Permissu Superiorum 1683.


SEing my Lord of Winton is pleased to wipe off that odious aspersion of his being a Papist [which myght in the late conjuncture haue cost him his civil, & endangered his natural life] by de­claring not only his judgment in matters of Religion; but also the grounds, on which it re­lyes, contained in severall treatises, long since compounded, but never till now made publick: I presume he will not be offended, that with the respect due to his quality of Peere of the Realme, these be reviewed. Reviewed, I say, for althô Appellations lye only to hygher, Revisions are com­mitted to equal, or even inferiour courts.

He protests, he is no Papist: & I think so too. I wish it were as easy to cleere him of Calvinisme: of which he ownes pag. XII. that he hath beene suspected, & to it he seemes enclined when he says, ‘that God by Miracles promoted the Jdelatrous worship of the Pictures, & Relickes of Saints.’ This I think in reality is to make God the Authour of sin: Which Blasphemy I do not beleiue the Church of England will owne, thô it be a choice flower in Cal­vin's garden.

He declares his loyalty to the government establisht, & the Royal Family, &c. And J beleiue him in this also: nay I judge as favourably of the greatest part of his rank, & moreover, that they are loyal not only for their Interest; but for conscience, & out of a sense of their duty to God, their soveraigne, & their coun­try: & that he, & they, will oppose, to their Power, Schisme in the Church & Faction in the State. Yet I think all their endeavours will [Page]be ineffectual to prevent ether, considering the constitution of the Protestant Church, & qualifications of its Clergy. For as in some natural Bodyes there is a defect, which maugre all care of Physi­tians, cuts the thred of life, before it be spun to its ordinary length; so in some Bodyes Politick, that of the English Protestant Church, in particular. Here are some reasons to proue this.

2. The first. Protestancy is a Schisme, & those who liue in it, liue in a Schisme. It is a Schisme, because it is a party separated from the whole Catholick Church. Luther was a Schismatick, so was Calvin, so was Zuinglius, so was each Patriark of your Reformation: for each of these at their first breaking forth, left the Whole Catholick Church, or Congregation of Christians, of what denomination soever, not any one single Person in the whole world, to whome he (or they) did joine himself. So that if ever any man was truly Schismatick, each one of these was such. Wherefore all who joined to them, as all Protestants did, were Schismaticks. Now it is not probable that God will giue that greate Blessing of Ecclesiasticall Peace, to Schis­maticks, who hate it, & oppose it.

My 2. is: Protestants are Hereticks, that is Choosers of the points, which they beleiue. For the Catholick Church delivered to her chil­dren not only, what they beleiue; but also many articles which they reject. Each Protestant takes this complex, examins it, & finding some Articles not to please him, he casts them out of his creede. Hence one rejects the Real presence, another Free will; A third Me­rits; a fourth the Possibility of keeping God's Commandments, &c. Each one culling out what Articles he pleases, & composing of them not a Catholick; but a Protestant Faith: not a Faith of the Ghospels; but of this time, & their Phancyes. What more evident signes of Hereticks? Now if they be such, can we think them fit instruments to oppose Heresy, who did introduce, & do still defend it? This shall be further confirmed, by my fifth Reason.

My 3. Protestants are a Cadmean broode, they sprung out of the Earth armed: & no sooner did their soveraigne Lords see their faces, but they felt their Jron hands. Witnesse Germany, France, Hungary, Bohemia, Scotland, swethland, Denmark, the Low countryes, [Page]& Geneva. Our English Protestants say, they are not concerned in these Rebellions: but that is not tru, for by approving, & applau­ding them, they make them their owne, & encourage the Practice, by commending the precedent. With what force can they teach Obedience to his Majesty, who praise Rebellion against other? Or divert men from Treason, who transforme Traitors into Heroes, & canonize Regicides?

My 4. There nether is, nor ever was any Authority vnder the Heavens better grounded than that of the Catholick Clergy consis­ting of the Pope, & Bishops, was before the Reformation. It was establisht by Christ, setled by the Apostles, ratifyed by general, & particular Councils, confirmed by an vninterrupted Possession of almost fifteene hundred yeares, backt by all Laws Ecclesiastical, & Civil, & acknowledged by all Christians then aliue. What gentle­man can say so much for his estate? What officer, for his Autho­rity? What King, for his crowne? What Parson for his Tith? What Protestant Bishop for his miter? When a Calvin, a Luther, &c. to say no more, private men, starte vp, declame against that Clergy, as a humane invention & an Antichristian establishment; & you applaude them, & with them trample vnder feete, the whole sacred Order, & teach your followers, no submission, no obedience is due to it. When you haue taught them to breake such cables, can you expect to bind them to their duty with single threds?

The English Protestant pretence to Bishops doth no satisfy, 1. Because in reality they had no canonical ordination. as we say, & proue. 2. Althô they had imposition of hands, & were real Bishops [which we deny. See Anti-Haman Chapt. xxxv.] yet They entred not by the doore; but climed vp some other way, Iohn X. 1. Were not promoted according to any canonical forme ether ancient, or mo­derne. Wherefore what can we judge of them, but according to Christ's words, Loco citato? 3. Your first Protestants promoted their Religion, & Spreade their noveltyes contrary to all even English Bishops, & in contempt of them, first in Henry VIII. his time, Tin­dale, & others. Secondly in Q. Elizabeths time, when all the Bis­hops aliue detested your Reformation, & were for that stript of [Page]their jurisdiction, deposed from their seates, & confined. What wonder then your followers doe not regard that Crosier, which you haue broken, nor honour the Miter, which they haue seene you trample vnder your feate? Lastly suppose your Bishops wereas va­lidly, & canonically consecrated, as any ever were, can you say, that their Authority is better grounded, than that of all the Ca­tholick Clergy? Sure you cannot pretend to better grounds for your Authority, than our Clergy had. As it was than lawfull & lau­dable to three, or four private men to contradict our whole Clergy then in being, why may not some private men amongst you, with­stand yours? What reason can you alleadge against a Tub preacher? Some texts of scripture? Canons of Councils? Tradition of the Church? Laws of the Realme? All these stood in favour of our Clergy against the first Reformers, as, & more, evidtntly than for you against your dissenters. So your Schisme & Reformation hath deprived you of all meanes to preserue the Peace of the Church.

My 5. Is taken from the manner of your Reformation. From Rome our Ancesters had received by the same hands a systeme of Faith, a body of Ceremonys, & some Ecclesiastical Laws. The whole Faith as necessary to be beleived, the Ceremonys as decent to entertaine devotion. The laws as convenient to government, & order. And your first Reformers changed all. Jn Faith they first rejected the whole vnwritten word, Tradition: & a greate part of the written, scripture. They secondly perverted many places of this, by new interpretations, retaining the word without its sense. The Ceremonys, & laws were treated as licentiously, throwing out of dores whatsoever they pleased. Now why may not another imitate these your Patriarks? Cur non licebit Valentiniano, quod licuit Valentino, de arbitrio suo fidem innovare? What was lawfull to Luther, is sure lawfull to a Lutheran: & what was laudable in the sixteenth, is not a sin in the seventeenth age, to giue new interpretations to scripture, abolish other ceremonys, repeale more Canons. Especi­ally the motiues of reforming being common. Which is

My 6. Your first reformers rejected some Articles of Faith, as being delivered by fallible men: some Ceremonys as men's inven­tions, [Page]& some laws as contrary to Evangelical liberty. Now all this holds as strongly against what they Keepe in, as what they leaue out: for all Canons were imposed by men, all Ceremonys pres­cribed by men, & scripture it self brought to you, & continued amongst you by fallible men, as much as the real presence. Now as you blot this out of your creede, why may not another strike out Baptisme, a third the Trinity, a fourth the Incarnation, afifth the vnity of God, a sixth the Deity it self? & so farewell all Faith. What reason is there, to say, that our Roman Missioners sent by S. Gregory were infallible in delivering the mysterys of the Trinity or Incarnation, & fallible, in speaking of Purgatory, or the Real presence? They say they pared away these Articles, because they were not from the beginning & were abuses. But will not a Monothelit alleadge the same against the distinction of wills in Christ, an Eutychian, against the distinction of natures, a Nestorian, against the vnity of Person in him, a Macedonian, against the Di­vinity of the Holy ghost, an Arrian, against that of the son, a Manichean, against the vnity of the Divine nature, a Iew, against the new Testament, & a Libertin, and Atheist, against both old, & new, & God himself? These are not wyre drawne conclusions, by obscure mediums, & far fetched illations; but natural, & ob­vious sequels of the fundamental principles of your Reformation, which are inconsistent with any constancy in Faith, and settlement in Church government. So I must conclude, that your Church buil­ding is such, as no principles can beare; & your principles are such, as can beare no building. By which we may guesse, from whome your reformers had their vocation, from Abaddon, Apollion, the Destroyer, seing their principles are good only to Destroy Churchs; not at all to Build them.

In fine, a prudent man, without casting a figure, might haue seene the fate of the late troubles, in their principles, which were inconsistent with any setled forme of civil gouvernment & would ruin them all successively, as they did, without any hopes of rest, vnlesse these were layd aside, & the just, & ancient government restored. The like conjecture may be made of Protestantisme, its [Page]principles being inconsistent with any setled forme of Faith, & Church government, will destroy them all by Schisme & Heresyes, & no probability of a settlement vnlesse these be renounced, & the Ancient, Catholick, & Apostolical Faith, & Government restored. For a further proofe of this, I appeale to experience, (which is a demonstration A posteriori, as the former is A priori) which is

My 7. Experience shews, that tis much easier to destroy, than to settle a government ether in Church, or State. Nothing of Art, or Power was wanting to the establishment of the Prelatical Church in England. She appeared first with the plausible colours of an Apos­tolical Reformation, was cherisht by Royal favour, armed the severest laws imaginable. Yet one age had not past over her head, when the peccant humours bread within her, layd her in the dust, & the crowne it self with her, which it was hoped, she would vp hold. Both were againe restored: yet how soone was the joy of that over, & both brought againe into a like danger? Seeke no where abroade the spring of these mischeifes, they rise from the Reformation, & are inseparable from the Protestant Church.

My 8. And last reason is drawne from the Protestant Clergy, it self, which as it is modelled, & principled, can never sufficiently influence the Nation to preserue its vnion in the Worship of God, & its duty to the King: to prevent Schisme in the Church, & Fac­tion in the State. This appeares by experience. The reasons I re­serue till some further occasion be given.

3. D. M. (so we shall hereafter call my Lord of Winton) says in his Preface pag. 11. A french Iesuit called Mainbourg publisht so­mething as writen by her late R. H. & he repeates afterwards four times in the Preface & once in his post script Mainbourg the Iusuit: when it was Mainbourg the secular Preist who printed it. Which that booke of his tells all the world, so did the publike Gazets, contai­ning his dismission out of the society. His superiors did never per­mit him to print it, whilest he was a Iesuit, knowing how sacred the secrets of Princes ought to be. So that paper crept about only in written copyes, seene by few, & of these not many beleiving it to be hers, whose name it beares. Now D. M. hath spreade it, & [Page]the rumor of her Change in Religion, for his owne vindication, & so prejudiced his mother the Church of England: for I doubt not but her R. H. example will moue more Powerfully to leaue that Church, than D. M. S. judgment, to retaine men in it.

He questions the Conference betwixt her R. H. & the Bishop: which being a matter of Fact, must rely on the deposition of wit­nesses, & their credit, & interest. She is positiue, he conjectural: she had no motiue, but Truth; he concerned for the honour of his Church, & his owne. His topick is, if the Bishop answered so, he was nether so Learned, nor Conscientious, nor Prudent, as he ought to be. Which many will easier grant, then that her R. H. in a matter of fact would wittingly tell an vntruth.

He relates many things in his Preface to little purpose. v. c. His coming out of England with 130. l. & returning with as much, (as if he had the blessing of the Israelits, in the desert whose cloths did not weare out) his serving his Majesty, & the Q. of Bohemia, without putting them to any charge, but his diet, his catechising their servants, & preaching to them, his journy to Collen, & re­turne to the Hague: &c. what is the publick concerned in all this? Vnlesse it be to helpe an Hystorian to write his life. But of heroical men even the Cradles, Rattles, & Hobby horses are venerable.

Pag. viii. He says, he did not convene with the french Hugonots, because if They did not encourage, yet they did not, at least had not, con­demned the rebellious proceedings of their Presbiterian brethren in En­gland against the K. & Church. Which implyes only their being idle spectators of that Tragedy, in which many think they were Actors for the worse side: & many English women in Geneva who followed their husbands thither at the end of the wars, were proofe enough. I will relate here what I find in Grotius his Discussio Rivetiani Apos­tolici pag. 88. & 89. where having sayd, that the publick Peace is disturbed by that Doctrine: Licita esse pro Religione subditorum in Reges arma, he adds: Hoc vir nobilissimus Plessiacus Mornaeus, tanquam pietati consentaneum, testamento etiam suo inseruit. Hinc ille motus Am­baxianus, cum Reformatus Renauderius quosdam sui similes in privatum conclave convocasset, & dedisset eis potestatem Ordinum Regni. Hinc [Page]Beze conciones pro classico. Hinc Rupellensis Conventus impudentia; qui omnes in Regno Pontificios, deinde etiam Reformatos, Regis auctoritatem sequentes, declaravit ab honoribus omnibus, muneribusque publicis dimo­vendos: praefecturas autem per omne Regnum distribuit, quibus voluit [...] talium consiliorum auctorem sibi fuisse PETRVM MOLINEVM testatur Theophilus Mileterius, vir nobilis, & illis, qui reformatos se dicunt, optimè volens. Thus he. This booke hath beene printed neere these forty yeares: & never any thing alleadged against these matters of fact, that I could heare of. How will Monsieur du Moulin Prebend of Canterbury reconcile with this Counsil of his Father, that letter, which he printed in his fathers name?

4. These treatises, having beene composed on emergent occasi­ons, without any setled designe, haue no other order than that of the time, they were composed in, amongst those of the same lan­guage. J designed once to draw the matters handled in them, into some method, which would helpe to their vnderstanding. But be­cause that would make my Answer to D. M. lesse satisfactory (a thing mainly aimed at) I tooke the easier way, to follow my Au­thour, as he leades me, step by step, without omitting any thing material. I omit in my Revision the letters of the Regular Preist, as not grounding the judgment, in matters of Religion, of D. M. as also D. M. his letter to Trigland, as containing nothing to our purpose. For it treates only two points: the 1. of Fact, that his ma­jesty really was a Protestant. To which no answer is necessary. The second of Policy, that his Majesty was to be restored to his Crowne by an Army of the states. To this I cannot answer, as never ha­ving commenced Batchelour in Policy. Yet J will say, that God himself found a way to restore his Majesty & put an end to the trou­bles of the State, without Armes (contrary to the expectation of D. M.) And J hope [at least it long hath beene, is, & shall be my constant Prayer] that the God of Peace put an end to these contentious disputes in the Church; that we all may come to com­pose but One sheepefold, vnder One sheperd. John X. 16. I thought once to omit his letter against F. Cressey, as being cheifly personal: yet finding besides a too severe charg on him, some Reflections vpon [Page]his whole holy Order, I tooke leaue to review the grounds of both, yet past it lyghtly, as entring vpon it vnwillingly.

That the Reader may with lesse trouble see what the Doctor says, & to what J answer, I giue his owne words, commonly at large, at least their full sense: & J marke the page, where they are to be found. This makes my Revision somewhat longer: but that is compensated with the ease of discovering the Truth, which both sides pretend to, but only one side contends for sincerely, the other opposes with all his Power. God grant to all a sincere loue of Peace, & Church vnion: & then all these disputes will cease.

Post script. What is contained in my fourth Booke, pag. 111. that Factious men were prosicients in the Art of promoting mischeife, was written in march last, 1683. I little dreamed to see my conjecture confirmed so soone in such a notorious manner, as it was by The Rye Plot, & Blunderbusses. God hath miraculously both disappointed, & discovered those Ruffians: J beseech him, to grant, that the Roote, [at least the pretext, or occasion] of all these traiterous Practices, The hatred of jnnocent men, & loyal subjects, may cease.


  • Pag. 15. line 23. received. Read, revived.
  • Pag. 28. line 26. againe. Read, against.
  • Pag. 44. line 3. it. Read, him.
  • Pag. 86. line 28. Et. Read, And.



THE first Treatise, which occurr's in this collection, is the sum of a short Conference with a Iesuit at Brussels. I leaue others to judg, whether it be an Historical, or a Poetical narration, or, whether it contains only sincerely what was; or what might be, as not thinking it worth the while to enquire, especially when we consider, that certainly the greatest part, & possibly, all those present who could inform vs, are dead. Those who haue been acquainted with F. Darcy, & know his great abilityes in controversy, & consider how weakly he is made to ans­wer, are apt to guess, that our Authour, Poet-like brings him, & others, on the stage as he pleases, & there makes him speak, what is easiest to be confuted. I rather incline to the contrary, that really there was such a Dispute & such things, in substance alleadged pro, & con. Yet I must beg leaue to say, that J beleme the Doctor did not subtract any strength, from his own, nor ad any, to F. Darcy's discourse; it being but ordinary that things are so disposed, in such relations, as the Knight may kill the Gyant. Hence I regard little what that Father is reported to haue sayd; but attend cheifly if not only, to what the Doctor alleadges against the Church, which I will defend to my power. We shall find his [D. Morley's] cheife [Page 2]Argument drawn from the Communion os Infants, by which he endeauours to proue, that the Church can erre, seing it hath erred which Vicount Falkland brought against the credit of our Traditions. Which hath been already answeared, thô this is not taken notice of. But let vs hear the Doctor speak.

SECTION I.1. The English Iesuits Ciuilitys to their country men. , and • 2. Their manner of living. Which the Doctor approues of & highly commends. 

D. Morley. The Lord Viscount Neubourg . . . & D. Morley coming to the Iesuits Colledg, . . . found Father Darcy with the Lord Andover. 1. He received them very courteously, & to satisfy their curiositys, . . . very frankly made vs 2. a larg narratiue of their manner of liuing, lodging, diet, together with the hours of Rising, stu­dying, eating, & recreations, & of all the spiritual hours, & exercises, they were bound vnto. 3. Things all of them in their seueral kinds, for the substance of them very commendable, & worthy the imitation.

Revisor. I easily beleiue, that F. Darcy very wel deserved this publick testimony of his kindness, 1. because he is known to haue been very ciuil to all men. 2. Because I am informed that it always was, & still is the custome of the English Iesuits, to receiue cour­teously, & do all good offices for their country men, in all places, where they meet them: & this not only to persons learned, or no­ble, whose qualitys, or qualifications may claim it as due; but also to others on no score distinguishable from the meanest: which all those can testify, who by design, or chance, pass by their Colledges. And their kindness to their countrymen in distress, hath not been like that of those who Iames 2.15.16. Seing their brother, or sis­ter [Page 3]naked, and destitute of dayly food, say vnto them, depart in Peace, be you warmed & filled. But they haue giuen them those things, which are needfull to the Body. I will not mention any, whose names, & ne­cessitys are scarce known, but in their neighbourhood. Was Bedlow a Prisoner in Spain at Valladolid? the Iesuits there labour to procure his liberty. Was Dangerfeild condemned to be hanged in the Low­countryes? The Iesuites leaue no stone vnmoued to saue his life. Was Oates in want of all things necessary for food, & rayment? He finds the Iesuits purse open, & hand stretcht forth to his releife: this he hath found in England, Spain, & Flanders, as long, as there was any ho­pes of his amendment. And althô very often this Iesuitical kindness meetes with a Tru-Protestant gratitude, yet they continu still the like good offices: so these proceed not from the compassion of some tender harted Iesuits; but from the spirit of their order, which they suck in with the milk of Iesuitisme, confirm by practice, & cherish with hopes of eternal rewards.

What Hospitals haue they not visited, where they heard any of their dearest countrymen lay sick? Into what Dungeons haue they not procured entrance, if an English-man were cast into them? what sickness so loathsom, as to make the Iesuits nauseate the sick? or so infectious, as to fright them away? what house for infection so shut vp from commerce with all men, as to exclude the Iesuits? And what danger so great, as to deter a Iesuit from running into the middle of it to releiue an English man in distress? How many of them haue destroyed their health, how many haue lost their liues, in these works of Mercy? And how little haue the suruiuing Iesuits been deterred from the like workes, by the euils befallen their Brethren, & hanging over them selues? Haue we not seen the fa­mous fable of Pilades, & Orestes so renowned amongst the Pagans, out don by a Iesuit, who being indicted by the name of a Bene­dictin, then present, he chose rather to vndergo the sentence of death, than to cleere himself by discovering the mistake, & by that, bringing the tru Benedictin into danger? The sentence [Page 4]was not executed; it is tru: but that doth not diminish the esteem due to the Iesuits heroical resolution, to suffer death himself, rather than auoid it, by occasioning any danger to another. He saw death, & an ignominious death according to the world, before his eyes, not to be auoided, but by a Reprieue, which he had nether meanes to sollicit for, nor hopes to obtain, considering how punctually such sentences had been executed on others, not withstanding all endea­vours to get them suspended. So his permitting the Verdict to be brought in, & the sentence to pass vpon him, without making vse of so certain, so obuious, so euident a meanes to trauerse it, was to thrust his neck into a halter, only to hinder his neighbour's danger of it. Was not this very litterally the perfectest charity, for one to giue his life for another?

2. Whence proceedes this Zeal of souls, this alacrity to encounter any danger, how great soeuer, or difficulty [except that one of of­fending God by sin] in these pious attempts? Answer: from their education, & the practice of their whole life, from their entry into the Society. At their entrance knowing how little it would avail them to gain the whole world, with the loss of their souls, & in imitation of him, who being rich, for their sakes became poor, for his sake they renounce all they haue, & all they hope for in this world. Their first two yeares, or Nouiceship is spent in meditating on the life, doctrine, & death of God made Man, which aimes at nothing else, but the good of souls. And all their other exercises are to confirm them in the contempt of themselues, the loue of god aboue all things, of their neighbour as them selues, & in this Zeal of souls. At their entrance into the Nouitiate, they are obliged to make for a whole month, the spiritual Exercices: in which they con­sider first for what end, they, & all men were created: Viz, to serue god in this world, & enioy him in the next. That all crea­tures what soeuer, Heauen, & Earth, Beasts, Birdes, & Fishes, are designed as seruants to man, on his way to eternal bliss: that euen those blessed Angels, so much our superiours in nature, are [Page 5]but our seruants, being all Heb 1.14. Ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heires of Saluation. That all that God & man, Christ-Iesus, did, & preacht, & suffred Heb. 5.7. In the days of his flesh, was designed for that same great end, To saue souls. Now if god himself, the only competent Judg of the valu of souls, esteemes them so much, how can we set too great a price vpon them? who wil regret any paines taken for their good, who hath before his eyes the trauels, the hunger, & thirst, the preachings, & other labours of the Son of god? who wil be abasht at any dan­ger in pursuit of so great a good, who sees with the eyes of Faith Christ crucifyed, shedding the last drop of his bloud, & suffring death, to purchase by it the life of souls? This in the Exercices.

After that monthly Recollection, & conversation with only god, & his blessed Saints, their whole employments are such, as may prepare them for that great work, the greatest of all divine workes, as S. Denis says, To cooperate with God in the Conversion of souls. Do they pray? It is to vnite themselues the closer to Almighty God, that so they may be fitter instruments for him to work with, & encrease the Zeal of souls. Do they study? It is to render themselues more capable to assist them. Do they Teach Do they Preach? It is to direct men to Heauen by declaring to them sauing Truths. Their recreations, eating, drinking, sleeping aim at the same end; for by them they conserue, or repayr their strength, that they may con­tinu to serue god, & their neighbour. Thus all the actions of each day, month, year, & their whole life are employed in procuring the salvation of themselues, & their neighbour.

They rise at Four in the morning, with their harts full of grati­tude to god, who hath preserued them that night; & petitions for a blessing on their Actions that day. At four and a halfe they be­gin their meditation, or mental Prayer which lasts for a whole hour, on some passage of the life, or point of doctrine of Christ. Then they say or hear Masse: which being a Commemoratiue Sacrifice of that, on the cross, renews the memory of what god did, & suf­fred [Page 6]to saue souls: & consequenly renews Zeal to procure it. The rest of the morning is spent either in mental, or vocal Prayer, or study, or dealing with their neighbor, according to the order of Superiors, or present occasions. Only one quarter before dinner is assigned for a seuere review of their Actions, of the whole mor­ning, & taking a strict Account of them all, in the presence of god. For what they find well don, they giue thanks to god, the Authour of all good: for what is reprehensible, they ask God par­don, & endeauour to dispose themselues to receiue it, by a true sor­row for hauing offended him, & a strong resolution neuer more to offend him. Dinner is followed with a Recreation (as they call it) for an hour, which is spent in discourses of pious things, or others indifferent. The rest of the afternoon till supper is spent as the morning [except Masse, & the first hour of Prayer.] After supper one hour is allowed for mutual conversation: then the great Lita­nyes of all Saints are sayd by all together, which last about a quarter: a second quarter is assigned to prepare the morning's meditation: a third for the Examen of their conscience, & the last to go to bed: which all must do by nine. This is their ordinary distribution of time, for the whole day. Which I hear was exactly observed by the Iesuits during their close imprisonment, to the astonishment of their keepers, who could not tell how they could so regularly do all those several pious Actions at the same hours, hauing no com­munication with one an other: they did not, they could not know, that this was the distribution of time vsed in their Colleges.

I need not say, that each one hath a chamber to himself which serues as much for modesty as conuenience: that this is fitted [as that of Elizeus, or Elisha 4 Reg. c. 10 by the Sunamite] with things necessary for vse; without superfluitys: that their diet is frugal, without daintys: & their whole way of liuing is decent, & neate; without ether vanity, which they abhor; or sordidnesse, in the Pouerty, which they profess. In one thing they think they cannot be too prodigal; in their churches, their Altars, their sacred Ves­sels, [Page 7]& vestments. They know God to be the King of Kings, & Lord of Lords: & adoring him aboue all the world they think it all too little for him. Wherefore whatsoeuer they can procure by themselues, or by their freinds, they employ freely in the Diuine seruice. From the splendour of their churches, some strangers to their manner of liuing, guess them to be exceeding rich whereas did they know all, they would correct that errour. At Bruges they haue a noble church; & but a pittifull building for their own aboad. They are though't to flourish as much in France, as in any part of Europe: yet a strict suruey being made of all their reuenues vnder the French dominions by order of his most Christian Ma­jesty, they were found not to haue two hundred French Liuers per annum, In singula Capita. Whereas some other very austere & re­formed Religious Orders, & who are not noted as rich, haue accor­ding to the same surueyours aboue 1300. liuers, In singula Capita. Hence is euident, that discourse of Iesuits riches is an effect of malice in some, & of ignorance in most men.

This J say to supply that part of the Conference, which you only hint at, by the words aboue cited, that He, that Father, Made a larg narratiue of their manner of liuing, &c. This Narratiue, had you giuen it to the publick, would haue giuen greater satisfaction, than mine, because the Father had greater experience, than J haue. Howeuer J do not fear to be blamed in the whole, or any part of this relation, so great a confidence J haue in those Informations J rely on.

3. Hence I am not much surprised, to see you approue these Actions, as Very commendable, and worthy the Imitation for the substance of them. A person of so quick a wit, & so solid iudgment, could not haue any other opinion of them. Yet J dare you to square these circles, or reconcile these contradictions: the Actions of Iesuits are for the substance of them commendable. And: the Cheife action of Jesuits is not commendable, viz, the Masse, which you, & your Brethren hold to be downright Idolatry. Now Masse is not only one [Page 8]of the Iesuits religious Actions; but it is the very Cheife of them all. For as in the old law all its rites, ceremonys & sacrifices were but figures, or types of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was designed from the beginning, & which being intentionally present in God's vnderstanding did moue his goodness euer since Adam's fall to pardon men's sins & grant them those Blessings, to which, in vertue of that Sacrifice they had a right, on which account the true Lamb of God is sayd to be Occisus ob origine mundi Apoc. 13.8. Sacrificed from the beginning of the world, so in the new all our de­uotions, all our prayers, all our pennances, our interiour, & ex­teriour vertuous Actions, regard the same sacrifice of the Cross, & that of the Masse, which is a commemoration, or repetition of that other of the Cross. So all our deuotions are only as prepara­tions to it, or Thanks giuings for it, & the graces we receiue by it. Thus in the natural Body all Actions vegetatiue & sensitiue proceed from the head, & hart, & are cheifly designed to nourish, helpe, & defend them: & in the mystical Body, of Religious Actions, & Dutys they all proceed from, & end in the Bloudy Sacrifice of the Cross, & in the vnbloudy sacrifice of the Mass, for as much as in them is contained our blessed saviour CHRIST-IESVS God blessed for euer more, the Α, & Ο, Beginning & end of our Religion, in whom all our Devotions concenter, he being the Founder, & Authour of our Faith, the Ground, & Anker of our Hope, & the Principle & Object of our Charity. Which three vertues are Cheifly, or rather solely aimed at in Religion. Haec ma­ximè, imo vero sola in Religione sequenda sunt. Aug. Enchir. c. 4.

Now if Moss the cheifest, & noblest of Religions Actions be Idolatry, as you say elsewhere, how do you say now it is Lawfull, nay Commendable, & Worthy the imitation? If it be so, certainly it is not Idolatry. But Contradictions are vnavoidable, when we com­bate a known truth, which by surprisal will force an acknowled­ment of it self, altho we arm our selues against it when advertised. Hence you approue here the same thing in Gross, which you con­demn [Page 9]in retail. I leaue you this bone to pick, & proceed.

SECTION II.1. Conferences to compose differences in Religion seldome successefull, & why? , and • 2. Security of Preists in England, & danger of Ministers at Brussels. 

D. Morley. 1. My lord Andover wisht, that some learned, & moderate men of the Churchs of Rome, & England might meet & debate freely, & charitably the Differences between the two Churchs, which are not so many, nor so great, but they might find out some expe­dient to compose them. 2. D Morley Sayd it would be imprudent, & vnsafe for him to disoute of Religion in Brussels: thô the Preists in England had often with all boldnesse, freedome, & safety, before many witnesses mantained their opinions. So vpon my life may you do here, sayd F. Darcy, & be so far from offending me, as J shall take it as a favour.

1. Revisor. Altho I readily grant the capacity of that noble man to be great; yet I must beg leaue to dout, whether he were a competent Judg of the most ready way to end the Differences in points of Faith betwixt dissenting Churchs: this requiring a greater search into points of Doctrine, & interest, then Persons of his quality, & education are willing commonly to vndergo. Truth is ever pre­tended on both sides; but it is onely pretended on the one side, which in reality applyes all its industry to suppresse it, for ether mo­tives of Passion, Interest, Envy, Spite, Reveng, & what else is contrary to the law of God. When these possesse the hart, the head is busyed to make Vertu pass for vice, & vice for vertu, [Page 10]to adorn Falshood with the dress of Truth, & by sophisti­cal reasons make Truth be suspected of Falshood. He will by calumayes as black as Hell, reader odjoas, or contemptible the persons, who oppose his Passion, & thwart his Jnterest, Cross his design, & procure his real good, by discovering his errours, & by that inviting him to return to the ancient Faith, & Communion of the Church, which he broke through want of Charity. It is hard to discover the wiles of those Foxes, & ways of these wolves, the fraudulent, or fierce enemys of the Churchs Peace; to see through that mist which they raise on purpose not to be seen, & to fathom these Depths of Sathan. Apoc. 2.24. Now thò this noble man's ca­pacity was great, yet perchance not sufficient for so obscure, & intricate a work.

Yet when all the doubling of these Foxes are discovered, & the secrets of their harts layd open, yet the work is not half don. The greatest difficulty remaines, to wean them from those beloved wandrings: it being one of the dismallest effects of these sinfull errours, that by secret, yet power full charmes, they fix the will in the loue of them. Hence S. Prosper. Tantum nocet error

Vt juuet errare, & veteris contagia morbi
Tam blande obrepunt, vt quo languetur ametur.
Such charmes before our eyes doth errour lay,
That it e'en makes vs loue to go astray:
Whilst th' evil spreads, we vnconcerned go,
Deceiu'd, & yet contented to be so.

The secretary of nature Aristotle never div'd deeper into the hart of man, then when he sayd, that althô Reason seemes to hold the scales, & discern betwixt two contending parts, yet in reality it is the hart, the will, which deliberates, & decides the thing in question. Hence comes that variety of judgments on the same indi­vidual Action, of which one shall make a Panegyrick, another a Satyre. And thô the lyght of Truth, & the appearance of God, be so cleer, as not to be concealed, yet this shall be as ineffectual, [Page 11]as to all influence on our Actions, as if they were dreames, a sensual man prefers Pleasure before his Honour; A vertuous man the contrary. So we judg [as we are affected] not as we should: our will doth not follow, but lead nay drag after it our Reason, & that with so sweet a violence, that it is not perceived without much labour, great attention, & strict search into the beginning, progresse, & end of our Actions. This is the root of all incohe­rent discourses, & illogical deductions of Passion, & interest or self-loue, which in many prevail over Truth, controul the incli­nations to good, & make men break all their dutys to God & their country, to Prince, frends, & Relations: & thô they see what is better, yet do the contrary. Video meliora proboque Dete­riora sequor.

This difficulty seemes invincible, when strengthned with the con­tent, which Proud Ring'eaders find in having their followers harts at a beck, & being esteemed by them, as Oracles: a satisfaction sayd St Francis Bacon as much aboue that of Tyrants, as mens souls are aboue their Bodys. In the whole black list of Heresiarks only two occur to my mind, who truly repented, viz, Eutichius Patri­ark of Constantinople, who denyed the Resurrection of the Flesh, & was converted by S. Gregory our Apostle, & Berengarius Pa­triark of the Sacramentarians Only these two to my remembrance dyed well, professing the tru Faith contrary to their several errours. Without doubt some, if not all, other Heresiarks were convinc'd of the vntruth of their doctrines, & were as the Apostle says [...] Condemned of themselves, or knowing that they deserved condemnation: & doubtlesse all felt those reproachs of conscience which follows all guilty Actions: yet Pride hardened their harts against all. Now what can work vpon these men in order to their Conversion? set before theyr eyes Truth? they know; but will not acknowledg it. Reproach vnto them their perfidious abandonning God, and his spouse the Church? the Holy Ghost doth it inwardly, & they slyght him. Threaten Hell, & damnation, to torrify them? [Page 12]They are self condemned, & yet are vnconcerned, this opposing known Truth, is a sin against the Holy ghost impossible to be for­given, because it is morally impossible to be repented. This is pro­ved by Reason, confirmed by experience & delivered by the Apostle. Which is to be vnderstood of Heresiarks, & such as school men call Formal Hereticks.

Yet I know many, & I hope most of those who liue in schism or Heresy do so, either by misfortune of their birth, or education, or by weakenesse of reason, or strength of Passion, or fear of punishment, or loue of goods of fortune; rather then hatred to the Church, or loue to Heresy: & therefore are not Formal Hereticks, or Schismaticks. Many followed Absalom to Hebron, without any design against their lawful Monark David; althô they were after engaged in the Rebellion. And many follow Heresiarks intending no evil; but hoping good from such as pretend nothing else [& who would hate these perfectly, if they knew their Hypocrisy or malice] who are insensibly engaged in the guilt of separation, which they strengthen with their presence. These (nether having the guilt of a sin against the Holy Ghost vpon their Conscience, nor their soul­hardned against the Call of God) we hope may be reclaimed: And a Conference severally to such, as these, may proue beneficial: Though not to the whole body of Separatists, vpon which the more factious heads will always haue too great an influence.

How fruitlesse of old were the Conferences of S. Peter with Simon the magician, of S. Athanasius with Arrius, of S. Austin with Felix, with Pascentianus, Felicianus, Emeritus, or the Arrians: of Lanfrancus with Berengarius, of S. Bernard with Peeter Abaylardus! what good came of the Conference of Catholicks & Hugonots at Poissy in France? Of those betwixt Catholicks & Lutherans in Germany? And that betwixt Protestants & Presbiterians at Hampton-court brought no good, althô directed by K. Iames, a learned, & wise Prince, to whom both Partys owed Obedience in Ecclesiastical matters, as to one whom both owned to be head of their Church.

With great reason then Tertullian Prescrip. c. 15.16.17. advises (out of the Apostles words, to Avoyd a Heretick after twice warning him) not to meet Hereticks, except only to Warn them. That much harm may be feared; but no good hoped for by Disputes with them. That we ought to presse them to declare, whence they had the scriptures. If from Catholicks [as most cer­tainly Protestants had] then they must from them also receiue the sense of scriptures. Thus he. Out of which it doth not follow, that Catholicks are bound to receiue the sense of scripture from the Iews, from whom they received the Holy scriptures, because those same Persons, who brought vs the scriptures from them, & proved their Mission from God, declared the blindnesse & Apostasy of the Iews, & warned vs, as from God the Authour of Scriptures, to be ware of them.

S Austin 13. cont. Faustum c. 12. is of the same mind, that all such Disputations are fruitless.

Hunnericus King of the wandals proposed a conference betwixt his Arrian Bishops, & those of the Catholick Communion. But Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in the name of all the rest rejected the Propo­sition, saying they could not accept it, without consent of other Bishops, cheïfely of him of Rome. Victor of Vtica lib. 2. de Persec. wandalicâ.

The Civil Law forbids all disputations L. Nemo C. de summa Trinitate. The same are forbidden to seculars, by the Canon law, C. Quicumque de Haereticis in 6.

For some particular reasons, without any prohibition from the Church, by common consent Catholicks refused to encounter some Hereticks. Such was Sisinnius, who because he had a pleasant drol­ling wit, would seeme victor by turning all discourse into ridicule when he had nothing substantial to reply. S. Austin when a Mani­chaean was avoyded for his singular skill in Logick. For a like rea­son (J beleiue) Christians were warned by the Apostle [Colos 2.8.] To beware of being deceived through Philosophy.

Yet we cannot, we dare not vniversally blame those who by Conferences, or Disputes endeavour to bring back straglers into the way of salvation. For Christ disputed with the Pharisees. S. Stephen with the Iews in Hierusalem: S, Paul & Apollo with the same else where: S. Hilarius with the Arrians. S. Austin with the Donatists, Manichaeans, & others. This Saint Epist. 48. Says Cum Here­ticis, verbis agendum est, disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum. Treate with Haereticks with words, fyght them with discourse, overcome them with reason.

Hence Divines do nether absolutely approue, nor absolutely con­demn such Conferences; but hold them law full on some conditions, in certain circumstances, which may be found in them.

This honourable man hints at two conditions, 1. that the Dis­putants on both sides be learned, & moderate 2. That They proceed freely & charitably. Which are good; but scarce sufficient. For 1. it is no easy matter amongst those who sincerely haue any Religion, to find such as are Moderate in his sense. And 2. even the most Moderate men may be so pinioned by jnstructions, from those who depute them, that their Personal Moderation will signify nothing: for they must follow their jnstructions, vnder pain of being disowned by their party, & left to make good their own Acts. Thus Melancthon, & Bucerus, who were esteemed Moderate, could effect nothing at the several meetings to which they were deputed.

The same I say of the 2. condition, debating Freely, & Charitably: which signifyes nothing vnlesse the whole Party 1. giue a full power to its deputyes without any reserue, & oblige it selfe to ratify, & approue what so ever shall be agreed on & consented to by them. And 2. would assuredly stand to that Power. Do we not see, that a separation is first resolved on, & errours sought out & alleadged only to colour it? Did not Luther laugh at the labour — in — vain of the Catholicks, who confuted his errours, saying that before they had dispacht the old ones, he would find them more worke, by broaching new? And how often are the same objections renewed, [Page 15]after a full & satisfactory answer? That, for example, of Pagan Idolatry, reproached to vs lately by E. S G. B. & R. C. but answered so home by T. G. & W. E. that it will be layd aside, till these are forgotten: & then we may expect to see some huffing minister thunder all the curses of scripture from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome, as guilty of the very Pagan Idolatry? Thus Trita haereticorum arma colligunt. Says S. Prosper, They take vp the broken weapons of their brethren. As some rivers pass vnperceived for some space vnder ground, & then rise again: so that, so other Objections against the Church. And if J am not mistaken in the Horoscope of this Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation, it will run the same fate, for while a loue of separation continues, these or some other pretexts will be vsed to excuse it.

Wherefore The only meanes to put a good end to all Disputes in Re­ligion, is to procure a sincere Loue of Peace, & mutual communion.

The differences, says this Lord, are not so many, nor so great, but meanes may be found to reconcile the two Churchs. I hope there may be meanes found, thó this grounds not my hope: for J do on the contrary aver that there never were any Hereticks of one denemi­nation, who haue erred in more, or more material points, then Protestants. For to say nothing of several, & all most all antiquated Heresyes received by them, they haue cut off all the vnwritten, & a great part of the written word of God: destroyed, or which is all one, confounded the Hierarchy of the Church: cast away fiue Sacraments, & deprived the other two of their efficacy, & reduced them to the condition of Iewish rites, to be Beggerly elements: de­nyed the vniversal redemption, banisht Free will, introduced stoick Fate: changed Hope into Presumption (a sin against the Holy Ghost) & so commended Faith, as to destroy charity: made good, & bad workes indifferent, by depriving those of merit, & these of offending God in his elect. &c. Besides many points of discipline, which thô lesse considerable, than those of Faith, yet are not to be [Page 16]neglected, which no Church of England man will deny seing he de­fends those retained in it against the Presbiterians. If these be Small points, what are Great? And if these be not Many, what Herēsy ever had many? It will not be enough to say, the Church of England doth not oblige her Children to beleiue all these: for shee ownes Communion with those, who do, & abetteth her children, when they reproach vs, with the contrary Truths.

But suppose there were but Few, but One difference, & that in­considerable in it self, yet if it causes a Schism, it destroys all hope of Salvation. Now what comfort is it to a wounded man, to tell him, he hath but one wound, & that not great, if that touch the hart, & is mortal? The Novatians, the Miletians, the Quarted ci mans, the Donatists, &c. were tru Schismaticks, & could not be saved altho each of them differred from Catholicks, but in one point, & that not of Faith; but of Ecclesiastical Discipline. And they were as obstinate in the defense of that one, as others in that of many great ones. The fewer, & lesse considerable the points are, betwixt vs, & the Protestants, the greater is their guilt in dividing Com­munion on that score.

All spiritual & temporal jurisdiction, the Authority of Prelate, & Prince, is derived from the same fountain, God. There is no power but of God, & the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Rom. 13.1. The same persons are subject to both (Let every soul be sub­ject to hygher Powers) And this out of the same principle of con­science. Who soever therefore resists the Power, resists the ordinance of God . . . . Wherefore ye must needes be subject not only for wrath; but also for conscience sake. The same motiues are alleaeged to excuse the Disobedience to both, Abuses in government, heavy & vn­necessary Impositions, greivances, &c. The same pretexts serue to make the Rebellious Actions against both plausible; Evangelical Liberty, Reformation, Reestablishment of ancient forme of Go­vernment, &c. Stubbor nesse in the Rebellious is covered with the same fig-leaues, Complaints of greivances not harkned to, petitions [Page 17]for Redresses vnregarded, humble Addresses not effectual. Alike Art vsed, to conceal a resolution never to be satisfyed, what ever Answer be returned: for if one request be granted, they will de­mand more: if denyed, than they perswade their followers, they are slyghted, that no good can be hoped from such persons, & that things must be redrest without them. Then they teach that all Power is derived (not from God, as the Apostle says) but from the People: that their superiours are only their Commissioners, & accountable to them, & these having abused their Power, may, nay ought to be devested of it. And so they proceed to change the establisht Government in Church & state: alleadging the Bible, as the Rule of their Actions against the Head of the Church, & ancient Statutes, those against the Prince, yet wresting both to their capricios; not framing these to those. In reality making all Government in Church & state subservient to their Interests. All which are written with a sun beame in the Hystorys of our civil wars in England, & those of the first Reformation in Germany, France, Scotland, & England too.

So chang in Church & state are begun with lamentations, & be­moanings of the People greived, & overcharged: carryed on with Humble Addresses & Petitions: & end in confusion & destruction.

Hence it appeares how dangerous it is for a Prince to counte­nance those Pretences to Liberty against the Prelate, with in his dominions. What is sawce for à goos, is sawce for a gander. Both hold their Authority, on the same renure: what strikes at one, wounds the other. That Principle which shakes the miter, endan­gers the Crown, who breakes the Crozier would crack the scepter: for both are made sacred by the same divine Ryght. Soe who dares oppose the one, is disposed to shake hands with his duty to the other: The differences betwixt them, being no other, but only, as of more, & lesse in the same kind.

2. Your care of not exposing your dear self to danger is lauda­ble, if that were so great, as to exceed that of Preists in England. [Page 18]But are Preists so safe in England & Ministers in such danger at Brussels? Did you blush, or smile, when you sayd, & printed this, at this time of day? Had you sayd it was vnsafe at Brussels, it myght haue past, & your Prudence commended: but J doubt whe­ther that comparison was Prudent. Look towards Tyburne or Tower-Hill, westminister Hall, or old Bayly: & then tell me whether it is so safe in England for Preists &c. Then cast your eye back on Brussels, & see whether in any corner of the town you discover such Tragical scenes. J grant, that some, nay many of the Ch. of Eng. Are so moderate as not to prosecute a Preist, though known to be such, & J beleiue you to be of the number. Yet this is no security for a Preist, when knowen, when any one more Zealous, or malicious may cause him to be apprehended, & brought to the Barr, where he shall vnavoydably be condemned. And what greater danger can hang over a minister in Madrid, or Rome it self, before the face of an Inquisitor?

God will in due time discover the Authours of such crueltys, as at certain Periods of time are exercised vpon Preists guilty of no crime, vnlesse Preisthood be one. I know the cheife Actors in the late Tragedy were as little freinds to the Hierarchy of the Ch. of Eng. (& to Monarchy too) as to that of Rome: & that those Cricum­cellions, or Cannibals intended to breakfast on vs, dine on the Protestant Clergy, & sup on the Royal Family. Yet those who loue the cause, do not hate the effect: & those who concurred to the ma­king, & oppose the repealing of the penal sanguinary laws, will not break their harts, with greife to se them at least some times executed.

But you cheered vp, having F. Darcy's hand & word, for your security. And now begins the dispute.

SECTION III.1. Little good from Conference. , • 2. Catholicks ready to comply in what they can. , and • 3. Communion of Infants how beleived anciently. 

1. D Morley sayd There could little fruit be expected from a Con­ference, when one side is resolved to remit nothing.

2. F. Darcy Answered they would not be so stiffe in all points: for the Church myght alter some thing in order to Christian Peace, in things of Ecclesiastical constitution: as v. c. The latin service, the Sacrament vnder one kind, & the celibate of Preists: thô not in things of Faith, such as is the Church's Jnfallibility.

3. D. Morley Replyed: If by the Church he meant all Christians in all places, it could not erre. If any particular Church, v. c. That of Rome, it could erre, & had erred, which he proved thus.

That Church, which formerly held as matter of Faith an errour, hath erred, & can erre But this is the case of the Church of Rome: There­fore it hath erred, and can erre.

To proue the minor, he inslanced in the Communion of Infants, be­leived to be necessary to salvation. For which he quoted Innocent 1. S. Austin, Binius, & Maldonate. This last says for six hundred yeares it was Dogma de Fide vniversalts Ecclesiae.

1. Revisor. you approved here, what J haue at larg proved aboue: little good from Conserences in matters of Religion can be expected. But you haue a sting in the end; when you reject all the fault, all the opposition of so great a good, as the Peace of the Ch. on vs. Who are resolved to remit nothing. A very vncharitable, & rash judg­ment. And vntru to boote, as appeares by F. Darcys reply & by that story which Protestants with great confidence relate in Q. Elisabeths time, viz, that the Pope offred to confirm all she had don in Church affayres, vpon condition she would acknowledg [Page 20]him. How can you say We will remit nothing, when your Brethren assure the Pope was ready to remit all? But it is your fashion, to say, & vnsay, as you think for your present purpose. Then it ser­ved your turn, that the Pope did not dislike your Reformation, to moue Catholicks to embrace it, & so you spread that report. Now it is to your purpose to throw the odium of the division on the Popes inflexibility: & so you report that. The tru, & only reason, that the schismatical Party is resolved never to rest satisfyed, with what is remitted. So the rebellious Part of the Parliament resolved never to be satisfyed with what soever answer the King gaue to their Addresses: & for that Reason we might say, all Treatys for peace betwixt the King & Parliament would proue ineffectual.

2. F. Darcys answer shews how desirous the Church is to restore Peace to Christendome, being ready, for so great a good, to remit of her Ryght in imposing ceremonys, & making Canons. In Faith she can change nothing, that belongs to a higher Tribunal, she receiues it from her spouse, in the nature of a Depositum, (1. Tim 6.20.) which must not be altred. But Ecclesiastical Discipline, being lef to her determination, & of her own appointement, she may change, & as the Father sayd, will change, if by that meanes she could restore to the sheep-fold of Christ, all his strayed sheep. This is more than the Ch. of Engl. will do: seing to reclaime her vndutiful children she will not omit the signe of the Crosse in Baptism, kneeling at the Sa­crament, & bowing to the Altar, all ceremonys of humane jnsti­tution, & her own injunction. Nay she would not alter some words in her Lyturgy, to purchase Peace.

3. If the Church diffusivè, that is all Christians in all places can­not erre, wo be to the first Protestants, whose sentiments in matters of Faith were as contrary to those of all Christians in all places, as to those of the Roman Church, except that one point of Papal Power. So if all Christians did not, & cannot erre, the first Protestants did erre; & all their followers doe erre, & will erre, as long as they retain those sentiments: for what is an errour to day, will be [Page 21]such to morrow, & to the end of the world.

As to the Communion of Infants: J acknowledg, that for a long time when Baptism was administred solemnly by Bishops to men grown vp, [Adultis] two other Sacraments were administred with it Confirmation, & the Eucharist. That when it was administred by Preists, they were ordred to anoint the baptised person not on the forehead; but on the crowne. That when Infants were bapti­sed, because the Sacrament could not without danger, be administred to them vnder the species of Bread alone, it was giuen vnder the other species, the Preist dipping his finger into the Holy Chalice, gaue it them to suck or a litle particle of the species of Bread soaked in the consecrated wine was layd on their tongue. That the Communion was giuen to Infants out of an opinion, that it was necessary to salvation grounded on those words of Christ Ioan. 6. Vnlesse ye eate the Body . . . . you haue no life in you. I grant also that some, & haply many in some private Churchs beleived that to be the litteral meaning of those words, & thought consequently that sense was De fide, a point of Faith. Yet I deny, that the vniversal Church did erre in declarations, or definitions of Faith: for indeed she never made any definition in this matter. That Text was ex­posed with the rest of Holy writ to the view of all Christians, & left to the interpretation of ordinary Pastors, as the rest was. Many vnderstood it litterally, & for that reason extended to Infants the Communion in Baptism ordained to men enjoying the vse of Rea­son. The Church seing no pressing inconvenience in this custome, & consequently no necessity to make a severe examen of the mea­ning of those words, & a censure of an jnnocent errour, permits them to go on, without interposing her Authority, or by any le­gal definition obliging her children to beleiue either the one, or the other part. And I doubt not, but there are several other texts of scripture commonly vnderstood one way, & that thought to be the litteral meaning, & tru sense, & followed as such, & some nay many, may beleiue that sense to be De fide, & the Church [Page 22]permits them to beleiue, & practice so, [not seing any necessity to call a General Council to decide it, the errour being nether des­tructiue to necessary Faith, nor good manners] & yet this sense may be different from that the Holy Ghost cherfly intended by those texts: & all this without any prejudice to the Church of Rome's in­fallibility, which never declared any thing in it. Such I think is the common way of explicating Anti Christ to be one single man: & the three yeares & a halfe, to be litterally vnderstood, for forty two months vulgar. From alike occasion the error of the Chiliasts, or Millenarians had its rise, & progresse: which was not condemned, till its Abettars, grew troublesome to those, who differed from them in the exposition of those words, Apoc. 20.4. on which they groun­ded their error.

Hence it so lows that what Maldonate says makes nothing against the Churchs infallibility in defining things of Faith, for he nether says, nor could say with truth, that she ever defined any thing in this matter. And the practice it self of communicating Infants can­not be proved to be vniversal, or in vse in the Roman Church. Some think the Pelagians introduced that custome: & that S. Austin proues thence the necessity of Baptism argumento ad hominem By a reason drawn from their own sentiments. The same I say of Binius, & S. Austin: for both speake of the practice which they found, without citing any publick decree, for indeed there was none ever made, even by Innocent I. whom you cite. For the place you mean is in his answer to a letter written to him by the Fathers of the Council of Milevis in Africa, which had condemned Pelagius & Ce­lestius, who taught there was no need of the grace of God to keep the commandments, & that children myght be saved without Baptism. Innocent approves their decrees: & proves none can be sa­ved without Baptism, because none can be saved Without eating the Body, & drinking the Bloud of Christ. And he addes: Qui vitam ijs sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare cùm praedicant hos habere, quod in eos creditur nonnisi baptismate con­ferendum. [Page 23]Those, who hold they (the children) may be saved without being regenerated, seeme to me, to take away Baptism it self, teaching that they haue without it, what we beleiue is not giuen but by Baptism. Thus he; which words are cited by S. Austin l. 2. cont duas Ep. Pelag. c. 4. so what explicates one will serue the other, both saying the same thing.

Where it is certain, that he thinks a Participation of the Body & Bloud of Christ necessary to salvation. Now whether he meanes a real, & sacramental Participation, by receiving the Sacrament; or only a mystical, or spiritual Participation, which both you & we beleiue is attained by the Sacrament of Baptism, & is the constant doctrine of the Church to this day, seemes not so evident. You say he meanes the first; I say, the second, & this is my reason: He doth not speake of the participation by Communion, or the Eucharist; but of that by Baptism: for he doth not say: Cum Baptismate con­ferendum, as if some thing different from Baptism, & administred with it, were the medium of that Participation; but Baptismate con­ferendum, as if Baptism, were the sole cause or meanes, of that Participation. Now the participation of Christ's body by Baptism, is mystical, & not sacramental. Therefore he speakes of the mystical Participation of Christ's Body, & averres that to be necessary to salvation. Which both you, & I; both Protestants & Papists do ad­mit for tru, & Catholick doctrine. How can you then hence inferre, that the Church hath erred, & may erre? This is my first answer.

A second is, that he & S. Austin speake of participation of the Body & Bloud of Christ, In voto, in desire, which all haue, & are bound to haue, when they are baptized . . . . A third is, that in de­crees of Faith, or doctrinal, we make a great difference betwixt what is Ex professo, & directly treated, discussed, & defined, & such other things, as are only accidentally mentioned. Infallibility in the later points, is by vs esteemed a Priviledge reserved to the writers of Holy scripture, & not pretended to even by general councils: we make likewise a great difference betwixt a decree, & [Page 24]a reason for making the decree, & on which it is grounded. For example: in the 7. general Council, it is said, that Angels may be painted, because they haue bodys. We think our selves oblid­ged to beleiue Angels may be painted: but not that they haue Bodys: for our Divines commonly teach the contrary. Now to your ob­jection, J answer, that Innocent mentions only accidentally that point of Infants Communion, & intends by it, only to proue that Baptism is necessary to salvation. So the real Communion is not held by vs, a decree of Faith.

Thus I haue once again broken that weapon which you brandish a new, althô you know it had been broken in Viscount Falkland's hand, whence you took it.

SECTION IV.1. No possibility of salvation in schisme. , • 2. Protestants truly Schismaticks. , • 3. Catholicks hold their salvation desperate. , and • 4. A paralel betwixt Protestants, & Donatists. 

D. Morley, The Iesuit sayd, that doubless it was more prudent, & safe, to venture a man's self in that Church where in all agree, he may besaved; than in one where in all Catholicks say a man cannot be saved. The Doctor replyed: it was rather the vsual saying, than the setled jugdment of all Catholicks: for F. knot says the case may be such that a Protestant, dying such, may be saved; which is as much as Pro­testants grant to Papists. And then it would out of this reason follow, it were more safe to be of the Donatists perswasion, than a Catholick: for S. Austin granted that a Donatist could be saved; where as the Do­natists did affirm, that who soever was not a Donatist could not besaved.

Revisor. all the substance of what J will here say is contained in this syllongisme: None out of the true Church of Christ & a schismatick, can be saved. The Protestants are out of the tru Church of Christ or schismaticks. Therefore they cannot be saved.

The first Proposition or Major, that none can be saved out of the tru Church of Christ, is so cleere in scripture, in Fathers, & even in Hereticks themselues, that all must see it, who do not wilfully shut their eyes. My first Proofe, the Church is the Body of Christ. Colos. 1.24. For his (Christ's) Body which is the Church. Vpon which words S. Austin discourses thus 1. lib. Cont. Epistolam Petiliani Donat. c. 2. Vnde manifestum est eum, qui non est in membris Christi, Christi­anam salutem habere non posse. Membra vero Christi per vnitatis chari­tatem sibi copulantur, & per candem capiti suo cohaerent, quod est Christus Iesus. Hence it is evident, that who is not part of Christ's body cannot attain to Christian salvation. And those are in Christs body, who are linked together, & to their head with the loue of vnion. And in his 19. Chapter. Ad salutem, & vitam aeternam nemo pervenit, nisi qui habet caput Christum. Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit, nisi qui in eius corpore fuerit, quod est Ecclesia. No man can be saved, vnlesse Christ be his Head. But Christ can be head to no man, who is out of his Body, which is the Church.

My 2. proofe Rom. 8.9. If any man haue not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. S. Austin alluding to these words, tract. 27. in Ioan says: Christi spiritus neminem animat, qui non sit de corpore eius. Christs spirit doth quicken none but such as are in his Body that is in the Church.

3. Proofe: It seemes the express words of Christ Ioan. 15.6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, & is withered, & men gather them, & cast them into the fire, & they are burnt. This is the doom of such as abandon Christ's Body, which is the Church, according to the expresse words of the Apostle Colos. 1.24.

4. Proofe out of Fathers. S. Austin, l. 4. de Bapt. cont. Donat. C. 1. having sayd, that the rivers which risse in Paradise watred [Page 26] Mesopotamia & Aegipt, thô these countryes were not partakers of the happinesse of Paradise: so Baptism may be had out of the Church; yet could not conveigh eternal Blis but to those who are within It, which hath received the keys to bind, & loose. And lib. cont. Faustum manich. 12. C. 17. Praeter arcam omnis caro, &c. Out of the Ark all creatures living on the Earth were destroyed by the deluge, because out of the Communion of the Church, the water of Bap­tism, althô it be the same, out, as in the Church; yet it avayles not to salvation; but rather to ruin.

S. Cyprian hath a long treatise against Schismaticks. In it he says, they are the work of the devil, who finding his Temples abandoned, his Altars overturned, his sacrifices contemned, his rites slyghted, & his kingdom destroyed by the conversion of the world to Christi­anity, with design to recover his interest on Earth, introduced Schismes, & multiplyed Schismaticks. And what opinion he S. Cy­prian had of them take in these words: Can he retain his Faith, who dos not retain the Communion of the Church? & can any man hope to be in the Church, who resists it? who abandons the Chair of Peter, vpon which the Church is built? whosoever leaving the Church, cleanes to the Harlot, forgoes all promises made to the Church, he becomes a stranger, a prophane man, & an enemy. God is not a Father to him, who ownes not the Church his mother. And he assures that nether Faith, nor working of miracles, nor knowledg of mysteryes, not martyrdom it self, can entitle a man to eternal life, who dyes in a Schism, that is out of the Communion of the Church.

To be short, see what the Fathers say severally against the Me­letians, the Quarto decimans, the Novatians, the Donatists, & others. With what fervour they plead the necessity of Communion with the Church: & with what horror they reject the crime of Schism which some think the greatest of crimes.

My 5. proofe is, Remission of sins is necessary to attain Hea­ven. That is not to be found but in the Church. Wherefore in the Creed, after the Article of the Holy Catholick Church, two others [Page 27]are added: the Communion of Saints, & Remission of Sins, as being sequels of, & dependants on that other. Which is Calvin's Re­flection.

