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: 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. 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Juſt. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. c. or if 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, 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. (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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 the Sectae 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 obſervedNazaraei cum Dei filium confireantur eſſe Chriſtum, omnia tamen veteris legis obſervant. Auguſt. de Hereſibus Cap. 9. vid. Epipha •• um Haereſ. 29. § 7. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or things neceſſary, of which we have ſufficient Teſtimony from that 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Fleſh with Blood, according to the Roman Doctrine. And 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 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. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, thatQui dicit ſe Sectam Chriſtianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire, cujus ſectatores ſuum quem colunt Deum denibus diſcerpunt & devorant. Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973. among all Religious 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Quaeſt. in Gen. 55. & in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. 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, Quaeſt. in Gen. 55. & in Lev. Qu. 11. p. 124. conceive that to be God, which he abominates 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (i.e.) his broken Body, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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, 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or a ſign? ſure I am the Scripture often calls it 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or for ever. Doth nor he tell them 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.Acceptum panem & diſtributum Diſcipulis corpus illum ſuum ſecit, hoc eſt corpus meum dicendo, id eſt figura Corporis mei. Figura autem non ſuiſſet, niſi veritatis eſſet Corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod eſt phantaſma, figuram capere non poſſit. Quid tune voluerit ſignificaſſe panem ſatis declaravit corpus ſuum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40. 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 diſcourſePanis & calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis & ſanguinis Dominici veritatem adverſus phantaſma Marcionis. l. 5. c 8 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 Cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Diſciples by them to make a Commemoration of him? Theodoret againſt the Eutichians, diſputeth thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the ſimilitude of Man, 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 immediately following: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the intelligible thing conveighed in the Sacrament, is ſaid to be conveighed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 514. l. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 B. l. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 513. l, 21. That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Chriſt, that they are nouriſhed and ſo mixed with 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , p. 514. l. 27. 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, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 514. l. 38. that 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 WineP. 510. l. 36. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Common Bread) yet let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the thing by 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 this is meer Oyntment: Catech. Myſt. 3. p. 235. A. for as the Euchariſtick Bread, after the invocation of the Holy Ghoſt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you. The Sacramental Signs do ſtill retain their Eſſence and their Nature, ſaith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Juſtin. Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Pariſ. 1636. the ſubſtance of our Fleſh is nouriſhed and augmented 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 ſtill

Sacramenta, quae ſumimus corporis & fanguinis Chriſti, divina res eſt propter quod & per eadem divinae conſortes efficimur naturz; & tamen eſ • e non deſuat ſubſtantia vel natura panis & vini. Gelaſ. contra Eutychen.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ephrem. apud Phot. Bib. Cod 229.

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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Concil. Epheſ. Acts 3. Extr in Ep. Syn, ad Cler, CP, p. 335. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and juſtifie the Judgment of the Church of 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ſin of Magick;1 Sam. 15.23. and to reſiſt is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 : in Rom. c. 3. To. 6. p 43. Chryſoſtom; and this vve have confeſſed byForcaſſe rectius cum S. Thoma dixe • imus, id • irco avaritium vocari cultum Idolorum; quia ſicut Paganus in Idolo, ſic avarus in Idoll materia, quae est au • um, & argentum, ſuam fiduciam collocat, ejuſque gratia omme facit. Est. in loc. 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 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 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 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. 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 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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ib. p. 144.

HAving laid down theſe Propoſitions; let us now view the Doctrine and Practiſe of the Church of Rome, which the Trent Councel 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, ThatJure autem Sancts Dei Eccleſia huic Gratiarum actioni, preces etiam & implorationem Sanct ſſimas Dei Matris adjurixit, qud pie atque ſuppliciter, ad eam confugeremus, ut nobis peccatoribus ſud Intermiſſione conciliaret Deum, bonaque tum ad hanc, tum ad aeternam vitam neceſſaria impetraret. Ergo nos exules filii Evae, qui hanc lachrymarum vallem incolimus. aſſidnè miſericordiae matrem, ac fidelis populi advocatam invocare debemus, ut oret pro nobis peccatoribus, ab edque hac prece opem & auxilium implerare; cujus & praeſtantiſſimu merita apud Deum eſſe, & ſummam voluntatem juvandi humanum Genus, nemo, niſi impid & nefariè, dubitare poteſt. Catech. Rom. Part. 4. c. 5. Sect. 8. p. 584. 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, 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:

To all the Apoſtles thus:Communt Apoſt. p. • .

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.

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.

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 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 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, 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ita Origcontr. Celſ. l 8. p. 422. We offer up our Hymns only to God and his Son Jeſus Chriſt.

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 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 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 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 doIn Feſt.fa • ct. Agapiti Aug. 28. place their confidence in the petitions of theſe prevailing Saints and bleſſed Spirits? Why do they not aſcribe their mercys and deliverances to the Accepta tib • ſi • , •• mine, ſacrat • e pleb • s oblatio pro inorum H • nors Sanct • um qu • r • m •• e •• ritis per •••• , de tribulatione cognoſeit 〈◊〉 . Miſſ Dee ••• p. 〈◊〉 Ed. Antwerp. 1605. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to the Doctrine 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.

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 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 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 the 8. 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.

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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,p. 606. or ſuch miracles as were the objects of our Senſes ceaſed, yet God did ſtill vouchſafe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. Many, both Prieſts and Idiots, ſaith Syneſius, have been found among us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,Ep. 5.4. p. 190. feigning ſome Dreams, which they call Revelations: Ei 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo ſunt •• pr • banda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideo ipſi mani • estatur Cub •• ca quia haec in ea fiunt —utrum ipſi Eccſeſium ten • an • , Non niſi Divinarum Scriptur •• um canonic • s libris oſtendant. Ibid. p. 117. A.; 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.Orig. Sacrae. lib. 2. cap. 10. • . 6. 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 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 Doctrine of Damons ſhould prevail: which Doctrine both the ingenious Mr. Mede, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 ofNicet. Caten. in Pſal. 5. Rome, we have this free confeſſion of an antient Father 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 Ora • io enim ſo • Deo • ff • rtur. Aurea Catena in 50. Pſal. edit. Ven • t. Anno 1569. Pag. 53. Petitions were to be offered unto God alone, according to that Queſtion of St. Auſtin Cui alteri praeter te clamabo? Aug. Confeſſ. lib. 1. cap 5. to whom elſe ſhall I cry but unto thee? and that expreſſion ofL. de Creatione. 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Id pag. 238. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Id ib. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Id. p. 239. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to pray, to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the antient Interpreter of the Acts of Polycarp, Alteri cuiquam Orationis 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —Orig. contra Celſum. l. 8. p. 382. That he who doth not any work that is grateful to the Daemons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 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— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. Id. ibid. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Id. 〈◊〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , bene precatur creaturae, ſaith the Latine. Whereas St.Aug. Serm. 17 de verbes Apoſt. 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 p. 357. That the worſhip which Origen here contends, is not to 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . l. 8. p. 384. Let us 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. of the Daemons and the Heroes. Then he proceeds to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.