having thus drawn the Paralel, we are prepared to attend T. G's. pretences of a great disparity betwixt this In­vocation of the Heathen Daemons, which by the ancient Fathers was charged with Idolatry, and that Invocation of the Saints departed, which is now practised by the Church of Rome, which will be quickly done, since all his great disparities are only great impertinencies: for what is this unto the Doctors Argument con­cerning Invocation, that they do not offer Sacri­fice unto the Saints departed; which is his fourth disparity: Or, that the God they worship is the true immortal God, who sees the secrets of the hearts, which is his first disparity. What is it to the purpose to say, the persons they address their prayers unto are not Devils, or wicked wretches, but the blessed Spirits; for if the same kind of Invocation be u­sed to both, it must be deemed Idolatry in both, because in both it is the giving of the worship due to God unto the Creature; when this is done unto the best of Creatures, then is Idola­try committed; when this is not done, we may be guilty of Superstition or ( [...]) in gi­ving of inferior worship, or Dulia, to the worst of Creatures, but cannot be guilty of Ido­latry: And this cuts of his third dispari­ty.

4.pag 351. Their Office is not to inform the supream God of [Page 231]what he knows not, saith T. G. but to be joynt Petitio­ners with us: and what is this unto the purpose? seeing the Fathers neither did, or could con­demn them of Idolatry for thinking God did not know our Prayers without Interpreters. But for what was consequent upon it, viz. the making their addresses to them to present their requests to God, and by their prayers to obtain his blessings: the first opinion made them sacrile­gious in robbing God of what did properly be­long unto him, and with this we do not charge the Papists in this case. The second is Idolatri­cal in giving of his honor to a Creature, of which they are but too much guilty. This T. G. saw, as well as I: and therefore for the same good reason that some unskilful Painters write under their work this is a Dog, a Cat, Pag 352. &c. T.G. at the foot of his performance writeth thus, I have spoken home to the Case, and then he states it thus, whether the practise of Catholicks in honouring and invocating the Saints, be the same with that of the Heathens, in the worship of their inferior Deities? T.G. pag. 440. ‘Thus expiring Candle gathers up its Spirits, and forces it self into a blaze before it dies. Alass! that we should all this while have been mistaken in the question.’ The question hitherto controverted betwixt Dr. St. and him, in this particular, was concern­ing the Invocation of Saints, as T. G. doth himself confess, p. 350. ‘but now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand, this is dropt un­der the Table,’ and all the show above board is, whether their Invocation of Saints doth dif­fer, not from the Invocation, but the whole worship of inferior Daemons. ‘The business of so­lemn supplication to them is the Case in de­bate between us and the Church of Rome (saith [Page 232]Dr. St.) If ever you would speak home to the case do it upon this point.’ Pag. 145. I beg your par­don, saith T. G. I am not free to speak upon that point; I know my foot must slip if I should touch upon it, and therefore though you press me, and call upon me to speak home unto it, I am resolved to be reserved; nay, I am consci­ous to my self, that all that I have spoken is im­pertinent to that Case, I have not, nor I cannot shew the least disparity betwixt their Invocation of inferior Daemons: and that Invocation of the Saints, vvhich Roman Catholicks do practise: but if instead of speaking to this one case of supplication, you will let me wander, through the vvhole worship of those Daemons, then I have three disparities to offer; this is the twig the poor man catcheth hold of, to save both him and his vvhole Church from sinking, but in vain; for the disparities which he hath repre­sented betwixt that honour vvhich they give to Saints, and vvhat the Heathen do ascribe to their inferior Daemons is not only horribly imperti­nent, but also vain and frivolous, as vvill appear by reassuming of his heads of difference, as 1. The persons to whom we address our selves for their prayers, T. G. pag. 351. are not Devils or wicked Wretches, but the Friends and Servants of God. Answ. 1. St. Austin manifestly doth assert,Dec. D. l. 9. c. 23. That either all, or at the least, the better sort of Platonists, Hoc ipsum dicunt quod dicimus, did assert the same of their good Daemons, which we do of the blessed An­gels; that there was also no dissention betwixt them and Christians touching these blessed Spi­rits; and that the controversie was but this, whether they should be called Daemons, as they were wont to stile them, or Angels, as the Christians called them: and therefore it is ma­nifest [Page 233]he did not think the Platonists good Dae­mons to be Devils, or wicked Wretches, as T. G. suggests. 2. It is apparent from their Writings, that other Heathens had the same apprehensions of them, which the Papists have of Saints and Angels, for they distinguished them into such Spirits, asVerum haec omnis distributio corum Dae­monum fa­it, qui quondam in corpore bumano fuere. Sunt autem non posteriore numero praestantio­ri longe dignitate superius a­liud angu­stius (que) ge­nus Dae­monum, qui semper à corporis compedibus & nexibus liberi. Apuleius l. de Deo Socratis. p. 50. were by death deliver­ed from the body, and such as never were united to the body. And hence that Law of the old Roma­nists, † Let them be worshipped who have always lived in Heaven, and those whose merits have advanced them to that place; where we have both the same objects of our worship, and the same reason of that worship given, viz. their merits, or as Trismegistus hath it, the vertues of their life. And though I grant they were mistaken in their apprehensions, yet he that doth so confidently assert, That Roman Catholicks would not be guilty of Idolatry, provided the material object of their wor­ship should be bread, because they apprehend what is bread not to be there, but Christ; cannot have any reason to quarrel with the Heathens, because, when they performed their worship to an Image in whom these Spirits were conceived to be pre­sent, they apprehended no evil Spirit to be there, but only pure and holy Souls, and bles­sed Daemons.

2. Their office, saith he, is not to inform the supreme God of what he knows, but to be joynt Peti­tioners with us. Answ. Admit all this, the Fa­thers do expresly hold they ought not to be wor­shipped upon that account. But 2. Let me crave leave of good St. Augustine to assert, [Page 234]That the Platonists did not conceive that God was ignorant of what was done on Earth, or that he needed Daemons or any other Spirits to inform him of our words, thoughts, or acti­ons. St. Augustine (I confess) infers this Do­ctrine from what they did assert, but that they constantly professed and taught the contrary, is clearer than the Sun.Theolog. Dogm. Tom 1. l. 8. c. 4. ‘Petavius tells us, That the tenth Book of Plato is spent in prov­ing that God wants neither power, will, nor knowledge, to make his providence con­cerned about the least things which are done on Earth, and that expresly he declares, that the Gods discern, know, and hear all things, and that nothing which our sense or reason can perceive, can be concealed from them.’ This, saith [...]. l. 10. de leg. p. 955. [...], Ammonius Comment. ad librum Aristotelis de interpretatione. Plotinus and Ammonius, must be certain, that if the Gods are the first causes of all things, they cannot possibly be ignorant of any thing which is in any manner done by them More­over the‖ Platonists affirmed, That God had this knowledge from and by himself, and from no other, and that nothing was required but his nature to make him understand all things. Particularly, both Platonists and others held that God was the searcher of the heart, and was himself ac­quainted with the thoughts of men. Hence [Page 235] [...]. La­ertius in vit. Tha­letis p. 24 Nihil Deo clausum est, interest animis no­stris & co­gitationi­bus inter­venit; Se­nec. Ep. 83. Thales being asked, whether the actions of men could be concealed from God; he answers, No, nor yet our thoughts. Nothing is hid from God, faith Seneca, he is both present to our minds and thoughts, Whence he exhorts us so to live as in his sight, and so to think, as having one who looks into our brests. [...]. Xeno­phon memorab l. 1. The Gods, saith Socrates, know all things which are spoken, done, and which in silence we consult. (c) God sees all minds, saith Antoni­nus, devested of those Barks and material Vessels that contain them, for with his mind alone he reacheth all those minds which are derived from him, and are lodged in them. Whence he exhorts us so to be(d) affected in our minds, as that the Gods may see that nothing doth trouble or disgust us.(e) This we are first to learn, saith Epictetus, that there is a God, whose Providence doth reach to all things, and that not only what we do but what we think cannot be hid from him. It is more agreeable to God, saith Plutarch, to perceive the actions of the soul than of the body; he therefore knows the dispositi­ons of all men. This is but little of that which might be easily produced to confirm this truth; [Page 236]but yet it is sufficient to inform the Reader, that T. G. was scandalously ignorant if he did not know it, or scandalously wicked, if know­ing this, he ventured to declare the contra­ry.

3. We, saith T. G. do not procure or buy this favour of them by offering Sacrifice to them. Answ. True; but then you offer up your prayers unto them, which in the judgment of the ancient Fa­thers is the best and highest Sacrifice, as I have proved already, Prop. 4. Corol. 1. 2. As Ro­man Catholicks do pray to Saints departed, and do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart, because they vainly do conceive these things are not so proper to God, but that they may be attributed to the Creature; so Hea­thens offered their first fruits and Sacrifices to inferior Daemons, because they vainly did con­ceive they were not properly that worship which was due unto the highest God, but such as might be given to those Daemons, which they acknowledged to be Creatures. This is appa­rent from what St. Austin doth assert concern­ing them, viz. De C. D. l. 10. c. 19. ‘That they conceiv'd these vi­sible Sacrifices might agree to lesser Gods, but that to him who is invisible, the greater and the better God, invisible, greater, and better Sacrifices do agree, viz. the duties of a pure mind, and a good will.’ I grant they were deceived in this apprehension: But if the Romanists cannot be justly charged with Idolatry, although the object of their worship should be Bread, because they do conceive it not to be so, why should the Heathens be deemed guilty of Idolatry in this particular, although the act of worship which they confer upon the Creature, be proper to God, seeing they also do conceive [Page 237]it not to be so? For as Dr. Taylor argues in be­half of them; if these Heathens thought this act of worship proper to God, they who command us not to exceed in paying honour to them, would be far from doing of it; which is a de­monstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is Idololatrical.

Lastly, The Doctor saith,P. 145. The wiser Heathens acknowledged one God, not Jupiter of Creet, but the Father of Gods and Men. P. 350. To this T. G. re­plies, That Origen saith that Jupiter was a Devil. But if Origen spake this of Jupiter of Creet, or if he did not speak it of the Philosophers supreme God, which T. G. never offers to assert he did,De Theol. Gent. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7. what can be more impertinent? The Learned Vossius had met with some as ignorant as T. G. who thought that the Philosophers God was not the true Jehovah, and that the Heathens had not the knowledge of him; and thus he puts the Question to them: ‘What will these persons say to Blessed Paul, who calleth Jupiter God? What, doth he understand that Jupiter who was so infamous for his Adulteries? Sure it is no such matter; he with the Philosophers did understand that infinite mind that runs through all things; why else doth he approve that saying of Aratus, For we are all his off-spring? Why doth he manifestly apply that to the true God which Aratus spake of Jupiter, for he begun his Verses with him. This therefore is the mind of the Apostle, that we are his off-spring, whom the wiser Heathens understood by Jupiter, which he would not have said, had not some of the Heathens had the knowledge of the true Jehovah. When St. Paul saith, Him whom you ignorantly worship, Acts 17. I declare unto you, how manifestly doth he af­firm, [Page 238]that the Athenians worshipped that very Deity of which he was about to speak, viz. God that made the world, &c. And how can any man deny this thing, saith he, when the same Apostle doth affirm that they knew God,Rom. 1.20 and that he had manifested to them that which may be known of God; for what is more ab­surd than to imagine, that the true and only God should manifest unto them any other God besides himself?Veteres cum ad­versus De­orum cul­tores Chri­stianam causam a­gunt, insig­nium Poe­tarum, ac philosopho­rum, nec­non Sibyl­larum te­stimonia quampluri­ma refe­runt, quae unicum Deum esse, Deos au­tem illos, quos vul­gus ascivit, mentitos & inanes esse praedi­cant. Pe­tav. T. 1. l. 1. c. 3. p. 17. Petavius could have in­formed him, That it was the business of the Fathers, in their Apologies and Exhortations to the Gentiles, to shew, that both the wisest and the most eminent Poets and Philosophers ac­knowledged the one true God, and laughed at those vain fictitious Deities the vulgar worshipped.’ But 2. The God whom we adore, saith T. G. is not that wise Father of Gods and Men, who was so high as not to know what was done here below, but the true and immortal God, who sees the secrets of our hearts, and knows our necessi­ties before we utter them. Answ. This also did the God of the Philosopher, as we have largely proved.Quisquis est Deus, totus est sensus, totus visus, totus auditus, totus animae, to­tus animi, totus sui. Let God be what he will, saith Pliny, he must be all sense, all eye, all hearing. † He must be deemed, saith Hippocrates, to be immortal, and to hear, and see, and know all things, both present, and to come. Of this we have innumerable evi­dences in Lipsius Physiol. Stoic. l. 1. Dissert. 6. xi. Petav. de Deo. To. 1. l. 4. cap. 1.2, 3, 4. and l. 8. c. 4. sec. 6. and Gataker in Antoninum. l. 1. sec. 3. l. 6. sec. 13. l. 12. sec. 2.

To this convincing evidence of Dr. St. That invocation of the Saints deceased was not the Doctrine of the ancient Church: we add these four Considerations: 1. That Lactantius and others dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practice, and confute this Doctrine, and which could never, without the highest folly, be alledged by those who did approve either the Doctrine or practice of the Church of Rome. Quid — sibi — vo­lunt deni­que ipsa simula­chra, quae aut mor­tuorum aut absentium monimen­ta sunt? Deos igitur in quorum numero reponemus? Si in ab­sentium: colendi er­go non sunt: si nec vident quae faci­mus; nec audiunt quae preca­mur. Si an­tem Di [...] absentes esse non possunt [...]qus quoniam divini sunt, in quacunque mundi parte fuerint, vident & audiunt uni­versa: Supervacua ergo sunt simulachra, illis ubique praesentibus; cum satis sit audientum nomina precibus advocare. Lactant. de Origine Erroris, l. 2. c. 2. Quid si­bi volunt simulacra, what mean their Images, saith he, which either are the Monuments of the Dead or absent Persons? for upon this account were these si­militudes invented, that the memory of them might be retained, who are either dead, or absent from us: in which of these two orders will you place your Gods? If in the number of the dead men, is any man so foolish as to worship them? If in the number of the absent, they are not to be worshipped, if they can neither see what we do, nor hear our Prayers: Where note, that it is here supposed, as an unquestionable thing, that persons absent can neither hear our Prayers, nor see our Actions. Let me then ask T. G. ‘what mean the Images of the Church of Rome, which are either the monuments of the dead, or absent persons; in what order will you place your Saints and Angels? If in the number of dead men; Why then are you so foolish as to worship them; If in the num­ber of the absent, they are not to be wor­shipped, since they can neither see our acti­ons, nor hear our prayers.’ What I have thus retorted on the Church of Rome, if the like [Page 240]practice had then obtained in the Church of Christ, might have been with like evidence re­turned upon Lactantius.

Tertullian tells the Heathens, that by allow­ing many GodsCum a­lii alios Deos coli­tis, eos quos non colitis, uti (que) con­temnitis: praelatio alterius sine alte­rius contu­melia esse non potest, nec ulla electio non reprobatione componitur. Qui de pluribus suscipit aliquem eum quem non suscipit despexit. Sed tot ac tanti ab omnibus coli non possunt! Jam ergo tunc primo contempsistis, non veriti scilicet ita instituere, ut omnes coli non possent. Tertul. ad Nationes, L. 1. c. 10. they do affront as many of them as they do not worship, for the prelation of any one, is a reproach to all the rest: which Argument doth equally impugne the worship of the Church of Rome: For who knows not, that many of their Saints, who in some Countries are worshipped more than Christ himself, are scarcely known in others.

2. The Ancients prayed for all the Saints de­parted, excepting neither Apostles, Martyrs, or the blessed Virgin: The Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, ascribed to St. Chry­sostome, saith;Chry­sost. Tom. 6. p. 998, 999. We offer unto thee this reasonable Service, for those who are at rest in the faith, our Fore-fathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Con­fessors, Religious Persons, and every Spirit perfected in the Faith: But especially for our most holy, imma­culate, most blessed Lady the Mother of God, and e­ver Virgin Mary. —Remember all them who are fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, give them to rest where the Light of thy Counte­nance presideth. The Liturgy ascribed to St. Mark, having made mention of the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, &c. speaketh thus,Bibli­oth. Pa­trum Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. p. 35. A. Lord make the Souls of all these to rest in the Tabernacles of thy Saints, in thy Kingdom, conferring on them all the good things promised. Which is a pregnant evi­dence, [Page 241]that the first Authors of those Liturgies did not invoke the Blessed Virgin, or the Evan­gelists, Apostles, Martyrs, or any other Saints departed, this being a known Rule (and asCum sacrae Scri­pturae di­cat aucto­ritas, quod injuriam facit Mar­tyri qui o­rat pro Martyre. Innocent. III. P. R. Decret. l. 3. de ce­leb. Miss. tit. 41. Pope Innocent declares the voice of Scripture) that he who prayes for any Martyr doth offer an af­front unto that Martyr. Nay, even common sense and reason shews, that it is very foolish and absurd to pray for them, and to commend them to Gods favour, to whom we therefore pray, because, we think their merits and their inte­rest with God is such as that they can prevail by vertue of them for all the blessings they can ask for others.

3. The Heathens did object against the Chri­stians, that they put up Supplications to the Man Christ Jesus, whose birth and ignominious death they owned.Inique non scis quem invo­cas homi­nem quen­dam fa­ctum, sub custed à Pontii Pi­lati puni­tum? In Act. Andr. apud Bar. A. D. 290. §. 26. Dost thou not know, saith Maximus unto Andronicus the Martyr, that him whom thou invokest was a man who suffered under Pontius Pilate? And in Arnobius, the Heathen thus disputes,Sed non, inquit, idcirco Dii vobis infe­sti sunt, quod omni­p [...]lentem colatis Deum: sed quod hominem natum, &, quod personis in­fane est vilibus, crucis supplicio interemptum, & Deum fuisse contendi­tis, & superesse adhuc creditis, & quotidianis supplicationibus ad [...]a­tis. Arnobii adversus Gentes l. 1. p. 20. You Christians do adore with daily Supplications, and look upon him as a God, who was both born a man, and suffered an ignominious Death on the Cross. And had the Christians of that time put up their Supplications to the A­postles, Evangelists, and Martyrs, and the Blessed Virgin, had not the Heathens greater reason to object, that they offered up their Supplications unto such as were but ordinary men, and who continued in the state of death?

When in the dayes of Julian this custome did insinuate it self into the Church of Christ, and [Page 242]they began in Panegyrical Orations to speak unto the Martyrs, as to men present with them; Eu­napius presently cryes out,Eunap. in Aedesso. p. 65. [...]: that they call their Martyrs Ministers, and Legats of their Prayers to God. That therefore this was not objected by Porphyry or Celsus, or taken notice of, as their objection, by any of the ancient Fathers, is an assurance that they had no such practice in the purest Ages of the Church.

4. This will be farther evident, if we consi­der, that in the writings of the Apostles and E­vangelists, and of the ancient Fathers, we have no rules prescribed for the Canonizing of any Saints departed, or any mention of this custome till the seventh Century: for since it is so great a Crime to worship damned Spirits next to God, seeing to celebrate their praises, and to give God thanks for their Examples, and for the Graces of his Spirit, is so absurd a thing: And yet it is a thing, saithNisi judicio Ec­clesiae cer­ti Sancti propone­rentur co­lendi, fa­cil: fieri posse [...], ut populus sae­pe [...]rraret, & damna­tos pro Be­a [...]is cole­ret. Bel­larm. de Sanct. Be­at. c. 7. §. Sed. Bellarmine, that easily might happen from the neglect of this Canoniza­tion; we may conclude that they who never took the care to practise it, did not allow that wor­ship which made its observation necessary.

CHAP. IX.

The Contents.

General Heads of Answer to the Testimonies produced by T. G. from Antient Fathers, 1. That the Fathers of that time did more unquestionably practise and approve what hath been since condemned by the Church of Rome, V.G. They practised the commu­nicating of Infants, they approved the ne­cessity of it to Salvation. Sect. 1. They ap­proved the Doctrine, that the Righteous did not enjoy the sight of God before the Re­surrection. Sect. 3. Secondly, That the Fathers cited by him, do many of them in words more clear, and writings more authen­tick, deny, or disapprove this practise. Sect. 2. Thirdly, Many of the Fathers of those times beld Doctrines inconsistent with that pra­ctise, Sect. 3. viz. that Saints did not en­joy the Beatifick Vision, ibid. Secondly, That they did not hear or understand our words di­rected to them, and that it was doubtful whether they had the knowledge of our con­dition, yea, or not. Sect. 4. Fourthly, That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present, although [Page 244]they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly, That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Crea­tures, which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's. ibid. Sixthly, That there is great difference be­twixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World, and the practise of the Church of Rome, as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up men­tal Prayers unto them, or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart. 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs, and Ora­tories. Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful. Sect. 7. Partly impertinent, and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes. Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection, but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer. Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us, and so did help us with their Prayers. Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desi [...]ing God, that for their intercession he would be gracious. Sect. 11.

§. 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries: We come now to con­sider [Page 245]what T.G. offers from the Fathers, to prove the invocation of the Saints departed, to have been the practice of the Primitive Church: Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen, and Nyssen, St. Cyril, and St. Ambrose, Ruffinus, St. Basil, Chrysostome, St. Austin: to which we Answer.