My 6. Proofe is from the Testimony of such as were actual Schismaticks themselves. Calvin l. 4. Instit. C. 1. S. 4. says: Dis­camus ex hoc vno matris Elogio quam vtilis sit nobis Eccesiae Communio, imo necessaria: quando non alius est ad vitam ingressus, nisi nos ipsa concipiat in vtero, nisi pariat, nisi nos alat suis vberibus, denique sub custodiâ, & gubernatione nos teneat, donec exuti carne mortali, similes erimus Angelis . . . . Adde quod extra eius gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec vlla salus. The Church is our Mother: out of which title wee may learne how vsefull, nay how necessary is our Commu­nion with her: seing there is no possibility of attaining to life vnlesse shee conceiues vs in her wombe, brings vs forth, suckles vs with her breasts, protect, & defends vs till leaving this mortal life, we become like vnto Angels . . . . Out of her bosome no hopes of Remission of Sins, nor of salvation. Whence he concludes: Semper exitialis est ab Ecclesiâ discessio. It is always damnable to depart from the Church. Thus this grand sower of Schismes, the greatest Enemy to Church Commu­nion, that ever was: whose furious spirit communicated with his writings hath caused more discords, Schismes, Seditions, Rebelli­ons & Murthers, than all other sects together: His followers some­times wanting Power; but never the will to introduce those plagues their ordinary Attendants.

How odjous this sin is, appeares by the industry all Hereticks vse, to remoue it from themselves, & charge it on the Catholicks: as knowing it to be of so deformed a nature that nothing can ex­cuse it: & the stain it leaues of soo deep a dye, that a floud of Teares cannot wash it out. Thus much to proue the major, or first Proposition I passe now to the minor, or second.

2. That Protestants are out of the tru Church, the body of Christ, & tru Schismaticks is evident. Luther, their Pratriarck renounced all Communion with the Roman Church: & nether before, nor after [Page 28]communicated with any Church, even Schismatick. So he separated, when he began to Dogmatize from all Christians living, for he had not gotten followers, & consequently had not framed them into a Church. Wherefore if ever any one was a Schismatick, he was one. Such were likewise those who joyned with him in that sinfull separation. And he, and they continued such, till their dying day, even when framed into a Congregation: for Non firmatur tractu temporis, quod ab initio de jure non subsistit Reg. Iuris. Processe of time cannot make an Action legal, which from the beginning is contrary to law. Perseverance in sin is a circumstance, which aggravates it: & it is a Paradox to say, that a hainous crime should cease to be such, for being long continued: as if the devil could become a saint, by being obstinate in his wickedness. A new way to sanctity, vnknown to ancients. So my minor is vndeniable.

So then the first Protestant made a tru Schism: those, who joined in Communion with him, joined in a tru Schisme: & those, who continu in it, are in a tru Schisme, & tru Schismaticks. So The guilt of Schisme, (a sin of the first magnitude) lyes at the Protestanes doore: they are [Say Papists] If they liue & dye Protestants, with out hopes of salvation, as living & dying in a greivous mortal sin. Which is the conclusion of that syllogisme.

You say 1. that we forced you vpon the Separation by imposing vpon our Communion vnlawfull conditions. Which is Gratis dictum, sayd without any sufficient proofe: for no one point of our faith was ever proved false by you, we having much stronger grounds, for, than you again it. So the most you can draw from your rea­sons is that our doctrine is not absolutely certain: whereas nothing can excuse your Schisme, but an absolute total certainty, that the thing is naught, which we enjoine. v. c. Prayers to Saints: because you ran in to Schisme, to avoyd a thing, which you know not certainly whether it be good, or bad. Nay you haue much greater reason to judge good, than otherwise, 1. for the authority of the past, & present Church practising it: & 2. because you rather [Page 29]reproach vs with indiscreet speeches of pious men, or some pra­ctice of silly women, then with the doctrine of the Church, defi­ned in our Councils. Which shews you haue little to say against our Church doctrine, which is the only thing we enjoin. So you are inexcusable.

Indeed these reproaches of errours are not the cause; but the effect of your separation. For out of loue to dear lyberty, you re­solved to renounce all subjection to Christ's vicar vpon earth: then to secure this, you resolved to separate from his Communion by a Schisme; to justify this Schisme, these pretexts were invented. And by a just judgment of God the disobedient children of your Church, haue meeted you the same mesure & framed in your bosome another Schisme on the same pretences.

You say 2. Our excommunicating you was the cause of the Schisme: so the causal Schisme is on our side. But this is far from satisfiying any thinking man, who calls to mind, that you had forced the excommunication by precedent & justifyed it by subsequent crimes. Before any sentence was pronounced against you, you had broke the interiour Communion with the Church, by altering Faith, & the ex­teriour Communion, by renouncing obedience to the Head of the Church; so the Excommunication was subsequent to the Schisme: & what did the Reformation begun before, but perfected after that clap of thunder? Erection of one Altar against another, or rather destruction of all Altars: profanation of Churchs, robbery of all sacred vessels, & ornaments, pursuing with fire & sword these who for conscience sake remained in the Catholick Communion. Now what hopes of salvation left? None vnlesse Schism, sacriledge, ra­pine, CALVMNY, PERIVRY, MVRTHER, & Heresy, be ve­nial sins, & though vnrepented, leaue hopes of salvation? For the guilt of all these, & many more ye haue contracted, since your separation from the center of Ecclesiastical Communion. So your debt contracted by the separation is great: but your following de­meanour hath enflamed your reckoning to a prodigious summe, not [Page 30]to be discharged with any ordinary satisfaction: & which is yet encreased by a pretence to jnnocency, & a resolution to justify all these crying sins.

I acknowledge with S. Austin l. 6. de verâ Relig. C. 6. that some jnnocent persons by Ecclesiastical censures may be cast out of the exteriour Communion of the Church: that De facto, this hath hap­ned to some: that such Persons interiourly retaine the Communion with the faithfull provided they containe themselves Intra limites inculpatae tutelae, do nothing vnlawfull, beare their crosse patiently, invent no errours, practice nothing for revenge, attempt not to break open the Church dores, to force a readmittance, nor barre them vp, to hinder it: do not endeavour to withdraw others from the Church, to encrease the number of separatists, & make them­selves considerable, by becoming heads of a Party. Giue me such a man, & thô he seeme to liue, & dye in a Schisme, J shall hope for his salvation, with S. Austin. Whose words are these: Sinit diuina providentia per nonnullas nimium turbulentas carnalium hominum sedi­ditiones, expelli de Congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros, quam contumeliam, vel iniuriam suam, cum patientissimè pro Ecclesiae pace tu­lerint, neque vllas novitates vel schismatis, vel haeresis moliti fuerint: docebunt homines quam vero affectu & quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit. Talium ergo virorum propositum est, aut sedatis remeare turbinibus, aut si id non sinantur, vel câdem tempestate perseverante, vel ne de suo reditu talis, aut gravior oriatur, tenent voluntatem con­sulendi etiam ijs ipsis, quorum motibus, perturbationibusque cesserunt, sine vllâ conventiculorum segregatione, vsque ad mortem defendentes, & testimomio iuvantes eam Fidem, quam in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ praedicari sciunt. Hos coronat in occulto Pater, in occulto videns. Thus S. Austin: divine providence some times permits that even good men are by turbulent spirits cast out of the Church: who if they beare patiently this disgrace, & wrong, for the Peace of the Church, without endeavouring to frame a Shisme, or broach Heresyes, they will by their example teach men, with what sincere charity they ought to serue God. Such men intend ether to [Page 31]return to the Church, when the storme is blown over, or if they can­not return, ether because the stormes ceases not, or to prevent another storm continue quietly, without gathering conventicles, defending to their Power that Faith, which they know is taught in the Church. Such as these are crowned in secret, by the Father, who seeth in secret.

How many are there of your Party, who haue thus peaceably demeaned themselves? I meane of the more conspicuous & gover­ning, or leading part?

Vix totidem, quot
Thebarum Portae vel divitis ostia nili.

Scarce as many, as the Muses, or even the Graces. Soe the number, that on this score can pretend to salvation, is very inconsiderable. For the rest, how different is their proceeding from the others, of whom S. Austin hopes well? these beare the wrong done to them patiently for the loue of peace of the Church, you by tongue & pen, & hands shew your Passion. These introduces no noveltys, & cause no Schismes, or Heresyes; you do the contrary. These desire, to return to the Church, the storme being over; you raise new stor­mes, & endeavour to perpetuate the separation. These defend the Faith preacht in the Church; you impugn it. Those loue Peace; you hate it, & persecute all promoters of it. These are guilty of no crime, which may deserue the Churchs censure; you haue pro­voked the Heads of the Church, to inflict on you such a punish­ment. These are ready to vndergo any Penalty, without deserving it, you deserue it, & will vndergo none. Jn fine these are jnnocent; you guilty, & guilty of a great crime, & aggravate it, by glorying in it, Peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicaverunt. So we must con­clude, that their example serves not to justify, but to condemne you, who differ so much from them, & therefore thô we grant with that great saint, that There is life in the way of these; yet your way leads to Death.

3. Wherefore it is both an Vsual saying, & a Setled judgment of Ca­tholicks, that Protestants remaining such, cannot be saved. Because that name imports two greivous sins: Schisme, by separation from [Page 32]the Communion of the Church, & Heresy, by beleiving errours contrary to Faith. Which two sins taken severally, or together; make vs despayr of their salvation.

You pretend, Protestants will say the like of Papists. I reply, it may be so: but haue they such strong grounds, for that saying, as Catholicks haue. Jn 1642. the Factious part of the Parliament did vie with the loyal & peaceable party in verbal expressions of Duty & Allegiance to their soverain. But on the one side were only words; & reality on the other: & it was J think not necessary, to cast a figure, to discerne which side only pretended Allegiance; but intended the contrary. And it is as visible, whether side in Religion aimes at Peace, & maintaines the ancient Faith, & which inno­vates, the wordes of both partys being vncyp hered by their acti­ons, the best interpreters of them.

Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remaines in force, that it is safer to joine with the Catholicks, than with the Protestants (as it was safer to avoyd Treason, to joine with the king, than with the Par­liament) there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholick Church: & two great sins, Schism, & Heresy, in joining with the Protestants.

You say, that this Reason would proue, that in S. Austin's time it was safer to joine with the Donatists, than with the Catholicks, seing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved; & the Do­natists denyed that possibility to the Catholicks. Answer: you are here grossely mistaken [pardon that word] for S. Austin never sayd a Donatist remaining such Could be saved; nay a great part of his workes against them is employed to proue, that they cannot be sa­ved, that their Baptism avayles them nothing, but serues for their greater damnation. Let me beseech you, only to open any leafe, any page, of the several bookes written against them, there is none, which will not correct that mistake. What you should say is, only, that both sides owned tru Baptism amongst the Donatists; which these denyed amongst Catholicks. Which argument the Do­natists [Page 33]not only myght; but did make vse of, to pervert Catholicks, as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 3. & l. 2. cont. Petilianum, c. 108. & else where.

To this I answer, that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catho­lick is of no force, he having no good ground at all for that rea­son to rely on, & therefore denying Baptisme in the Catholick Church, only out of a peevishnesse of nature, & Religion: & it was by them sayd with no more cause, than Quakers had to say: Thou art dam­ned, when they had nothing else to say. Where as Catholicks proue that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason, drawn from those two crying sins, Schisme, & Heresy, of which we accuse the Protes­tants, & these do not, nay cannot sufficiently cleere. I haue all ready explicated these reasons. That those of the Donatists were frivolous, is evident, for they sayd: some Bishops of the Catholick Communion were Traditores, had delivered the sacred bookes to the Persecutors, & that all Catholicks by communicating with them, did contract the same guilt, & had lost the Holy Ghost. And hence they inferred, there could be no valid Baptisme in the Catholick Communion: for those who haue not the Holy Ghost, cannot give him to others.

To which the Catholicks answered, 1. that those Bishops accused of that shamefull compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians, were jnnocent of that crime, which was never suffici­ently proved vpon them: & no man ought to be condemned vn­lesse the crime be evidently proved against him.

2. They answered, that althô the persons accused were really guil­ty, yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholicks com­municating with them: because another man's sin cannot prejudice me, vnlesse J make it my own by commanding, or perswading, approving, defending, or imitating it. Now the Catholicks were so far from being accessory to that pretended sin in another, that they detested the sin, & always condemned it, in all persons, who were really guilty of it: but never could find sufficient grounds to pro­nounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it, as those would haue them doe.

They answered 3. that supposing (not granting) that the Per­sons accused were really guilty, & that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholicks, by communicating with them: yet their Baptism myght be valid, this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister, but on the justitution, & promises of Christ, & the ope­ration of the Holy Ghost. Hence S. Austin sayd he did not regard Peter when he Baptizes, nor Paul, nor Iohn, nor Iudas; but he con­sidered the Holy Ghost, who is the Baptist, who ever he be who was­hes the body, & pronounces the words, as Minister of that Sacrament.

You se how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were, to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholick Church. Shew that ours are as frivolous, & J will grant the parity: but this you can never doe. So our Reason stands good against you; that of the Donatists against vs falls to the ground.

It seemes not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists, there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churchs, that they may seem sisters, & the later to haue copyed the other: which appeares by these paralel points.

1. Donatists were no where out of one corner of the world, Africa: & Protestants of the Church of Eng. [that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine, & Hierarchy] no where out of England.

2. Donatists sayd theirs was the only perfect, vnspotted Church; you say yours is the only Apostolical Church, perfectly reformed &c.

3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pre­tended faults of particular men: you to justify yours alleadg some indiscreet devotions of old women, and vnwary words of some (otherwise) pious Authours.

4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture, which you vse against vs; And the Fathers proved against them the Vniversality of the Church, & the necessity of Communion with her, out of the same texts, which we vse against you.

5. Donatists called Rome the seat, or Chair of pestilence; you call it a Pest-house, [letter to her R. H. P. 17.] & the seat of Antichrist.

6. Those had their Circumcellions, who thought to do God good service, in murthering Catholicks: you haue some of the same per­swasion, as appeares by their workes. Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions, & the new ones: Those, when the toy took them, would ether break their own necks, or force others to cut their throates; & the new ones in this do not imitate them, they loue too much their mothers sons.

7. Those had the Maximianists, who left them for the same rea­sons, they had broken off Communion with the Church, these haue the Presbiterians, & others, who will not conforme with them vpon the same grounds, for which they refuse to conform to the Ca­tholick Church.

8. And lastly: the Non-conformist donatists made evident to the world, that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholick Communion, by forcing them to solue their owne Objections against the Church, [of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract. C. 35.] And your Non conformists with the same successe force you to answer all your pretences against vs, & breake those weapons, with which you haue hitherto fought against the Church.

Those who will take the paines to examin further the Donatists principles, will discover more points of agreement betwixt them, & you. These are sufficient to shew, that what is now hath been before, & will be: & that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith, & ways of defending it; so Factious spirits, & seditious Brethren break her Communion, turn Schismaticks, broach Heresyes, & impugn her, & defend themselves, with the same principles.

I am now arrived at the end of this real, or pretended Conference, without omitting any one material point of it. I hope I haue given reasonable satisfaction; of which others will judge more im­partially, then my selfe, if I am mistaken, by judging too favou­rably of my owne labours, & my replyes be found vnsatisfactory, J desire that defect be charged on my weakenesse; not on the cause, [Page 36]I defend, which is invincible, being secured by the promise of Christ from all possibility of errour, for Against it the gates of Hell shall never prevayle. I haue given a reason in the preface, why I take no notice of the Father's answers, as they are couched in this Relation. My intention is only to defend the Church, from the Ob­jections of the Learned Doctor. To which it is enough, to shew, (as I think I haue don) that his Premisses are false, his Jllations incoherent, & his whole discourse not convincing. Thus Wisdome is justified of her children. Mat. 11.19.



I Never began to read any Treatise with greater Horrour, nor ended, with greater Indignation, than this, which J now come to review. Horrour, to see doubts of divine Doctrine submitted to the depositions of facultys com­mon to Beasts, a jury of the Senses impanelled to de­cide controversys of Faith, & set on a throne, to judge the judg of the world, & determine the meaning of the words of eternal Truth, of divine veracity, althô they are vncapable of vnderstanding the words of the meanest vnderstanding, & most illiterate Pesant. I expect shortly to see some other appeal to Beasts seing many of [Page 37]the better sort of these surpasse man, as to quicknesse of Senses, which in them are much more perfect, then in most, if not al men: & therefore may be sayd to be more competent judges of the objects of Senses, then men can be. Indeed Seducers proficiunt in peius, wax worse, & worse, 2. Tim. 2.13. & it is not so great a step from the Senses of men, to those of Beasts, (which are of the same Species, & are rather more, than lesse perfect in their kind J as it is from the Church directed by the Holy Ghost, for our jnstruction in Faith, to Carnal senses: That having something of divine, by rea­son of the Holy Ghost assisting; these being meere Corporal, & be­low all that hath any thing of Reason. A fit judge indeed for such a Church, as the Protestant is!

My horrour changed into Indignation, when I heard the Verdict brought in by this Iury, the Sentence pronounced by this Vmpire, this Brutish judge [yet from such a Iudg little lesse could be hoped for, in such a matter] by which, the Scripture is silenced, Tradition trampled vnder foot, Fathers rejected, the Practice & Faith of the whole Catholick Church condemned, the Communion with all Faith full, all the Catholick Church renounced, & a horrid & exe­crable Schisme authorized, And all this vpon the deposition of so vile a witnesse, & by the Sentence of so contemptible a judg, as Carnal sense. And this Sentence accepted of, recommended by a le­arned Doctor of divinity, & a pretended Ryght Reverend Bishop. Is Christianity, is Divine Faith brought to this?

Yet J find one sign of Modesty (vnlesse it were rather Cunning, & craftinesse in adorning the stage for this piece of Pageantry, & disposing for this extravagant judgment) that there is ether no mention at all, of the grounds of Catholick Faith in this treatise: or else it is so silent, & low a mention, that it is scarce perceptible. For had you set before the eyes of your Readers, the practice of the Church, the Testimonys of Fathers, the decrees of councils, the written, & vnwritten word of God, in fine the vnanimous vote of the primitiue & present Church, averring that to be Christs Body [Page 38]& Bloud, the Readers would not haue heard the sentence of this mock judg, would haue pulled him off the Bench, & forced him to yeild the victory to Truth. For if we Must pull out our eye if it scandalize vs: we must shut our eyes, stop our cares, renounce all our Senses, when thy contradict God's expresse word. But if by this you made sure of such a sentence, as you wisht, you discovered the vnjustice of it, by not admitting the plea of the contrary party. For, qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ, aequum licet statuerit, hand aequus fuit.

This argument is not of the Doctors invention, it is as old, as the Sacramentarian Heresy. Berengarius vsed it, so did Zuinglius, & Calvin, & F. Stillingfleet, & G. Burnet. And the answer is as com­mon. To confute this Treatise it were enough to reprint the 33. Chapter of Anti-Haman: so no new reply is necessary. Yet least he think himself neglected, I will review what he says.

SECTION V.1. Ancient Fathers re'yed not on sense. , • 2. S. Paul teaches the senses are not to be relyed on. , and • 3. Reason convinces the same. 

SEnses no competent judges in this Controversy. Are not our Senses the same now, as they were a thousand or sixteen hun­dred yeares ago? Are their objects changed? Are not the sensations they cause the same now as then? Did not Bread tast like Bread, & wine like wine than, as well as now? Are not their colour, & odour the same at all times? And had not men then as much reason to rely on their Senses, in framing a judgment of their objects, as now? Sure they had. Now what judgments did Ancients frame of this object, in debate? Let S. Cyril of Hierusalem speak for all the rest. [Page 39] Althô it seemes to be Bread, yet it is not Bread: Althô it seemes to be wine, yet it is not wine. Thus this great saint, & ancient Father, delivering Christian Doctrine in a Catechisme. So this is not his private sentiment; but that of the Church, not things of his own invention; but of publick Tradition. Till then Christians retained a sincere, & entire veneration for the word of God; they harkned indeed to Senses; but more to God: & when these two interfered, one saying That is Christ's Body, the other it is not such, It is Bread, they did not hesitate which to follow, they easily resolved, pro­nounced in favour of Faith, & subscribed to the son of God, Who had words of life, even life everlasting. Io. 6.69.

Animalis homo non percivit ca quae sunt spiritus Dei, &c. says the Apostle, 1. Cor. 2.14. The natural man, as your Translation hath­it, Receiues not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolish­nesse vnto him: nether can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Thus the Holy Apostle is not Faith one thing of the spirit of God? Is it not of Faith [or revealed Truth preached by the Apostle] that he speakes in that place? Now if Faith be aboue the reach of the whole Natural man, how comes it to be below Senses, which are his lowest facultyes? Just as if what the Apostle says is over my head, you should say is vnder my feet. But why doth not the Natural man receiue Faith? Because It is foolishnesse vnto him. And just such is Transubstantiation to you, & therefore is laught at by you, the other reason is convincing: He cannot receiue Faith, Becaus it is spiritually discerned. Are Senses spiritual facultyes? can they Spiritually discern? If not [as certainly they cannot] pull them off the throne, on which you placed them, of which they are vnworthy as being vncapable of discerning the thing in question, which is of The spirit of God, spiritual, & discerned only spiritually.

No lesse; but rather more evident are the words of the same Apostle, 2. Cor. 10.4. The weapons of our warfare, says he, are not carnal; but myghty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, & every hygh thing, that exalteth it selfe [Page 40]against the knowledge of God: & bringing into captivity every Thought to the obedience of Christ . . . . do ye look on things after the outward appearance? Thus your own Translation Which words decide the thing in question: For first it is evident he speakes of the Doctrine he preacht, which is Faith. And in the first place he cleerely dis­cards outward Senses from any share in this judgment? The wea­pons of our warfare are not carnal: now Senses are Carnal, as is cleere.

2. He rejects inward Senses: Casting down all jmaginations.

3. He teaches that our vnderstanding must also be subject. Brin­ging into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

Thus according to the Apostle, all facultys of soul & body, spiritual, & carnal, interiour, & exteriour, must vayle bonnet to Faith, which is termed Myghty through God. The last question, Do ye look on things according to their out ward appearance? Is a conclu­sion of the foregoing discourse, & cuts all the nerves of the Doctors argument. Which is totally grounded Vpon out ward appearance to carnal sense. Let vs apply the Apostles meaning to our present pur­pose, by some few questions.

What will you say that is, on the Holy Altar Mr. Dr? Answer: Bread & wine. But why do you think it to be bread & wine? An­swer: wee looke on the out ward appearance, & judge of the thing after that.

You know, sir, that the Catholick Church all over the wor'd, even Luther himself, beleived it to be the Body & Bloud of Christ: with what weapons do you combat their opinion? Answer: The wea­pons we fyght with, are Carnel; they are the senses.

Now let vs propose such questions to a Catholick. What do you beleiue that to be, which is on the Altar? Answer: the tru Body & Bloud of Christ.

But why do you beleiue it to be the Body & Bloud of Christ? Answer: Because Christ says it is so: & the Church teaches me, his words are so to be vnderstood.

Doth it appear to be the Body & Bloud of Christ? Answer: no. But We look not on things after the out ward appearance, when that [Page 41]is not conformable to the word of God, delivered to vs by the Church.

With what weapons do you combat the contrary errour? Answer: The weapons we vse Are not carnal sense; But myghty through God, to destroy all jmaginations, & beate downe all thoughts which are raysed in vs in opposition to the divine, & revealed truth.

3. If we consult Reason in this debate, we shall see, that Senses ought not to be admitted as judges, it being absolutely impossible, they should vnderstand the matter in question: & therefore cannot possibly pronounce sentence, on ether side. For what is the question? What is the meaning of those words: of our Blessed saviour: This is my Body: this is my Bloud: for I suppose your jmpiety is not ar­rived to that heygth, as to deny his words to be tru: or say, you would not beleiue any thing to be, what he plainly, & vndeniably says it is. That is, you do not beleiue that God doth, or can tell a Lye. Otherwise farewell all Faith: & we must make vse of other Mediums to deale with you. Our dispute then being about the sense of those words of Christ, J proue, that our senses cannot judg in it, with this argument.

Senses cannot judg of things, which are not their proper objects: But such are the things in debate in this controversy: Therefore senses cannot judg of these things.

The major, or first Proposition is cleere. For the eye cannot judg of a found, because it is not its proper object. Nor the eare of a colour for the same reason. The same of all other senses. Wherefore no sense can judg of any thing, that is not its pro­per object.

The minor, or second proposition, viz, things in debate here are not the proper object of Senses, is also selfe evident: For the pro­per meaning, or signification of words, is the proper object of no sense. But the matter here in debate, is the proper meaning or signification of the words of Christ. Therefore it is the proper object of no sense.

These Premisses are so evidently tru, that J think it enough [Page 42]only to proue the first Proposition: & this I doe by induction, for nether eye, nor nose, nor palate, nor hand, nor eare can see, tast smel, feale, or heare the signification of words, wherefore no sense can perceiue it. The only doubt can be about Hearing, by reason of the convexion betwixt the sound of an Articulate word (which is the object of the eare) & the signification of it: yet even here my Proposition is tru: for the same articulate sound is insignificant to one who vnderstands it not: & sometimes signifyes different things to persons of different langages. v. c. Lego, to a Latinist signifyes I reade: to a Grecian, I speake: to an English man nothing. Yet the sound in the eare is the same to all these three. Jndeed if it were not so, by learning anew language, our eares should be changed, & framed in a different manner, to represent the new signification. Which I suppose no body will say.

As to the other Proposition [the minor] that our dispute is about the signification of those words, is as evident: For our sen­timent is grounded on the words being taken litterally: yours vpon their being taken figuratively. Both which are the severall significations.

One thing only occurres in answer to this, viz, that the litteral signification is so absurd, that it cannot be admitted. Answer: this is sayd, but not proved: & in du place these absurditys will be confidered, & J hope found to be no bsurditys. Answer 2. this doth not satisfy my reason: for no Absurdity can make any faculty judg of what it cannot know. As no Absurdity can make me a competent judg of a composition in the Chinese language, of which J am entirely ignorant.

Here I myght lay down my pen, it already appearing, that all you can alleadg from Senses can signify nothing, seing they cannot depose of a thing they are totally strangers to: & you say nothing but from Senses. Jt was indeed a great signe of a bad cause, when you appealed from the proper judges, to those, who are in com­petent: & there plead as earnestly, as if you were in earnest, when [Page 43]all is only to amuse your reader, by drawing his Attention, from what myght instruct him, to what cannot, as women amuse children with Rattles. Indeed your discourse, & these, are alike significant, as will appeare, by discussing the particulars. I will before I passe to that, enquire further into the nature, & force of senses.

SECTION VI.1. What nature cheifely intended by our senses? , • 2. Deceipts of touching, tasting, & smelling. , • 3. Deceipts of the syght, & Hearing. , and • 4. Senses ought not to be attended, when they depose things contrary to the word of God. 

1. THat by our Senses we come to the knowledg of several ob­jects, is an vndoubted Truth. Our vnderstanding by its Creation receives little or no knowledg at all, if we beleiue Phy­losophers: & therefore Aristotle compares it to a white Paper, or a cleere cloth to paint on, in which there is nether one letter written, nor one line drawne: the taske of filling vp that Paper, or table, being left to objects, which by the meanes of Senses, as by their Pens, or Pensils, write or delineat their Resemblances, or Pictures, [which are the knowledges, we haue of them] in our mind.

Some think this is as the most noble, so the most necessary work of senses, & that which nature, in giving them to vs cheifely, & even onely intended. Others say this is onely an accidental, & ad­ditional employment scarce intended directly by nature: which in the first place designed them as so many life-guards, or sentinells, to man, to discover, & giue timely notice of Approching objects, & their condition of Freinds, or Foes, good, or bad, hartfull, [Page 44]& displeasant; or pleasant, & confortable: to the end man myght not be surprised; but prepared to receiue those favourable, & reject & defend it selfe from the rest. This is the opinion of the french Authour of The search of Truth, in the first book of that work: in which by many instances, & experiences he proues that the Senses are frequently mistaken, & deceiue vs, when soever they stretch beyond that duty, of informing man of the advantage, or disad­vantage he may receiue from an vnexpected, & otherwise vn­knowne neyghbour: yet it is vndeniable, that they are subservient, & very officious in providing matter for the vnderstanding to worke vpon, & the syght aboue all the rest. Those who are desirous of larger prooses of the deceipts of those sentinels, & of the false al­larmes they giue, may find satisfaction in that neate Authour. My designe being here no other, than to shew, that the Senses cannot be always relyed on, in the reports they make, it will be sufficient to proue by some few, but cleere, & vndeniable examples, that the Senses some, nay many times do misinforme vs, by repre­senting things otherwise than they are; and (which is cheifely to our purpose) some times things, which are not.

First as to Feeling, or Touching, Tactus, those who haue lost aleg, or an Arme, feele many times the same paine, as it were in the hand, or foote, as if they had them. Mr. Starkey having in the Kings service lost aleg, felt a paine as in that foote [thô it had beene long before buryed] as if it were tickled in the sole with a Feather, so­metimes as if it had beene trodden on: with a paine sometimes dull, sometimes quick, & sharpe, not only equal, to; but even surpassing those, which he had felt, before that losse. It is not to my purpose to enquire into, & explicate the causes of these ef­fects, my designe not being to write of meere Phylosophical things, further then is necessary to discover that the Senses, of Feeling doth deceiue vs, by representing a substance, where there is none: & such is that sensation of a Feather tickling, and a foote, or some other hard body pressing vpon ours, althô this it self is no more in being.

Our Tast doth in alike manner deceiue vs, for Tobacco being to­tally consumed in a Pipe, the Ayre sucked thorough it shall for a while haue the perfect tast of the smoke of Tobacco althô it be pure Ayre, with a tincture of the consumed weede from the war­med Pipe. Alike instance we haue in some cider (which S. Austin calls Vinum vinosissimum de pomis) and Metheglin, or Hydromel, which if good, & stale, & well kept, hath so strong a tast of Aqua vitae, that some could scarce be perswaded, that one halfe of it, was not of that distilled liquour.

The Smell is the dullest, & easy est imposed vpon of all Senses. Hold a clod of bay falt, newly taken vp about Broüage in France [where there is always great quantity of it] to the nose of a man hoodwinkt, & he shall take it for a nosegay of violets.

3. The quickest, & least corporal of all our Senses is the syght: yet it is obnoxious to many deceipts. The appearances of a medal in abasin, full of water, which thô at the bottone seemes at the top: jtem of an oare, which halfe vnder water seemes broken, I omit, as trivial, & ordinary. Our syght discouers no distance be­twixt the top of a hill, or the ridge of a house beyond which the moone rises: nay our eyes represent her as touching, or contiguous to them. It represents the sun, & moone as plaine, althô both be spherical. It represents the dïameter of the moone (& sun) lesser when shee is in our meridian, then when she is rïsing aboue, or fal­ling vnder our Horison: thô it should appeare greater as being a whole semidiameter of the Earth, neerer vs, when in our meridian, then when in the east or west, if she moues in a perfect circle. Our eyes represent the sun, & moone, as at an equal distance: & all the fixt starres, as in one planis sphere: which our new Scepticks will scarce assent to.

Our eyes in sublunary things are as vncertaine. Looke from a Bridge steedfastly on the water, & this shall seeme to stand, & the other moue. Inaship vnder sayl, the shore seemes to moue; & not the ship: Hence the Poet: Terraeque Vrbesque recedunt.

we fixed stay

The land, & Townes do run away

Looke in a streyght line with a Canon bullet, not withstanding the the vnconceivable swiftnesse of its motion, it will seeme to the eye to haue none at all, except a little falling towards the end. Of how many Angels do we reade in scriptures, who appeared like men? As Raphael to Tobias, Gabriel, to Zacharie, & the Blessed Virgin; others to Iosue, Gedeon, Manue, &c.? What variety of co­lours in a Rainbow, & a Pigeon's neck? Here some reflected lyght affects the eye as if it were real colours: & in the other examples, a little condensed ayre lookes like the real body of a man. Examples of this nature myght be multiplyed without end, were it need full: but these are enough to proue, that our eyes are in many things mistaken, representing things in motion, which stir not; & in rest others, which moue: shewing substance other then it is, & colours where there are none.

As for Hearing, some raving haue seemed to heare a consort of musicke. A person of my acquaintance was once awakened with an exceeding great noise, as if guns had ben shot off at his bed side. Calling to mind, that there was nether Canon, nor any thing else, neere, which could cause that vast noyse, he con­cluded it must be something in his eare; & picking it, he pulled out a little insect, bred in some roses, which the day before he had throwne over the tester of his bed, which falling from them, & creeping into his eare, with the motion of its little tender feete caused that huge noyse.

Whither these, & such like instances of the vncertainty of our Senses, sufficiently proue, that they were not designed by the Au­thour of nature, God Almyghty, for instruments of sciences, or to conveygh new notions into our mind, or only, as Guards, or sentinels, for our security, & preservation, (the only thing they can be designed for in Beasts, thô these haue their Senses as perfect, as men) I leaue to the judgment of others: as also to determine, [Page 47]whither these examples can ground a judgment in that doubt. what I gather hence, is

That Senses are often mistaken, & that even about their proper objects. That these errours are sometimes corrected by our owne reason, or discourse, & some times by advice, or information from other men. For example: we know that on oare hath a strong consistency of parts, to which those of the water yeild, as having no consistency at all. Whence thô our eyes represent it, as broken in the water, we conclude their deposition false, 1. because water cannot breake a strong oare gently thrust into it, & 2. because if it were broken by the water, it would not be whole, when taken out, as we see it is. Thus reason corrects our eyes. By discourse likewise we find, that the diameter of the moone is much bigger, then a foote, as our eyes represent it. Now an illiterate Bumpkin, who knowes not how the tru quantity of a body seemes lesse, by reason of its distance from the eye, heares one, whome he beleiues to be a learned clark, say, the moone is bigger then all his grounds are, & he beleiues him: & vpon his credit, corrects that errour of his eyes. So he preferres the word of that learned man before his syght.

4. It is easy to draw from these premisses, the conclusion cheifely intended, viz, that it is rash, & presumptuous to alleadge, & rely on any sensation contrary to the word of God, or any revealed Truth. For if your reason, & discourse, or the Authority of a man, more knowing, & experienced then our selues are sufficient to ma­ke vs frame a judgment different from, or contrary to the deposi­tions of the most perfect of our Senses, our eyes, with much grea­ter reason ought we to suspect their depositions, nay & reject them, when we find them disagree from what God hath attested. For J hope the world is not brought as yet by Dogmatizers to such a degree of Libertinisme, & Atheisme, as to say, that God either can be de­ceived him selfe, through ignorance, or can maliciously deceiue vs. And if the credit of a man be sufficient to reforme the judg­ments [Page 48]we frame on our sensations, shall that of God be lesse re­garded? Wherefore we must nether prefer Reason before Faith, with Socinus: nor [which is worse] Sense before Faith, with Dr. Morley; but with S. Paul, & the Church, submit both Sense, & Reason, to Faith: & let God be tru, & all men lyars.

And this conclusion holds tru, whither one, or more Senses be­pose the same thing, or whither the revealed Truth be confirmed by any Sense, or no: for if a clowne doth prudently prefer the word of one whome he thinks learned, before his syght, which no other sense doth, or can correct, it is certainly prudent to prefer the word of God before all Senses, & before our reason too.

SECTION VII. How far senses are serviceable to Faith? • 1. Cartesian doubts destroy science, & human society. , • 2. Nature of Faith, as it comprehends divine & humane. , • 3. Two things necessary to a witnesse, knowledge & veracity. , • 4. Both eminent in the Apostles. , and • 5. Miracles very serviceable to Faith. 

1. ALthô I think the Senses sometimes are, & often may be mistaken, & for that reason think we ought to reject their depositions, when they are contrary to such things, as we haue greater reason to trust to: yet J am far from the senselesse errour of those, who say, no credit at all is du to them: or that by them we cannot be sufficiently assured, that we haue nether hornes, nor a coxcombe on our head, that our nose is nether the bille of a cocke, nor the trunk of an Elephant: or that our Body is flesh, [Page 49]& not glasse, or butter. Which is the sentiment of the Authour of the Search of Truth. Cartesius teachs vs more, to doubt whither we are awake, or a sleepe, or haue any body at all. Which doubts, if really admitted, & not pretended only, afford an excellent pretext to all Ignoramus jurys: to all malefactours, who may pretend the witnesses are not certain of what they depose: to all Rebells, & Refractory subjects, who may alleadge their doubts against the King's Proclamation: lastly to all knaues, who may pretend igno­rance of the promises, which they haue no mind to keepe. So this Cartesian way to knowledge, & certainty, by casting off all former knowledge, & senses, as vncertain, lays the Axe at the roote of all Authority, dissolues all bonds of commerce amongst men, & is only good to make Scepticks, & Atheists too, seing it leaues no cer­tain meanes to teach, or learne Faith, & to vnderstand scripture, or Councils. So that nether Church, nor state can stand, if these doubts against the depositions of Senses, without any ground to the contrary, besides the general fallibility of our Senses themselues, be really admitted.

Wherefore when D. Morley often repeates, that we deny all au­thority to our Senses, he is either deceived himself, or deceiues his reader, which is worse: for we rely on our Senses, where Rea­son, or greater Authority doth not contradict them: of both which J haue giuen examples. So a man sees Titius kill Simpronius, & deposes it vpon oath: his deposition ought to be admitted, notwithstanding all Cartesian doubts. So Peter relyes on a promise of Paul to Pay him within such a time, 100. l. Paul is bound to make it good, & Peter may exact it by law.

2. Faith taken generally, as it comprehends Divine, & Humane, is an Assent giuen to a thing as Tru, vpon the credit of another. In the first operation of our mind, which consists of single thoughts, called in our schooles, Simple Apprehensions, there can nether be Truth, nor Falshoode: these being propertyes of combined thoughts, which are called Propositions [these are the second operation of our [Page 50]mind] for they are tru, when conformable to their object: as this The whole is greater, then any part of it. They are false, when not conformable to them, as this: Apart of a body is as greate, as the whole. Some adde a third kind of Propositions, indifferent to Truth, & Falshood: but this is only relating to our minds, which are vn­certain, whither they be tru or false. But in themselues they are determinately either tru or false, & it is as certaine they cannot be otherwise, as it is certaine, that a thing either is, or is not: it be­ing impossible, that any thing should be, & not be, at the same ti­me. That is to say, two contradictions can nether be tru, nor false.

This Truth, or conformity of a Proposition with its object, may be knowne several ways. 1. by its natiue lyght, & self evidence, of the thoughts themselues, which when well vnderstood, evidently appeare the same. For example Two & two are four. Jtem: A streyght line is the shortest betwixt two points.

2. By discourse: as when by the thoughts themselues it doth not appeare how they agree, we compare them with a third. Thus by applying a line to two bodyes, & finding it equal to each severally, we conclude they are both of an equall bignesse, 3. by sense: as when J see a man walke, I know he moues. 4. By report of another: as when a freind tells me, he Saw the King a hunting, I take it as a Truth, relying on his word. And this last way of knowing a thing to be tru, or giving Assent to it, is properly Faith.

3. Two things are necessary, to make this Assent prudent. 1. That he who relates the thing to me, (the witnesse) be not deceived himself. 2. That he doth not deceiue me. By reason of the first, we more readily credit an eye-witnesse, than any other, because a man is lesse obnoxious to mistake what he sees, than what he hea­res, or knows by conjectures. For the second, we easilyer beleiue an honest man, than any other: and we rather beleiue an honest man with an Oath, then without it: seing these are greater assu­rances, that he speakes his mind sincerely, & doth not deceiue vs. So an Oath is the strongest foundation of human Faith, wherefore [Page 51]by the Apostle it is sayd to be To men an End of all strife. Heb. 6.16. we will now apply this to Divine Faith.

Nothing can be more certain, than what God averres. Because he can nether be deceived, being Omniscient, or knowing all things: nor deceiue vs, by reason of his goodnesse. So we are never mis­taken in beleiving him. But the assurance we haue of what any may says, even vpon Oath, is much lesse. For 1. he may deceived, & think, for example, he saw the King walking, when it was not the King; but some other Person like him. And 2. he may haue an intention to deceiue vs, by making vs beleiue, what he knows to be false: whence no man deserues greater credit, than his personal endowments beare: & to beleiue him further, is blamed in scrip­ture, He that is hasty to giue credit, is lyght minded. Eccles. 19.4. All this is expressed in few words by the Apostle: Rom. 3.4. God is tru; & every man a lyar.

Both Phylosophers, & Divines enquire, whither the same thing can be the object of Faith, & Senses, can be seene & beleived? & commonly they conclude that it is impossible. At least this seemes vndoubted of, that, De facto, it is not soe.

For the Apostle says, that Faith is An evidence of things not seene. Heb. 11.1. & S. Austin, tr. 68. & 79. in Ioan. Quidest fides? Credere quod non vides. Faith is a Beleife of things, which we do not see. So that Senses are so far from being the Objectum formale, the motiue of our Faith, that it doth not at all depend on them.

4. The Apostles, being witnesses of the greatest & most impor­tant truths, that can be, were carefull to perswade their Auditory, 1. that they vnderstood very well the things they preacht: & 2. that they did not alter any thing in the delivery of it. And because Eye witnesses are commonly more assured, than others, they men­tion that 1. cor. 15.8. He was seene of me. 2. Pet. 1.16. We haue not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made knowne vnto you, the power, & coming of our Lord Iesus-Christ; but were eye witnesses of his Majesty, —. This voice, which came from Heauen we heard, [Page 52]when we were with him in the holy mount. Here are two Senses alle­adged, Seing & Hearing. And the beloved Disciple 1.30 1.1. & 3. Which we haue heard, which we haue seene with our eyes, which we haue looked vpon, & our hands haue handled of the word of life. — That which we haue seene, & heard, declare we that vnto you. And S. Peter being to choose a successor to Iudas, required the choice should be made amongst those, who from the Baptisme till the Ascension adhered to Christ. Act. 1.21.22. Of these men, which haue compa­nyed with vs, all the time, that our Lord Iesus went in & out amongst vs, beginning from the Baptisme of Iohn, vnto that same day, that he was taken vp from vs, must one be ordained to be a witnesse with vs of his Resurrection. And Nicodemus doubting of something, which our faviour had told him, Christ for confirmation of what he sayd, al­leadged the like motiue: Joan. 3.11. We speake, what we know, & testify what we haue seene. And S. Luke in the Preface to his ghospel, assures, he writes, what he received from those, who From the be­ginning were eye witnesses, & ministers of the word, & having a per­fect vnderstanding of things, &c.

Whence is evident, that all that mention of the senses doth not proue, that Faith hath any dependance at all on them; being only alleadged to make the Preachers of the Ghospel more creditable. But the only tru motiue of our Faith, is the Veracity of God: the Preachers of the Ghospel not delivering their owne word; but the word of God: & the Hearers Receiving it not as the word of men; but as it is truly, the word of God. 1. Thes. 2.13. This as to the first qualification of a witnesse.

As to the second, that They would not deceiue others, was evident from the whole life of the Apostles, free from levity, from vanity, from selfe interest, &c. & all these strengthned by several other circumstances, whereof each one severally taken had some force; but taken altogether, they convinced all considering men, that it was more them morally impossible, that men so qualifyed, should wittingly tell a lye, or deceiue willingly their Auditory. All which [Page 53]things are hinted at in those words: 1. Thes. 1.5. Our Ghospel ca­me not vnto you in word only; but also in Power, & in the Holy Ghost, & in much assurance (fullnesse) as ye know WHAT MANNER OF MEN WE WERE amongst you for your sakes QVALES FVERIMVS IN VOBIS PROPTER VOS. And 1. Cor. 2.4. My speech, & my pre­aching was not with entising words of men's wisdome; but in demonstra­tion of the spirit, & of Power. Althô it doth not sufficiently appeare, whither the words themselues contained that manifestation of the spirit, or the Person, who spoke, or both.

5. All this was confirmed by Miracles, which may properly enough be called the Broade seale of the King of Kings: for as a Broade seale is a publicke Attestation of the Truth of a Patent, or Proclama­tion, to which it is annext, solikewise a miracle is an Attestation of Almyghty God of a Truth delivered in his name. Divina poten­tia etiam factis loquitur, says S Austin, Epist. 49.9.6 Men speake by words; God also by deedes. And Origen contra Celsum l. 2. says the same. This language of God by miracles, is soo cleere, that even the most stupid vnderstand it; & yet so hard, that none can speake it, but he, who is Almyghty. Hence Mar. 16 God is sayd To haue confirmed the words with the signes following it. And Heb. 24. To haue borne witnesse with signes, & wonders, & divers miracles, & gifts of the Holy Ghost. So when Christ our Lord Mat. 9.6. sayd: That ye may know, that the son of man hath Power on Earth to forgiue sins he sayd to the sick of the Palsye: Arise take vp thy bed, & goe vnto thy house: it was to call God to witnesse that Truth, that he had such a Power: And God by doing the miracle did virtually say. I attest, that he hath such a Power. And who, seing this, could doubt whither Christ had such a Power, without doubting of the divine veracity?

Yet we must not hence inferre, that Miracles are the formal ob­ject of our Faith. For as the only motiue, why a Proclamation is obeyed, is nothing else, but the King's will commanding: & the Broade seale serues only to assure vs, that is the King's deede. Soe [Page 54]the sole motiue of our Faith is divine veracity authorizing what that man, S. Paul, for example, preached; & the miracle confirmes vs in the perswasion, that man delivers divine Truth.

SECTION VIII.1. 3. Faith by Hearing. , • 2. Words are the best of signes. , • 4. Scripture the object of Hearing. , and • Where of the invention of writing. 

1. THe Doctor of the gentils, who laboured with greater suc­cesse in conversions, than all the other Apostles, seemes in a particular manner to speake of the Hearing, as conducing to the propagation of Faith in a singular way. His words are these: Rom. 10. a versu 14. How shall they call on him, in whome they haue not beleived? & how shall they beleiue in him, of whome they haue not he­ard? & how shall they heare without a Preacher? And how shall they preach, except they besent? And concludes, so then Faith comes by Hea­ring, & hearing by the word of God. Which words confound all en­thusiasts, & others who vndertake to preach, without being law­fully called, or sent by the Holy Ghost. But our present businesse is to examin, why Faith is so particulary resolved into Hearing. No­thing like this being any where sayd of any other Sense.

2. This will be easily vnderstood, if we remember, that, as is aboue­sayd, Faith is an Assent giuen to an otherwise vnknowne Truth on the credit of another. This cannot be done, without the others thought be made knowne to me: to effect this some outward sig­nes must be vsed: for men cannot speake to, nor heare one ano­ther, as Angels do, by an immediate communication of thoughts; [Page 55]but are forced to make vse of outward signes, to which some signification knowne to both partyes, is annext. Now of all sig­nes, none more easy, or significant, than articulate words, which with their signification are by the Hearing conveyghed to the mind of the Hearer: who by that meanes comes to know what the other averres, & giues his Assent to it. And so Faith comes by Hearing.

Yet because there are other ways to communicate our Thoughts, particularly by the eyes, hearing may be thought, not to be the only way to beget Faith. Men may speake to the eyes, by gestures, or motions of Head, Hand, or other parts of the Body, if some mea­ning be annext to them. And in this sort of language the ancient Mimi Greekes, & Romans were excellent. Now that mute way of speaking, by gestures of the Body to the eyes, is much out of vse, & almost forgotten. As to other senses, they can reckon but very few significant signes: so Hearing surpasses all senses in this, by rea­son of articulate sounds, which it receiues, & passes to the mind. Which I learne from S. Austin l. 2. de Doctrinâ Christianâ, Cap. 3. Tuba, & Tibia & Cythara, dant non solum suavem; sed etiam signifi­cantem sonum. Sed omnia signa verbis comparata, paucissima sunt. Verba enim inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi, quaecumque ani­mo concipiuntur, si ea prodere quisque velit. Several musical instruments giue not only a sweete; but also a significatiue sound. But words are the Princes of all signes, as well for their number & variety, as for their efficacy in signifying.

Suppose I know a Truth, vnknowne to another, & would bring him to beleiue it, how must I do this? 1. I choose words proper to signify my mind, to him. 2. J vtter those words, 3. he heares them, & 4. beleiues the thing to be as I sayd, because he is persw­aded, I am not deceived, nor would deceiue him. Thus is propaga­ted Humane Faith. Now to Divine.

That God can speake without vsing any words, to the mind im­mediatly, is an vndoubted Truth, seing the greatest part, if not all Revelations were originally made in that nature, to some one Person, [Page 56]who knew certainly not only what was sayd; but that it was God, who spoke it. But whither this Evidentia rei attestante Deo, this cleere knowledge of God affirming it, is consistent with Faith, or transferres that knowledge to another species of science, Vision ‘Theiologi certant, & adhuc sub judice lis est.’ But this is certaine 1. That it is not necessary to Faith, otherwise the mission of Preachers would be superfluous. 2 That God did not vse it to all men, to exclude pretences to Enthusiasmes of Fanaticks & prevent the jllusions of the devil. 3. That God seemes in propa­gating his Faith to accommodate himself to the ordinary way of men. A King sends his Embassadors, whither he goes not in person, with jnstructions what to say, & credentialls to procure beleife to what they say: & their words are looked on as the words of the King their master. So God sends the Apostles as his Embassadors (2. cor. 5.20) he giues them their instructions, to teach what they had learnt of him, & for their credentials, he gaue them Power ts worke mi­racles. Hence The words they spoke, were not received as the words of men; but as they truly were the words of God. 1. Thes. 2.13. And the Faith giuen to their words, was Divine Faith.

3. That this was, & is, & to the end of the wold will be, the or­dinary way, of conveyghing Faith, is evident. 1. Because the Apostles proposition Faith comes by Hearing, is vniversal, & vnlimited to any time, or place. 2. God sent his Apostles & Disciples to Preach the Ghospel, without any expresse command to vse other signes, or write bookes: & indeed most of those written, were casual. 3. The Apostles sent their successours on alike errant, & with alike Com­mission: & we find in S. Irenaeus, that Faith was long preserved in some countryes, without any written word. 4. Faith (by the Apo­stle called milke) is still by Parents, Nurses, & such persons in­stilled into the Tender minds of Infants, even before they are able to reade. And if they conceiue it ryghtly, & beleiue it strongly, they haue tru divine Faith. 5. The same of several Persons at men's estate, who for Poverty, or other employments, cannot reade the scriptures.

4. Scripture may seeme an exception from that general rule, Faith by Hearing; but it is not so, Scripture it selfe being only an jmage of what is spoken, & therefore belongs to the same Sense, that words do Hence S. Austiu l. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 4. Quia verberato aere statim transeunt verba, nec diutius manent, quam sonant, instituta sunt per litteras signa verborum, ita voces ostenduntur non per seipsas; sed per signa quaedam sua. By reason that after a little motion of ayre, the voice presently vanishs, & is assoone lost as the sound is past, Letters were invented, as signes of words, by which meanes words are shewed, not by themselues; but by their signes. Thus S. Austin. Which was elegautly exprest by a French Poet Brebeuf en sa Pharsale:

C'est de là que nous vient cet art ingenieux,
De peindre la parole, & de parler aux yeux
Et par les traits divers des figures tracées,
Donner de la couleur, & du corps aux pensées,
Hence that ingenious art did first arise,
Of painting words, & speaking to our eyes:
Where with the pen doth by mysterious draught
Both colour giue, & Body to a thought.

J doe not cite this, as building my assertion vpon it; but as a neate expression of what I meane. The ground, on which J rely is scrip­ture, whereof a greate part is evidently a description of speeches. For 1. a greate part of the Ghospel is a Relation of our saviours Admonitions, Sermons, Reprehensions, Justructions, &c. 2. The Acts of the Apostles containe their speeches. 3. the Apocalypse is a re­presentation of visions, & Prophecyes revealed to S Iohn. 4. S. Luke in his preface, declares that he writes what he had Heard 5. S. Mark writ what S. Peter preacht. Marcus Discipulus, & Interpres Petri, says S. Hierome, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romae a Fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium Mark the Disciple & Inter­preter of Peter at the request of the Brethren in Rome, writ in a short Ghospel, what he had heard Peter preach.

My last, & cheifest proofe, is from the words of Abraham to the [Page 58]glutton, Luck. 16.29. They (thy Brothers) haue moyses, & the Pro­phets, let them heare them. Et verse 31. If they heare not Moyses & the Prophets, nether will they be perswaded, though one rise from the dead. Here those are sayd to haue Moses, & the Prophets, who haue their writings. 2. Moses & the Prophets are sayd to Speake in their writings, seing others are sayd to Heare them.

Hence I conclude, that the jnstruction we receiue from Scripture it selfe, is reduced to Hearing.

SECTION IX.1. All Senses never contrary to Faith. , • 2. Hearing is to correct the other senses. , and • 3. A conclusion of this digression. 

THe two first points are cheifely aimed at, in all this Preface, & will serue to cleere the mist which Humane Reason casts before our eyes, that we may not discerne Truth from falshood, but may embrace a Cloud, for Iuno; & leaue the substance for a shaddow.

Thô some Senses may, yet all can never be contrary to Faith this is my first conclusion The reason is, Faith must be conveyghed into our mind by some Sense: wherefore that Sense, at least, is not contrary to Faith. Which is evident by the ordinary course of Pro­vidence teaching vs by Hearing, Preachers, Missions, &c. Of which S. Paul. Rom. 10. Now if God doth at any time by particular in­spiration instruct some, that is nothing against this Truth, seing those thoughes so inspired are conformable to what others Heare: & by consequence not contrary to all Senses.

2. My second Conclusion is: in matter of Faith, Hearing is pre­ferred before all other Senses. The 1. reason, is, because Hearing [Page 59]is more capable of conveyghing revealed Truths, than any other Sense, nay than all the rest together, it having more significant sig­nes, then all the rest together, as is evident, by the multitude of significant words.

The second reason is because God doth actually vse Hearing, & no other Sense, to communicate to vs his Faith: For our whole Duty to God, & our neyghbour, what we are bound to beleiue, & practice, is all delivered ether by living words, in Catechisms & Sermons: or in Bookes, by dead representations of those li­ving words.

Wherefore when senses interfere in their depositions concerning any object of Faith, we must recurre to Hearing, & adhere to that. For example: Other Senses represent Christ to vs, as an ordinary man; Hearing says, he is The only begotten son of God, full of grace, & Truth: we must beleiue this, & silence the rest. The rest say water only washes from dirt the surface of the Body; this says, it purges the soul from the staine of sin: we must beleiue this. Why then should not this rule, acknowledged by the Zuinglians in other things to be good, hold in the Blessed Eucharist? So that althô the tast tell vs it is bread, & wine, we may subscribe to our Hearing, with S. Cyril nay with the whole Church, & say It is the Body, & Bloud of Christ?

But what if Reason takes the part of the other Senses? Answer I will say still, we must stick however to Hearing. For example: Reason says, the same substance cannot be One & three; Hearing says, the same Divine substance is one in nature, & three in Persons: Our duty is to beleiue God to be so: & to silence all reasons to the contrary: This is what S. Paul vnderstood, by Pulling downe imaginations, & every thought contrary to his Doctrine: & bringing vnderstandings vnder the subjection of Christ

I haue here delivered, as by a digression, such grounds, as if well vsed, will be sufficient to resist all the Attacks of God, & his spousés enemys. Yet they are soe cleere, that J think few can deny them, [Page 60]without rejecting Christianity in some very material points. Yet I haue not wandred, in this digression, out of the syght, of my le­arned freind, D. Morley: if he retaines his treatise in his company in passing over these few sections, he will easily obserue, there is no­thing, but which relates to it. J now returne to him the liberty to propose his Argument, & am ready to heare him.

SECTION X.1. The Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation. , • 2. D Morley's argument against it returned vpon him. , • 4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine , and • 4. Nor senses. 

1. D. Morley. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words, This is my Body, Is, that in Sacrament of the Altar, the whole substance of Bread is chan­ged into the Body, & the whole substance of wine into the Bloud of Christ: so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread, nor wi­ne; but only the Body, & Bloud of Christ vnder the species, or acci­dents of Bread, & wine.

Revisor. Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly, when it is common to all other Oriental Chris­tians, is not hard to guesse at: you would insinuate, what you dare not speake out (it is so evidently false) that she [the Ch. of R.] stands alone in this point of Doctrine, whereas all other Christian Churchs extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome, their mother, in this point. But let that passe. J acknowledge that you represent our sentiment ryght. What haue you to say against it?

2. D. Morley: Against this Position I argue thus: that which frus­trates all the vse, & end of scripture, cannot be the tru interpretation of any one place of it. But that interpretation of those words of scripture, frustrates all the end, & vse of scripture. Therefore the Ch. of Romes interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be tru.

I proue the minor, or second proposition thus: that which necessarily implyes our Senses are, or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing, may be, & is indeed another, must needes frustrate all the end, & vse of all scripture. But that interpretation doth necessarily imply, that our senses may be, & are deceived in their proper objects, by teaching that to be Flesh, & Bloud which to all men's Senses appeares to be Bread, & wine. Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate, the vse, & end of all scriptures.

Revisor. I deny the minor, or second Proposition of your first syllogisme. To the proofe of it, 1. I will let the maior, or first Pro­position, passe, althô it be not tru: for mine, & all men's senses in the world represent the moone bigger in the east, & west, then in the south, which is evidently falfe: & yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical errour of all men's Senses. Our Rea­son, is superiour to Senses, & doth correct that errour, without prejudicing Scripture by it: & why may not Faith which is superi­our to both Sense & Reason, correct both, when they go astray; & yet Scripture remaine entire, seing Faith is but the Doctrine of Srip­ture, & as it were its soul? Yet I will Gratis admit your Maior.

2. I deny your minor, or second Proposition; for it appeares to no man's Hearing, to be Bread, & wine; but Flesh, & Bloud. This is my Body: this is my Bloud, are the expresse words of Christ: now, sir, you know out of the Apostle (I haue minded you of it) that Faith comes by Hearing. And Hearing is not mistaken, in this matter. Hence S. Thomas of Aquin.

Visus, Tactus, Gustus in te fallitur:
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius:
Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius.

[Page 62]We acknowledg that Syght, Feeling, & Tast are mistaken here: & we correct their mistake by the expresse word of God, by Hearing conveyghed to our minds; to which word, we owe greater obedience, than to all our Senses together. So your minor is false.

Thus your Conclusion, that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate, & make voyde the end, & vse of scripture, that came limping in on two bullrushes for crutches, fals to the ground, one of them being broken, & the other insufficient, to beare such a weyght.

2. Now I desire you to shew your skill in sophistry, & answer this syllogisme, by which I draw the same Conclusion, out of your Doctrine, & exposition of Christ's words: That interpretation which is plainely contradictory to the expresse words of Scripture, doth frustrate the end, & vse of Scripture, But such is your inter­pretation of those words of Christ. Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end, & vse of Scripture.

The maior or first Proposition is evident: for what vse can be made of Scripture, to what intent can it serve, if we take the liberty to beleiue & teach the direct contrary Doctrine, to what it delivers. For example, if when the scripture says: God Created Heauen, & Earth: we say God did not create Heauen & Earth. When it says: The word was in the beginning. We say, The word was not in the beginning. When it says: The word was made Flesh; we say: The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest. What can Scripture signify, to what vse, to what intent can it serue, when such interpretations are made of it? Soe my maior stands good.

The minor, 2. Proposition is evident, that Such is your jnterpre­tation of Christ's words. For Scripture says; That is Christ's Body, you say: That is not Christ's Body. Scripture says: That is Christ's Bloud; you say, That is not Christ's Bloud. Let those frame an interpreta­tion more opposit to Scripture who can: I confesse my skil in Lo­gicke reachs not to frame any more directly opposite. I feare you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument, than J shall to answer yours, as it is to cure a real, than to cure afeigned sick­nesse.

4. D Morley: p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning, as S. Paul Says it is, there being no other meanes, whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture, but our Senses, either reading it our Selues, or hearing it read: if I be not certain of what I see, when I reade my selfe, nor of what I heare, when I am read to by others, it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth: & by consequence the Scripture it self must be vselesse, or to no purpose. Thus you.

Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your owne head. We say the words of Scripture are cleere, that whither we Reade, or Heare them, they signify the same thing, & we vnderstand them in their plaine, & obvious sense, as any man would vnderstand them, who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we doe; & not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses, as you doe. Wherefore your method & interpretation frustrates all vse of Scrip­ture: ours leaues it in its full force & vigour. You make Scripture weare the chaines of Senses; we bind senses, & Reason too, to the triumphant chariot of Scripture.

Then you discover an vnexpected concerne for the Church Au­thority [after having spent your whole life in fyghting against it] as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine. Not only the scripture, say you, But the Church it selfe also must needes be vselesse: because the Ch. as well the scripture teaches vs by no other medium, But that of our senses. Here is matter indeed for lamentation, tho you shew no greate signe of real greife. But God be praysed, the Church is not brought so low, as to want your helpe. Her Authority is not pre­judiced by such, as with Humility receiue her Doctrine; but by such, as with Pride reject it, by Protestants, who impugne the sense she received, with the words, from her spouse, & his faithfull in­terpreters, the Apostles.

D. M. p. 5. If I be not certaine, that what I see, & feele, & tast, & smell to be bread, & wine, is bread & wine, but something else: by the same reason I cannot be certain that these words, this is my body, whither I see them written, or heare them spoken, be indeed those words; [Page 64]& not some other words of a different, or contrary signification.

Revisor. You still go on in a false supposition, that we Cartesian like deny all credit to Senses. This is absolutely false: for we giue credit to our Senses, thô not so greate as to Eternal Truth Nether do we doubt of that thing being bread, & wine, which to Senses seemes such, except only when God himself tells vs It is his Body. Here then is our case. A thing is placed on an Altar, that Lookes, feeles, tasts, & smells like Breade. What is that thing? God tells me, in the Eare, It is his Body: our Senses tell me, It is Bread. Whither of these depositions shall I beleiue? That of Senses, say you: that of God, says the Church, seing it is not impossible our Senses should be mistaken; but it is absolntely impossible, that God should tell Alye. But, say you If we doubt of those sensations of bread, we may doubt of those of the words, whither we reade or heare them. Answer. Till you shall shew me, by an Authority greater then that of God himself, those words, are something else, J will beleiue them to be those words. As I beleiue that to be Bread, which seemes such, vnlesse where God tells me the contrary. Do J passe thorough a market, by a Bakers shop, come into adining toome, we giue as full credit to our Senses, as you, & judg that to be Bread, which seemes Bread: only on the Altar, after Consecration we say it is the Body of Christ, because Christ says it is such, & the Church always vnderstood those words, as we doe.

Then you learnedly discourse of Outward signes, & inward in­visible grace: Of the Trumpet, & its sounding: of men preparing to battle, God blesse vs, of Dreames, visions, jnspirations, & what not. From which if you can conclude any thing against vs, J will beare your chaines. These rambling phancys are extraordinary in one of your age: I wish you to take heede, your pen goe not faster than your head, as it seemes to doe, when you cite those words, as of S. Austin: Quod non lego, non credo: what I read not, I beleiue not: which make against you: for We read, what we beleiue, that it is Christ's Body; but we do not read: It is not Christ's Body, nor: It is [Page 65]Bread: which is what you beleiue.

D. M. p. 7. If there be a certainty in the sense of Hearing, there must be in that of seing.

Revisor. I admit an equal certainty in both, taken by them­selues; yet Hearing, when announcing what God says, surpasses Syght, & all the rest; for we are to strike to Faith, & God's Truth; not to any else.

D. M. p. 8. & 9. If there be no certainty of Senses, in one thing, there is none in any thing, vnlesse I know certainly what that one thing is; & nothing can secure me, vnlesse Christ in expresse words tell vs: Beleiue your Senses in all things else, but only in the Sacrament.

Revisor. Whence so greate a concerne for the Authority of Senses, & so little for that of the Church? All is vndone, if the Senses be corrected by the expresse words of Christ, whome they contradict, no hurt done, thô the Church be charged with errour, even when she follows the words of Christ! yet by the Church we receiue the word of God, & its meaning too. Now why is an errour charged on Senses, of so pernicious a nature, as to destroy all their credit, vnlesse Christ's expresse words are produced to vouch it in all other things: & one, nay many errours, charged on the Church, by which we receiue Faith, & no hurt done? Js not Faith handed to vs by the Church of as greate consequence, as that little scantling of Knowledge, which we receiue from our Senses?

But why is an errour of Senses so fatal to their credit? Haue they never deceived you, or at least some others, of your acquaintance? & do you therefore renounce them? Haue not some men, their eyes only representing a greene medow, fallen into a quack-mire? & do you for that reason either pull out your eyes, as vselesse, or shut them, as deceivable when you walke? Are these Arguments of such strength, as to beate downe the expresse words of Christ, & Doctrine of the whole Church? what times do we liue in, to what passe is Christianity brought, when a Doctor of Divinity, & a preten­ded Bishop, fyghts with such straws against Christ's words, & Faith I

Yet because old age is apprehensiue, J will giue you a remedy against this groundlesse Feare. You require an exception in expresse words: J will giue you one, at least Aequivalentèr: It is a general Rule Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam. When an exception is made from a Rule, all things not exprest in the exception, remaine vnder the Rule. Wherefore Christ having excepted only the Blessed Sacrament from the Deposition of Senses, he left all other things subject to them. So, sir, althô you hold with vs Transubstantiation, when you see a floore, you may walke on it, without fearing a precipice: & when you see a Chaire, you may confidently sit downe, without Fearing it should proue a Cobweb. Wherefore Cheere vp, deare sir, you may be secure, thô Christ be beleived.

SECTION XI. OF MIRACLES.1. Whither all Miracles visible. , • 2. What Miracles are. , • 3. The final cause of Miraçles. , • 4. Accidents Changeable the substance remaining. , and • 5. Dr. M.'s Paradoxes. 

1. D. M. p. 9. Tis to little purpose, to tell vs, that this conver­sion of Bread into Flesh, & wine into Bloud, is miraculous, & therefore so monstrous, as to be a contradiction to Sense. Miracles are Appellations to Sense, & the end of them is by the evidence of our Sense, to convince our Vnderstanding of some thing, which otherwise we would not, or could not haue beleived.

Revisor. You seeme resolved to prevent our retreate, by stopping all ways imaginable to it: yet your main industry is to misse; not to hit, that which is most obvious: which I haue already taken, & [Page 67]expect you, or any who takes vp the Cudgelles for you, in it. Yet I will in short review what you say of Miracles.

Miracles, when done in Confirmation of Faith, are designed to giue credit to a man, who speakes in God's name, & whome other­wise we should not beleiue, they are by a metaphore proper enough called God's Broade-seale. Now as a Broad-seale is indifferent to all deeds, & authenticates any, to which it is annext; so a Miracle myght confirme any Truth; but is determined by circumstances to some one, rather then others. For example the man sicke of the Palsy myght haue beene cured in Confirmation of the Trinity, or Incarnation; but was determined to testify that Christ had power to re­mit sins by those words, That you may know that the son of man hath Power to forgiue sins, then he sayd &c.

2. I say when Miracles are done in Confirmation of Faith, for all Miracles are not done for that end. A Miracle, is an effect of God's Power acting contrary to second causes. Natural effects are conformable to their inclinations, as that fire heates. Supernatural are aboue them: as that water justifyes the soul. Preternatural are besides them, as motion of parts of water within themselues. Miraculous or contra­natural, are contrary to them. Such was the cure of Ezechias, & raysing of Lazarus; for second causes required the death of the first, & the corruption of the second. Soe S. Austin l. 26. Cont. Faustum, c. 3. Cum Deus aliquid facit contra cognitum nobis cursum solitumque naturae, magnalia, vel mirabilia nominantur. When God doth any thing against, or contrary to, the knowne, & vsual course of nature, we call that thing a miracle. Wherefore when S. Thomas & some other Di­vines say Miracles are Praeter, besides the course of nature, they are to be vnderstood, as J sayd; & Praeter in them is equivalent to Contra.

That no Miracles are done, but visible, & in publick, you say, but can never proue, because it is false. S. Austin proues this, Epist. 3. ad Volusianum, by Christ's coming into the world without viola­ting the virginity of his Blessed mother: & his coming out of his sepulcher, this remaming shut. See S. Thomas. 3. p. q. 29. a. 1. ad 2. Of [Page 68]which more hereafter, S. 14. Indeed were no miracles done in pri­vate, it were in vaine, for men in deserts, to implore God's assis­tance against a Lyon, or serpent, which would devoure or sting them. But the contrary errour of Protestants in Brevint, Burnet, & Morley, is grounded on another erroneous opinion, that no Miracles are done, but in Confirmation of Faith. Whereas it is certaine they are done for other intentions. For

3. Whatsoever can moue God to vse his absolute Power in thw­arting the ordinary course of Nature, may be the Final cause of a Miracle. Pharaoth refusing to dismisse the Israelits, Miracles were done to shew it was God's will they should be dismist. Exo. 7. A doubt being raysed whither the Preisthood were to be confined to Aaron's family, God decided it by the miraculous budding of his rod. numb. 17.3. Gedeon wanting resolution to vndertake the war against the Madianits was encouraged by the dew on his furre. Iud. 6.4. The encrease of Oyle, to releiue a poore widow distressed by her cre­ditours. 4. (2.) Reg. 4.5. Waters causing a curse, to ease a hus­band of his Jealousy. numb. 5.6. That there were no ill smells in the Temple, notwithstanding all the Burnt offrings, nor flyes, where so much bloud was spilt, was in respect to that Holy place. The cure of Ezechias, for his comfort, or the good of the Royal family, which wanted an heyre. And who can tell how many other even private things may haue moved Almyghty God, to dispense in the common law of nature, & act contrary to second causes? How often, are miracles done in consequence of that prayer of the Church, Ad te nostras etiam rebelles compelle propitius voluntates, drawing those to a pious life, who had a perfect aversion to it? This you will say is no Miracle. But S. Anselme says it is, & S. Thomas, 1.2. q. 113. a. 10. & reason proues it to be such, because it is contrary to the inclination of the will, Antecedenter, thô Consequenter the will con­sents, being brought ouer strongly, thô sweetely by the Grace of God. And without all doubt, on The greate day, we shall see an infinit number of other Accidents, wholy miraculous, done either for the [Page 69]spiritual, or temporal good of both private, & publicke persons: which are at present entirely hidden from the eyes of all men, e­ven those in whose favour they are done.

Whence I inferre, that this conversion in the B. Sacrament, may be Miraculous, & yet be observable by no Senses.

4. D. M. pag. 10. Moses his Rod turned into a serpent, ceased to looke like a rod, & in all things was like a serpent, which the Magicians rods (which were not turned into serpents) did not, & water turned into wine, ceased to tast or smell like water. Therefore all Miracles are per­ceptible to sense.

Revisor. A false illation out of an insufficient jnduction, as if I should conclude, that all men walke, because Peter & Paul walke,

D. M. pag. 10. There cannot be a change of one thing into another, without a mutual change of Accidents, as well as of substance: because eve­ry thing consists, & is made vp of Accidents, as well as of substance.

Rev. What stuffe is this! J perceiue your Metaphysicks are equal to your Divinity. Every thing consists of, & is made vp of Accidents, as well as of substance! I hope you will say a man is made vp of his cloths too. And not be much out of the way, if you speake of those of your degree, who are compounded of lawne sleeues, &c. in lieu of the interiour character. How grossely are silly Phylosophers mis­taken, when they define Accidents, by their separability from sub­stance, without its decay! Quod adest, & abest sine subjecti interitu! what, cannot a man become swarthy, by being exposed to the sun in the summer, or cold in the winter, but his Substance, his Body, or soul must be changed? Excellent Doctrine! And very fit to ma­ke vs fall out with Transubstantiation!

As vnexpected is that other saying: There cannot be a change of one thing into another, without a mutuall change of Accidents, as well as of substance. Vnexpected, I say, from so learned a person; it being so far from Truth & so contrary to experience, that to confute it nothing is necessary, but to shew you any newly dead Corps, of one knowne to you before. Is there no change In substance, when [Page 70]the soul is separated from the Body? And do not many Accidents remaine, so as it seemes rather a sleepe, then dead? Do not be­leiue me, beliue your owne eyes, for which you pleade so earnestly: Js there not the same quantity? The same situation of patts? The same organization? The same colour, moles, warts, skars, &c. as before? How then can you say, There is no change in substance, with­out one in Accidents too? Do you not see, that by pleading for Sense, against Faith, you endanger the losse of both? And of your Rea­son too: giving me here a reason against yourself: For if Accidents remaine, when the man is no more (as certainly he is not, when his soul is departed) why may not the Accidents of Bread remaine, when the Bread is no more?

D. M. If there could be a substance without its owne Accidents, or Accidents without their owne substance, yet no man can be obliged to be­leiue there was one without the other, because it is not possible to judge of one but by the other.

Rev. All men are obliged to beleiue, what God reveales. So if God reveales that the substance is changed, althô the Accidents remaine, we are to beleiue the Change. But, say you, We cannot judge of one, but by the other. Why not, good sir, if God speakes? Can we not as assuredly ground a judgment vpon his word, as v­pon any Sense, nay all the Senses together?

5. Having thus reviewed the grounds of your judgment, in this place, let vs score vp some Paradoxes of yours

1. Miracles are Appellations to sense. What Sense did Christ appeale to, when Luk. 4.30 He past through the midst of a multitude of men, & went his way? To what sense doth he appeale, when he converts a sinner?

2. Miracles Are done to convince our vnderstanding of a Truth. J challenge any man to shew in scripture any proofe of this saying, taken generally. Many Miracles are private, done for the releife of private Persons. Doth not the Church teach vs to haue recourse, to God by Prayer, in personal wants? And why so, if God on such [Page 71]occasions never acts contrary to second causes?

3. The Magicians rods were not turned into serpents. Jt is expressely sayd Ex. 7.12. Their rods Became serpents. J know Fathers are di­vided in this point. But why you should take to that opinion, which seemingly contradicts scripture, I know not, vnlesse it be your custome to regard it little. But if they remained rods, how had they the Appearance, or Accidents of Serpents, & were by the spectators judged to be such? Sure you may as well beleiue there may be the Accidents of Bread, without its substance, as the Accidents of Ser­pents, where there never were any serpents. Againe how could Mo­ses Rod made a serpent devour the rest, if they remained staues, is not easy to vnderstand. That one serpent should swallow another, is no greate wonder, we dayly see the Dains swallow their young ones, vpon approach of danger, & their limber yeilding bodys are fitted for it. But a strong staffe is not so pliable.

4. All things consist of, & are made vp of Accidents as well as of substance. So that Accidents are essential to man, & to other things: otherwise they would not make him vp, as Well as Substance, this being Essential.

Thus far we haue examined the proofe of your maior. Now co­mes your minor. We will see how that succeedes.

SECTION XII.1. What is the object of sense? , • 2. Whither senses about it do discerne of their objects? & in it are mistaken? , and • 3. Of the conditions requisit to certify our senses? 

1. D. D. M. p. 11. If Papists say the proper objects of Senses are not the Substances; but Accidents, of things. I answer that though indeed the Objectum formale, or Objectum quo of the sense are Accidents; yet Substances are the Objectum materiale, [Page 72] or the Objectum quod, even of our outward senses. My meaning is, that though Senses do discerne immediately of Accidents, onely, yet mediatly, & by Accidents, they discerne of substances also. So that ne­ther Accidents alone, nor Substance alone; but the thing consisting of both, is the compleate, & adequate object of Sense.

Revisor. This place seemes not so very proper, to procure by some shreds of Latin, & a few schoole termes, the repute of a Le­arned Clarck, when the same things myght as well haue been sayd in plaine English in the text, as in the margent, had you so thought it fitting. I will not imitate you. Though you cite as many schoole termes as are to be found in Scotus, & borrow hard words from Arabick, & Hebrew, as well as from Latin, you will never prove that my eye discernes the substance, as such. My eye represents a white object; but whither that white be in an egge, or in astone, or in some other substance, to that my eye says nothing. The same betwixt two egges: betwixt Chalke & Cheese, &c. And my eares tell me there is an Articulate sound: but what it meanes, my eare doth not tell. Or else we must say our eare is changed, as often, as we learne a new language. Thus the Senses only discover the Co­lour, or the thing Coloured, as it is such; & no further. The Eye sees white on a wall, discernes if it be pure or mingled with blacke, or red spots, cleere, or darkish. The Eare heares the voice, & dis­cernes if it be musical, or not. The hand perceiues the object whi­ther it be hard, or soft, rough, or smooth, warme, or cold: But to judge that the white is Plaster on a wall, the voice that of a man singing the prayses of God, the thing toucht, the hand of a freind, is the work of the vnderstanding, directed by Senses, but passing beyond them. For as the vnderstanding discovers the meaning of words, which the eare heares, & vnderstands not, & these two acts, thô as different as soul, & Body, are so linkt together, as they seeme the same Act: so it happens in other Senses, whose Acti­ons haue such a connexion with those of the mind, which they stir vp, that they seeme but one, thô they really differ.

2. D. M. p. 11. & 12. If Senses doe not discerne of Substances, how could a man say he saw such a man, or heard such a story. Is not every Substance discernable by its proper Accidents? why are our Sen­ses giuen vs, if we cannot by them distinguish things themselues, as well as their Accidents? wherefore did God giue vs several Senses, but onely for the better discerning of objects, that if one Sense faile, the others may supply?

Revisor Here are four questions, all importing the same thing, & resolved with the same answer. Both you, & we agree, that it is convenient we haue some knowledge to discerne of objects. This you will haue to be the sole worke of the Senses. We say it is ori­ginally in the Senses, but it is compleated in, & by the Vnder­standing. Now to your four Queres.

To the first: we can say, we saw, & heard a story, because our Vnderstanding helped by senses judged so.

To the 2. By our vnderstanding we can discerne of Objects, & substances, by the meanes of Senses, which represent their Accidents.

To the 3. Our Senses are giuen vs, as servants to our Vnderstan­ding, & as its Informers.

To the 4. We haue several Senses, because there are several ob­jects of Senses, & according to the species of objects, there ought to be divers Senses, as you may find in Aristotle, & other Philosophers.

D. M. p. 12. Isaac Could not know his sons Esau, & Jacob from one another, by feeling Iacob's hands, being rough like those of Esau, but by hearing he myght distinguish them.

Revisor. To what intent this is brought, is not easily discernable: that Isaac hearing Iacob's voice, surmised it to be like to that of Iacob, is very tru; but that he certainly knew him to be Iacob, is not certain: nay the astonishment, into which the tru Esau asking his Blessing cast him, is an evident signe, that till then he was not quite free from the errour, into which Iacob's goatish hands, & greasy clothes had brought him.

You seeme to think it necessary, that our Senses either severally, [Page 74]or at least conjointly be able to discerne betwixt any two objects proposed. I think it were well, that they could do so; but do not beleiue, that any greate danger would hang over the world, if the Senses should be found insufficient sometimes. They are all toge­ther vnable to distinguish betwixt two glasses of water, two egges, two twins, a wolfe, & some dogs, &c. as hath beene often obser­ved: yet the sun keepes on his course, & women bring forth at their ordinary time. Pompey's father was often taken for his Cooke Monogenes: Pompey himself could not be distinguisht from Vibius, & Publitius, both obscure men, & the later newly made free. Come­lius Scipio was often saluted by the name of Serapio,, a poore Sexton. These & other mistakes are recorded in Valerius maximus l. 9. c. 14. Yet that ignorance of the Romans did not ruin their state. Why then are you so solicitous to provide a Remedy against it? Or if a remedy be necessary, why may not our Vnderstanding act the Apo­thecary & provide it, as well as our Senses? Methinks it should ra­ther belong to the vnderstanding, to compare several objects to­gether, & state wherein the agree, & wherein they differ, then to the Senses. Otherwise we shall find it no easy matter, to fix the bounds betwixt these spiritual, & carnal facultyes: for you will adjudge to Senses what hath hitherto owned the jurisdiction of the Vnderstanding; & as to what will be left to this queene of our fa­cultyes, our Reason, this shall onely be tenant at will to Senses, who by the same Topick may claime the rest & leaue the Vnder­standing, as the Covenanters left the King.

3. D. M. p. 14. & 15. Hath along discourse about the conditions necessary to make vs infallibly certain of what we see. Viz,

  • 1. An eye well disposed.
  • 2. The medium betwixt that, & the object as it ought to be.
  • 3. The object at a convenient distance.

These conditions being observed, the syght cannot be deceived in judging of colours, or coloratums, as such.

Revisor. I would not mingle in this place meere Phylosophical [Page 75]matter with the rest, if possible: so J passe by these conditions, onely proposing some questions.

1. what certainty haue we, that there are no more ways to deceiue our Syght, than these conditions provide against? Cannot swift­nesse, or slownesse of motions alter the appearance, of Colours, & coloratums? Are there not some Colours various, according to the situation of the silkes, that for example, which the french call Du Diable coessé, something of the nature, of a doves necke? Do not Mountebanks find meanes to deceiue the eyes of their spectators, thô their eyes be good, the Medium, & distance competent?

2. What certainty haue we, those three condition be exactly observed? As to the first: may not our eyes be defectiue, & we not perceiue it? Doth not Seneca write of an old woman, who com­plained of all roomes being obscure, yet never would acknowledge any fault in her eyes, which were the only faulty?

As to the second, may there not be a considerable difference in the Medium, enough to Refract the Visual rays, & we not perceive it?

As to the third, what certainty haue we, that the object is at a competent distance? Do we certainly know what is the exactest distance? Do not painters direct vs, who are vnskilled in that Art, what is the proper Distance to see a Picture? And in how many other things may the distance proper for such a determinate object be vnknowne to vs? Againe: what certainty haue we of the tru Distance it self? Doth not the moone rising over a house seeme to touch it? When a thing is within 20. yeards, or a mile of vs, we discerne the different distances; but can we perceiue the different distances of several parts in the surface of the moone, or sun? Or of those of Other Planets, & the fixt stars. How can the Distance competent secure our eyes, from mistakes, when distance it selfe is so obscure, & vncertaine? When you haue answered all these questions, I shall require you to answer two more.

The 1. what vnquestionable certainty you haue of all those An­swers? Jf you haue none, then these conditions cannot secure vs [Page 76]from all possibility of errour in crediting our Senses.

The 2. whither the certainty of these conditions being exactly observed, be equal to that we haue, that what God says is tru? If the certainty of the truth of God's words be greater then that of those conditions, than we must conclude, that To appeale to Senses, in opposition to God's expresse words, is rash, dangerous, & obnoxious to Errour.

SECTION XIII. Reasons for the credit of senses. • 1. We may rely on our senses. , • 2. Courts of Iustice as free from errour amongst Catholicks, as others. , • 3. Depositions of senses subordinate to those of God. , • 4. Our Doctrine doth not ground scepticisme. , • 5. Scriptures, & Church not prejudiced by Transubstantiation. , and • 6. Conclusion. 

1. D. M. p. 17. What can be more knowne, than Bread & wine? If than we may be mistaken in these, what vse, what certainly of Senses in any thing else? And if there be not certainty of Senses, why doth God command the Israelits to remember what they had Seene, & Heard, & teach it their Children?

Rev. J do not see that Faith is lesse taught, or lesse strongly be­leived, where Transubstantiation is taught, then where tis rejected. Or that seasons would be changed, the Earth lesse fruitfull, or men lesse wise, or lesse knowne to Relations, or Freinds, should God worke some other Changes vnobservable to Senses, & reveale it to vs. We credit our Senses, as much as you, where God doth not re­veale the contrary: what more can be due to any Created faculty? [Page 77]Can we not prefer God's veracity before our Senses, but we must absolutely & vniversally reject these even where they conforme with Faith? All discourse relyes on that principle: Eadem vni tertio sunt idem inter se, which is hardly reconcilable with the mystery of the Trinity. Yet we do not suspect a fallacy in all other discourse, because we make no exception, but where God excepts, & he ex­cepts only in that one mystery. So we excepting against senses only in this particular, where God excepts, leaues them at full liberty, & in full credit in all things else.

D. M. p. 18. All matters of controversy both Civil, & Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two, or three Witnesses. Now how can any man beare witnesse, if he be vncertain of what he Heares, or sees? How is the Iudg certain he doth not condemne an jnnocent man?

Revisor. I suspect it not very prudent, to reproach Catholick courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men, & beleiving vncertain depositions of witnesses, at this time of the day. Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgment a dog for a wolf, An jnnocent man for a Traitour, & Peter for Iudas, as well as their neyghbours. Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Pro­testants as obnoxious to errour, as other folkes: witnesse the Tall slender flaxen hayred D. Iohn, the Iesuits house in Paris next dore to the Louure: men seene in several places the same time, one sw­orne to be Blundel, another to be Hesketh, to whome they had no neerer relation, then Iaphet, as for as we can discover: & for this I appeale to the Heralds. And our last fiue ye ares transactions afford twenty other odde example, which I wish were buryed in oblivion, & recorded no where, but in God's booke of mercy, amongst the sins forgiuen.

3. D. M. p. 18.20. If there be no certainty of Sense, why did Christ vpbraide Chorasin & Bethsaide for not beleving after having so ma­ny Miracles? Why doth S. Iohn to proue the word was made Flesh, tell vs, he saw, heard, & handled it? Why did the Angel to proue The [Page 78]Resurrection, bid Mary Magdalen come, & see the place, where the Lord lay? As inferring, if he could not be seene, he was not there. A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation. Why did Christ bid Tho­mas thrust his hand into his side? Why did Christ ascend into Heaven, in the syght of his Disciples? Why did Luke say, he writ what he had from eye witnesses? Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witnesse of what he writ? Why was the ghospel written, or preacht, if we are not sure of what we See, or Heare? Why were tru Miracles anciently done, or false ones lately pretended to? Why doth the Church proue her owne Being by Notes, which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty.

Rev. Your Whys at this rate may reach from Genesis, to the Apo­calypse, & hooke in, to boote, all Ecclesiastical Hystory, & hold vs a long lent's Reading: which would haue contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader, & tire out one, who would answer you. Yet you will misse even of that aime, for one answer will satisfy all; all your questions being grounded on one false sup­position. To cleere this J will vse one example.

We are by Divine, & Humane laws bound to obey the King, & his Officers, according to their several degrees, & the Authority communicated to them. Yet with this difference: that our obedi­ence to the King is absolute, & without reserue, in temporal things: that to his Officers is conditional, only as long as they continu obedient to the King. But if these command vs to take vp armes against the King, & do what he forbids, we cease to be obliged to obey them, & are obliged not to obey them. Jf you say: as sub­jects we are bound to obey them, who haue Commissions from the King: I grant it, as long, as they continu in their duty; but no fur­ther. now multiply Queres vpon this subject till Doomes day, whither at their command, we are bound to take Armes, to come to a Ren­dez vous, to stand sentinel, shut the gates of a towne, open them, seize a man, dismisse him, advance, present, giue fire, retreate, &c? To these questions one answer is sufficient. Whilst they com­mand nothing contrary to the Kings will, & service, they are to [Page 79]be obeyd: when we are certain they designe a Rebellion, & rayse men onely to destroy the King, & build for themselues on his ruins, we are not bound to obey them; but rather bound not to obey them.

J answer in alike manner to all your Whys. Our Vnderstanding re­ceiues some knowledge from God, by (either immediate, or me­diate) Revelation: & some by our Senses. It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God. We may admit, what co­mes from senses, provided it be not contrary to what God averres: but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveales, either in his written, or vnwritten word, we must renounce them, & stick to the revealed Truth. So if they tell me athing is Chalke, & God tells me it is Cheefe, they must pardon me, if I rather beleiue God, & beleiue it to the Cheefe.

Thus althô (contrary to four Senses, but not to Hearing) I be­leiue Transubstantiation because God reveales it, I may beleiue that I see a Ship, & go into it to crosse the seas: that I see Bread, & eate it, when I am hungry: that J see Wine, & drink it when J am thirsty: that I see a freind, & rejoice in his company: that I see a good action, & commend it. That I see a crime committed, & procure it be redrest by publicke Iustice: that I reade a Hystory or heare a story, & beleiue it: In fine giue as full credit to the verdict of Senses, as any Protestant, excepting onely that point, which God tells me senses are deceived in.

This well considered, I see no reason for those dismal apprehen­sions from our beleife of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made vselesse, the sword of justice broken, humane society dissolved, all Doctrine Divine, & Humane made voyde, & of no vse, & both Church & state brought to confusion, & destruction. Rivers may run vnder a bridge, & winds blow from the same points of the com­passe, Senses left to their functions, & we to their direction in all o­ther things, though Transubstantiation be beleived.

D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence, & certainty of Sense, is in ef­fect to deny all Possibility of Learning, or of Teaching, or of Know­ing, [Page 80] or of Beleiving any thing what soever, & brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptick, not only in other Arts, &c Sciences; but in divi­nity it selfe also.

Revisor. To secure you against this Phantôme, I appeal to com­mon experience to shew, where Scepticks in matters of Religion a bound most, in the Catholick, or in the Protestant Communion: & let that decide, whither Doctrine, yours, or ours, opens a wider dore to Scepticisme. What Doctrine Divine, & Humane haue your Brethren Reformers spared? What authority so venerable, as they haue not vndermined? What law of God so necessary, as they haue not rendred ineffectual, by teaching all the commandments are im­possible? What rite so sacred, as they haue not derided? What Ar­ticle of Faith fundamental, as they haue not questioned, & rejected? And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths, you haue weakned the Church, shaked to pieces Faith, & rooted vp what had been planted by Christ, watred by the Apostles, & growne vp in following ages, & by this brought into the world, & countenanced Libertinisme, Atheisme, & Scepticisme, you Charge them on vs: just as the late long Parliament charged the civil wars, & that Iliad of miserys, caused by themselues, on King Charles 1. Keepe to your selues those deformed brats, they are yours: & the essential Prin­ciples of your first Reformers are evident Premisses to these vna­voidable conclusions. Your Luther, your Calvin, your Zuinglius, your Ivel eate the sowre grapes, which set at all your teeth on edge: They layd the egges, out of which these cockatrices are hatcht. And while you retaine your owne Principles, you must expect the same odious encrease of mischeif.

5. E. M. p. 21. If there be no certainty of Senses, how know they, that it is the Body & Bloud of Christ? By immediate Inspiration; or by Seing the Scripture, or Hearing the Church? They pretend to no immediate Jnspiration. Seing the Scriptures, & hearing the Church cannot be relyed on, because there is no certainty of Senses.

Revisor. The first part, I admit, that we do not rely on any im­mediate [Page 81]mediate Revelation, or jnspiration. The rest, that we cannot rely on what we See in Scripture, and Heare from the Church, you know is contrary to our sentiments, & absolutely false. Haec si imprudens facis, nihil coecius: si prudens, nihil sceleratius. S. Austin l. cont. Adam. c. 15. If you reproach vs that Paradox, not knowing we abhorre it, What is more blind than you? If you know we renounce it, yet charge it on vs, what more wicked than you?

6. D. M. p. 21.22. Their Interpretation of this place of Scripture must needs frustrate, & make voyde the vse & end of all Scripture, & of the Church it self also: & consequently it is not a tru one.

Rev. Here is a lame jllation, out of two false Premisses as J haue shewed. And J appeale to any man, who hath but common sense, to decide whither make voyde the Scripture, we, who subscribe to it, or you, who contradict it? Scripture says: That is Christ's Body. Catholicks say: That is Christ's Body. Non-Catholicks say: That is not Christ's Body. Credit your eyes, for whome you pleade, & see whi­ther part Frustrates the end of Scripture, we subscribe to Scripture, we defend it: if we are deceived, God hath deceived vs. But he cannot deceiue vs: so we are sure, we are not deceived. As for you, you contradict the scripture, your Senses delude you, you fyght against the scripture, or if for it, it is only as your Tru protestants fought for the King.

D. M. p. 22 If there be no Transubstantiation, the Papists are as grosse Jdolaters as the Heathens says Costerus a Iesuit.

Revisor. If the Heavens fall, we may catch larkes, And if an Asse flyes, he will moue swiftly. But what do these conditional Pro­positions signify, while the conditions ramble in the imaginary spa­ces of impossible Beings, & are only the objects of fancifull heads? You will go hungry to bed, if for your supper you rely on those Larkes: & you will as soon performe your journy riding on a snayle, as if you expect the winged Asse. And Papists neede not feare Hell, or Purgatory, if they haue no other sin to Answer for, than belei­ving Christ's Body to be, where he says it is: and Adoring him there, [Page 82]solely because they firmely beleiue that he is there: having his owne expresse words for their warrant.

Conclusion of this Book. An appeale from the sole competent judge, which knoweth, & can determine, to one in competent, who nether knoweth the thing in question, nor can decide it, is an evi­dent signe of a desperate Cause. You appeale from the sole com­petent judge, God & his Church, to one incompetent, the Senses, which nether know the thing in question, the meaning of the words of Christ, nor can pronounce sentence in it. Therefore your Cause is desperate.

Otherwise thus: A sentence of an incompetent judge is insigni­ficant. The Sensations are a sentence of incompetent judges: there­fore they are insignificant.



I Do not professe my selfe a common champion, for all Catholicks, that either Attacke Protestants, or are At­tackt by them. Had God called me to that taske, he would haue endowed me with a greater strength of mind, & Body, a larger extent of knowledge, & more leasure from other employments, then I haue. Wherefore I confine my selfe to a much narrower sphere, more proportioned to my abilityes, [Page 83]viz, to that Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints Iude verse 3. for which seing all are obliged Earnestly to contend, I see my self vnder that general obligation. As also to the defence of our Holy mother the Curch, by whome we receiue this Faith, without whose assistance Faith it self, that precious gif of our bountifull lord, would fayle. As for the sentiments of other private persons, the being of the Church, the jnnocency of our Doctrine, & the purity of our Faith, not depending on them, I think it no necessary duty to make good all they say, further than that cannot be destroyed without weakning Faith. And in alike manner I do not expect, nor de­sire, any should concerne themselues for what I say, but only on like occasions, that it be such, as Faith would receiue some dam­mage, werer it confuted. If any one, out of an opinion, that J go astray, or am in an errour in what J write in defense of the Church, will take the paines to shew it me, with Charity, & meekenesse, J shall thank him for his labour, & either acknowledge my perso­nal errour, if it be such, or giue a reason why I do not.

Hence I was for some time doubtfull, whither I should review this Vindication, no body being concerned in it, besides the name­lesse Authour of an obsure Pamphlet, whose merits are as obscure as his person namelesse; especially some of his opinions being far different, from what the Church, her felf, as well as divines hold; if his meaning be sincerely represented by my freind D. M. & ryghtly vnderstood by me. And I think the Argument from sense low enough, whither this Anonimus stand, or fall: althô M. Doctor page 4. is pleased to say, that if this Pamphlet falls, his Argument remaines not only vnanswered; but vnanswerable: as if that anonimus were our Hector, & our Troy were to be defended by his hand, or by none at all. Yet I am of opinion, that my Reader will find some­thing in my Review of the Argument, to which what is here sayd, will not giue full satisfaction, probably it will scarce be brought within canon shot of it. So my Review of this Treatise is a worke of supererogation, which J vndertake meerely because there is oc­casion [Page 84]giuen to handle some few material points, which further confirme what I haue sayd, if well vnderstood.

SECTION XIV.1. Division of Miracles. , • 2. Some insensible, out of scripture. , and • 3. Arguments from Aetymology of words, or names, frivolous. 

1. WHo that man was, whome p. 1. you call Namelesse is not material: but why you should stile his Pamphlet Worth­lesse, I know not. I haue never seene it, to my knowledge, yet w­hat you cite out of him (bating some phrases, which to your po­lite eares sound harsh, as some of mine will) It speakes it not much inferiour to some others. Then you giue vs a view of as much of the whole treatise as relates to your Argument: which I will omit here, being content with once viewing them, as they occurre afterwards.

The first thing setled by this Anonimus is that some Miracles are Sensible, others insensible. Or, as he says, some are Motiues to Faith, others Objects of Faith: which is very neere the same, as to our present purpose: This distinction disgruntles you, who cannot suffer that any Miracles should be sayd to be Insensible. But I will proue there are such,

Because 1. Christ was borne Clauso Virginis Deiparae vtero: without any prejudice to the virginal integrity of his Blessed mother. This was a Miracle, as is evident: yet it was not Sensible. Therefore some Miracles are not Sensible.

2. His coming out of the sepulcher shut vp, with a greate stone, [Page 85]& sealed, was it not Miraculous? Can two bodyes naturally be pe­netrated? Could his sacred body passe through that stone, without penetration of two solid bodyes [such were that of Christ, & that stone] miraculous? And if you say Christs body past from the place in the sepulcher to that without the stone, without passing the middle space Ab extremo ad extremum, sine medio, that skip will be Mira­culous, & insensible too. so it will confirme what J say. You cannot say the stone was removed, for him to passe: for it is evident, that Angel coming from Heaven roaled away the stone, who was found sitting vpon it. Mat. 28.2.

3. Alike Miracle hapned, when he entred into the chamber, where his Disciples were assembled. Here was again a penetration of two bodyes: & by what Senses, or Sense was it perceived? They saw, they heard, they toucht him, when he was entred, & stood in the midst of them: but his very entrance, [which was Miraculous] was vnknowne to all, & not perceived by any till it was past, so the Miracle it selfe was Insensible. These three Miracles being so evident in scripture, could not escape the piercing eyes of the Fathers, let vs heare their opinion of them.

S. Ambrose l. 10. com. in Lucae c. 24. Mirum quomodo se natura corporea peer impenetrabile Corpus infuderit, invisibili aditu, visibili conspectu. It is wonderfull, [or Miraculous] how a corporal substance could insinuate it self through a firme impenetrable body, it being invi­sible at his entrance, Which was miraculous, visible after it. Note that invisibili aditu: his entrance invisible, or insensible. By these that glo­rious Doctor of the Church declares that all Miracles are not Sen­sible, which is a novelty to this old D. D.

S. Augustin, Epist. 3. ad Volusianum: Ipsa virtus per inviolatae Matris Virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit, quae postea per clausa ostia membra juvenis introduxit. Hic si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare. Demus Deum aliquid posse, quod nos fateamur investigari non posse. In talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis. That same Power brought to lyght the Infants body [Page 86]through the virginal womb of his mother, which afterwards, when at mans estate brought that same body, through the shut dores into the Chamber. If you seeke a reason for this, It will not be wonderfull; if you require an example, it will not be singular. In such things the Power of the workman is the sole & total reason of the worke.

Amongst S. Austin's works there is a 2. sermon vpon the satur­day in Easter-weeke, who ever be the Authour of it. In it J find these words: Quid mirum, si Dominus ad Discipulos glorificatum Corpus, claustris stupentibus intromisit, qui illaeso Materni pudoris signaculo ja­nuam mundi huius intravit. All confirm the same.

S. Gregory hom. 26. in Evang. Quodomo post Resurrectionem Cor­pus Dominicum verum fuit quod clausis januis ad Discipulos ingredi po­tuit? Sed sciendum nobis est, quod divina operatio, si ratione compre­henditur, non est admiranilis: nec fides habet meritum, cui humana ratio praehet experimentum. Thus the Apostle of our Nation. How was Christ's body real after his Resurrection, which could enter to the Disciples, the dores being shut? But we are to take notice, that the divine workes cease to be admirable, when Reason comprehends them: & Faith ceases to be meritorious, when it begins to rely on Human discourse.

Out of these Authoritys, it is evident 1. that those three passa­ges of Christ's body out of his B. mother wombe, out of the se­pulcher, & into the Chamber, were by the Fathers esteemed Mira­culous, & indeed no man in his wits will deny it. And 2. that these passages were not perceptible by any sense; but were truly Insensi­ble: Quod erat probandum.

My 4. Proofe is the Miracle of stopping the fountain of Bloud of the woman, mar. 5. no body perceived this, besides God, & the woman her self. Et had not he by enquiry forced her to owne it publickly before all the throng, nether we now, nor those then present had knowne any thing of it.

5. When our lord walked on the sea, Iohn 6.19. for about thirty furlongs, or neere four miles. That walking on the waters was Miraculous from the beginning, for to each part of that fluid & yeil­ding [Page 87]Body, whch his sacred feete toucht, he gaue the consistency of a firme floore. Yet who saw, who heard, who felt, or perceived this In the dark, till towards the end of his walke, when drawing neere the ship, he was descryed by his Disciples?

6. The casting out of devils was not sensible: for nether the lo­cal motion of spirits, nor spirits themselues are objects of Sense, yet how frequent are these in scripture?

Lastly Iohn 21.25. An vnconceivable number of miracles were sayd to done by Iesus, which are no where written, for the bookes would fill the world. It is rash to say, all these were done in the syght of many, there being no proofe for it in scripture, or Fathers. I know, that Iohn 20.30. Many other signes, not recorded in scripture, are sayd To haue beene done in ths syght of the disciples. But it will be no easy taske to proue, that none but such hinted at here, are me­ant in that other place. So it is very probable that of those many Miracles some were done in private, none, or very few, knowing of, feelling, seing, or by any sense perceiving them. Let vs now harken to our freind.

D. M. p. 4. No such distinction of Miracles is found in the Ghospel: those of Christ & his Disciples were evident to Senses.

Rev. Answer 1. this is not tru, I haue giuen you many instan­ces of Miracles not evident to Senses, recorded in scripture.

Answer 2. The designe of the Evangelists in recording the Mira­cles of Christ, was that men Should beleiue that Iesus is the Christ. Iohn 20.31. & seing they could not record all his Miracles, they chose out cheifely such as were publick, & most convincing the veracity of the Tru Catholick evidence, Iesus Christ. So Catholicks, to proue the Falshood, of the Tru Protestant evidence, Oates, make vse of such vntruths, as are publicke, & confirmed by Oath, leaving out ve­ry many vntruths, vented by him in private.

D. M. p. 4. The onely end of all Miracles is to make men beleiue so­me Truths. This end failes in such as are not Sensible. Therefore there are none such.

Rev. Your first proposition is absolutely false. I haue often ac­quainted you with several other Ends, for which God may do, & hath done Miracles.

3. D. M. p. 5. Aquinas contradicts himself, when he says some Mi­racles are invisible. For he says else where, that name comes from admira­tion now how can a thing imperceptible to Senses be the cause of Admiration?

Rev. Answer 1. words in definitions signify not the actual Being; but the aptnesse to be. Non significant Actum; sed aptitudinem, say So­phists: soe if the worke be such, as when knowne it would cause Ad­miration, that is enough to conclude that it is admirable.

Ans. 2. Arguments drawne from the Etimology of words, are frivolous, & insignificant. Pontifex was named from making, or men­ding a Bridge. Praesul from leading a sacred dance of the salij, Preists of Mars, Senatus as an Assembly of old men. Will you thence con­clude, that no man ought to be called Pontifex, or Praesul, or Se­nator, but who hath made or mended a Bridge, lead a dance, or is an old man? In Englisk Alderman comes from Age: yet who regards old Age in the Creation of that Magistrate? A Bishop hath his name from Vigilancy: & a Deacon from serving: yet the first is giuen to some who are drowzy enough; the second to such, as ne­ver served. Some men haue transmitted to their successours in Bloud names taken from offices, which no way belong to them, such are Smith, Tayler, Butler, Warner, Fryer, Preist, Monk, Deane, Bishop, Cooke, &c. Why may not some others do the like to their succes­sours in Dignity?

Ans. 3 cannot we admire things imperceptible to Senses? Js not the Vnion hypostatical an object of Admiration to all Christians? Is not God's birth of a Virgin, admirable? Can we sufficiently ad­mire the loue of Gnd towards man, declared by the Passion of his only son? And is not the Divine Essence, & Trinity of per, fons in one nature, admirable both to men, & Angels? And are these, or any one of them, perceptible to Sense? But enough of this childish Argument.

SECTION XV.1. Accidents without a subject. , • 2. Extention of quantity in a place. , and • 3. A Body in two places. 

1. D. M. p. 9. Thomas contradicts himself in other places. For 1. p. q. 90. ar. 2. C. he sayth: An accident hath no being, but as something is denominated by it. That it rather belongs to, than is an entity, That its whole being is to be in something. Yet he teaches that in the Sacrament Accidents are without a subject.

Revisor. What difficulty is there, that God should do, what na­ture cannot? And how greate soever is the dependance of Accidents on Substance why can not God separate them, & supply by his om­nipotency, the want of a subject, as the Protestants owne he can preserue Substance without Accidents, althô it needes them very much? The being of an Accident is to Informe, inesse: & that of a Sub­stance, is to recerue information, Subesse. Now if God can preserue a Substance, without receiving Accidents, why not Accidents, without being received? These two are correlatiues, tis tru: but Relatiues may haue a being without their terme You will say, they cease to be relatiues, when the terme is gon, retaining only an aptnesse to a new relation, when it hath a new terme: & J reply this is just what passes in our case. For the Accidents after Transubstantiation haue no actual Relation to Substance, but an aptnesse to one, when occasion is presented. And for this reason Accidents in the Sacra­ment, are sayd to haue an ex stence like in some sort, to substance: Habent modum existendi substantiae Yet it is distinguisht from all Sub­stance, by that expresse, & natural propension it hath to denominat substance, & it suffers violence till it be restored to its innate man­ner of being in a substance, as a stone doth, when it is suspended in the Ayre.

D. p. q. Aquinas teachs that quantity hath extension of parts, in res­pect of place; yet in the sacrament he sayth it hath none. In which he contradicts himself.

Revisor. Quantity hath two effects; one in the Substance, which it informes: the other in the place, which it fills. The first is In genere causae formalis, as a forme: & this effect of quantity is in Christ's Body in the sacrament very perfectly, for his sacred Body being aliue, or animated with his rational soul, it must be Corpus organicum which imports a distinction of parts from one another.

The other effect, as to the place it fills, is In genere causae effici­entis, as an efficient, & actiue cause, by a certain elasticity, & springinesse of the parts of a body, which thrust backe such bodyes, as on all sides presse vpon it. which by moderne experiences is evi­dent in the Ayre, & in alike manner may be proved of other things. Hence the same Quantity hath sometimes a greater, sometimes a lesser extension in order to place, according as the ambient bo­dyes do more, or lesse, presse vpon it, & its elasticity is more, or lesse actiue. Thus in the top of a very hygh hill in Auvergne, askin well stopt seemed full of Ayre; & at the bottome of it, where the Athmosphere prest much, it wanted much of seeming full. Also a ball of Brasse, with a little pin hole, being halfe fild with water, containes it all very well: till by being to a certain degree heated in afire, its elasticity is encreased, for then the water & Ayre mingled will breake through that narrows passage, & fill the cham­ber with a kind of mist. Now if a Quantity of fiue foote, for example, by diminishing its Elasticity, or encreasing the pressures of ambient Bodys, be brought to four, or three feete, why may it not be reduced to two, or one? Or by Divine Power quite suspending its Elasticity, be brought to an vnconceivable littlenesse of place, which would scarce deserue that name. If fire, the most actiue cause knowne, had no effect on the three children in the Babilonian fur­nace, God suspending its vertu, why cannot God suspend the actiue vertu of a little Quantity?

Which I do not say, to demonstrate fully the whole mysterious manner of the existence of the Body of Christ, in this Divine Sa­crament (that being a thing to be beleived by faith; not to be pro­ved, or even comprehended, & perfectly vnderstood by naturall reason) but only to diminish the difficulty of the beleife of it, by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery.

You see, sir, how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contra­diction, you charge him with: for it is no contradiction to say: A fire well kindled burnes matter combustible duly applyed: & in the fur­nace fire did not burne those three young men. Both which we know to be tru, one by experience, the other by Revelation, why may not such an obvious explication excuse this greate Doctor, from so shamefull a fault as contradicting himself is? That all quantity fills some space is a general rule: that in the Sacrament it doth not, is an exception from this rule. Can you not vnderstand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule?

3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas, & all the rest teach, that no other body can be in more places, than one at one time: yet they say Christs body in the Sacrament, is in many places at the same time. Thus they mantain what their church hath defined, though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only; but of Nature, sense, & Reason: & not without manifest, & manifold contradictions not of one another onely; but even of themselues also.

Revisor. The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas, & all Ca­tholicks, is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places, at once: & that we deny, that Any other body can be in two places at once. Where your first fault, is against Logick: for you beleiue these two propo­sitions to be contradictions, & they are not soe. For a contradiction is Affirmatio, & negatio eiusdem de eodem, the same thing must be sayd, & denyed of the same subject: now here is not the same sub­ject: for Christs body, & other bodys are not the same. Hence it is no contradiction to say: Christs body is personally vnited to the word: and, no other body is personally vnited to the word.

Your second fault is more reproachfull, a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments. You say, we teach that No other body, (but that of Christ) can be in more places than one, at the same time. Which is so far from being tru, that I will challenge you, or any other in the world, to produce any one, either Divine, or Philosopher, of the Catholick communion who denyes to Any body a passiue ca­pacity of being in two places, when God shall determine, in that same manner, that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places. And if I am dis­proved in this, I am content to be thought the Impostor. Had you consulted either our Phylosophers, or Divines, or even any of our yearly conclusions, you would haue found instances enough to cor­rect your mistake, if it were not affected: which I will not determine. I say In that same manner, that he beleiues Christ's body is in two places: because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensivè, Lo­calitèr, or Desinitivè in two places, [& the Scotists hold the contrary] but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is vnexcusable.

Your third fault, is, that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity. I know no other, at least no better, Principles of tru Di­vinity, than Scripture, Tradition, Definitions of the Church, & Fathers. If you know any better, make vs happy by communicating them. Now J am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these; nay it is grounded on them all: & this you knew so well, that you haue carefully avoyded all mention of them, as conscious of your con­tradicting them all, & foreseing that they are rockes, on which this Sensual Heresy would split it self. Scriptures says, It is Christs body: Tradition says the same, so do Fathers, so doth the Church: so do we. Not one Egge more like another, than our Doctrine, is to theirs. What violence then do we do, to all the principles of Divinity? But it is not vnusual, that men, who rob, cry Theiues. You know you cannot proue that we oppose any one principle of Divinity: so you never attempt it. Yet you would haue it beleived, & The­refore you beg it.

Your fourth fault is, that you blame vs, as faulty, for going in matters of Faith, against Nature, Sense, & Reason. Sir we are Dis­ciples of S. Paul, of him we haue learnt, To cast downe jmaginations, & every hygh thing, that exalts it self against the knowledge of God, & bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. 2. cor. 10.6. This we practice in this, & other matters. If in this we are bla­meworthy, condemne him, who directs vs to do so: if you dare not condemne him, you must absolue vs.

Call to mind S. Austins words, mentioned aboue, in Epist. ad Volusianum: Si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile: si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare. If a reason be found out, it will cease to be admirable: if an example be produced, it will not be singular. We owne it is Ad­mirable, we professe it is Singular. So we expect nether Reason, nor example to confirme vs in the beleife of it. That is, we are nether Socinians, nor Morleyans. Iust so we beleiue the same Christ to be borne of a virgin, thô nether Reason, nor experience confirme it.

Yet out of some other places of scripture joyned together, it ap­peares, that Christ's body hath been in two places, at the same time. For we learne out of Ephes. 4.10. that He ascended vp far aboue all Heavens: whence Heb. 7.26 he is sayd To be Hygher then the Heavens. And Act. 13.21. we reade: Whome the Heavens must receiue, till the time of restitution of all things: that is till the vni­versal Resurrection, he must remaine aboue the Heavens. Yet he was seene by S. Paul, 1. Cor. 15.8. & Act. 9. Therefore he was in two places at the same time: In Heaven, & aboue the Heavens, as the scripture says: & neere the Earth, otherwise the Apostle could nether haue seene his Body, nor heard his voice.

You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about Mysteryes. Which being nothing to the purpose, I leaue it, as I find it: & passe to the your 19. page, where I find something in which I am concerned.

SECTION XVI. Transubstantiation is a Miracle.

MY reason is, because it is a worke not only Besides, or Aboue; but Contrary to second causes. Therefore it is a Miracle. The illation is evident, as being from the definition, to the thing defi­ned. The antecedent is cleere, first from the littlenesse of the space or rather the no space, to which Christs Body is reduced. Secondly from its being in many places at once. Answer this Reason, & eris mihï magnus Apollo. What haue you against this?

D. M. p. 19. Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sa­crament, as no doubt it would haue done, if there had beene any, seing no man can perceiue it.

Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle, but what scripture calls such? Then we must blot out of our Catalogue of Miracles, a greate part of those recorded in Scripture it self. But you say, No doubt it would haue called it so: & I say I doubt of it, & my doubt is confir­med by many instances, of Miracles recorded in scripture, without being called so. That of rayes, for example, on Moses I ace. But you say, this was Sensible, which the other is not. And J say that is nothing to the purpose, as I haue often shewed. How ever it is evident enough: for it appeares by the words of Christ, that he is there: & our Senses tell vs that he is not visible there.

D. M. p. 19. It is no Miracle, because it is not onely not evident to Sense; but moreover it is contrary to Sense.

Rev. Here you serue vp againe your cold cabbadge: which how insipid they were at first, we haue Seene, now we nauseate them. Yet for four pages you afford vs no other foode.

D. M. p. 23. God never workes a Miracle, but for some greate, & good End, which cannot be obtained without it, for God doth nothing in vaine. Now such a Miracle would be to no purpose, for Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothing.

Revisor. The Apostles, the Fathers, the Church, the Faith full all over the world had & haue a far different opinion of the sacra­mental Communion of the Body & Bloud of Christ, than you haue. S. Paul makes vse of that consideration to moue men to try them­selues before they approach the Divine Table: least by receiving it vnworthily, they become guilty of the Body & Bloud of Christ. S. Cyril of Hierusalem, says that by it we are Christophori, Bearers of Christ, jtem Consanguinei his kinsmen. S. Chrisostome: ‘yOu desire to see Christ, to heare his voice, to touch the hemme of his garment: more is granted to you; that you eate him, &c. Againe when describes a Preist at the Altar, with quires of Angels round about him the Heavens open over his head, God the holy ghost cooperating with him, God the son in his hands to be offred to the Eternal Father, who is aboue expecting to receiue that most gratefull offering, doth all this avayle nothing? Was the centurion moved with the consideration of his owne vnworthinesse, being to receiue Christ vnder his roofe; & is our Faith so dead, as to be insensible when he vouchsafes to come into our bosomes? What can, if this doth not, stir vp in vs sorrow for having of­fended Almyghty God: Faith in him, whome we beleiue present: Hope, that he, who hath giuen himself vnto vs, will not, can not refuse vs any thing. And an intire & sincere Loue of him, who hath loved vs, & doth loue vs so much, as to giue himself for all in general, & to each one in particular? Besides acts of Devotion, of Adoration, of Humility, of Zeale, &c.’

‘All which if you esteeme inconsiderable, & to Profit nothing, I desire you to tell me, what doth profit in the way of vertu?’ You will say Faith. And J will answer we haue that as well, as you, & that quickned, & strengthned by the consideration of him really present, who is both Authour, & Object, or last end, the Λ. & Ω. of our Faith.

Jn fine S. Eucherius sayd: Tria sibi Deus struxit tabernacula, &c. God hath set vp for himself three tents, the Synagogue, the Christian [Page 96]Church, & Heaven. In the first, there is nothing but Types of things hoped for: in the last, Substance without any Types: in the Christian Church Substance vnder Types: That same Christ, who was figured to the Iews, & is cleerely seene, & enjoyed by the Blessed in He­aven, being really present vnder Types on our Altars. And you Protestants by denying this presence of Christ, in this Divine Sacra­ment, what do you, but degrade your Communion from the dig­nity of a Sacrament of the new law, & bring it to the condition of a jewish rite, of a base Beggarly element.

But The flesh profiteth nothing, say you. I grant it, if it be taken carnally, & without spirit, or Faith, without discerning betwixt that, & other Bodily food; not otherwise. For can you, or will you say, that That flesh avayles nothing, by which we were redeemed? Will you say with your late tru Protestant Oracle, that we were never the better, for Christs being crucifyed for vs?

D. M. p. 24. 25. Lastly there can be no such Miracle, as Transub­stantiation, because all Miracles are possible; Transubstantiation is impossible. And you send vs to see this proved in D. Whitaker Bishop Morton & Mr. Chillingworth, who shew say you that this implyes con­tradiction, & such things cannot be done: nay it would argue rather an impotency, than omnipotency in God to doe such things.

Revisor. You had done vs appleasure, & Protestants would haue thought your time well spent, in producing Reasons to proue this implicancy; & not to send vs, & them on this wild goose chacé, to find what those learned men say in this point. The meane while, what you haue sayd, proues nothing: & the beleife of Transubstanti­ation remaines firme: & God, and his Church Tru.

D. M. p. 27. There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstanti­ation; it being not onely an vselesse thing, if it were so; but an impossible thing, that it should be lo.

Revisor: That Transubstantiation is a Miracle, is a thing so evident to Reason, that J never feare to see the Reasons for it answered. That it is Vselesse, & impossible, you say, but you will never be able to persuade the first; to any pious man, nor the second, to any learned man.



THese three pieces, containing not many doctrinal Points controverted betwixt the two Churchs of Rome, & England, will not detaine me long, in reviewing your judgment declared in them, especially considering that a greate part is personal, of Mr. Cressey, the Gun powder Plotters, & her R. H. which kind of things, whither tru, or false, may be let pa se without any prejudice to the Catholick Caeuse. For Personal sanctity of all Catholicks spread all over the world, is a thing to be wisht; not hoped for. And althô some faults, even of the first magnitude could be proved vpon some of them, yet that ought no more to moue any man to abandon the Communion of the Church now, than it did to abandon it in the Apostles times, when some of her children were Detractors, Gluttons, Incestuous, Contentious, Proud, & Avaritious men, as may be seene in S. Paul's Epistles. In these, indeed, mention is made of a Church free from spot, & wrinkle: & that we hope for in Heaven. But at present there are in the net, good & bad fish: in the feild, Corne & Darnel: in the barne, [Page 98]wheate, & Chaffe: in the house, Vessells to honour, & to disho­nour. Amongst the virgins, some foolish: amongst the Apostles, a Iudas; an Ismael in Abraham's family: an Esau, in Isaacs, a Ruben in Iacob's: an Absalom, in David's: an Adam in the terrestrial Pa­radice, & a Lucifer in the Celestial. All which bad men did nether excuse a separation from the Church, in which they lived, nor pre­judice the rest, who did not approue, or abette the sins: as the Church hath long since declared against the Donatists. We professe we be­leiue the Sanctity of the Catholick Church, which consists in her Doc­trine, her Laws, her Rites, & many of her children; not all: And it is the goodnesse of God to make vs partakers of all the good workes, which any one doth; but not of the bad: For we beleiue a Communion of Saints; not of sinners; of merits; not of offenses. So the guilt of sin is confined to the person sinning: but the me­rits of vertuous actions spreades to all the faithfull who are in the state of grace. Wherefore we ought not to think the worse of the Church, for any fault committed by any of her children, seing she nether teaches, nor commands, nor approues it. But the Protestant Church cannot so easily cleare her selfe from such spots, as the sins of her children leaue: her Doctrine of the impossibility of God's Commandments, that we are nether the better for good, nor the worse for bad actions (which are nether meritorious, nor demeri­torious in the praedestinate) & of Evangelical liberty, the roote of all Sedition, & Rebellion in Church & State, &c. These I say, & the like, having beene taught by same of her children, & never condemned by her, make her answearable for all sorts of sins, which are but the natural sequels, of those Premisses, effects of those causes, fruits of that tree, which the first Protestants planted, & their followers water, & cherish. In Catholicks a bad life is con­trary to Catholick Doctrine & laws; in Protestants, it is a natural sequel of both.

J do not say this, to excuse any fault, with reason charged vpon the persons mentioned (except the gun powder plotters) or to [Page 99]forestall my Readers judgment, in favour of the Church, if those accused should be really found guilty. There is no cause for such an Apology. The faults alleadged against Mr. Cressey are at the worst indiscreete expressions of edjous things which he thought tru, & D. M. thinks not so. And her R. H. did shew in effect, that no Wordly consideration should moue her to professe a Religion, of which in her conscience she was not. Of which more hereafter. Who, but Atheists, & Libertins, can blame this? Which is only a preferring Heaven to Earth, Eternity to time, the soul to the body, God to man: & the Peace of a good conscience, before the reproach of some bad men. Those who think all Religions indifferent, & that the King is to determine which we are to follow, the Hobbians, may blame this; but not a Disciple of Christ, & his Apostles.

SECTION XVII. Mr. Cressey excused. • 1. Whither the Kingdome may be sayd to haue taken the Covenant? , • 2. Whither the K. was the only sufferer for his Religion? , • 3. Many of the Protestant Clergy renounc't their Dignityes? , • 4. Whither the Clergy suffred for their Loyalty, or their Religion? , and • 5. Of the Actings of the English Protestant Clergy in the troubles. 

1. D. M. p. 7. It is false & injurious to say, that the Presbite­rians did constrain the whole kingdome to forswear their Re­ligion: for it must be the whole Kingdomes taking, & not the Pres­biterians imposing generally of the Covenant, that must proue this assertion.

Revisor. You take Mr. Cressey's words in a very strict sense, that [Page 100]you may accuse them, & condemne him. Yet I think in good Phy­losophy, & divinity too, Propositions In materiâ contingenti, althô they seeme Vniversal, are not such, but only Indefinite. For exam­ple: Philip. 2.21. All seeke their owne; not the things, which are of Iesus-Christ. & Tit 1.12. The Cretans are always lyars, evil Beasts, slow bellyes. These Propositions are as to their forme Vniversal, the first with a distributiue particle to Persons, All: the second with alike particle, of time, Always. Yet nether are truly Vniversal: not the first, for nether S. Paul, nor several of the Apostles then aliue, Sought their owne. In alike manner amongst the Cretans some were very good, sincere, & vertuous men. Such Propositions are fre­quent in common discourse: v. c. All Spainards are Graue: All French men civil. All Italians cautious: All young men rash: All women talka­tiue: All old men morose. &c. Which are taken as tru, because com­monly they are so, taken Indefinitè. But taken as Vniversals, they are false, seing several instances can be brought, in which they are not tru: & greate warinesse is necessary in applying any one of them, to particulars. This is my first Answer.