1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century, or after the con­clusion of it. Bas. M. A. 370. Nazian. 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost. An. 398. Hierom. ob. 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cy­ril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one I­tem of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers; so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do, it would be only this, That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries, and to the mid­dle of the fourth, were in this matter perfect Prote­stants, whereas some of the middle Fathers, who lived in the declining Ages of the Church, do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome: Now in this case we say with Cyprian, Si in aliquo nu­taverit, & vacillave­rit veritas, ad origi­nem Domi­nicam, & Evangdi­cam, & A­postolicam traditionem revertamur, & inde surgat actus nestri rati [...], un­de & ordo & origo surrexit. Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside, we must look back, and re­turn to Divine, Evangelical, and Apostolick Traditi­on; and derive the order of our action, from the ori­ginal ground where it first began. And with Ter­tullian, (b) If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity, be confirmed by use of succession, and [Page 246]opposed against verity, we must observe that neither space of time, nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth; for Christ is eternal, and before all, and in like sort, verity is most ancient: For who knoweth not, that above 100 years before this time, the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church: St.De Lap­sis Sect 7. & 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice; thel. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitu­tions declare, that first the Priests communica­ted, then Virgins, after them, Widows, and then [...], or their little Infants. In the same Century [...], &c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsu­estia in Sicily, concludes against his Adversaries, that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin, because, it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin. They also held, that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament. When Christ saith, If you eat not my flesh, you shall not have life in you; should I say that an Infant should have life, who ends his life without that Sacrament: So Austin. Again,Domi­num audi­amus, in­quam, non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem, sed de Sacramento San [...] monsae suae, quo nemo ritè, nisi Baptizatus, accedit, nisi manduca [...] tis carnem meam & biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan [...] vobis—an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad par [...] los haec sententia non pertineat, possinique sine participatione corp [...] hujus & sanguin is in se habere vitam? Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat. [...] ritis & remiss. c. 20. Let us hear our Lord, saith he, speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table, whether none right­ly comes, but he that is baptized: and then citing this place; Ʋnless you eat my flesh, &c. he adds, Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Chil­dren, but that they may without the participation o [...] the body and blood of Christ, have life in themselves. For this he also urgeth the Testimony of th [...] See of Rome; (for then this Doctrine, [...] [Page 247]well as Practice, was received there.)Ecce B. memo­riae Inno­centius Papa sine Baptismo Christi, & sine parti­cipatione Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, vi­tam non habere parvulos dicit. To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt (Pelagia­ni) Aposto­licae sedi, vel potiùs ipsi Magi­stro, & Domino A­postolorum qui dicit non habi­tures vi­tam in se­ipsis, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, &c. (quod nisi Baptizati non ut [...] (que) possunt) nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam ha­bere non posse. Epist. ad Paulinum, Ep. 106. p. 101. Be­hold, saith he, Pope Innocent of blessed memory, de­clares that little ones cannot have life without Bap­tism, and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ: And in his Epistle to Paulinus, if the Pelagians, saith he, will yield to the Apostles Seat, or rather to their Lord and Master, saying that ex­cept we eat his flesh, and drink his blood (which the unbaptized cannot do) we shall not have life, they will at last confess that unbaptized Infants cannot have it. The Words of Innocentius are these;(f) Whereas your Brotherhood asserts, that the Pe­lagians say that Infants may be saved without Bap­tism; this is a very fond opinion, for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they have no life in them. (g) Whence it is evident (saith Binius) that this was Pope Innocents opinion, which also was maintained in the Church 600 years, viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was ne­cessary to Infants: and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusivè, to the eleventh Century, by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times; Who also doth abundantly consute that vain i­magination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius, that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christs Body and his Blood not Sacra­mentally, but Spiritually, by such a participation [Page 248]as may be had in Baptism. Lastly, they also do af­firm this Doctrine to be derived fromOptimè Funici Christiani Baptis­mum ipsum nihil a liud quam salu­tem, & Sacramen­tum Corpo­ris Christi, nihil aliud quam vi­ [...]um vo­cant, unde nisi ex Aa­tiqua, ut existimo, et Apostolica traditione; qua Eccle­siae Christi insitum te­nent prae­ter Baptis­mum & participa­tionem do­minicae mensae, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed we ad sa­lutem, & vitam ae­ternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire, hoc enim & scriptura testatur (viz. Tit. 3.5. 1 Petr. 3.21. John 6.51, 53.) si ergo, ut tot & tanta Divina testimonia concinunt, nec salus, nec vita ae [...]crna, sine Bap­t [...]m [...] & Corpore & Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra [...]ne his promittitur parvulis. Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat. meritis, &c. c. 24. p. 144 D. E. Aposto­lical Tradition, and deeply setled in the Churches of Christ, as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin: From an ancient, and (as I suppose) Apostolical Tradition, the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them, that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper, no man can attain to the Kingdom of God, nor yet to life eternal: If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us, that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ, 'tis in vain to promise it to children without them. And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practise, and determined against this Doctrine thus:(i) Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communio­nem anathema sit: Which must be thus interpre­ted; ‘If any Person now doth say, what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years to­gether; viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist, let him be accursed.’ I will not quarrel with them, as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers, or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ, for many Ages; but I will take the Boldness to infer, that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of de­parted Saints, a practice not opposed, as that [Page 249]was, by many Fathers of the Church, upon its first encroachment, when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church, a practice so deeply setled in all Christian Churches in St. Austins time, when that of Invocation of Saints departed, was but in the Embryo; Lastly, a practice proved from clear, unanimous, and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers; (Whereas what is produced for the other pra­ctice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver, and fairly may admit another sense, as you shall see hereafter;) I say, if they may wholly lay aside this practice, and may pronounce Anathema's against it: I hope we also may refuse to practice this Invo­cation of the Saints departed, provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen, Basil, and St. Austin.

2 Observe,§ 2. ‘That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed, in others they deny the Doctrine, and disap­prove the practice of it; and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentick, and in words more clear and pregnant, than are, or can be brought to justifie it.’ This I might easily make good, by an induction of the places cited pro and con, from all these Father; but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin, p 431. as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point, that whosoever shall deny St. Austin, to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints, must shut his eyes, and fight against the light of a noon-day truth: Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father, and say, whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest un­truth.

The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocati­on, are,

1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers. T. G. p. 430.

2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs, both to excite us unto the imitation of them, and that we may become par­takers of their merits, and may be helped by their pray­ers. T. G. p. 433.

3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose pray­ers we ought to be commend­ed. T. G. p. 434.

Against it we produce these Testimonies.

Ipse Sacerdos est, qui nunc ingressus in interiora Veli, solus ibi ex his qui carnem gestaverunt interpellat pro nobis. In Psalm. 64. p 144. M. (1.) Christ is the Priest, who being now entred within the Vail, only of all that have been made partakers of flesh, makes intercession for us there.

Si vero ita diceret, hoc scripsi vobis ut non peccetis, & si quis pec­caverit, Mediatorem me habetis apud Patrem, ego exoro pro peccatis ve­stris, sicut Parmenianus quodam loco Mediatorem posuit Episcopum in­ter Populum & Doum, quis cum ferret bonorum atque fidelium Christiano­rum? quis sicut Apostolum Christi, & non sicut Antichristum intueretur. Contr. Epistol. Parmen. l. 2. c. 8. p. 7. L. Tom. septimo. (2.) If he (i. e.) St. John, had said thus, If any man sin, you have me a Mediator with the Father, I make inter­cession for your sins, (as Parme­nian in one place doth make the Bishop a Mediator betwixt the People and God) what good and faithful Christian would endure him, who would look upon him as the Apostle of Christ, and not as Antichrist?

Non est quo cas nisi ad me, non est quâ eas nisi per me. Tract. 22. in Joh. (3.) Thou hast not whi­ther thou canst go but to me, nor hast thou any other way to go but by me.

Thirdly,§. 3. Observe, that many of these Fa­thers held those Doctrines and opinions which are inconsistent with this practice, according to the Judgment of the Romanist. As 1. It is [Page 251]the Judgment of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, Illi qui sunt in Purgatori­o, nondum fruuntur visione verbi, ut possint cog­noscere ea quae nos co­gitumus vel dici­mus, & i­deo eorum suffragia non implo­ramus o­rando. A­quin. 2a 2ae. qu. 83. Art. 4. That our petitions should be directed only to such Saints as do enjoy the beatifick vision, or a clear sight of God, and are admitted into those glorious Mansions which are emphatically stiled Heaven. And this they do imagine to be necessary upon three accounts: 1. That they may give a reason why this practice was never used by theNotan­dum est quia ante Christi ad­ventum sancti qui moriebantur non intrabant in coelum, nec Deum vide­bant, nec cognoscere poterant ordinariè preces supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in Testamento veteri ut diceretur sancte Abraham, Ora pro me. Bellar. de Sanctorum Beatitud. l. 1. cap. 19. S. item Exodi. Prophets, or the Jewish Church, and why it is not said in Scripture, or in the Jewish Records, Sancte Abraham, Ora pro me, Holy Abraham, Pray for me. And 2. Why neither they, nor any other persons, did ever put up a petition to the(c) Saints in Purgatory. 3. Because this(d) beatifick vision is conceived to be that glass, in which the blessed do behold the prayers that are made unto them, or at the least it is required as a preparatory to this Re­velation. Now Thomas Stapleton informs us, That(e) many famous ancient Fathers, Tertulli­an, [Page 252]Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodo­ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ambrose, Clemens Romanus, and Bernard, did not assent unto this sentence, That the Souls of the righteous en­joy the sight of God before the day of Judgment; but did deliver the contrary sentence thereunto. To these Franciscus Pegna adds,In part. 2. direct. Inquisi­tor. com­ment. 2 [...]. Justin Martyr, Au­stin, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Aretas, and Euthymius. The truth of which Confessi­ons of these Roman Doctors, you may see large­ly prov'd inDe poe­nis & sa­tisfact [...]. 5. c. 3, 4, 5, 6. Dalle: And that this Doctrine was almost generally received, about that time when all those Fathers flourished which T. G. citeth, to confirm the invocation of Saints, is evident from that ofPost vi­tam istam parvum nondum e­ris, ubi e­runt Sancti quibus dicetur, Venite benedicti Fatris, percipite regnum quod vobis paratum est ab initio mundi. Nondum ibi eris, quis nescit? Sed jam poteris ibi esse, ubi illum quondam ulcerosum pauperem, dives ille superbus & sterilis in medits suis tormentis vidit à longè qutescentem. Tom. 8 in Psal. 36. fol. 61. G.H. Austin, Nondum ibi eris: qu [...]s nescit? Thou shalt not as yet be there: who knoweth it not?

2. It is confessed by many Doctors of the Church of Rome, that if the Saints deceased do not hear and understand our Prayers, it is a vain and idle thing to pray unto them: if this, saithDeBe­atitud. disp. 25. Lorca, was not supposed by the Church of Christ, she would first pray unto God to reveal our Prayers, and then would put up her Petitions to them: Now al­most all the Fathers cited by T.G. held that the Dead did neither know nor were acquainted with our Petitions or our wants, or at the least, they were of S [...]eti­am ex [...]ra corpus po­siti, vel sancti qui cum Chri­sto sunt, a­gunt ali­quid & la­boran [...] pro nohis ad si­militudi­nem Ange­lorum, qui salu [...]is nost [...]ae ministeria procurant, — habeatur hoc queque inter oc­culia Dei, [...]ee char [...]ulae committenda mysteria. Orig. in Rom. l. 2. p. 472. Origens Opinion, that it was doubt­ful whether they did or no. Thus Ambrose speaking of his dead brother, saith didst thou now know [Page 253]how Si nunc urgeri Ita­liam tam propinquo bosie cog­nosceres, quantum ingemisce­res. Am­bros. de obitu sr. Satyri. Italy was pressed with so near an Enemy, how wouldst thou groan within thy self? St. Hierom in Ne­potians Epitaph professeth he believs himQuic­quid dixe­ro quia ille non audit m [...]tum vi­de [...]ur. f. 8. B. Scimus quidem Nepotia­num no­strum esse cum Chri­sto & San­ctorum mixtum ch [...]ris. ib. 1. F [...]lix Ne­potianus qui haec non videt, felix qui haec non audit. p. 10. B. min­gled amongst the Quire of Saints: And yet he adds, whatsoever I shall say will be but speaking to the Deaf, because, he hears not: and again, happy is Nepoti­an, who neither hears nor sees these things: Ibi er­go sunt Spiritus defunctoru [...] ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur, aut eveniunt in isrâ vitâ hominibus. De cura pro mortuis. c. 13. The Spirits of dead men are there where whatsoever things are done or happen in this life to men, they do not see them. So St. Augustine; and therefore An­selm in his interlineal Gloss upon that Text, Abra­ham is ignorant of us, noteth thus, Austin saith that the dead do not know what the living do. Else where he is less positive, and only saith,(f) whether at all, or how far, or after what manner the Spirits of the dead could know the things that are done here, is a great question. And the like doubt we find in Na­zianzen in his Rhetorical Apostrophe's: for in his invective against Julian he speaks thus;(g) Hear O thou soul of great Constantius (if thou hast any understanding of these things) and as many souls of the Kings before him as loved Christ. Where the Greek Scholiast upon that Parenthesis nutteth this Note; [...] He speaketh according to the manner of Isocrates, mean­ing, if thou hast any power to hear the things that are here And therein he saith rightly, for Isocra­tes useth the same form of speech, both in his Evagoras, and in his Aegineticus; [...]. If they which be dead have sense of the things which are done here. The [Page 254]like limitation is used by the same Nazianzen toward the end of the funeral Oration, which he made upon his Sister Gorgonia where he speaketh thus unto her; [...] Greg. Nazian. Orat. 2. in Gor­gon. ‘If thou hast any care of the things done by us, and holy souls receive this honour from God, that they have any feeling of such things as these; receive this Oration of ours, instead of many, and be­fore many funeral obsequies.’ Whence it is evident, that the Foundation of this Doctrine was doubted by them; And then it follows, that the thing it self was in those times only a doubtful, or a disputable point, and therefore that it was not delivered to them by tradition, or confirmed by Scripture, and cannot be re­quired as the Condition of Communion with­out Schisme: 2. Hence we have just reason to suspect that in those other passages, we meet with of like Nature, these words, If thou hast a­ny sense, or apprehension of these things, when they are not expressed, may very well be understood: and that this is the genuine import of their Rhetorical Petitions.

§. 4. Observe that the afore mentioned Fa­thers did often speak to their deceased Friends in such a manner, as if they did suppose them pre­sent, although they did not think them so to be: thusTom. 1. p. 314. B. Nazianzen, when ready to conclude his Fu­neral Oration upon his Father, speaketh thus, What saist thou Father, is this sufficient? Andl. 1. contra Juli­an. c. 6. Austin speaks to Chrysostom, who had been dead some years before; Enter, St. John, enter, and sit together with thy brethren. AndTom. 1. in Psal. 50. p. 703. l. 27. Chryso­stom to David thus, What is it thou desirest, Da­vid, thy sins are pardoned, what wouldst thou more? Oh David, go, give God thanks, and ever glorifie him. And again, why art thou troubled, David, let [Page 255]me know. This [...]. p. 19. ed. Eton. Nazianzen doth acknowledge to be the meaning of his addresses to Constantius when he believed he did enjoy the vision of God: for thus he speaks, ‘What was the mat­ter, oh divinest King, and greatest lover of our Lord, for I am moved to find fault, as if thou wast here present, and didst hear me, though I do know thee to be now with God, and in possession of his Glory.’ And this way of speaking they borrowed from the Hea­then Orators and Poets, whom we find speaking thus; ‘O M. Drusius I appeal to thee; OAudisne haec Am [...] [...]hiarie sub terram ab­dite? Tus­cul. Qu. l. 2 p. 147. Amphiarius, who art now buried in the Earth, hearest thou this?Quid di­cem [...] C [...]e­anthe? num in illa re—mali nihil fuisse. Tusc. Quaest. l. 3. p. 163. Ed. Paris. 1555. What shall we say Cleanthes,’ is this a wicked thing.

§. 5. The very same Authors do many of them make the like Apostrophe's to insensate Creatures, and use Expressions which contain as formal and direct petitions, as any which are used in the places cited by the Roman Do­ctors. St.Nazianz. Orat. Decima. quarta. p. 214. Nazianzen invokes peace thus, ‘Oh friendly Peace, who art that good which all men praise, but few observe, where hast thou so long left us, and when wilst thou re­turn unto us? And unto Easter he speaks thus; [...] Nazianz. [...] O at. 42. p. 696. Oh great and holy Passover, who art the reconciliation of both the Worlds: For I will speak to thee, as unto one endued with life.’ In his invective against Julian he speaks thus: ‘Hear O Heavens, and perceive O Earth: Hear all ye Nations, perceive all you that dwell upon the Earth: For to you all I [Page 256]speak. [...]. p. 1. Hear you who live at present, and hereafter shall be born.’ St. Ambrose speaks unto the Water thus;Ambros. l. 10. in Luc. c. 22. ‘Oh Water which hast obtained to be the Sacrament of Christ, which washest all things, and art not washed thy self, thou dost begin the first, and dost compleat the perfect Mysteries.’ In the like manner we findDe Vir. Constanti­m l. 5 Eusebius calling upon Piety, andOptat. l. 6. p 98. Optatus upon Water: and this they did agreeably to the Example of theVos vos Albani [...]u­muli atque luci, vos inquam i [...] ­ploro a [...]qu: obtestor, vosque A [...] ­banorum obru [...]ae a­rae, &c. Orat. pro Milone, p. 558. Ed. P [...]ris. Orator, who doth implore, and doth beseech the broken Altars of the Albans; and puts up his Petition to their Tombs and G [...]ove [...]: and to the frequent custome of the sacred Wri­ters, who cry out,Isa. 1.2. Hear O Heaven, and per­ceive oh Earth! Hear ye, O Mountains, the Lords controversie, and ye strong Foundations of the Earth. Micah. 6.2. Praise the Lord from the Earth, ye Dragons and all Deeps. Psal. 148.7, 8, 9. Fire, and hail, snow and vapor, stormy wind, fulfilling his word. Mountains and all Hills, fruitful Trees and all Cedars. Which form of Compellation is still retained in our Liturgy. And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that the Jews of old did, and English Protestants do at present properly invoke and intercede to those insensate Creatures. Lastly, we find in Li­poman one speaking to the girdle of the Blessed Virgin in this manner; ‘O venerable girdle, make us Heirs of eternal and blessed Life, and preserve us in this our present life, from per­dition: O undefiled Girdle, preserve thy people from pollution.’ If this and such like speeches of the Church of Rome must be acknow­ledged to be figurative, why may we not assert the same of such Expressions of the Fathers as are used to those Saints departed, of whom they do assert that what is spoken to them, because they do not hear it, is as if it had been spoken to insensate Creatures.

[Page 257]6. Observe,Sect. 6. there is great difference be­twixt the practice that in these times began to be approved by some men, and what is now the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. For,

1. That which we chiefly do object against that Church, is, that she doth enjoyn us to be­lieve, That even mental prayers are well addressed to them, and consequently that they have the know­ledge of the conceptions of the heart, and the sincerity of its intentions. Whereas the Fathers of that age, without distinction or exception, held that it was proper to God to perceive the se­crets of the heart; this, by the concurrent judg­ment of the Fathers, being no more communi­cated to the Creatures, than was the Knowledge of what was future and contingent, as I have proved already chap 6. Prop. 2.4.

2. Whereas the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, doth make it good and profita­ble for all people, to call upon them in all places, though as far distant from them as is Earth from Hea­ven, or as one corner of the Earth is from the other; some of these Fathers did conceive the Saints were present at their Tombs and Shrines, and being so, they might attend unto the prayers of them that did resort unto them. Thus when it was objected by Vigilantius to St. Jerom, If it be so, then the souls of Martyrs love their ashes, and hover still about them, and are always there, lest if any Petitioner should come, they being absent, should not hear him; I say, when this was urged by Vigilantius, agreeably to that opinion which then began to gather strength, and to be own­ed in the Christian Church: St. Jerom doth not, as T. G. deny the sequel, but lays down this absurd and monstrous Tenet to defend it, That Si agnus ubique, er­go & hi qui cum agno sunc ubique esse credend [...] sunt. if the Lamb be every where, they also that be with [Page 258]the Lamb, must be believed to be every where. Moreover, he represents it as a wicked speech of Vigilantius, Ais enim vel in sinu Abrahae, vel in loco refrigerii, vel subter aram Dei animas A­postolorum & Marty­rum conse­disse, nec posse de su­is tumulis, & ubi vo­l [...]erunt, ad­esse praesen­tes. Hier. adversus Vigilant. That the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs could not be present at their Tombs, never suggesting in the least that such a presence was needless to this end.De cura pro mor­tuis c. 16. St. Austin doth affirm, ‘That either the Martyrs themselves must be at one time in such divers places, so far distant from one another,’ (viz. as they were distant with whom they were conceived to pray at their memorials) ‘or if they were not pre­sent, they must be removed from all com­merce with the affairs of men here, and only prayed in general for the necessities of suppli­cants.’ Sulpitius upon the death of St. Martin comforts himself with this consideration,Non dee­rit nobis il­le, mibi crede, non deerit, in­tererit de se sermoci­nantibus, adsiabit o­rantibus. Epist. 2. de obitu & appar. S. Martini p. 533 ed. Lugd. Ba­tav. That he would not be wanting to them; and of this assertion he immediately subjoyns this reason, viz he will be present with us speaking of him, and will stand by us when we pray; upon which passage the Scholiast observes, that it was vulgarly belie­ved, that holy Martyrs were present at their Sepul­chers. That this was also the Opinion of Nazi­anzen, Basil, and all the Fathers cited by T.G. is largely proved by † Bochartus. If then these Fa­thers did in this particular maintain what is confessedly erroneous, why might they not be subject to the same mistake, touching the do­ctrine of invocation of the Saints departed, and then that error in their judgment must necessa­rily give rise to that unwarrantable practise, which in those times began to be approved.

Having in general laid down these propositi­ons,Traiteé second de [...]l'in­voc. des Saints c. 4. I might decline all farther Answer to what T.G. produceth from the testimonies of the fore mentioned Fathers, in favour of that practise we dispute against; but, that he may not think [Page 259]we study to decline what he hath offered, we proceed to a particular reflection on them; and shall endeavour to demonstrate that they are either cited out of spurious and doubtful books, or are impertinently alledged. And,Sect. 7. Hom. 26. in 2 Cor.

1. Amongst the spurious, or doubtful Authors, we reckon that passage cited from St. Chryso­stom; this was the Judgment of Erasmus, who in his preface before his Latin Translation of Ba­sil de Spiritu sancto, saith, that there are somethings in that book which must own him for their Parent, who mixed his weak and wordy trifles with the sweet works of Athanasius on the same subject, and who, in this Epistle, and in the Acts of the Apostles, endea­voured to be esteemed Chrysostom. And therefore when Erasmus came to the 7th. Homily of this E­pistle, he would translate no farther: 2. this pas­sage in some editions is not extant though these editions have proceeded from the hands of Ro­manists. Novelty of Pope­ry. p. 422, p. 423. 3 Peter Du Moulin makes evident the fals­hood of this passage and the words preceding, not only from the diversity of the stile, and want of a connexion with the precedent words, but chiefly from the doctrine, so full of igno­rance & absurdity, as shews it to be inconsistent with the Judgment and Learning of that Holy Fa­ther. Lastly this place is cited by Garesius under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus, De Sanct. i [...] v [...]c. p. [...]. who therefore is most like to be the Father of this spurious passage.

Secondly, amongst spurious and doubtful writings, We may reckon the Oration upon Cy­prian fasly ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen, where S. Justina is brought in [...] (i e) Entreating that the Virgin Mary would defend her against C [...] ­an, who being then a Pagan endeavoured by M [...] ­gical [Page 260]inchantments to attempt her chastity, but finding his attempts all frustrate, was by that means converted to the Christian Faith, and was that famous Bishop of Carthage, whose memory was precious through the Christian World. Whereas (1.) It is certain, St. Cyprian was never in his life a Sorcerer,Pag. 1. for Pontius his Deacon, who hath writ his life assures us, that whilst he was a Heathen he was addicted to good arts, and such as ten­ded to the benefit of the World, which sure no Chri­stian would affirm of a 'Magician. (2.) Where­as this fable ascribeth his conversion to Justina, or the experience of his vain attempts upon her; This Pontius wholly omits that Fable, and doth assure us, that he was converted byErat sa­ne illi et­am de ne­bis contu­bern um viri justi & laud i­bilis Me­moriae Cecilii, & aetatetune, & honore Presbyte­ri, qui e­um ad ag­nition [...]m verae divi­nita [...]is a saeculari errore cor­rexerat. P. 2. Cecilius a Carthaginian Presbyter: (3.)Explosâ fabula illa de Cypria­ni Macicâ arte. Baro­ni [...]s A.D. 250. Sect. 5. Baronius himself confesseth this story of the Magick of St. Cypri­an to be explodendam fabulam: now hence it fol­lows that this Oration is not the genuine work of Nazianzen, or else that Nazianzen was a man of very easie Faith, one prone to tell the most absurd and foolish sables for truth, and there­fore one who can deserve no credit in this rela­tion of Justina's prayer unto the blessed Virgin.

Such thirdly is the passage cited from Theodo­ret, for, asDisp. Hist. de Invoc. Sanct. Th. 8. p. 198. Vossius well argues, ‘had that Book been his; Nicephorus, who gives us the Catalo­gue of his books, would have made mention of it. And Photius when he makes mention of the writings of this Author which he had perused,’ would not have lest out this. Besides, what is here cited from him, directly contradicts what he de­livers in his undoubted Comment on the second and third Chapters of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. Lastly, the same we have just reason to suspect of the two instances related by St. Austin De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 2. for Ludovicus Vi­ves [Page 261]doth ingenuously declare, In hoc capite non dubium quin multa sint addita, that many things have, without doubt, been added to this Chap­ter. The 33. Homily de diversis is one of those, which have been lately added to St. Austins Works, by the Divines of Lovain, and so de­serves but little credit.