Another is, that the Kingdome by an ordinary figure is taken for the governing part of it: so what is decreed by that, may be sayd to be decreed by the Kingdome. Which is tru, thô some of this part oppose it. Thus a Peace, or Truce is sayd to be made by the Re­publick Of Venice, v. c. when the Senate decrees it, or when the major part of Senators resolue it, althô some Senators oppose it, & are for war. Livy. Vbi semel decretum erit, omnibus id etiam, quibus ante displicuerat, pro bono, atque vtili foedere erit defendendum. Plinius l. 6. Epist. 13. Quod pluribus placuit, omnibus tenendum. Dionisius Halicarnassaeus: Parendum his, quae pars maior censuerit. Even those who dislike a decree before it be made, are bound to approue it, after it is made. Provided it containe nothing against Conscience. Indeed we see in all Assemblyes, where things are carryed by plu­rality of votes, all, even the NOES, are bound to approue the order, vnlesse in some cases, when they are admitted to a Protestation. [Page 101]Now the major part of the then Gouvernours of the Nation, or Kingdome decreed the taking of the Covenant: & the major & more conspicuous part of the subjects may be sayd to haue admitted that decree, althô very many, considerable both for number, & quality, by some industry shifted off the taking of it. so the Kingdome may in some sort be sayd To impose the Covenant: & also To take it. Thus we say, that England changed its Religion such a yeare: thô a very greate number at that time did not admit of any change. And we may say that the Oaths are imposed vpon, & taken by, the King­dome: thô several refuse them. Were not Mr. Cressey a Papist, I be­leiue either of these answers would suffice.

2. D. M. p. 8. His second crime, is his saying The King was almost the only man, who remained so constant to his Religion, as to hazard for it the losse of his estate & life too. This is false, say you, for many thou­sands did the same.

Revisor. In the ruin of others there was a complicancy of causes, which procured it: loyalty to their King, hatred to their persons for fyghting against them, their estates &c. For Naboth was not the only man, who lost his life, for his inheritance. Now there was a time, when the demands of the Presbiterians seemed not intollerable to the King, who only stucke at the destruction of the Bishops. So Mr. Cressey myght say, he was Almost the only man who suffred on the score of his protestant Episcopacy. I haue not heard of very ma­ny ruined, & killed, because they Would not renounce the Bishops. Nether did the Rebels vse to say: Renounce Bishops, or we will hang you. Several sayd, renounce Popery, or we will kill you: & many were killed by the Rebells for not complying. But to no Protestant was giuen such sowre sawce, that J heard of.

3. D. M. p. 8. Thirdly he says: Several of the wisest, & learnedest of the English Clergy were content to buy their security with a voluntary degrading of themselues, from their offices, & Titles. Which, say you, is injurious to the Bishops.

Rev. Why the Bishops should be vnderstood in that proposition, [Page 102]J know not. In our Canon law, when only an inferiour, & gene­rical degree is named, in odious thing's (as this it in your eye) the superiour, & particular is not comprehended. [vide C. Sedes Apostol. de Rescriptis, & the glosse vpon it] now Mr. Cressey men­tions only The Clergy, which is the lowest & most common degree. Wherefore nether Bishops, nor Deanes, nor any Person in Ecclesi­astical Dignity must necessarily be comprehended. What then doth offend you, in this Proposition? Did not several of the English Clergy become Catholicks? Did not these degrade themselues From the offices, & titles which they enjoyed in the Church of England? Could they retaine them remaining Catholicks? Did not some of the English Clergy yeild to the streame, & comply with the times? Did not some beare armes? Did not one, & he a Metrapolitan, lay aside his Crozier, & take vp a sword? Did not all these degrade themselues? May not these different sort of Desertors, be named Several of the English Clergy? Were it not in the book of a Papist, probably they myght so, & the book passe without offense.

But Mr. Cressey says, that he meanes the Vniversality of the Bis­hops, who seemed to degrade themselues, by not filminating any censure against the Rebells. Answer: If he doth so, he says more, than what was necessary to make good his first Proposition. You say that censures are not a Necessary duty of a Bishop. So you both agree that To censure is a duty of a Bishop, in time & place: yet with this difference, that you think it is not a Necessary duty of a Bishop; & he thinks it is: doth this diversity of Thoughts make him Crimi­nal? Especially being conformable to scripture. 2. Trin. 4.2. Re­proue, Rebuke, exhort. Tit. 1.13 Rebuke them sharpely. Did not Christ giue power to bind, as well as to loosen? To retaine, as well as to release? To shut, as well as to open? If on pressing occasions they neglect the vse of that Power To bind, retaine, shut, is it not as much as to renounce that Power? & if they renounce that, do they retaine the other? Is not Episcopacy one individual Power?

I desire you to shew me any one Catholick country, where such [Page 103]a Rebellion hapned, & all the Bishops remained silent. By what doth Christ distinguish a Pastor from a Mercenary? Joan. 10. The first sees a Wolf coming, & exposes his life, for the defence of his flock: the later seing the wolf coming, runs away, & lets the wolf worry his slocke at Pleasure. Which of these two did our English Bishops imitate? But J leaue the application to the Reader.

But what can you alleadge to excuse this silence in such an oc­casion, as would make even the dumbe son of Craesus speake? you haue three motiues: The first is, that it was not seasonable. But doth not S. Paul command that it be done even Out of season?

The second: that it would haue done no good. But that was De futuro contingenti. How ever in a desperate sicknesse, is it not better to apply an vncertain remedy, than none at all? Would any one haue thought that the Layty had complyed with their duty to serue the King in his wars, if they should haue remained at home, & sayd, Our fyghting for the King will do no Good?

The third: you would not tempt God, nor expose your order to their malice, who myght extinguish it. The others are but pretended; this is the tru reason: here the shoo wrings: you thought it good sleeping in a whole skin, & were desirous to keepe your mather's sons out of harmes way. Indeed you would secure your persons; not your order: for the Rebells had before vowed to roote out your degree; so that could not be brought into greater danger, than it was in. Wherefore your feare was for your dearly beloved persons.

D. M. p. q. His 4. crime is saying: that Though many of the Clergy suffred, in extremity, yet it was not properly with an eye to their Reli­gion; but to their fidelity, & loyalty to their Prince. A bold & vncha­ritable Assertion.

Revisor. Why so? 1. Because says the Doctor, they did not tell him so. Answer: the factious Rebells did tell him so, declaring they did not persecute for Religion; but for the security of the state. Name any Protestant Parson, hanged for being such. Dr. Hewit was executed for ether real, or pretended crimes against the state; not for Religion. So the rest.

Your other reason is because Loyalty is a point of your Religion. Answer: then Susan is innocent: & all M. Cressey's fault comes to this, that he thought some crimes against the state, were not against Religion. And if this be a crime, there are so many, & so greate offenders, that you will scarce find a Iury to passe vpon them.

D. M. p. q. I think those Martyrs who suffer in defense of the V. commandment, as well as of any other.

Rev. You will I hope find a place in your catalogue of Martyrs for those Papists, & Iesuits, who chose rather to dye, than To beare false witnesse.

5. What motiues the Regicides may haue had to leaue vnmolested some obscure Parsons, is to me as vncertain, as what you say p. 14. is improbable, Viz, that it was Out of seare of their interest, & re­putation in the countryes where they lived. They had cut downe the stately Cedar, & would they sticke at a shrub? They cut off the Head of your Church, & would they feare the toe, or paring a nayl? They pulled downe King & Nobles, the primate & his Brethren: & would they be awed by a country Parson, scarce knowne even by name fiue miles from the place of his residence? To morrow I may beleiue this; not to day.

D. M. p. 17. Providence seemes to haue suffred, that those heroical Confessors should be ejected out of their stations, that being disperst over the Nation, they myght sow the seedes of Loyalty, & Truth.

Rev. Very pretty! As if the Hay of a greate medow, were Dis­perst, by being gathered into stackes, or the Atlandick Ocean, by ruming into halfe a dozen Fish-ponds. What corner in all the King­dome, without some of your ministry before the troubles? How then did this mysterious Dispersion spread them? some of them tra­velled, it is tru, but haply as many did so before: & what Seeds did they sow abroade? You your self were so wary, as not to speake of Religion, till you had a Iesuits hand & word, that it would not be ill taken. A broade then you did not sow those seedes. Did you sow them in England? who sowed the Seedes of Treason, & falshood, [Page 105]of which there was such store, that it overrun the Nation, & are not as yet weeded out? Were the Ministers negligent in sowing those good seedes before the war? Or was their labour, & industry lost? And how was it so successefull after the wars, that it should be a work of Providence? But you thought it honourable, that Providence should appeare in the concernes of your Ministry: so you bring it in, without well considering to what intent, & purpose.

5. D. M. p. 18. Begins to excuse the Bishops neglect of Excom­munication all the time of the troubles. Vpon which I aske him so­me questions: Haue not the Bishops Power to excommunicate? Js not that Power to be vsed against obdurate sinners? Were there none such from 1640. till 1650? Sure there were. How comes this censure to be forgotten? The Parliament, say you p. 21. could not be excommunicated. Ryght; but the Persons in, & of the Parlia­ment myght: & if the censure did not bring them to their wits, nor restore them to their duty, it would haue fryghted many well me­aning men, who adhered to the others innocently. Which is one effect of censures. 1. Trin. 5.20. Vt caeteri timorem habeant.

D. M. p. 22. We would not cast our Pearls vnto swine, (nor our holy things to dogs p. 26.) nor expose Christ to contempt, who sayth, who so ever despiseth you, despiseth me.

Rev. A pretty pretext for all hen-harted Prelates! The Apostles, & Fathers were of a far different opinion, let one speake for all: Non calcatur qui persecutionem patitur; sed qui persecutionem timendo infatuatur. Aug. l. 1. de serm. D. in mon. c. 6. Heis not despised, who suffers persecution but who through Feare of persecution is infatuated, so as to neglect his duty. Had the Apostles, & primitiue Bishops, been so timorously prudent, Paganisme had never been destroyed. Semen est sanguis Christianorum says Tertullian: Plures efficimur, quo­ties metimur. Our Bloud is seed: our number encreases, by our being mowed downe with your swords. One graine falls, & hundreds grow vp: One Christian is martyred, & thousands of Pagans em­brace his faith: & the remnant honour Christ, & his Vicegerents, even [Page 106]when they persecute them. But this lesson is not learnt in the Pro­testant Church.

D. M. p. 22. Thirteene Bishops made a trial of their Authority, when they made a solemn & publick. Protestation against the forcible keeping of them out of the House of Peeres, & were for that impeached of Hygh Treason, & clapt vp in the Tower.

Rev. What is this to the purpose? Is Protestation an Episcopal Act? Cannot meere lay men enter a Protestation? Is your seate in the house of Peeres of Divine Ryght? Shew the canon of a General Council, or a text of Scripture, that ground either of these two things. If you can shew none, no wonder the thing should not succeede, which is not of your Ecclesiastical Function. But how comes that concerne for your seate in Parliament, to be greater than for all other things, how sacred soever? You see Faith destroyed by Heresy, & you are silent: the Church torne in pieces by Schismes, & you are silent: the Royal Power vndermined by Factions, the King's sacred person endangered by Seditions, & affronted by Insolent varlets, & souls poysoned with damnable opinions, & you are silent. You are de­barred sitting in the house of Peeres, & you cry out so loud, as to provoke the Rebells to shut you vp in a Cage. Js this seate of gre­ater importance, than souls, than the King's person, than Royal Authority, than the Church, than Faith?

D. M. p. 24. The Bishops thought they were obliged not to draw that sword of Excommunication, to cut nothing but the Ayre with it, or by striking on a Rocke, to blunt, or breake the Edge of it.

Rev. A straw is as good, as such a sword, which must strike only the Ayre, or it will fly in pieces. Oh, but we must not strike Rockes. Are then all the children of your Church as insensible of your cen­sures, as a Rocke, of the stroke of a sword? If so: whose is the fault, but yours, who haue the breeding of them?

D. M. p. 25. By Excommunication they had exposed not only their Persons; but their Order it self to be ruined: for who can tell, whither those, who imprisoned some for the Protestation, would not haue taken [Page 107]away their liues, if they had interdicted the houses of Parliament, and excommunicated their adherents. And then what would haue become of the Episcopal Order it self of our Church? Rome would giue vs no Bishops, Lutherans & Calvinists can giue none: other Churchs are too far off. Tarbox.

Revisor. Did I not know your intention, I should think you pre­varicated, your reasons are so far from giving satisfaction to a Christian, so contrary to what hath been practiced. Nothing, but temporal motiues, & humane respects in all your discourse. Was not the whole Catholick nay Christian Church, in as greate danger when all the Bishops in the world were in Hierusalem? And did this make them be silent? Quite contrary, they resolved to preach on, & beseeched God to confirme tem in this resolution. Behold their threatnings, sayd they Act. 4.29. & grant vnto thy servants, that with all boldnesse, they speake thy word.

D. M. p. 29. We think the Power of Excommunication in the Church to be more then either a Political, a Parliamentary, or a meerly Ec­clesiastical constitution, as being an Ordinance, & Institution nei­ther of the State, or of the Church; but of Christ himself.

Rev. It is not worth the while, to examin whence you haue it, when many doubt whither you haue it at all: & this neglect of vsing it, in such vrgent occasions, confirmes them in that doubt. The same of other questious, which pa. 29. You propose: why the Pope did excommunicate Henry VIII. Why not Charles V. Which are nothing to our purpose. J will only, say that if the Pope had no better, nor other grounds, than you alleadge, his case is hard to be excused.

D. M. p. 32. Cressey May confesse truly, that this whole passage was put into his Book by another hand, without his knowledge, & that as he was forced to owne it at first, so he was not permitted to retract, or correct it, in his second edition.

Rev. Here are three odious Accusations. 1. Against the Benedictins, of corrupting another man's workes, making him say, what he ne­ver sayd.

The 2. against Mr. Cressey of owning a thing as his owne, which he knew was not his owne; & was to boote false.

The 3 against them all againe, for not permitting that vntruth to be corrected: whereas Mr Cressey says expressely He would haue cor­rected them, but his corrections come too late to the printer. He sent them than to the printer, & this, he would not have done, but by consent of his superiours. Wherefore they consented to that cor­rection: contrary to what you say.

The meane while these Crimes are charged by you vpon that ancient graue order, & not a word of proofe offred. I will not say they are Calumnyes; but J desire you to Act the God father, & giue them convenient names.

SECTION XVIII. Revision of the Sermon nou. 5.1. Festiual days for Thanks givimg good; yet sometimes abused. , • 2. That of the 5. of nou. notoriously. , • 3. No seditious Doctrines in the Church of Rome. , • 4. Of the gunpowder Plotters. , and • 5. Of the penal Laws against Papists. 

1. TO returne thanks to Almyghty God, for the Benefits re­ceived of him, especially when they are greate, & signal deliveryes, is a duty enjoined by the law of nature: & that some singular favours should be acknowledged with annual solemnityes, is prescribed both in the old, & new law. Such were in the old, the Phase, the Phurim, the Encoenia, the New moones, & the Sabboth. In the new, Christ masse, Easter, with suntide, & the sundays.

That these Anniversary Feasts were gratefull to God, when duly kept, is evident, seing he commanded them; exacted their being [Page 109]kept: checked, & punisht such as broke, or prophaned them, by any servile worke. Yet that they were sometimes offensiue to him, is as evident as any thing in Scripture. Amos 5.21. I hate, I des­pise your feast days, & I will not smell in your solemne Assemblyes. And Amos 8.10. I will turne your Feasts into mourning. And Malachy 2.3. I will corrupt your seede, & spread dung vpon your faces, even the dung of your solemne Feasts, & it shall take you away with it. There is then dung in solemne Feasts, for which God hates, & despises them: for which he will turne them into mourning, which he will spread on men's faces, & destroy them: as well as Flowers or Fruit grate­full to God, & men. What is this Dung? What the Fruit, or Flowers?

The Feasts are as pleasant as Flowers, or Fruit, when they are spent in considering the danger men were in, their inability to avoyde it, & Gods mercys, in discovering, & disappointing it. Then than king God, for his helpe in over coming it, & praying him to con­tinu his Protection. To make themselues worthy of this Blessing, men must be sorry for their offences, & resolue not to offend againe. These Feasts so kept would entayle the like Blessings vpon vs. But they become as odious as Dung, when they are occasions not to prayse God; but curse his servants: when men, in them, in lieu of magnifying his mercy, provoke his justice, & deserue the mis­cheif they haue escaped by vncharitable invectives against jnnocents, to satisfy their Passion. What is this but to turne God's Blessings into curses: to dry vp the fountaine of his mercy; & stir vp his Anger: & to draw vpon their heads those, or greater punishments, than those they escaped? In fine, to make themselues vnworthy of his Protection?

2. How little Fruit, & what a prodigious quantity of this Dung is found in your Gun powder solemnity, is evident to any man, who sees the sermons made on that occasion. This, which J now Review, containes 37. pages: yet all it containes of the delivery from the plot it self, myght be sayd in one. The rest (excepting some com­monly knowne Truths at the beginning, as that There is a God, &c.) is spent in charging that horrid plot on Persons certainly, or at least [Page 110]probably jnnocent, & our Religion it selfe. Now if you, D. Morley, one of the most moderate of your coate, in presence of his Majesty, [whose mercifull disposition, & aversion to violent courses, is knowne] haue so much of this Dung, what can we guesse of your hot headed Prophets amongst their furious blind Zealots?

And now, o ye Preists (Parsons) this commandment is for you. (I vse the words of Malachy. 2.) If ye will not heare, & if ye will not lay to hart, to giue glory to my name, sayth the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse vpon you, & I will curse your Blessings: yea I haue cursed them already, because you do not lay to hart. Behold I will reproue your seede [your whole Ministry] & spread dung vpon your faces, even the dung of your solemne Feasts [5. noven] & it shall take you away with it. Which words are soe cleerly verifyed in our days, of your Gunpow­der Feast in England, that they seeme not an Obscure Prophecy of a thing to come; but a Relation of a thing past, or description of one present. How little you glorify God's name, on this day, I haue sayd already. That God Hath cursed these your Blessings, & spread the dung of this solemnity vpon the face of the whole English Protestant Church, is evident: for from the yeare 1641. that fyery Zeale against Popery, which your selues had kindled, & entertained, fell on your owne Church, as Popish, & tooke it away with it, & Monarchy also: lea­ving scarce any hopes of restoring either. And againe with in these last fiue yeares how neere it brought both again to subversion, & vtter ruin, you cannot but know. And how greate was the danger of this Feast Being turned into mourning, as Amos foretold c. 8.10. is evident, whence our vigilant Magistrates were moved to forbid Bone fires, those ordinary signes of joy: as the best meanes to pre­vent some dismall effects of that Malice, which you of the Ministry keepe still vp at heygth, althô you haue found it fatal to both Church & State.

Yet I am not convinced, that Prohibiting bone fires is a remedy proportioned to the evil, that is feared, or rather felt, as long as you by your reproaches, & invectiues, are permitted to entertaine [Page 111]that hatred of Popery: it is only to cut off a branch, & leaue the tree, to skin a wound, & leaue the Arrow head in it: not to quench; but to cover a fire, which when least expected will breake out into new flames. For if you are permitted to sound the Allarme, what wonder those who deferre too much to your words should take it, & being fryghted out of their wits, by your representation of their danger, they mistake a Troyan for a Grecian, & some blows levelled at Papists, fall on Papists in Masquerade? In fine your Gunpowder ser­mons preach the People into gunpowder: & then a little sparke is enough to set them on fire, & blow all to pieces. And at whose dore must this lye, but yours, who dispose all to it?

One observation more, & I passe this point. Factious men, who make vse of your labours to your destruction, are greate proficients in the Art of promoting mischeife. Forty yeares a goe it cost them much labour, mony, bloud, & time, to get their armed Mirmidons about the Kings person: within these four yeares, few houres were enough to bring 20000. armed men. to Temple Barre, neere the King's Palace: & who knows but the next attempt will bring them to, or within his gates. Deus omen avertat, say I, as well as you. But humanely speaking, that can scarce be avoyded, without God's opening your eyes to see the mischeife, you promote, or stirring vp publicke Authority to stop your mouths. Otherwise, You con­ceiue chaffe, you bring forth stubble, your spirit, as fire, will devour you. Isayas 33.11. Now to your sermon.

In your 16. first pages I see little to the purpose. The greatest part is De communi Sanctorum, appliable to other things, mingled with some slips, through inadvertency: such J take that to be, p. 13. S. Paul saw it with his owne eyes: when he says himself, 1. cor. 1.11. He heard it from those of Chloe.

3. D. M. p. 17. This horrid conspiracy, to which the Actors were prompted by some Doctrines of their Religion.

Rev. That it was a Horrid conspiracy, J grant; but not, that the Doctrines of our Religion prompted the Actors vnto it. Let expe­rience [Page 112]decide the cause. What Kings more absolute in their Do­minions, then Catholicks? In England when were our Kings more honoured, & readily obeyed, by their subjects, than when Papists? when more beloved by their freinds, and Allyes, when more feared by their Enemyes, than when Papists? Popery teachs to giue every one his due: to God, what is Gods, & to Caesar, what is his: that is, it teaches to obey both Prelate & Prince, both spiritual & tem­poral Magistrate. Whereas your Reformation quite cast off obedi­ence to the Prelate, & so weakened that to the Prince, that this broke too. And althô you haue endeavoured to piece it againe, yet the common voice says, that without a dose of Popery, or Popish principles, it can never arriue to its former vigour. So different are the judgments of the world from your pretences! But what are these Doctrines?

D. M. p. 19, That of the Popes supremacy not of order, or pre­cedency Only; but of Authority, & jurisdiction.

Rev. That supremacy had been acknowledged 1000. yeares, & yet Monarchy remained in its vigour: & so it continues in Spaine, & France, & Germany, without any bad effect to Monarchy. But you lay the faults of your Reformation at our dore. Then you cite some hard opinions out of Bellarmin, & Aug. Steucus, who being no Rules of our Faith, I passe by them.

D. M. p. 21. The Clergy was forbidden to marry that they myght haue no tye to their country: & exempted from secular jurisdiction, that it myght depend only on the Pope.

Rev. You speake more dogmatically, than the Pope, for in doc­trinal points, he giues a Reason, & you giue none. You may find other motiues for these two points, if you consult our Divines, or Controvertists.

D. M. p. 22. Oaths cannot bind them to their Allegiance Because 1. they take them with Aequivocation. 2. The Pope can dispense in them. 3. They keepe no faith with Hereticks.

Rev. Such stuffe myght passe in Oates's narratiue, or rayling I. [Page 113] Philips, before the Rabble; but scarce in one of your degree before such an Auditory. If Oaths to vs are such Cobwebs, why do so many of vs loose their Estates, their Libertys, & their Liues, rather than take some? Why doth the Parliament take the Paines to frame, & impose them? You contradict experience, & I feare, your owne Conscience.

D. M. p. 23. Another horrid Doctrine, is the obligation of Preists, to conceale what they heare in Confession. And you mention Clement, & Ravaillac.

Rev. You myght with as much reason, haue mentioned Brutus & Pausanias: for it doth not appeare that ether of these two ever discovered their designe in Confession. The secret of Confession may bring a Ruffian to discover his damnable intention to a Preist, by whome he may be diverted, or the mischeife prevented: & Divi­nes teach how, without breaking the seale of Confession. But it gi­ues no advantage to a Preist to communicate bad designes, because the obligation of secrecy binds not the Penitent.

D. M. p. 24. It is not enough to say, these are not Doctrines of the Church of Rome; but only of some particular Doctors of it: because they never were condemned by the representatiue Body of that Church, &c.

Rev. A discourse much below your self, & your Auditory, yet you repeate it againe p. 30. What obligation is there, that if one do a thing contrary to his duty, all those of his Communion must by some publicke act declare against it. Doth a man suspect his son, of taking a purse, if another doth so? Or his wife of being vnfaith­full to him, because his neyghbour's wife is so? Or you & your breth, ren, to be in a readinesse to take vp Armes against the King, because a Bishop did so? Because that man's son, or wife, or the Bishops never declared their abhorrence, of those several Crimes?

Moreover some of the Doctrines, you mention, are censured by our Church, in Santarelli, & Becanus. In France, & Rome it self: which you knew, & therefore say They were not condemned by the representatiue body of the Church, that is, a general Council. But if [Page 114]you reade the last Chapter of S. Austins fourth book Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, you will find that generall Councils are not always necessary to condemne emergent errours, that many more haue beene condemned out of, than in Councils; that without an absolute necessity [all other meanes fayling] the Church vses not to haue recours to a general Council. Indeed were it not so, such Councils must ether be perpetual, & so the cheife Pastors would be always absent from their flocks, or be so frequent, that they would scarce ever reside with it. Wherefore God hath appointed in the Church for ordinary & more frequent occasions inferiour Tribunals, some of which haue declared already their dislike of some of these Doctrines: others they leaue, as likely to wither of themselues, Sicut foenum tectorum, as hay on the house top: & some it may be are left, as not being legally knowne to those Tribunalls. How ever ether there is, or is not, an obligation to condemne all bad Doctri­nes? If there is none, why do you blame our Church for omitting it? Jf there is one, how can you excuse your owne Church, which never complyed with that Duty? In reality there is an obligation, which being a positiue precept, obliges in time & place; not alwais: & is so kept by vs; not at all by you.

D. M. p. 25. Bishop Andrews tells vs, that Paul IV. offred to con­firme all that Q. Elisabeth had done in Church affayres, vpon condition she would owne his supremacy.

Rev. This requires a better proofe, than the bare word of one interessed man. How ever if it were so, the guilt of Schisme sticks closer to you: & you may see how much you were mistaken, when you told F. Darcy at Brusselles, that one Side was resolved before hand to relax nothing. But it is an ordinary custome amongst you, to make vs hold contradictory things, as they serue your turne.

D. M. p. 26. The easterne schisme was caused by the Pope's assuming the title of vniversal Bishop: & of being Head of the whole Church.

Rev. That cannot be: for the Pope never tooke the title of Vni­versal Bishop. And that other, Head of the Church, was acknowledged [Page 115]by the 2. General Council: you preside over vs, as a Head over its mem­bers. Says that Council.

D. M. p. 27. & 28. Cates by sayd this, & F. Garnet sayd that, &c.

Rev. Iust the stile of Oates's narratiue, & myght serue as a Modele of it.

D. M. p. 30. They suffer Garnet, & Oldcorne to be put into the Catalogue of Martyrs, by the Jesuits.

Rev. If they do so, it is because they judge them Innocent of the Treason, for which they suffred; not that they like the Treason it self. Thus several haue written in defence of some Persons lately accused of Treason, beleiving them to be innocent of it, who hate Treason more hartily, than ether Oates, or Shaftesbury, the grand promoters of that Accusation.

D. M. p. 31. Beware of false Prophets, who come to you in sheepe's cloathing; but are inwardly wolues, nay ravening wolues.

Rev. The same I say: yet still I wish it were not in the Power of every malicious man, to call Wolf & then all the dogs in the coun­try shall be set on a Sheepe, & worry it. Which hath beene lately done on this side the line, to the astonishment of the world, & no little discredit of our Nation.

D. M. p. 32. It is not their persecution, but our owne preservation that we contend for.

Rev. The law of nature obliges you to seeke Self preservation: but Prudence must guide you in the choice of proper meanes to find it. And Experience is the best rule of Prudence: & this demonstrates, that Persecution of Papists, is the way to Ruin; not to Preserue your selues. For about 70. yeares, through the mercy of our Kings we haue had but two Persecutions of Papists, & both opened a dore to Factious. Rebells, who the first time ruined both Church, & State: & the second time brought both to the brink of a precipice, & downe both had gon, had there not been put a stop to the preceedings against Papists. So the Persecution of Papists is such a remedy to your fainting Church, as cutting his throate is to a man in an Ague.

Dic mihi, num furor est, ne moriare mori?

Will any man in his wits, prescribe such physicke?

D. M. p. 34. I will add for justifying the laws made against Papists, that if they seeme to haue a watchfull eye, & hold a stricter hand over them in jealous times, they must thank themselues, who refuse to take, & the Pope, who forbids them to take the Oaths.

Rev. I wish you had explicated, what you meane by Iealous times? Whither such as are occasioned by some Actions, or designes of Papists, against your Church, or State? Or without any cause, besides the phancy of some melancholy Parson, or the Calumnyes of some such Flagitious wretches, as of late appeared on the English stage? If your jealousyes are are of the first sort, no body will blame your severity, vpon the guilty Persons. If they haue no other ground but the dreames of a fancifull Parson, or the word, & Oath, of an Oates, or a Bedlow, who would starue or be hanged, if by such a tricke they did not get a meales meate, and their necke out of a halter, by a Pardon: I leaue you to judge, whither this doth justify your strict hand; & not rather aggravate it. A wise man sayd: England is in a strange condition! For if any man in the Parlia­ment do but cry, Popery, they will act, & decree, as if they were besides themselues. Is this a laudable disposition of the Body Politick? Would our taking the Oaths cure this distemper, when you your self in this very sermon tell the world, that no Oaths can bind vs? Me thinks an vnblemisht loyalty both acting, & suffring, as is our duty to the Royal Authority in such variety of hard times, as we haue seene, myght be a better assurance, than such Cobwebs, as you describe them.

D. M. p. 38. The Church of Rome vses greater severity in Spaine, & Jtaly, &c.

Rev. We are very thankfull to his Majesty for The grace he shews vs, either in quite suspending, or abating the rigour of the law: & we-acknowledge it as an act of Mercy. yet giue me leaue to tell you, that our case in England, is far different from that of Protestants either in Spaine, or Italy: we brought Christianity to the English Na­tion: your Bishops, & Preists, your Hierarchy & Orders, if you haue [Page 117]any, you haue them from vs. Your Churchs we built, & founded, your Celledges & Vniversityes are our Donations: Your Canon, & Ci­vil law, your Sacred, & prophane learning are the product of our studyes. The very Rites, & ceremonyes, which you vse, you borrowed from vs. Which of all these things did Protestants bring, & settle in Italie, or Spaine? If none; then certainly the case of Catholicks in England, is not the same, with that of Protestants, in Catholick countryes.

D. M. p. 38. Let me intreate you all to joine with me in this short prayer.

Rev. We willingly giue God thanks for preserving the Nation from ruin: & pray him to continu his protection to it: & that He will giue our Dread soveraigne along life, a peaceable reigne, a wise Council, faithfull Ministers, stout souldiers, & an obedient, contented, & vnited people, without those groundlesse animositys, which you of the Mi­nistry foment. Amen.

SECTION XIX. A Revision of the Letter to her R. H. • 1. The publishing of this Letter vnexpected. , • 2. What kind of Directors are the Ministers? , • 3. The report of the change of her R. H. , • 4. Motiues alleadged to retaine her in the Protestant Religion. , and • 5. Spiritual state of the Protestant Church. 

1. I Was very much surprized, to see this letter made publick, much more, that is was by your order, by reason of the cha­racter you bore, of Confessor to her R. H. For a far different reason, there ought to be as greate a freedome of communication betwixt Confessor, & Penitent, in matters of Conscience, as to the soul, as [Page 118]betwixt Man, & Wife, as to the Body. Which liberty is much chec­eed, with the thought, that such things may some day become pu­blicke. The people of Athens would not let Philip of Macedon's let­ters to his wife Olimpias be opened, thô he were an Enemy, as thinking the converse betwixt such persons, sacred. With more rea­son ought those betwixt Confessor, & Penitent, be looked on as such. But it seemes in the Protestant Church nether secret is regarded: for that betwixt Man & Wife was broken by order of Parliament, for the printing the letters of king Charles I. to the Queene, & you, a father of the Protestant Church publish those betwixt your Penitent, & you. And J heare that some persons of your Communion haue found, that they had not made their Confessions themselues to Mute fishes. Witnesse Capt. Hinde.

Catholickes haue indeed printed a letter of a Preist to my Lord of Stafford, & something written as is beleived by her R. H. but nether of these comes home to the point of this letter. For what was written by her R. H. was probably designed to be seene, at le­ast it was not written to her Confessor: nor was that letter to my Lord of Stafford, by his Confessor, it myght, & probably did come from one, who never saw him, nor knew of him, but onely that he was preparing for Death.

Another reason, why I was surprized at the syght of this letter, is that it doth in a manner confirme the Report of her being a pa­pist. Now this lady being by alliance entred into the Royal Family, & making a very eminent figure in it, I thought shee should haue beene partaker of that priviledge, that none should publish their being Papists: for if this be Treason by law, when sayd of the head of that Family, it ought to be held a hainous offence, when spoken of others. Besides this, we learne in Tobie, 12.11. That it is Good to reveale the secrets of God; & to conceale those of the King. So that whereas Divines are permitted to dine as deepe as they can into Divine mysterys, as to those of the King they are to remember, that Qui scrutator est Majestatis, opprimetur a gloriâ, He that pryes into [Page 119]Majesty shall be opprest with glory Prou. 25.27. Death to the foole hardy.

2. The booke called Anti Haman p. 309. hath these words: There seemes to be as much difference, betwixt the spiritual food, which souls receiue in the Catholick Church, & that of Protestants, as there is betwixt the nourriture a child receives sucking a breast, stretched with milke, & that he gets, by sucking a moistned finger. We haue an oc­casion here to see whither this judgment be well grounded.

Two things are remarkable in the instructions, which Ministers giue to the souls vnder their direction, as appeares by their sermons, & spiritual bookes. 1. A horrour, & hatred of Popery. 2. A slyght touch of some holesome Catholick Truths, yet so handled, as not to moue considerably the soul, for feare it moue them too far. For example, they speaking of some former sins, the sorrow for them, the purpose of amendment: the preventing God's judgments, by judging our selves, & appeasing his wrath by Penitencial workes, they do it well; yet knowing that those points are meere Popery, to prevent their passing over to it they added an Antidote, which destroyes all they had sayd. One instance shall suffice. Dr Hewit, Re­pentance, & Conversion p. 51. hath these words: we must confesse to men, & that both privately, & publickly, according to the quality of the sin, (This is catholick Doctrine: now he corrects it) For though we condemne Auricular Confession, as a trick of state Policy; yet we allow, & exhort all Christians to a tru, voluntary, & sincere Confession of their sins to the Bishop, & superintendents of the Church. Thus he. Now what is Private Confession, but Auricular Confession? Yet to the one he exhorts; the other he condemnes: or rather he approues, & con­demnes the same thing vnder different names. And what is this, but to build with one hand, & pull downe with the other? to plant, & roote vp, the same thing? To teach in Churchs, as tru Protes­tant evidences depose in Courts plaine Downe ryght contradictions?

Now what can a soul do, hearing this, if she be truly desirous of salvation? Practice those Truths? They bring her to Popery? Then they cannot seriously practice what you teach. This inward [Page 120]combate seldome ceases, till they leaue the Protestant Communion: for either they become immediatly Papists, if the loue of vertu o­vercomes: or Presbiterians, if the hatred of Papists prevailes, by the helpe of a Morose nature. Thus the surest tyes to Protestaney seeme to be, 1. a carelessenesse of what is to come in the next world, 2. a Presumption of God's goodnesse, & 3. Temporal motiues of all sizes. All which are insignificant to a soul, that prefers her eternal concerne, before her temporal, & resolues to advance in vertu an Earth, that shee may be more gratefull to her celestial spouse in Heaven.

3. For this reason the report of the change in Religion, of her R. H. easily found credit with me. Of which report, you speake p. 4. & 5. God had giuen her a serious desire to serue him, as he would be served. I heard she was earnest in pursuing what she thought was for his glory, attentiue in her Devotions, & exact in perfor­ming what seemed to be the will of God, & for the good of her soul: & that though her Fortune was exceeding greate, yet she would rather forgoe it all, then hazard her soul: that Jewell being too precious, to be compensated with any thing. God had Giuen her an extraordinary good vnderstanding, say you p. 14. with which she could easily discerne betwixt what was Tru, & what onely See­med to be so. Whence without any helpe of Bookes, or instructions of men, by only Hearing the discourse of Religion (which is the most common in England, & will be so, till men talke themselues either out of all Religion, or into a good one, either into Atheisme, or Popery) she myght easily discover, that the devil was not so vgly, as he was painted: that somethings were charged on vs, which we did not hold: & that what we really taught, was not Blame worthy: soe on both sides we were jnnocent. And probably she myght declare so much, being vnwilling to heare vs wronged. Which gaue you occasion to say, p. 4. that shee Declared in favour of Papists, & grounded that Report, of her being one.

Then you spend several pages in proving how fatal a like Report [Page 121]had beene to her Father-in-law, K. Charles I. & what prejudice it had like to haue done to Charles II. altho both were jnnocent of that Crime, & averse to the Religion. Which confirmes what I sayd, how dangerous it is to entertaine that animosity against Popery, which enables knaues to compasse the ruin of honest men, even the King himself, with only traducing him, or them, as Papists, how jnnocent soever they be, & averse to that Religion.

D. M. p. 12. It is Impossible to silence this Report (of your being a Papist) vnlesse you your self appeare in it, & vpon all occasions de­clare your detestation of it. &c.

Rev. How insignificant this remedy would haue proved, appeares by its successe in the late King's time: Whose declarations of that nature, even at the Communion, could not silence his Enemyes, nor check a like report.

D. M. p. 15. None shall ever be able to proue, that either we omit any thing necessary to salvation: or teach any thing destructiue to it.

Rev. Your Schisme is destructiue to Salvation. It is vndeniable that Schismaticks remaming such cannot besaved; They shall not haue God for their father, who haue not the Church for their mother. S. Cy­prian. And you are in a Schisme. I myght alleadge several other things destructiue to Salvation: but this one is enough.

D. M. p. 17. & 18. The Papists say there is no salvation, out of their Church. The Donatists sayd so too. And was it not for that, saying so, that they were pronounced Hereticks?

Revisor: Here are three grosse mistakes, of which I haue spoken sec. 4. The 1. that the donatists sayd there was no salvation out of their Church. Their grande errour was, that the Church was lost by communicating with a sinner. All their other errours were but sequels of this: viz that there was no Church, but theirs, the rest of the Christians communicating with Cecilianus, who had delivered vp the holy bookes. 2. That there was no valid Baptisme but in their Communion. 3. That the son, was lesser than the father, & the Holy ghost, than the son. See S. Austin l. de Hereticis ad [Page 122] Quod vult Deum §. 69. & Epi. Baronij ad annu Dom. 321. n. 4. For these errours the donatists were tru Herticks. But for say­ing, that Heresy destroys salvation, they could not be Hereticks, vnlesse you will make S. Athanasius one, who says in his creede: Quam, fidem, nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. No hopes of salvation, where any point of Faith is denyed.

The 2. That they were pronounced Hereticks for saying so. They were pronounced Hereticks for saying other things: as J haue shewne.

The 3. that they were held for Hereticks. The Catholick Church held them at first for Scismaticks, & such they were; but not for Hereticks. The Catholicks exacted nothing of them, but that they should joine Communion with them: they offred to that intent, that in those cittyes, which had two Bishops, one of each Commu­nion, the surviver, which soever it was, should governe alone the Diocese, that by that meanes the Schisme myght be extinguisht. A condition never offred to any Heretick, or Hereticks what soever. At last indeed they turned tru Hereticks, as I sayd, on another score.

D. M. p. 19. For you to conclude in favour of Popery, without hea­ring Protestants, is that which cannot be done either in Equity, or Conscience.

Rev. She did not conclude for one side, without hearing the o­ther, She had heard Protestants from her jnfancy, & had weyghed maturely what they could say for themselues, or against Popery. It is wonderfull, that a short Conference with some Papist, [it could be no more, if there were so much] should be of force sufficient to roote vp all those prejudices against God's Church, which you so carefull instill to those vnder your conduct, althô they had bin confir­med by long practice, & reiterated Acts contrary to the Catholick Faith: & all these backed with almost the greatest temporal inte­rest in the world: for on the one side, she saw honour, Riches, & the probable expectation of our Imperial crowne; on the other, Reproaches, Calumnyes, disgrace, & probably a tragical End, for [Page 123]such had been the fate of her Father-in-law indeed; & what misery, or vnjustice is so evident, so greate, as a Papist may not feare from a Tru Protestant? But Magna veritas, & praevalet: Truth seconded by God's interiour grace, & assisted by her generous resolution, never to admit the whole world into consideration, when her soul was concerned, overcame all those difficultyes. With this Truly Heroical resolution you acquaint vs. For you say to her.

D. M. p. 21. You your selfe haue told me more then once, (even since this false report hath beene raysed of you) that you would not do any thing, whereby you myght seeme to be of a Church, or Religion, which you are not of indeed; no not for any wordly consideration whatsoever. And p. 22. you are wont to say, that no wordly either Advantage, or Preju­dice, is to be considered, when the gaining of the One, or the avoyding of the Other, comes into competition with the hazarding, or securing of our spiritual, & everlasting jnterest of our souls: & consequently, that if you were convinced there were no Salvation to be had, but in the Church of Rome, no consideration either of Losse, or of Danger here in this world, you myght incur by it, should keepe you from it.

Rev. Out of these truly Christian Resolutions, often declared to you, I gather many material points, either vnknowne before, or not sufficiently knowne.

1. That her R. H. was really enclined to be a Catholick. So that Report was grounded.

2. That you knew this inclination.

3. That you endeavoured to divert her from it, alleadging cheifly temporal interest, to divert her from becoming a Papist. This J ga­ther out of those declarations, which she so often made: & out of this very letter, which containes little, if any thing at all else.

4. That either you, which I do not beleiue, or some other Pro­testant, advised her to dissemble in matter of Religion, & professe her self a Protestant, thô she were not so. What other occasion could she haue to make that declaration, that She would not do any thing to seeme to be of a Church of which she was not, for all the world?

Lastly, that she was too generous to be fryghted with such Bug beares. When her soul lay at stake: knowing full well, it Would availe her nothing to gaine the whole world, if she lost that. Mar. 8.36.

5. Thus this letter confirmes what was sayd, but not commonly beleived, of the Religion in which her R. H. dyed, that she truly was a Catholick, or as you call vs, a Papist: for you owne her in­clination that way, & you had little to alleadge to divert her from it, but temporal interest: which was as little able to retaine her, as a cobweb to hold a Lion: so it is impossible to misse in the con­jecture of the event.

But what judgment will the world make of your Church, out of this letter? The concerne you writ for, was as greate almost as could occurre, the retaining within your Communion a person, as con­siderable almost, as any whatsoever, a person worthily esteemed as greate for her qualifications of mind, as to vertu, & vnderstan­ding, as for her dignity in the Kingdome: a person, who was a greate ornament to your Church, nay a Piller of it. So no doubt but all industry was vsed to prevent her leaving you: & that whatsoever your Art, your wit, & learning could doe, was employed to that intent, & we may guesse, that as the cause was common, so the concurrence was: & therefore we may conjecture, that all the ner­ues of the Protestant Church joined to giue this Blow. Yet how weake, how inconsiderable is it!

And is then your Glorious Apostolical reformed Church come to this? Haue you no motiues, to commend her Communion, & retaine pi­ous souls in it, but Temporal? will these weygh downe in the scales of reason all considerations of Eternity? And if they should be jud­ged weyght, by men, will God judge so too? At the greate day, will it be a sufficient excuse for Schisme, & Heresy, to say: I was affrayd of loosing my estate, of hindring my fortune, of offending my freinds, of giving advantage to my Enemys? Will not Christ answer. Seing You haue disowned me, & my Church, before men, I will disowne you before my father?

I will not deny, but you haue given satisfaction, as to what con­cernes your self, that you are a Protestant. Yet J must professe, you giue little satisfaction, as to your Church. Nay I do declare, that I would never desire other, nor better grounds to vindicate the Truth of Catholick Religion, & the necessity of living in the Communion of the Catholick Church, than what this letter affords. For by it, we may gather the condition of the Protestant Church to be like that of Laodicea, Apoc. 3.17. Wretched, & miserable, & poore, & blind, & naked. I hartily wish you & those of your ranke, were truly sen­sible of this Truth, & that you made a ryght vse of it, by seeking ways to returne to the Communion of the Catholick Roman Church: & so put an end to this horrid Schisme. Though the difficultyes to be overcome were greate, yet greate difficultyes ought not to fryght vs from so greate, so necessary a good, as that of the Peace of the Church. But in reality they are lesse, then apprehended, which you must say, if you beleiue, what you report after Bishop Andrews, that the Pope was willing to confirme all, that Q. Elizabeth had done in matter of Religion, provided she would acknowledge his Supremacy. This is then the grand, nay the only obstacle. Now all, who haue been conversant in Catholick countryes, & see their cus­tomes, even where that Supremacy is acknowledged, see cleerly, that this is no such formidable thing, as to excuse, & justify a se­paration: & by consequence can be no just hindrance of Peace. which the God of Peace grant vs: & giue all Schismaticks a tru desire of. Amen.

SECTION XX. A Revision of his Letter to a Preist.

WHo this Regular Preist is, you do not tell vs; yet what you say, of him, & he of himself, describe him by infallible notes. You endeavour to proue in this letter to him, three things.

  • 1. That being so perswaded, as he was, he was bound in Conscience to leaue the Communion of the Roman Church.
  • 2. That he was bound to joine Communion, with the Protestant Church of England.
  • 3. That he was bound to do it out of hand.

Which Propositions are built one vpon another, the third on the second, & this on the first. Which being Conditional; not Absolute: supposing his Present perswasion, we must see what that is: & ac­cording to this Meridian we must calculate his Duty.

What this poore man's Perswasion is, (if he haue any setled) is hard to judge of. He hath vowed Obedience to his Regular Superi­our; & will not keepe it. He hath vowed Poverty, & breakes that vow. He professe the Catholick Faith, & beleiues it full of Errors, nay Heresyes. He says, he will remaine in the Communion of the Roman Catholick Church, & yet beleiues her to be Heretick, & Schis­matick. He hath beene ordred backe to his Convent; & he refuses to returne: he hath been Canonically admonisht of his extrava­gances, & he slights it: he hath been Excommunicated, & he Laughs at it. In fine, in him Hereticks find a constant freind, Schismaticks a sure Advocate, Apostates, a certaine Patrone, & Catholicks an im­placable Enemy; & yet he pretends he is nether Heretick, nor Schismatick, nor Apostata; but a Catholick, & member of the Ro­man Church,

Who can square these circles, & reconcile these Contradictions, betwixt his Declarations & Actions, that so a judgment may be fra­med of his Tru Persuasion? Whither shall we giue credit to, his de­clarations? Or his Actions? Those speake his being a Catholick, & he is nothing lesse. These declare his hatred to Catholicks, & their Religion, which yet he professeth. So we must conclude him a Chi­mera, one composed of contradictions, & his Religion is made vp of parts mutually destroying one another. Or else, that he hath no Religion: for as a Chimera cannot haue a being In rerum naturâ: so there can nether be an Entity composed of Contradictions, nor a Re­ligion, [Page 127]for the same reason. At least at the greate Audit, he can never fayle to heare Discede a me, &c. Begon from me: & whither so ever Religion he be of, his owne words will condemne him: Ex ore tuo te judico, serve nequam.

What can hence be gathered, but that his Perswasion being so vncertain, & his Religion so dubious, or certainly none at all, no­thing can be thence gathered, as to the Communion, which he should enter into. If you think him well disposed for your Church, you discover what kind of men it is composed of. Ours, that is the Catholick Church, doth not desire such, nor tolerate them, fur­ther than there is hopes of their amendment: & little, or none at all being left of this man, she hath cast him out by Excommunica­tion: As I learne from your owne letter. So by what I see, I conclude that, You haue spoyled a Catholick, & not made a Protestant.

Yet to moue him to come quite over, you very learnedly dis­tinguish three ages of the Church. The first, whilest she continued in that Faith, which was once delivered to Saints. p. 31. The second [p. 32.] from the time, the Pope tooke vpon him the title of vniver­sal Bishop. Yet you are not resolved what time to allow to this Se­cond age, whither one thousand, or eleven, or twelue hundred yeares. The third, (p. 42.) from the two Councils, of Lateran vnder LEO X. & Trent. jmplying, that all were bound to communicate with the Church of Rome in its first age, myght communicate with it, in the second; & must not in the third. Jn the first, Communion with it was a necessary duty: in the second, it was lawfull, but not ne­cessary: in the third vnlawfull, & a sin. And these dreames take vp aboue 30. pages.

Rev. All this is a dreame: for the second age, which you speake of, is yet to come: the Pope never having taken the title of Vni­versal Bishop. Besides this, Christ promist his assistance to the Church not for any determinate time; but for all times: & assured her of his presence, till the end of the world: now when you shall proue, that Christ hath broken, or can, or will, breake his word, we will [Page 128]think your second age possible; not till then: so the first age, in which all are obliged to joine in Communion with the Church of Rome, is not expired, nor will, nor can ever expire.

D. M. p. 62. Having quitted the Communion of the Roman Church, he is bound to joine with that of England, in Conscience, it being the most perfectly reformed Church in the world: & in Prudence, in or­der to the protection of his Person & provision for his future subsistance.

Rev. You boast much of the perfection of your Reformation: yet were never able to get it approved by any one externe Church, of what denomination soever: & how many, or rather how few do vniversally approue it in England, appeares by the number of your Sectaryes, & Schismaticks. At what tribunal haue you not beene con­demned, whereever you appeared? The Pope hath anathematized your Reformation: so hath the General Council of Trent, that Church representatiue. This Amphibium, this your Anonimous Preist, says you appealed to the Church diffusiue: which he gathers by the Apo­logyes you publisht for all men to see. But you haue had as ill suc­cesse here, as at Trent, or Rome: having never been able to find any one Kingdome, or Province, or Citty, or any considerable number of particular men, who in all things approue your Reformation. So that you are in this inferiour to the Lutherans, to Calvinists, to Ana­baptists, to Adamists, nay to Independents, & Quakers, &c. Who all haue in several countryes some of their Perswasion; but of yours none out of England: & how many even there, owne their vocation to your Reformation more to the Royal Authority, than to the force of the Truth, you teach, or the Beauty of your Church, which you commend?

D. M. p. 63. Prudence obliges him to the same: for He can hardly be safe any where beyond seas: & by joining with vs, he will: as also find provision for his subsistence: which you say you will vndertake shall not be wanting.

Rev. You sow the fox's skin to that of a Lyon, & Spiritual moti­ues falling short, you piece them out with Temporal. When we call [Page 129]to mind that within these fifty yeares your whole Church was tur­ned out of God's Blessing into the warme sun, & that within these fiue yeares she was very neere the same fate, we may conclude, that there is not much greater assurance of your Temporal, than of your Spiritual promises. Here I obserue two things:

The first: that Temporal motiues are never omitted, when there is any hopes of gaining a Proselit. Indeed they are your best Card, as appeares by your vsing it so frequently: & by vsing it, you shew what weyght it hath with you.

The second: that in this you differ very much from Papists, who propose hopes of eternal life, indeed; but as for this, they promise nothing but what Christ promist his Disciples: 30.16.32. In mundo pressuram habebitis: you shall be hated, calumniated, persecuted, im­prisoned, Opprest, hanged, In this world: But better all this, than to loose your soul, by Schisme, & Heresy.

D. M. p. 64. It remaines therefore, that being obliged to quit the Communion of the Church of Rome, & joine with ours, of England, you are obliged to do this speedily, &c.

Rev. All this falls to the ground: for there nether is, nor can be an obligation to quit the Church of Rome; there being an obli­gation to conforme to her, to submit to her devisions in matter of Divine Truths, & to renounce all errours, contrary to the tru Doctrine of Faith, which she teachs, & will teach to the end of the world.


De Mand. Ampliss. ac RR. adm. DD. meorum praefat. B. D. SECRET.

DUARUM EPISTOLARUM GEORGII MORLAEI S.T.D. ET EPISCOPI WINTONIENSIS AD IANVM VLITIUM REVISIO. In quâ, de Orationibus pro Defunctis, Sanctorum Invocatione, Dijs Gentilium, & Idololatriâ agitur. AVTHORE IOANNE WARNERO S. I. THEOLOGO.


Superiorum Permissu.


DVae istae Epistolae, quarum summam tibi hic exhibeo, Erudite Lector, vná cum respon­sionibus ad earum singula capita, pars sunt Libri ante quinque circiter menses, in An­gliâ typis editi, á Dom. ac Mag. nostro Ge­orgio Morlaeo S. T. D. Oxoniensi, ac E­piscopo Wintoniensi: qui Regem exulem olim secutus, inter Catholicos degens, aliqua zeli sui pro matre suâ Ecclesiâ Protestanticâ Anglicana specimina dedit, cum vivâ voce, tum calamo, varia Fidei Ortodoxae capita impugnando. Quae omnia libro isto continentur, additis alijs, quae Patriae postliminio restitutus & dixit, & scripsit. Adeoque complexus est hoc vno volumine (quod cento vocari potest, ex varijs tractatibus conflatus, nihil praeter odium in Ecclesiam orthodoxam com­mune habentibus) hoc, inquam, complexus est, quidquid longissimo vitae tempore (octogenario major est) adversus varia Ecclesiae Romanae dogmata improbo labore, & continuo studio colligere potuit.

Putabamus bonum Senem, contentionum istiusmodi per­taesum, cogitare cogitationes Pacis, charitatem potius quám schisma promovere malle, vnionem inter discordes Ecclesias, illi cordi esse, quam Prudentiores multi ex illâ sectâ aut seriò, aut simulatè optant. Et quidem aetas ingravescens, & planè capularis, vt receptui caneret, suadebat; turpe fenex miles. [Page]Cum ecce subitò, nemine de certamine ab illo futuro cogitante, in arenam descendit, seniles lacertos juveniliter jactat, de vic­torijs praeteritis sibi gratulatur, easque ita praedicat, vt non senili Prudentiâ; sed juvenili levitate, sortis humanae, & propriae infirmitatis parùm memor, novas laureas, futurosque trium­phos sibi polliceri videatur.

Quominus cum hac in re imiter, facit rerum humanarum incertitudo, & propria infirmitas, quas prae oculis semper ha­beo. Quo facilius judicium ferat Lector, Eximii Domini ar­gumenta ipsiusmet verbis expresla meis responsionibus praemitto: non sum mihi conscius, me vspiam eorum vim dissimulasse. An planè ijs satisfecerjm, iudicent alij. Novi hominum studia, & suos cuiquam affectus haud ita facilè avelli: nec incom­pertum, quantam isti vim habeant, ad judicium inflectendum, ne dicam corrumpendum. Hinc in causâ nostrâ non praejudico, neque veluti de partâ victoriâ in antecessum glorior: haud ta­men exiguam spem in sinu foveo, ex bonitate causae, ex assi­stentiâ Spiritus Sancti Ecclesiae promissâ, & ex tuâ, Lector, veritatis amice, humanitate, responsiones nostras Eruditis, & aequis Iudicibus, à partium studio liberis probatum iri.

Docet nos Epistolarum Auctor eximius, eas ante viginti quatuor annos fuisse scriptas: quia posterior data est anno MDCLIX. & in lucem prodiit tantum hoc anno MDCLXXXIII. Vnde non ad novem annos tantum, vt consulit Poeta, sed ferè ad ter novem eas penes se retinuit. Ego verò ne quidem [Page]totidem dies ad responsa concinnanda impendi, licet variis interea temporis aliis implicarer occupationibus: illa siquidem auspicatus sum XI. Aprilis, & I. Maji absolvi. Quod non ita accipi velim quasi laudem aliquam ex festinato opere sperem (quod novi ancipitis esse ad laudem & vituperium aestima­tionis) sed vt ostendam nullam in iis Epistolis difficultatem occurrisse, quae nos properantes diu remoraretur. Festinavimus autem, quo certius ad illum, fato jam vicinum, certè non valde remotum (quia Senes non possunt diu vivere, ait La­tinae linguae Princeps) responsiones nostrae pervenirent. Licet enim dixerint graeci, Senis errorem corrigere, & mortuum suscitate perinde difficile esse, de nullius tamen in melius mu­tatione desperandum est, donec vivit. Hinc spes est, fore, vt aut melius, aut certè minus malè de Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, & Apostolicâ sentiat, vbi scierit eam injustè de Idololatriâ accu­satam esse: nihilque ab eâ fieri hoc saeculo, dum orat pro defunctis, & Sanctos invocat (quae duo puncta ferè vnicè in his Epistolis tractantur) quod non fuerit factum primis, & etiam Haereticorum judicio purissimis saeculis.

Aliud Idololatriae caput à D. Morlaeo intactum, ab aliis ta­men eius Symmistis Ecclesiae exprobratum, est Imaginum veneratio, quam ajunt cum Idolorum cultu convenire. Hos vt confutarem, Appendicem addidi, de Idololatriâ, sive cul­tu Idolis exhibito à Paganis: ex cuius explicatione patebit longè diversam esse venerationem Imaginibus exhibitam in [Page]Ecclesiâ, à cultu, quo sua Pagani Idola prosecuti sunt: adeo­que non minori iniquitate abominandum Idololatriae crimen Ecclesiae objici, quam non ita pridem Viris innocentissimis, Regique suo fidelissimis, obsequentissimi (que) subditis, horren­dum Majestatis crimen à Dei, Ecclesiae, Regisque ipsius hosti­bus objectum fuit, Fide verè Protestanticâ, verè Calvinianâ: cum interea veram ipfimet in Regis, Regnique perniciem conspirationem adornarent, Regemque, eiusque Fratrem vni­cum occidere meditarentur, & execrandi facinoris invidiam in Innocentes, nihilque eâ de re cogitantes Catholicos deri­vare, ab eis paenas sumere, eosdemque ob crimen ab aliis commissum, internecione delere. Quot in vno facinore faci­nora! Et haec omnia, vt eliminatâ Monarchiâ, & extinctâ, aut exilio mulctatâ totâ Familiâ Regiâ, Genevensem in Angliâ Reipublicae formam stabilirent; vt quique Prudentiores ab initio subodorati sunt, jam verò manifestè apparet.

Aliis Libri huius partibus Anglicè scriptis alia Fidei capita impugnat; quibus Anglicè respondi, vt juxta Grammaticae Regulas cum Questione solutio conveniret, & Responsio qua­diaret objectioni. Qui linguam illam callent, de vtroque ju­dicium ferent.


  • SEctio 1. An Augustini sit Liber Meditationum ipsi inscrip­tus. P. 1.
  • S. 2. De Sanctorum invocatione. P. 4.
  • S. 3. Britannorum error in celebrando Paschate. Inde non constat eos ex Asiâ fidem accepisse. P. 8.
  • S. 4. De curribus militaribus & essedis Britannicis. P. 11.
  • S. 5. Differunt orationes pro defunctis à Sanctorum invoca­catione. P 13.
  • S. 6. Orationes pro defunctis ex patribus. Vbi de locis ani­marum à corpore separatarum. P. 18.
  • S. 7. Duplex Sanctos invocandi modus.
  • S. 8. Invocatio Sanctorum probatur ex scripturâ. P. 32.
  • S. 9. An, & quomodo Sancti norunt quae hic aguntur. P. 35.
  • S. 10. Sanctorum invocatio ex Patribus. P. 39.
  • S. 11. Rationibus Theologicis probatur Sanctorum invocatio. P. 46.
  • S. 12. Differt Sanctorum invocatio à Daemonum cultu apud Ethnicos. P. 48.
  • S. 13. Quid Gentiles de Deo, eiusque providentiâ & cultu senserint. P. 52.
  • S. 14. Varia spirituum genera apud Philosophos. P. 61.
  • S. 15. Spirituum mediantium in homines officia. P. 64.
  • S. 16. Deos Paganorum fuisse homines. P. 73.
  • S. 17. Gentiles Daemonibus divinū cultum exhibuerunt. P. 84.
  • [Page]S. 18. Santorum invocatio differt à Daemonum cultu. P. 90.
  • S. 19. Argumenta contra Sanctorum invocationem. P. 98.
  • S. 20. Argumenta contra Orationes pro defunctis. P. 108.
  • S. 21. Vindicantur Patres, & Peronius à calumnijs D. Mor­laei. P. 110.
  • S. 22. Vindicatur Ecclesiae praxis ab eiusdem calumnijs. P. 114. De Idololatriâ P. 119.
  • S. 23. Qui primi Idololatrae. P. 120.
  • S. 24. Occasiones Idola faciendi. P. 123.
  • S. 25. Pagani sua Idola Deos vocarunt. P. 126.
  • S. 26. Pagani Deos coluerunt manufactos. P. 131.
  • S. 27. Idolis supplicarunt: in ijs spem habuerunt. P. 135.
  • S. 28. Bona omnia ab Idolis provenire crediderunt. P. 137.
  • S. 29. Causae tanti erroris ex Apostolo. P. 141.
  • S. 30. Eiusdem criminis aliae causae. P. 143.
  • S. 31. Diaboli praesentia in Idolis. Et de eorum consecratione. P. 146.
  • S. 32. Vsus Imaginum, & Statuarum licitus in Ecclesiâ. P. 150.
  • S. 33. Earum cultus, & adoratio. P. 153.
  • S. 34. Cultus iste non est Idololatria. P. 155.