2.Sect. 8. Those places which are cited from the true writings of the Fathers, are made to speak what they did not intend, and press'd to testi­fy what they do not assert. Thus when T.G. ob­jects that passage of St. Austin, let B. Cyprian help us with his Prayers. I answer, ‘May T.G. rep [...]nt of his accursed Apostacy from the Church of England.’ This I entirely wish and yet, I hope I pray not to T.G. but saith T.G. whoever con­sidereth ‘the motive alledged by him why he add ressed himself to St. Cyprian, which was for that in Heaven, he saw more clearly the truth of that Question, of which himself had for­merly doubted, andE. B. Cy­prianus [...]wd [...]m [...]a [...]n c [...]po­re quid corrum [...]i­tur n [...]n ag­gravante animam nec depri­men [...]e ter­r [...]na i [...]a­b [...]a [...]ione sensun mul [...] [...]gi­t [...]nte [...], [...]e­ [...]enius per­spiei [...] ve­ritat [...]m quam m [...] ­ [...]u [...]t adi­ [...]s [...] [...] Ch [...]i [...] in istius c [...]rnis m [...]talitate, tanqu [...]m in caligin [...]sa nu [...]e lib [...], at donante Domino quantum possu [...]us bona [...]ju, [...]mi [...]emur. To. 7. de Bap [...]. l. 7. c. 1. B. St. Austin was then treat­ing of, and the necessity he had of his pray­ers, as being yet in the mortal Flesh, and la­bouring as in a dark cloud, will easily see that it was not a counterfeit, but a true and seri­ous address to him for the assistance of his prayers.’ Answ. and why not rather an address to God for his assistance, by virtue of the pray­ers of Cyprian. 2. Had Austin said, let Cyprian help us, that we may be enlightened or instruct­ed in this question, this Answer might have had some shew of strength, but when he onlyE. B. Cy­prianus [...]wd [...]m [...]a [...]n c [...]po­re quid corrum [...]i­tur n [...]n ag­gravante animam nec depri­men [...]e ter­r [...]na i [...]a­b [...]a [...]ione sensun mul [...] [...]gi­t [...]nte [...], [...]e­ [...]enius per­spiei [...] ve­ritat [...]m quam m [...] ­ [...]u [...]t adi­ [...]s [...] [...] Ch [...]i [...] in istius c [...]rnis m [...]talitate, tanqu [...]m in caligin [...]sa nu [...]e lib [...], at donante Domino quantum possu [...]us bona [...]ju, [...]mi [...]emur. To. 7. de Bap [...]. l. 7. c. 1. B. wi [...] to be assisted by his prayers, that he might imitate his goodness, certain it is that not St. Cyprians [Page 262]Knowledg, but his charity, and his enjoyment of God, of which that Knowledg was a conse­quent, was the true motive of St. Austins wish, since he desires not to be instructed in the truth, but to be confirmed in Goodness, it was not the want of Knowledge but of Goodness, which he desired might be advantaged by the Prayers of Cyprian. Moreover, had he desired to receive these things from Cyprian, either by converse with him, or by some secret influence upon his clouded understanding, the circumstances men­tioned might be conceived a proper motive to that wish; but since he only wishes to receive them donante Domino, or from the Gift of God, and by the Intercession of St. Cyprian, certain it is that the consideration of St. Cyprians Knowledg could be no motive unto that address, but only the consideration of his enjoyment of God, and his power with him, and of his charity by which he had obtained that enjoyment. To that of Jerom, Vale O Paula, & Cultoris tui extremam sen [...]ctutem oration [...] ­bus juva, fides & c­peratua te Christo consociant, praesens facilius qu [...]d p [...]stu­las, imp [...] ­trabis. E­pitaph. Pa [...]lae. Farewell, O Paula, help the old Age of thine honourer with thy prayers; We have sufficiently re­plied by shewing, that it was frequent with the Fathers by an Apostrophe to speak to their decea­sed Friends, as if they did suppose them present, although they did not think them so to be: and this must necessarily be the sense of Jerom: For he declareth that his dear friend Nepotian, bein [...] once joyned to the Quire of Saints, whatever he should say unto him would be but speaking to the deaf because he would not hear it: he therefore must conceive the same of Paula, of whom he here affirms this she was present with Christ.

The better to reply unto some other passage objected by T.G. observe first,§. 8. that the antie [...] Fathers did yield a threefold Service to the Sa [...]r [...] departed, as first, the honour of love and Society. Se­condly, [Page 263] The Recognition and praises of their excel­lencies. Thirdly, The Imitation of their vertues, and their godly Examples: this service the writers of the fourth and fifth Century, sometimes call worship, and Veneration, but the more ancient Fathers styled it honour, accounting all religi­ous worship to be due to God alone, as is most excellently proved by Dalle. Advers. Lat. Cult. l. 1. c. 5, 1. And when the He­reticks and Heathens did object against these lat­ter Fathers the worship of the holy Martyrs, they reply two things.

1. That they did not worship them as Gods. Thus when it was objected by the Apostate Ju­lian, that [...] apud Cyril. l. 6 contr. Jul. p. 203. instead of many Gods the Christians wor­shipped many miserable men; St. Cyril answers,† We do not make them Gods, nor do we worship that which by nature is not God. And when Faustus had ob­jected against the Christians, that they had‖ changed their Martyrs into the Heathen Idols, and in like manner paid their Homage to them; St. Austin answers, that* they gave not divine worship to them.

2. That Reverence and honour, which they oppose to this Latria, or divine worship, and which they acknowledg to be due, and given by them to Saints departed, they comprize in the forementioned particulars, or in such other matters as are, and do include no formal pray­ers, and no elicite actions of Religion; whence we may rationally conceive that neither Pray­ers, [Page 264]nor Vows, nor any actions, which were pro­perly religious, were then tendred to them, and that they did not think them parts of that Dulia which was due to Saints,Contra Faustum lib. 20. c. 21. but rather parts of that Latria, which was due to God alone. This is ap­parent from St. Austin's Answer unto Faustus, viz. ‘the worship therefore, which we give the Martyrs, is that worship of Society and Love which we afford unto those holy men whom in this life we worship, but with that worship which is called Latria, we worship God alone.’ Where (1.) observe that he ascribes unto the Martyrs only that worship which in this life we give unto our fellow Saints. Now is it any part of that affection or society we bear unto the li­ving, to put up our petitions to them, when at great distance from us and invisible? (2.) Unto this worship of Society and love (which doth not comprehend addresses made by way of Prayer to persons absent and invisible) St. Au­stin doth oppose Latria, the worship proper to God: Whence we infer that worship which could not be included in these expressions of So­ciety and Love, viz. all mental prayers, and sup­plications made by Speech to persons at great distance and invisible, must in St. Austins judg­ment be Latria, or the worship proper unto God alone. The like we may observe in Cyril, for having said, We neither do affirm the Martyrs to be Gods nor do we worship them [...] with Latria, but with the wor­ship of honour and affection, He gives three instan­ces of their honour: [...] Cyril adv. Jul. l. 6. p. 204. We give them all Venera­tion, we honour their Sepulchers, and we remember [Page 265]their resplendent Vertues. Moreover the honour given to them seems therefore to be called [...] or relative, Because as Basil notes, the honor given to the best of our fellow Servants is the sign and demonstration of our good will and respect towards our common Lord. Whence that of St. Gregory Nyssen speaking to the Martyr Theodorus, Orat. de Theod. Martyre. We hold this assembly for thee, to adore our common Lord, and make full commemorations of thy Victories. So then these Answers and Objections which T. G. rec­kons a confirmation of this practice of invo­cation of the Saints departed, are rather a just prejudice against it, it being never mentioned by them upon these occasions, as any portion of that honour they bestowed upon these blessed Spirits, nor yet contained in what they mention.

Secondly,§. 10. Observe it was the custom of those times to put up their Petitions at the Martyrs Tombs, and this they did for these considerati­ons, viz. (1.) From a presumption, that when the Christians came unto these Tombs, the bles­sed Martyrs joyned their Supplications with them, and by so doing helped to speed them, Whence Basil in his Oration on the 40 Martyrs, saith, Together with these Martyrs let us pour forth our Prayers, for here are 40 sending up one Prayer, and if where two or three be gathered together, God is present, who doubts his presence where forty are? (2.) That their Devotions might be enlivened, and their affections raised by the place. Thus Austin tells us, thatQuod of­fertur, of­fertur Deo, qui Marty­res corona­vit, apud memoriam corum quos coronavit: ut ex ipso­rum loco­rum admo­nitione ma­jor affectus exurgat, [...]d acuendam Charitatem & in illos quos imtra­ri p [...]ssu­mus, & in illum quo ad [...]nte p [...]ssu [...]us. Contra Faustum Man. l. 20. c. 21. What was offered to God was offered at the memories of the Martyrs, that by the admonition or remembrance which the very places give us, a stronger affection may arise to inflame our cha­rity both toward those whom we imitate, and him by whose assistance we may be enabled to do it.

Another custome of these Ancients was to [...]. Cyril. Ca­tech. Mystag 5. p. 241. Ideo ad ipsam men­sammon sic cos comme­moramus quemadmodum alios qui in pace requi [...]scunt, ut etiam pro iis o emus, sed magis ut ipsi prò nobis orent. August. Tract. 84. in Joh. pray unto God,§. 11. that for the intercession of those Saints and Martyrs, he would grant them their re­quests, just as the Israelites did desire kindness for the sake of Abraham and David. And this, saith Austin, haply may be conceiv'd that‖ they in ge­neral making addresses unto God (as we do for the Dead, although we know not where they are, or what they do) for all the wants of such as come to these as­semblies, God may be moved by their Prayers to grant what he sees needful for them; as haply he is moved by the fervent Prayers of some Relations di­stant from us, to vouchsafe us blessings, and by the addresses of some Churches, to grant deli­verance from Persecution unto others.

This observation is a sufficient Answer to many of those passages which T.G. cites to prove it was the custome of the ancient Church to in­vocate the Saints departed; as V. G. Ruffinus doth relate of Theodosius, * That he went to all the places of Prayer, and lying prostrate before the Mar­tyrs and Apostles Tombs, he asked succors by interces­sion of the Saints (which upon supposition that they prayed with him, and did continually in­tercede for all that put up their petitions there, or for the whole Church militant, he might well do) but then it is not intimated that he beg'd these succors by invocation of the Saints. We also hope for benefit and succour from the intercessions of our pious friends, and of the whole Church militant, and may entreat God to help us for the sake of their petitions, yet is not this a warrant to put up supplications to [Page 267]our pious Relatives, or to the universal Church.

St. Basil in his Oration on the forty Martyrs saith, [...]. Bas. Hom. 20 in XL. Mart. p. 459. He that is pressed with affliction flyeth to them, and he that is glad runneth to them; the one that he may be freed from his affliction, the other that he may continue in that joyful state. But then to fly, and run unto them, is only to fly and run unto the Tombs and Churches where they were interred, as is apparent from the following words; Here it is that a woman praying for her Son is heard: And from the Exhortation follow­ing; Wherefore together with these Martyrs let us pour forth our Prayers: Here therefore is a de­monstration, that this blessed Chorus were judg­ed [...],† co-helpers of our Prayers by interceding with us (as are our fellow Chri­stians here on earth, 2 Cor. 1.11. Rom. 15.30.) but here is not one tittle to demonstrate that they did, or that we ought to pray to them.

4. When Austin saith that Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Mar­tyrs, both to excite them to the Imitation of them, and that they may become partakers of their merits (or Good works) and may be helped by their Pray­ers: This passage only proves that Austin held, what was then commonly asserted, that when the Christians came to Church, the blessed Mar­tyrs joyned their Supplications with them, and by so doing helped to speed them: But it is no evidence that either Christians prayed unto the Martyrs, or that the solemnity was stiled Re­ligious upon that account: For Protestants do bring their Children to the Church to be bap­tized, [Page 268]not only that they may be excited by that rite to the performance of the Christian Cove­nant, but that they may obtain advantage by the Churches Prayers, but yet they do not pray unto the Church. And T.G. may perhaps expect advantage from the Prayers of Christs Church Militant, and yet I hope he is not so ex­press for Invocation of the members of it, as for the invocation of the Church Triumphant. De cura pro Mort. c. 16. Besides, Austin himself expounds how we are helped by their Prayers: viz. because that God may be indu­ced by their intercessions made in general for all that pray, to grant what he sees needful for them.

Moreover, that this passage is no evidence that Christians held Religious Solemnities to the Martyrs, or did religiously worship Martyrs, is extreamly evident: For Protestants do also celebrate the memories of their deceased Friends with a Religious Solemnity performed in those places where they were interred, and yet they give unto from no Religious Worship: It therefore may be [...]ed a Religious Solemni­ty because of the Devotion paid to God, and not unto the Martyrs: But this Exposition, saith T. G. is opposite both to the words themselves, p. 432. and is refuted by St. Austin, for he declares himself not to speak of that Religious Worship which is due only to God, but such a kind of Worship with which even holy men in this life are worshipped; we worship there­fore, saith he, the Martyrs with the Worship of love and society: thus T. G. And yet in the same page he adds, It is evident that St. Austin speaks of such Religious honour as is due to God himself: If then within the space of ten lines St. Austin speaks both of Religious Worship, and of that Worship which is not in the strictest sense Reli­gious, I hope the Dr. may be allowed to Answer [Page 269]with T. G. that when St. Austin saith, We wor­ship Martyrs with the worship of love, he did not speak of Religions Worship, though in this sentence he expresly doth so. For doth not St. Austin say, That to speak Ipsa Re­ligio quam­vis distin­ctius non quemlibet sed Dei cultum sig­nificare videatur, &c. de C. D. l. 10. c. 1 properly, Religion sig­nifies that Worship which is due to God alone: Doth not he thus advise all Christians,Non sit nobis Reli­gio cultus hominum mortuo­rum, quia si pie vixe­runt, non sic haben­tur ut ta­les quae­rant hono­res, sed il­lum à nobis coli volunt, quo iltumi­nante lae­tantur meriti sui nos esse consertes. Let not the worship of the Dead be any part of your Religion, for if they have lived well, they will not seek these ho­nours. Doth not he say,* They should be honored with our imitation, but not be worshipped with Reli­gion? and is not this sufficient reason to con­ceave, that when he saith we honour the me­mory of Martyrs with religious Solemnity, the Religion of that Solemnity belongs to God, and not unto the Dead? Secondly, St. Austin saith† We Christian People do celebrate the memory of Martyrs with Religious Solemnity — but albeit we erect Altars in memory of the Martyrs, we do not do it to them, but to the God of Martyrs. If then constituere Altaria in memorias Martyrum, be to erect Altars to God in memory of the Martyrs, to celebrate Religious Solemnities in memory of the Martyrs, ought in all reason to admit of a like sense, viz. we celebrate Religious Solem­nities to God, in memory of Holy Martyrs.

Whereas S. Austin saith, It is an injury to pray to Martyrs, unto whose Prayers we ought to be commen­ded; This also may refer to the forementioned [Page 270]presumptions; viz. That we ought to commend our selves to their Prayers, by going to the places where the Martyrs pray together with us, or by entreating God to hear us by vertue of their intercession, as doth the Church of Rome. Elsewhere he teacheth, that we commend our Friends unto their Prayers by burying of them where the Martyrs lye interred; so that we see this commendation of our selves and others to the Martyrs Prayers, doth not imply the Invo­cation of those Blessed Spirits.

The same St. Austin in his Book de Cura pro mortuis, speaking of such as did forecast to bu­ry their departed friends, about the memories of the Saints, passeth his judgment of that acti­on thus,Cum ta­lia vivo­rum sola­tia requi­runtur, qui­bus eorum pius in suos animus ap­pareat, non video quae sunt adju­menta mortuo­rum, nisi ad hoc ut dum reco­lunt ubi sint posita eorum quos diligunt corpora i­isdem san­ctis illos tanquam patronis susceptos apud do­minum ad­juvandos orando commen­dent. Cap. 4. f. 214. E. When the survivors seek such comforts, wherein their well disposed mind towards their friends may be conspicuous, I see not what advantage these things may be unto the dead, except that whilst they cast about where the bodies of them that are dear to them should (or may) be laid, they may commend them so received, to the Saints as to Patrons, to be helped by their prayers to God. Which passage on­ly doth import, that by depositing their bodies by the Martyrs shrines, they engage the Mar­tyrs to pray to God for them. And to the like effect is that which follows, viz. Cum ita­que reco­lit animus nbi sepul­tum sit chari ssimi corpus, & locus nomine occurrit Martyris venerabilis, eidem Martyri animam dilectam commendat recordantis & precantis affectus. I­bid. F. That when the mind doth cast about where the body of a dear friend may be buried, and straight a place occurreth to his mind, renowned for the name of some Martyr, the affection of him who thus remembreth and prayeth, forthwith commends the beloved soul to the same Mar­tyr, [Page 271]viz. that affection which induced the sur­viving person to think of placing his beloved friend by the memorial of that Martyr, and made him choose that as the place where he would commend the soul of his beloved friend to God. For that the prayer was directed to God, though put up at the Martyrs Tomb, is evident from the following words,Plurimum intersit u­bi ponat corpus mortui sui, qui pro Spi­ritu ejus Deo (N. B) supplicat, quia & precedens affectus locum ele­git sanctum & illic corpore po­sito recor­datus locus sanctus e­um qui praecesserat renovat & auget offe­ctum. Cap. 5. H. It may very much concern any, where he should place the body of his deceased, who prayeth for his Spirit unto God, be­cause both the preceding affection hath chosen an holy place, and the body being placed there, the remem­brance of that holy place renews and augments the af­fection. That this is the true import of the place, and that the benefit St. Austin speaks of, was to be expected not from any prayers put up unto the Saints, but partly from the desire of burying the deceased by the Martyrs shrine, upon presumption of some advantage he might receive by being there interred, and partly from the increase of the affection of him that prayeth in that place to God, is admirably evi­dent from that which follows, viz. Cum er­go fide lis mater fide­lis filii de­functi cor­pus deside­ravit in Basilicam Martyris poni, siqui­dem credi­du ejus a­nimam me­ritis Mar­tyrts adju­vari, hoc quod ita credidit supplicatio quaed im fuit, & haec profuit siquid profuit, & quod ad idem sepnichrum recurrit anime, & filium precibus magis magisque commendat, adjuvat defuncti Spirtum, non mortui corporis locus, sed ex loci memoria, vivus martyris affectus. Ibid G. When therefore a believing Mother desireth that the body of her Son may be buried in the Martyrs Temple, as believing that his soul may be advantaged by the me­rits of the Martyr, this very thing that she believeth thus, is a kind of prayer, and if any thing profiteth it is this. Since therefore nothing else doth, in St. Austin's judgment, profit, certain it is he doth not speak of prayer directed to the Mar­tyrs, for if so, he could not have confessed, that the fore-mentioned faith did only profit, much [Page 272]less could he affirm it to be that supplication (to the Martyr) which alone did profit.

Lastly, It is confessed, that Basil, Nazian­zen, and Nyssen, do in their Panegyrical Orations seem to invocate the Holy Martyrs. But then it is apparent, 1. That they doubted, whether these Martyrs had any sense or apprehension of the Requests put up unto them, and there­fore prefaced their addresses with an [...], If you have any sense. 2. They do ingeni­ously confess, that though they knew them to be absent, yet they were moved to speak unto them as if they had been present, and could hear them. 3. They make the like addresses to insensate Creatures, of whom they were assu­red that they could not hear them, which makes it reasonable to interpret their Addresses, ra­ther as Wishes and Rhetorical Apostrophes, than direct Invocations and Petitions tendred to them; especially if we consider, that all those Fathers when they discourse of Prayer, define it to be a Colloquy with God, and there­fore did not think that those addresses made un­to the blessed Martyrs, had the true nature of a Prayer. Moreover, it is certain that they never offer'd any mental Prayer to Saint or Angel. And 2. That they conceived the Mar­tyrs present in those places where they offer'd these devotions, and therefore were not guilty of those Doctrines and unwarrantable practi­ces, for which especially we do condemn the Roman Church.

CHAP. X.

The CONTENTS. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, touching the Invocation of the Blessed Angels, delivered from their own Catechism and Rituals. Sect. 1. The Question stated. Sect. 2. The Idolatry of this Practice proved. 1. This practice doth ascribe unto them by way of Worship, what is proper to God: viz. The Know­ledge of the Secrets of the Heart. Sect. 3. 2. Because, it is the Worship of the Mind. Sect. 4. 3. From the silence of the Old Testament. Sect. 5. An objection answe­red. Sect. 6. The Reasons of this silence which are alleged by the Romanist, Re­futed. Sect. 7. And from the silence of the New Testament. Sect. 8. 4. From the Consideration of those principles where­by the Romanists condemn White Ma­gick, as a practice guilty of Idolatry. Sect. 9.

THe Catechism of the Church of Rome, §. 1. Pub­lished by the Decree of the Trent Coun­cil, gives us the Doctrine of that Church, touch­ing [Page 302]the Invocation of the Holy Angels in these words;Extant divinae scriptuae testi­monia hujus invocationis. Jacob enim ab Angelo quicum lucta­tus fuerat petit ut sibi benedicat immo cogit, se enim non dimis­surum illum profitetur nisi bene­dictione accepta, neque solum sibi ab eo tribui quem intueba­tur, sed ab eo etiam quem mini­mè videbat tum cum dixit Ange­lus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis. Catechis. Rom. Part 3. cap. 2. See. 10. concerning this Invocation we have the Testimonies of the Scripture extant; For Jacob request­ed of the Angel with whom he wrestled that he would bless him, and he compels him so to do, for he profes­seth that he would not let him go without his Blessing; nor doth he only put up his Petition unto the Angel whom he saw, but also un­to him whom he saw not, when he thus said, the Angel who delivered me from all evil bless the Lads. Agreeable unto this Doctrine, is the continual practice of that Church in her Authentick Lyturgies: For to St Micha­el they pray thus.

Sancte Michael Archan­gele defende nos in praelio ut non percamus in tremendo judicio. Miss. festo Appar. Sancti Mich. Maii. 8. ‘Defend us in our Warfare we thee pray, Least we should perish in the dreadful day.’

In the Roman Ritual, a Dying person is taught to pray with his Heart, when he cannot do it with his Mouth thus;Horte­tur prae­terea ut co modo quo potest, saltem, ex Corde, ita per intervalla precetur. Maria Mater Gratiae, Mater Mifericordiae tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe. Omnes Sancti Angeli & omnes Sancti intercedite prome, & mihi succurrite. Rituale Ed. Antuerp 1617. All ye Holy Angels in­tercede for me, and succour me. To the Guardian Angel they pray thus;

Huc eustos igitur pervigil ad­vola
Avertens patria de tibi credi­ta
Tam morbos animi quam requi­escere,
Quicquid non sinit incolas, Brev.
R. Reform. Off. Angeli Cust.
"Thou watchful Guardi­an hither therefore fly, "And from that Country where thy charge does lie, "Divert what ere may prove their Minds Disease, "And what disturbs the peoples quiet peace.

And again,Tu es spes mea Gloriose Angele, altissimus te posuit & mihi dedit re­fugium tuum. Non ac­cedat igitur ad me malum, & flagellum non appropinquet tabernaculo meo. Mi custos Gloriose me consigna, & servis Dei aggrega Glorio­sis. Apprehende arma & scutum & exurge Angele in adjutorium mihi, dic animae meae salus tua ego sum. Missa in honorem proprii Angeli. Thou art my Hope, most glorious Angel, the most High hath given and appointed thee to be my Refuge, Let then no Evil come unto me, Let not the Scourge come nigh my Tabernacle. Mark me and gather me unto Gods glorious Servants; take hold of Shield and Buckler, and stand up to help me, say unto my Soul, I am thy Salvation. The old Ro­man Missal f. 52. had a Prayer to this Effect.

Omnis homo omni die
Gabrielis & Mariae
Poscat beneficia
Ex his manet fons virtutis
Dulcor vitae spes salutis
Et diffusa Gratia.
"Let every Man on every day, "To Gabriel and to Mary pray "These are the spring whence vertue flows apace, "Heavens hope, life's sweet­ness, and diffused grace.

Whence we observe,§. 2. that according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, Angels when absent and invisible, should be invo­cated: for this they daily practise, and endeavour to confirm from the Example, and by the words of Jacob.

[Page 304]2. Observe that we must pray unto them, not only to obtain deliverance and protection for us, by their Prayer, Interce­dite pro me & mi­hi succur­rite. but to perform it by their power; for what they do conceive to be the Office of those Angels, viz. to keep us, to avert those dangers that are imminent, and to remove a present evil, must they not think it proper to request? If God hath placed a Guardian Angel for their refuge, may they not ask him to do the office of a Guar­dian, as well as any other thing, and to pre­serve them in their wayes, that so no Evil may befall them? this, upon supposition, that they do always hear our Prayers, is very Rational.

When therefore T. G. doth insinuate, that they only do desire these Blessed Spirits to offer up our Prayers, P. 361. or to pray for us, as we desire the Prayers of just Men upon Earth, he doth insinu­ate a most apparent falshood: for besides that signal difference betwixt requesting of our Bro­ther to pray for us; and their Petitions direct­ed to the holy Angels, to preserve them from the assaults of Satan, and toTu Gloriose Angele qui stas ante Dominum preces meas offer Altissimo & veni tribue mihi desideriorum me­orum abundantiam. Missa in hono [...]em proprii Angeli in Missali Rom. Ed. Antuerp. 1577. confer upon them the greatest Blessings we can ask. I say besides all this; 1. We never do by word of Mouth, request an absent Person, nor do put up any Mental Pray­ers to our surviving Bre­thren, both which are ten­dred to the Holy Angels, by the Roman Catholicks.

3. It is apparent from what we we have discoursed, that it is in vain to put up these Petitions to the Blessed Angels, unless we do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the Hearts of those that supplicate, and unless we do suppose them either present with us, or able to help us, [Page 305]being absent, and that they do accept this ser­vice when we pay it to them, that so as they are deemed to be able, they may assuredly be willing to relieve and help us. Now to ascribe this Knowledge to them, and upon this account to Worship and invoke them, is to be guilty of Idolatry. This we endeavour to demonstrate. 1. From the Reason of those Addresses which we make to God, viz. that we believe him to be the searcher of all Hearts, one that doth see the inward Motions of the Soul, and is acquainted with our most secret thoughts and actions: Now this we have already proved, to be an ex­cellency so proper to the God of Heaven, that it is not ordinarily communicated unto Saints and Angels; and therefore to ascribe this Know­ledge to them, is to ascribe unto them, what is Gods propriety, and consequently to be guilty of Idolatry by Prop. 1. And as a farther evi­dence, that no such Knowledge is Communi­cated to the Blessed Angels, either by Revelati­on, or by the beatifick Vision, consider that from this supposed Communication it would fol­low, (as it is well suggested by the LearnedAdda­mus An­gelos ne quidem superna­turaliter de facto cognoscere quaslibet cordium cogitationes quasi hoc eis competat communi lege Beatudinis, nam si ita esset, nondum absolu­tam haberent veritatem generales sententiae soli Deo tribuentes notitiam occultarum cogitationum, quandoquidem beneficio beatudinis id esset mul­tis communicatum; sed intelligendae essent cum limitatione hac aut simili solus Deus naturaliter novit &c. quam utique limitationem nusquam insi­auant addendam esset ut sicut absolute verum maneat solum Deum de facto nosse (quaelibet) futura contingentia non obstante eo quod quaedam seis amicis revela, ita etiam absolute verum maneat solum de facto nosse pas­sim (quaelibet) occulta Cordium, quoniam ut dictum est Authoritates de [...]troque loquuntur eodem modo. in senten. l. 2. distinc. 7. § 12. p. 80 Esthius that all those sentences of Scripture, and the Holy Fathers, which attribute this Know­ledge of our secret thoughts, and of the in­ward [Page 306]Motions of the Heart to God alone, would not be absolutely true, but without this limi­tation, viz. God only naturally knows them, or some like exception, they would be absolutely false: And yet this Limitation the Scriptures and the holy Fathers never do insinuate; so that as it is absolutely true, that unto God alone belongs the knowledge of contingent Beings, although he sometimes did reveal some matters of that nature, to his Priests and Prophets: nor do we notwithstanding think, that such a Knowledge doth belong to Saints and Angels; so is it abso­lutely true, that unto God alone belongs the Knowledge of the inward Thoughts and Secrets of the Hearts, nor have we any reason to con­ceive, that such a Knowledge ordinarily belongs to Saints and Angels.

§ 4.2. To worship any Creature with the Mind, is to be guilty of Idolatry: This was the Antient and undoubted Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ; for this St. Austin witnesseth, thatDivinè & singulariter in Ecclesla Catholica traditur nullam creaturam colendam esse animae (libentius enim l [...]quor his verbis quibus mihi haec insinu [...]ta sunt) sed ipsum tantummo­do rerum quae sunt omnium Creato­rem. August. l. de quant animae. p. 34. in the Catholick Church, it is divinely and sin­gularly delivered, that us Creature is to be Worshipped by the Soul, but he only, who is the Creator of all things. But Roman Ca­tholicks do, and (upon sup­position that they have the Knowledge of the Hearts, and do by seeing God,p. 418. perceive the Se­crets of it; And as T. G. asserts, do know both our Necessities and Prayers, Concerns, and Actions; I say, upon this supposition) they ought to worship Saints and Angels, not only with the Body but the Soul; for seeing men­tal Prayers, Vows, and Thanksgivings, are by [Page 307]all confessed to be parts of that Religious Wor­ship which our Souls perform to God, to make such Vows, and put up such Petitions and Thanksgivings to the Saints and Angels, must be to Worship Saints and Angels with the Soul: Besides all inward Fear and Reverence, must be the Worship of the Soul. And yet if we may Vow, and Pray, and tender our Thanksgivings to them upon presumption, that they know the inward Motions of our Hearts; we may well be affraid to do these actions Hypocritically, and remisly, upon the same account. We may well dread to think, or vow, or pray amiss; and fear their Anger, and their just Displea­sure if we do so: thus to deter us from our se­cret Sins, the Stoicks tell us, not only God, but our good Doemon is in secret with us. And when St. [...] To. 1. p. 741. A. Basil had asserted that these Angels did [...] behold us every where; he adds, that upon this account, the Virgin that was devoted to God ought to reverence those blessed Spi­rits. And surely then by pari­ty of Reason, if their Know­ledge reach unto the Heart and inward Motions of the Soul, we ought to have that Fear and Re­verence of them upon us, in reference to all those motions.

3. This may be strongly argued from two Considerations.§ 5. 1. That the Jewish Church had no such practice. 2. That they abstained from this practice, because they did not think this honour to be due to Angels, but to God alone. And

1. I say, the Jewish Church had no such practice; for, run over all their Sacred Records, the Law, [Page 308]the Prophets and the Psalms: Look into their most antient Writers, Philo Judaeus, and Josephus; into their Litanies, or forms of Prayer, their Misnah, or Traditions, and in all these Records you shall not find one Precept or Ex­ample of any Invocation directed to the Saints departed: consider all the Motives which have induced the Church of Rome to use this practice, and you will find that they are chiefly taken from the Jewish Records, and from those sayings of the Psalms of David, which tell us, that the Angels of the Lord do pitch their tehts about them that fear him, to deliver them; 34 Psal. 7. And that he gives his Angels charge concerning them, that they dash not their foot against a stone: 91 Psal. 11. Or from those Doctrines which were received by that Church. Besides, they had great evidence, and manifold Examples, that God did Minister his Blessings to them by the holy Angels: an Angel lead them out of Aegypt, through the Wilderness, into the Land of Canaan, the Law was given to them by the hand of Angels, they often did ap­pear unto them in an humane shape, and God himself, when he appeared, was still attended with an Host of Angels, and by them they were oft preserved from their Enemies. Sith there­fore notwithstanding all these Motives, they ne­ver put up one Petition to an absent Angel; We have just Reason to believe, that in the judg­ment of the Jews, they had no knowledge of the Heart, or the desires of the Soul, especial­ly when absent from us, and that this honour was not to be given to them, but was intirely to be reserved for the God of Heaven. Add to this, that they do frequently entreat of God, that he would cause those Angels to preserve them, and annoy their Enemies;Psal. 35, 5, 6, 7. Let them be as Chaff [Page 309]before the wind, saith David, and let the Angel of the Lord chase them; Let their way be dark and slippery, and let the Angel of the Lord perse­cute them. Why therefore do they never use the Language of the Church of Rome? Horae Sec. Us. Rom. Manual of Godly prayers 1610. with li­cense. Horae Sec. Us. Sarum. Why do they never pray to Michael the Captain of Gods Host, the vanquisher of evil Spirits, to be their re­fuge and defence against the Power of the Enemy, to drive away their foes, and overthrow their Ma­chinations; Why do they never call upon their Guardian Angel, to take hold of Sword and Buck­ler, and rise up to help them? Or to their vali­ant Champion Gabriel, to rise up to help them against the Malignants, and to be with them against all their Adversaries?

3. According to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, when they appeared, the Jews did sometimes put up their Petitions to them: Why therefore did they not invoke them when absent and invisible, if they had held as doth the Chuch of Rome, that being absent they were as able to perceive their supplications, and obtain the Blessings they did want, and that their aid was such an excellent and present help against the violent assaults of a Temptation, and all those Floods of Evils we are continually expo­sed to? With us consent the Antient Fathers in this matter, [...] &c. l. 5. p. 234. [...] p. 235. none that observes the Law of Mo­ses doth worship Angels: For so to do is not a Jew­ish Custom, but a transgression of their Customes, [Page 310]saith the Learned Origen; [...]. Orat. 4. cont. Arrian. Jacob and David did request deliverance of none but God, saith Atha­nasius.

And whereas T. G. and the Roman Catechism, Object. § 6. produce those words of Jacob, the Angel that re­deemed me from all evil, bless the Lads, as an ex­ample of this Invocation, and a proof that it was practised by the Antient Jews. If we con­sider what the Fathers have delivered upon this Text, and how expresly they assert, these words must certainly be understood of Christ: We may admire that any Roman Doctor, who stands obliged by his Oath,Nec eam unquam nisi juxta una­nimen consensum patrum accipi­am & Interpretabor. Bulla pii 4. super forma juramenti profes­sionis fidei. not to Interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers, should make so little Conscience of that Oath, as to Interpret this, and many other Scriptures, in opposition to the prevailing Judgment of those Fathers.

2. It is admirable to consider, with what in­credible advantage to our cause, the Fathers speak upon this Text: if we had nothing more to say, but what they have delivered on these words, yet should we have what is abundant­ly sufficient to confirm our Faith, and justifie that Imputation which we lay upon the Cburch of Rome; for, first they do expresly say, that this Exposition of T. G. and his Infallible Mo­ther, is not only false, but an heretical ex­position.Ac si a­liquis Haereti­cus perti­naciter obluctans adversus veritatem voluerit in his om­nibus ex­emplis proprie Angelum aut intelligere aut intelligendum esse conten­derit in hoc quoque viribus veritatis frangatur necesse est. de Trin. c. 15. If any heretick, saith Novatian, [Page 311] who pertinaciously strives against the truth, would have us in all these Examples properly to understand the Angel, or would contend for such a sense of that expression, in this he must assuredly be broken by the force of truth. This Exposition of the Papists, saith St. Cyril, Thesaur. p. 115.116. is [...] (i.e.) the sottish exposition of the Arians. The Exposition of the Protestants must therefore be both true and Orthodox. 2. They add, that [...]. Cyril. Alexandr. Thesaur. p. 116. if the Enemies of Christ did think that Jacob was a Holy Man, and one endned with the Pro­phetick spirit, when he spake these words, they might be well ashamed to charge him with so gross an error, as was the Invocation of an Angel with God.

This Custom therefore of putting up the same Petition in the same sentence to God and to the Blessed Angel, or to God and to the Saints or An­gels, must be acknowledged to be a thing [...]. Orat. 4 contr. Arr. ex­ceedingly repugnant to the Doctrine which then obtained in the Church of Christ, and that which they esteemed the [...]. B. Cyrill. Alexandr. Thesau. p. 115. grossest error 3. They give us this as a sufficient Evidence, [Page 312]that Jacob spake not to a Creature, because he saith,Orat. 4. contra Arian. p. 260. the Angel that delivered me from all evils. Hence it is manifest saith Athanasius and St. Cyril, that he did not speak of a created Angel, but of the Angel of the Covenant: and there­fore it is manifest, that these petitions prescri­bed in the Church of Rome, and often tendred both to Saints and Angels, are in the Judg­ment of these Fathers, such as ought not to be tendred to a Creature, and so are guilty of Ido­latry: As therefore Athanasius to the Arians, so say I to the Church of Rome, Contr. Arian. Ora 2. p. 369. Let them know, that never any good Man put up such a Prayer to any thing that was begotten. They being taught by Christ to pray to God the Father, to be delivered from all Evil. c. 16. v. 8. And by the Son of Sy­rach to confess that it is he who delivereth from all evil. And this Interpretation of the Antient Fathers, will manifestly appear to be the truth, if we consider who this Angel was, for the Angel who delivered him from all Evil, must be that very Angel which delivered him from Labans wrath, and from the fury of his Brother Esau; now the Angel which said unto him I have seen all that Laban doth unto thee;31 Gen. 13.20. 28 Gen. 13.return thou therefore into the Land of thy Kindred, was the God of Bethel, the God to whom he vowed a vow, that God who did appear in Haran to him, it was the God of his Father Abraham, and the fear of Isaack that rebuked Laban, and charged him not to do him hurt.v. 29.42.32 Gen. 23. 12 Hos. 4. The Angel that he wrestled with, and with whom he pre­vailed, was the God of Heaven. Lastly it was his Prayer to this God that made his Brother Esau melt into expressions of the greatest love.

2. I answer, this is no Prayer but a Wish [Page 313]thus when St. Paul concludes in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, 2 Cor. 13.14. and the Com­munion of the holy Ghost be with you all. I hope he doth not pray unto the Grace of Christ, and the Love of God, and the Communication of the holy Ghost: so then, this passage may be thus Expounded, I wish to God, that he, and that good Angel who under him, preserved me from all evils, may preserve the Lads.

Some Roman Catholicks confess that which we now contend for, and tell us,Vide Vo­ssium de invoc. Sanct. disp. 2 Th. 18. that although this practice in its self was good and profitable, God would not suffer his own people to in­voke these blessed spirits, least they should wor­ship them as Gods: Idolatry being a Vice they were so prone, upon the least occasion to com­mit. Answer, we find, that notwithstanding the proneness of this people to that sin, God often did appear in the similitude of Angels to them, he used the Ministry of Angels in the de­livery of that Law, they did so highly reve­rence: he used their Ministry both in conferring of the choicest Blessings on his people, and the inflicting of the most remarkable Judgments, both on them, and on their Enemies: And he delivered those things touching the Ministry and custody of holy Angels, which Romanists conceive to be sufficient ground and motive for their Invocation. Whence we may very well con­clude, it was not out of fear of any proneness of that people to this Idolatry, that he did not enjoyn this practice, but only because he is a jealous god, and will not give his honour to an­other. Against the Worship of an Image, or of the Host of Heaven, or any other Gods, which by the Heathens were still worshipped [Page 314]under some visible representation, we have fre­quent Cautions, and very dreadful threatnings in Moses and the Prophets; but against this Ido­latry of Worshiping those spirits, which in their nature are invisible, those writings give us not one Caution or Prohibition, though they do often call them Gods, of which affair I am not able to conceive a better Reason then this is, that it was just matter of suspition, that this rude heavy people might be prone to worship what they saw: but it was not to be feared that they should worship what was invisible and sel­dome did appear; and hence we find this people continually revolting from the invisible Jehovah, to the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and to the Hea­then Deities: but never do we find them in the least inclined to the worship of these blessed spirits.

Moreover if we do consider that in the whole New Testament,§ 8. we have not any pre­cept to enjoyn; Example to commend, or pro­mise to encourage us unto this Invocation, we have a further reason to believe, that Christ and his Apostles disapproved of it, for can we think that Christ himself, and all his Servants and Apostles, would have neglected to commend un­to us some way or other, that Invocation which they themselves approved, and if the Church of Rome doth not deceive us, did know to be ex­ceeding profitable for the Church of Christ. For, 1. We cannot without Blasphemy conceive, that Christ or his Apostles wanted the knowledge of that great advantage which Christians might receive, by vertue of this supplication; it is no derogation I conceive from T. G. or his Parti­sans, to say, that Christ and his Apostles knew, as well as they, what were the proper motives [Page 315]to this practise, and what were the benefits it could bring to the Christian supplicant: nor yet to say that they as heartily desired the Wel­fare of the Church as doth T. G. or the Com­piler of the Roman Catechism; if then they had conceived as they do, they would undoubtedly have been as exact and punctual in this injuncti­on; it being in it self so highly prositable and the more necessary to be mentioned, because omitted in the Law of Moses, and never practi­sed by the Jews, especially if we consider that nothing could have been more properly suggest­ed for the consolation of all Christians under those fiery tryals they endured, then this con­sideration, that they might pray in Faith as doth the Roman Missal; Oh most glorious Angel, the most high hath given thee to be my Refuge, let then no evil come unto me.

Moreover, the Church of Rome doth offer this as a present help in trouble; unto this refuge she exhorts us all to fly;Quoties gravissima cernitaer ur­gere tentatio & tribulatio vehe­me ns imminere invoca custo­dem tuum, ductorem tuum, adjutorem tuum in opportuni­tatibus, in tribulatione; incla­ma eum, & dic domine salva nos perimus. Brev. in Festo Ang. Cust. lec. 6. ex Bern. in ps. 90. P. 190. when any violent temptation doth assault and press thee, when any vehement tribulati­on threatens thee, call thou up­on thy Guardian Angel, thy Leader and thy helper in due season, in tribulation call up­on him, and say, Lord save us we perish. So the Roman Breviary; and this is their continual practice. Whereas our Heavenly Father doth instruct us thus, call upon me in the day of trouble, 50 Psal. 15. and I will deliver thee, &c. The Apostles and Evange­lists are very copious and frequent, in suggesting consolations and encouragements, to bear with joy and patience those cruel persecutions, with [Page 316]which the Primitive professors of Christianity were still infested and perplexed; they have delivered many excellent discourses touching the Comforter, the presence of their Saviour with them, the Example of his Sufferings, and of that Cloud of Witnesses which laboured under the same fiery tryals; and lastly that exceeding weight of Glory, which they should purchase by those Sufferings, but not one hint have they vouchsafed us of this Comfort, which is admi­nistred by the Church of Rome. They fre­quently inform us, that God is able and wil­ling to preserve us from, sustain us under, and give an happy issue to our trouble; they bid us arm our selves against Temptations by Faith and Patience, and assiduity of Prayer, but never tell us that we should pray to any Angel for this end. St. Paul, when buffet­ed by Satans Messenger, hath thrice recourse unto our Saviour, but never unto Raphael or Michael, who by the Church of Rome are stiled tentatorum firma propugnacula, the sure Defen­ders of the tempted. 2 Cor 1.9, 10 11. Elsewhere he tells us, that being pressed above pleasure, and above strength, insomuch, that he despaired even of Life, he was delivered by that God who raiseth the Dead, in whom, saith he, we trust that he will yet deliver us, you also helping together by Prayer for us, this he expresly tells us were his hopes from the petition of Surviving Saints. But then he never gives us the least hint of the like expectation from the Prayers of Holy Angels, nor doth he once direct a Prayer to them. Is any sick, saith the Church of Rome; Rituale Rom. p. 117. Ed. Antue. 1617. let him say to his Guardian Angel, O Holy Angel of God assist me as my Keeper. To all the Saints and Holy Angels let him say, O all ye Holy Angels, and all ye Saints [Page 317] intercede for me, and succor me. Is any sick,5 Jam. 14.15. saith the Apostle James, let him send for the El­ders of the Church, and let them pray over him, and the prayer of Faith shall save the sick. Had he believed that practice of the Church of Rome, had been the more prevailing means for their recovery; had he conceived it proper and bene­ficial to the dying person, should we have had no mention of it? no Rubrick to direct those Elders to mind those dying Christians of this thing? The same Apostle doth command all Chri­stians to confess their faults to one another, v. 15.16. and pray for one another, that they may be healed, and gives this reason of that precept, that the effectual fervent prayer of any righteous Man, avai­leth much; why doth he not exhort them to confess their Sins to all the Holy Angels, as doth the Church of Rome? why doth he never send them to the Medicinal Angel Raphael, who, as they do inform us,Anima­rum cor­porisque optimas Medica­tor. Her. Sec. us. Sarum f. 92. 1. Pet. 1.21. 10. Rom. 14. 1 Jam. 5. is the best Physitian both of Soul and Body? add to this, that these Apostles have not been only silent in this matter, but they have delivered many things which seem to be repugnant to it, they do expresly teach us, that our Faith should be in God, and ask, how we can call upon him in whom we have not believed. They say, if any Man want wisdom (to direct him how to bear the Cross) let him ask of God, that giveth to all Men liberally, and upbraideth not: and it shall be given him. What therefore we are taught by them to seek from our Petitions made to holy Angels, St. James directs us im­mediately to ask of God: as being most able, and most kind, and therefore prone to help us. Whence it is easie to collect, that it seems very vain and idle to go to them, who are less able, and less willing so to do. St. Jude concludes [Page 318]his General Epistle with these words, to him that is able to keep you from falling, v. 24, 25. and to present you faultless: to the only wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power. To him alone he doth ascribe this Power: to him alone he gives the Glory of all our preservations; nay they assure us that Christ hath not subjected the Christian state unto the Angels, 2 Heb. 5. as the Jewish was; that they are now our fellow-Servants, and therefore must not be adored: And that we must be cautious lest any do obtrude upon us the worship of those blessed Spirits: 22 Rev. 9. 2 Coloss. 18. this they de­liver without the least suggestion of any of those limitations and distinctions which are so frequent in those Writers of the Church of Rome which comment on the places mentioned. These blessed Apostles were not so careful to pre­vent the Errors and Mistakes of Hereticks in this particular, as are the Doctors of the Roman Church: they do not seem so tender of the Invo­tion and Worship of those blessed Spirits, or so sollicitous we may not loose so great a bene­fit, as are those Roman Doctors; which gives us reason to conjecture, not that their Know­ledg or their Piety was less, but that they did not very much aprove that Doctrine which gave the rise unto this Superstition of the Romish Church, and so much for the first particular.

2. That both the Jews and Christians abstai­ned from this practise; because they did not think this honor to be due to Angels, but to God alone is evident from what we have discoursed al­ready to confirm this inference: the Apostles and Evangelists left us no precept or example to put up our petitions to departed Saints, and therefore they conceived it the Worship due to God alone. 2 Ha­ving removed and taken off those reasons which [Page 319]the Romanist assignes of this neglect, it follows that that reason must stand good which we assigne, at least till they can find a better. With us consent the learned Jews;(a) Josephus Albus supposeth this Worship of the Angels as Media­tors betwixt God and us, to be the most antique Idolatry; and(b) Maimon adds that the foun­dation of the precept of Idolatry is this, that no man serve or Worship any Angel or created be­ing.

As the Foundation of our last evidence of that Idolatry which is in this particular com­mitted by the Church of Rome, §. 9. we do pre­mise.

1. That Magick is that art of Divination which in conversant about the Revelation of things co [...]tingent and concealed; as v. g. touching the victory of contending parties, the future condition of the Church, &c. The declaration of our future State, Fortune, Marriage, Death, Prosperity, Adversity, and many other things which it is very useful for Mankind to know.Alii di­cunt hos esse effectus bonorum Angelorum, Delrio disq. Mag. l. 2. qu. 2. p. 96. B.