SECTIO I. An Augustini sit Liber meditationum ipsi inscriptus.

D. Morlaeus p. 3. v. 4. Erasmus ait se nec asseverare posse nec inficiari velle Augustinum libri hujus Auctorem esse. Bellarminus dubius etiam est, quia neque Possidius diligentissimus collector Operum Augustini in Indiculo ejus meminit nec citatur à Bedâ.

Mihi vero ex hac Bellarmini observatione constare videtur, Augustinum non fuisse Auctorem hujus libri: qui alioqui non effugisset Possidium diligentissi­mum Operum Augustini collectorem.

Responsio. Si probabilitè colligi dixisses, ex Possidii silentio li­brum non esse Augustini, ego sensui tuo non contentiosè refragatus fuissem. Sed dum ais Constare, tibi non assentientur, qui norunt ar­gumenta negativa ab Auctoritate infirma esse. Hoc autem, quis non novit? & verò Possidium aliqua indubitata Augustini opera omi­sisse, notum est: talis est Liber de Vrbis excidio. Item Tractatus de eo quod dictum est: Ego sum, qui sum. Et Bellarminus in Observatione ad tom. 6. Operum Augustini, disertè dicit, Possidium singulos tractatus in Indicem non redegisse: qui tamen Diligentiae laudem meretur quod tam multa collegerit; licet aliqua illum effugerint; sic diligentes imo di­ligentissimi dici possunt messores, licet relictis aliquot spicis locum dederint spicilegio. Dei quidem semper perfecta sunt opera: in ope­ribus hominum semper aliquid humani invenitur, aliquid incompleti, [Page 2]quod aequi rerum aestimatores humanae fragilitatis memores facile condonare, ubi non à voluntate malà proficiscitur. Hinc merito di­ctus est Possidius diligentissimus operum Augustini Collector: licet ex ejus silentio solo Constare non possit opus aliquod Augustini non esse.

D. Morl. p. 5. sunt quaedam in isto Meditationum libro, quae non possunt esse Augustini: nempe Hymnus cap. 26. numeris metricis, & Rithmicis compo­situs, quod genus Carminum Augustini saeculo ignotum fuit: utpote à Scholasticis post Augustinum multis annorum centenis excogitatum, ut ex Sixto Senensi Bi­blioth. l. 3. colligi potest. Iam verò si hoc rithmicum metri genus Scholasticorum inventum fuerit, quam absurdum sit hujusmodi Hymnum Augustino affingere (inter quem & Lombardum omnium Scholasticorum magistrum, sex ad minimum saecula intercesserunt) nemo melius judicare potest quam tu, Vliti.

Resp. Tuum ego vicissim judicium appello, mi Morlaee, an vero­simile sit opus illud Petri Lombardi saeculo posterius esse? Posterius in­quam nam si illud Rithmi genus à Scholasticis inventum fuerit, cum hi illius discipuli extiterint, necesse est opus ipsum illo Parisiensi E­piscopo recentius esse, quod è Scholasticis aliquem habeat Aucto­rem. Hoc autem nec tu puto dicturus es; cum res tractatae, tractandi modus, cogitationes, phrases, omnia reclament, à Scholasticis planè diversa. Adde, quod non facile dabis ullum opus, Scholasticorum sae­culo compositum, in ullum è priscis Patribus nomen, & familiam ir­repsisse. Et Ethnici & Christiani sua habuerunt saecula [...], sive fa­bulosa Sicut ergo inter Ethnicos datum fuit aliquod tempus, ultra quod nemo ex hominibus ad Majorum Gentium Deos transcriptus est, ita & inter Christianos datum ultra quod nemo illorum Patrum opera scripta sua transtulit. Quod de justis operibus intelligi volo, ne quis ob aliqua Instrumenta vel sacra vel prophana mihi litem moveat.

Error tuus futili tibicine sulcitur, scilicet: Scholasticos Carmina Rith­mica invenisse: quod nec verum est, nec à Sixto Senensi tradi potuit. Sixtum Senensem ab aliquot annis non vidi. Ejus apud me magna est Auctoritas: quominus tamen ei assentiar hac in re, si sincerè illum hic citasti facit manifesta veritas, quam ostendi. Scholâ totâ quanta est, à Petro Lombardo, ortâ, antiquior fuit S. Bernardus, qui Epist. [Page 3]CCCXII, ad Guidonem, ait. Hymnum composui metri negligens, ut sensui non deessem. Fuerunt ergo Bernardi tempore, qui carmina sine metro, paangebant. Beda in Gentis nostrae historiâ multa habet rithmica car­mina. Quid de versibus Leoninis dicam, quorum tam frequens in me­diâ à Christo D. Aetate mentio, ut mirum sit tibi latere potuisse, imo & ante mediam aetatem. Vnde constat ex rithmis de Carminum sae­culo judicium certum formari non posse. Neque dicas, quemque Le­oninum versum duas habere partes, rithmo connexas; istos verò, de quibus agimus, tales esse, ut duo, vel etiam tres similitèr sonantibus syllabis claudantur: hujusmodi etiam Carmina antiqua sunt, ut pa­tet ex coenotaphio Ethelberti, primi Anglorum Regis Christiani.

Rex Ethelbertus hic clauditur in Poliandro,
Fana pians, certus, Christo meat absque meandro.

Accipe alterius Carminis simili Rithmo currentis exemplum:

Wenefreda Virgo foelix, gloriosa meritis:
Assistentes tuis festis, caeli junge gaudiis.

Item & ista de eâdem Beatâ Wenefredâ:

Virgo vernans velut rosa,
Agni sponsa speciosa
Martyr Christi preciosa
Wenefreda floruit.
Ex Britannis oriunda,
Fide firma spe jucunda,
Actu Sancta, mente mundae
Mundi mendâ caruit.

Haec, spero, non dices à Scholasticis profecta: etsi dixeris, facile erit ex antiquis tabulis contrarium evincere.

Quid ergo dicemus ad Sixtum Senensem, quem Laudas tui velut erroris Patentem: concedemusne illum in re facti falsum fuisse D. Reip: nihil aliud dicere potuisse videtur, cum veritate quam apud Scholasticos Rithmos ita fuisse in precio, ut metri nulla ratio habita sit, sive quod syllabarum quantitatem haud intelligerent, sive quod eam spernerent, aut etiam aversabantur. Cum ad eorum aetatem ali­qua [Page 4]saltem metri fuerit existimatio. Caeterum illum penes me non habeo, nec ea est difficultas, ob quam operae precium esset per alio­rum bibliothecas eum quaesitum ire. Vides, doctissime morlaee, pri­mam impressionem tuam male successisse: Argumenta tua nihil pro­bare: adeoque Meditationum librum germinum Augustini faetum esse posse, nisi aliud obster.

Caeterùm quod tu frustra nobis extorquere conatuses, id tibi ultrò damus, librum non effe Augustini. Aliqua enim de se dicit illius Auctor, quae in Augustinum non conveniunt: nempe C.XXXI ait: Fi­dem suam ab ipsis incunabulis illuminatam fuisse semper per illustrationem Divi­nae gratiae. Et C.XLI. ait se gravia peccata commisisse post Baptismum. Haec ab Augustino dici de se ipso non potuerunt, qui in Manichaeo­rum sordibùs diu volutatus est, ante Baptismum (quem adultus sus­cepit) & post eum semper pientissimè vixit.

SECTIO II. De Sanctorum Invocatione.

D. Morl. p. 5. Istius libri Auctor multa ex Augustino consarcinavit, quibus multa de suo addidit, & inter alia illas. Sanctos invocandi for­mulas: quae cum nullum habeant in S. Scriptura fundamentum, nec in praxi veteris, & nondum corruptae Ecclesiae exemplum, illarum Meditationum consar­cinator, ut superstitiosis sui tempore genio inserviret, Augustini nomine & au­ctoritate abutebatur abusus est, debuit dicere.

Resp. Quo Auctore haec dicis? nullo. Quo teste? Teipso. Quâ si­duciâ talia de illo asseris (quae ad arcana cordis secreta spectare) quem nec de facie nosti, nec de nomine, neque dicere potes, quo loco, quo­ve saeculo vixit? Ego verò censeo, Meditationum Auctorem virum fuisse pium (quod & liber ipse confirmat) qui in eo intimos animi sensus coram Deo effundit, ad id Augustini exemplo provocatus, cujus con­fessiones hand indiligenter legeret, ex quibus desumptas aliquas laci­nias [Page 5]operi suo attexuit. Quale illud C.XXXIII. Laudat te homo magna portio creatura suae. Augustinus dixerat l. 1. confes. c. 1. Laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae. Aliae proferentur infra. Caeterum non credo Auctorem sibi nomen Augustini indidisse, aut personam in­duisse, alioqui melius scenam instruxisset, nec ea de se dixisset, quae ignorare on poterat ab Augustino aliena esse. Vnde suspicor ab ali­quo alio ad sixum ei magni Doctoris nomen, idque bonâ side: quòd videret librum istum in non paucis cum aliis ejusdem sancti Docto­ris operibus indubitatis convenire. Nec mirum est, viros obaesae naris id minime olfecisse, quod nec Bellarmino nec Erasmo patuit, quo­rum neuter opus Augustino abjudicat.

Falleris verò, quod pace tuà dictum sit, dum ais Sanctorum Invoca­tionem nec in S. Scripturâ fundamentum, nec in veteris Ecclesiae pravi exemplum habere? Vtrumque enim falsissimum esse, dicemus, ad Epistolam tuam alteram, in quâ seriò nos aggrederis, qui in istâ tantum praeludere vi­deris & quasi velitari. In praesenti sat est, dicamus in vocatos in S. Scripturâ sanctos vivos: Vnde sequitur invocandos esse & sanctos mortuos. Et priscam Ecclesiam sanctos Martyres invocasse, unde da­ta ethnicis occasio Christianis exprobrandi, quod quem illi Diis suis cultum exhibebant, Christiani in Martyres transferrent. Adde quod nulla sit Liturgia antiqua, in quâ Sancti non invocentur. Haec obiter.

D. Morl. p. 6. Non inficias eo, quin in ipso Augustini saeculo hujus supersti­tionis semina & sparsa fuerint, & pullulare caeperint. Sed nego Augustinum in illo errore fuisse, aut tales invocandi sanctos formulas in Augustini temporis Eclesiâ communiter receptas, aut publicè usurpatas fuisse.

Resp. Quid semina sparsa pullulare incipientia dubitas, cum am­pla seges totius Ecclesiae agrum impleus appareat? eam Propherae seminarunt Apostoli rigarunt, & Deus variis miraculis testatus sibi gratam esse, incrementum dedit. Paulus Diaconus, vir minimè su­perstitiosus, refert Theodorum Heraclii Imperatoris fratrem ingen­tem Barbarorum multitudinem Deo per intercessionem B. Virginis capitulante parva manu concidisse.

Hae superstitiosa tibi videntur, & qui ea fovebant in errore ver­satos [Page 6]esse putas. Dic ergo quibus antiquis Auctoribus ita sentias? quis primis illis saeculis sanctorum invocationem improbavit? Aliquos enim fuisse non nego: qui fuerint, quaero. Haeres, nec miror; tam infames ii sunt, qui soli tibi, tuisque Symmistis, hac in re patrocinan­tur, ut probro; non honori tibi futuri sunt Tales Manichaeu, Eunomius, Vigilantius. Hi nobis adversantur, quos Ecclesia illorum temporum rite devovit, anathemate percussit. Tales autem erant, à quibus ni­hil nisi magnum aliquod bonum condemnari potuerit. Vt in simili dixit Tertullianus.

D. Morlaeus: p. 6. Cum Melancthone audater dico, perversum hunc, pravumque sanctos invocandi morem (quantumvis postea cum Dei & sanctorum contumeliâ in Ecclesiâ invaluerit) in tribus primis post Christum saeculis, non modo inusitatum; sed aut inauditum, aut damnatum fuisse: nec posse ullum certum & indubitatum testimonium ex ullis Patrum, qui ante quartum saeculum vixerunt momentis in contrarium proferri. Vale.

Resp. Non modò quaeritur, quid aut te, aut hic similes Reformatae Ecclesiae Paranymphi, novae sectae Vindices audacter dicatis; sed quid probetis. Scilicet perversus pravusque mos est, quem Hieronymus, quem Augustinus, quem Chrysostomus, quem Ecclesia tota Catholica propug­navit. Vnici verò illis saeculis Pietatis patroni sun Manichaeus, Vigilan­tius, & eujusdem furfuris alii! Cum Dei contumeliâ copulatur honor sanctis exhibitus, qui testatur sibi fieri, quae illis fiunt, quos haeredes suos, Amicos, fratres, membra sua, seipsum appellat, propter quem illos, quem in illis veneratur Ecclesia, qui variis miraculis honorem illis exhibitum, & illorum Invocationem sibi gratam esse testatus est? Addis cum Sanctorum contumeliâ cos à nobis honorari? Quanta orationis stupiditas? & tamen in eâ stupiditate astutè insidias incauto Lectori struis, dum rejecto in nos, qui Possessores sumus, probandi onere, De­fensoris ipse partes adis; unde jure per tot saeculorum possessionem acquisito cederemus, & pares nobis essetis, qui tantum heri, ut ita dicam, nati estis: & vindiciae secundum vos dandae sint, si nos in pro­batione deficiamus.

Dicis eundem morem aut inauditum fuisse, aut damnatum. Quae quâ ra­tione [Page 7]componi possint, non video. Si damnatus fuit, ergo non fuit in­auditus &c. inauditus: ergo non damnatus. Sed auditus, id est cognitus, fuit ille mos, ut constat, quia Manichaei, & Vigilantius illum improba­runt. Sed ostende per quem, quo loco, quove tempore damnatus fuerit, & manus damus. Non tamen velim nobis satisfactum putes, si quos modo nominavi damnatae ipsos memoriae homines morem istum improbantes produxeris. Nec iniquo animo ferre debes nos Ecclesiae priscae mole istorum nomen elidere, qui Calvini furores ejusdem ecclesiae auctoritati postponimus.

Nec desunt indubitatae fidei monumenta, ex priscis saeculis pro sanctorum Invocatione. Talia sunt antiquae Lyturgiae, quas tempus edax rerum non consumpsit: illae enim omnes, & singulae sanctorum invocationem continent. Non dices opinor, Ecclesiam per tot saecula lyturgiâ publicâ caruisse, ne vestrae, quam ab Enthusiastarum assul­tibus aegrè tuemini, securim infligas. Agnosco varia singulis lytur­giis antiquioribus addita fuisse: verùm illud, in quo omnes conve­niunt, etiam antiquissimae, ab initio fuisse videtur. Talia verò sunt, quae de essentiâ sunt Sacrificii, oratio pro Defunctis, & Sanctorum Invocatio: quae tria Lyturgiae omnes exhibent.

Deinde Patres, qui IV & V saeculo floruerunt, & vestris non negan­tibus Sanctorum invocationes favent, de eâ loquuntur non ut de ritu novo; sed ut de pridem usurpato, Si paucius eâ de re locuti fuerint Antiquiores, id fieri potuit, quod Idololatrae ad Politheismum defen­dendum eâ abusi sunt, utpatet ex Origine, Augustino, Hieronymo, Cyrillo. aliisque quorum tamen nemo respondit Ethnicis ritum illum esse no­vum ab Ecclesiae mente alienum, priscis ignotum, aut, quod tu dicis, à Christian is damnatum; sed illum admittunt, illumque defendunt, ab Idololatrarum errore distinguunt, & toto caelo differre demonstrant. Vnde liquet non eo tempore incoepisse; sed prius multò extitisse, fuisse Christianismo coaevum ab Ecclesiâ receptum, à sanctis defen­sum, à bonis omnibus approbatum, à solis verò Haereticis tum anti­quis, tum modernis improbatum.

REVISIO Posterioris epistlae ad Ianum Vlitium.


DVobus tractatibus de oratione pro mortuis, & sanctorum Invo­catione, duo parerga praemittit D. Morlaeus, alterum de loco, unde primùm in Britanniam Euangelii lumen allatum est. Alterum, de Britannorū Essedis, & currubus militaribus. Quae nec prorsus omit­tere debui, quod obiter varia dicat cum veritate pugnantia: nec fusius prosequi, quia parerga sunt, à re, quam praecipuè intendit uterque aliena. Haec dico, ut videat benevolus Lector, me non meâ sponte ex­tra Controversiae nobis propositae metas excurrisse: Praecuntem enim Ducem secutus sum, etsi extra viam errantem, ut eum in veritatis vi­am reducerem, errorum suorum convictum, ut salutarem concipiat, humilitatem, vernaculo Haereseos deposito typho.

SECTIO III. Britannorum error in celebrando Paschate non probat eos ab Asiaticis fidem accepisse.

D. Morlaeus p. 7. Plusquam verosimile est Britannos rudimenta Christia­nae Religionis ab Asiaticis primum accepisse: quoniam Augustinus à Gre­gorio I, ad praedicandum Euangelium Saxonibus missus veteres Insulae incolas jam Christianos, & Orientalis consuetudinis in celebrando Paschate observantis­simos invenit; nec ad contrariam Ecclesiae Romanae praxim ullis vel minis, vel pollicitationibus persuadere potuit. Et hoc mihi videtur esse Apodicticum argu­mentum nos primam in fide Christianâ instructionem non Romanis (ut illi jacti­tant, & inde jus, & Iurisdictionem Romanae Ecclesiae in nos vendicare) sed Apo­stolorum, aut Apostolicorum virorum alicui debere, qui una cum Catholicâ fi­de ritus in illis unde venerat locis usurpatos hic docuit.

Resp. Noli, noli nimium de mutuò acceptis à Centuriatoribus ar­gumentis gloriari: noli telis pridem exarmatis, & etiam fractis ni­miùm confidere. Noli rationes futiles, in quâ praemissae falsae, & mala illatio Demonstrationes vocare, unde fiat, ut non melius de argumento tuo; sed longè pejus de te sentiamus, qui ipso in limine tam faedè im­pingis, ut non solum quales fuerint antiqui Britannorum mores, aut Quarta decimanorum errores ignorare; sed & quid sit Demonstratio, vel [...] nescire videare. Appulsus ad Anglos Fidei sacris imbuen­dos Augustinus, Britannos Christo nomen dedisse invenit. Vnde al­latum Christi nomen, quaeritur.

Româ dicimus nos cum totâ antiquitate, ex Oriente dicis tu, & Magdeburgenses. Vnde id probas? quò Orientalis consuetudinis in cele­brando Paschate observantissimi erant. Atqui hoc falsissimum est: nam Orientales, Pascha lunâ XIV celebrabant, inquamcumque hebdomadae diem incidebat ut ipsum Quartadecimanorum nomen illis impositum indicat, & disertè tradit Eusebius L. v. Historiae C.XXIII. At verò Britanni Scotique festum illud celebrabant semper, die Dominicâ, illâ scilicet quae incidit inter lunam decimam tertiam, & vigesimam. Ro­mani verò, hoc est Catholici, similiter jejunium die Dominicâ solve­bant, eâ scilicet, quae est inter Lunam decimam quartam, & vigesi­mam primam. Quos inter mores ea est differentia, ut Orientales quotannis judaizarent, Pascha eodem cum Judaeis die celebrantes. Britanni & Scoti cum iidem perfidis Judaeis convenirent, quoties Lu­na decima quarta incidebat in Dominicam.

Romani verò, sive Catholici, cum illis nunquam coincidebant. De quibus vide Baronii Epitomen ad an Dom. CLIX & ad an. Dom. DC­XXXIII. Alfordum, natalem Alexandrum, & alios.

Unde sequitur Britan nos. Scotosque magis cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ, quam cum Orientalibus convenisse: siquidem Pascha in solâ die Dominicâ celebrabant, ut Romani ita Britanni; Orientales verò in­discriminatim, quâlibet hebdomadae die. Deinde Orientales singulis annis; Britanni rarò cum Judaeis conveniebant; & Romani nun­quam.

Patet ergo non ab Oriente; sed Româ ductum Britannorum mo­rem, qui solâ die solis Dominicam Resurrectionem soluto jejunio co­lebant, quod Romae servabatur. Natus autem eorum Britannorum, er­ror est ex solâ Cycli Paschalis ignorantiâ, quòd non scirent expectan­dam Dominicam sequentem, ubi concurrit luna decima quarta cum Dominicâ, in quo solo a Romanis differebant.

Hinc si quod ex Paschalis festivitatis observantiâ deduci possit ar­gumentum ad ostendendum unde venerint primi Britannorum Apo­stoli, potius ostendet Româ, quam aliunde venisse.

Falsum etiam est, quo aliàs assumis, in solâ Gentis alicujus con­versione fundari Jus Pontificis ad eam regendam. Jus enim illud, ea potestas, atque Jurisdictio à Christo Domino B. Petro una cum cla­vibus regni caelorum data est, quando Petrum creavit ovilis sui cu­stodem, cujus Pastorem suum in terris Vicarium. Vnde quâcumque ratione aliquis Fidei lumine illustratur, & in Ecclesiae gremium ad­mittitur, spirituali Christi Vicarii potestati subjicitur, & velut ovis Pastoris sui vocem audire, ei parere in spiritualibus tenetur.

Denique si fundet conversio jus, hoc Summo Pontifici éo etiam titulo computet in angliam. Nec enim Anglis Euangelium per Bri­tannos antea Christianos annuntiatum est: sed per Augustinum alios­que à B. Gregorio I, Româ missos: qui veri semper habiti fuerunt no­strae gentis Apostoli. Multa verò etiam magnaque fuerunt Ecclesiae Romanae in Britannicam ipsam officia, ex quo Angli advenae Roma­norum Missionariorum operâ suavi Christi jugo sua colla submise­runt, â qua suam habet Britannica Ecclesia Hierarchiam. Vnde tota Ecclesia Britannica quanta est, Romanae filia est, & quidquid piae indulgentique matri filia debet observantiae, obedientiae, dilectionis, id totum Romanae Britannica debet.

Vides, opinor, doctissime Morlaee quot visus laboret Apoduricum istud, si Deo placet, argumentum. Firma stabilisque manebit sanctae Sedis Apostolica in Britanniam auctoritas, quandiu non aliis arie­tibus concutietur.

SECTIO IV. De curribus militaribus, & Essedis Britannicis.

D Morlaeus p. VIII, & quatuor sequentibus, loquitur, de priscâ 'Britannorum ex Essedis pugnandi ratione, quam Caesar l. IV. de Bello Gallico describit, atque miratur ob Aurigatum pe­ritiam, & militum agilitatem, cum in declivi, ac praecipiti loco incita­tos equos sustinere & brevi moderari ac flectere, & per temonem per­currere, & in jugo insistere, & inde se in currus citissimè recipere-consueve rint. Solebant autem primò per omnes partes perequitare, & tela conjicere, terrore equorum, & rosarum strepitu, ordines perturbare, inter equitum turmas se insinuare, tum ex Essedis desilire & pedibus praeliari: ita mobilitatem equitum, peditum stabilitatem in praeliis praestare. Haec de illis Caesar loco laudato. Sed unde modum illum arceslas, non invenis videris autem in du­bium vocare velle, an uspiam extra Britanniam curruum in praeliis usus obtinuerit. et primò historicos omnes (exceptis sacris) Olym­piade primâ vetustiores à testimonio dicendo submoves auctoritati Varronis tempora illa [...], sive Fabulosa vocantis. Homero & Vir­gilio fidem elevas, quod Poetae fuerint, quibus (sicut & Pictoribus) quidlibet audendi fuerit permissa semper potestas. Hos currus sinxisse, Ho­merum quidem quia grandius, & heroicis viris dignius ei videbatur, ex curru pugnare sedentes, velut in solio, quam si equo solitario ve­luti Gregorii milites insiderent. Virgilium autem illum imitari, dato suorum Heroatem cuique curru. Graecos nunquam curribus in bello usos colligis ex silentio Graecorum Historicorum. Idem de Britan­nis dicturum, nisi Caesaris obstaret auctoritas.

In rem non Theologicam dilapsus est Sermo è quâ propterea pau­cis me expedio. Curruum multum olim fuisse in praeliis usum non solùm Historici prophani, Xenophon, Quintus Curtius, Plutarchus, alii (que) sed etiam Sacrae litterae testantur. Exodi XIV. Tulit Pharao, persecu­turus Israelitas ex Aegypto discedentes sexcentos currus electos, & quidquid curruum fuit, & Duces totius exercitus. Judic. 1, 19. Judas dicitur Mon­tana sui juris fecisse, Vallium verô incolas debere non potuisse, quod [Page 12] falcatis curribus abundarent. Et Judic. IV, 3, dicitur Jabin nongentos falca­tos currus habuisse. Et 1. Reg. XIII, 5. Philisthini Congregati ad praeliandum 30000. curruum, & 6000 equitum & reliquum vulgus sicut arena, quae est in littore maris. Ex quo patet.

Tres fuisse antiquitùs militum ordines; 1. Eorum, qui è curru pugnabant. 2. Equitum. 3. Peditum.

Colligitur ulterius, non Heroas tantum; sed etiam multos alios curribus impositos in hostes pugnasse: cum vix credi possit ex Regiis familiis, aut heroicis viris tot inveniri potuisse, qui 30000 curruum, aut etiam nongentorū implerent. Sicut ergo in nostrâ militiâ quique pugnacissimi, & manu promptissimi transcribuntur ad equos, ita tum ad currus. Nec somnium tuum probo, quod Poetae Heroas suos dig­nitatis ergo curribus imposuerint, quòd grandius quid sit sedendo velut in solio pugnare. Nec enim verò in ipso pugnandi ardore sedisse arbitror, qui currus conscenderunt. Statio magis opportunus corpo­ris situs est, sive in omnes partes intendenda cura, quod Imperatorum est, sive librandae hastae, jacienda pila, vibrandus gladius, quod mili­tum. Ut ut ratio sedentium vigeat, languent tamen vires, remittuntur nervi; stantium excitantur, & ipsâ nervorum contentione totus homo incalescit, & permissâ Aurigae equorum moderatione qui curru vehi­tur oculis, voce, utraque manu hostem ferit, & toto corpore pugnat.

Duo tamen reddebant currus aut minus utiles, aur planè inutiles. 1. Montibus aspera regio, per quam discurrere non poterant. Hinc Tribus Iuda Montana possedisse legitur: non tamen in Valles descen­disse metu curruum falcatorum. Hinc etiam Barae, quo currus Pabin Regis Chanaan vitaret, in monte Thabor castra metatus est.

2. Arma militum vel offensiva, vel defensiva. In Macedonicam Phalangem nihil poterant quae currus praelongis hastis arcebat. Nec in Legiones Romanos, adeo ferro muniebantur. Hinc Esseda Britan­nica, licet novitate pugna, ut Caesar, ait, Romanum militem turbarint, hic tamen loricis, & amplis scutis tectus, ea facile submovit, quibus resistere vix potuissent hostes aut inermes, aut semiermes, quales ut plurimum olim Asiatici, & Caesaris tempore Britanni.

Accedit & alia ratio: quod in longinquis expeditionibus, quoties occurrebant montes aspert, magna erant impedimenta.

Hinc colligitur, quare rarior, nec diuturnus eorum usus in Italiâ, & Graeciâ. Frequentes enim, & asperi montes in iis regionibus eos reddebant inutiles, sicut & gravis militum armatura. Hinc Galli eos seposuerunt. Sicut & Britannum ubi viderunt eos adversus Romanos Legionarios esse minus efficaces. Sed de his satis. Ad Theologicâ re­vertamur. De Purgatorio, & suffragiis pro Defunctis.

SECTIO V. Distinguendam esse orationem pro Defunctis, ab Invocatione Sanctorum.

D. Morlaeus p. 13. Distinguere oportet illa duo: Invocationem intelligo Sanctorum, & Orationem pro Defunctis. Nam non est idem, nec ejusdem considerationis Defunctos orare, & orare pro Defunctis.

Resp. Rectissimè ista duo distinguis, quae non solùm Recentiores Theologi; sed etiam antiqui Patres, & antiquissimae Liturgiae distin­guunt. Divina Missa S. Jacobi fratris Domini pro Defunctis orat. Vt Patres Fratresque nostri qui jam obierunt, in pace requiescant, Dominum oremus. Paulò post sanctos Orat. Commemorationem agamus Sanctissimae.... Dominae nostrae matris Dei: ac omnium Sanctorum, & justorum, ut precibus, at­qui intercessionibus eorum omnes misericordiam consequamur.

Liturgia B. Marci Orat. pro Defunctis: Animabus Patrum ac Fratrum nostrorum, qui antea in fide Christi dormierunt, dona requiem Domine Deus noster. Orat. Sanctos: Memor majorum nostrorum, qui à saeculo sunt Patrum, Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum Martyrum, Confessorum, Episcopo­rum, Iustorum, omnis spiritus in fide Christi Defunctorum, nec non eorum quo­rum bodierno die memoriam agimus, & S.P.N. Marci Apostoli, & Euangelistae, qui demonstravit nobis viam salutis.

Liturgiam S. Petri omitto, quia planè cum hodierna Romana con­venit: haec quippe aliquibus additis ex illa formata est.

Liturgia S. Basilii orat. Sanctos: Inveniamus misericordiam, & Gra­tiam, in caetu omnium Sanctorum, qui à seculo tibi placuerunt. Praecipuè sanctae Dei Genitricis, & semper Virginis Mariae, sancti Ioannis Praecursoris & Baptistae, Sancti N. cujus memoriam facimus, & omnium Sanctorum tuorum, quorum po­stulationibus visita nos Deus. Pro Defunctis: & memento omnium dormien­tium in spe resurrectionis, & aeternae, & refrigera eos, ubi visitat Lux vul­tus tui.

Ejusdem Anaphora, pro Defunctis orat. Offerimus Sacrificium hoc... pro tranquillâ requie eorum, qui ante hac occubuerunt, cum spem haberent in u­nigenito filio tuo, &c. Sanctos invocat: Dignare nos eorum etiam meminisse qui inde à saeculo placuerunt tibi, Patrum, Patriarcharum, cumque misericordiam tuam laudabilissimam, & amorem tuum erga genus humanum imitantes, assi­duas preces, atque obsecrationes pro nobis tibi offerunt eoque memoriam illorum celebremus, ut quando nobis ipsis parum fidimus, memoriâ & legatione eorum protecti, per eos audeamus ad te accedere, atque tremendo hoc & sacro munere defungi.

Liturgia B. Chrysostomi. Pro Defunctis orat. & omnium, qui in spe Resurrectionis, & vitae aeternae dormierunt, Orthodoxorum Patrum, & Fratrum nostrorum, benigne & clemens Domine dimitte: & infra: Memento omnium, qui dormierunt in spe Resurrectionis, & vitae aeternae. Pro requie, & remissione animae servi tui N. in loco luminoso, à quo aufugit dolor, & gemitus, fac eam quiescere Deui noster. Sanctam Virginem, aliosque Sanctos invocat: Sanctissimae impollutae supra omnem modum benedictum, gloriosae nostrae Deiparae, & semper Virginis Mariae memoriam agentes, nos ipsos, & nos inter nos invi­cem, & omnem vitam nostram Christo Deo commendemus. Hoc saepè repetitur: tum additur. S. Ioannis Prophetae, praecursoris, & Baptistae sanctorum Apostolo­rum, sancti N. cujus etiam memoriam peragimus, & omnium Sonctorum tuorum, quorum supplicationibus adjuva nos Deus.

Missa, sive Canon universalis Aethiopum: ad Deiparam: Laetare glo­ria nostrorum Parentum, quia peperisti nois Emanuelem. O verè mediatrix ante Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum te supplices exoramus, ut memor sis no­stri. Ora pro nobis, ut dele antur iniquitates nostrae. Pro Defunctis: Miserere Domine animarum servorum tuorum, & ancillarum tuarum, qui manducave­runt [Page 15]carnem tuam, & biberunt tuum sanguinem: & in fide tuâ quieverunt.

Liturgia Arabica: Fac requisecere Domine in luce viventium, & habitae­tione laetantium parentes meos, ac majores, & fratres, tuos bonâ mente famulos.

Missa S. Gregorii: cum memoriam fecisset omnium Sanctorum, qui Deo placuerunt ab initio: pro Defunctis orat. Memento Patrum nostrorum ac Fratrum qui dorminerunt in fide Orthodoxâ: concede ut omnes requiescant cum Sanctis tuis, & cum his quorum (nem pe Sanctorum) nomina commemoravimus.

Missa S. Cyrilli: Sanctos Commemorat: Memento Domine Patrum no­strorum, Sanctorum .... qui ministraverunt in verbo veritatis, in rectitudine, da nobis partem & sortem cum iis ... Deinde pro Defunctis: Pro quibus in­tendimus orare, & pro aliis, qui dormierunt, & requieverunt in fide per Chri­stum. Dignare Domine efficere, ut requiescant animae eorum omnium, in sinu Patrum nostrorum sanctorum Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob. Effice ut habitent in loco viriditatis, super aquam refectionis, in Paradiso voluptatis, unde fugerit do­lor cordis, & maeror, & suspirium.

'Missa Christianorum apud Indos. Orat. sanctos: Commemoremus Beatissimam Dominam, Matrem Dei vivi ... Memoriam etiam veneremur Pro­phetarum .... Commemoremus quoque Patres nostros .... omnesque Doctores, & Presbyteros veritatis Doctores. Oremus ut ipsorum orationibus veritas pura, & sincera doctrina, quam illi docuerunt, & professi sunt, in omni Ecclesiâ sanctâ custodiatur, usque ad saeculi consummationem. Pro Defunctis: Recordemus etiam & Patrum & Fratrum nostrorum fidelium, qui ex hoc saeculo in Orthodoxâ fide transierunt. Oremus inquam, Dominum, ut illos absolvat, corumque peccata & Praevaricationes dimittat, & efficiat eos dignos, ut cum justis & rectis, qui divinae voluntati obtemperaverunt, laetentur in saecula.

Missale Romanum: Orat. Sanctos: Communicantes & memoriam ve­nerantes imprimis Gloriosae semper Virginis, Genetricis Dei Mariae .... Beato­rum etiam Apostolorum, ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri &c. quorum meritis pre­cibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Pro De­functis: Memento etiam Domine famulorum, famularumque tuarum, qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, & dormiunt in somno pacis ... Ipsis Domine, & om­nibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii, lucis, & pacis, ut indulgeas depre­camur, per Christum Dominum nostrum.

Idem sensus ex variis Patribus ostendi potest, & verò datâ à te oc­casione ostendetur infra: licet vix opus sit eos producere, cum nihil aliud dicere possint Ecclesiae Patres, quam quod ab Ecclesiâ didice­runt: Ecclesias verò diversas, loco sejunctas, tempore dissitas, & in rebus levioribus non satis concordes, solâ fide per Apostolos aceptà, & charitate per Spiritum sanctum in eorum cordibus diffusâ copula­tos audivimus una voce clamantes, & Deum enixè orantes, ut alia­rum animarum (Deo nempe fruentium) preces exaudiat prose: suas pro aliis, necdum refrigerio donatis, sibi per aliarum intercessionem bene sit; aliis per suam, quidni dicemus id ex Apostolicâ Traditione fluxisse, juxta regulam, quam Tertullianus adhibendam docet ad Tra­ditiones Apostolicas ab aliis dignoscendas. Et sanè tantus ille apud Graecos, Latinos, Aegyptios, Aethiopes, Indos Arabes, non in re tan­tum, sed ferè in ipsis verbis, & loquendi modo consensus non potuit non ab uno cunctis communi fonte manasse. Quod si recte pronun­tiat Augustinus epist. CXVIII. Insolentissimae insaniae esse disputare, quin faciendum sit, quod tota per orbem facit Ecclesia: Quid de vobis dicendum qui morem per totam Ecclesiam usurpatum impugnare, & condem­nare audetis? Quod si vestra liturgia nihil aliud haberet mali, in se, hoc ipsum satis mali esset, evasisse tam antiquitus, tam generalitèr praeceptam formulam, cujus nullum indicium in Vestra coenâ, vel Com­munione, ut ineptè loqui amatis, apparet.

D. Morlaeus p. 18 & 19. Ritus Anglicanus cum antiquis liturgiis optimè convenire: quia in officio sepulturae orat. ut Deus expleat numerum Electorum, & gloriam regni sui maturet. gratias agit Deo, qua defunctum de praesentis vitae aerumnis liberavit, monet etiam superstites de praesentis vitae brevitate, & mise­riis, & futurae immortalitate, & faelicitate.

Resp. Nullo modo convenit cum illis, imo toto caelo differt: nec enim ulla funditur pro Defuncto Oratio. Et apparet de industriâ mu­tatam orandi formam ab Ecclesia usurpatam, ne fierent ullae pro de­functis Preces. Quidquid enim hic à se refertur ad qualescumque eo­rum, qui funus prosequuti sunt & de amici, vel necessario morte affli­cti sunt, solatium destinantur. Sed & illus notatu dignum, quod in [Page 17] Communione vestrâ nullam de defunctis mentionem faciatis, quam an­tiqui ubique semper in ipsâ liturgiâ adhibuerunt.

Quam obrem imprudentèr, & in causam tuam perniciosè duas istas orationes distinguendas admonuisti, Doctissime Morlaee. Ipsa enim inter eas distinctio, ipsa diversitas, quae datur inter eas (& aliquam dari necesse est fateate) causae tuae jugulum petit, eamque praefocat. Tertium en imvero statum Beatas animas inter, & damnatos eviden­tèr demonstrat. Nec enim pro damnatis preces aut obtulit unquam prisca Fidelium Pietas, aut offert hodierna, quia fidelibus omnibus semper certum fuit, est, & erit, ex Inferno nullam esse Redemptionem & contrarium Origenis in hoc Platonizantis dogma Ecclesia semper velut pessimam haeresim detestata est. Adeoque nullae pro illic exi­stentibus offerri possunt preces. Quare nec illas miseras animas ora­mus, nec pro illis. Alias igitur animas respiciunt Ecclesiae preces, ex quarum diversitate nascitur certa persuasio, quod ipsae sint in duplici statu, quarum aliae ope nostrà indigeant, nos aliarum; nos istae sub­levent, illas operâ nostrâ sublevemus. Veritas tibi hanc agnitionem invito extorsit. Verùm conscius tibi te causam tuam afflixisse, ei re­medium paras, serum licet, & nihil profuturum, dum ais:

D. Morlaeus p. 13. fine. Oratione pro Defunctis non talem intelligo, qualis nunc est in usu apud Pontificios, nec tali innixam fundamento, ingenioso scilicet, & quaestuoso Purgatorii commento. Nam ex veteris Ecclesiae consuetudine, orandi pro Defunctis, probari non potest, quamvis id falsò supponant, & gratis assu­mant Pontificii, veteres illos credidisse mortuos pro quibus orabant, in tali qualem illi somniant loco cruciatos esse, aut ex illo loco, aut cruciatu vivorum suffragiis liberariposse.

Resp. Nihil supponimus, quod non antiqui poserint, nihil assumimus, quod non illi largiti sunt. Nihil enim hac in re dicit Concilium ipsum Tridentinum, aut Pii IV, jussu edita fidei profes­sio, quod non ferant, illae preces. Quid enim dicit ista fidei pro­fessio? Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis ju­vari. At illae preces dicunt aliquas animas requietis indigere, eas­que [Page 18]suffragiis suis sublevant. Hoc ingeniosum, & quaestuosum commentum appellas: quae verba censuram continent inverecundam tuâ eruditione, & moderatione indignam: imo & falsissimam, & iniquissimam; cum nos nihil hic commenti fuerimus; sed traditam per maus doctrinam ab Apostolis ad nos usque derivatam amplectamur. Nec enim quid­quam velut de fide tradit seculo decimo septimo Ecclesia, quod non crediderit decimo, quod non quinto, quod non primo.

Ex hoc laqueo elabi speras, recurrendo ad locum, qualem somnia­mus, ais: quibus tamen nihil somnii, imò nec somni obrepit. Sed ipse verè somnias, dum putas ea via effugere. Nobis hàctenus non decla­ravit Ecclesia, animas aliquo determinato loco purgari: nec B. Gre­gorium damnavit, l. IV. Dialog. c. XL. Animam Paschasii Diaconi in Thermis purgari referentem. Temerè vero addis veteres non credi­disse animas ullas illis suffragiis liberari: quod nulla ratione probabis. Imò falsò id dici patet, cum aliud sonent ipsae preces solemnes, men­tium, & sensuum locupletissimae.

SECTIO IV. Orationes pro Defunctis probantur ex SS. Patribus. Vbi de locis ani­marum se paratarum à corpore.

D. Morlaeus p. 14. Primus veterum apud quem consuetudo Oblationum, & Orationum pro mortuis incurritur, est Tertullianus: sed is de tertio aliquo loco, sive receptaculo animarum à corpore separatarum nunquam cogitavit. Nam. l. IV. contra Marcionem duo tantum loca excipiendis animabus corpore excu­tis constituit, ubi quasi sequestrentur in diem judicii Inferos pro reprobis, pro a­nimabus vero justorum sinum Abrahae.

Resp. Non primus est Tertullianus, qui oblationum pro mortuis meminit. Constat enim ex libris Machabaeorum pro mortuis etiam ante Christi in carne adventum oblata sacrificia: Quos, libros, licet negetis esse Canonicos, contra fidem Ecclesiae, negare tamen non [Page 19]potestis veram continere historiam. Hoc in praesenti nobis sufficit, quia probat Judaeos consuevisse, ubi quis in aliquo peccato mortuus esset, pro illo sacrificium offerre. Nulla facta est mentio de sacrificiis pro mortuis in Lege Mosaicâ, quia rara (si tamen ulla) futurae vitae mentio expressa: ea enim sub umbrâ temporalium promissionum la­tebat, suo tempore evolvenda. At verò instante legis Euangelicae tempore, Deus per Prophetas, & Sapientes venturo soli praeviam quandam praemittere voluit Auroram. Itàque reperta in exilio Ba­bylonico, & post illud nomina Regni caelestis, Paradisi, Gehennae: dicti Deo vivere qui nobis essent piè mortui; & subinde praescripta in lege pro viventibus sacrificia expiatoria, pro illis usurpata qui a­pud Deum viverent. Fuerunt fateor inter illos aliqui errores; quos Christus ipse reprehendit. Non tamen istum reprehendit: nec verò ab illo de errore quopiam ullo notatus fuit vir ille fortissimus Iudas. Hoc sufficit ne nos illum de errore accusemus: maximè cum quod ille fecit, ecclesia imitata sit. Ad Tertullianum accedo.

Hunc tria loco post mortem agnovisse mihi certum est. Libro de Spectaculis C.XXXIV. Cum non putes, inquit, animas & puniri, & foveri in inferis interim sub expectatione utriusque judicii, in quâdam usurpatione, & candida ejus. Et infrà: Cum carcerem illum, quod Euangelium demonstrat, inferos intelligimus, & novissimum quadrantem modicum quodque morâ Re­surrectionis illic luendum interpretamur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos salvâ Resurrectionis plenitudine. Duo istic loca agnoscit, praeter illum post Resurrectionem debitum. Clarius adhuc l. IV. contra Marcionem: Aliud Inferi, ut puto, aliud Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum ait intercedere regiones istas profundum, & transitum utrimque pro­hibere .... unde apparet sapienti cuique .... esse localem determinationem, quae sinsu dicta sit Abrahae... eam autem regionem sinum dico Abrahae et si non caelestem sublimtorem tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum Resurrectionem omnium plenitudine merce­dis expungat: tunc appariturâ caelesti promissione.... Quod si aeternus locus re­promittitur, & ascensus in caelum aedificatur à creatore ... cur non capiat sinum Abrahae dici temporale aliquod animarum fideltum receptaculum?

Triplicem hic locum agnoscit: quorum primus Infernus, seu Infe­ri, nempe damnatorum: Alter Abrahae sinus. Tertius locus aeternus in diem judicii repromissus. Secundus ad tempus durabit, unde à Tertul­liano dictus est Temporale Tabernaculum. Alii duo aeterni sunt.

Neque dicas nonnisi post judicium patere locum tertium: jam enim ex Tertulliani mente Martyribus patet; qui lib, de Resurrectione car­nis ait: Nemo peregrinatus à corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex Martyrii praerogativâ, Paradiso scilicet non inferis diversurus. Et l. de Anima C.XXXI 1. Ioanni in spiritu Paradisi regio revelata, quae subjicitur altari nullas alias animas apud se, praeter Martyrum ostendit... Et infra: Tota Paradisi cla­vis, tuus sanguis est. Martyribus ergo jam in Paradiso locum assignat, per quam vocem Beatorum sortem, quae caelum jam dicitur, intelli­git. Et plerique Patres eum imitati magnam faciunt differentiam Martyres inter, & alias, qui piè imò pientissimè moriuntur Unde mi­nime mirum est aliquam in Beatitatis aeternae adeptione praerogati­vam ab illis Martyrio dari. Martyribus Ecclesiae existimatio addidit eos fideles, quos Martyribus aequavit divina gratia ob vitam piissi­mam, & sincerum Martyrii votum. Justinus in dialogo cum Tripho­ne, ait Haereticos idem dicere de animabus omnium Fidelium.

Obitèr aliquid addam de multiplici loco ex antiquorum opinione excipiendis animabus destinato, quo magis appareat quam falsi sint Moderni Haeretici duplicem tantum agnoseentes. Distinguebant ple­ri (que) Christiani antiqui post Hebraeos Paradisum inter, tertium caelum, aut caelum caelorum, sive Regnum. Ita Tertul. lib. de Praescript. Chry­sostomus de Ligno scientiae boni, & mali, & hom. XV, in Matth. The­odoretus, Caesarius, Theophilactus, Ambrosius ad Michaeam. Vt per Paradisum ad regnum perveniatur; non per regnum ad Paradisum. In Cyrilli Liturgia primò petitur quies in Paradiso voluptatis. Deinde ut resuscitatis corporibus digni sint regno caelorum. Attendenda Methodii verba apud Epiphanium: Apostolus Paradisum in tertio caelo non collocat inquit, si quis novit ad subtilia ejus verba animum attendere: scio hominem hujusmodi raptum usque ad tertium caelum, & scio hujusmodi hominem, sive in corpore suo, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit, quoniam raptus est in Paradisum. Vbi duas magnas sibi [Page 21]revelationes obtigisse dicit, bisque in sublime se raptum, semel ad caelum ter­tium, semelin paradisum. Denique Augustinus epist. LVII, Paradisus non in caelo existimandus est: neque enim eo ipso die in caelo futurus erat homo Chri­stus Iesus; sed in inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro secundum carnem.

Ex quibus colligi videtur secundum antiquos Paradisum locum fuisse Gaudii: tertium vero caelum gloriae. Cui expositioni conformis est visiocuidam facta apud Bedam lib. V. hist. C.XIII. de quâ etiam Bellarminus lib. 11. de Purgatotio C.VII. Rem ego in medio relinquo. Redeo ad orationes pro defunctis.

D. Mors. p. 14. Ex usu priscae Ecclesiae per oblationem pro defunctis non intel­ligebantur oblationes propitiatoriae, seu expiatoriae: sed eleemosynariae. Nam propitiatoriae à solis Sacerdotibus offerebantur: aliae verò offerebantur à viro pro conjuge à viduâ pro marito: quod habet apud Tertul. lib. de Monagamiâ, & lib. de Exhortatione castitatis. Concilium etiam Carthaginense IV. C.LXXXV. Excommunicat eos, qui oblationes defunctorum aut negant Ecclesiis, aut diffi­culter reddunt.

Resp. ex ignorantiâ nata est ista objectio, quod credas unius tan­tum rationis dari in Ecclesiâ suffragia pro defunctis: cum si vel ho­diernam Ecclesiae praxim, vel antiquas tabulas consuluisses, diversa esse comperisses. Eleemosynae dantur etiam hodie; de quibus agunt illa quae profers testimonia, etiam ex concilio Carthag. IV. quod sub poenâ excommunicationis retineri vetat Eleemosynas vel ex testa­mento, vel justo titulo Ecclesiae debitas. Praeter quae Laicorum dona fuisse alia suffragia propitiatoria, & expiatoria à solis sacerdotibus oblata probant tum ex variis Liturgiis petita testimonia, tum clarissimè Au­gustinus Enchiridii C.CX. Neque negandum est, inquit, Defunctorum a­nimas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur, vel Eleemosynae in Ecclesiâ fiunt: sed iis haec prosunt, qui cum vive­rent, ut haec sibi prodesse possent, meruerunt. Est enim quidam vivendi modus, nec tam bonus ut non requirat ista post mortem, nec tam malus, ut ei non pro­sint ista post mortem. Est verò talis in bono, ut ista non requirat: & est rursus talis in malo, ut nec his valeat, cum ex hac vitâ transierit adjuvari. Ubi triplicem animarum à corpore solutarum statum clarè distinguit: il­lae [Page 22]quae suffragiis non indigent sunt Beatae: quae suffragiis juvari non possunt sunt damnatae: quae illis juvantur, iisque indigent, sunt in Purgatorio. Distinguit etiam sacrificia quae fiunt à sacerdotibus, ab Eleemosynis, quae offeruntur à laicis. Deinde Augustus lib. XXI. de Civit. Dei C.XXIV. ait: Ecclesia orat pro Defunctis, qui licet in Christo re­nati, non adeo malè vixerunt in corpore, ut tali misericordiâ habeantur indig­ni: nec iidem sic benè, ut inveniantur tali misericordiâ non indigere. Et idem repetit lib. de curâ pro mortuis.

Vides nihil tibi prodesse distinctiunculas tuas ex malè intellectis testimoniorum quorumdam verbulis extractas. Non negabis, opinor, antiquorum judicium visum sacrificium mediatoris non tantum [...]; sed etiam [...]. Dicat ergo centies Tertullianus maritum pro conjuge, hanc pro illo offerre debere: hoc tamen optimè con­venit cum Ecclesiae sensu, & olim, & etiamnum sacrofanctum Missae sacrificium pro illis offerentis. Adeoque effugium tuum praecludit illud unum Augustini testimonium ex Enchiridio. Cui similia verba habet Chrysostomus hom XLI. in 1. ad Cor. infra citandus: qui etiam sacrificia ab eleemosynis pro mortuis offerendis accurate distinguit. Idem facit Isidorus Hispal. l. 1. de Offic. C.XVIII. Adde alia.

Tertullianus ipse l. de coronâ militis c. III. inter varias Christia­norum consuetudines, & hanc recenset: Oblationes pro defunctis pro nata­litiis annuâ die facimus. Et C.IV. Harum & aliarum disciplinarum, si legem ex­postules Scripturarum, nullam invenies: Traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix.

Dionysius l. de Eccles. Hierarch. c. VII. Accedens venerandus Antistes precem sacram super mortuum peragit, precatur divinam clementiam, ut cuncta dimittat per infirmitatem humanam admissa peccata defuncto, eumque in luce statuat, & regione vivorum. Negas quidem Areopagitae esse illa scripta: negare tamen non potes esse pii, & antiqui scriptoris, qui priscae Ec­clesiae sacros ritus & optimé calluerit, & accuratè retulerit: quod mihi sat est, ne ad alienam ab instituto materiam identidem digre­diendum sit.

Cyp Epist. LXVI. Episcopi salubriter providentes censuerunt ne quis frater [Page 23]excedens ad tutelam, vel curam Clericum nominaret: ac si quis boc fecisset, non offerre tur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro ejus dormitione celebraretur. Nec enim me­retur apud Altare Dei nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari Sacerdotes, & ministros voluit avccare. Et subinde vetat pro Victore defuncto Sa­crificium offerri, quod is Geminium Faustinum presbyterum Tuto­rem nominasset.

Arnobius l. IV. adversus Gentes: In conventiculis nostris summus ora­tur Deus: Pax cunctis, & Venia postulatur, magistratibus, exercitibus, Regi­bus Familiaribus, inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, & resolutis corporum vinctione.

Cyrillus Hierosol. Car. Mystag. V. Pro defunctis SS. Patribus, & Epi­scopis, denique pro omnibus oramus, qui inter nos vitâ functi sunt, maximum esse credentes animarum juvamen, pro quibus offertur precatio sancti illius, at­que tremendi, quod in altari positum est sacrificii. Quod exemplo vobis demon­strare volumus scio enim multos dicere, quid juvat animam sive cum peccatis sive absque peccatis ex hoc mundo decedentem, etiamsi in hoc sacrificio illius mentio fiat? An enim si Rex aliquis eos, à quibus offensus est, in exilium pepulerit, postea vero illorum propinqui coronam aliquam conficientes, pro his, qui sunt in supplicio exulibus eidem offerant, nonne condonationem supplicii ipsis dederit? Ad eundem modum & nos pro Defunctis precationes adhibentes, quamvis sint pecca­tores, non quidem coronas plectimus; sed Christum pro peccatis nostris macta­tum offerrimus, ut & nobis & illis, eum qui est benignissimus propitium red­damus.

D. Morlaeus p. 45. Cyrilli catecheses mystagogicae sunt Apocryphae, quia Vel­serus ait illos in Bibliothecâ Ausburgensi cum hac inscriptione esse Mystagogicae Catecheses quinque Ioannis Episcopi Hisrosolymitani.

Resp. Quid si demus in illo MS. ita haberi? sexcenta alia MM. SS. per totum orbem sparsa Cyrillo catecheses illas adscribunt. Hie­ronymus l. de script. Ecclesiasticis Cyrillum Catecheses scripsisse re­fert, quod quare non-etiam de hoc opere intelligi debeat, tu dices, ubi fuerit otium. Eidem tribuunt hoc opus omnes illius editiones. Num unius obscurrissimi M. S. Inscriptio fidem toti orbi litterario detrahet? Iniquissimé id petis. Sed si demus tibi, quod inique petis [Page 24]illi uni M.S. fidem habendam; aliis omnibus & MSS. & editionibus negandam. Quid tum postea? Est inquies, Ioannis Hierosolymitani. Sit ita, quandoquidem id velis. Vixit is Hieronymi tempore, ut ex con­tentionibus inter eos acribus constat: licet iste varia in isto Ioanne reprehendat, nihil tamen quod à Catechesibus istis sumatur. Unde sequitur, si Ioannis sit illud opus, hoc quarto saeculo fuisse scriptum. Deinde illud esse omni exceptione majus. Hinc inconcussa manet harum Catecheseon auctoritas.

Epiphanius haeresi LXXV. (quae est Aëtianorum) istis contrarium errorem adscribit. (quod etiam facit Augustinus l. de Haeres. haeresi LIII.) & in expositione Catholicae fidei, num. XXIII. ait: Iam vero quod ad mortuos spectat, nominatim de illis fit mentio, & preces ac Sacrificia, mysteriaque frequentantur.

Chrysost. hom. XLI. in 1. ad Cor. si peccator excessit, propterea etiam laetari oportet, quod intercissa sint peccata, & vitio non adjecit, & quoad fieri potest ei succurrere non lachrimis; sed precibus & supplicationibus, & eleemo­synis, & oblationibus. Non sunt enim ista frusta excogitata, neque frustra eorum qui excesserunt meminimus in divinis mysteriis, & pro ipsis accedimus rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit; sed ut iis inde aliqua sit consola­tio. Neque inaniter is qui adstat altari, quo tempore veneranda mysteria pera­guntur, clamat pro omnibus in Christo mortuis, & pro iis qui eorum memorias celebrant. Nisi enim commemorationes ipsis essent utiles, non talia dicerentur. Non enim ludus sunt res nostrae. Absit ex Spiritus ordinatione ista fiunt. De in­de l. VI. de Sacerd. ait Sacerdotem precari, ut Deus propitius sit pec­catis non modo viventium; sed & eorum, qui decesserunt. Alibi as­serit id ab Apostolis institutum. hom. III. in Epist. ad Philip. Non fru­stra haec ab Apostolis sunt legihus constituta, ut in venerandis, atque honori­ficis mysteriis memoria fiat eorum, qui decesserunt. Noverant hinc multum ad il­los lucri accedere, multum utilitatis. Et hom. XXI. in Acta: non frustra obla­tiones pro Defunctis fuere, non frustra preces, non frustra eleemosynae. Haec om­nia SPIRITVS disposuit, volens, ut nos mutuo juvemus. &c.

Theodoretus lib. V. hist. c. XXXVI. refert Theodosium juniorem co­ram B. Chrysostomi sepulchro Parentibus Arcadio & Eudoxiae de­functis veniam petiisse.

Ambrosius in orat. funeb. de obitu Satyti fratris: Tibi nunc omnipo tens Deus innoxiam commendo animam, inquit, tibi hostiam meam offero. Cape propitius, ac serenus fraternum munus, sacrificium Sacerdotale. Et orat. de obitu Valentiniani: Piam animam nostris orationibus prosequamur. Et epist. LXI. ad Faustinum: Itaque non tam deplorandam, quam prosequendam Orationibus reor: nec maestificandam lachrimis tuis; sed magis oblationibus ani­mam Deo commendandam arbitror.

Ex Augustino aliqua protuli superius. Addo quae sequuntur, ex lib. de curâ pro mort. c. 1. Adjungis etiam vacare non posse, quod universa pro defunctis Ecclesia orare consuevit. Haec refert ex S. Paulino, Episcopo Nolano, ut constat ex lib. ad VIII. Dulcitii quaest. q. II. De suo ad­dit. In Machabaeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium. Sed etsi nusquam inscripturis veteribus legeretur, non parva tamen est universae Eccle­siae, quae in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas: ubi in precibus Sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum. Et c. IV. ejusdem operis: Non sunt praetermittendae supplicatio­nes pro spiritibus mortuorum: quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christianâ & Ca­tholicâ Societate defunctis, etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali com­memoratione suscepit Ecclesia.

Hinc confirmantur, quae ex Liturgiis produxi superius, & inde in­tuli, nullam prorsus esse, aut fuisse, quae non decernat pro defunctis orandum. Quod suo testimonio confirmant duo magna illius eruditis­simi saeculi lumina, Augustinus, & Paulinus.

Ex posterioribus Patribus unum tantum adducam, is est Isidorus Hispalensis l. I. de officiis Eccles. c. XVIII. Sacrificium pro defunctorum fidelium requie offerri, vel pro iis orari, quia per totum orbem custoditur, credi­mus quod ab Apostolis traditum sit. Hoc enim ubique Catholica tenet Ecclesia, quae nisi crederet Fidelibus defunctus dimitti peccata, non pro eorum spiritibus, vel eleemosynam faceret, vel Deo sacrificium offerret.

Ex quibus omnibus Constat 1. Sacrificium pro defunctis antiqui­tùs oblatum fuisse.

Constat 11. Sacrificium illud non fuisse solam eleemosynam, ut D. Morlaeus dixit.

Constat III. id factum per totam Ecclesiam.

Constat IV. Sanctis illis persuasum fuisse, quòd preces illae ab Apo­stolicâ Traditione manarint.

Addo Nysseni verba Orat. De mortuis, licet non tam orationem pro mortuis, quam Purgatorium adstruant directè. Qui vel in praesen­ti vitâ Sapientiae studio, & precibus purgati, vel postobitum per expurgantis ig­nis fornacem expiati, ad sempiternam felicitatem perveniunt. Ad Morlaeum revertor.

D. Morlaeus p. 15. Non nego in officio mortuorum precationes etiam factas pro iis, quibus aliquid optari videtur. Nam Tertullianus illis optat refrigerium, licet in eo aut jam essent, quia in sinu erant Abrahae, aut nunquam futuri essent, quales qui in Inferno. Tertullianus autem tertium locum non agnoscit. Restat er­go dicamus veteres illos sensisse posse aliquid à Deo peti, quod jam concessum à Deo crederent.

Resp. hic expressam habemus viri cum manifestâ veritate luctantis imaginem. Supra negasti preces pro Defunctis. Jam preces admittis, sed tales, quae nihil petant, quam quod jam habetur, hoc est quae non sint preces. Nec dicis, neque dicere potes, quem in finem fundantur istae preces? Tertullianum triplicem locum agnovisse jam ostendimus: Infernum nimirum, Abrahae sinum, & locum aeternum a Martyribus inses­sum, aliis Sanctis praeparatum.