2 I premise that there was amongst the anti­ents [Page 320]an oppinion that by the help of Souls depar­ted, or good Angels, they might obtain the knowledge of things contingent and concealed: and hence that Divination which they exerci­sed who did pretend to know things secret or contingent, by their means, was called [...], or white Magick, in opposition to Divination by evil Spirits, which they stiled [...] or black Magick: it was a very old opinion especially of the Platonists of Jamblick, Porphyry, Plotinus, Proclus, and Julian the Apostate, that Divination was the effect of holy Angels. SoDis­quis. Mag. l. 2. qu. 2. p. 96. B. Delrio, Strom. 3. Ma­gicians who observe Angels and Demons are care­ful to abstain from Wine and Venery, and living creatures: So St. Clemens. And,

3. I premise that this white Magick is by the Church of Rome condemned as Idolatry: For such is all unlawful Magick, saithTacita Idololatria est omnis Magia prohi­bita Belrio, l. 1. disqu. Mag. cap. 1. p. 3. Col. 3. Del­rio. ‘Whosoever exerciseth the art of Divination, or consults them that do it, are guilty of having other Gods, saithEstius in Sent. 3. dist. 4. Sect. 6. p. 130. Estius, be­cause they attribute unto the Creature what is Gods propriety, viz. The knowledge of things future, and which in nature have no certain Causes, but which depend upon the will of man, or o­ther things which are mutable.’ Valentianus adds, ‘That they affront his Majesty by a vain expectation of those things from Creatures which are to be expected only from God: for God having said, declare to us things fu­ture that we may know that ye are Gods. the knowledge of things future and contin­gent must be the knowledge proper unto God alone. And again the procuration of the know­ledge of things hid, or secret, belongeth to [Page 321]Divine Worship, for these are to be expected only from God by prayer and other lawful means: when therefore we expect them vain­ly from the Creature, we do ascribe unto the Creature that Worship which is properly Di­vine.’ These things premised,

4. I add, that either this white Magick must be lawful, or else the Invocation of Saints and Angels, as it is practised in the Church of Rome, must be unlawful, and guilty of Idolatry; either we vainly do expect that they should hear and understand our mental Prayers, and know the secrets of our Hearts, or the Magicians who do expect the knowledge of things secret, or contingent by those blessed Spirits, cannot be justly charged with Idolatry: For whatsoever the Romanist pretends in vindication of the first, doth equally excuse and vindicate the second: for if you do conjecture with the Church of Rome, that the affection of those blessed Spirits to mankind is so exceeding great, that, it will prompt them most assuredly to intercede in our behalf for other temporal concerns, to be our re­fuge, and Protectors, and to Minister to the con­cernements both of this, and of the future life, why may we not conceive that the same love should move them to declare those future things which it doth Equally concern us to know, both that we may obtain the greatest blessings, and may be able to fly and to prevent the greatest perils, or may prepare to bear those evils, with a Christian courage which we cannot escape? ‘When Florentius having lost his Cloak,T. G. p. 424. and had not where withall to buy another, by pray­ing to the twenty Martyrs caught a Fish with a Gold Ring in t, sufficient (I suppose) to buy another.’ Caniw e doubt but when we lose [Page 322]a Cloak, that praying to all Saints and Angels, some kind hearted Saint, that perhaps in his life time lost his own (and so must be suppo­sed according toPart. 3. cap. 2. Sect. 4. T. G. to be more ready than the rest to pitty any body that sustains that loss) will tell us where this lost Cloak is? If God doth either from the Law of Friendship, or for our profit reveal the secrets of mens hearts unto them, and inform both Saints and Angels of our Prayers, and our Necessities, why should we not conceive that he is as ready to inform them of those hidden and contingent things, which, it as much concerneth us to be infor­med of, as to receive an Answer to our Prayers, v. g. if he informed the twenty Martyrs of Flo­rentius his Petition that his Cloak might be given to him,T. G. p. 423, 424. why should he not inform them where it was; or if those blessed Spirits do by virtue of the beatifick Vision see our Prayers and Wants, why should they not be thought to view our Losses, and our future state in the same beatifick Vision? If that could represent unto the twenty Martyrs Florentius's Prayer, why not his Cloak, and where it was? They who see God see all things in him which belong unto him, say the Roman Doctors, therefore they see the Prayers directed to him, for they objectively must be in God, they that see God saith the Magitian, see all things in him, and therefore they must see things future and concealed, for they objectively must be in God; and with what shew of reason can any man re­ject the latter inference who doth allow the for­mer, for to be the Searcher of the Heart, is not less proper to God then is the Knowledge of what is future and contingent? Nay Holy Scripture seemes more clearly to appropriate to God the Knowledge of the Heart, then of things [Page 323]future and contingent; for it expresly saith thou only knowest the Hearts of men, but doth not so expresly say, thou only knowest what is to come. Moreover the secret motions of our Heart do equally depend upon our will, which is un­certain, and very subject unto change, if there­fore it be truly said that what is future and contingent cannot be known by any creature, because it doth depend on what is mutable and therefore to expect this knowledge from a Crea­ture, or to ascribe it to him is to be Guilty of Idolatry; the like must be affirmed of the thoughts and inward motions of the Heart, which equally depending on the free motions of the will, must be obnoxious to the same uncertaintyes.

CHAP. XI.

The CONTENTS. The Canon of the Councel of Laodicea, de iis qui Angelos Colunt, is laid down, and the Judgment of Theodoret and Photius upon it. Sect. 1. And it is pro­ved. 1. That it contains the Sentence and belief of the whole Church of Christ. Sect. 2. That it forbids the Invocation and Wor­ship of Angels. Sect. 3. That the Angels whose Invocation and Worship it forbids were blessed Spirits and not evil Angels. Sect. 4. That it forbids what is the Pra­ctice of the Church of Rome. Sect. 5. That it pronounceth the Worship and In­vocation of the holy Angels to be Idola­try. Sect. 6. That in the Judgment of the Fathers, this was the Worship which St. Paul condemned. 2 Coloss. Sect. 7. The evasions of T. G. confuted. ibid. And all the other Answers of the Romanists. Sect. 8.

THat what we have thus confirmed from Scripture and the voice of Reason,§ 1. hath also the consent, and the concurrent suffrage of An­tiquity [Page 325]we shall demonstrate, not from the words of any single Father, but from the clear deci­sion of the whole Church of God, which is de­livered to us in these words, viz. [...]. Codex Canonum Eccles. Univers. Can. 139. That Christi­ans ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart a side, and invocate Angels, and make meetings which are things forbidden. If any man therefore be found to give himself to this pri­vy Idolatry, let him be ac­cursed. Because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and betaken himself to Idolatry. In the Epitomy of Canons collected by Dionisius Exiguus, and which Pope Adrian delivered to Charles the great, this Decree is thus entitled,Ju­s [...]el. Cod. Can Ec­cles. p. 106. Canon de his qui Angelos colunt, a Decree concerning those that worship AngelsBrev. Canon. 90. Crisconius hath the like. Theodoret, who lived in the next Century upon those words of the Apostle, Let no man defraud you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of Angels, writes that [...]. Theodoret. in Coloss. c. 2. They who were zealous for the Law, perswaded men to worship Angels, because say they, the Law was given by them. This did they councel to be done, pretending himility, and saying, that the God of all things was invisible, and inaccessible, and in­comprehensible, and that it was fit we should pro­cure [Page 326]Gods favor by the means of Angels. And again [...]. Id. in Col. 2. Because they com­manded men to worship Angels (saith Theoderet) he enjoyn­eth the contrary, that they should adorn their words and deeds with the Commemora­tion of our Lord Christ: and send up thanksgiving to God and the Father by him and not by the Angels. The Sy­nod of Laodicea also follow­ing this Rule, and desiring to heal that old disease made a Law that they should not pray to Angels, nor for­sake our Lord Jesus Christ. And lastly, [...]. Id. in Col. 2. This vice (saith he) continued in Phry­gia and Pisidia for a long time. For which cause also the Synod assembled in Lao­dicea, the chief City of Phrygia forbad them by a Law to pray to Angels, and even to this day among them and their Borderers, there are Oratories of St. Michael to be Seen. The like hath Oecume­nius upon the same place, saying, thatOecumen MS. in Coloss. 2. apud Hoechelium in Origenem contra Celfum. In libris editis desideratur. this Custom continued in Phrygia, inso­much that the Councel of La­odicea did by a Law for­bid to come to Angels and to pray unto them. From whence it is also, that there be many Churches of Michael the Cheif Captain of Gods Host among them. This Canon of the Laodicean Fathers, Photius doth note to have been made against the [...] Phot. No­mocanon tit. 12. c. 9. Angelites, or the Angelicks rather. For [Page 327]so St.(a) Augustin names those Hereticks, that were inclined to the worship of Angles, being from thence called(b) Angelici, as Isidorus no­teth, because they did worship Angels. Now that the strength of what we argue from this Canon.

And that the vanity of what the Romanists except against it, may appear,

1. Let it be noted, that the forementioned Canon containeth the Sentence and Belief of the whole Church of Christ, 5 2. for it is a Canon of that Code, which the whole Christian World did use both in their Councils and Ecclesiastical Ju­dicatures, untill the Seventh Century; and which is cited both by the Council of Calcedon and of Ephesus, as(a) the order of Canons, the series of Ecclesiastical Laws, the Ecclesastical constitutions, and (b) the Code; It is a Canon of that Code to which the Council of Calcedon gave the force, and the Authority of an uni­versal Law in these Expressions,(c) we think it equal that the Canons made by Holy Fathers in every Synod untill now, should be observed. Can. 1.

2. Observe that what the Canon thus ex­presseth,§ 3. viz. that Christians should not name the Angels; is an Anathema directed against those [Page 328]which pray to Angels, so Theodoret and Pho­tius, who call upon them for help or introducti­on to God. So Zonaras and Aristenus, who wor­shipt them.In locum So Theodoret, Dionysius, Christoni­us, and the Epitome of Canons presented by Pope Adrian to Charles the great; who said, we must be brought to God by Angels; so Aristenus and the Amerbachian Scholiast; In locum. and that to cure that Disease, the Council did command all Christi­ans not to pray unto them, so Theodoret and Oecumenius. [...]. And therefore evident it is, that Zonaras doth truly say, that to name Angels, in this Canon, was as much as to invoke them: whence it will follow, that the whole Church of Christ for two whole Centuries and upwards, did forbid all Christians to Invoke Angels, to worship or to call upon them, and did pro­nounce Anathema's on them that did so.

3. Observe that what this Canon doth for­bid,§ 4. was not the Invocation of wicked Daemons, or of Damned Spirits, but of the Blessed An­gels. For, 1. According to Theodoret and Pho­tius, they did condemn the worshipers of Mi­chael, the Archangel, and those that went unto the Oratories or Churches of St. Michael. 2. The Canon doth relate to Christians, who surely would not meet to worship Devils, nor doth it recall them to good Angels, but to Jesus Christ. 3. The persons reprehended are said to have took up this Custom of going thus to good Dae­mons, from a pretence of their unworthiness, to go to God or Christ immediately, and from an appearance of humility: So Chrysostome, The­odoret, and others; but to expect the help of Devils to introduce them to God, and to pre­tend humility in doing such an horrid act, is to be guilty of the highest madness. 4. Theodo­ret [Page 329]and Photius inform us, that they who brought up that forbidden practice, were zealous for the Law; now that most strictly did forbid the wor­ship of all evil spirits, it was delivered not by them, but by the Blessed Angels.

4. That which is here forbidden,§ 4. is what the Church of Rome doth daily practice, for they do worship Angels, saith the Roman Catechism;Part 3. p. 434. this is, and hath been their perpetual Custom to call upon them, and to expect their help and patronage, by vertue of those supplications: Hence that Expression of the Roman Missal (a) To them with confidence let's pray, for Gods assistance every day. They do expect Salvation from their intercession, in that very sense in which Theophylact asserts the Hereticks expected to be saved by Angels, viz, [...] as persons ministring unto our Introduction to God and Christ: Hence their petitions, that(b) by the intercessions of the blessed Angels, they may obtain Gods favour, and may be brought to Life Eternal. If then that Invocation which is here forbidden be Idolatry, the practice of the Church of Rome must be so too.

5. This Invocation of the Blessed Angels,§. 6. is expresly said to be Idolatry: and therefore, if it [Page 330]be not truly so, this Synod and the Church of Christ must be pronounced false accusers; now of this enormity, they could not justly be accu­sed for deserting Christ; for, notwithstanding this, they did not look upon those Angels they invoked as Gods, but as inferiour Creatures; and [...], or presons in­strumental and subservient unto our Introducti­on to God; and therefore thought we should procure Gods favour by the means of Angels, because that God himself was not to be approa­ched or apprehended, and because Christ was so exalted, that they durst not make their imme­diate addresses to him, now to think Christ grea­ter than that we sinful Creatures should make addresses to him, maketh some shew of our hu­mility, but cannot possibly be charged with Ido­latry. For should any Man conceive himself un­worthy to appear before God, or look upon him as unaccessable by one of so defiled a spirit, and therefore should entreat the Prayers of his pious Neighbors, we might conclude that he was very ignorant and vain in his imaginations, but could not thence conclude, that he was guil­ty of Idolatry. And so the Reader sees, that notwithstanding these mistakes of the Angelicks, the Church of Rome hath no wrong done them, when we charge their Invocation of the blessed Angels with Idolatry; for if the Invocation of them when absent were not guilty of this Crime, these by-mistakes could never make it guilty of that imputation. Besides the Synod and Theodo­ret do put a clear distinction betwixt these two particulars, which by the Exposition of the Roman Doctors are confounded, and made to signify the same, viz. desertion of Christ, and being guilty of Idolatry, by praying to the bles­sed [Page 331]Angels, as is apparent from this expression of Theodoret: the Synod of Laodicea made a Law that Christians should not pray to Angels, nor for­sake the Lord Christ; whosoever doth such things, say they, accursed let him be; because he hath deserted Christ, and given up himself unto Idolatry. Lastly, we do not find that they did so reject or desert Christ, as to deny his intercession in the Heavens, but only, upon this account, because they did not make immediate addresses to him. For as St. Paul asserts,1 Gal. 6. that the Galatians had deserted him that called them, because, they joy­ned the observation of the Law to the pro­fession of the Gospel of Christ, so doth St. Paul, and the Laodicean Fathers declare, that those Angelicks had deserted Christ, because, they joyned the Mediation of the blessed Angels, to Christ, the only Mediator of his Church.

6. Let it be noted,§. 7. that those Fathers and Inter­preters do with one mouth affirm, was what this Canon thus condemned, was what St. Paul had long before condemned in his Epistle to the Colossians; and therefore that St. Paul did in the judgment of those Fathers, condemn the wor­ship and invocation of the belssed Angels as Idolatry. Theodoret expresly saith, that because they commanded men to worship Angels, he enjoyneth the contrary; that they should adorn their words and their deeds with commemoration of our Lord Christ:p. 378.and send up thanksgiving to God and the Father by him, and not by the Angels: [...] to this T. G. replies, ‘That these words of Paul, viz. in a voluntary humility, and not holding the bead, sufficiently intimate a particularity in the wor­ship which St. Paul condemned, and this was saith St. Crysostome that some among the Co­lossians said that we ought to be rceonciled, [Page 332]and have access to the Father not by Christ, but by the Angels; and this saith he, is that which is said (id est, condemned) by the Apo­stle, that they so admitted and worshiped the Angels for Mediators, as to exclude Christ.’ Ans. In this Reply according to T. G. his con­stant custom we have two horrid falsifications of the words of Chrysostome: For, 1. These words we ought to be reconciled, are disingenuously added to the words or Chrysostome, that he might seem to say that they whom Paul con­demned did attribute unto the Angels our re­concilement unto God. 2. What he asserts to to be assigned as a reason why St. Paul con­demned their Worship, is in St. Chrysostome a reason why they were [...]. Chry­sost. in locum. pufft up, and did pre­tend humility, but is not assigned as a reason why St. Paul condemnes this worship.

3. He doth expresly say that because these men introduced Angels, St. Paul in opposition to them did exhort us to do all by Invocation of the name of Christ, and not to introduce the Angels; now he that doth exhort us, whether we eat or drink or whatsoever else we do, before we set upon it, to put up our Petitions to him: and then adds [...] must in all reason be supposed to forbid us to put up our petitions to them, in reference to any thing we do.

T. G. p. 378. proceeds to tell us that ‘the reason why they excluded Christ from reconciliation is given by Theophilact,’ [...] because they esteemed it [Page 333]a thing unworthy of the Majesty of the only begotten Son on the one side to make the Recon­ciliation, and far transcending Mans poverty and lowness on the other. Reply, 'Tis an old saying, and a true, that one Ly begets an other. Thus T. G. having falsly cited Chrysostom, he gives as false a Reason of what he never said. For doth Theophylact say, they esteemed it unwor­thy of Christ, on the other side to make the Reconci­liation? no T. G. confesseth, that he doth not, by putting this in a different Character from the words of Theophylact: doth he say that something was esteemed unworthy, but doth not tell us what that was, that so T. G. might have some colour for saying it was reconciliation? No, he expresly saith, they deemed it beneath Christ, to bring us unto God, or to procure our ac­cess unto him; and that it was beyond our meannes immediately to go unto him. Do any of the latter Scholiasts, since that this practice was used in the Church of Christ, suggest this sense? No, they expressely say, that which these Hereticks asserted was [...], [...].Balsamon Zonaras Ariste­nus that we ought not to pray to Christ for his as­sistance, or introduction to the Father. Must that expression [...] be thus expounded, To make this reconciliation, is a thing far transcending Mans lowness? No, St. Chrysostom and all the Scholiasts do manifestly say the contrary, and they all expound it thus, that Christ was greater then that we should go un­to him, and that to be introduced by Christ, was a thing greater then we could expect. Or lastly, doth the Word [...] import this Reconciliation? no, the proper im­port of [...] is to procure access, and they [Page 334]were called [...] who obtained admission or favour for the supplicant.

Thirdly,p. 379. he answers, that St. Paul, and ‘the Council of Laodicea (in the Judgment of Theodoret, forbad the worshiping or praying to Angels, upon account that the Law was de­livered by them, (and therefore, as Theophy­lact saith, they brought us Salvation) Answer,’ As if Theophylacis assertion, who lived above 400 years after this Council met, were to be valued, when both Theodoret and Photius and Chrysostom, who lived almost 400 years before him, gave not one item of it, but do assign such reasons of that Prohibition, as nothing do relate unto it. (2.) It is false, that Theophylact affirms, that they who prayed to Angels, because the Law was delivered by them, did therefore say they brought us Salvation; for he asserts not that this Law was made aginst Judaizing Christi­ans, as doth Theodoret and Photius, but against those who from pretences of humility, exclu­ded Christ. (3.) To be so far our Saviours only, as to bring or to discover the tydings of Salvation to us, is no otherwise to be our Savi­ours, then were the Blessed Apostles and Evange­lists; and so to worship them as such, is but to worship them as Papists do St. Paul and Peter. (4.) This will be more apparent from his words. [...] They said it was unworthy of the Majesty of Christ, to bring us to the Father, and that it was beyond them to desire it, and there­fore [Page 335]did conceive it more agreeable to reason to think that Angels ministred to our Introduction, and hence they introduced the worship of Angels, and perswaded the more ignorant to go unto them, [...] i. e. [...] to those that saved us by ministring unto our Introduction to God, from whom we do obtain Salvation, and thus the Papists also do perswade the ruder people to look upon them as their Saviours, for by the suffrage of the Holy Angels they hope to obtain Salvation, and by the intercession of their Guardian Angel, they hope to enjoy God, and therefore in this language call upon him, Say unto my Soul, thou art my Salva­tion— We meet with many other answers to this Canon, and to that passage of St. Paul in Perroon, Bellarmine, Petavius, amounting to this only, That they forbid only that supplication, which was tendred to them as to Gods, or as to primary and only Mediators. But (1.) the Ca­non speaks of Christians, now to suppose that they, whose Fundamental Principle it is to own one only God, should also worship Angels as God, is the extremity of folly (2.) Theodoret and Jerom declare,Epist. ad Algasiam quest. 10. that they who did abet this Doctrine were Jews, or persons zealous of the Law, Now these Men knew that Angels were but the Instruments and Creatures of God, and therefore could not worship them as Gods. (3.) They chose these Angels as fit persons to introduce them to God, and used their Medita­tion upon this pretence, that such mean persons should not go directly to him, and therefore could not look upon them as partakers of the na­ture to God.

In a word,§ 8. what can be more incredible then that St. Paul being assisted by the Holy Spirit, [Page 336]and the whole Church of Christ, should daily practice this worship, and Invocation of the Holy Angels, and teach all Christians so to do, and yet affirm these things without any limita­tion or distinction, which if we may interpret them according to the plain and obvious mean­ing of the words, do manifestly condemn that which they did daily practice, and lay upon Saint Paul, and the whole Church of Christ, on supposition of this practice, the imputation of Idolatry, and of deserting our Blessed Lord, and should deliver and approve these things, as the Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which all Men stood obliged to believe. Nothing can be more contrary unto the worship and Invo­cation of these blessed Spirits, then an express command, that we should neither worship nor Invoke them can it then enter into the heart of any sober person to believe, that the whole Church of Christ, even when they taught and practised both, should make, receive, and in their Universal Synods should solemnly confirm a Law, without distinction or exception, for­bidding both the worship and Invocation of them, and requiring all good Christians to avoid this practice, as being the deserting of their Saviour, and the giving of Gods worship to those Spirits? Since this Devotion hath obtained in the Church of Rome, who ever heard of any Romanist, who roundly and without distincti­on, would assert, that to invoke an Angel was Idolatry or that this Invocation was forbidden by the Church of Christ, as doth Theodoret and Photius, and the Laodicean Council? who of them ever cautioned all Christian people, as St. Paul hath done, that no Man should seduce them to the worship of those Blessed Spirits? What Coun­cil [Page 337]ever did decree, that they should not be wor­shipped or invoked, or own such Doctrine as any part of Christian Faith? And yet we find this done both by Saint Paul, and by the Laodicean Council, by Origen, Theodoret, and Photius, and the whole Church of Christ; viz. what they confirm­ed by their daily practice, they not only did forbid, but they pronounced it to be Idolatry and the deserting of their Saviour, what they had thus decreed in opposition to their own daily practice, that they obtruded as a dictate of the Holy Ghost, and as the matter of their Faith; but against the worshiping of Angels with Di­vine Worship, or as sole or primary Mediators, which (if we may believe the Church of Rome) was the only thing in which they did offend, we have no mention in the least. That there were in the world such Hereticks, as said it was beyond us, or was too great an arrogance to go directly to the Son of God, and that God was Inaccessible, and therefore we must go to Angels, this Synod I suppose must know as well as Chrysostom and Theodoret, why therefore do they never mention as do the latter Comments on this Canon, what they alone designed to pre­vent? Why do they not recall these Hereticks unto that invocation of these Blessed Angels, which had obtained in the Church of Christ, and tell them that they need not to desert the Church, or gather private conventicles in order to the In­vocation of these Angels? Why do not they or or any other person, that flourished in the fourth or fifth Ages of the Church, when this injuncti­on was in force, distinguish between the Invo­cation of the Holy Angels, which the Church did practise, and that which was forbidden by this [Page 338]Canon? Why doth S. [...]. l. 5. contra Celsum. p. 236. Ori­gen conclude that Celsus had not read that passage of St. Paul to the Colossians, because he said the Worship of the Holy Angels was no transgres­sion of their Law? For what is this but to suggest that this text of Scripture is so plain against the worship of them, that he that reads it cannot think that they who own it can admit that Worship? Why doth The­odoret affirm that because Hereticks commanded men to worship Angels, S. Paul enjoyned the contrary; for what is contrary to a command to worship An­gels but an injunction not to Worship Angels? Why doth he say that the Apostle doth command us to send up our Thanksgivings by Christ, and not by the Angels, for by whom we may send up our Petitions why may we not send up Thanks­giving too? Why doth both he and Photius in­form us that the Laodicean Synod being desirous to heal this old disease enjoyned Christians [...], not to pray to Angels? For is not this a shrewd su­spition that this Idololatrical disease, was only that of praying to Angels; or else that both Theodo­ret and Photius were such intolerable dolts as to represent the very practise of the Christians as the disease of the Idolaters, and the desertors of our Blessed Lord? Why is it lastly that St. Chrysostom informes us that for a cure of this disease St. Paul enjoyned all Christians to invoke the name of Christ, and not to bring in Angels, suggesting this unto us, that the Invocation of Angels was not consistent with that of Christ, and that by saying do all things in the name of [Page 339]Christ, he hath commanded us to pray unto him, and call upon him as our helper, and not upon the holy Angels? Who knows not that a sen­tence against any person ought in some words or other to specify the crime that it condemns, and that an act so framed as to condemn a person as guilty of the highest crimes and wor­thy of the severest punishments for doing what in the plain and literal meaning of the words all they that framed the act and they that owned it as a Law did dayly practise, is an absurdi­ty that Humane Nature cannot possibly be guilty of? When therefore I can find an Act of Par­liament, intending only to condemn Incestuous conversation, framed thus, whosoever shall marry any Woman let him be severely punished; or a de­cree of any Council, intending only to forbid us to go to the Assembly of Hereticks, thus worded, Whosoever shall go to Church let him be Anathema; then shall I think this Synod and the whole Church of Christ, intending only to forbid such invocation of the Blessed Angels as made them Gods, or sole and primary Medi­ators, would make a Law M [...] not to pray to Angels, and thus decree, whosoever shall go and invocate the Angels let him be Anathema. When I can find that such deter­minations and decrees shall pass for current in a Church or Nation without all limitation, or restriction for some hundred years, though contradictory to what they practise and believe, then shall I be induced to believe this Canon could be thus admitted and confirmed as a Law of the whole Church of Christ in contradiction to their Faith and practise.