D. Morlaeus p. 16. Augustinum pro matre suâ Monicâ oravit quam salvam esse credidit: petiit, ut dimittantur ei debita, quae dimissa credebat. Quia ait: Credo quod jam feceris, quod te rogo; sed voluntaria oris mei approba.

Resp. Ecclesia nunquam oravit aut pro iis, quos certò credidit in caelo esse, quales 1. Martyres. 2. recens à Baptismo mortui: aut pro iis quos certò scit ex caelo in aeternum exclusos, quales non baptizati, & qui sunt in statu peccati mortalis defuncti. Pro iis verò de quibus nihil certò constat, orat. quantacumque sit pro alterutrâ parte proba­bilitas, ob incertitudinem divinorum judiciorum, & obscuritatem in quâ versamur. Multi enim videntur Sancti, qui meri sunt Hypo­pritae: aliarum pia vita in Christo abscondita est. Itaque non ante tempus judicamus, quod admonet Apostolus; donec adveniat Dominus, ab­scondita [Page 27]tenebrarum illuminans, & cordium consilia revelans. Ad illud usque tempus pro aliis timemus, de aliis benè speramus: de neutris judi­cium ferimus, ob erroris periculum. Talis erat Augustini de Matris suae statu spes metu mixta, quod indicant haec ejus verba: Quamquam illa in Christo vivificata sic vixerit, ut laudetur nomen tuum in fide, moribusque ejus; non tamen audeo dicere, ex quo eam per Baptismum regenerasti, nullum ver­bum exiisse de ore ejus contra praeceptum tuum: & dictum est à veritate filio tuo: qui dixerit fratri suo, Fatue, reus erit gehennae ignis. Haec Augustinus l. IX. Conf. c. XIII. Quare benè sperabat Augustinus de illius statu, timebat tamen ne quid illicitum humana fragilitate perpetrasset, pro quo non plene satisfecisset in vitâ. Hinc ut si quid esset ejusmodi Deus id misericorditer condonaret, & ipse oravit, & ut alii orarent enixè pe­tiit. Et hic est fidelium sensus in hunc usque diem: quantacumque e­nim sint pro felici statu cujuspiam argumenta, sacrificia, aliaque suf­fragia pro eo fiunt, donec per aliquam Ecclesiae declarationem (quam Canonizationem vocamus) constet eum beatitudine jam donatum esse: tunc enim cessant pro illo preces, & in illius invocationem con­vertuntur.

D. Morlaeus p. 17. Commemoratio defunctorum potissimùm fiebat, ut inde pateret. Tam vivos, quam mortuos ad idem Ecclesiae corpus pertinere, & neminem unquam tam Sanctum fuisse, qui non hujus beneficio sacrificii indigeret.

Resp. neque nihil dicis, neque totum. Vt ut enim non negem illos quoque fines intendi; at quominus illa tantùm intendi dicamus, fa­ciunt expressa cum Liturgiarum, tum Patrum verba aliud significan­tia, & ipsa precum varietas, quae pro defunctis, & ad Beatos dirigun­tur. Opem animabus purgantibus ipsi ferimus; Beatos, ut nobis o­pem fetant, oramus. Sicque officiis certando, nos aliis, alios nobis prodesse docemus. Et haec est Sanctorum communio, quam Catholici profitemur, ut proinvicem solicita sint membra, & ubi unum patitur, alia con­dolent. Vbi unum gloriâ afficitur, alia congaudent. In hac verò vitâ datur alterius meritorum communicatio. Non est talis communio Prote­stantica: quae sterilis est in hac vitâ, cum merita nulla agnoscat: & inutilis in aliâ, ad id solum instituta, ut videamur unius corporis my­stici partes esse.

D. Morl. p. 18. Pontificii orant pro iis, quos credunt esse in cruciatu. Vete­res pro iis orabant, quos credebant esse in refrigerio.

Resp. neque veteres orarunt, neque nos oramus pro iis, quos certò constat visione Dei frui: alioquin orassent antiqui pro Martyribus; quod cum horum injuriâ conjunctum esse asseverat Augustinus. Idem de aliis Beatis eandem ob causam.

D. Morl. p. 19. Augustinus de tertio inter Beatorum, & damnatorum se­des loco, timidè, haesitabundè, & problematicè disputat. In uno loco, dicit Ani­mas Defunctorum pietate viventium liberari ex Purgatorio. Alibi, sit ne Purga­torium non audet statuere. Nam lib. XXI. de Civ. Dei c. XXVI. ait: Forsitan verum est. Et in Enchir. c. LXIX. Tale aliquid post hanc vitam esse, non est incredibile, & utrum ita sit quaeri potest. Ad Dulcitium denique: eadem repetit, & addit: Haec descripsimus, ut tamen in iis nulla velut cano­nica constituatur auctoritas .... Hoc certum, est, quod Augustinus nihil de Purgatorio definivit, multò minus pro dogmate fidei habuit, aut ab aliis haberi voluit.

Resp. Augustinus neque timidè, neque problematicè de Purgatorio lo­cutus est; sed assertivè, & dogmaticè. Hoc patet ex iis, quae ex illo protuli. Nec in toto Augustino quidquam invenitur, quod probet ip­sum de Purgatorio ipso unquam dubitasse. Quae verò citas de Purga­torio ipso non loquuntur. Augustinus enim Enchiridii c. LXVIII, lo­quitur de dolore, quem sentiunt homines ob amissionem rerum tem­poralium quas inordinatè quidem in hac Vitâ diligunt: non ita tamen ut Christum deserere velint, ne eas amittant. Hunc urit, inquit, rerum dolor, quas dilexerat amissarum; sed non subvertit, neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate munitum. Deinde c. LXIX. ait: Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inveniri, aut latere, non­nullos fideles per ignem Purgatorium quantò magis minusve dilexerunt bona per­euntia tantò tardius, citiusve salvari. Et lib. de fide & Operibus c. XVII. Sive in hac vitâ tantum homines ista patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret à veritate quantum arbitror, iste in­tellectus hujus sententiae. Quae ferè totidem verbis, certè non multùm mutatis iterum refert l. de octo Dulcitii quaestion. q. 1. Haec Augu­stinus.

Ex quibus patet, locis citatis non esse sermonem de ipso Purgato­rio; sed de tristitiâ quam animae vel corpori vinctae, vel eodem so­lutae sentiunt ex rerum, quas inordinatè diligunt amissione. Hanc aliquas animas in corpore sentire, notum est quotidianâ experien­tiâ. An extra corpus eandem sentiant, dubitat Augustinus, dubita­mus & nos: nec ullâ vel Ecclesiae definitione, vel Scripturae sacrae au­ctoritate, vel Patrum testimonio, vel efficaci ratione, alterutra pars ita stabilitur, ut non vacillet assensus ei praestitus. Si ex hac nostrâ declaratione inferre velis, nos de ipso Purgatorio dubitare (qui simi­lem ob causam id de Augustino dixisti) more hymnistarum tuarum argumentaberis, hoc est ineptè. Atqui talis est illatio tua de sensu du­bio Augustini circa Purgatorium.

Augustinus igitur absolutè affirmat esse Purgatorium: hoc asserunt alii Patres, hoc clamant Liturgiae, hoc tradit Fides, hoc fidelium pra­xis demonstrat; hoc tota Ecclesia Catholica docet. Soli vero Aëtius, Vigilantius, Calvinus, & ejus generis hominum ob haereses damnatorum quisquiliae negant. Vide, mi Morlaee, num difficilis sit optio, quibus­cum in aliâ vitâ accenseri malis, cum Catholicis, an cum Haereticis, cum Sanctis, an cum Damnatis: & exinde statue quorum nam sen­tentiae sis in praesenti adhaesurus.


SECTIO VII. Duplex Sanctos invocandi modus.

D Morlaeus p. 20. Quicquid de Oratione pro mortuis senserit Augustinus vel Ambrosius, non tamen inde sequetur aut ipsum, aut ullum alium ex reliquis, Invocationi Sanctorum patrocinatum esse. Nam invocatio Sancto­rum cum oratione pro mortuis nihil habet commune. Et praeterea haec est aliquo modo licita; illa toto genere illicita: haec inutilis, & superstitiosa; illa idolatri­ca, & in Deum, & Christum contumeliosa.

Resp. Si solis censuris pugnandum esset, & vicisse credendi fo­rent, qui acerbiores proferrent, etsi omni ratione destitutas, rixosis mulierculis, petulantibus Adolescentibus, atque morosis senibus, tutius committeretur disputatio Theologica, quam viris in eâ Ar­tium, scientiarumque Reginâ peritis: Xantippe socrati praestaret, Zoilus Homero, Semei Davidi, & pueri Bethelitae, Elizaeo. Sed absit tam abjectè de hominum genere, de Christianis sentiamus, ut censeamus eos adversus immoderatas istiusmodi exaestuantis bilis redundantias armandos esse; quibus nunquam froena laxantur donec ratio praevalet, quâ deficiente recurritur ad ea dicteria, ut clau­dus deficientibus tibiis ad equum. Mitto proinde quae dicis gra­tis, Sanctorum invocationem illicitam esse, idololatriam, & in Deum, ac Christum contumeliosam. Tibi magis probrosum est ista dicere, quam nobis audire: quia qui contumeliam profert, insipiens est. Prov. x. 18. Quam iniquae porrò sintistae censurae, postea patebit. Illud tantum hic ob­servo, minus consideratè à te dici, nihil commune esse Sanctorum invocationi, & orationi pro mortuis, Contrarium asserueras supra, ubi dixisti fideles iis modis suam communionem cum Animabus tum Beatis in caelo, tum in abditis receptaculis suam beatitudinem [Page 31]expectantibus testari. Communio igitur illa utrique communis est. Caeterum qui cum veritate pugnant, eos sibimetipsis manus inferre solemne est.

D. Morlaeus p. 20. Invocatio juxta Pontificios est vel summa, directa, ab­soluta, & terminativa, vel subalterna, indirecta, relativa, & transitiva, Prior est Latria, soli Deo debitus cultus: de quâ intelligi volunt, quidquid è sacris Scri­pturis, Conciliis. Patribus ve producimus. Posteriorem putant Sanctis deberi, quos transitivè, & relativè invocandos esse docent, ita ut preces Sanctis oblatae in Deum transeant, in eo terminentur. Et hanc innoxiam esse docent: & utilem, laudabilem, Deo Sanctis (que) gratam.

Resp. Agnoscimus distinctionem nostra est, & ad explicandum invocationis Sanctorum sensum apprimè conducens. Non enim ita Sanctos invocamus, ut in iis nostra haereat intentio, aut orationes nostrae in iis subsistant, quasi à Sanctis praestari speratemus, quae no­bis usui sunt; sed ut suas ipsi nostris preces adjungant, quo multipli­catis intercessoribus illa certius à Deo impetremus, quae petimus. Hinc orationes ipsis oblatae sunt transitivae, & relativae, quia Deum ultimò respiciunt, ad Deum feruntur, & in eo solo quiescunt.

D. Morlaeus. p. 21. Nullum hujus invocationis relativae vel praeceptum, vel exemplum in sacris Scripturis, nec in praxi purioris Ecclesiae, nec in ipsis Patribus reperitur; sed est purum: putum commentum ad excusandam hanc [...], & [...] (cultum Angilorum, & Sanctorum) excogitatum.

Resp. Mitte verba contumeliasque quae, qui profert insipientem es­se, pronuntiavit Regum sapientissimus. Rem ipsam vide invocatio­nem inquam Sanctorum. Lege Sodes quas supra returli sec. v. ex variis Liturgiis Sanctorum Invocationes: Ex iis constat nunquam in sacris omissam fuisse istam Sanctorum invocationem, quam tu so­litâ tibi, tuisque symmistis modestiâ. Commentum purum putumque ap­pellas. Simili temetitate negas ullum aut praeceptum, aut exemplum ejus in S. Scripturis, aut Patribus, aut etiam in praxi veteris Eccle­siae haberi. De Praxi veteris Ecclesiae nos dubitare non sinunt illae li­turgiae superius allatae. De aliis modo dicendum.

SECTIO VIII. Ex S Scripturâ probatur Invocatio Sanctorum,

PRobatur 1, ex Geneseos XLVIII. Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis, ait Jacobus, benedicat pueris istis; & invocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina quoque Patrum meorum Abraham, & Isaac. Apertam hic habemus Angeli invocationem, nostrae similem id est relativam, & transitivam. Petere enim, ut Angelus eis benediceret, idem est ac si petiisset, ut pro iis oraret. Nam creaturae cujuslibet benedicere, & bene precari: ac Dei Benedicere, est benefacere. Natalis Alexan­der O.P. vir eruditissimus testatur Temellium, Junium, atque Ar­nesium agnoscere, quod ea verba Angeli invocationem contineant sequentia verò continere Sanctorum invocationem, quia monet suum Patrum (que) suorum nomen ab aliis invocandum.

Prob. 2. Moyses ipse Sanctos Invocavit: Exodi XXXII. 13. Recor­dare Domine Abrahaam, & Isaac, & Israel, servorum tuorum. Quibus ver­bis eos velut mediatores, aut intercessores adhibuit. Et frequentissimae fuerunt istorum trium invocationes ex eo tempore, qui videntur quasi populi Israelitici tutelares, sive Patroni. Factâ vero decem tribuum à Judâ secessione, tribus ista Davidem invocavit simili modo, pro­pter cujus merita diu stetit & regia civitas, & ipsum Regnum, quod a­lioquin fuisset ob gravia populi Regumque illius peccata delendum.

Prob. 3. Sancti post hanc vitam orant pro nobis. Petrus in poste­riori sua Epist. 1.15. Dabo operam & frequenter habere vos post obitum meum, ut borum memoriam faciatis. Quod idem est, ac polliceri se pro eorum pia vitâ post mortem oraturum. Praeterea 11. Mach. XV. 14. Hieremias dicitur multum orare pro populo Israel. Ibidem de Oniâ idem dicitur. Hieremiam gladium Iudae Iudaeorum Duci dedisse re­fertur, quo populi sui hostes debellaret. Respondent 1. libros illos Canonicos non esse: Verum hoc non satisfacit 1. Quia Ecclesia pro Canonicis jam Augustini tempore agnovit. 2. Quia saltem continent [Page 33]veram historiam quod ad praesens institutum sufficit. Respondent. 2. somnium fuisse. Fateor; sed somnium à Deo immissum & veram rerum futurarum revelationem in eo factam subsecuta victoria demon­stravit.

Prob. 4. Hieremiae XV. 1. negat Deus se Moysen, & Samuelem ex­auditurum, si pro populo intercederent & Ezech. XIV. 20. Simile quid de Noe, Daniele, & Iobo dicitur: eo quod planè constituisset contu­macem illam gentem poenis domare, ad quam converten dam frustra fuissent admonitiones minaeque adhibitae. Nec ullorum precibus se ab instituto dimoveri permissurus esset. Quorsum ista, nisi Deus San­ctorum intercessione subinde placaretur, & id populo illi tum tempo­ris esset persuasum? Hoc etiam notatu dignum, quod cùm Christum in cruce pendentem Eliam invocasse dixissent ex adstantibus aliqui, (Matth. XXVII.) nemo ex Pharisaeis, (qui in omnes ei calumnias struen­di occasiones imminebant) eum propterea accusavit, quod haud o­misissent, si quod Calvini grex sentit, sine Idololatriâ Sancti non in­vocantur.

Prob. 5. Sancti in hac vitâ & licitè & utiliter invocantur. Ergo & post hanc vitam. 1. Reg. VII. 8. ad Samuelem ait populus Israeliticus: ne cesses pro nobis clamare ad Dominum Deum nostrum, ut salvet nos de manu Philistinorum. Iob. XLII. 8. Ite ad servum meum Iob, Iob autem servus meus o­rabit pro vobis, faciem ejus suscipiam, ut non vobis imputetur stultitia. q. d. Intercessorem adhibete Iobum, ipsius pro vobis preces exaudiam, & quam meriti estis poenam remittam. Et in novo instrumento: Rom. XV. 30. Obsecro vos fratres per D. N. I. C. & per charitatem Sancti Spiritus, ut adjuvetis me in orationibus vestris pro me ad Deum, ut liberer ab infidelibus, qui sunt in Iudaeâ. Similis Sanctorum vivorum invocatio habetur Ephes. VI. 18.19. & Colos. IV. 3. & 1. Thessal. V. 25. & 1.25, & 11. Thessal. 111.1. & Philip. 24. & Heb. XIII. 18. & Iac, v. 18. Orate pro inimicem, ut salvemini. Quare salvà fide de Antecedenti dubitari non potest. Con­sequentia manifesta est: quia Sancti mortui non minus nos amant, quam vivi, ut pro nobis intercedere velint, nec minus Deo grati sunt, ut possint, quae nobis usui sunt impetrare. Cur ergo non licebit [Page 34]eos invocare, aequè ac illos? Hoe argumento usi sunt ad idem pro­bandum Hieronymus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, aliique infra ci­tandi. Dixit aliquis Sanctos in hac vitâ invocari posse, quia sunt Chri­sti membra, eorumque preces hujus meritis innituntur: quasi haec in Sanctos etiā mortuos non competant, aut desinerent esse Christi mem­bra, cum ipsi arctissimo, & indissolubili vinculo nectuntur, aut hujus meritis minus niterentur, quando sunt ei arctius conjuncti, & majora eorum virtute praemia sunt consecuti.

Quatuor modis huic argumento respondere conaris pag. 43. Negas ita (que) consequentiam 1. quia praecepit Deus ut vivi pro vivis orarent, & promisit se tales orationes exauditurum: nihil simile de Sanctis mortuis. Caeterum nunquam vetuit Sanctos mortuos invocare: & gratis ex illo silentio solo infers istos invocandos non esse. Perinde quippe est, ac si ex eo, quod in Scriptura exempla nulla habeamus Invocationis Sanctorum aut Hispanorum, aut Gallorum, Britanno­rumve vivorum, inferres Graecos, & Romanos vivos invocari posse; alios non posse. Quae restrictio cum gratis fiat, nullius est momenti: idem de restrictione tua ad Sanctos vivos, quae gratis ficta est.

Negas Conseq. 2. quia in Scripturis sunt exempla Sanctorum vi­vorum pro invicem orantium, precesque petentium; at nullum de De­functis invocatis. Nec hoc satisfecit: quia à Sanctis vivis invocatis ad Sanctos mortuos legitima est consequentia, & inevitabilis. 2. Quia & Sanctos mortuos orare pro vivis constat ex Scripturis, ut vidimus, & etiam eos fuisse Invocatos.

Negas 3. quia Sanctos vivos oramus, ut illum, qui solus invocan­dus est pro nobis, & nobiscum invocent: & ut una nobiscum per communem intercessorem Jesum Christum, Deum Patrem adeant. Caeterùm quid hoc ad rem, cum constet simili ratione ex Ecclesiae mente invocari Sanctos mortuos, ut pro nobis, & nobiscum orent, Deum Patrem Per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

SECTIO IX. An, & quá ratione Sancti mortui norunt, quae hic aguntur.

POstrema, & maximè communis Asseclarum Calvini responsio à te his verbis exprimitur p. 43. Certò scimus Sanctos in hac vitâ sen­tire, & intelligere, quid sit quod ab illis praestari velimus; sed an Sancti mortui in caelo videant, quae hic agimus, aut audiant, quae loquimur certè scire non possumus, absque speciali revelatione.

Ceterùm si demus tibi, quod gratis assumis & probate non potes, Sanctos Deo fruentes nostras preces non audire, quid inde mali, nisi quod opera in illis invocandis posita perierit? Idem evenire posse, dum Sanctos vivos, ut pro nobis orent. oramus, nec tu puto negabis, cum fieri possit, ut litterae ad loco remotos destinatae intercidant. Non tamen ideo damnabis ut Idololatram, aut ut impium, qui litteris ad Amicum in Indiâ degentem datis rogat, sui me minerit in precibus ad Deum: aut si hunc damnare audeas, vide quà ratione B. Apostolum ab eâ sententiâ, eximas, nisi fingas, quoties epistolam aliquam ejus­modi preces continentem scriberet, peculiari revelatione certum fa­ctum esse, quod ad manus earum quibus destinabatur, esset perven­tura. Neque dicas, nos Beatis omniscientiam tribuere, quia dicimus quaecunque ubilibet aguntur cognoscere: & omnipotentiam, qui pos­sunt nobis ubilibet constitutis opem ferre: quae sunt duo Dei Attri­buta creaturis incommunicabilia. Respondebo enim, nos neutram illis tribuere; sed gratiam tantum apud Omnipotentem, & omni­scientem, & eorum cognitionem, quae illos scire Ecclesiae est utile, cujus participes ex Divinâ bonitate fiunt, ad Ecclesiae militantis bo­num precibus suis procurandum.

Haec dicta sunto, admissâ, non concessâ illâ Beatorū de rebus, quae hic aguntur, ignorantiâ. Nunc absolutè dico, id falsum, esse, quòd ii, qui hinc translati sunt quae geruntur inter nos scire non possint. [Page 36]Enimverò. Reg. XXVIII, constat Samuelem periculum Sauli im­mineus cognovisse, & futuram cladem etiam. Elias hinc raptus, quae impius Joram Rex Juda contra Dei legem moliebatur, optimè novit eumque per epistolas comminatorias conatus est ad meliorem frugem reducere. 11. Paralip. XXI 12. De quo vide Cornelium à Lapide ad illum locum, & Salianum, qui putat IX circiter annis ab Eliae raptu missas fuisse illas Epistolas. Deinde ex laudato 11. Mach. XV. 12. & seq. discimus Hieremiam & Oniam nosse periculum Judaeis immi­nens: pro eo avertendo multum orasse, priorem Machabaeo Gladium dedisse Sanctum munus à Deo, quo Gentis suae hostes dejiceret. Id est, vir­tutem bellicam ad eos debellandos. Et inexpectata victoria subse­cuta probavit non merum fuisse somnium; sed revelationem in som­no factam, cujusmodi frequentes factae fuerunt antiquitus, uti ex S. Litteris patet.

Ex novo Testamento clarius apparet id, quod cum Ecclesiâ assero. Luc. XIV. Dives epulo sepultus in Inferno, sciebat superstites esse ip­sius quinque fratres, eosque tam perditè vivere, ut in summo essent damnationis periculo. Hoc sciebat & Abraham, & insuper eos habere Moysen, & Prophetas, hoc est eorum libros, quibus ad curandam sa­lutem aeternam, quantum sat esset, admonebantur. Ex quibus con­stat Animas corpore solutas, sive quae in refrigerio erant in Abrahae si­nu, sive quae torquebantur in Inferno, quae hic agebantur cognovisse. Quo jure Beatas in caelo animas eâ cognitione privas, quam Christus Dominus animabus tum in limbo Patrum degentibus tum damnatis adscribit? Deinde idem Christus Dominus Luc. XV. 10 dicit: Gaudium esse in caelo super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente. Sciunt ergo Beati quod Peccator aliquis Poenitentiam agit, nec enim de repenitus ignotâ gaudere possunt: de ignoto enim objecto nec gaudium esse potest, si bonum est, neque tristitia, si malum.

Accedit & ratio: nam ad ipsorum Beatitatem spectare videtur, quod omne honestum ipsorum desiderium impleatur. Honestè au­tem desiderare possunt ea scire quae vel agunt, vel patiuntur primò ipsorum Parentes, filii, consanguinei, 2. illi, quarum curam in terrâ [Page 37]habuerunt, 3. alij noti, & vicini, 4. res spirituales majoris momenti, haereses, schismata; item Laetiora, nempe morum reformationes, Fidei propagationem, &c. 5. res etiam temporales, regnorum mutationes, Imperiorum translationes, bellorum eventus, & id genus alia. Hinc Abraham, Isaac & Jacob avere possunt, scire, quae populo Israelitico eveniunt: David, Ludovicus, Henricus, Odoardus, quae ipsorum reg­nis, Petrus, Paulusque quae toti Ecclesiae, Antonius, Benedictus, Fran­ciscus, Ignatius, quae cujusque Instituti Professoribus: Felix, quae No­lae. Gervasius & Protasius, quae Mediolani. Genoueva quae Parisiis, quod ipsorum corpora illic sepulta sint. Denique quisque Sanctus avere potest eos nosse, qui in necessitate aliquâ constituti, eorum preces implorant.

A sanctis Patribus longè amplior Beatis animabus cognitio tribui­tur. Augustinus enim Tract. CI. in Joan. sub finem ait: Modicum & videbimus eum, ubi jam nihil rogemus, nihil interrogemus: quia nihil deside­randum remanebit, nihil quaerendum latebit. Et Gregorius l. IV, Dialog. C. XXXIII. Quid est quod nesciant, qui scientem omnia sciunt?

Quod ad modum, five medium spectat, in quo, vel per quod ista intelligunt, quandoquidem illud Deus nec in verbo scripto, nec in non scriptis Traditionibus declarare dignatus sit, nec Ecclesia quid­quam definivit, ego libenter ignorantiam meam agnosco. Possunt ista cognoscere per eos, qui hinc morrendo pergunt: possunt etiam per Angelos ea nuntiari. Possunt etiam Deo revelante scire: qui tres modi ab Augustino proponuntur 1. de cura pro mortuis C XV. Postre­mus modus placere videtur Gregorio supra laudato: & clare Asseritur à Concilio Senonensi Decreto XIII, quod cum retulisset aliquos ne­gare, Sanctos preces nostras audire, ait: Hoc quam sit non modo veritati; sed Scripturis quoque dissonum facilè intelligit, qui Bratis pervium esse non ig­norat omniforme illud Divinitatis Speculum, in quo quidquid eorum intersit, innotescat. Et B. Augustinus hac ratione res creatas intelligi ab Ange­lis insinuat, dum eorum cognitionem Matutinam eam esse dicit, quâ res in verbo cognoscunt. Portò dici potest haud ineptè Divina Es­sentia ob eam virtutem res repraesentandi Speculum Voluntarium; Specu­lum, [Page 38]quia res repraesentat: voluntarium, quia solum ea repraesentat, quae Beatorum interest cognoscere, sive quae ad eorum statum perti­nent, & quae Deus ab iis cognosci vult.

Denique illa scire possunt per vim innatam intellectui ipsorum. Hic quidem in corpore ratione sensuum à quibus in operando de­pendet: ad certam activitatis sphaeram restringitur: at ubi corpore solutus est, & à sensuum cooperatione liber, non alios limites no­vit, quam qui res omnes existentes complectatur. Sicut ergo nos per Epistolas res in altero hemispherio gestas, & per historias res ante multa saecula praeteritas, cognoscimus nihil obstante aut loci, aut temporis distantiâ; ita intellectus Beatus vi suâ innatâ. Hoc, suppo­sito, animas tantum à nobis distare, quantum à supremo caelo terra: licet incomperta nobis sit illarum à nobis distantia. (De quo vide Hieronymum l. contra Vigil. c. II.) Enim verò certum est, illas vi­dere Deum: certum etiam est ubicunque sunt, eum videre, qui ubi (que) est, & eum videndo beatas esse, etiamsi cum Christo Domino ad Infe­ros descendissent; quia earum Beatitudo non pèndet à loco; sed in so­lâ Visione Dei consistit, quae in omni loco eadem est. Simili ratione constat animas damnatas ubicunque sint, suam secum miseriam cir­cumferre, suum infernum, etiamsi in Campis Elysiis, aut Insulis For­tunatis existant. Cum ergo ex earum Beatitudine, quae fide certa est, de Distantiâ nihil nisi problematicè inferni possit, Distantia ipsarum à nobis incerta est: adeo (que) inde colligi non potest, eas, quae hic agun­tur ignorare. Qui verò stolidè cavillatur Animas non tam longas aures habere, ut quae hic aguntur, audiant longis auribus ornari meretur, & tintinnabulis, quod tam stupidum tam stolidum acumen ab eo solo proficisci potest, qui animam nihil sine corpore sentire, sive percipe­re posse autumet, adeoque eam sentiat esse merè corpus.

Dices: si quisque Beatus sciat, quae ad ejus statum pertinent, se­queretur, ut subinde qui minus esset Beatus, ob minora merita, plu­ra sciret, & per consequens magis erit Beatus. Quod multi aegrè sunt admissuri.

Resp, Concedo sequelam, tametsi enim in visione Beatificâ tota [Page 39]inaequalitas de facto à meritorum inaequalitate proficiscatur, & pro­inde qui majora habent merita, Deum perfectius vident: non ita ta­men in visione rerum creatarum, quarum cognitio visioni Dei com­parata non considerabile gaudium adfert. Audiamus August. lib. V. Confess. c. IV. Infelix homo, inquit, qui scit illa omnia (creata) te autem nescit. Beatus autem qui te scit, etiamsi illa nesciat: qui verò te & illa novit, non propter illa Beatior est; sed propter te solum Beatus. Et Christus ipse id vitam aeternam esse testatur, cognoscant solum Deum, & quem misit Ie­sum Christum. Ioan. XVII. 3. aliorum cognitione, quantumvis amplâ insuper habitâ.

Quantumvis ergo non eam inficias difficile esse definitè scire, quâ ratione Beati videant, quae hic aguntur, negari non debet eos ista vi­dere. Similiter cum August. dicto l. de curâ pro mort. c. XVI. Ista quae­stio vires intelligentia meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis. quos per eos certum est adjuvari. &c. Certi sumus proinde Martyres scire preces iis oblatas. 2. Eos nobis opem ferre. Quo verò modo utrum­que fiat nihil admodum scire refert. Sed quocunque modo fiat pium, utileque est ad eos in necessitate recurrere eosque invocare.

SECTIO X. Sanctorum invocatio probatur ex Patribus.

1. CYprianus epist. LVII. ad Cornelium: si quis istinc nostrum prior di­vinae dignationis celeritate praecesserit, inquit, perseveret apud Deum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus nostris apud misericordiam Patris non cesset oratio. Vide Pamelii ad illum locum annotationes. Deinde lib. de Disciplinâ & habitu virginum: Durate fortiter, spiritualiter pergite, per­venite feliciter: tantum mementote tunc nostri, cum incipiet in vobis virgini­tas honorari. Haec clare probant ex illius mente Sanctos pro nobis orare, & nos illorum orationes implorare posse. Neque refert, quod Sanctos adhuc viventes alloquatur, (quod observat D. Morlaeus pag. 38.) cum respiciat orationes post mortem fundendas: & ea dicat, quae [Page 40]eos post mortem incitet ad orandum pro viventibus: adeoque San­ctorum in caelo regnantium invocationi aequivalent ea verba.

2. Potamiena Virgo, & Martyr Basilidi, qui eam ab impurorum ludibrio defenderat Martyrii coronam obtinuit, ut habet Eusebius l. u I. historiae Eccles. c. v. Qui etiam l. XIII. Praepar. Evang c. XI. refert Christianos hominum Deo Charissimorum sepulchra celebrare, preces ibi, vo­taque nuncupare & beatas illorum animas venerari consuevisse. Idque, ait, à nobis merito fieri statuimus.

3. Basilius Orat. ad XL. Martyres: qui aliquâ premitur angustia, inquit, ad hos confugit: qui rursus laetatur, ad hos recurrit: ille ut à malis liberetur, hic ut duret in rebus laetis. Hic mulier orans pro filiis auditur: peregrinanti reditum incolumem, aegrotanti verò salutem implorat. O communes generis humani cu­stodes! Optimi curarusocii, precum adjutores, Legati apud Deum poten­tissimi.

4. Nyssenus, orat. de S. Theodoro M. Intercede, ac deprecare pro Pa­triâ apud communem Regem, ac Dominum... Pete pacem, ut hi publici con­ventus non desinant. Nos enim, quod incolumes servati sumus, tibi acceptum referimus. Petimus autem etiam futuri temporis praesidium & securitatem. Quod si maiori etiam opus fuerit advocatione, & intercessione, fratrum tuorum Mar­tyrum coge chorum, & cum omnibus una deprecare. Admone Petrum, excita Paulum, nec non Ioannem Theologum, ac dilectum discipulum, utpro Ecclesiis, quas constituerunt soliciti sint.

D. Morlaeus p. 48. Basilium, Nyssenum, Nazianzenum, Paulinum, atque Prudentium, pios; eruditos, & in suo genere admirabiles sentio, temen illorum sequacibus gravissimum errorem errandi dederunt occasionem, dum Rhetorico & Poëtico suo genio nimis indulgent, adeoque incautius loquuntur.

Resp. accipimus, quod à te veritas manifesta extorsit, nimirum, Hos Patres (quanta nomina) Sanctorum invocationem docuisse: nos­que hac in re illos Sanctos viros imitari. Dum tamen addis gravissi­mum errorem errandi datā nobis ab illis occasionem, aut falleris, aut quod gravius est Lectores fallis. 1. Quia non error; sed Ecclesiae do­ctrina. 2. Quia non docuerunt ipsi Ecclesiam illud dogma; sed ab Ec­clesia didicerunt: nec unquam Ecclesia eorum Panegyres audisset pa­tienter, [Page 41]aut legisset poemata, si (quod dicitis) credidisset Sancto­rum invocationem, erroneam doctrinam esse aut impiam, atque super­stitiosam. imò idolatricam. Caeterum ex elaris istorum Patrum) senten­tiis si quae sint apud alios Patres obscuriores, aut dubiae, exponi de­bent.

S. Hieronymus Epist. XXVII. quae ait Epitaphium Paulae: Vale ô Paula, inquit, & cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva. Fides, & opera tua te Christo sociant: praesens quod postulas, facilius impetrabis.

D. Morlaeus pag. 49. Hieronymus Poëtarum more scribit... Et aut ineptus fuit Paulam non audientem seriò alloquendo, aut ineptior non audientem seriò invocando.

Resp. alii longe diversam de Hieronymi sensu sententiam habent: & ex ejus verbis citius credent Beatas animas, quae dicimus audire: quam ob tam fuitilem rationem Sanctum Doctorum ineptire.

S. Ambrosius lib. de Viduis: Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, inquit, qui nobis ad praefidium dati sunt: Martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quodam corporis pignore Patrocinium vindicare. Bossunt pro peccatis nostris rogare, qui proprio Sanguine etiamsi quae habuerunt peccata' laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae, actuum (que) nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, qui & ipsi infirmit atem corporis, etiam cum viverent cognoscebant.

D. Morlaeus p. 47. bariolatur, dum audacter pronuntiar Ambrosium, si scripsisset Retractationes suorum operum, hanc sententiam nigro carbone notaturum fuisse. Sed unde id colligit? Hujusmodi assertio­nes, qui sine probatione protrudit, non mente: sed fronte solâ loquitur. Addit p 48. Ambrosium vix Christianum in libro de Viduis vix Christiane scri­psisse. Quominus inverecundam istam immodestiam metitâ verbo­rum acerbitate castigemus, facit ipsius immodestiae magnitudo, quam nulla verborum acerbitas aequabit. Adeo scilicet apertè adversantur tibi ista verba, ut, cum fidiculis etiam admotis ea detorquere non po­tueris, bilem, inde commotam, & in ea verba, & in eorum Authorem haeretico furore percitus, evomere volueris.

7. Idem Ambrosius Epist. LIII. refert inventum cum corporibus [Page 42]Sanctorum Gervasii, & Protasii scriptum cujusdam Philippi, qui illa corpora furtim sustulerat, atque ea in domo suâ sepelierat, Credens eo­rum orationibus se consequi misericordiam Domini nostri Iesnm Christi. Prout in eo scripto habetur. Unde colligo vel primo, vel certè secundò saecu­lo Sanctorum invocationem obtinuisse; & martyrum Reliquias reli­giosè cultas fuisse; quia aut sub Nerone aut certè sub Marco Aurelio Martyrium consummarunt isti, quorum corpora piè recondidit dic­tus Philippus, iis contemporaneus.

8. Ad Hieronymum revertor. Is l. contra Vigilantium: Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum vivimus, mutuo pro nobis orare possumus, postquam autem mortui fuerimus nulius sit pro alio exaudienda Oratio. Si Apostoli & Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro caeteris, quando pro se adhuc debent esse soli­citi, quantò magis post coronas, victorias, triumphos? Vnus homo Moyses sex­centis millibus armatorum impetrat à Domino veniam, & Stephanus imitator Dominisui, & primus Martyr in Christo pro persecutoribus veniam deprecatur & postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt?

D. Morlaeus p. 50. Vigilantius tria tuetur: 1. Martyres seu Sanctos non esse adorandos. 2. Mortuos pro vivis non intercedere. 3. Martyrum animas non adesse suis tumulis. De duobus posterioribus Hieronymus acriter disputat, de primo litem illi nullam movet.

Resp. In mald causâ non potes aliter, ait Aug. sed quis coëgit te malam cau­sam habere? Adeamus ipsum librum. & videamus an non fide Calvi­nianâ, & Protestanticâ hoc tam asseveranter dicas. Haec sunt Hiero­nymi verba ad Riparium, Epist. LIII. Honoramus Reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus. Honoramus servos. ut honor servorum redundet ad Dominum, qui ait, qui vos suscipit, me suscipit. Et l. 1. adversus Vigilantium. Dolet Martyrum Reliquias precioso operiri velamine, & non vel pannis, vel cilicio colligari, vel projici in sterquilinio ut solus Vigilantius ebrius, & dormiens adoretur. Ergo sacrilegi sumus, quando Apostolorum Basilicas in­gredimur? sacrilegus fuit Constantinus Imperator, qui Sanctas Reliquias, Andreae, Lucae, & Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim, apud quas Daemones rugiunt, & inhabitatores Vigilantii illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur? Sacrilegus dicendus est Arcadius, qui ossa Beati Samuelis.. de Iudaeâ transtulit in Thra­ciam? [Page 43]Omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi; sed etiam fatui judicandi, qui rem vi­lissimam ut cineres in serico, & vase aureo portaverunt? stulti omnium Eccle­siarum populi, qui occurrerunt sacris Reliquiis, & tantâ laetitiâ quasi viventes Prophetam cernerent, susceperunt, ut de Palestinâ usque Chalcedonem jungeren­tur populorum examina, & in Christi laudem unâ voce resonarent? Videlicet a­dorabant Samuelem; & non Christum, cujus Samuel & Levita, & Prophetes fuit. Nunc, & quâ soles fiduciâ dicito, S. Hieronymum de Martyrum honore nullam Vigilantio litem movisse, in quem tantâ verborum acrimoniâ, tantâ rationum vi pugnat.

August. l. de curâ pro mortuis x. IV. Cum recolit animus ubi sepultum est charissimi corpus, & occurrit locus nomine Martyris venerabilis, eidem Mar­tyri animam dilectam commendat, recordantis, & precantis affectus. Quibus verbis simul conjungit & orationem pro mortuis, & Sanctorum in­vocationem.

D. Morlaeus p. 56. citatis ex eodem capite ejusdem libri verbis ali­quibus ex Bellarmino, haec addit: Haecsunt à Bellarmino itata, quae ut verum apud te non dissimulem primâ facie aliquantulum me moverunt. Quare cum fidem Iesuiticam non ignorarem Augustinum ipsum statim consului, totumque contextum imo integrum librum legi, & relegi. Et primum animadverto disjun­cta esse in Augustino, quae in Bellarmino conjuncta sunt. &c. Haec porro sunt Bellarmino citata verba: non video quod sit adjumentum mortuorum provisus sepeliendis corporibus apud memorias Sanctorum locus, nisi ad hos ut dum ubi sunt reposita eorum, quos diligunt corpora, iisdem Sanctis illos tanquam Patronis susceptos, apud Dominum adjuvandos orando commendent.

Respondeo: fidem Iesuiticam, quam hic vellicas, longè facillimum est praestare, cum (ut legenti locum citatum potest, ea verba omnia, licet aliquantulum mutato ordine, in illo capite extent. Et ne quis suspicetur loci sensum immutatum esse, illum eundem exhibent verba, quae ex illo loco produxi: quae paucis interjectis, verba quae Bellarminus protulit sequuntur: adeoque demonstrant sensum à Bel­larmino intentum Augustini esse: nec per consequens satis cohaerere cum Augustini mente, quem illi affingis: qui sensus tibi obvius oc­currisset, si potius eum quaerere, quam ab eo declinare, & aberrare, [Page 44]conatus fuisses. Quid tantum insano licuit indulgere labori, ut to­tum librum iterum iterumque legeres, (cum verba ab Eminentissimo velis nolis Authore prolata in oculos incurrant) non alium in finem, quam ut sensum extonderes ipsi Augustino contrarium, quem ipse sequenti suae mentis expositione dispunxit?

Boni consulis, si datà per imprudentiam tuam, hac occasione lu­bricae, fallacis, fraudulentaeque fidei vestrae verè Protestanticae mentio­nem injiciam quando tibi visus est Iesuiticam Bellarminus fidem obji­cere. Quâ ratione quâ fiduciâ fidem Iesuitrum suggillatis, qui tot er­rores &c. Qui tot errores in fide, tot mendacia in communi hominum convictu, tot perjuria publica non impunè modo grassari passi estis (quod ipsum sat magnum crimen esset) sed amphssimis praemiis favistis, & totis ingenii viribus propugnastis; nec aut verecundia hominum, aut conscientiae remurmurantis sensu, aut justitiae amore, sed metu solo malorum, Regno, Regiae familiae, ordini (que) Ministellorum à fanaticis hominibus, ea omnia in Regniperniciem, summo studio promoven­tibus ut per Catholicorum praesertim verò Jesuitarum exeidium, ad Regni, ad publici Regiminis eversionem pervenirent, imminentium, (quae non tam praevidebatis; quam sentiebatis) resipuistis. Haec non in obscuris Angulis facta; sed palam, sed in conspectu solis, sed in o­culis omnium gesta sunt. Dicito ubi aliquid simile non dico à Je­suitis actum; sed vel à Barbaris gentibus designatum est. Et tu fidem Ie­suiticam nominasti! Quaerito ignotas gentes, Anglicae verè Protestan­ticae fidei ignaras, rerum quae à quinquennio gestae suntinscias, apud quam fidem vestram jactetis, Jesuitarum verò convellatis. Trabem islam ex oculo vestro ejicite: tum videre poteritis an ulla sit in lesui­tarum oculo palea.

Aliqua dicam obiter de hoc Augustini libro quem de curâ pro mor­tuis inscripsit. Ex eo varia fidei Catholicae cum Haereticis controver­sa capita confirmantur. Primò, Temple in honorem Martyrum con­structa. 2. Corpora fideliu illic sepulta fuisse. 3. Ideque ex opinio­ne, quod illis prodesset illic sepeliri. 4. Orationes prodefunctis. 5. So­lis illis Animabus istas prodesse, quae & refrigerio carebant, & illius [Page 45]capaces erant, 6. Martyrum pro iis implorata suffragia. 7. martyrum intercessione multa à Deo donari. 8. Martyres apparere. Sic Felix Nolae apparuit.

Haec omnia testatur Augustinus Catholicos communiter credi­disse: & Paulinus eidem contestis est. Nec his in rebus magis cla­rum de mente priscae Ecclesiae testimonium optarem, quam quod iste liber exhibet.

Nec hujus testimonii vigori quidquam detrahit Augustini dubi­tatio, de verâ ratione, quâ nitebatur ista praxis, aut utilitate inde ma­nante. Fusè probat Christianos solicitos esse non debere de sepul­chro, ob Christi verba: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, & post hoc non habent amplius quod faciant: ut eos consolaretur, quorum amici, assines, & consanguinei in clade Romanâ occisi fuerant, eorumque corpora insepulta Avibus caeli, & bestiis terrae laceranda relicta sunt. Cumque totam ejus mentem ocuparet (dum librum istum scriberet) conso­lationis illis impertiendae desiderium, vix tenui rimâ claram lucem admisit ex Ecclesiae praxi derivatam, quam & averè distribuit, ne af­flictos affligeret, de sepulchri alieni jacturâ maestos, de suo solicitos. Inde credo factum, quod non adeo commendaverit illud Fidelium studium, de quaerendo apud Martyrum memorias sepulchro; sed po­tius diminuere, quantum poterat, salva veritate, videatur.

Quod ergo Augustinus praxim illam fidelium referat, cum Pauli­no, eamque verbis & à Bellarmino, & à me prolatis approbat, id ma­nifeslae rei veritati tribuendum: quod verò in dandâ hujus praxeos ratione, fructuque explicando, quem inde adipiscerentur fideles, mi­nus sirmus videatur, neque totis ingenii sui viribus praxim illam commendat, id dandum puto fidelium dolori, à Romanâ clade, & in­sepultis cadaveribus orto. Eundem tamen fidelium illius temporis, & Ecclesiae hodiernae sensum esse, per eandem praxim, ex Augustino manifestè patet. Unde constat non nova esse dogmata, quae Catho­lici contra modernos haereticos asserimus; sed communia priscis: quae Augustinus & novit, & agnovit, & laudavit, sed hoc ultimum parce admodum. Hinc apud aequos quosque Judices constabit Bel­larmino [Page 46]sides, & tua, mi Morlaee, in illum iniquitas, illum de malâ fide sine justâ causâ, & accusas, & condemnas falsus Testis, corruptus Judex.

SECTIO XI. Rationibus Theologicis probatur Sanctorum Invocatio.

PRima ducitur ex Liturgiis, quarum nulla est, quae non aliquam Sanctorum Invocationem, potissimùm B. Mariae Deiparae Virgi­nis. Eruditissimus P. Natalis Alexande dubitat an aliquae Liturgiae corum sint, quorum nomina praeferunt, eo quod voces aliquas conti­neant, quas posteriora saecula invexerunt. At argumentum inefficax est: quia Liturgiae cum sint publici juris, & non tam ab aliquo homi­ne, ut talis est, quam ab eo, ut Episcopus, est, proficiscantur, sintque potius partes Auctoritatis, quam ingenii. Inde fit, ut datâ occasione jure suo usi fint, primi Auctoris successores ad eas augendas, & locu­pletandas: non tamen novarum accessione partium; sed priorum partium incremento: ad eum modum, quo corpus humanum auge­tur: in quo ab ipsis initiis caput, manus pedes, item cor, cerebrum, il­la, eadem, quae novae materiae accessione, & proportionata adjectione crescit in mensuram virilem.

Partes verò Liturgiarum essentiales & primigeniae sunt 1. quae ad Symbolorum Consecrationem in Dei honorem & Passionis Domini­cae memoriam spectant. 2. Oratio vel Invocatio Sanctorum. 3. Oratio pro defunctis in his enim omnes omnino Liturgiae conveniunt.

Probatur 2. ex eo quod nunquam altare constitutum fuerit, sine Martyrum Reliquiis. Et Ecclesiae ipsae Memoriae Martyrum dictae sunt. Hinc constat magnum honorem illis exhibitum: quem etiam exhi­bet hodieque Ecclesia Romana, Graeca, aliae; sola Protestantica ut ab Ecclesiis hujus temporis, ita ab omnibus Antiquis differret, ab om­nium aequè pietate, & Sanctitate, ac à moribus, & praxi defecit.

Prob. 3. Quia Pagani, cum à Christianis impugnarentur ob hono­res [Page 47]divinos hom inibus mortuis exhibitos, responderunt ipsosmet Chri­stianos similem cultum mortuis exhibere, Martyres honorando.

Prob. 4. quia Christiani Ethnicis respondentes agnoscunt se Mar­tyres colere, eorumque sepulchra venerari eos invocare; sed non ut Deos; sed ut Dei famulos, Deo gratos, apud eum potentes, quorum preibus se juvari apud eundem Deum sperabant. Hujus rei testimo­nia infra producentur.

Prob. 5. Patres, qui de Invocatione Sanctorum locuti sunt, non ut de re nova; sed ut de antiquitùs usurpata loquuntur. Nec ullum è sanctis Patribus invenire est, qui eam novam dixcrit esse, prioribus ignotam, suo, aut ullo alio Apostolis posteriori tempore inventam. Quod evidenter probat, Euangelio coaevam esse Martyres invocandi consuetudinem.

Prob. denique 6. quia qui Martyres invocandos negarunt, Vigi­lantius, & alii, velut Haeretici condemnati sunt ab Ecclesiâ. Quod pa­tet ex Epiphanio, Augustino, atque Hieronymo. Ergo non solum sen­sit unus, aut alterè Patribus, sed etiam ipsa Ecclesia, Martyres invocan­dos esse: eotum (que) Invocationem ad fidem spectare Catholicam. Alio­qui non censeret à fide extorres fieri, quotquot aliter sentirent.

Plura alia ex Patribus adduci possunt Argumenta, ex Irenaeo, A­thanasio, Ephrem Syro, aliisque sed ista sufficiunt. Unum addam ex August. serm. 11. de Annuntiatione. Sancta Maria, succurre miseris, juva pusillanimes, refove flebiles, ora pro populo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro de­voto faemineo sexu. Sentiant omnes tuum juvamen &c.

Claudo ingens testimoniorum agmen unico Chrysostomi testimo­nio, quod non solum invocandos esse Sanctos docet; sed etiam quid à nobis praestari debeat, ut nobis illae fructuosae sint invocationes. Ait ipse hom. 1. in priorem ad Thessalon. Haec cum ita sint, nos nec Sanctorum pro nobis negligere debemus orationes, nec omnem fiduciam in illis collocare: quia aliud res ingenti subsidio privaret, aliud desides redderet. Debemus ergo & ipsos orare, ut pro nobis orent, & ipsi piè vivere, ut illam assequi mereamur beatitudi­nem, quae promittitur diligentibus Deum, per gratiam Domini nostri Iesu Christi.

Quare & utriusque Testamenti tabulae, & antiqua purioris (ut lo­qui amatis) Ecclesiae praxis, & antiquorum Patrum indubita­ta testimonia invice probant Martyres. Angelos, sanctosque invo­candos esse. Adeoque cultum illum improbari non posse salvâ fide, à quâ naufragaverunt quicum (que) illum impugnarunt. Quemque [...], & [...] odiosis vocabulis appellare mavis, quam [...], & [...], nihil opus est dicas. Ignorare non potes, nos juxta vobiscum sentire [...] cultum esse soli Deo debitum. A­deoque non minus aversamur ipsi [...], quam tuae sectae ho­mines. Idem de [...]. Sed insidias incauto Lectori in verbo stru­xisti: quas tibi inutiles reddit haec observatio.

SECTIO XII. Apud Christianos Sanctorum invocantio, non convenit cum cultu Daemonum apud Ethnicos.

D Morlaeus. p. 21. Quae [...] Gum gentilium [...] eadem res est aliis nominibus fucata, & ex Gentilium Philosophia in Christianam Ecclesiam paulatim introducta, non obstante Apostoli Pauli diligentissimâ per totum caput secundum ad Colossenses praemonitione, ut ab istâ Gentilium Philosophiâ sibi caveant Christiani.

Resp. Ex Gentilium Philosophiâ nasci non potuit Sanctorum In­vocatio, cum ista totâ Philosophiâ Ethnicâ antiquior fuerit. Vidimus enim Jacob Patriarcham Angelum invocasse: Hic autem diu ante Philosophiam Paganam vixit. Imo Moyses, qui quadringentis post Jacob annis floruit, cunctis ipsis Gentilium Diis antiquior est, ut o­stendam infra sect. XVI, & expressè tradit Eusebius Praefatione in Chronicon. Falsissima proinde est illa tua assertio, quae in re tanti momenti, sine probatione adduci non debuit.

Neque te decet sine ratione asserere toto capite secundo epistolae ad Colossenses Apostolum fideles admonuisse, caverent sibi ab istâ Gen­tilium Philosophiâ: sed Sodales tuos in hoc imitaris, qui, cùm defi­ciunt [Page 49]rationes solidae, & testimonia clara, ad obscurissimas Prophe­tias, & abstrusiores sententias, quas ad exercitium, & humiliationem intellectus humani Spiritus Sanctus per SS. Scripturas ubique disper­sit, recurrunt, Talia malam causam vel moras faciendo sustentant, ait in si­mili Augustinus.

Falsum etiam esse, quod dicis, manifestè patet: nam quae versu 16. dicuntnr. Nemo vos judicet in cibo, aut in potu aut in paerte diei festi, aut neomeniae, aut sabbathorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum. Haec inquam clariùs legales ceremonias, id est Judaicos ritus, improbant, quam ut id probari opus sit. Item illa versus 20.21. Si ergo mortuiestis cum Christo ab elementis hujus mundi, quid adhuc tanquam viventes in mundo decernitis? Ne tetigeritis, neque gestaveritis, neque contrectaveritis.... Cu ergo ma­nifestè pateat, aliquam illius orationis partem de solis Iudaicis ritibus intelligi posse, quidni dicere possumus alia, quae obscura sunt, de iisdem intelligi debere? Nec enim verba clara per obscura implicari debent; sed è contra obscura per clara explicari. Hoc sal­tem negari non potest, tuam assertionem falsissimam esse, quae dicit toto capite moneri Christianos, caverent sibi à Gentilium Philoso­phiâ.

Sed si demus tibi Gentium Philosophiam eo loci intelligi ab A­postolo, cur non de Epicureis speciatim, & stoicis id accipi pote­rit, quos cum Apostolo disseruisse, sive disputasse, testis est Lucas Actor. XVII. 18. Et verò de his speciatim locutum Apostolum, te­stis est Tertullianus lib. de Praescript. Fuerat Athenis, inquit, & istam sapientiam humanam, adsectatricem, & interpolatricem veritatis de congressibus noverat, & lib. de Animâ cap. 1. Athenis expertus: scili­cet Apostolus, Linguatam Civitatem, cum omnes illic sapientiae, fa­cundiae caupones degustasset, inde concepit praemonitorium illud dictum Haec Tertullianus. Si ex eo congressu cum Stoicis & Epicureis concepit illud decretum, non potuit adversus Gentilium superstitiosum Deo­rum suorum cultum dirigi, cum illae duae Philosophorum sectae prae aliis omnibus nedum à superstitioso, verum etiam à Religioso suo­rum [Page 50]Deorum cultu ita abhorruerint, ut Atheismo eam ob causam prae aliis fuerint infamati.

D. Morlaeus pag. 34. Laodicena cap. XXXV. Cultum Angelorum occul­tam Idolalatriam vocat, eumque sub Anathemate prohibet. Et Theodoretus in cap. II. Epist. ad Colos. v. 18. Qui legi patrocinabantur, ait, Colossenses ad cultum Angelorum induxerant: quae prava affectio permansit apud multos in Phrygiâ, & Pisidiâ. Quamobrem vetuit Synodus Laodicena, nequis Angelis supplicaret.

Resp. Constat neminem magis commendasse Religiosum San­ctorum, Angelorumque cultum, eorumque invocationem, quam Theodoretum quod probabitur Sect. XVIII. Hanc ergo non po­tuit Theodoretus aut damnare ipse, aut credere ab illâ Synodo fuisse damnatam. Alium ergo cultum intelligit, qui quis sit mo­do quaerendum. 1. Credo fuisse cultum magicum, quo non so­lum Daemones, sed etiam Angeli boni, invocabantur. De quo Tertullianus Apolog. c. XXIII. Anselmus, & Turrianus. Magicum autem, atque superstitiosum etiam bonorum Angelorum cultum damnat etiamnum Ecclesia.

Resp. 2. Simonem, Menandrum, Saturninum, Cerinthum, Basilidem, aliosque semi-ludaeos existimasse per Angelos tanquam per minores Deos conditum hunc mundum, ab iis (que) eum administrari, per Prophetas eos docere nos, &c. Quos refutat Apostolus Ephes. 1. & Heb. 1. Christum Dominum Angelis majorem asserens. Ex quo con­sequens erat, majorem ab iis haereticis honorem Angelis delatum, quam purae creaturae deberetur, cujusmodi ipsi Angeli sunt. Hunc autem honoris excessum Synodus meritò damnare potuit. Videatur Cornelius à Lapide in l. 1. Epistolae ad Colossenses.

Resp. 3. Ubi populus in rebus aut licitis, aut etiam bonis, ni­miam fiduciam collocat, neglectis aliis melioribus, fieri potest, ut justè prohibeatur illarum rerum, tametsi de se bonae sint, usus. Sic haud ita pridem audio in Hiberniâ contigisse, ut ad tempus usus aquae benedictae interdictus fuerit, quod in gente illâ non [Page 51]pauci tanti facerent eam aquam, ut ipsum Poenitentiae Sacramen­tum susque deque habere viderentur. Aliquid ejusmodi interve­nisse credibilius est, quam aut Synodum Laodicenam, aut Theo­doretum Sanctorum Invocationem, qualis est modo, & fuit tunc temporis in usu, improbasse.

Resp. 4. Cum illa Synodus cap. XXXIV. non omnes; sed tantùm malos, falsosque Haereticorum Martyres coli vetuerit, (unde se­quitur bonorum, & qui in Orthodoxae fidei Professione Mar­tyrium absolverunt, cultum non prohiberi) videtur Canone sequen­ti non omnium Angelorum; sed malorum tantum, cultum prohi­bere. Et similis in utroque Canone loquendi modus huic inter­pretationi favet. Nam Canone XXXIV. vetat nos deserere Martyrem Christi, & ire ad Pseudo-Martyres, quos constat suisse Haereticos. Et Canone XXXV. vetat deserere Ecclesiam Dei, & Angelos nominare, & congregationes facere. Vbi vetat segregare plebem ab Ecclesiâ Catho­licà, inusitatis in eâ Angelorum nominibus adhibitis, & Conven­ticula facere. Hoc est, schismata facientes, & inconsutilem Christi tunicam lacerantes, anathemate ferit.

D. Morlaeus p. 34. Non dubium est, quin eadem Synodus eodem Anathe­matis fulmine percussisset Sanctorum Invocatores, si qui tales extitissent.

Resp. Tales extitisse, qui Sanctos invocabant, liquet 1. Ex Ethnicorum objectionibus. 2. Ex Patrum, nominatim Theodore­ti scriptis. Nec tamen fuerunt condemnati. Vnde colligitur non ob solum Angelorum cultum pium, qualis est, semperque fuit in Ecclesiâ, editum illud Decretum; sed alias ob causas, ut vidimus.

SECTIO XIII. Quid Gentiles de uno Deo, ejusque Prudentiá & cultu senserint?

D Morlaeus p. 21. Gentilium Philofophi, non minus quam Christiani, nnum summum Deum, cuisummus, & supremus cultus debebatur, & quam [...] appellabant agnoscebant.

Resp. Non Philosophos solos; sed omnes omnino homines, insi­tam eorum [...]entibus, infixamque naturaliter habere Dei notionem aliquam indubitatum est. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus sui Do­minus: & tam expressis lineamentis, tam altè sculptis figuris impressum, ut nec barbarorum ferarum ritu viventium ignorantia, nec grata sensibus, moribus perniciosa Poëtarum figmenta, nec pomposa Ido­lorum magno ceremoniarum apparatu cultorum adoratio, eam debe­re unquam potuerit. Hanc naturalem Dei Idaeam primus observavit Epicurus, si fides Ciceroni lib. I. de naturâ Deorum: quae vim suam adeo in omnibus gentibus exeruit, ut nulla natio, nullum hominum genus. Sine omni Dei notitiâ vixerit unquam. Consentiunt Patres. Clemens Alexand. Paraen. ad Gentes: Omnibus, ut semel dicam ho­minibus instillatus est quidam Divinus influxus, quâ de causâ vel inviti fa­tentur, unum esse Deum, ab interitu alienum, & ingenitum. Cyprianus lib. de Idolo. Vanitate: Deum ignorare non potes. Basilius in Psalm. XLVIII. Hominibus vis in est, quâ Creatorem suum & opificem agnoscere possit, & intelligere. Insufflavit enim in faciem, hoc est partem aliquam gra­tiae apposuit homini, ut per hanc sibi impressam similitudinem, eum cui si­milis est agnosceret. Hieronymus in cap. I. Epist. ad Galatas, ad verba: Cum autem placuit ei, &c. ait: Ex quo perspicuum est, naturâ omnibus Dei in­esse notitiam. Prosper l. de Provid.

Seu nostros annos, seu tempora prisca revolvas,
Esse omnes sensêre Deum.

Damascenus lib. I. de fide cap. I. haudquaquam nos deseruit Deus omnimodâ sui circumfusos ignorantiâ; quin imò cunctis cognitio, quod Deus est, ab ipso naturaliter insita est, atque ingenita. Vide Nazianzenum Orat. XXIV, & alios.