CHAP. XII.

The CONTENTS. The Invocation of Angels confuted from the Testimony of Irenaeus and st. Augustin, &c. Sect. 1. From the Testimonies of Origen. Sect. 2. The exceptions of T. G. against them largely confuted. Sect. 3. The Testimony cited from Origen. Hom. in Ezech. considered. Sect. 4.

TO this so pregnant Testimony of the whole Church of Christ, we shall adjoyn such sayings of the antient fathers as do directly over­throw this doctrine, or manifestly affirm that no such practise was allowed by the Church of Christ.Non est nume­rum di­cere Gra­tiarum quas per universum Mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens in nomine Christi Jesu crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato per singulos dies in opitulationem Gen­tium perficit — neque seducens, aliquem nec pecuniam ei auferens, nec invocationibus Angelicis, faciat (i. facit) aliquid nec incanta­tionibus, nec aliqua prava curiositate, sed mundè, purè, & manifestè orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui omnia fecit, & nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem perfecit. Iren. l. 2. c. 57. Thus in the second Century it is decla­red by Irenaeus, that the Church of Christ did no­thing by the Invocation of Angels but purely, simply, and openly addressed her prayers to God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, To this ‘T. G. Replies that [Page 341] Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invo­cating of Angels, as was used by the Martio­nites, and Carpocratians in their Magical ope­rations, and working of false Miracles.’ p. 388. Repl. 1. The words of Irenaeus do absolutely say that Christians did nothing by the Invocation of angels; which if T. G. will limit thus, he stands obliged in equity, and and by the Laws of Disputation to give some reason of that li­mitation, which since he hath not done, it is ap­parent that he hath answered nothing to the Doctors argument. But, 2. what he replyes, as it is absolutely groundless, so is it false and inconsistent with the words of Irenaeus: For he doth manifestly distinguish betwixt those ma­gical operations and the invocation of holy An­gels, and affirms that the Church doth nothing by incantations, or by Angelick invocations. 3. He doth oppose unto this Angelick invocation, the invocation and directing of our Prayers purely to God and Christ. What therefore he ascribes thus purely unto God and Christ, he must be deemed to deny to Angels, and consequently must deny that they directed their petitions to them. Besides why doth he tell us, that the Church addresseth her petitions to that God who made all things, if not to shew that this was the true reason of our praying to him alone, see­ing he only is the maker of all things? 4. He manifestly speaks of the miraculous gifts of Christians in curing diseases and casting out of Devils, which things not only Irenaeus, but [...]. lib. 3. contra Celsum. p. 124. l. 1. p. 7. Origen affirmes to be performed only by the [Page 342]invocation of the name of God and Christ. Lactantius tels us thatIlle autem preses Mundi & re­ctor Universi qui scit omnia, cu­jus divinis oculis nihil septum est, solus habet rerum omnium cum Filio suo potestatem nec in Ange­lis quicquam nisi parendi nicessi­tas it que nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt quorum omnis ho­nor in Dao est. l. 2. c. 16. the holy Angels will not have any honor bestowed on them, because their honor is in God and they have nothing else to do but to obey. S. Chrysostome is very copious on this sub­ject; For (1.) he tels us the Devil brought in [...] (i. e. The Calling upon Angels as is ap­parent from its opposition to calling upon God) and that, saith he, he doth endeavoring to rob us of this honor (of going unto God by Christ alone) as is apparent from the words preceding [...] do all things by God, and introduce not Angels. And lastly, he concludes in these expressions,Hom. 9. in E­pist. ad Coloss. Tom. 4. p. 139. be he Angel, or Archangel, or Cherubim, do not suffer it; for neither will these powers receive this honor but reject it, when they see their Lord dishonored. I have honored thee, saith God and have said call upon me, and dost thou dishonour him? Again,Hom. 3. ad Heb. p. 443. Why gape ye (saith he) after Angels they are our fellow servants? Now from that very name the Fathers argue that they are not to be ado­red. Hence [...]. &c. Orat. 3. p. 394. Athanasius concludes no Creature ought to adore his fellow Creature though he be an Angel, because the Angel said to John, see thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant. And, Gregory Nazianzen saith [...]. Nazianz. Orat. Qudragessim. p. 668, 669. If I adore the Creature what shall I say to the Idolatrous Heathen, since I my self adore my fellow servants: For Creatures are all servants, though some more excellent than others. [Page 343]Of the same judgement was St. Angustin who speaks thus;Quem invenirem qui me recon­ciliatet tibi, an eundum mihi suit ad Angelos? qua prece? Quibus Aacramentis? multi conantes ad te redire neque per seipsos valen­tes, sicut audio, tentave [...]unt haec, & inciderunt in desiderium curi­osarum visionum & digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Consell. l. 10. c. 42. Whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels? With what Prayer? With what Sacraments? many endea­voring to return unto thee, and not being not able to do it by themselves, as I here have tryed those things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were accounted worthy of illusions. de C. D. l. 9. c. 23. Elsewhere he tels us, those blessed Spirits, however they are called, are no Mediators to bring miserable mortals to bles­sedness and immortality, where, saith the Doctor,p. 154. It would be ridiculous to distinguish between Mediators of Redemption and Intercession: for all that they attributed to their good Spi­rits was only Intercession: to this T. G. Re­plyes,p. 375, 376. that this is manifestly false, and that Doctor Stillingfleet not only contradicis the Truth, but him­self too, to wit because he had before affirmed that the Aegyptian Daemons, saith Celsus, healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves: and therefore might justly be Invocated. And 2. be­cause he had told us from S. Augustin, that it was their Office to inform the superior Gods of what they could not know otherwise; this is the only ground of this rude imputation of falsehood and contra­diction to the Doctor: and yet this ground is as ridiculously vain as if I should affirm this Proposition to be false; that all the Heathens attributed to their good Spirits was only In­tercession, because they attributed to them Wings, and an Aetherial body: who is so blind as not to see, that when the Doctor saith they made [Page 344]them Mediators of Intercession only, not Mediators of Redemption? by that exclusive only he could not intend to say that they asserted nothing else concerning them, as he most grosly doth mistake, or most unconscionably doth interpret him: but only that they ascribed nothing to them which made them Mediators of Redemption. Moreover, is it fair dealing when he thus rails against Dr. Stillingfleet to do himself what he imputes unto the Doctor and quote him falsely in that very place, which yet he manifestly doth in setting down this passage as the Doctors words, viz. that the giving them Divine Worship proceedeth upon that superstition, &c. For both to this citation and to many passages pretendedly translated from the Fathers, or cited as the sense and mea­ning of their words, he adds this word Divine where it is not expressed; or in the least inten­ded, only that he may seem to answer when he doth nothing less; which is a fraud so horrible and disingenious that no man can sufficiently detest it, or judge that man can make a con­science of his actions, who makes a common practice of it. 2. Let any man peruse S. Au­gustin's whole discourse upon this matter, and he will find that to overthrow this Tenet ofSed quia eos­dem Daemones inter ho­mines & Deos ita medios constitutos putant, tanquam nullus deus homini misceatur, ut hine perferant desiderata, inde referant impe­trata: atque hoc Platonici precipui Philosophorum ac nobilissimi sentiant, cum quibus, velut cum excellentioribus placuit istam exa­minare quaestionem, utrum cultus plurimorum Deorum prosit ad con­sequendam vitam beatam, quae post mortem futura est. De Civitat. Dei. l. 9. c. 1. p. 268. D. Apuleius, and all Philosophers that were of the same judgement with him, and held that their good Doemons did so mediate betwixt the Gods and men, as that they carried our petitions up to [Page 345]them, and did return the Aids and Blessings of the God to us. He undertakes the Refutation of this Platonick Doctrine, and the examinati­on of this Question, whether the worship of those many Gods or Daemons was profitable to the obtaining of our future Bliss; and to con­fute this Doctrine of the Platonists, and to prove this Mediation not to be profitable to this end, he argues thus;* This Mediation cannot be per­formed but by a middle person, who partakes of some what that makes him like unto hoth parties: and therefore cannot be performed by good Angels, such as the Platonist asserts these Daemons are, be­cause Good Angels have happiness and immorta­lity with God, but neither misery nor mortality by which they may agree with Man. This is his ar­gument even in that place, whence Dr. Stilling­fleet doth cite these words, that those who are Christians do believe, that we need not many, but one Mediator, and that such a one, by whose participation we are made happy, i. e. the word of God not made, but by whom all things were made.

Now here the Doctor is with great confi­dence,p. 373. and with as little reason accused of false translation, and addition to St. Austins words; of addition, because he saith, those that are Christians do believe: Of false Translation in [Page 346]those words, we need not many but one Media­tor: but it is easie to vindicate the Doctor from these false aspersions; for, that Christians only could be brought to the Enjoyment of God, was certainly St. Austins Faith, so then ut per­duceremur (sc. nos ad Deum) non multis, sed uno Mediatore opus erat, (sc. nobis) must import thus much, That we Christians may be brought to God, we have no need of many Mediators. To cavil at this Translation is to expose his ignorance to every School Boy: But to the Testimony of St. Austin, he returns this Answer, that it is plain he speaks of such a Mediator, p. 374. by whose participa­tion we are made happy, that is, a Mediator of Redemption, and not a Mediator of Intercession, Rep. it is as plain that St. Austin speaks of such a Mediator, who is the word of God, not made but making all things, and that the Platonist acknow­ledged his Mediating Demons, to be made by God; the Platonist may therefore with T. G. infer, that it is plain he speaketh not against them, though he designed nothing else, because he speaks of such a Mediator by whose partici­pation we are made happy; that is, (sayth he) the word of God not made, &c. 2. Doth not St. Austin tell us in the begining of this Book, that seeing some Philosophers affirmed, that their Good Demons were Ministers to inter­cede with God, or carry up our Prayers to him, and to bring back his Blessings unto us, therefore he would enter upon this dispute, whether the worship of those many Gods was pro­fitable to Salvation. And therefore it is evident he stood obliged to shew they did not contribute to our Salvation, by being Mediators of Inter­cession for us, as well as to exclude them from from being Mediators of Redemption.

The Works of Origen against Celsus, §. 2. are so express and clear against this practice of the Church of Rome, that if he had designed to con­fute the Doctrine of that Church, he could not have devised expressions more repugnant to it: for having confessed that [...]. p. 233. holy Angels did carry up our Prayers to God, and bring down blessings from God to us, (as he had learned in the School of Plato) least any should be tempted to infer from this, that we should pray unto these An­gels, or that it was useful or needful so to do, that so these Blessed spirits might be more propi­cious or helpful to us; he doth expresly say, that [...]. p. 233. to invoke them is no reasonable thing, and this assertion he confirms by many arguments. 1. It is absurd (saith he) to call upon them, because we want the knowledge of their nature, nd because it is above the reach of Man. And 2. That if we could attain unto this Knowledge, that very Know­ledge which declares their Nature and their Offce to us, would not permit us to pray to any other, but unto God the Lord of all, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by the Son of God. 3. He reck­ons up in the Apostles language, all the kinds and sorts of Prayer,(a) Petition, Deprecation, Intercession, and Thanksgiving: And then he adds, all these we must put up to God by that high Priest, who doth Transcend all Angels; and that this worship in any of the kinds forementioned, was therefore not to be conferred upon the An­gels, [Page 348]because they were not to receiveIbid. the worship due to God. 4. He adds, that it was sufficient to obtain the favour of the holy Angels, and the assistance of their Prayers, to labour to have God propitious, and to procure his good will by godliness and vertue, and by imitation of the An­gels Piety. And therefore not only in his an­swer to this objection,Lib. 5. p. 233. but elsewhere he tells us, me must endeavor to approve our selves to him, who is one God over all, and we must pray to him for mercy, and that if Celsus will yet have us to procure the good will of others after him, who is God over all, he must consider, that as when the body is moved, the motion of the shadow thereof doth follow: so in like manner, having God favourable unto us who is over all, it followeth, that we shall have all his Friends, both Angels, and Souls, and Spirits loving unto us: For they have a fellow feel­ing with them that are thought worthy to find fa­vour from God. To whom they are not only favou­rable, but they pray with them. So as we may be bold to say, that when Men which with resolu­tion propose unto themselves the best things, do pray unto God: many thousand of the sacred powers pray together with them unspoken to. Moreover when Celsus affirmed,Id. l. 8. p. 420. that thanks were to be given to Dae­mons, and that our Prayers and first Fruits were to be offered to them; [...]. l. 8. p. 396.that so we might obtain their presence with us, and their favour to us, who have obtained of God to be Dispensers of inferiour things: to this it is replyed by Origen. 1. That God had given no such Government to Daemons. [...] Id. ib. p. 400. 2. That [Page 349]first Fruits must be offered to God alone, who said, let the Earth bring forth Fruit, and to him to whom the Christians offered their first Fruits, they offered also their petitions. 3. He doth acknow­ledge that office which Celsus had ascribed to wicked Daemons did agree to Angels, who up­on that account in Scripture were stiled mini­string spirits, and do encamp about Gods ser­vants for their protection and deliverance. But least we should infer with Celsus, that we must therefore pray unto them, to be thus propi­cious; he adds, we shall sufficiently obtain their favour, by imitation of their Piety, and In­vocation of that God to whom they pray. For thus he speaks; If we have a desire to a multitude, whom we would willingly have to be fa­vourable unto us, l. 8. p. 400. we learn that thousand thou­sands stand by him, and Millions of Millions mi­nister unto him, who beholding them that imitate their Piety towards God, as if they were their Kinsfolkes and Friends, help forward their Sal­vation and call upon God, and pray sincerely, ap­pearing also, and thinking that they ought to do service to them; and as it were upon one watch-word to set forth for the benefit and salvation of them that pray to God, unto whom they themselves also pray.

Now to all these and all the Arguments that any man can bring, T. G. returns this An­swer,§. 3. p. 360. Viz. ‘That Prayer implies either a total dependance upon God as the Author of all good, and so we ought to pray to God alone, or an address unto the Members of the Church triumphant, for the assistance of their Prayers to him, who only can give what we ask, and in this sense it is still used by Ro­man Catholicks, when it is applied to Saints and Angels; when therefore Origen denies [Page 350]that our Prayers are to be offered to any but to Christ alone, he speaks of Prayer in the first sense.’ This is that Catholick answer, which upon all occasion he produceth. This Origen and all the Fathers mean, verily it is this, and nothing else; Not that the Fathers of the four first Centuries, when they so roundly and frequently assert, that Prayer is to be offered unto God alone, did ever thus distinguish or speak one title of this nature, no, simple Crea­tures as they were: they absolutely, and with­out all distinction condemned what they daily practised, and practised what they had condem­ned; they all spake what was absolutely false, and meant only what was true; so that no Man could have imagined this to have been their meaning, had not T. G. been their Interpre­ter. Thus when Origne expresly saith, [...] l. 8. p. 402. It is no reasonable thing to pray unto the Angels, l. 5. p. 258. we must only pray to God and to his Son Christ Jesus. He nust affirm, what was a plain and absolute con­tradiction to the Churches Doctrine, but then his meaning must be Orthodox, and contra­dictory to what he doth assert. When he adds almost by way of Syllogism, to whom we Chri­stians offer our first Fruits: to him we offer up our Prayers: But to God alone we offer up our first Fruits, Ergo to him alone we offer up our Pray­ers. When he informs us, that the Christians were such as did not pray to Angels, but undivi­dedly and inseparably did worship God by Jesus Christ,l. 8. p. 382.and came to God by Christ alone, and so, as to transcend even those blessed spirits, which are called Gods, He must apparently bely the Chri­stian World, according to the plain Interpreta­tion of his words, but his intentions must be Orthodox. And yet 3. he doth not only [Page 351]deny the Doctrine, and the practice of the Church of Rome to be the Doctrine and practice of the time wherein he lived, but he destroys the very ground and reason of that practice, viz. the benefit we may receive by put­ting up requests unto them; and the concern­ments which ly upon us so to do in order to our preservation from all evil, and the obtain­ment of the greatest blessings, for he expresly tels us our care must be to get his favour who alone is God: and that if Celsus (or the Church of Rome) would have us to procure the favor of the inferior beings he must know that all good Spirits, Souls and Angels, (if we do obtain Gods favor, when we pray to him) they need not be called upon for the assistance of their prayers for they will pray together with us, ( [...]) not being called upon so to do. This he doth frequently repeat, and indeed it is the common language of those times he lived in, witness the like expression of Arnobius, In hoe omne, quod co­lendum est coli­mus: quod adorari convenit adoramus: quod obsequium Venerationis exposcit Venerationibus pro­meremur. Cum enim divinitatis ipsius tencamus caput, à quo ipsa Divinitas divorum omnium, quicunque sunt, ducitur, supervacuum putamus personas ire per singulas: cum & ipsi qui sint, & quae ha­beant nomina nesciamus: & cujus sint praeterea numeri, neque li­quidum neque comprehensum, neque exploratum habere possimus. Atque ut in terrestribus Regnis necessitate nulla compellimur, rega­libus in familiis constitutos nominatim cum Principibus adorare, sed in Regum ipsorum cultu, quicquid illis annexum est, tacita & se sentit honorificentia comprehendi: Non alia ratione quicunque hi Dii sunt, quos esse nobis proponitis: fi sint progenies Regia, & principali oriuntur è capite, etiam si nullos accipiant nominatim à nobis cultus, intelligunt se tamen honorari communiter cum suo Rege, atque in illius venerationibus contineri. Arnobius contra Gentes, lib. 3 p. 101. In worshiping the Father and the Lord of all things we worship all things that are to be worshiped, we [Page 352]adore all things that may conveniently be adored, we venerate all that calls for veneration. For hold­ing to the head from whence these Divi borrow their Divinity, we think it needless to go to every Person; seeing wee know not what they are, what names they have, or of what order they may be. And as in honoring the King wee honor all that do belong unto him, so what ever Gods you do pro­pose unto us, if they be of this Kingly progeny, and do belong unto this head, although they do re­ceive no worship from us they understand that they are worshiped together with their King, and are included in that veneration, which we pay to him.

4. This Answer renders the discourse of Origen impertinent, and a perfect declination of the Question betwixt him and Celsus: For Celsus thus disputes, no God nor any Son of God can possibly descend from Heaven; but if you do assert this of the Angels of God these are no other than our Daemons. Orig. l. 7. 5. p. 23 [...]. To this St. Origen returns this Answer. 1. That to deny that any God descends from Heaven, is to deny what was esteemed a thing common by the Heathen World. 2. That Christians do indeed confess this is the office of the Angels to come down from and to ascend to Heaven, and to offer up the Prayers of men to God, but yet, saith he, we must not worship them as God, for all our Prayers must be directed to God, and to his Son Christ Jesus who is the living Word and God. Which argument if it have any strength at all consists in this, that whi [...]h you must not worship and adore as God you must not pray unto, but Angels you must not worship and adore as God. Ergo, Angels you must not pray unto. This is that Fathers plea to which T. G. may answer in behalf of Celsus as well as of the Church of Rome, that he apparently di­stinguisheth [Page 353]those Angels both from God and from the Son of God, and therefore did not contend that we should pray unto them as to that God, who is the Author of all good, but only as to the Ministers and Servants of God, whom he appointed to preside over such per­sons, Families, and Countries. And therefore he was contented only that it might be lawful to say unto them as doth the Church of Rome to St. Sebastian, Cerne familiam tuam (id est) behold thy family: and to St. Gabriel, preserve thy Countrey. 2. [...]. Celsus objects that if with God we do adore his Son, then may we ( [...]) venerate his Mini­sters.

To this St. Origen replies; that if [...]. Orig. Contra Celsum. lib. 8. p. 386. Cel­sus by the Ministers of God had understood Ga­briel and Michael and other Angels and Arch­angels and had contended that they should be ve­nerated, perpaps by purifying of the word, and of the actions of the venerators, we might say some­thing of that matter (i.e.) Perhaps some actions which in some sense may bear the name of ve­neration might be performed to those Angels.

This T. G. thinks a great advantage to his cause; and wonders that the Doctor would produce this passage. But I conceive it is the clearest confutation of it, that we could desire; For [Page 354]having granted this, and then restraining our petitions unto God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, as he expresly doth, he most appa­rently demonstrates that prayer could be no part of the forementioned service he allowed to Saints. 2. In that he thus distinguisheth of veneration and never doth distinguish in the like manner of prayer and supplication, or of [...] and [...], id est, of adoration and worship: it follows that although he thought some veneration might be allowed to Angels in some inferior kind: yet no petition was to be put up unto them, and that no worship and adoration should be given unto them. 3. When Origen in answer to this passage saith, [...]. Id. Ibid. we (Chri­stians) venerate with suppli­cations only God and his Son Jesus Christ, and put up our petitions to God by his only Son: If he doth understand only such supplications as are made to him as to the Author of all good, he is as vain and impertinent as T. G. in his Answers to the Dr. for Celsus only doth contend for such a wor­ship, and consequently for such addresses on­ly as agree unto the Ministers and Servants of God. 4. Origen plainly doth inform us that the veneration he allowed to Angels was [...] [...] Id. l. 8. p. 416. to speak well of them and pronounce them blessed, and imitate to their virtues; and what is this to supplication? 3. Celsus objects that Daemons do belong to God and therefore must be prayed unto: and a little after that, to them it was given to preside over the Earth, or to be patrons or Inspectors of such a City or of such a Countrey; and upon that account infers [Page 355]we must both pray and offer our thandsgiving and first fruits unto them. To all this Origen replies, that we must offer up our prayers to God alone, and we must pray to him alone to whom we offer our first fruits: in both which places if Origen intended only to affirm that prayer was due to God, which implies the ob­ject of our supplication to be the highest God and the chief Author of all Good, it is appa­rent he doth not in the least deny what Celsus pleaded for, viz. such supplication as he concei­ved due to such Daemons as were commissiona­ted from God and belonged to him.

5. This Answer renders the discourses of this learned Father rediculously weak and unconclu­ding: as v. g. 1. We cannot rationally pray to Angels, saith this learned Father; Because we do not know their natures, nor are we capable of the knowledge of them. lib. 5. p. 233. Which if we understand it thus ‘We know not what their understanding is, or whether they have any knowledge of our hearts when present, or of our prayers when absent. And therefore do not conceive it rational to pray unto them, it is both per­tinent and conclusive: But if we understand it thus, we must not pray unto them, as we do to the great God of Heaven; because we do not know their Natures.’ Nothing is more absurd and foolish, for certainly all Christians knew so much of their nature as to believe they were not Gods. Besides we neither know the nature of God nor are we capable of under­standing it, and yet it will not follow that we we may not pray unto him,lib. 5. p. 239. as to the Author of all Good. Again it is absurd, saith he, having God alwayes present with us to pray unto the Son which is not alwayes present: now this absurdi­ty [Page 356]doth equally respect Prayer relative, and ab­solute; for if the Son can hear our prayers, and can obtain Gods blessings when he is not present, it cannot be absurd to pray unto him, because not present, but if he cannot, then must it be absurd to put up to him such petitions as the Church of Rome doth tender to the holy Angels. Moreover we do not in the least contemne (saith he) so admirable a work of God, but yet we must not pray unto (the Creature or) this work of God,lib. 5. p. 238. because it prayes for us: Now here can any man conceive he should intend no more but this, you must not look on that as the supremest Deity, which I have told you is his Creature? No sure, had he and all the Christian World prayed daily to them, who do pray for us, he would have rather said you must not pray unto him, as to that God who is the Author of all good, because he is a Creature. 6. When Origen di­scourseth of this subject he usually saith that we must put up our petitions unto God by Christ, and having once confessed that we may pray directly to Christ whom he conceived to be in­ferior to the Father) he makes that very same distinction which our Author and his party do, viz. [...] l. 5. p. 233. That prayer may be taken properly [...] or [...] in an impro­per and abusive sense: and in this sense alone he doth approve of prayer made to Christ, whereas had he al­lowed of any prayers made to Saints and An­gels, it is to be presumed having so many pro­vocations and occasions to treat upon, and to explain the subject, he would have sometimes used this distinction, and would not alwayes [Page 357]have denied this practice and condemned that doctrine, without distinction or exception: else­where, he saith, If any man be not sufficient, (viz. to go directly to God) let him go to the Son of God who is able to heal him. Since then he never saith as doth the Church of Rome let him go to Saints and Angels, certain it is that he did not approve this practise: and this is yet more evi­dent from his reply to Celsus, Orig. lib. 8. p. 416. for when Celsus had objected that according to the Doctrine of the Aegyptians every part of a man hath a particular Daemon or Aethereal God, and every one of these be­ing invocated heals the diseases of the parts proper to themselves. Why then may not the Christians justly invocate the favor both of them and others if they had rather be in health than sickness? To this it is replied by Origen; 1. That Celsus by ad­vising us to go to Daemons, sufficiently declared his distrust of the inseparable and undivided worship of the God of all, lib. 8. p. 417. and did imagine that to Worship God alone and honor him, was not suf­ficient to preserve those that did so from diseases and the insidiations of evil spirits; which is an evident conviction that he did not think the invocation of the Archangel Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, or of Sebastian, Valentinus, or any other Roman Saint, (which they of Rome do daily invocate for their protection from these evil spirits, and the diseases which they are subject to) was needful for that end: or that it could be practised without distrusting of the all-suffi­cient God. 2. He adds, It is much better to commit our selves to God, the Lord of all things by Jesus Christ, and ask of him all help, lib. 8. p. 418. and in particular the custody of the holy Angels who may deliver us from these terrestrial Daemons. where also it is manifest that he would have us ask the [Page 358]help and custody of Angels, not from them, as is the manner of the Roman Church, but only from the God of Angels.Orig. ib. 3. He affirms that health is to be sought either by means of the Physitian, which is the ordinary way, or by extraordinary means, viz. by piety towards God in our addresses to him, by which expression it is also manifest that he was ignorant of that way of seeking health, which had its rise from after ages, and is so common in the Church of Rome, for otherwise, as it is excellently obser­ved by the learned Doctor,p. 150. he must have told him that Christians were not to address ‘them­selves to Chnumen, Chnaachnumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, or any other Heathen Daemons to obtain these Blessings but unto Raphael and Appollonia, Sebastian and Roach.’

Unto the first and second argument urged by the Doctor, and most apparently confounding the doctrine and common practice of the Ro­man Church; T. G. affords us not one word of answer; the evidence being too plain and pregnant to admit of a reply; but over the third remark he triumphs and undertakes to render it ridiculous to all sober Readers by shewing two things. 1. The difference between the Doctrine and Practice of the Aegyptians, and that of the Catholicks. 2. The reasonableness of the practice of making addresses to one particular Saint ra­ther than another: But 1. were both these things as true as Gospel, yet are they horribly im­pertinent to what the Doctor urged, viz. that Origen had he conceived the invocation of any holy Angels or of Saints departed proper to ob­tain deliverance from the diseases of the body he would have mentioned their names, in op­position to the names of those Aegyptian presi­dents [Page 359]or Daemons, whom Celsus did advise us to invoke on that account, Which argument is more convincing, because he doth oppose unto them the holy name of Jesus as that which was invoked by all true Christians to that end: Now unto this consideration nothing is more imper­tinent and more ridiculously opposed than these two things: For what if the Aegyptians did conceive their Gnat and Sicat to be Gods, why should not Origen reply, that, we expect assistance rather from our Saints and Angels, than your Gods? And if the practice of making such addresses to particular Saints had been concei­ved so reasonable by this learned Father, he had the greater reason upon so fair an opportunity to have made mention of these Saints. T. G. saw this and knew that if the Doctors Argu­ment had been propounded thus he could have nothing to object against it: And therefore that he might be able to frame some colour of an Answer he makes the Doctor speak as if he did affirm ‘there was no difference between the Aegyptian Daemons or Aethereal Gods,p. 362. and the Saints deceased, but in the names: or between the Aegyptians addresses to these De­vils, and those of the Catholicks to the holy Saints and Angels, but in the language; and that there needed no more but to correct the names as you would do faults in Printing; viz. for Chnumen to read Raphael, for Chnaach­numen, Apollonia, for Gnat Sebastian, &c.’

Whereas this affirmation is plainly inconsistent with the Doctors words,p. 150. who introduceth one of the Church of Rome affirming that the thing was rational which he said, only they were out in their names: For instead of Chnumen, Chna­achumen, Cnat, Sy [...]at, Biu, Eru, &c. they should [Page 360]have chosen Raphael for traveling, and against diseases; Apollonia against the tooth-ach. Now it is sure no Roman Doctor ever taught the very name of Raphael and Appollonia would cure diseases, but that the Souls or persons called by those names, could do it And, 2. No Roma­nist can be presumed to confess, according to the principles of his profession, that it was either rational to pray to evil Spirits, or to bare words and names: and therefore when he brings him in asserting that the thing was rational which Celsus said, only the names were to be changed, he cannot be conceived to mean it otherwise than thus it is rational we should pray for health, pro­vided that we do not do it to these evil Spirits which are called by the names of Cnat and Sicat, but to those blessed Spirits which in our Lyturgies are called Raphael, Apollonia, Sebastian and Roach. 2 Of these two things the second, viz. the rea­sonableness of this practice the Doctor was so far from mocking at or making it the subject of his mirth, as doth Arnobius, that it is barely mentioned by the Doctor without the least re­flection on it, that unless to mention be to expose this practice to derision, the Doctor cannot without the greatest falshood be accused of it; and if it be so, this guilt falls heavy on T. G. who spends so many pages to justify what is exposed if it be only mentioned:T. G. p. 368, 362, 363. The diffe­rence he puts betwixt the Aegyptian Daemons and his Saints and Angels is (1.) that the Aegyptians believed their Daemons to be Gods. p. 363. But this is either manifestly false, or else intended only to delude the Reader; for Celsus calls them [...] Earthly Daemons:apud O­rig. l. 8. p. 417. and adds ‘that wise men taught their power was limited, that they could only heal mens bodyes and foretell fu­ture [Page 361]things to private Men, and Cities, and had the power to do such things as did con­cern the actions of Mortal Men; and there­fore bids us to beware, lest we be guilty of excess in paying Homage to them, and so forget that service which we owe unto their Betters.’ Whence it is evident, that Celsus did not speak of them as Gods in the most fa­mous sense, as it imports the great Creator of the World; but in that sense, in which St. Austin saith, whether you call them Angels, de C. D. l.9. c. ult. Gods, or Daemons, the difference is only in the name: Hence in this very place, Celsus first calls them Daemons, and then by way of Paraphrase aethereal Gods. (2.) Saith he,Ibid. the Invocation which Celsus here contended for, was votiva illis sacrificia reddere, to offer Sacrifice to them, (which is due to God alone) and that upon account, that they had power to heal the Diseases of the parts proper to themselves.

Answ. (1.) this is that disingenious art of ad­ding to the words of Origen, which T. G. is so unconscionable guilty of. For doth Celsus say, that if we sacrifice unto them they will heal us? No; he expresly saith, invocati sanant, they do it being called upon: doth he say, that what he called Invocation was a Sacrifice? No, Doth he move us to sacrifice unto them because they heal? No, but only doth infer,p. 416. [...], why may we not endeavor to pro­cure their favour, doth Origen reply, that though he mentioned Invocation, he intended Sacrifice? No, but only thus, Celsus would have us to be­lieve the Daemons [...] and pay them Reverence, if Celsus did contend for sacrificia vo­tiva, Origen answered not one word. to that which he contended for. Did the Aegyptian

Magi procure these blessings from them by Sa­crifice? No, Origen tells us, [...] that the Aegyptian Magitians did this by Invocation of their Daemons, p. 417. did he imagine that Celsus so conceived? No, he expresly saith, that he had given us a Catalogue of Aegyptian Names [...], which being called upon, Ibid. healed the distempers of their parts. Hath then T. G. no colour for this Interpretation? Answ. For saying, that by In­vocation Celsus intended votiva sacrificia, he hath no pretence. For mentioning votiva sacrificia he hath only this, viz. that Celsus before he came to mention the Aegyptian Daemons, speaking of other Daemons, he contends [...] that Sacrifices of thanksgiving must be due unto them; p. 415, 416. which T. G. very fairly turns into votiva sacrificia, or petitory sacrifices, that so he might have something to pretend by way of Answer, though it be contradictory to Ori­gen and Celsus, and to the practice of those Aegyptians he mentions.

Origen acknowledgeth,Object. p. 361. § 4.that the Angels do of­fer up the prayers of Men to God: and surely it can never be Idolatry to desire them to do what they do: Answ. The minister prays for his Parish, and yet should every Parishioner in his private Closet desire him to pray for them, should they put up mental prayers unto him, and so ascribe unto him the knowledge of the heart, and of the desires of Men absent from him, they would make an Idol of him. Thus albeit the Angels are present in the assemblies of Saints, and of­fer up the prayers they hear, yet to invoke them when absent, and with mental prayer, may duly be esteemed Idolatry.

[Page 363]2. T. G. informs us,Ibid. that Origen in his first Homily upon Ezekiel, invocates an Angel in these words,Veni Angele suscipe sermone conversum ab errore pristino, a doctrina Daemoniorum, ab iniquitate in altum loquente, & suscipiens eum quasi Medicus bo­nus confove, atque institue, parvulus est, hodie nascitur senex repue­rascens, & suscipe tribuens ei baptismum secundae regenerationis. [...] 133. E. Come holy Angel and receive him who is converted from his former Sins. Answer.

1. We have just reason to suspect this place is an addition to the works of Origen, 1. Be­cause it contradicts his constant plain opinion de­livered so often, and so industriously confirmed in his reply to Celsus, it also contradicts the practice of Church then being, (as Origen himself declares.

2. He speaks thus to the Angel, Receive him, and confer upon him the Baptisme of the second rege­neration. Now who ever heard of any Bapti­zed by an Angel, who ever heard so uncouth and absurd a Phrase as is the Baptisme of second Regeneration? these therefore cannot be the words of Learned Origen, as all that know him must confess. Besides, this speech can be applied to none but Origen himself, and if it hath any sense,A. d. 153. [...].121, 122, 123. it seemeth plainly to refer to his repen­tance after his lapse into Idolatry, which haply is stiled the Baptism of a second Regeneration, since then that story is confuted by Baronius, it follows, that this passage which refers unto it, must be also false.

3. Were it granted that those are the true words of Origen, they contain only an Apostro­phe, such as is that of Austin to St. Chrysostome, enter St. John, sit with thy Brethren and others mentioned, c.9. Or (2.) If I should grant [Page 364]them to contain a formal Prayer, it is directed only to an Angel whom he conceived to be pre­sent, and it is only a vocal prayer, (for Origen conceived not only that every person, but also every Church had a* particular Angel that presided over it, and so was present there:) And therefore this Example is not pertin ent to prove what we deny, viz. that it is lawful to pray unto them, when we have no assurance of their presence, or with mental prayer.

THE CONCLUSION

sheweth 1. That what T. G. alleadgeth to prove the Dr. Guilty of false and disin­genious Citations, is most unconscionably false. 2. That T. G. is notoriously Guilty of false and disingenious citations. 3. That he very falsty represents the questi­on touching the Invocation of the Saints departed. 4. That T. G. is a Man of Wit; but in his Book, he hath not in the least discovered himself to be a Man of Learning or of Judgment, but given us just reason to suspect his want of both.

WE are informed by the incomparable Dalle, § 1. De usu Patrum Cap. 3. p. 43. that it was a Thesis publickly proposed and defended by the College of Lovain, that it is no mortal sin to elude a great Authority, that is detracting from, or noxious to us with a Lye; and that the Jansenists do frequently ob­ject against the Jesuits, the same ungodly Te­net. That this hath been the constant practice of T. G. and that he owes the glory of his Book to his exact Conformity, to this acursed Doctrine, I have demonstrated already from many instances so clear, that nothing can admit of grea­ter [Page 366]evidence. Before I enter into a farther de­monstration of this Charge, I must assure the Christian Reader, that from my heart I wish, that I had nothing of this nature to object against T. G. and I do think my self unhappy that I have to deal with one, who by so base a prostitution of his Conscience, doth seek advantage to his cause. Indeed the subject is so unpleasant and unwelcome to me, that I would certainly have wholly waved it, had not my Duty to my Bro­ther, and the disadvantage which the truth might suffer from these Arts, obliged me to pro­ceed in this discovery, which both in pity to my self, and to my Adversary, I shall confine to the consideration of what he hath delivered Part the Third, that so my Labour and his Guilt may be the less. This being thus premised, the Truth of what I charge him with, shall be made good. (1.) By consideration of what he offers to crack the credit of the Dr. and cast a Disrepute on his incomparable Labors. And (2.) From divers instances of his endeavors by the forementioned Arts, to weaken the Au­thorities produced against him. And

First,§. 2. the Dr. is very often (but most un­justly) charged with false Citations, Interpreta­tions, and suggestions, touching the Authors cited by him, v. g. The Dr. saith he, makes a terrible blunder by his dextrous Translating, &c. p. 371. And again p. 373. The Dr. saith he, first makes a Preface of his own, as if it was St. Austins, and then turns opus erat, there was no need, into we need not, &c. And p. 375. he makes the Dr. to avm [...]ch in the face of the World 156. what was a perfect contradiction to what he told us out of St. Austin p. 155. and out of Celsus. p. 150. These imputations I have alrea­dy [Page 367]proved to be false and groundless in their respective places; whither I refer the Reader.v. Ch. 9. § 3. Again, the Dr. having given us the descant of Theodoret, upon that passage of St. Paul, and upon that Canon of Laodicea, which forbids Christians to Worship Angels, he subjoyns these words, No wonder that Baronius is so much dis­pleased with Theodoret, for this Interpretation; p. 155. for he very fairly tells what he condemns (and St. Paul too) was the practice of their Church, and those Oratories were set up by Catholicks, and not by Hereticks. This is foul dealing saith T. G. and these are pitiful slights of Sophistry, to delude an unwary Reader: p. 380. And he shall wonder if the Dr. find any one that will believe him, p. 383. so that what Dr. Stillingfleet hath here delivered, must be incredible foul dealing, or else T. G. must certainly be guilty of much disingenuity and fal­shood in this accusation, which runs thus, viz. That the Dr. saith that Baronius very fairly tells us, p. 383. that not only what Theodo­ret condemned, but what St. Paul too condem­ned, was the practice of the Church of Rome. Answ. These words Baronius fairly tells us (saith the Dr.) that what St. Paul condemned was the practice of the Church, are a malicious untruth, the Dr. having taken all the care imaginable, to prevent this mistake in all judicious Readers, for this expression (and St. Paul too) which is the only ground of this rude charge, he did not only put in a Parenthesis, but in a different Character, that so no Reader might have the least appearance of colour for so false an imputa­tion. This T. G. saw, as is apparent from the words cited by him, p. 380. And therefore when he comes to lay his accusation (p. 383. Sect. 3.) he very craftily sets down the Doctors [Page 368]words without Parenthesis, or any difference of the Character. This I am sure is foul deal­ing, and these are pitiful arts of Sophistry. What therefore Dr. Stillingfleet asserts, is only that Baronius tells us,Ex his videas (quod necessario di­cendum est) Theodoretum haud fe­liciter, ejus pace sit dictum, assecutum esse Pauli verborum sensum cum in hujus ad Colossenses Epistolae com­mentariis dicit haec a Paulo esse scripta quod tum grassarentur hae­retici qui Angelos colendos esse jac­tarent — sic ergo errore semel lap­sus in alium Graviorem impegit, ut diceret Canonem trigessimum quin­tum Laodiceni concilii de his Hae­reticis esse intelligendum qui Ange­los colendos esse docerent quique in eadem regione Asiae oratoria erexissent Sancto Michaeli Archan­gelo, incautè nimis quae a Catho­licis essent antiquitus instituta, hae­reticis quorum nulla esset memoria, tribuens. Annal. An. 60. § 20. caeterum Angelos venerari non Hae­reticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit § 21. That what Theodoret condemns, and in his judg­ment, St. Paul too, was the Practice of the Roman Church, than which no­thing can be more true and certain, for having told us that Theodoret asserted, haec a Paulo esse scripta, quod tum gras­sarentur haeretici, qui An­gelos colendos esse jacta­rent, or that the admonition, beware least any Man de­ceive you by worshipping of Angels, &c. was written by St. Paul, by reason of some Hereticks, who taught that Angels should be wor­shipped, and that the 35 Canon of Laodicea, was directed against such He­reticks as worshipped Angels, he adds, caeterum Angelos venerari, non haereticorum, sed Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit: this he erroneously taught; but to worship Angels was not the Custome of Hereticks, but of the Church Catholick. And now let the discerning Reader judge what reason T. G. p. 381. had to say, that these are not Baronius his words, but the Doctors; which is another of his Demonstrations, that it is but too too evident, that the Dr. hath not dealt fairly with Baronius: But saith T. Ibid. G. these are not Baronius his words, [Page 369]but the Doctors, for Baronius saith there expresly, that Theodoret, as to the Doctrine of the venera­tion of Angels, recta sensit, that is, held the same which the Roman Church holds at his day. To which I answer in his own expressions, such arts as these were enough to make a Man suspect a good cause, p. 145. much more to desert a bad one: for Baronius doth not absolutely say, that Theodoret did rectum sentire, but makes a manifest excep­tion as to this his Interpretation of St. Paul and the forementioned Canon, his words are these,His igitur de germano sensu illius Canonis Elucidatis, satis Theodo­reti perperam facta interpretatio re­manet refutata; cum Alioqui N. B. in his quae spectant ad dogmata, non sit dubium ipsum rectum sensisse de An­gelis. Annal. An. 60. § 23. These things touching the true sence of this Canon be­ing thus cleared, the false Interpretation of Theodo­ret remains sufficiently con­futed, whereas otherwise, as to his Doctrine, it is not to be doubted, but he thought right of Angels; which passage doth not only manifest the wretched fraudulency of T. G. p. 380. but gives him an example of what he thought incredible: for if Theodoret could affirm the practice of the Ro­man Church was an heretical practice, and as such condemned both by St. Paul, and by the Canon of the Universal Church, and yet hold the same with the Roman Church; why might not Baronius do the like; either Theodoret was a very great Dolt, or Baronius deals not fairly with him, which is but too too evident.

2. T. G. concludes, that these are not Ba­ronius his words;p. 381. because the point in which Ba­ronius differs from Theodoret, is not that those were not condemned by him. And St. Paul too, who worshipped Angels upon the Erroneous account afore­said, viz. That access could only be made to God by Angels: But that Theodoret judged Baroni­us [Page 370] ‘mistaken in asserting the Authors of that Doctrine, not to have been the Heathen Phi­losophers, but certain Hereticks:’ This is what Baronius saith. Where first he cunningly (but falsly doth insinuate) that in the judgment of Theodoret, St. Paul and the forementioned Canon, only condemneth them, who worship­ed Angels upon this erroneous account, that access could only be made to God by the Angels: and if this be the grievous error, and that false interpretation,p. 379. with which Baronius doth so smartly charge him, T. G. does very ill to es­pouse it in his Interpretation of this Canon. But the truth is, Theodoret in the Exposition of this passage of St. Paul, only affirms that this was the opinion of the Hereticks, but doth not in the least insinuate, that either the Council, or St. Paul condemned them only upon this ac­count, but without all limitation or exception, he affirms that they condemned praying to them. (2.) What he says was not the point in which Baronius differs from Theodoret, is so apparently the point, though not the only point, that no­thing can be more. For his great peak against him is, that he asserted, that both St. Paul and the forementioned Council condemned the Hereticks for teaching the Worship of Holy Angels; whereas saith he, this was the very practice of the Church of Christ, and not of He­reticks.

Another instance of the Doctors juggling tricks,The Dr. translates it eqqui­vocally to perform any sa­cred offi­ces. T.G. p. 386. T. G. produceth p. 386. viz. that when St. Austin had affirmed the blessed Spirits are not willing we should Sacra eis facere, perform sacred Offices to them, he translates Sacra fa­cere to perform sacred Offices, as if he did ima­gine, ignorant person that he was, that Sacra [Page 371]signified Sacred Offices, and facere to perform: whereas T. G. informs him, that Sacra facere is to Dedicate, and because this ridiculous interpre­tation would not help him out, for Papists dedi­cate their service to the blessed Spirits; he adds that it is evident, St. Austin speaks of the worship which is due to God alone; that is, of such dedi­cations and consecrations as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods: And having T.G's. word for this, you ought not to expect his proof. But (1.) The words of St. Austin do apparently distinguish betwixt performing Sa­cred Offices and Consecration of our selves unto them; for saith he, the Question isQuo­modo Credendi sint velle a nobis religio­nem pie­tatemque servari: hoc est, ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibi [...]an tantum Deo suo, qui eti­am nosier est, pla­ceat eis ut sicra faciamus, Et Sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra, sen nos ipsos Religionis Ritibus consecre mus. Whether it can please those holy Spirits that we should perform Sacred offices and Sacrifices to them, or should con­secrate our selves or any thing belonging to us by Religious Rites: The affirmative is the opinion of the Platonists and of the Church of Rome, but that we should not consecrate our selves un­to them by any Religious Rite is the opinion of S. Austin. (2.) St. Austin had in the immedi­ate foregoing Chapter undertaken to evince† that those blessed spirits would not be worshiped, Sacris & Sacrificiis (id est,) by Sacred Offices and Sa­crifices, but that God only was to be worshiped by such rites: and though he saith they would not be worshiped Deorum nomine, which gave occasion to this Answer of T. G.

St. Austin in this very Chapter doth inform us, that these Palatonists against whom he dispu­ted did not differ from the Christians in their apprehensions of their Daemons, and as if he had intended to exclude this exposition of T. G. he adds that ‘Platonists acknowledged their Daemons to be good Spirits,De C D. lib. 9. c. 23. made by God and therefore only called them Gods, in such a sence, in which the Scripture was wont to Stile the Angels Gods:’ So that it is most certain (1.) that Sacra facere was not equi­vocally translated to perform Sacred Offices. And (2.) that Austin doth not speak of the worship due to God alone, but of the worship due to good Spirits, made by God.

Pag. 390, 391.§. 5. We have a fresh attempt to blast the Credit of the Doctor, but I have throughly considered it, Chap. 6. Prop. 4. Co­rol. 3. and have made it clear beyond all con­tradiction, that it is, only a rude heap of false suggestions, and desingenious insinuations: be pleased Reader to consult the place, and disbe­lieve me if thou canst.