Tertullianus 1. de Resurrectione carnis post principium: Quaedam naturâ nota sunt, inquit, ut immortalitas animae penes plures: & Deus noster penes omnes. Et libro de Testimonio Animae: Novum Testimonium advo­co, inquit, imò omni litteratura notius omni doctrinâ agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto homine majus, id est, totum quod est hominis. Consiste in medio Anima, sive divina & aeterna res es, secundum plures Philosophos, eo magis non mentiens: seu minimè divina, ut Epicuro soli videtur.... sed non eam ad­voce, quae scholis formata, bibliothecis exercita, Academicis, & Porticibus parta sapientia ructas. Te simplicem, & rudem, & impolitam, & idioticam compello qualem te habent, qui te solam habent, illam ipsam de compito, de trivio, detex­trino totam. Imperitiâ tuâ mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulae tuae peritiae nemo credit. Ea expostulo, quae tecum in hominem infers; quae aut ex temetipsâ, aut ex quocumque Auctore tuo sentire didicisti. Non, quod sciam, Christiani: fierienim, non nasci solet Christiana. Tamen nunc à te testimonium flagitant Christiani, ab extraneâ ad versus tuos, ut vel tibi erubescant, qui nos ob ea oderint, & irride­ant, quae te nunc consciam detinent. Non placemus Dominum praedicantes, hoc nomine unico unicum, à quo omnia, & sub quo universa. Dic testimonium, si itascis. Nam te palam, & totâ libertate quâ non licet nobis, domi ac foris audi­mus ita pronuntiare: quod Deus dederit, & si Deus voluerit: eâ voce & aliquem esse significas, & omnem illi confiteris potestatem, ad cujus spectat voluntatem, simul, & caeteros negas Deos esse, dum suis vocabulis nuncupas, Saturnum, Iovem: Nam solum Deum confirmas, quem tantum Deum nominas, ut & cum illos Deos interdum appellas, & alieno, & quasi pro mutuo usu videaris.

Et Apologetici c. XVII. Quod colimus, inquit, Deus unus est. Et in fra: Deum vis magnitudinis & natum hominibus objecit, & ignotum: & haec est summa delicti, nolentium recognoscere, quem ignorare non possunt. Vultis ex o­peribus ipsius... vultis ex animae ipsius testimonio comprobemus? quae licet car­cere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta licet libidinibus & concupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exancillata, cum tamen respicit, ut ex­crapulâ, [Page 54]ut ex somno, ut ex aliquâ valetudine, & sanitatem suam patitur, & Deum nominat solum, quia proprie hic unus Deus, bonus, & magnus. Et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Iudicem quoque contestatur, illum: Deus videt, & Deo commendo, & Deus mihi reddet. O Testimonium Animae naturaliter Chri­stianae! Denique pronuncians haec, non ad Capitolium; sed ad caelum respicit. No­vit enim sedem Dei vivi.

Cyprianus l. de Idolorum vanitate, eodem Tertulliani telo pug­nat: Vulgus in multis Deum naturaliter confitetur, cum mens, & anima sui Auctoris, & Principis admonetur. Dici frequenter audimus, ô Deus, & Deus videt, & Deo commendo, & Deus mihi reddat, & quod vult Deus. & si Deus dederit. Atque haec est summa delicti, nolle agnoscere, quod ignorare non possis. Haec ibi. Exprobrat autem uterque Ethnicis, quod peccarent nolen­do Deum agnoscere, quem ignorare non poterant.

Minutius felix: Audio vulgus, cum ad caelum manus cendunt, nihil a­liud, quam Deum dicunt, & Deus magnus est. Vulgi iste naturalis Sermo est, an Christianis confitentis Oratio?

Lactantius: Cum jurant, & cum optant, & cum gratias agunt, non Deos multos; sed Deum nominant: adeo ipsa veritas cogente naturâ, etiam ab invitis pectoribus erumpit. Iterum: Ad Deum confugiunt, à Deo petitur auxilium, Deus, ut subveniat, oratur. Etsi quis ad extremam mendicandi necessitatem re­dactus, victum precibus exposcit, Deum solum obtestatur, & per ejus divinum & unicum Numen hominum sibi misericordiam quaerit. Simile quid habet Proclus in Timaeum Platonis.

Denique Eusebius lib. II. de Praepar. Euang. c. IX. initio: Nos autem dicere non dubitamus, inquit, naturâ, imo verò Divinitus esse hominibus insitum, non solum utile quid, atque conducibile Dei nomine significari; verum etiam om­nium rerum creatorem sic appellari. Et verbo quidem omnes ita naturâ duce conveniunt, re autem creaturas pro creatore coluerunt. Haec Eusebius caete­rum postmodum de cultu Deo debito loquemur. Nunc videndum amplius qualem esse crediderunt, quem omnes necessitate manifestae veritatis adducti non agnoscere, aut certè non cognoscere non po­tuerunt.

Quam difficile veram de Deo Idaeam formamus, qui nihil, ferè, nisi ad modum corporum concipimus, docet nos Augustinus lib. VII. Con­fes. cap. I. Nec te cogitabam, Deus meus, in figurâ corporis humani, inquit, ex quo audire aliquid de Sapientiâ coepi, semper hoc fugi, sed quod te aliud cogi­tatem, non occurrebat .... clamabat violenter cor meum adversus omnia phan­thasmata mea, & hoc uno ictu conabar abigere circumvolantem turbam immun­ditiae ab acie mentis meae. Et vix dimota in ictu oculi ecce conglobata rursus ad­erat & irruebat in aspectum meum, & obnubilabat eum: ut quamvis non formam humani corporis, corporeum tamen aliquid cogitare cogeret per spacia locorum... diffusum.... quoniam quidquid privabam spaciis talibus nihil mihi esse vi­debatur.

Longâ tandem experientia doctus, modum optimum Deum cog­noscendi tradit l. VIII. de Trin. c. II. haerere scilicet in prima cogita­tione Divini cujuspiam Attributi, nec inquirere quale illud sit: Ecce vide si potes, inquit, O anima praegravata corpore quod corrumpitur, & onusta terrenis cogitationibus multis & variis: Ecce vide si potes. Deus veritas est... Noli quaerere quid sit veritas, statim enim se opponent caligines imaginum corpo­ralium, & nubila phantasmatum, & perturbabunt serenitatem, quae primo ictu illuxit tibi cum dicerem veritas. Ecce in ipso primo, quo velut coruscatione per­strinxit, cum dicitur, Veritas, mane si potes: Sed non potes: relaberis in ista solit [...], & terrena. Quo tandem pondere quaeso relaberis, nisi sordium contractarum cupiditatis visce, & peregrinationis erroribus. Deinde cap. III. Ecce iterum, vide si potes, non amas certè, nisi bonum: & infra. Bonum hoc & bonum illud, tolle hoc, & illud, & vide ipsum bonum, si potes: ita Deum videbis, non alio bono bonum; sed bonum omnis boni. Haec S. Doctor.

Hujus Sancti modestiam reverentialem si fuissent imirati Philoso­phi Pagani, nunquam tam portentosas de Deo procudissent opiniones, nec evanuissent in cogitationibus suis, nec dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti facti fuissent. Adeo ut jure merito dixerit Chrysostomus, Christianos opifices, & rusticos plura, & solidiora, & Deo digniora sentire, quam sentiant ipsi Philosophi Pagani. Infinitum esset singulorum proferre sententias. Quare de praecipuis tantum pauca referam.

Epicurus, qui quod omnium primus naturalem Dei in mentibus nostris Idaeam observavit, laudem est meritus, vituperio dignus est, quod Deum sine humanâ figurâ non agnôrit, teste Cicerone l. I. de Nat. Deor. Qui ulterius l. V. Tuscul. qq. ait, Eum jocandi causâ Deos in­duxisse perlucidos, atque perflatiles. Stoici rotundam Deo formam dederunt. Seneca epist XCIV. Hi etiam, dum apud eundem Senecam epist. XLIX. ajunt: Philosophia mihi promittit, ut me parem Deo faciat. Et hominem pro­bro afficiunt, & Deum, dum de illo tam superbè, de hoc tam abjecte sentiunt, Idem Seneca l. I. natur. qq. Quid est Deus? inquit, quod vides totum, & quod non vides. Sentiebant enim mundum hunc visibilem Deum esse, ut ait Origenes adversus Celsū (consensit aliquatenus Au­gustinus, qui l. I. de Consensu Euang. c. XXIII. disertè Stoicos Deum corporeum statuisse affirmat) Platonici licet aliis melius de Deo & senfetint, & scripserint, mundum etiam Deum esse dixerunt, sed Deum secundi ordinis, & inferioris subsellii. Tertullianus absolutè dicit Platonicos Deum corporeum agnovisse, Apologetici c. XLVII. & Theophilus Antioch. lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. CXX. in fine idem air. Sed & Cicero l. I. de natura Deor. ait: Plato in Timaeo & in Legibus, dicit mundum Deum esse, & caelum, & Aram, & Terram, & animos, & eos, quos ma­jorum instituto accepimus. Putat Vossius l. I. de Idololatriâ c. II. falsum fuisse Ciceronem, & Platonem non ex propria sententiâ locutum; sed ex alienâ verbis citatis: ne scilicet Platonem agnosceret sibi fuisse contrarium, qui clarè dicit Deum esse [...]. Verum sine causâ sufficienti fidem Ciceroni detrahit. Facilior solutio videtur, quod Plato aliud de primo Deo dixerit, aliud de secundo. Aristoteles Philo­sophorum omnium accuratissimus Deum summo caelo trabalibus clavis affixit. l. VIII. Physicorum, c. X, tex. LXXXIV. Pithagoras idem sensit, ut habet ejus vita apud Photium in Bibliothecâ, Cod. CCLIX. sive CCXLIX. Aliis omnibus hoc saltem in re prudentior, imo & sapi­entior Simonides, Hieroni quid Deus esset interroganti, respondit, se quo magis id quaereret, eo minus invenire.

De divina Providentia, ejusque in mundum beneficentia adhuc pejus senserunt, Plerique crediderunt, ut habetur in libro Job. c. XXII. [Page 57]14 Deum circa cardines caeli per ambulare neque nostra considerare. Ita Stoici apud Theophylum Antiochenum 1. II. ad Autolicum p. LXXXII. A­ristoteles ait Deum quidem movere primum mobile, eumque motum ad orbem usque Lunae propagari: at sublunaria ejus potestati exe­mit: Imo & cognitioni: nam lib. II. magnorum Moralium c. XV. ait: Quoniam bona cuncta obtinet Deus, quid faciet? neque enim dormiet. Con­templabitur inquiunt aliquid: id namque pulcherrimum, & maximè peculiare. Quid igitur contemplabitur? nam si quidquam aliud inspiciet, illud erit me­lius. Hoc vero absurdum, ut se quidquam melius habeat Deus. Ipse igitur se contemplabitur. At hoc delirum. Nam hominem, qui sese contempletur, utpote sensu carentem increpamus. Epicurus alia ratione aequè miserâ idem o­stendere conatur, apud Ciceronem l. I. de Nat. Deorum. Habemus, ex [...] scilicet, ut Deos Beatos, & immortales putemus. Qui enim nobis na­tura informationem Deorum ipsorum dedit, eadem insculpsit in mentibus, ut eos Aeternos, & Beatos haberemus. Porrò quod aeternum, beatumque est, id nec ha­bere ipsum negotii quidquam, nec exhibere alteri. Itaque neque Irâ, neque Gratiâ teneri, quod quae talia essent, imbecilla essent omnia. Haec ibi ne nimius sim, mitto aliorum somnia: nam nihil aliud quam somnia, & quidem aegri & deliri videntur, quae de Deo, ejusque Providentia dixerunt magna illa ingenia. Unde discere possumus, quam necessarium nobis sit fi­dei lumen. Qui tamen plura videre volet, adeat Origenem l. III. con­tra Celsum, Cyrillum Alex. l. II. contra Julianum, Theodoretum lib. 5, de Curandis Graec. Affect. aliosque. Solus Epictetus, quantum ego scio, sapere videtur, ad sobrietatem & de Dei Providentiâ minus quam alii malè loqui.

Quid de Poetarum Gentilium (quos vates appellare solebant) fa­bulis dicam. De his Cicero: Hi irâ inflammatos, & libidine furentes Deos induxerunt, fecoruntque ut eorum bella, pugnas, praelia, vulnera videre­mus: odia praeterea dissidia, discordias, ortus, interitus, querelas, lamentationes, effusas in omni intemperantiâ libidines, adulteria, vincula, cum humano concu­bitus, mortalesqne ex immortali procreatos. Cum Poëtarum autem errore con­jungere licet portenta Magorum, Aegyptiorumque in eodem genere dementiam: tum etiam vulgi opiniones, quae in magnâ inconstantiâ Veritatis ignoratione [Page 58]versantur. Hactenus Cicero. Quid deportentosis & ridiculis fabulis de Diis Gentilium, quas merito Cicero non Philosophorum judicia; sed de­lirantium somnia vocavit. Quid demonstruosis Deorum suorum formis, qui si viverent, & suis cultoribus occurrerent eos percellerent, ut ajunt Patres. Adde ex Porphyrio lib. IV, de Abstinentiâ, §. IX. Belluae; Elementa, mixta pro Diis habita.

Hinc Poëtae Satyrici Ironia: Sat. XV.

O Sanctas gentes, quibus haec nascuntur in hortis
Numina —

Dicent Philosophi, haec nihil ad se pertinere. Sed frustra dicent 1. quia varii Poëtae fuerunt Philosophi, & quidem ex optimis. 2. quia Philosophi Poëtarum figmenta defenderunt, & in bonum aliquem sensum reducere conati sunt. Hinc Augustinus lib. X. de Civ. Dei c. III. ait: Vel populorum Erroribus Auctores fuisse, vel illis resistere non ausos esse, verissimum est. Nec enim periculo vacabat aliter sentire. Aristote­les relictis Athenis Chalcedonem aufugit, ut invidiam declinaret ob assertum Deum unum ortam: Socrates candem ob causam ad biben­dam cicutam ab Areopagitis damnatus est. Plato (ut habet Euse­bius l. XI, de Praepar. Euang. c. IX) licet ad amicos & familiares scri­bens, Deum in singulari nominaret; communiter tamen Deos in plu­rali invocabat.

Quod si vera sit tua, mi Morlaee, Assertio, Philosophos Gentiles unum Deum agnovisse, & coluisse: Cur antiqui Patres adversus illos adeo operosè Dei unitatem asserere conati sunt? Quinam Paganorum deliria defendebant? Philosophi. Quos impugnarunt Christianae Fi­dei Assertores? Philosophos. Quid probare sategerunt Patres adversus istos? unum solum esse Deum. Vide Justinum M. vide Athenagoram, vide Theophilum Antiochenum, Tertullianum, Cyprianum, Minu­tium felicem, Cyrillum, Arnobium, alios, invenies magnam operum adversus Gentiles Scriptorum partem in asserendâ eitatis unitate consumi. Cur hoc, si in eo dogmate concordes erant partes? cur pug­nabant Patres, ubi nemo repugnabat, & tempus & operam perdebant, id probando, quod nemo negabat. Cur Animam Christianam esse [Page 59]asseveravit Tertullianus, quae Deum unum fatebatur, si Philosophi Gentiles idem dicerent? Certè aut stulti Patres, qui quid esset Con­troversum ignorabant (quod nemo sanus dicet) aut falsus tu, quod mihi plusquam certum est.

Audiamus ulterius Patres: Origenes l. I. contra Celsum totam le­gum à Paganis contra Christianos latarum summam duo respicere docet, [...], Idola, & Politheismum. Addit Prophe­tas Judaeis datos, ne illa gens [...] in Gentilium Politheismnm incideret. Et lib. III, ait ipsos etiam Philosophos [...], ad Atheisticum Politheismum defecisse. Jose­phus Judaeus l. IV. Antiq. c. IV. dicit Israelitas à Medianitis mulieri­bus ab uno ad plures Deos colendos fuisse traductos. Deinde Achior Ammonitarum Dux, Judith v. 8. de Judaeis ait: Deserentes ceremonias Patrum suorum, quae in multitudine Deorum erant, unum Deum caeli colue­runt. Inter Patres autem eorum erant praestantissimi Philosophi, à quibus Abram suam in Physicis scientiam hausit, quam Aegyptiis com­municavit, & quae per hos ad Graecos transiit.

Augustinus l. I. de cons. Euang. c. XXIII. & seq. ait, cum Philoso­phos potissimùm vero Platonicos, Politheismi puderet, eos dicere cae­pisse, se unum Deum colere, quem alii Jovem saturnum alii, aliis alii nominibus appellabant. Orosius. l. VI. hist. c. I. ait Paganos jam unum Deum agnoscere: quasi antea non agnovissent Eusebius 1. II. de Prae­par. Euang. c. IX. ait Gentiles omnes cognoscere quidem unum Deum; sed multos colere, praeter unum, haud admodum paucos. Consultum etiam Apollinis oraculum, quae gens esset sapientissima? respondit:


Judaeam gentem & Chaldaeam vocans, à Patriâ unde orti, & Hebrae­am ab Heber. stirpis Auctore, ait Eusebius l. III. de Demonst. Euang. c. III. eamque caeteris praefert quod unum Deum colerent per se exi­stentem. Hoc oraculum videri potest apud Cyrillum l. V. contra Ju­lianum Justinum in Theodoret. l. I. de cur. Graec. Affect. & in Prole­gomeno [Page 60]XII. Bibliis Poliglossis praefixo.

Vides, opinor, temerè à te dictum, quod Philosophi Gentiles unum Deum summo, supremoque cultu venerati fuerint, aut colendum censuerint. Com­mentum istud aut tuum, aut tuorum Symmistarum toti Antiquitari adversatur. Accedit Apostoli testimonium. Rom. 1, 20. qui absolutè pronuntiat Philosophos inexcusabiles, quòdcum Deum cognovissent, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, neque gratias egerint; sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis & obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, & volucrum, & quadrupedum, & serpentium ... Commu­taverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, & coluerunt & servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in seeula. Amen. Quae Apostoli verba cau­sae tuae jugulum hauriunt. Continent enim 1. Philosophos ex operibus mundi opificem cognovisse, 2. non tamen glorificasse, sive coluisse, neque Gratias egisse. 3. ex stultitiâ gloriam Dei in statuas mutasse, hoe est statuas pro Deo coluisse. 4. creaturam magis quam creatorem adorasse. Vide Chrysost. Hom. III. ad illium locum.

Superest ultima periodi tuae pars. Deum [...] appellabant sci­licet. Eam vocem ab iis usurpatam agnosco: rem voce significatam agnoscam, ubi ostenderis ex omnium Philosophorum sententiâ [...]. Sive materiam ipsam, atomosque à Deo productas esse. Hoc autem nunquam probabis, quamdiu extabunt Antiquorum & Philosopho­rum, & Historicorum opera, quae alia omnia testantur Eusebius l. 1. de Praepar. Euang. c. IV, ex Diodoro seculo viro apud Graecos clarissi­mo, haec adfert ex Philosophis, & historicis: Alii cum mundum ingene­rabilem, & incorruptibilem putavissent, ganus quoque hominum sempiternum esse asseruerunt: ita nunquam initium ipsorum fuisse arbitrati sunt. Alii genera­bilem & corruptibilem (nempe mundum) putarunt: homines quoque certis temporibus incapisse affirmarunt. Theophilus Anticohenus p. LXXXII. ait Platonem credidisse materiam ingenitam. Et pag. CXXXVI. ait Pytha­goram idem de toto mundo dixisse. In re minimè dubiâ supervacaneae diligentiae esset plura testimonia congerere. Hinc & meo labori, & Lectoris tudio parco. Nunc & praedica doctis nihil utique credituris [Page 61]cunctos omnino Paganos Philosophos, mundum ab uno Deo con­ditum asseruisse: hunc [...] ab iis appellatum nos ut cum Prophe­tâ agnoscimus à Deo impressam animae nostrae ipsius imaginem in­delebilem, unde illum necessariò noverunt omnes; illam tamen adeo errorum nebulis obscuratam, & Phantasmatum ruderibus opertam, ut cum eodem Prophetâ dicere cogimur, notus in Indaeâ Deus: quasi alibi altâ caligine, & fere in tenebris densis deliterscens ignotus esset. Hinc Hieronymus: Antequam illuminaret Crux, & antequam videretur Dominus in terrâ, scilicet in solâ Iudaeâ notus Deus. Quando autem venit Sal­vator, in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum quasi diceret. Per totam terram dispersu fidei lumen, Politheismi tenebras abegislet. Gratias Deo super inenarrabili Dono ejus. 11. Cor. X. 15.

SECTIO XIV. Varia Spirituum genera secundum Philosophos.

D Morlaeus p. 21. Pagani inter illum unicum summum Deum, & homi­nes, alios medios quosdam Divos, aut Deos minorum gentium esse cre­debant, quos communi nomine Daimonas specialius verò Penates, Lares & Deos particularium vel gentium, vel urbium, vel hominum Tutelares indigetabant. Horum autem Daemonum alios dicebant nunquam corpori alligatos, (& hoc est illud genus genus, quod nos appellamus Angelos) Alios verè Heroum, hoc est praestantissimorum, & humano genere, dum viverent, optimè meritorum vi­rorum animas à corpore separatas, quales apud nos sancti, & in Ecclesiâ Roma­nâ non sancti modo; sed etiam Gentilisuo nomine Divi nuncupantur.

Respondeo: condono tibi errorem vegrandem, quod putarint uni­versim Pagani Philosophi Daemones aliquos nunquam habuisse cor­pora: cum conster è contra plerosque sensisse nullos Daemonas un­quam esse sine corpore. Quem errorum (si talis sit) video etiam non paucis Patribus arrisisse qui cum Platone docuerunt omnes habere corpora. Enim verò, qui Deum ipsum summum corporeum asseve­rant, quae fuit mens multorum Philosophorum, quomodo. And famulus [Page 62]melior Domino? Creatura creatore perfectior? studium insanum af­fingendi Ecclesiae Catholicae Paganorum errores, in multos te, tui­que similes, errores adduxit. Mitto etiam odiosam de nomine Di­vus annotationem; unde confirmas Ecclesiam Romanam planè Pa­ganisare. Cum tamen Ecclesia nunqua in Missali, nec in Bre­viario, quantum memini, Divos nominet; sed aut Sanctos, aut Beatos, & Bellarminus in operum suorum recognitione mutari jusse­rit, si uspiam vocasset Sanctos Divos. Nec Ecclesia aut ipsi Jesuitae intercesserunt executioni hujus mandati. Et tametsi non desint, qui Divos appellent, nec ob id condemnentur ab Ecclesia, hoc tamen potius est Conniventia, quam approbatto, multò minus ordinatio. Multos ipse novi qui nunquam voce Divus, aut Divi utuntur: paci­ficè tamen cum aliis eâ utentibus vivunt, quòd in bonum sensum ac­cipi possit, & ab eâ utentibus ita sumatur. Vnde nec damnantur ab Ecclesiâ ob eam vocem. Quod si licuit Augustino Platonem Divi­num nominare, quare non licebit aliquem verè Sanctum Divum appellare? Haec de voce: Rem ipsam videamus.

Augustinus lib. IV. de Civit. Dei cap. XXXVII. refert scaevolam Pon­tificem Romanorum longè doctissimum tria Deorum genera distinxisse: primum à Poëtis traditum. secundum à Philosophis, tertium à Principibus Ci­vitatis. Primum genus nugatorium esse dicit, quod de Diis multa Peëtae iis indig­na finxorint. Secundum, non congruere civitatibus, quod habeat aliqua super­flua, aliqua etiam quae populis obsit nosse: qualia sunt, non esse Deos, Castorem, Pollucem, Herculem, Aesculpaum, &c. item verum Deum sexus non habere. &c. Fuit ergo triplex Religio, Poëtica, Philosophica, & Civilis, Addit Augustinus tantum duplicem fuisse Religionem, quia Poëtica & Ci­vilis una tantum erat. Mihi, similem ob causam, videtur tantum u­nicam fuisse: quia in Deorum templis, & eorum solemni cultu, Phi­losophica Civili (quae eadem cum Poëtica erat) fasces submittebat, ut videbimus. Vnde sequitur non multum referre, quid de substantiis illis à corpore separatis disputarinr in scholis Philosophi, aut in libris tradiderint Eruditi, tametsi id certò sciri posset; & idem omnes sen­sissent: quod verum non est. Nam.

Iulianus ille cognomento Apostata apud S. Cyrillum Alex. lib. v. adversus illum, Spiritus illos Docuit esse veros Deos, Deo tamen summo inferiores, eique subditos, quibus Deus varias mundi partes regendas commisit. Iudaeorum Deum unum ex illis esse, caeteris de­teriorem ob Zelorypiam, Invidiam, Iram, Vindictae cupiditatem, & crudelitatem. Ob quas in verum Deum blasphemias, etsi nihil fuisset a­liud proborsum illud cognomentum illi adhaerere debuisset. Basilides apud Tertullianum l. de Praescript. c. XLVI. non multum abludit, ait enim summum Deum vocari Abraxan, qui mentem creavit: à mente prodiisse verbum. A Verbo Providentiam, virtutem, & sapientiam. Inde Principatus, Potestates, & Angelos factos. Inter ultimos vero Angelos collocat Iudaeorum Deum: quem verè Angelum fuisse asseverat, eique sortitò obtigisse semen Abrahae.

Communior Philosophorum sententia tria spirituum genera di­stinguit: supremos Deos, infimos animas humanas, & medios Daimonas, Vide Augustinum l. VIII. de civit. Dei, ca. XIV. & l, IX. ejusdem operis c. VIII. Hanc spirituum in tres classes distributionem & Porphyrius lib. altero de Abstinentiâ §. XXXVII. & Augustinus Aca­demiae tribuunt, quasi à Platonis scholâ profecta esset: scilicet quod quod illam Platonici, prae aliis Philosophorum sectis, scriptis suis & celebrarint, & ilustrarint, non quod illam primi excogitaverint. Nam Thales Platone longe antiquior apud Athenagoram Legat. pro Chri­stianis tres eorum classes enumerat, Deum in earum primâ collocat, Daemones in secundâ, Heroes in tertiâ! Quos Heroes ait animas es­se corpore solutas; esseqùe bonas, si vitam bonam vixerint; sin ve­rò malos. Hesiodus apud Theodoretum l. VIII. de Cur. Graec. Affect. consentit, sed ait bonas aureorum hominum (id est, eorum, qui be­nè vixissent) nanimas in Daimonas converti & rerum humanarum cu­ram suscipere. Iamblichus lib. de mysteriis Aegyptiorum ait Daemones, & Heroes, Deos inter & hominum animas intercedere, atque de u­troque extremo participare, in aequaliter tamen: Nam Daemones ait propius ad Deos accedere: Heroes verò animabus humanis magis esse affines.

Apulejus lib. de Deo sacratis (de quo libro multa S. Augusti­nus l. VIII. de Civit. Dei. c. XIV.) Daemones ipsos in quatuor classes distinguit, nimirum in Lemures, Lares, Larvas, & Mannas. Haec sunt ejus verba: Secundo signatu species Daemonum, animus humanus exutus cor­pore, & liber, stipendiis vitae corpore abjuratis, Hunc vetere latinâ lin­gnâ reperio Lemurem dictitatum. Ex hisce Lemuribus, qui posteriorum suorum curam sortitus, pacato, & quieto numine domum possidet Lar dicitur familia­ris. Qui vero propter adversa vitae merita, nullis bonis sedibus, in certâ vaga­tione, ceu quodam exilio punitur, inant terriculamentum bonis hominibus, caete­tum noxium malis, id genus plerique Larvas perhibent. Cum verò incertum est, quae cuique eorum sortitio evenerit, utrum Lar sit: an Larva, nomine Ma­nem Deum nuncupant & honoris gratiâ Dei additum est voeabulum. Haec A­pulejus. Augustinus lib. IX. de Civitate Dei. c. XI. easdem Spiri­tuum species, enumerat, cum eâ tamen differentiâ, quod Lemures & Larvas eosdem esse putet, scilicet Spiritus qui sciuntur esse mali. Cujus sententia mihi magis placet, quam Apuleii, dicentis Lemures latiùs patere, & esse quasi nomen genericum. Lars Thusca vox est, quae [...], sive Praesidem sonat. Unde Tuscis Lars, populi Prae­ses dicitur, ut habetur apud Livium, & Ausonium. Vnde transfertur ad Spiritum significandum, qui domui cuipiam praeficitur. Manes de se non male sonat; sed potius bonum aliquid significat, apud Servium l. III. Aeneidos Virgilii. Hinc Mane optima diei pars: & priva­rivum Immane, contrarium sensum retinet.

SECTIO XV. Quae spirituum mediantium in homines officia?

ALiqua fuisse secundum Philosophos qui eos mediare docebant, dubitari non potest: sed & fide cettum est; Cum Apostolus Hebr. 2.14. pronunciet omnis esse administratorios Spiritus in ministerium Missos propter eos, qui haereditatem capient salutis. Vnde Dei in homines be­nevolentia patet, qui non satis habuit spectabilem hunc mundum ho­minis [Page 65]causâ creasse, ejusque pedibus substravisse & usui mancipasse; sed insuper ipsos Angelos, eo multò superiores naturâ, magis adhuc Gratiâ, & Gloriâ, ipsi ministrate jussisse. Quae verò nobis ex eorum ministerio bona proveniant, hic investigamus. In istis rei abstrusis­simae obscuritate plus lucis adferent Platonicorum, quam omnium aliorum scripta: quod hi quam alii omnes Philosophi & plura, & me­liora scripserint, addo & veriora, & sacris litteris magis conformia quae Plato vidit, & ex iis non pauca desumpta in sua opera transtulit.

Primum angelorum in homines officium est, iis commissos custo­dire. Censorinus: Genius est Dous, cujus in tutelâ, ut quisque natus est, vi­vit. Singulos singulis hominibus apponi docebant: hos credebant in dubiis monitores, in rectis hortatores in pravis reprehensores, om­nium dictorum factorumque, & cogitatorum Conscios, & in ultimo judicio testes. Audiamus Apuleium: ex hac sublimiori Daemonum copiâ, Pla­to autumat, inquit, singulis hominibus in vitâ agendâ testes & custodes singulis additos, qui nemini conspicui semper adsint, omnium non modo actorum testes, verum etiam cogitatorum. Ac ubi vitâ editâ remeandum est, eundem illum, qui praedictus fuit, raptare illicò & trahere veluti custodiam tuam ad judicium, at­que illic in causâ dicendâ assistere. Si qua commentiatur, redarguere, si qua ve­ra dicat, asseverare: prorsus illius testimonio ferri sententiam. Addit moni­tum salutare: Proinde vos omnes, qui hanc Platonis divinam sententiam me interprete auscultatis, ita animos vestros ad quaecunque vel agenda, vel medi­tanda formate, ut sciatis nihil omnino prae istis custodibus, neque intra animam, neque foris esse secreti: quando ille omnia curiosè participet, omnia visat, omnia intelligat, & in ipsis penitissimis mentibus vice conscientiae diversetur. Ponit ex inde ob oculos Socratis exemplum: Hic custos, singularis Praefectus, Dome­sticus speculator, individuus arbiter, inseparabilis testis, malorum improbator, bonorum probator. si ritè anima dvertatur, sedulò cognoscatur, religiosè colatur. ita ut à socrate justetiâ & Inno contiâ eultus est, in rebus incertis prospectator, dubiis praemonitor, periculosis vitator egenis opitulator: qui tibi queat tum som­niis, tum signis, tum etiam coram, cum usus postulat, mala averruncare, bona pro­sperare. Et paulò pòst: socrates vir apprimè perfectus hunc Deum suum cogno­vit, & coluit. Haec Apulejus.

Similia Deus revelavit. Psal. XC. 10. Non accedet ad te malum, & fla­gollum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo: quoniam Angelis suis mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis. In manibus portabunt te, ne fortè offen­das ad lapidem pedem suum. Super Aspidem, & Basiliscum ambulabis, & con­culcabis leonem, & draconem. Quoniam in me speravit, liberaboeum.... Qui­bus verbis Deus asseverat hominem nihil mali passurum, ob Angeli curam, cujus sub tutelâ vixit, Deo ita disponente: hunc Angelum, quasi esset Deus Averraneus, (si paganorum verbis uti liceat) mala avertere. Quo protegente, nec à Lapidibus in viâ, nec à bestiolarum latente veneno, nec ab apertâ belluarum violentiâ quicquam detri­menti capiamus. Hujus patrocinium experta Judith ait (libri sui c. XIII. 20.) Vivit Dominus, quoniam custodivit me Angelus ejus & hinc euntem, & ibi commorantem, & inde huc revertentem: & non permisit me Dominus ancillam suam coinquinari. Elias III. Regum XIX. 5. Sub Iunipero dor­miens Angelum habuit & excitatorem, & obsonatorem. Pusillos habere Angelos Beatos, qui in caelo faciem Patris vident, testis est ipse Chri­stus Dominus Matt. XVIII. 10. Et primi Christiani, dum puella nun­ciaret Petrum prae foribus stare, quem audierant illi in arctissiimâ custodiâ detineri, nec sciebant ab Angelo fuisse liberatum: adeoque ne suspicari quidem poterant ipsummet esse, qui pulsaret fores, & admitti postularet dixerunt Angelum Petri esse. Actor. XII. 15. Vnde collige persuasum suisse Christianis illius purissimi temporis quod quisque peculiarem sibi Angelum haberet, qui eorum dum viverent curam gereret. Neque vero morientes deserunt suos pupillos, nisi peccata eorum impediant; sed ad Refrigerii locum deducunt, & Bea­torum fedes. Hinc Lazarum per Angelos ad Abrahae sinum delatum restis est ipse Christus.

Patres huic veritati adstipulantur Origenes lib. VIII. Contra cel­sum: A Dei benignitate, & Angelorum tutelâ servamur, no quid à Daemonibus patiamur. Et in sequentibus plura habet visu digna eodem respicien­tia. Basilius in Psal. XXXIII. Omni in Christum credenti Angelus assistit, nisi illum à nobis per actiones improbas profligaverimus. Et in Psal. XLVIII. [...]. [Page 67] Cuilibet fidelium est Angelus assistens, qui dignus est videre Pa­trem, qui in caelis est. Hieronymus l. III. in Mat. c. XVIII. 10. Magna dignitas animarum, ut unaquaeque habeat ab arte nativitatis in custodiam sui An­gelum delegatum. Hilarius in Psal. CXXXIV. Sunt Angeli parvulorum quo­tidie Deum videntes. Hi igitur spiritus ad salutem humani generis emissi sunt: neque enim infirmitas, nostra, nisi datis ad custodiam Angelis tot tantisque spiri­tualium caelestium nequitis resisteret. Vide Chrysost. Hom. III in epist. ad Hebraeos & Bernardus in Psal. Qui habitat. Angelis suis mandavit de te, inquit, Mira dignatio, & verè magna dilectio Charitatis. Quis enim? quibus? de quo? quid mandavit? Et post multa: Quoties ergo gravissima cernitur ur­gere tentatio, & tribulatio vehemens imminere, iuvoca custodem tuum, ductorem tuum adjutorem tuum in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione: inclama eum, & dic: Domine salva nos, perimus.

Nec singularis cujuspiam tantum curam suscipiunt Angeli ad plures enim curandos quisque sufficit, ob excellentem cujusque virtutem: maxime qui sunt ex superioribus ordinibus. Josue, v. 14. Brinceps ex­ercitus Domini, qui Josue stricto gladio apparuit, Angelus videtur, toti populo Israëlitico praefectus: & ille ipse videtur, qui Dan. XII. 1. di­citur Michael Princeps Magnus, qui stat pro filiis populi Danielis. Ejusdem Prophetiae c. X. 20. mentio fit Principis Persarum, item Principis Graecorum: qui videntur Gentium illarum Angeli. Deinde illa vox apud Jose­phum 1. VII. de Bello Judaico ex Templi aditis audita, Migremus hinc, ab Angelis emissa videtur, quibus à Deo demandata fuerat Templi custodia, qui migrandum sibi esse nuntiabant, ob populi scelera Dei vindictam celerem provocantia. Idem sensisse priscam Ecclesiam te­stis est Athenagoras, legat. Pro Christianis, pag. XI. & XXVII, & nota­tu dignum est, quod priori loco laudato professionem hujus Angelo­rum Tutelae, sive Praefecturae, professioni SS. Trinitaris subnectat, quasi crederent aut illius temporis Christiani, aut certè Athenagoras veritatem istam ad fidem spectare.

Nec illud omittendum, quod ex iisdem fontibus habemus, parti­bus dumtaxat mundi praefectos Angelos; non vero toti mundo. Athe­nagoras loco laudato asserit nulli uni angelo totius mundi regimen [Page 68]commissum. Hoc fortè desumpsit ex Job, XXXIV. 13. Quem constituit alium super orbem, quaem fabricatus est? q. d. nullum. Et Apostolus Heb. 11.5. Non enim Angelis subjecit Deus orbem terrae futurum, & ejusdem epi­stolae capite 1. probat Christum Dominum eo etiam nomine Angelis praeferendum, quod totius mundi praefecturam acceperat, cum aliis restricta esset Jurisdictio, ad angustos terminos, si illorum virtutem quodammodo infinitam certè quâvis corporeâ majorem, aesti­memus.

In hujus officii participium venisse juxta Platonicos antiquos, Ani­mas separatas, mihi exploratum est. Tales enim erant Lares. Nobis ut id crodamus satis est sacrarum Litterarum, auctoritas, & Ecclesiae praxis. Tales erant sub veteri Lege toti Populo Israelitico Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob, aliique viri in generationibus suis magni. Post Jero­boami schisma, in decem Tribubus Elias, & Eliseus: In Judâ & Ben­jamin, Samuel, Hieremias, Daniel, & prae caeteris omnibus, vir se­cundum cor Dei David: ob cujus merita, & intercessionem, diu dilata fuit clades & fanctae Civitati, & toti Regno imminens ut videre est saepe in IV. Regum, & altero Paralipomenon libris. In novâ verò lege tales sunt Apostoli, primùm, deinde Martyres, tum alii Sancti, qui in quâque regione vixerunt, & mortui sunt, aut in quâ eorum corpora quiescunt, vel denique qui alicubi peculiari devotione coluntur.

Alterum daemonum officium erat juxta Platonicos preces nostras Deo offerre: & impetrata nobis necessaria dona referre. Apuleius l. de Deo Socratis: Sunt quaedam divinae media potestates, inquit, inter sum­mum Aethera, & infimas terras, in isto intersitae aeris spatio: per quas & desi­deria nostra & merita ad Deos commeant. Hos Grato nomine [...] nuncu­pant, inter mortales Caelicolasque vectoros, hinc precum, inde denorum. Quae desumpta videntur ex Genes. c. XXVIII. 12. Vidit Iacob in somnis Sca­lam stantem super terram, & cacumen illius tangens caelum: Angelos quoque Dei ascendentes, & descendentes per eam. Nec enim frustra fruit, aut exer­citii tantum causa institutus ille Angelorum motus ad Deum ascen­dentium, descendentium ad homines. Deinde preces hominum Deo per Angelos deferri, patet ex Apocal. v. 8. Habebant viginti quatuor se­niores [Page 69]Philaas aureas, plenas adoramentorum, quae sunt orationes Sanctorum. Et Tobiae XII, 12. Quando orabas, ego obtuli orationes tuas Domino.

Originem audiamus l. V. contra Celsum: Fatemur, inquit, Angelos esse ministratorios quosdam spiritus, crebrò mittente Deo commeantes ad eos ho­mines, quos manet salutis haereditas: hosque modo ascendere ad purissima loca caelestia, & puriora adhuc super caelestia, oblaturos precos hominum: modo rur­sum descendere ad homines, reportando illinc aliud in usum singulorum, ut quis­que dignus est beneficio. Et Auctor lib. Meditationum apud Augustinum c. III. Dicuntur Angeli, inquit, orationes, & vota nostra offerre Deo, non quia Deum doceant, qui omnia antequam fiant, sicut ac posteaquam facta sunt, novit; sed quia ejus voluntatem super his consulunt, & quod Deo jubente comple­tum esse cognoverint, hoc nobis vel evidentèr vel latentur reportant under homi­nibus ait, cum oratis, orationes vestras obtuli Deo. Similiter & nos cum oramus, non Deum docemus, quasi nesciat, quid velimus, & quo indigoamus; sed necesse habet rationalis creatura temporales causas ad aeternam veritatem referre, sive petendo, quid erga se fiat, sive consulendo, quod fiat. Ne porrò quis in certi Auctoris librū nihili faciat, sciant omnes similia prorsus in indubitatâ Augustini Epistolâ c. XX, ad Honoratum c. XXIX haberi. Hoc non est sic accipiendum, inquit, tanquam nescienti aliquid annunitetur, ut sciat; sed sicut annuntiant Angeli non solum nobis beneficia Dei; verum etiam illi preces nostras. Nam scriptum est ubi Angelus hominibus dieit: Ego obtuli memoriam orationis vestrae, non ut Deus tunc noverit, quid velimus, vel quo indigeamus; no­vit enim Pater vester quid vobis necessarium sit priusquam petatis aliquid ab eo; sed quia necesse habet rationalis creatura obetemperans Deo, temperales causas ad aeternam veritatem referre, sive petendo quid erg se fit, sive consulendo quid faciat. Qui pius mentis affectus est, ut ipsa construatur; non ut Dous instruatur.

Bernardus idem Sentit. atque sumptâ inde occasione monet ho­norandos parvulos quosque: quia Periculosè contemnitur ille, in quit, cu­jus preces ambitioso, Angelorum famulatu Deo exhibentur.

Hoc etiam munus Animabus Beatis convenire sentit Ecclesia, dum cas invocat, oratque ut nostras preces suis adjunctis Deo gratiores red­dant. Enim verò universim Christus pronuntiat eas pares Angelis fu­turas. Mat. XXII. 30. Unde dicendum quae Angelis, eadem Beatis A­nimabus convenire.

Tertium Angelorum officium est, hominibus, ubi Deo placet hu­jus voluntatem notam facere: res ignotas, cum existentes, tum futu­ras indicare. Judic. VI. Gedeoni significavit Angelus eum populum suum liberaturum. Deum iratum alter eidem populo dixit Jud. II. Samsonem nasciturum Jud. XIII. Alibi Elisco declaratum legimus quidquid Syriae Rex in consilio suo contra Regem Israel moliretur, aut proponeret, Deo scilicet per Angelum revelante. Danieli praedicta generis humani redemptio post septuaginta annorum hebdomadas. Deinde in novo Testamento praenuntiata fuit Joannis Praecursoris nativitas ab Angelo Zachariae, & Christi Domini Adventus Deiparae. Lucae I. Periculum huic nato imminens Mat. II. Incolumitas eorum, qui cum Paulo erant, Act. XXVII. Futurus Ecclesiae status, in totâ Apocalypsi ab Angelo dilecto Christi discipulo revelatus est.

Hujus etiam officii participes sunt animae ut patet ex II. Mach. XV. 12. & quatuor sequentibus. Videant alii, an id ex II. Paralip. XXI. 12. colligatur, ubi Elias dicitur litteris ad Joram Regem scriptis eum of­ficii admonuisse. Vide quae ex Eusebio l. VI. hist. c. V. retuli supra de S. Potamiaenâ Basilidi puritatis ejus vindici Martyrium futurum re­velante.

Daemones hoc officium usurparunt, ex institutis variis in locis O­raculis. Quale in sacris Litteris (IV Reg. I.) Beelzebub in Accaron. In­ter Gentiles nominatissima Apollinis Pythii, inter Graecos, Jovis Am­monii apud Aegyptios, Dodonaeum, cui praeerant columbae, Dodoni­des, ut ait Pausanias in Arcadicis, hoc est, faeminae vaticinatrices: Tro­phonii, & alia.

Quartum denique officium est insolita, & mira facere: ubi Deus aut permittit, aut imperat. Danielis III. 49.50. Angelus ignis violen­tiam ita discussit, ut media fornax esset quasi ventus roris slans. Ab An­gelo occisa unâ nocte de exercitu Sennacherib centum octoginta quin­que millia refert Isaias c.XXXVII. 36. Hoc aliquando visibiles operan­tur, ut Danielis III. saepe in observati. Sic cùm Augustinus circumces­sionum insidias sui Ducis errore vitavit, ut tradit Possidius in ejus vita c.XII, & ejusdem operis c. XV. refertur alius error, cum S. Augustinus [Page 71]Sermonem faciens in Ecclesià praeter ejus intentionem dilapsa est ejus oratio: Ea enim non casu contigisse; sed Dei providentiâ, & Ange­lorum ministerio, crediderunt & qui interfuerunt, & ego. Similiter quod Templi Hierosolymitani aeneae valuae, quas multi homines unitis viribus aegrè amoliri consueverant, suâ sponte paterent, sine ope hu­manâ, ut habet Josephus, Angelo cuipiam adscribo.

Simili virtute facta legimus aliqua inter Gentiles opera, quae mira­cula videbantur. v.c. delatam in cribro à Tibri, ad Capitolium aquam, triremem adverso flumine eodem à virgine Vestali ductam: statuas locutas, exta sine capite inventa, iisdemque restitutam sanitatem, & id genus alia passim apud Lucium obvia.

Duo haec officia simul junxit, & paucis exposuit saepè nominatus Apuleius: Per hos eosdem (daemones) ut Plato in Symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata, & Magorum varia miracula, omnesque praesagiorum species re­guntur.

Difficultas hic occurrit, quorum Angelorum ministerio Deus uti­tur, ad istiusmodi effectus producendos? Cum enim & malorum, aequè ac bonorum Dominus sit, & pleno in utrosque Dominio fruatur, tam malis (licet fortè invitis) quam bonis ubique volentibus, & ad nutum promptissimis uti potest. Malum fuisse liquer, qui Jobi patientiam exercuit: quia Job I. vocatur Satan. Item qui Aegyptum sub Pharaone populati sunt: quia Psal LXXVII. 49. mala Aegyptiis in­flicta dicuntur Immissiones p [...] Angelos malos. Incertum mihi, qualis fuerit, qui evaginato Gladio Davidi apparuit I. Paral. XXI. 16. & Pe­stilentiam sparserar. Videtur bonus fuisse, qui per Gad prophetam Regi indicavit, qua ratione Deo placato per Sacrificium malo finem im poni posset.

Mihi probabile videtur (quod sensit Origenes l. 16. VIII, contra Celsum) per solos bonos Angelos bona praestari: mala verò per ma­los, qui ad ea procuranda toto malignae naturae suae impetu feruntur: nec Dei ad id imperio opus, sola permissio sufficit (utex initio libti Job pater) quae si adesset, & daemonibus malis pro libitu in homines grassari liceret, nec illi veluti rabidi canes catenâ vincirentur, nec nos [Page 72]& Dei Protectione, & Angelorum bonorum praesidio muniti essemus, totum mundi spectabilis ordinem inverterent, & humanum genus funditus delerent.

Hactenus quae dixisti, Doctissime Morlaee, pro virili tueri, atque probare conatus fui, paratus in aliis idem facere; quando salvâ veri­tate licet. Hinc aestimare te velim, quam aequo in te, tuaque scripta sim animo, qui velim si liccat ea asserere: aequiori feres, quae deinceps adversus te dicturus sum (quae stante veritate stare non possunt) quandoquidem illa non tibi contradicendi studio, non tibi repugnan­di desiderio; sed solae veritatis amore dicenour.

Ea porro jubet ne dissimulem non benè a te Gentilibus univer­sim adscribi cam daemonum in tres classes distributionem: quae non omnium erat. A Platonis scholâ profectam esse tradit Porphyrius l. II. de Abstinentià §. XXXVII. A Pythagoraeorum, Epicureorum, & Peripateticorum scholis exulasse constat: & in Civili Theologiâ lo­cum null um habuisse & evidens est, & infra ostendetur.

Petii: cur Deo visum Angelorum operam adhibere ad hominum salutem procurandam, aut rerum sive sublunarium, sive superlunarium administrationem, ad quae solus sufficit? Respondeo inverecundam esse quaestionem, cui sufficienter respondetur dicendo, Deum id vo­luisse. Potest Deus ut omnia creavit, uno verbo (Dixit & facta sunt) ita cuncta solo nutu regere: ad hoc tamen hominum opc utitur. Rom. XIII; 1. Saulum ipsc ad fidem perduxit, Act. IX. potest & alios ita convertere, Angelo tamen usus est ad Centurionē vocandum. Act. X. Apostolis ad alios Rom. X. Potest vocatos per se regenerare: aquam tamen adhiberi juber. Et sicut solus omnia primo die fecit, ita & ulti­mo facere potest: tamen utetur ad citandos ad Judicium homines Ar­changelo ut praecone I. Thessal. IV. 16. Angelis ut Lictoribus ad co­gendos ad Tribunal undique electos, Mat. XXIV. 31. & Segregandos ex horum consortio malos, hosque in caminum ignis mittendos, Mat. XIII. 49, 50, ubi lata est sententia irrevocabilis.

Haec (quae de spiritibus mediantibus diximus) si dixeris nos ab Ethnicis hausisse, falsi tibi dicam impingam: nec nos ab Ethnicis; sed [Page 73]& illi, & nos à sacris Litteris, & à Spiritu sancto accepimus. Quod si quae vera Gentiles habuerunt, non ideo illud nos abjicere debemus. Sicut unius Dei cultum non abjicimus, quia Turcae juxta nobiscum unum agnoscunt.

SECTIO XVI. Deos Paganorum fuisse homines.

D. Morlaeus: p. 21. Hos ex utroque genere [...] dicebant Ethnici esse, ut naturâ medios, ita officio mediatores inter summum Deum, & ho­mines, quibus scilicet mediantibus & procurantibus homines Deum iratum pla­cabant, & à Deo placato omnia quae ipsis ad felicitatem necessaria erant, impe­petrabant. Et eo nomine hos [...] non quidem ut summum Deum; sed tan­quam humani generis apud summum Deum procuratores, patronos, & advocatos ab hominibus colendos esse censebant.

Respond. pergis Ethnicis universis tribuere, quae uni sectae pecu­liaria erant. Et quod deterius est, Philosophicam, Theologiam cum civili malè confundis, quae Varro & Scaevola rectè, distinxerunt: & Philosophicam in Templis obtinuisse contendis (quibus penitus exu­labat, solâ Poëticâ illic omnia disponente) ut obtineas cultum ab Ethnicis supremum Deum, veluti bonorum omnium largitorem mu­nisicentissimum: Daemones verò tantum ut illius amicos, pro nobis intercessores, nostros apud illum Procuratores, Advocatos, & Patronos. Ut sic Paralelum, quod instituis Paganismum inter, & Papismum, me­lius constaret. Addere parijure, hoc est, nullo, potuisses Paganos cul­tu Latreiae unum Deum verum adorasse; reliquos vero Douleiae; quo magis lectoribus minus peritis imponeres. Enimverò, qui dogmata finxisti priscis ignota, cur ab imponendis vocibus abstines? ubi semel verecundiae & veritatis limites transieris, oportet gnaviter..... pergere. Quae hic dicis, nimis magnum continent postulatum: quale nec te decet gratis petere, nec nobis aut libet, aut licet gratis largiri, ob­stantibus Antiquorum cum gentilium, tum Christianorum, quaecum­que extant monumentis.

Haec enim evidenter probant, non Romulum tantum aut Caesarem, Antinoum, aut Aesculapium, Herculem, aut Castorem atque Pollu­cem; sed etiam ipsum Jovem Optimum Maximum, ut Romani lo­quebantur (qui à Poëta dictus est Deum Pater atque hominum Rex. Et alibi: Iovis omnia plena) & etiam Jovis Patrem

(Qui primus ab Aetherio venit Saturnus Olympo
Arma Iovis fugiens, & regnis exul ademptis.
Qui genus indocile, ac dispersum Montibus albis
Composuit legesque, dedit, Latiumque vocari
Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris.)

Et eum qui hunc exulem hospitio excepit Janus Italiae Rex (quem Satyricus Poëta Satyrâ VI. V. 393. Divûm Antiquissimum appellat) hos inquam omnes, qui Majorum Gentium Dii fuerunt, homines fuisse. Adeoque tota Paganica Religio quanta erat, circa animas à corpo­re solutas, occupata fuit, vel circa malos daemones, qui hominum nomen assumpserant.

Hoc prob. I. ex Patribus id diseriè asscrentibus. Augustinus l. VIII de Civ. Dei c.XXVI. hoc lemma proponit: Quod omnis Religio Pagano­rum circa homines mortuos fuerit impleta. Hicronymus l. I. comment. in Oseae c.II. Omnia Idola ex mortuorum errore cr [...]verunt. Et l.III. Com. in Matth. ad verba: Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, ait: Deum vivum appellat, ad distinctionem corum Deorum, qui putantur Dii, sed sunt mortus. Chryso­stomus Hom. I. ad Pop. Antioch. Tota multitudo Deorum Gentilium, ex ejusmodi bominibus conflata est. Minutius Felix: Majores nostri dum Re­ges suos colunt religiosè, dum defunctos illos in imaginibus videre volunt, dum gestiunt eorum memorias in statuis detincre, saera facta sunt, quae fuerant as­sumpta solatia. Lege stoicorum scriptae, vel scripta sapientum, eadem mecum re­cognosces, ob merita virtutis, aut muneris Deos habitos. Et infra: Manifestum est, homines illos fuisse, quos & natos legimus, & mortuos scimus. Et Cypria­nus. l. de Idolorum vanitate: Deos, non esse, quos colit vulgus, hinc notum est. inquit, Reges enim fuerunt, qui ob regalem memoriam, coli apud suos etiam in morte caeperunt. Plura Patrum testimonia dabimus infra.

Prob. 2. cx Tertulliano, qui quae Paganorum erant ignorare non [Page 75]potuit, quia cum iis vixit, & fortè initio fuerat exipsis. Is Apolog. c. X. ait: Deos vestros colere desinimus, ex quo illos non esse cognovimus. Sed nobis, inquitis, Dii sunt. Appellamus & provocamus à vobis ad conscientiam vestram, illa nos judicet illa nos damnet, si poterit negare omnes istos Deos vestros homines fuisse. Sed & ipsa, si inficias ierit, de suis Antiquitatum monumentis revincetur, de quibus eos didicit testimonium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, & ci­vitatibus in quibus nati sunt, & regionibus, in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur. Nec ego per singulos decur­ram, proprios, communes, masculos, faeminas, rusticos, urbanos, nauticos, militares (otiosum est etiam tit los persequi) ut colligam in compendium, & hoc non quo cognoscatis; sed recognoscatis, certè enim oblitos agitis. Ante Saturnum Deus penes vos nemo est: ab illo census totius vel potioris, vel notioris Divinitatis. Itaque quod de Origine constiterit, id de posteritate conveniet. Saturnum itaque quantum litterae docent, neque Diodorus Graecus, aut Thallus, neque Cassius, Se­verus, aut Cornelius Nepos, neque ullus Commentator ejusmodi Antiquitatum, aliud quam hominem fuisse tradunt. Si quaeras rerum argumenta, nusquam inve­nio fideliora, quam ipsam Italiam, in quâ Saturnus post multas expeditiones, post Attica hospitia consedit, exceptus à Iano. Mons, quem incoluerat, Saturnius di­ctus: civitas quam depopulaverat Saturnia usque nunc est. Et l. I. contra Marcionem, c.XI. Error orbis Deos praesumpsit, quos homines interdum confi­tetur: quoniam ab unoquoque prospectum vidotur, utilitatibus, & commodis vitae.

Arnobius & ipse quondam Paganus: l. II. Contra Gentiles: Vos hominem nullum colitis? non unum, aut alium? non innumeros alios? quinimo non omnes, quos in templis habetis vestris, mortalium sustulistis ex numero, & caelo, sideribusque donaestis? si enim fortè vos fugit sortis eos fuisse humanae & commu­nis conditionis, repticate Antiquissimas litteras, & corum seripta percurrite, qui vetustati vicini, sine ullis Attostationibus cuncld veritare in liqradâ prodide­runt. Iam profecto discetis quibus finguli Patribus, quibus Matribus fuerint pro­creati, quâ in nati regione, quâ gente, quae fecerint, egerint, pertulerint.

Prob. 3. ex Aetate quâ vixerunt. Tertullianus Apolo. c.IV. Poste­riores illos Deos clade diluvii, conlestantur ipsae urbes, in quibus nati, & mortus sunt. Et lib. de Animâ c. XXIV. Multo antiquior Moyses otiam Saturno, [Page 76]nongentïs circiter annis. Idem affirmat etiam Theophilus Antiochenus l. III. ad Autolycum. Eusebius praefatione in Chronicon licet non tantum tempus effluxisse sentiat Moysen inter, & Saturnum, hunc tamen illo longe posteriorem tempore affirmat. Moses iis, quos Graeci antiquissimos putant, senior deprehenditur, Trojano bello, ac multo superior Her­cule, Musaeo, Lino & ceteris Diis gentium, sacrisque vel Vatibus. Ipsius quoque Iovis gestis, quem Graeciâ in arce Divinitatis collocavit. Hos inquam omnes, quos commemoravimus, etiam post Cecropem Diphyem, quem primum Atticae Regem esse convincimus. Cecropem autem praesens historia Mosi coaetaneum ostendit. Et infra [...] Sine ullâ ambiguitate Moses, & Cecrops, qui primus Atheniensium Rex fuit, iisdem fuêro, temporibus.

Occurrit hic difficultas non contemnenda: narrat Eusebius ibi­dem Cecropis aetate natam in arce olivam, refert, & Minervae, Iovis filiae, nomen Civitati Regia impositam: & Cecropem invocasse Iovem hoc est adorasse, aut coluisse. Quae vix inrelligi possunt, si nec: Minerva nec ejus Parens Iupiter Cecropis aetate natus erat. Dicendum videtur non de eodem Jove locutum Eusebium; sed de diversis, quarum unus Cecrope Antiquior sub nomine Ammon in Aegypto, Cecropis patriâ, colebatur, eratque Cham, secundus Noë filius. Alter Iupiter Saturni & opis filius Cretae Rex, quem Graecia in arce Divinitatis collocavit. Ce­cropem autem credo patriâ superstitione coluisse priorem, non verò alterum, qui necdum natus fuit, quando denatus fuit Cecrops. Hic enim, ut idem habet Eusebius CCCIXXV. annis Trojanum bellum prae­cessit. A Jano verò Italiae Rege, sub quo Saturnus regno pulsus illuc confugit, ad Aeneae adventum, numerat, idem CL annos: quos si de­mas CCCLXXV illis; supersunt, CCXXV anni, inter Cecropem Athena­rum Regem primum, & Jovem Cretae Tyrannum, qui fugato Patre Regnum invasit: qui fuit magnus ille Iupiter, Optimus Maximus, Deum Patex, atque Hominum Rox. Quem Graecia primùm, deinde cuncti Ido­lolatrae divinis honoribus coluerunt.

Neque novum cuiquam videri debet, quod multos asseram fuisse Joves: id enim nemini novum erit, nisi cui omnia antiqua sunt no­va. Arnobius varios fuisse asserit; Theophilus Antiochenus, multos. [Page 77]Vossius sex refert. Varro apud Tertullianum Apolog. c.XIV. usque ad trecentos numerasse dicitur. Nec multum à vero abludit: quia fabu­losa vetustas, ait Vossius, eo nomine dignata est Reges, ac Principes, qui sui Ordinis caeteros potentiâ antistarent. Itaque videas nullo prope saeculo defuisse suum Iovem (mallem Joves dixisset: Joves enim singulis saeculis multi fuerunt, & multae Junones) usque ad tempora belli Trojani. Tot Heroum, qui Ioves dici meruerunt, ex Nationum saltem opinione, bona, mala, vera, ficta, uni Iovi Cretensi tribuerunt Poëtae, etiam furta venerea, & raptus. Haec Vos­sius. Hic porro Cretensis Cecrope posterior à Graecis in Divinitatis arce colloeatus est, ut ait Eusebius constant ergo, quae in Eusebio adversâ fronte pugnare videntur.

Obiter observo non defuisse, qui Noachum Saturni nomine cultum arbitrati sunt. Et conveniunt tres filii Sem, Cham, & Iaphet. Iaphet à cujus posteris divisae sunt Insulae gentium, in regionibus suis, ait sacer histori­cus Gen. X. 5. Neptunum appellare, & ei in mare dederunt imperium. Sem Pluto dictus divitiarum Deus, quia rerum in Asiâ ditissimâ regio­ne potitus est. Cham verò ipse est Aegyptiorum Ammun, & Iupiter Am­mon dictus est. Quem Aegyptii duobus ejus fratribus praetulerunt, in honorem gentis suae ab ipso descendentis, licet naturâ esset Semo, & in­ferior aetate, & donis minor, & ex Patris maledictione, etiam infra Iaphet. Chanaan Chami maledicti silius, Mercurius est: hic ex avi ma­ledictione servus aliorum futurus dicitur; & Mercurium Poëtae in servilibus plerumque ministeriis occupatum referunt. Litteris prae­esse dicitur, quia à Phaenicibus cjus posteris litteras didicere Graeci. Mercatorum Deus dictus, quia regio, quam ejus posteri occuparunt commercio florebat: & quia iidem subinde Piraticam exercebant, di­ctus est Mercurius furari, & furum praeses. Denique alata talaria tri­buerunt, quia Phaenicum naves velis velut alis erant admotum in­structae celerrimum. Redeo ad rem, si haec sint extra illam.