From p. 390,§ 6. to 430. he is more sparing in his accusations; but from that Page to the con­clusion of his book, we have but little besides Prodigious outcries and admirations of the mi­serable shifts, and disingenious arts of Dr. Stil­ling fleet; p. 431. and thus the Charge begins. ‘I must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse attentively the words of S. Austin, as they stand cited in the Reply, and the Doctors Considera­tions upon them (for himself thought not fit to call them an Answer;) that by his perfor­mance in this point, he may see to what miserable shifts, and disingenious arts they are put, who will shut their Eyes, and fight [Page 373]against the light of a Noon-day truth.’ And then he proceeds to charge the Doctor with corrupting the words of Austin, li. 22. and with an exposition not only opposit unto the sence of Austin,li. 29. but confuted by him. And with affirming what if he had not shut his Eyes could not have been affirmed, li. 16. and yet all this I have demonstrated to be false, Chap. 9. Sect. 11.

But then what follows (p, 432.) is that dis­ingenious accusation which deserves for ever to to be branded with a note of Infamy; viz. Whereas he saith that I conveniently left out, what St. Austin adds, p. 432. that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels, but any other Religious ho­nor, which is due to God himself; had he not con­veniently put in those words (any other Religious honor) into the Text, (for they are not in S. Au­stin) he had had nothing to blind his Reader with. Whoever looks into the Text will judge he had done much more conveniently for his Cause had he left it out. p. 433. Answ. This he avoucheth here in the face of the world but as I suppose in confidence that neither his Reader or his Adversary would be so rude as to look into the Text, or to su­spect the truth of what he doth assert with so much confidence: For thus St. Austin speaks, Cum autem ad hunc Cultum pertineat oblatio Sa­crificii unde Idololatria dicitur eorum qui hoc etiam Idolis exhibent nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus. Now let it only be observed that Sacri­fice is on all hands confessed to be religious worship,lib. 20. contra Faust. c 21. and then let Romanists themselves be judge, whether nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus do not signify we do not offer ony other religious honor which is due to God himself, and which would render us Idolaters? so unhappily did he advise us to peruse attentively the words of Austin, which do so clearly evidence that it is not [Page 374]the Doctor but T. G. who is forced to fly to miserable shifts, and disingenious Arts.

The Doctor (p. 173.§ 7.) Speaks thus, ‘we do not say, that some superstitions did not creep in after the Anniversary meetings at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs grew in request; for St. Austin himself saith that what they taught was one thing, and what they did bear with was another, speaking of the Customs used at those Solem­nities.’ Now here T. G. is pleased to represent him as a most unconscionable Cheat, and with great wonderment Cryes out; ‘Is it possible he could think so great a forb as this could pass for current in the World?p. 439. Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place, where these words are to be found, and not fear a Rat, Observe I pray. What St. Austin condemns is this, that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchres of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them, that they made them­selves drunk: His words are these, as for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs: how can they be approved by us whom sound doctrine condemns, even when they do it in their own private houses. This was the Cu­stom of which S. Austin saith that the Governors of the Church did not teach it but bore with it till it could be amended. And the Doctor had the conscience by a subtle Insinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what S. Austin condemned, was the desiring, or, as he calls it, wishing the Martyrs to pray for them, I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World. Repl.’ Here I am at a stand for I am loath to think that any Christian should with such confidence and pertness accuse his Brother (though he be an Adversary) without the least occasion or [Page 375]reason so to do. Conscience and credit are so deeply interested in so foul a Charge, that I can­not imagin that it should be laid by any person who values either of them, against one who is wholly innocent. I will not therefore say the Doctor is not Guilty, but will crave leave to tell the Reader what mine Eyes can wittness too. viz.

1.p. 174. That what the Doctor doth affirm is that St. Austin Speaking of the customs used at the So­lemnityes of Martyrs, saith, that what they taught was one thing and what they did bear with was another. Now what those Customs were St. Austin and from him the Doctor tells us in this very Parapraph viz. Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Picturarum Adoratores: novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè su­per mortuos bibant, & epulas Ca­daveribus exhibentes super sepul­tos seipsos sep [...]liant. Nunc vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ec­clesiae Catholicae maledicere de­sinatis vituperando mores homi­num, quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos fili­os cotrigere studet. De moribus Eccles. Cath. lib. 1. cap. 34. Their banquetings at the Martyrs Tombs, and their worshiping of Sepulchres and Pictures: viz. the Pictures of those Martyrs, which Image wor­ship being relative, must certainly refer unto the worship of the martyrs by them; which custom St. Austin had no sooner men­tioned but he cryes out, Now I advise you (Manicheans) that you cease to speak evil of the Catholick Church by upbraiding it with the manners of those whom she her self con­demneth,quam a­perte ir­repenten, improbat cor s [...]etu­dinem. Th. The­ol. 206. Th. 12. and seeketh every day to correct as naughty Children: when the Excellent Vossius had al­ledged this place he presently cryes out See with what clearness St. Austin reprehends this growing Custom.

2. My Eyes can witness that what St. Austin doth refer to, not only in the place now cited and quoted by the learned Doctor, but in the [Page 376]passage he excepts against, is not only the luxu­ry of the intemperate, as T. G. suggests, but it is also error infirmorum i. e. the error of the weak; as Austin testifies. To make this farther evident let us consider that the objection of the Mani­cheans, which St. Austin Answers in this place, was this: viz. Hinc nobis calumniatur Faustus quod Martyrum memorias hono­ramus, in hoc dicens, nos Idola convertisse. l. 20. c. 21. that the Ca­thocicks had converted the Christian Martyrs into Idols, that they did drink and feast at their Sepulchres, and that they ‘worshiped them with like addresses,Vertisse dicit Idola in Martyres, quos votis, inquit similibus coli­tis, Defunctorum umbras vino placatis & dapibus. Advers Faust. lib. 20. ibid. or by presenting of the like de­sires to them.’ To the se­cond part of this objection St. Austin largely Answers that it was true ‘they gave to holy Martyrs the worship of society and love, but did not give to them that wor­ship which was due to God.’ And then procee­ding to the other part of the Objection, touching those who at the feast of Mar­tyrs did eat and drink unto excess, he tels us that the Church condemns them, and then immediately he adds,Qui autem se in memoriis Martyrum inebriant, quomodo à nobis approbari possunt, cum eos, etiam si in Domibus suis id fa­ciant, Sacra Doctrina condem­net? Sed aliud est quod docemus▪ aliud quod sustinemus: aliud quod praecipere jubemur, aliud quod emendare praecipimur; & donec emendemus, tolerare compelli­mur. Alia est disciplina Christi­anorum, alia luxuria vinolento­rum, vel error infirmorum. Ad­vers. Faustum lib. 20. cap. 21. that it is one thing which we teach, another thing which we endure, it is one thing which we are enjoyned to commanded, but it is ano­ther thing which we are com­manded to amend, and till we can do so, we are constrained to suffer: the discipline of Christians is one thing, the luxury of Wine-bibbers, or the infir­mity of the weak, another.

And now I leave it to the judgment of all so­ber persons, to consider, whether the luxury of wine bibbers, was the only thing St. Austin speaks of here, and whether he doth not also speak of the infirmity of such as gave occasion to that objection of the Manicheans, similibus votis eos colitis.

3. Whereas he adds,p. 439. the Dr. had the Con­science ‘by a subtil insinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what St. Austin condem­ned was the desiring, or as he calls it, wishing the Martyrs to pray for them.’ Ans. this is ano­ther instance of T. G's. Excellency in the Art of Calumny. For all that can be Rationally infer­red from the Doctors words, is only this, that St. Austin did affirm, that superstitions at that time had creeped into the Church, and therefore this as well as others might do so. But had the Dr. used this insinuation, it would have been as true as it is counted subtil, for St.Verun­tamen & in hoc ipso di­stant plu­rimum culpae vi­nolento­rum & Sacrile­gorum. Longe quippe minotis peccati est, ebrium redire a Martyribus, quam vel jejunium s [...]cuisi­care Martyribus. Sacrificare Martyribus dixi, non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis Martyrum, quod frequentissime facimus, illo duntax­at ritu, quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit: quod pertinet ad illum cultum, qui latria dicitur, & uni Deo debe­tur, Ibid. Austin here affirms, it is a less Sin to return Drunk from those Solemnities, than to sacrifice unto the Martyrs whilst we continue to be Fasting; I say, (quoth he) to sacrifice unto the Martyrs but I do not say to sacrifice to God at the Memorial of Mar­tyrs, which we often do, after the manner only, according to which God hath commanded us to Sa­crifice under the Gospel, which Sacrifice doth apper­tain unto Latria, and is due to God alone. Whence I thus argue.

That which is a Gospel Sacrifice ought not to be offered to a Creature; But prayer is a Gospel Sacrifice; (for so St.Quas autem habere simplices & puras orationes tanquam divinos honores & sacrifi­cia pote­ritis? ubi sunt sacrificia vestra simplices ac purae orationes vestrae? l. 20. contr. Faustum. c. 17. Austin doth often stile it in this very Book) Ergo, prayer ought not to be offered to a Creature; and now it is not easy to declare, whether the folly or the falshood, the confidence or the weakness of this accusation were the geater: but I am not wil­ling to expose him farther in this matter, I pray God he may repent of this Iniquity, and make due satisfaction to God and the World, and Dr. Stillingfleet, and so I pass on to some fresh discoveries of the same.

In his reply to the first Answer of the Dr. he affirms,§ 8. that Austin himself held formal Invoca­tions a part of the Worship due to Saints. This he confirms,p. 25. first from that passage of St. Au­stin, let blessed Cyprian help us with his Prayers, and for a farther confirmation of it,p. 26. viz. that Austin held this Invocation to be a part of Wor­ship due to Saints. We have, saith he, the in­genious confession of Calvin himself, Instit. lib. 3. Ch. 20. n. 22. where speaking of the Third Coun­cil of Carthage, in which St. Austin was pre­sent, he acknowledged it was the Custom at that time to say, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us. p. 174. To this the Doctor answers thus, I can­not but wonder, if he saw the words in Calvin, that he would produce them; for Calvin doth there say, that the Council of Carthage did forbid pray­ing to Saints, least the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind of adresses, holy Peter pray for us: To this T. G. replies, have not I more reason to wonder at his wonder,p. 444. for why, [Page 379]I pray, was such a Decree made, and why did the Fathers of that Council fear, lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind of addres­ses, if there were no such Custome at that time? either the Doctor corrupts the words of his dear Master Calvin, or, it is manifest, they imply it was the Custome at that time to say Holy Peter pray for us. Answ. The Dr. doth confess that there was such a Custom, condemned by Coun­cils and Fathers, as was that Custom of those times, of Banquetting at the Sepulchres of Mar­tyrs, and that which is condemned by the same Council in these words, It pleaseth us that the Altars which are commonly erected in the Fields and Roads, as the Memorials of the Mar­tyrs, in which it is not evident, that the body or any reliques of the Martyrs are preserved, should be demolished by the Bishops, if that can be done, but, if the popular tumults will not suffer it, then let the people be admonished, that they do not fre­quent these places. Can. 3. so that T. G. dis­courseth thus, that which was condemned by the Councils and Fathers was the Custom of those times, but direct prayer and invocation, was condemned by the Counsel and the Fathers, Ergo it was the Custom of those times: and if this be a good Argument, this Doctrine was con­demned by the Church of Christ: Ergo this was the Custome of the Church of Christ: Then all the Heresies that ever were condemned by Councils and by Fathers, must be acknowledg­ed to have been, the Customes of the Church of Christ. But T. G. will set down the words of Calvin, and make it thence appear that there was such a Custom. Answ. By all this what the Dr. doth confess, viz. That some people condem­ned by the Council used this Custome, shall appear, [Page 380]but what T. G. had undertaken to make good from this Citation,p. 445. That St. Austin held, that formal Invocation, was a part of the worship due to Saints. This shall disappear. But then again, who seeth not saith T. G. that for fear the Reader should see this; the Dr. most. conveni­ently left out of his Citation, those words of Cal­vin, which were most material to the present pur­pose, viz. That the Decree was made, to forbid direct praying to Saints at the Altar, and the rea­son, in his opinion, why those Fathers made that Decree, was to restrain the force of an evil Custom, which they could not totally repress? for had these words been put down, the thing had been too clear to be denied, viz. that Calvin acknowledged there was such a Custome at that time: where first the Dr is introduced as one denying that Calvin did acknowledge, that there was such a Custome at that time, whereas he manifestly confesseth what T. G. doth affirm, that he de­nies,p. 174 for he expresly saith from Calvin, that the Council did condemn and forbid those prayers, which were in use by some of the people, Second­ly, whereas he doth accuse the Dr. for leaving out the words of Calvin, which were most ma­terial to the present purpose. This also is a loud untruth, as will appear by setting down the Doctors words, and by comparing of them with the words of Calvin, as they are represented in T. G. and they are these; That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, lest the publick Prayers should he corrupted by such kind of Addresses, Holy Peter, pray for us. And again, the Council did condemn and forbid those Prayers, which were in use by some of the People: And now what is there is the words of Calvin Translated by T. G. which is not contained in [Page 381]the words of Dr. Stillingfleet. These things I have collected, not that I take delight in the discovery of this unchristian spirit of Calumny. I can assure T. G. it is no small Grief to me to find a Dr. of Divinity, so prone to wound his Conscience, and expose his credit to the censure of discerning Men. I am afflicted that the Atheist should have such great Temptations, to suspect that we are guilty of the like insinceri­ty, in managing of the Christian cause against him; or that the people should have such rea­son to cry out, behold the falshood of our Priests; see here what little reason we can have to credit any thing they say; since what they confidently avouch in the face of the World, is so unconscionably false and full of Calumny: But I intreat them to consider, we have great reason to suspect, tis the unhappy principles of the Roman party, which do betray them to this evil practice. They think it lawful to equivo­cate and lye to those they are pleased to call He­reticks, and to promote the Cause of Holy Church by such unchristian Arts. This I in charity be­lieve, because I would not think them guilty of what this practice must import, if it were used by Protestants.

A second Art whereby T. G. endeavors to evade this charge,§ 9. and bring a disrepute upon the Doctors Person and Performance, is a false and disingenious representation of the Question betwixt us and the Church of Rome, and an undeavour to possess the Reader with an ap­prehension that the Dr. waved it, and durst not speak unto it. Thus p. 334: That the Reader my see what a prodigious stock of Wit is r [...]i­s [...]e to make it out, that Invocation of Saints is Ido­latry, I will, saith he, set down the Doctrine of [Page 382]the Church, as it stands Recorded in the Council of Trent: What that Council teacheth, is, that, it is good and profitable for Christians humbly to Invocate the Saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, assistance whereby to obtain benefits of God, by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour. These are the very words of the Council, and any Man but of common reason, would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black, as so innocent a practice to be Idolatry, even Heathen Idolatry. Answ. That the Reader may see what disingenuity is here insinuated, it is sufficient only to advertise him that we do not accuse the Church of Rome as guilty of Idolatry, for holding what she de­livers in the words now cited, but for holding what she insinuates in the words which follow, and which T. G. thought most con­venient to conceal, viz. That every person may pray unto them, and that not only with vocal, but with mental prayer; and for enjoyning the sick, to pray with his heart when he cannot do it with his mouth, O all ye Saints intercede for me, and suc­cour me. ‘What we teach, saith he, and do in this matter, is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as we desire the Prayers of one another upon Earth, and must we for this be compared to Heathens? Do we not profess to all the World, that we look upon the Saints, not as Gods, but as the friends and Servants of God, that is, as just Men, whose prayers therefore are available with him? where then lies the Heathenism? where lies the Idolatry? Answ.’ it lies in praying to them with mental prayer, and in praying to their when they are as distant as is Earth from Heaven.p. 353. But saith T. G. the Question at pre­sent ‘between Dr. Stillingfleet and the Church of [Page 383]of Rome, p. 353. is not whether Divine Worship be to be given to the Saints, but whether an in­feriour worship of the like kind, with that which is given to holy Men upon Earth, for their holiness, and near relation to God, may not be lawfully given to them,p. 389. now they are in Heaven? And again, we pray no otherwise to them, than we do to holy Men upon Earth, though more devoutly, upon the account of their unchangeable estate of bliss.’ Answ. This he doth frequently affirm, but till he can pro­duce some instance of this practice of praying, only with mental prayer to any Man alive, or of petitions vocal directed unto living persons at so great a distance, his affirmation can be no better than a manifest untruth; but this is a peculiar Topick, of which, all those who vain­ly do endeavor to excuse this Idol worship of the Church of Rome, are forced to make use of, viz. to affirm her Doctrine and practice, not to be what certainly it is, and thence conclude her not to be guilty of that crime, which could not be denied without this Artifice.

Again, the Question between us, § 10. p. 173. (saith the Dr.) is not how far such wishes, rather then prayers, were thought allowable, being uttered occasionally, as St. Austin doth this in St. Cyprian, but whe­ther solemn Invocation of Saints in the Duties of Religious worship, as it is now practised in the Ro­man Church,p. 44 [...].were ever practised in St. Austins time, Here T. G. represents him as a ve­ry Shuffler, and most Rhetorically cries out, ‘alass, that so many Learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question, that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose! The Question hitherto contro­verted between Catholicks and Protestants was’ [Page 384]held to be, whether it be lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us? and whether this were agreeable to the practice of the primitive times? But now like ‘a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand, this is dropt under the Table, and all the show aboveboard, is, whether it may be clone in the Duties (as the calls them) of religious worship?’ Thus T. G. as if all persons that ever writ be­fore them, must have spoken nothing to the pur­pose, if this had been the Question between T. G. and him, or that this could not be the Que­stion, if what he mentions were another; or that it were impossible that Men disputing whe­ther this were agreeable to the practice of the Primitive times, should also dispute whether it were the practice of St. Austins, time. Who knows not that one medium to prove this practice to be lawful, is, that it was the practice of the primitive times, and that St. Austins times are instanced in, as a sufficient Confirmation of that grand assertion. This is the very method of T. G. and these are his formal word, This was the Doc­trine and practice of Christian people in St. Austins time; p. 25. this he endeavors to confirm from that of Cyprian; and unto this the Dr. returns this An­swer, and yet this must not be the Question be­twixt T. G. and him.§ 11. Lastly, the Dr. sayth he undertakes to shew out of the Primitive Fathers, that it was the property of the Christian Religion, to give Divine Worship to none but God, and in this strain he runs on for no less than ten leaves toge­ther and without ever proving that Catholicks do give Divine Worship to holy Angels and Saints, he most triumphantly concludes them to be Idolaters. Answ. The falshood of this passage is so excee­dingly notorious, that there is nothing requisite besides the use of reason to discern it, for p. 146, [Page 385]159. We have this triumphant Argument. ‘Upon the same account that the Heathen did give Divine honor to their inferior Deityes, those of the Roman Church do so to Saints and Angels.’ And how unhappy T. G. was in his attempts upon this Argument I have abun­dantly evinced: Again the Doctor Argues thus ‘The Fathers do expresly deny that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to Angels;’ for so Origen, p. 158. and theodoret speak expresly that men are not to pray to Angels, and any one that reads ‘St. Austin will find that he makes solemn In­vocation to be as proper to God as Sacrifice is. 2. On what account should it be unlawful to Sacrifice to Saints and Angels, if it be lawful to Invocate them? May not one be relative and transient as well as the other, can any man in his senses think that a meer outward Sacrifice, is more acceptable to God than the Devotion of our heart is?’ Thus the learned Doctor, and there needs nothing to convince us of the strength and pertinency of this discourse, but to reflect upon the vanity and weakness of what T. G. hath ventured to oppose against it. See. Ch. 6. Prop. 4. Corol. 3. besides in vindication of the Testimo­nies of Irenxus, Origen, Theodoret, St. Austin, Hi­lary the Deacon, and of the Council of Laodicea. I have clearly manifested that all these Fathers cited by the learned Doctor, do very evidently prove the Invocation of Blessed Saints and An­gels to be, according to their judgements the giving of that honor to them, which is due to God, and so is properly divine.

I might be large upon the second head viz. § 12. in giving many pregnant demonstrations that he n [...]ost wretchedly corrupts those Fathers which he cites or Answers. But reader having glutted [Page 386]thee with manifold examples of thiskind al­ready, part 2. I beg thee to accept of these few instances which I shall represent unto thy view, noteing what he hath added to the words of those few Fathers which he hath ventured to produce or Answer, in a larger Character.

1.1. The words of Celsus are, [...]. Orig. advers. Cels. l. 8. p. 416. What T. G. cites is no where to be found. The invocation which Cel­sus contended for was Votiva illis Sacrificia reddere. T. G. p. 363.

2. Celsus his evasion was that none are to be honored for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it.2. [...]. Celsus apud Orig. l. 8. p. 384. T. G. p. 357.

3.3. The words of Celsus are, [...], ibid. p. 385. By Celsus this was not ob­jected, but only that they were by the same rule by which they worshiped Christ for God, to wor­ship in like manner the inferior Deities. p. 358.

4. Chrysostom saith that some among the Collossians said that We ought to be reconciled and have access to the Father not by Christ but by the Angels.4. [...]. Chrys. in locum. T. G. p. 378.

5. The reason why they did so is given by Theophylact because they esteemed it a thing unworthy of the Majesty of the Son of God on the one side to make this re­conciliation, 5. [...]. The­ophyl. in cap. 2. ad Coloss. and far transcending mans poverty and lowness on the other. T. G. ibid.

This I confess is not so properly an addition (because he ownes it so to be) as a most palpable depravation of the Fathers sense.

These are some few discoveries of the unchristi­an arts, and disingenious deportment of T. G. to­wards the Dr. I wish I could say something bet­ter of his learning or his judgement. But alass the whole Book clearly manifests that he is un­acquainted with the thing called Learning. Let any man produce in his 440 pages one conside­rable notion which is not ushered in with the great names of Dr. Taylor or of Mr. Thorndyke, let him point but to one single instance wherein he shews himself a Scholar, or a man of reading, let him produce one observation or Authority which is not trivial and common in almost every Roman Pamphlet, and I will beg his pardon for passing so severe a censure on him. In short, the only new thing in his book is this,p. 369. that he advises Whores to have recourse to Mary Magdalene.

Lastly, his want of judgement and dexterity in making inferences,Note, that the word Ho­noring though it be prin­ted in the Italick Chara­cter, is an addition of his own, the Canons cited by him only do en­joyn us. [...]. cannot be doubted by any who considers what he hath discoursed, p. 222, 223. and p. 418. all which I have abundantly refuted with an ha ha he, and to consider all the exam­ples of like nature to them, would be to frame a second Answer to his book. One farther instance of this kind we have p. 384. where he thus argues. ‘The Council of Laodicea both in in the Canon 34 as also Canon 51. alloweth the honoring and celebrating the Feast-dayes of the Martyrs which is a plain indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worship due to Angels.’ Which Syllogistically runs thus, they who allow the honoring and celebrating the feast dayes of the Martyrs can­not intend to forbid the invocation of Angels, but the Canons of Laodicea do allow the hono­ring and celebrating the feasts of the Martyrs, [Page 388] Ergo. Answ. And is it not notorious that the Protestants allow the honoring and celebrating the Feast-days of many Martyrs, why therefore doth he not conclude that they cannot con­demn the invocation of the blessed Angels.

Again they who are more to be honored than men are to be invocated, according to T. G. but Angels in the Judgement of Theodoret are more to be honored then men, Ergo. Answ. and is not this the judgement also of the Protestans, why therefore did he not infer that Protestants do not condemn this invocation.

And now consider whether T. G. had reason to usher in this inconsiderate and Childish tatle, with the ensuing Preface it is manifest that the Council of Laodicea cannot with any shew of probability be understood of that worship which the Catholick Church gives to holy Angels. And to conclude with such a triumph, by this the Rea­der may see whether we had more reason to fear the force of this Canon, &c. Whereas that which is manifested and plainly indicated by this whole discourse, is chiefly this, that T. G. labours not only under a great want of Learning but of judgement too. But to them who know that he is an Apostate from the Church of England all demonstrations of this nature must be need­less. What I have written I am humbly confi­dent must be sufficient to convince his conscience of that horrid action if God peradventure will give him repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth which is the hearty desire of him who honors his Person, and his Wit, whilest he detects his want of Learning and of Judgement, and refutes his Calumnies.

FINIS.

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