Prob. 4. ex diversitate sexuum. Hanc urget Arnobius l. III. con­tra Gentiles, ferè toto, inde probat veros fuisse homines, quos Paga­ni colebant; non vero spiritus, multò minus perfectissimos spiritus. Qualis Deus est. Adduci, inquit, primum hoc ut credamus, non possumus, [Page 78]immortalem praestantissimamque naturam divisam esse per sexus. Doluit Scae­vola supra citatus, mentionem factam de sexibus Dcorum. Cicero ve­ro adeo sibi displicuisse testatus est Deos per sexus distingui, ut eam ob rem Pagani ejus opera Senatus consulto comburi voluerint, quod iis Christiana religio comprobaretur, Vetustatis verò opprimeretur auctoritas. Quasi Paganismus quem Vetustatem appellant, sine istâ sexuum diversitate stare non posset.

Hinc sequitur 5. Probatio: Dcos Paganorum verè genitos fuisse: ad quid enim alioqui destinaretur illa in Diis sexuum diversitas? Ovidius sine ambagibus id agnovit, de venere, de quâ haec canit:

Illa Deos omnes, longum est numerare creavit. Athenagoras leg. pro Chri­sti p. XVII. Dii non fuerunt ab aeterno; sed ita eorum quisque natus est, ut nos etiam nascimur. Theophilus Antiochenus l. II. ad Autolycum: Hoc quidem vobis, quod necessarium est accedit, inquit, qui Historias, & Genealogias eorum legitis, qui Dii dicuntur. Dum genealogias eorum contexitis in hominum numerum eos ponitis. Hos postmodum Deos appellatis: & tanta vestra Socordia est, ut neque cogitare, neque intelligere velitis, eos tales esse, quales natos, sive ge­nitos legitis, videlicet homines. Deinde quaerit, quare jam generare desie­rint Dii? An prae senectute corum effaeta sint corpora, ut amplius gignere non possint? quomodo ergo constabit illis aeternitas? Confir­matur hoc argumentum ex eorum patria, sive locis in quibus nati sunt: Jupiter in Insulâ Cretâ, Mars in Thraciâ, Juno in Samo, vel Argo &c.

Prob. 6. ex eo quod mortui sint, eorumque sepulchra olim exta­rent. S. Cyprianus l. de Idolorum Vanit. Antrum Iovis in Cretâ visitur, & sepulchrum ejus ostenditur, & ab eo Saturnum fugatum manifestum est. La­ctantius Firmianus l. I, Div. Instit. c.XI. ait hoc Epitaphium Jovis se­pulchro insculptum: [...]. Iupiter Saturni, nempe filius. Porphyrius l. de vitâ Pythagorae, ait, hunc Jovis tumulo addidisse:

Zan jacet hoc tumulo, qui vulgò Iupiter audit.

Refert etiam eundem Pythagoram Elegias conscripsisse, Apollinis se­pulchro adjiciendas, quae cujus esset filius indicabant. Cum tamen Gentiles aegrè agnoscerent Jovem illum, qui Deum Pater atque hominum [Page 79]Rex vocabatur, mortuum esse, negarentque uspiam extare ejus sepul­chrum, Cyrillus lib. X. contra Jul. pag. CCCXLII. Cretenses affirmat ejus sepulchrum ostendere, Pythagoram illud invisisse, idque negari non posse.

Prob. 7. ex solemnibus ceremoniis, & ritibus, quibus illi Dii cole­bantur: quo eorum vitam, & mortem repraesentabant. Varro apud Au­gustinum l. I. de Cons. Euangel. c.XXIII ait: Deorum sacra ex cujusque corum vitâ, vil morte, quâ inter homines vixerunt vel obierunt fuisse composita. In us varia summae maestitiae signa edebant eorum Sacerdotes, teste Baruch c. VI. 30.31. In domibus corum (nempe Deorum, hoc est in Templis) Sacerdotes sedent, habentet tunicas scissas, & barbam rasam, quorum capita nuda sunt. Rugiunt autem clamantes contra Deos suos, sicut in caenâ mortui. Hinc fortè factum, ut existis aliqua Sacerdotibus Israeliticis inhiberentur, aliqua toti populo illi. Vide Lex. X. 6. & Deut. XIV. 1. De istis ritibus Athenagoras Leg. pro Christ. p. XIV. Aegyptiorum cere­moniaes, quis non ridiculas dixerit? inquit, Plangunt illi per festos, solemnesque conventus & pectora feriunt, tamquam propter defunctos, & rursus Sacrifi­cant tamquam diis. Pupugit praeposterum hunc dolorem Xenophanes Colophonius, dum ait: [...]. Si Deos creditis, nolite eos lugere: si lugendi fint, nolite eos adorare. ex tali in sacris planctu colligit Poëta Osyrin hominem fuisse:

Et quem tu plangens hominem testaris Osyrin.

Simili ratione probamus cum Angustino, minutio Felice, aliisque cunctos Gentilium Deos homines fuisse.

Haec de solemnibus, & honestioribus eorum sacris. Alia erant my­steria, quae cum solis iniriatis communicabantur, nee possunt salvo pudore referri. Ideoque de iis ego nihil. De quibus agunt Euseb. l. al­tero de praepar. Euang. cap. V. Arnobius l. V. contra Gentiles, & alii. Haec autem non tantum homines eos fuisse demonstrant, sed etiam pessimos & turpissimos homines.

Prob. 8. ducitur à testimoniis & Confessionibus ipsorum Genti­lium. Cicero eorum omnium elarissimus, & notissimus, l. II. de Nat. Deorum: Videtisne, inquit, ut à physicis rebus benè & utiliter inventis, ratis [Page 80]sit tracta, ad commentitios, & fictos Deos. Clarius adhuc Tusculanarum qq. I. Si scrutari vetera, inquit, & ex iis, quae scriptores Graeciae tradiderunt eruere conor, ipsi illi majorum Gentium Dii, qui habentur, hinc à nobis profecti in caelum reperientur. Quaere quorum demonstrentur sepulchra in Gracia: remi­niscere, quoniam es initiatus, quae tradantur mysteriis: tum denique quam latè hoc pateat intelleges. Et de Romulo: Qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum, ad Deos immortales benevolentiâ famae sustulimus. Haec citat Augustinus l. I de cons. Euang. c. XXIII. Huic addam Gentium scriptorum facile antiquissimum, Sanconiathon. Ex quo Beatus Cyrillus l. VI. cont. Jul. p. CCV. haec verba citat: [...]. Vetustissimi Graeco­rum, sed maximè Phaenices & Aegyptii, à quibus reliqui quasi per manus accepe­runt, Deos Maximos arbitrati sunt, qui res vitae utiles invenissent, aut benè de gentibus aliquo modo meriti fuissent. Notentur illa verba: Maximos Deos. Nec enim Heroes, aut Daemones five Dii minorum Gentium aut inter summum Deum & homines, mediatores, tantum habiti fuerunt, qui de Gentibus benè meriti fuissent (quod ait D. Morlaeus) sed maximi Dii, Dii majorum gentium, Dii ipsi primi, Iupiter, apollo, &c.

Aristophanes in Avibus, ait & has, & animalia Diis omnibus an­tiquiora esse.

Diodorus siculus fuse probat Graecos omnes suos ab Aegyptiis Deos accepisse, eosque veros fuisse homines.

Alexander Magnus peculiari libro ad matrem suam misso refert, se ab Aegyptio quodam Sacerdote minis adhibitis didicisse, quod omnes Dii, quos eo tempore Pagani colebant, homines fuissent. Hujus libri ab Alexandro missi testes habemus Athenagoram leg. pro Christi. p. XXXI. Cypr. I. de Idol. vanitate & Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei c. XXVII. & l. I. de consensu Euangel. c. XXIII. qui addit Sacerdoti no­men fuisse Leonta.

Tacitus l. XV. Annalium in fine: Deûm honor Principi non ante habetur, quam agere inter homines desierit. Unde constat Deum habitum ubi mor­tuus esset. Hoc forte Romae fuit observatum, ut non nisi post fata [Page 81]colerentur divinis honoribus: non tamen ubique id obtinuit, aut sal­tem non semper. Constat enim Nabuchodonosor superstitem, statuam suam & confici curasse, & erigi, & adorari. Dan. III. De quo sulpi­tius Severus l. II. historiae: Nabuchodonosor elatus rebus secundis, statuam sibi auream immensa magnitudinis posuit, adorarique eam, ut sacram effigiem pracepit. Tametsi enim hae defunctis solis ut plurimùm starnerentur, tamen Ambitione & pravorum Adulatione, corrupta hominum inge­nia, ut idem vivis fieret effecerunt. Quod ait Isidorus Pelusiota l. II. Epist. CLXXVII. ad Theodotum Praesbyterum. Et quid est quod non cadat in hominis Animum superbiâ tumidum Adulantium laudibus corruptum, cum ut ait Juvenalis Satyrâ IV.

Nihil est, quod credere de se
Non possit, cum laudatur, Diis aequa potestas,

De omnibus indiscriminatim Gentilibus hactenus locuti fuimus: eosque ostendimus homines, pro Diis coluisse. Superest aliquid di­camus de Philosophis, de quibus peculiaris est difficultas, quòd igno­rare non possent falsa esse, quae de hominibus in Deos translatis vul­gabantur in plebe, cantabantur in Theatris, colebantur in Templis: Haec ipsi cum plausu ridebant in suis classibus. Verum non impune risissent in Templis, quod ex Socratis fato apparet. Fateor itaque eos Deum verum cognovisse, non tamen ut Deum coluisse, atque glorifi­casse, neque gratias egisse; sed evanuisse in suis cogitationibus, & stultos factos esse. Quod ex Apostolo didici. Constat Socratem licet ob unius Dei assertionem morti fuisset adjudicatus jam jam animam efflantem Gal­lum Aesculapio vovisse. Tantam apud illum vim habuit inolitus error, pravâ consuetudine diuturnâ confirmatus.

Romani lege latâ Poëtarum quidlibet de Diis commentantium li­centiam coërcere conati sunt. Sed frustrà: nam plus valuit, ad eam re­tinendam superstitio inveterata, ab ipsis, quos colebant Diis fota, quam ullae leges ad eam coercendam, obstantibus tum malorum ho­minum studiis, tum pessimorum daemonum artibus, maximam in iis fabulis ad corrumpendos mores (quod unicè optant) vim inesse pro­bè scientium quia ut ait Augustinus l. II. de Civ. Dei c. VII. Omnes [Page 82]cultores talium Deorum magis incuentur, quid Iupiter fecerit, quam quid docue­rit Plato, vel consuerit Cato. Cujus rei luculentum habemus exemplum in Eunucho Terentii.

Ut tandem rei versatis in Gentilium, aut Antiquorum Patrum scriptis evidentissimae illustrandae finem faciam. Capitolium appello, summi inter Gentiles numinis, domicilium, Jovis O.M. Sedem, Ar­cemque. Quid illa Jovis domus de habitatore suo nobis narrat, nisi hominem fuisse? Illic religiose servabatur Jovis Scutum, quod Aegida vocabant, caprae, quae Jovem parvulum lactaverat pelle tectum. Ca­pra etiam illa locum ibi habuit, Amalthea dicta. Quid de Iove senserunt, qui ejus nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Ait Augustinus l. VI. de Civ. Dei c. VII. Erant ibi ulteriùs Iuno, & Minerva, Conjux, Soroque. & filia Iovis. Numquid & Capitolia Romanorum, opera sunt Poëtarum? Aio cum Augusti­no, lib. I. de Cons. Euang. c. XXIII. Quid sibi vult ista non Poëtica, sed planè inimica vartetas, Deos secundum Philosophos in libris quaerere, secundum Poëtas in Templis adorare? Haec Augustinus. Haec confirmant quae supra di­xi, nullam fuisse Religionem Philosophicam, quia in Templis sola Poëti­ca, quae etiam civilis erat, dominabatur.

Frustra proinde jactabant Philosophi se unum Deum colere sub Io­vis nomine, illum Optimum & Maximum esse, cui Augustas Sedes, & Ca­pitolia constituerunt immania. Dissimilia quippe copulare atque in unam speciem inductâ confusione cogere conabantur, ait Arnobius lib. I. Nam Deus omnipo­tens mente unâ omnium, & communi mortalitatis (mortalium hominum) as­sensu, noque genitus scitur. neque novam in lucem aliquando esse prolatus nec ex aliquo tempore caepisse esse, vel seculo. Ipse est enim fons rerum, sator saculorum, ac temporum. Non enim ipsa porse sunt; sed ex ejus perpetuitate perpetuâ, & infinitâ semper continuatione procedunt. At vero Iupiter (ut vos fertis) & Pa­trem habuit, & Matrem, avos, avias, fratres: nunc nuper in utero matris suae formatus, absolutus mensibus, & consummatus docem, ignotam sibi in lucem sensu irruisse vitali. Ergo si hac ita sunt, Iupitor esse Deus, qui potest? Cum illum, Deum, esse perpetuum constet: & perhibeatur à vobis alter & dies habuisse na­tales, & pavefactus re novâ lamentabilem edidisse vagitum?

Aequè apparet illa contradictio in Virgilio limati judicii viro, & [Page 83]alioqui Decori observantissimo: qui lib. IX. Georgicorum de Apibus ait:

— Naturas Apibus, quas Iupiter ipse
Addidit, expediam, pro quâ mercede canoros
Curetum sonitus crepitantiaque ara secutae
Dictaeo caeli Regem pavêre sub Antro.

Ecce clarè dicit caeli Regem in Dictaei montis antro delituisse, quo scili­cet, Saturni Patris faedam ingluviem devitaret: illic ab Apibus nutri­tum, earum labore, & argumentosâ industriâ. Quibus in praemium obsequii in tantis angustiis arque periculis constituto impensi, hanc ipsam idolem indidierit. Quid hic aliud dicere possumus, videndo homines alioqui sapientes adeo desipuisse, quàm Deo gratias habere, qui per filium suum nos verae sapientiae semitas edocere dignatus est, & fidei lumine inter caecos errorum ambages gressus nostros diri­gere.

Denique, nisi dicamus omnes Gentilium Deos homines fuisse, & quidem pessimos, quâ ratione Patres omnes omnesque primi, & trium sequentium saeculorum Christiànos, ab horribili blasphemiâ vindica­bimus, qui Deos Paganorum, de Furto, Adulterio, Homicidio, Par­ricidio, Incestu, aliisque criminibus accusarunt? Caduntne ista in Deum verum? Possuntne ei sine execrandâ blasphemiâ exprobrari? Exprobrarunt tamen omnes Christiani Diis Gentilium, ipsi nomina­tim Jovi, quem tu, mi Morlaec, ais esse Deum verum. Nec patet ex iis Christianis ullum inventum fuisse qui tam detestandam calum­niam, flammis ultricibus expiandam retractârit unquam, aut de eâ Poenitentiam egerit; sed quam voce, & calamo viventes instituerunt accusationem, eam morientes sanguine suo obsignarunt. Vae Cypria­no, vae Cyrillo, vae Augustino, Justino Martyri, Arhobio Athenago­rae, Theophilo Antiocheno, aliisque, qui Gentilium impugnarunt Deos, & Catholica adversus eos dogmata desenderunt, siquidem gra­vissimae calumniae rei in impoenitentiâ finali infelices animas exhala­runt aeternis flammis cruciandas. Sed absit quidquam mali de Bea­tis illis animabus Deo fruentibus suspicemur, quorum Sanctitatem [Page 84]orbis Suffragiis, Deus miraculis declaravit, confirmavitque. Falsissima proinde sunt, Doctissime Morlaee, pace tuâ dictum sit, & à veritate, alienissima, quae de Summo supremoque Gentilium Deo tradis. Paganotum Religio circa mortuorum cultum versabatur: Verus Deus ab eorum Templis, perinde ac à Ritibus, à Sacris libris, à Poëtarum fabulis, ab impudicis ludis, exulabat.

SECTIO XVII. Gentiles Daemonibus divinum cultum exhibuerunt.

IN Theatris, in Sacris. in ipsis Templorum adytis eam erat inveni­re impietatem, quae non solum à Deo, aut Angelis, sive Beatis ho­minum animabus, aut etiam hominibus probis, & honestis; sed ne qui­dem à damnatis hominibus, quantumvis in malo obduratis, proficisci posse videatur, qua ratione colligunt Patres fuisse malos daemones, qui adorabantur. Si enim verum sit, quod refert Christus Domini (& quis sine impietate negabit verum esse) Divitem Epulonem in in­ferno sepultum, ab aliquo ab inferis reverso, fratres suos superstites de periculoso in quo erant statu, tam ferventer optasse admoneri, ne ipsi in locum illum tormentorum venirent; ob aliquem residuum in eo erga fratres naturalem affectum non penitus in morte extinctum: quidni dicere licebit restare in animabus damnatis non nihil naturalis affectus in homines superstites, qui tametsi non efficiat, ut illis salu­tem plenam aut etiam piam vitam optent; segniores tamen efficit & tardiores, ad pravos mores fovendos. Quae verò facta fuerunt à Gen­tilium Diis, talia sunt, quae non videantur fieri posse, nisi ab eo, qui cùm Deo summe bono similis esse ambiret, nec assequi posset, primus in malis, mali omnis fons & origo factus est, & quam Deus habet in Bonitate, ipse in malo infinitatem affectat habere. Nec solus ita cen­seo: si quidem & alii Patres idem dixerunt? Athenagoras leg. pro Christianis p. XXIX. [...]. [Page 85] Dii illi, qui vulgo hominum placent, & sua statuis nomina communicant, ut ex ipsorum historiis constat, homines fuerunt. Qui verè hominum illorum sibi no­men assumunt, daemones sunt, ut ex eorum Actionibus apparet. Actiones ergo illae quarum Auctores fautoresque erant Gentilium Dii, tales erant, ut nequidem à malis damnatorum spiritibus prodire possent, ex mente Athenagorae, qui in hoc non est solus.

Tertullianus daemones, male scilicet, asserit à Paganis adoratos fuisse, idque ex eorummet confessione probat. Datur hic aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, inquit, Apologetici c. XXIII. Quem à daemone agi constet, jussus à quolibet Christiano loqui spiritus ille tam se Daemonem confite­bitur, de vero, quam alibi Deum de falso. Aequè producatur aliquis ex iis, qui de Deo pati existimantur nisi se daemones confessi fuerint, Christiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius procacissimi Christiani sanguinem fundite. Quid isto ope­re manifestius? quid hac probatione fidelius? simplicitas veritatis in medio est, virtus illi sua assistit.... si alterâ parte verè Dii sunt, cur sese daemonia men­tiuntur? an ut nobis obsequantur? Iam ergo subjecta Christianis Divinitas ve­stra, nec Divinitas deputanda est, quae subdita est homini, & si quid ad Decus fa­cit, aemulis suis. Si alterâ parte daemones sunt (nempe boni) vel Angeli, cur se alibi pro Diis agere respondent?.... Cum ergo utraque pars concurrit in con­fessionem, Deos esse negans, agnoscite unum genus esse, id est daemones, nimirum malos.

Origenes l. VIII, contra Celsum, post principium: Id dicimus ubique, gentium Deos esse daemones.

Minutius Felix: Haec omnia sciunt plerique pars vestrum, ipsos daemones de semetipsis confiteri, quoties à nobis tormentis verborum, & orationis incendiis de obsessis corporibus exiguntur. ipse Saturnus, & Serapis, & JUPITER, & quidquid daemonum colitis, victi dolore, quod sunt eloquuntur. Nec utique in tur­pitudinem sui. nonnullis praesertim vestrum assistentibus mentiuntur. Ipsis testi­bus esse eos daemones de se verum confitentibus credite: adjurati enim per Deum verum, & solum, invisi, miseri, &c.

Julius Firmicus: Ecce daemon est: quem colis, cum Dei, & Christi ejus no­men audierit contremiscit.

Cyrillus Alex. l. VI. contra Julianum, pag. CCII. Licet hodieque vi­dere Sanctos, ac venerabiles viros in virtute Christi por Spiritum sanctum impu­ros daemones incropare, & quos illi, Pagani Deos, ac servatores esse credunt, orationis virtute conterere, & manus contactu cruciare.

Gregorius Thaumaturgus teste altero Gregorio Nysseno nullis exorcismis solo verbodaemones, sive Deos Gentilium abigebat. Unde secuta unius sacrificuli conversio sanè notabilis, ut apud eundem Nyssenum videre est.

Eusebius l. III. de Demonst. Euang. c. VIII. Quis ignorat, inquit, nostrae consuetudinis esse, ipso Iesu nomins, & purissimis precibus omnem daemo­num vexationem abigere? sic ipsius Iesu verbum, ejusdemque doctrina isto pote­statis invisibilis genere, ut omnes nos longè potentiores essemus effecit: Daemonum itaque hostes, & inimicos; non autem familiares, & amicos nos reddens. Haec Eu­sebius calumniam diluens ab Ethnicis in Christianos confictam, quasi demonum ope mirabilia facerent, & diabolicâ magiâ grassarentur. Confutat autem illud Gentilium mendacium, ostendendo Christia­nos ea facere, non orando, daemonibusve supplicando, quod mago­rum est; sed imperando virtute divinitus acceptâ.

Adde Prudentium in Apotheosi.

— Torquetur Apollo
Nomine percussus Christi, nec fulmina verbi
Ferre potest, agitant miserum tot verbera linguae
Quot laudata Dei resonant miracula Christi.
Intonat Antistes Domini: fuge callide serpens,
Exue te membris, & spiras solve latentes.
Mancipium Christi fur corruptissime vexas?
Desino, Christus adest humani Corporis ultor.
Non licet ut spatium rapias, cui Christus inhaesit.
Pulsus abi ventose liquor, Christus jubet, exi.
Has inter voces medias Cyllenius ardens
Ejulat, & notos suspirat Iupiter ignes.

Cyprianus omitti non debet cujus haec sunt verba, l. ad Demetria­num. Osi audire eos velles, & videre, quando à nobis adjurantur, & torquentur [Page 87]spiritualibus flagris, & verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes & gementes voce humanâ, & potestate divinâ flagella & verbe­ra sentientes, venturum judicium confitentur. Veni, & cognosce, vera esse, quae dici­mus. Et quia sic Deos colere te dicis, crede; aut si volueris & tibi credore, de teipso loquetur, audiente te, qui nunc pectus tuum obsedit, qui nunc mentem tuam igno­rantiae nocte cacavit. Videbis sub manu nostrâ stare vinctos, & tremere captivos, quos tu suspicis, ac veneraris, ut Dominos. Certè vel sic confundi in istis errori­bus tuis poteris, quando conspexeris & audieris Deos tuos, quid sint, interrogatio­ne nostrâ statim prodere, & praesentibus licet vobis, praestigias illas, & fallacias suas non posse celare. Haec Cyprianus.

Non igitur Heroes erant, id est animae praestantiorum hominum, aut eorum, qui supra communem hominum sortem seliciori geniturâ eminuerant in hac vitâ, quos Pagani colebant ut Deos, quique vel in statuis oracula edebant, vel Energumenorum corpora torquebant, sed veri Caco-Daemones, veri Diaboli, veri nequam Spiritus. Etiam ipse Iupiter ille Deûm Pater, atque hominum Rex; quem disertè nominant Minutius, & Prudentius: alii subintelligunt, & in generali proposi­tione exprimunt.

Obiter observari velim singulare donum, potestatem humanâ ma­jorem à Deo concessam fidelibus omnibus & singulis in impurissimos illos Ethnicorum Deos quae jam unisacrorum ministrorum ordini so­lemni inauguratione confertur. Exorcistas intelligo. De hoc fortè a­liqua dicern us in Appendice.

Quod in hac Sectione contendimus, Augustinus triplici argumen­to probat, scilicet, malos Daemones fuisse quos Ethnici coluerunt ut Deos. Primum habetur lib. I. de consensu Evang. ca. XXV. Gentilium Deus non prohibebat ullum aliū Deum coli, praeter verum Deum; & verus Deus eos omnes adorari vetuit. Iupiter ait Augustin. non prohibet Saturnum coli, quem regno exuerat, nec Saturnus Iovem. Saltem Vulcanus prohi­beret coli Martem uxoris suae adulterum: Hercules Iunonem persecutricem suam, (quod tamen non faciunt) Quae ista inter eos est tam faeda confensio, ut nec Diana virgo casta coli prohibeat, non dicam Vencrem; sed Priapum?.... dicant, quod placet, interpretentur quod sapiunt, dum tamen omnia eorum argumenta [Page 88]perturbat Deus Israel. Qui cum illos omnes coli vetuerit,... eorumque simula­chris, & sacris, eversionem praeceperit, praedixerit, & secerit, satis ostendit illos falsos atque fallaces, & se esse verum, ac ver acem Deum.

Secundum ejusdem argumentum habetur l. II. de Civ. Dei c. IV. ubi cum retulisset obscaena Carmina quae in honorem Matris Deo­rum cantari solebant, qualia nemo mentis compos coram Matre suâ proferret: addit: Quae sunt sacrilegia, si ista sunt saecra? aut quae inquinatio, si illa lavatio? & hac fercula appellabantur, quasi celebraretur convivium, quo velut suis epulis immunda daemonia pascerentur. Quis enim non sentiat, cujus­modi spiritus talibus obscaenitatibus delectentur: nisi vel nesciens utrum omnino sint ulli immundi spiritus, Deorum nomine decipientes, vel talem agens vitam, in quâ istos potius quam Deum verum, & optet propitios, & formidet iratos? De­inde c. V. sacrorum eidem Deûm Matri factorum faedam obscaenita­tem refert, &c. VIII Scenicorum Ludorum turpitudinem. Denique c. XIII, probat Deos esse non posse, qui tam turpia in suis sacris im­perabant.

Denique l. X. operis mox laudati, cap. XVI, probat eos nullo modo bonos spiritus esse posse, qui divinos honores sibi exhiberi curabant, & à veri Dei cultu, imò & cognitione homines, quantum fieri pote­rat, abducebant. Hoc autem fecerunt illi nequam spiritus. Quo ar­gumento usus est etiam est Cyrillus l. IV. cont. Jul. p. CXXXI. Homines abduxerunt, inquit, ne omnino cognoscerent, quis naturâ, ac verè universorum opifex sit, ac Dominus: sibi autem honores arripiunt ab Omnibus, sacrificia, fe­stos dies, hominibusque persuaserunt, ut ipsorum cultui tantum incumberent. Ef­fectus apparuit in Israëlitis qui Judic. III. 7. dicuntur obliti Dei sui, co­lentes Baalim, & Astaroth.

Ex sacris Litteris confirmabimus ea, quae hactenus ex Patribus, & rationibus Theologicis asseruimus. Ps. XC. v. 5. Omnes Dii Gentiū daemonia. Deinde Psal. cv. 37. Immolaverunt filios suos, & filias daemoniis. Et Deut. XXXII. 17. Immolaverunt daemoniis, & non Deo, Diis, quos ignorabant: no­vi recentesque venerunt (scilicet Dii) quos non coluerunt Patres eorum. Et v. 21. Ipsi me provocaverunt in eo, qui non erat Deus. Illum scilicet Deo vero praeferentes & v. 37. Vbi sunt Diieorum, in quibus habebant fiduciam? [Page 89]De quorum victimis comedebant adipes, & bibebant vinum libaminum. Surgant, & opitulentur vobis, & in necessitate vos protegant. Videte, quod ego sim solus, & non sit alius Deus praeter me. Baruch. IV, 7. Exacerbatis eum, qui fecit vos Deum aeternum, immolantes daemoniis, & non Deo. Haec ex veteri Testamen­to. Ex novo aequè clara habentur. Rom. 1. dicitur quod Philosophi non coluerint Deum. 1. Cor. X. 20. Quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immo­lant, & non Deo. Et Galat. IV. 8. Tunc quidem ignorantes Deum, iis, qui naturâ non sunt Dii serviebatis. Haec Spiritus sancti verba quomodo cum tuo paradoxo conciliabis, clarissime Morlaee? Pronunciat Spiritus sanctus omnes Deos Gentium esse daemonia: Tu asseveras praecipuum eorum Deum non fuisse daemonem. Spiritus sanctus ait Gentiles immolavisse daemoniis, & non Deo; tu dicis Deo immolavisse. Ille dicit: Idololatras novos Deos recentesque coluisse, quos non coluerunt Patres eorum. Tu dicis eos Antiquum, & aeternum Deum coluisse, quem ab initio coluerant eo­rum Patres. Ille denique affirmat Gentiles eos coluisse, qui naturâ non sunt Dii; tu dicis eos illum qui naturâ Deus est, adorasse. Haec, si So­phistarum in Logicâ regulae subsistant, cum contradictoria sint, vera simul esse non possunt: quare aliae propositiones sunt necessariò fal­sae, aliae verae, Tuum erit videre, an malis agnoscere te errasse, & ve­ritati à Spiritu sancto revelatae subscribere, ejuratâ temerariâ tuâ as­sertione; an verò eâ retentâ falsi crimen in Spiritum sanctum reji­cere.

Vides, Amplissime Morlaee, quam difficilem in te Provinciam ul­trò susceperis, Probandi Paganos, Deum verum, ut omnium bonorum largitorem adorasse: daemones ab iis cultos ut Mediatores, Intercessores, & Patronos. Ethnicos id tantum petiisse, ab istis, ut suas Deo vero pre­ces offerrent, quod fit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, in cultu Angelorum, & Sanctorum. Ostende si potes ex ullo rituali Paganico, orationes Hae­roibus hoc modo conceptos: Hercules ora pro nobis: Romule, sive Quirine intercede pro nobis apud Iovem, ut tuis precibus placatus, victoriam ipse nobis largiatur. Profer tabulas, exhibe testimonia, lege nobis vel has, vel his similes, aut similem sensum exhibentes preces, & rem feceris tuâ eru­ditione, & nostrâ consideratione dignissimam. Sed frust à haec à te [Page 90]expectamus, quae dari non possunt, quia neque sunt neque unquam fuerunt in rerum naturâ.

Jam tempus est, prolixae disputationi finem imponam; quam idcir­eò prolixiorem esse permisi, quia de rebus agit à communi, tritâ que Scholarum viâ remotis. Semel fundamenta jacere debui, quibus re­liqua securè nitantur. Jam expeditiores ad alia transimus.

SECTIO XVIII. Sanctorum Invocatio in Ecclesiá Romanâ differt à daemonum cultu inter Ethnicos.

D. Morlaeus p. 22. Cultus daemonibus exhibitus, erat illorum Invocatio, in Imaginibus veneratio, Templorum, & Altarium dedicatio, vocorum in morbis, & perioulis nuncupatio, Tabularum votivarum & donariorum post de­funct a pericula in delubris eorum suspensio, denique ad loca, quae illis sacra & ma­ximè chara esse existimabantur, Peregrinatio.

Et vide quaeso an non haec omnia eodem nomine, in honorem Sanctorum, & Angelorum; sed rovera in contumeliam Dei & Christi, à Christianis nunc fiant?

Resp. Ita pridem omnia benè perpendimus: vidimus quidquid in honorem Sanctorum, aut vivorum, aut etiam mortuorum, & Ange­lorum fit, nihilque illic observavimus, in Dei, aut Christi ejus contu­meliam à nobis fieri, è contra cuncta in Dei gloriam cedere certi su­mus: urpote, qui Deum in Sanctis colimus, illius dona in illis vene­ramur, cum illorum precibus nostras unà Deo exhiberi post ulamus, atque ut exaudiantur, oramus, per Christum Dominum nostrum: & si quid fuerit impetratum, Deo id acceptum ferimus, illique per eundem Chri­stum Dominum nostrum Gratias habemus. Haec dicis esse in Deum con­tumeliosa? Quare sic? ex vestris nullus hactenus inventus est tam du­rae frontis, ut dicat Paulum contumeliâ Christum affecisse, dum Ro­manos, dum Hebraeos, Thessalonicenses, Philemonem, alios, ut pro [Page 91]se orarent, oravit, locis supra laudatis. Quod si sejungi possint, & de fa­cto separentur à Dei, Christique contumeliâ preces sanctis in hac vitâ mortali degentibus oblatae, cur necessariò conjunctam habebunt u­triusque contumeliam, illae quae Sanctis cum Deo regnantibus offe­runtur? siquidem utrique (aut ut melius dicam iidem in diverso sta­tu) considerantur, ut à peccatis puri, ut Sancti, ut Dei servi, ut Deo grati, ut ejus amici, apud eum potenies, ei familiares, &c: quos liben­ter audit, quorum orationes amanter excipit, in quorum gratiam mul­ta largitur, alioqui neganda. Et has Sanctorum prae aliis praerogativas à Solâ Dei misericordiâ profectas agnoscimus, absque qua forent, non magis ipsi, quam quilibet è Peccatorum grege. Deo grati, ne­que suis nos precibus possent sublevare. Quae in his omnibus Dei, quae Christi contumelia vel singi potest, cum omnia à Dei Gratiâ per Christi merita proficiscantur, & ad Dei, & Christi ejus laudem & ho­norem tendant, & in eo conquiescant, Deus sit A. & Ω. Principium & finis omnium?

Sed Manichaeos in hac accusatione imitaris, optime Morlaee, qui, teste Augustino l. XX. contra Faustum cap. XX. & duobus sequentibus, nihilà Christianis fieri volebant, quod fuisset à Paganis factum. Un­de sequeretur, ait optimè sanctus Doctor, nec virginitatem servari oportere, quam Vestales observarunt, nec tectis, vestibus, lavacris, conjugio, terrae fructibus, cibo, potuve, utendum esse, quoniam his omnibus Pagani sunt usi. Quae sequela adeo absurda est, ut id expo­fuisse sufficiat. Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. Sic fecêre Manichaei. Hoc vero adeo est contra mentem S. Augustini, ut nequi­dem ipsa Gentilium sacrificia damnet, nisi propter adjunctam cir­cumstantiam objecti, quod respiciebant: & insuper eam fuisse Pauli mentem asseverat. Haec ejus sunt verba cap. XVIII, libri supra lau­dati. Dicit Apostolus: Quae immolant Gentes, daemoniis immolant, & non Deo: Non quod offerebatur culpans; sed quia illis offerebatur. Unde dedu­cit, non ideo repudianda sacrificia, Deo offerenda quia Gentiles suos falsos Deos, Judaei Deum verum illis coluissent: res bonas non illico malas evadere, quia pravum in sinem ab aliquibus adhibentur, inde­que [Page 92]malus siat illarum usus; sed ille fine seposito licitum esse illa­rum usum. Consonat Hieronymus lib. contra Vigilant. cap. III. ubi huic, argumentum tuum, urgenti, respondet: Illud fiebat Idolis, & idcircò detestandum; Hoc fit Martyribus, & idcircò recipiendum.

Talia sunt, quae à te recensentur, iis coloribus praeteritos Genti­lium mores astutè repraesentante, ut praxeos hodiernae Catholicorum imaginem velle facere videaris, malignè suppresso mali fonte, un­de quidquid à Paganis fiebat, inficiebatur, quod scilicet omnia illa daemoniis facerent; & non Deo, & quidem sistendo in eis, quasi veri Dii essent, vera numina. Hoc patet ex Sec. XVIII. Ce­terum quo majus verbis meis pondus accedat, ea Patrum testi­moniis confirmabo. Vnde patebit ulterius non aliam esse primi­tivae Ecclesiae, aliam hodiernae praxim; sed unam eandemque.

Augustinus lib. XX, contra Faustum cap. XXI. Nobis calumniatur Faustus, Morlaeus, quod Martyrum memorias honoremus, in hos dicens nos Idola convertisse. Haec est objectio tua. En solutio. Populus Christianus memorias Martyrum religiosâ celebritate concelebrat, & ad excitandam imita­tionem, & ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus adjuvetur, ita ta­men, ut nulli Martyrum; sed ipsi Deo Martyrum sacrificemus, quamvis in memorias Martyrum constituamus altaria. Quis enim Antistitum in locis Sanctorum Corporum assistens Altari aliquando dixit: offerimus tibi Petre, aut Paule, aut Cypriane; sed quod offertur, offertur Deo, qui Martyres corona­vit, ut ex ipsorum locorum admonitione, major affectus exurgat, ad acuendam charitatem, & in illos, quos imitari possumus, & in illum, quo adjuvante possumus.

Et lib. VIII, de Civit. Dei cap. XXVII, ait: Epulas, quae deferun­tur ad memorias Martyrum, non esse sacrificia, novit, qui novit unum, quod illic Deo offertur sacrifictum Christianorum. Nos itaque Martyres nostros nec divinis honoribus, nec humanis criminibus colimus, sicut colunt illi (Pagani) Deos suos: nec sacrificia illis offerimus, nec eorum probra, in eorum sacra con­vertimus. Haec ex Augustino.

Eo senior Hieronymus Epist. lib. III. ad Riparium acerrimè inve­hitur in Vigilantium, qui Catholicos vocabat Cinerarios, & Idololatras [Page 93](quod tu facis) quia Martyrum ossa venerarentur. Nos, inquit, non dico Martyrum Reliquias; sed ne solem quidem, non Lunam, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubim, non Seraphim, & omne nomen, quod nominatur & in praesenti saeculo & in futuro, eolimus, & adoramus (videlicet cultu La­triae) ne serviamus creaturae, potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Honoramus autem Reliquias Martyrum, ut eum, cujus sunt Martyres, ad­oremus; honoramus Servos ut Servorum honor redundet in Dominum, qui ait: qui vos suscipit, me suscipit.

Et lib. adversus Vigilantium; cap. III. Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum vivimus, mutuò pro nobis orare possumus, post quam autem mortui fuerimus, nullius sit pro alio exaudienda oratio, praesertim cum Martyres ultionem sui san­guinis obsecrantes, impetrare non quiverint. Si Apostoli, & Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro caeteris, quando pro se debent esse soliciti, quantò magis post coronas, victorias, triumphos? Non opus erit attentum Lectorem admonere, non solùm summam esse conformitatem, Vigi­lantii doctrinam inter, & modernorum haereticorum; sed etiam eodem prorsus telo instructos in arenam adversus Ecclesiam descendisse: unde patet similiter summam esse conformitatem, imo & identita­tem inter Catholicorum hujus saeculi, doctrinam, & eam quae Hiero­nymi aetate trade batur in Ecclesiâ.

Quod vero non sit Martyribus subtrahendus ille cultus, quia Idolis aliquid ejusmodi fiebat, docet his verbis: Idololatras appellas ejusmodi bo­mines. Non diffiteor omnes nos, qui in Christo credimus, de Idololatriae errore venisse, non enim nascimur; sed renascimur Christiani. Et quia quondam cole­bamus Idola, nunc Deum colere non debemus, ne simili eum honore videamur cum Idolis venerari. Illud fiebat Idolis, & idcircò detestandum: hoc fit Martyribus, & idcirco recipiendum est.

Eusebius lib. IV. hist. c. XV. habet Epistolam Ecclesiae Smyrnensis, in qua cum Judaei ob honorem B. Polycarpo delarum, suspicarentur Christianos Christum deserturos, & Polycarpo adhaesuros, ostendunt fideles aliter se Christum Martyrum caput, ac Dominum, aliter Mar­tyres Christi servos venerari.

Deinde cum Julianus Apostata Christianis exprobrasser, quod re­lictis [Page 94]Diis gentium homines miseros & infelices colerent) de Christo Domino & Martyribus ita loquitur, quia aerumnosam vitam probro­sa secundum mundum morte consummarunt) B. Cyrillus l. VI. cont. Julia. p. CCIII respondit, nos absolutè Christum adorare, quod sit verus Dei filius, verusque Deus. Et addit: Sanctos Martyres neque Deos esse dicimus, neque divino cultu illos adorare solemus; sed affectus & honoris: quin potius summis honoribus illos ornamus, quod pro veritate strenuè certave­rint, sinceritatemque fidei eo usque servarint ut animam ipsam contempserint, repudiatisque mortis terroribus periculum omne vicerint, & virtutis adeo mira­bilis seipsos veluti quasdam imagines, vitae hominum proposuerint. Quare nihil est absurdi, imo verò necesse erat, eos qui tam claris facinorihus excelluerunt, ornari perpetuis honoribus.

Theodoretus saepe de cultu Martyribus exhibito loquitur, semper piè, & Catholicè. Ad propositum faciunt quae habet lib. VIII. de cur. Graec. Affect. Victorum Martyrum templa clara, & conspicua cernuntur, inquit, magnitudine praestantia, & omni ornatus genere illustria. Neque ad haec nos semel, bisve, aut quinquies quotannis accedimus; fed frequentes conventus celebramus: saepe etiam diebus singulis horum Domino laudes decantamus, & qui integrâ sunt valetudine, hanc sibi conservari, qui autem morbo quopiam con­flictantur, hunc depelli petunt. Petunt & liberos, qui his carent, & quae steriles sunt, rogant, ut matres fiant: qui donum adepti sunt, salvam id sibi servari postulant. Qui peregrinationem auspicantur aliquam ab his petunt, ut viae sibi comites sint, ducesque itineris: qui sospites redierunt, gratias referunt. Non il­los adeuntes ut Deos; sed canquam Divinos homines eos orantes, intercessoresque sibi ut esse velint, postulantes. Quod verò votorum Compotes fiant, qui sideliter pe­tunt, palam testantur illorum donaria, curationem indicantia. Alii enim oculorum, alii pedum, alii manuum simulachra suspendunt, ex Argento aurove confecta.

Vides doctissime Morlaee quae nunc fiunt in honorem Martyrum, etiam olim facta fuisse: hodiernam Ecclesiam priscae vestigia preme­re, nec latum ab iis unguem discedere; nec auctum tanti temporis decursu cultum Martyribus exhibitum; sed in eodem gradu haerere: adeo religiosè servat Ecclesia mores antiquos, & Patrum Traditio­nes. Quod constat ex illis Theodoreti verbis. Quid enim in nostro [Page 95]cultu reprehendis, quod illa non exhibeant? Martyrum Invocationem? Invocarunt & illi fideles. Votorum in morbis & periculis nuncupationem? Nuncuparunt, & illi, & votorum compotes fiebant. Templorum & Altarium dedicationem? Dedicarunt & illi, & quidam clara, conspicua, ingentia, or­natissima. Donariorum suspensionem? Suspenderunt & illi, & quidem Pre­tiosa, ex auro argentove confecta. Peregrinationem ad eorum templa? Olim illuc quotannis saepè redibant Christiani. Ab his denique non tan­quam à Diis; sed tanquam ab hominibus Deo gratis, petebant infirmi sanitatem, orbi Liberos, Peregrini tutamen, qui his potiebantur, ea sibi servari postulabant. Quid amplius, quid aliud, facimus nos? Illa communis erat Ecclesiae Praxis, ab omnibus bonis approbata, quam Deus miraculis editis sibi gratam esse testatus est, Ecclesia pro­bavit; nemo verò integrae famae damnavit. Tales enim non sunt, aut Vigilantius, aut Faustus Manichaeus, saeculorum suorum probra: Ex quibus nihil quod ad contrariae sententiae ornandam novitatem, fucan­dam impietatem faciat, adduci potest.

D. Morlaeus p. 45. Historia Religiosa, sive Patrum, non est Theodoreti quia narrat mortem Simeonis, ante quem Theodoretus obiit, teste Baronio. Sed nec liber de curandis Graecorum Affectionibus, quia Nicephorus illius non meminit, in ope­rum Theodoreti catalogo.

Resp. Agnosco hie genuinam Calvini prolem, Calvini spiritu tur­gidam: cujus est, ubi vi illatâ scripta aliqua in proprium sensum torqueri possunt, suis ea permittere Auctoribus, calamo correcta, id est perversa. Ubi corrigi nolunt Scalpello ex operibus illius Aucto­ris abscindere, & opera ipsa illis abjudicare. Historiae Patrum Theo­doreti esse testatur Nicephorus à te laudatus, l. XI. c. XLI, & lib. XIV, c. LIX, sed & ipse Theodoretus eam, veluti suum opus citat in hi­storiâ Eccles. l. I. c. VII, & l. II, c. XXX, & lib. III, c. XXIV, & lib. IV, c. XXV, &c. XXVII, ejusdem etiam meminit idem Theodoretus in E­pist. ad Eusebium Ancyranum. At narrat Simeonis mortem inquis, quem teste Baron. Superstitem reliquit, moriens. Respondeo, si id ve­rum est, & non hoc etiam Calvini spiritu dicatur, malim dicere de alio Simeone loqui, aut non satis rem istam examinasse Baronium, [Page 96]quàm falsum Theodoretum, opus pro suo agnoscentem, quod ipsius non erat. Maximè cum idem incommodum sequatur, si alteri tri­buatur. Quia Theodoreti tempore extitisse eum, qui scripsit istam hi­storiam, nemo negabit, qui scierit ab ipso citatam. Hinc achronismus idem est, sive Theodoretus, sive alius illius Auctor asseratur.

Liber de Cur. Graecorum Affect. Theodoreti est, 1, quia idem pror­sus est illius, & aliorum ejus operum stylus. 2, quia eodem Scriptus est tempore, quo Theodoretus floruit: quia ait se cognovisse eos, qui Julianum Apostatam vidissent: & meminit persecutionis ante XXX. annos in Perside excitatae: & l. V, Eccles. hist. c. XXXVIII, idem tem­pus illi Persecutioni designat. 3. quia in quo vixit Auctor hujus libri Theodoreto convenit: quia libro, sive Sermone v. Nomades Israëli­tas, aut Arabes, vicinos suos vocat: Cyrus autem, cujus ipse Episco­pus fuit in Persidis finibus, non procul ab Arabibus sita erat. 4. ipse Theodoretus librum hunc suum esse testatur & epistolâ CXIII, ad S. Leonem: & quaestione I. in Leviticum.

At hujus libri non meminit Nicephorus, inquis. Sed meminit ipse Theo­doretus & Anastasius Nicenus, Nicephoro multò antiquior, & Theo­doreto vicinior (vixit enim saeculo septimo, alter vero saeculo tandem duodecimo) qui integram ferè paginam exeo ex scripsit. Putat Pero­nius Nicephorum alio titulo nominasse opus istud: quod non im­probabile est. Caeterùm quo jure Nicephori silentio nos premis, qui ejus positivo testimonio nihil defers? Theodoreto Nicephorus adscri­bit unum opus, & nihil curas: silet de altero, & fidem inde fieri vis. Est apud te pondus, & pondus, mensura & mensura: utrumque abominabile apud Deum. Prov. XX, 10.

D. Morlaeus: Diabolus sub specie majoris Reverentiae erga Deum Philo­sophis suggessit, temerarium esse Deum immediatè adire: ideoque per mediatores daemones ad eum appropinquandum, quibus acceptum ferre deberent, quidquid boni nanciscerentur. Vnde nedum à cultu summi Dei; verùm etiam à cognitione ejus, ad cultum sui. sub daemoniorum nomine, traduxit.

Resp. hic paucis verbis multa dicis à veritate prorsus aliena, & apertè contraria: ob quae, si dicacem nactus esses adversarium, eru­ditorum, [Page 97]imo omnium te ludibrio exponeret. Primum est: Daemonum cultum specie majoris Reverentiae erga Deum introductum. Alium hujus mali fontem norunt docti quique, & nos in operis hujus calce monstrabi­mus Deo dante: (Vide sapientiae caput XIII.) Imojam ostendimus, quando diximus Deos Paganorum fuisse homines, quorum nomina daemones sibi imposuerunt. Porro nihil magis hunc cultum daemo­num, & Dei neglectum promovit, quam opinio negans illi Rerum hu­manarum Providentiam, imo & cognitionem; non verò alia opinio de Reverentiâ illi debitâ, cui impares forent homines.

2. Ait Daemonem id Philosophis suggessisse. Quasi per Philosophos id obtinuisset daemon. Contra 1. quia daemonum cultus totum orbem, exceptâ Abrahae familia occupaverat, antequam notum esset Philoso­phorum nomen, aut nata natio. Contra 2. Religio à Philosophis nec ortum habuit, nec incrementum. Dolor parentis ob ereptum sibi fi­lium, & honor Regibus absentibus exhibendus, initium Idololatriae dedit: quae statuariorum Arti, & Poëtarum gratis carminibus incre­mentum suum deber. Philosophi his assurgere coacti fuerunt: & tametsi liceret his nugaces, stultasque Poëtarum de Diis fabulas & im­pugnare in scholis, & ridere in Theatris, non tamen semper id impu­nè fuit, quod & Socratis, & Aristotelis exempla docent.

3. Initio daemones cultos ut mediatores tantùm. Constat initio adoratos, ut veros Deos. Doctrinam illam de mediatione daemonum à Plato­nicis ortam supra diximus: hi verò multis saeculis sunt Ethnicâ su­perstitione juniores. Apuleio eam adscribit Augustinus lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei c. XVIII, non Platoni ipsi, non antiquioribus Platonicis. Fortè vel ex conversatione cum Judaeis vel ex conflictu cum Christia­nis orta est illa sententia, quod viderent eorum argumentis responde­ri non posse, Polytheismo retento. Unde Platonici Juniores novam sibi viam aperuerunt, ut per Deos majorum Gentium, Dei summi At­tributa intelligerent, per Deos minorum Gentium, daemones inter summum illum Deum, & homines, mediantes.

D. Morlaeus p. 22. & 23. Postquam oriente justitiae sole hae daemoniorum umbrae evanescerent (pro evanuerunt) & Deus summus Sanctius coli caepisset, [Page 98]unico illum inter, nosque mediatore patefacto, daemon leonem induit, & suos culto­res ad farro flaemmâque persequendos Dei servos concitavit. Verum cum inde au­geri fidelium numerum cerneret, quia sanguis Christianorum Ecclesiae semen esset, ad artes veteratorias conversus, inde sementem sibi facere cogitavit, simplicibus ho­minibus persuadendo, quod Deo gratiores essent orationes ad memorias Martyrum factae. Quam opinionem promoverunt miracula illic facta. Vnde paulatim effe­ctum ut Martyres & deinde Confessores, velut mediatores Deum inter, homines­que admitterentur.

Respond. non miror à te Calvini discipulo dici promotam miraculis à Deo opinionem à daemone satam, in hominum mentibus, cum sciam à Magistro tuo Deum Peccari Auctorem dici. Spero tamen a­pud aequos quosque retum Arbitros, plus posse ad confirmandam o­pinionem illam Dei miraculis illam soventis auctoritatem, quam tua possit Assertio illam à daemone satam asseverantis, ad illam evellen­dam. Sed unde tibi tam perspecta daemonis consilia? num cum illo modium salis comedisti, quod se fecisse gloriatus est Patriarcha Refor­mationis hodiernae? Quo Auctore ea à te dicuntur? nullo! Quo teste? nemine praeter te. Magnam te inter illumque familiaritatem inter­cessisse ostendas oportet, ut persuadeas nobis ejus cordis secreta tibi tam explorata esse: absque quo fidem vix invenies. Nec satis erit, do­ceas eum ea tibi dixisse, nisi insuper fidem illius ipse praestes, qui men­dax est, & Pater ejus.

SECTIO XIX. Argumenta contra Sanctorum Invocationem.

D. Morlaeus p. 24. Magis sumus inexcusabiles, quam Ethnici, quia cum Christum habeamus nos inter & Deum mediatorem, stultum esset alium substituere, quia nemo apud Deum efficatior, nemo apud homines benevolentior.

Resp. sciens & Prudens alienam à nobis mentem nobis exprobras. Nec enim Christum mediationis officio amovemus, ut alium illi sub­stituamus; sed ut efficacius illum ad intercedendum excitemus. alio­rum [Page 99]petimus orationes, qui unà nobiscum idem à Deo petant per Christum Dominum nostrum. Hoc tu Stultum dicis; aliter sentit Aposto­lus, qui Sanctos viventes ut orarent, oravit: Aliter Concilium Chal­cedonense, quod B. Flaviani petiit orationes: Aliter Ecclesia, quae si­militer Sanctos & vivos & mortuos invocat. Aliter ipse Christus, qui exauditum iri docuit preces à multis oblatas. Cyprianus lib. de Orat. Dom. ait: Iussit unitatis Magister, quisque preces pro toto populo Christo offe­rat; non pro se solo. Sive ergo soli oramus, quod minus efficax sive multi simul, iique sive vivi, sive vitâ functi, suum Christo constat mediatoris officium, quia utroque modo Deum oramus per Christum Dominum nostrum.

D. Morlaeus p. 24. Quod dicunt, unicum esse mediatorem Redemptionis, plures vero Intercessionis, falsum est. Nam intercedere, vox est forensis, quae significat non simpliciter orare, aut postulare; sed suo jure atque potestate apud alium agere, & quo minus aliquid fiat, se, suaemque auctoritatem interponere: quod hîc Soli Christo competit.

Respond. Si daremus tibi vocem illam nunquam ab Antiquis aliter acceptam fuisse, quid hoc contra nos, qui aliter illam accipi­mus? nobis enim non aliud significat, quam orare, aut humillimè po­stulare. Cur usus ille non sufficiet ad mutandam vocis significatio­nem, cum penes usum sit arbitrium, & jus, & norma loquendi, teste Poëtâ? nec verum est, unum tantum sensum eâ voce designatum apud probatos Auctores. Tribunos plebis non ut jus dicerent; sed ut intercederent, si quae senatus Consulta plebis libertati contraria prodirent, ait Gellius Tertullianus l. II, contra Marcionum. Conse­quens erat, inquit, uti Deus secederet à libertate semel concessâ homini, id est, contineret imperio & praescientiam, & praepotentiam suam, per quos intercessisse potuisset, quo minus homo malè libertate suâ frui aggressus, in periculum labere­tur. S. Cypr. saepe de iis loquitur, qui paenitentiam agentium lachry­mis gemitibusque intercedebant. Quibus locis aliquam auctoritatem potestatemque significare videtur. Aliquando tamen de illo dicitur, quod inter duo extrema simpliciter interjacet: Caesar lib. I. de bello Gallico. Non se hostem vereri; sed angustias itineri, & magnitudinem syl­varum, [Page 100]quae inter eos, & Ariovistum intercederent. Et Gen. XLIII. 10. Si non intercessisset dilatio, jam vice alterâ venissemus. At verò aliquando signifi­cat pro aliquo preces interpositas. Gen. XXIII. 8. Intercedite pro me apud Ephron, filium seor, ut det mihi speluncam duplicem. Et B. Aug. ad Dei­param Virginem: Ora pro populo, interveni pro clero intercede pro devoto faemineo sexu. Et hoc ultimo sensu à nobis accipitur, quando Beatis dicimus: Intercedite pro nobis. Contra quem sensum nihil dicis.

D. Morlaeus pag. 25. Neminem ex Angelis vel Sanctis invecare possunt cum fide, quin illum cordis scrutatorem agnoscant: & praeterea in illum, tanquam in Deum, credant: nam Apostolus ait: quomodo invocabunt, in quem non cre­diderunt?

Resp. jam diximus Sanctos ista cognoscere, & varios modos indica­vimus, quorum aliquo fieri possit, ut ista cognoscant, licet omni scien­tiae participes non sint: satis enim ad id est omni-scientis, & cordium scrutatoris Dei Amicitia. Alia, quam adhibes ratio aequè frivola est. Si enim invocare possumus cum Apostolis Sanctos vivos, licet cos pro Diis non habeamus, nec in eos, strictè loquendo, Credamus (qui in Deum solum credimus) cur non & Sanctos mortuos? Sic Isaiae XXXIV 12. Regem potius invocabunt. Et Oseae VII, 1. Aegyptum Invocabant. Nec ta­men aut hi in Aegyptum, & in Regem illi tanquam in Deum crede­bant. Nec Moyses Caelum & Terram Deum arbittatus est, cum ait, Deut. XXX. 19. Testem invoco caelum & terram, quod proposuerim &c. Aliter aceipitur ab Apostolo illa vox: Invocatio, proillâ solâ, quae ad omnium Dominum, salutis aeternae largitorem dirigitur. En totus locus: Idem Dominus omnium, Dives in omnes, qui invocant illum. Omnis enim quicumque invocaverit nomen Domini, salvus erit. Quomodo ergo invocabuat (scilicet, ut omnium Dominum, divitem in omnes eum invocantes, qui iis aeter­nam vitam largiater in quem non crediderunt. Hac ratione Sanctos non invocamus; sed ut illius Domini Servos, apud eum, ex ejus miseri­cordiâ, & Gratiâ, Potentes.

D. Molraeus p. 27, & 28. Orant Papistae Sanctos, non solum ut impetrent nobis aliquid à Deo; sed etiam ut ipsi ea praestent, quod patet legenti Brevia­rium Romanum, Horarium, Psalterium, & Litanias omnium Sanctorum. Dicit una precatiuncula;

O Maria gratiosa,
Dulcis, mitis, & formosa,
Applica nobis gratiam.
Quod requiro, quod respiro
Mea sana vulnera:
Et da menti te poscenti,
Gratiarum munera.

Et in fronte aedium publicarum Bruxellis, habetur haec inscriptio:

A Bello, Peste, & Fame libera nos Maria.

Resp. 1. Tametsi daremus tibi aliquem privatum hominem in mo­do Sanctos invocandi modum ab Ecclesiâ praescriptum, & usitatum ex­cessisse, quid hoc ad Ecclesiam, quae singulorum dicta vel facta prae­stare nullâ lege tenetur? Quae verò nobis hic exprobras, ex privatâ devotione manarunt: nec enim in Missali, aut Breviario Romano ha­bentur.

Resp. 2. ejusmodi verba commodè explicantur, quòd optent iis utentes, B. Virginem ea facere, Deum orando, ut ea faciat. Sic & vos explicatis illa Apocalyseos 1.4, verba: Gratia vobis & Pax ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui venturus est, & à septem spiritibus, qui in conspectu Throni ejus sunt. Quasi spiritus illi, perinde ac Deus ipse, Gratiam & Pacem largirentur. Cum ramen longè diverso modo ab illis proficiscantur, à Deo quippe donantur, spirituum illorum precibus exorato. Si simile quid à quopiam Catholico dictum fuisset, quas non tragaedias exci­tarent tui similes, verborum aucupes, litium & satores, & quaesitores?

D. Morlaeus p. 28. Quae cum sit communis apud illos Beatam Virginem, aliosque Sanctos invocandi formula, certè aut nulla unquam fuit, aut haec est Ido­olatria, cum sit invocatio directa, & absoluta; non verò relativa.

Respondeo: Falsissimum est, illam esse communem Sanctos invo­candi formulam. Ex pio quidem affectu, tamentsi forte minus cauto (quem certè nemo unquam erroris jure damnabit) usurpata est à Bru­xellensibus. At in Breviario, ac Missali, quae precum formulas solem­nes ab Ecclesiâ approbatas, continent, duplici tantum ratione Sancti invocantur. Prior in collectis, ad Deum ut Sanctorum preces pro [Page 102]nobis exaudire dignetur. Posterior ad Sanctos ipsos: ut orent pro no­bis. tertia, quae tibi displicet, tametis errore vacet, & à non malignis rectè explicari possit, & commodè explicetur, rarò tamen adhibetur ab Ecclesiâ.

D. Morlaeus p. 29. Athanasius aliique Orthodoxi contra Arianos Christum Deum esse ex eo probarunt, quod invocaretur. Quod argumentum fuisset ineffi­cax, si Sanctos Invocare licuisset.

Resp. rectè probarunt illi Patres Christum Deum esse, quem invo­cabat ex Apostolicâ Traditione Ecclesia Invocatione directâ, & abso­lutâ, quali ad nullum Sanctum utimur. Obiter tamen observo, diffi­cilem in se Provinciam suscipiet, qui probare volet demonstrativas esse omnes Patrum rationes adversus Arianos, illam nominatim ex Psal. XLIV. Eructavit cormeum verbum bonum: quam apud aliquos inve­nimus.

D. Morlaeus p. 29. In illis dogmaticis, & Didacticis veterum scriptis quae Tertnllianus, Cyprianu, Mysenus, Augustinus, aliique de Invocatione eo fine scripserunt, ut alios docerent, quomodo orandum esset, nulla est de Invocatione Sanctorum mentio. Ex ejusmodi tamen scriptis, quae sit eorum sententia certò scitur.

Resp. Ex iis quae dicunt in ejusmodi scriptis, certò scitur quid sen­serint eorum Auctores, non verò ex iis, quae reticent: quia argumen­ta ab auctoritate negativa, infirma esse, notissimum est. Posses aequè benè inferre, nec Ecclesiam Romanam Sanctos orare quae dum Ora­tionem Dominicam explicat, de Sanctorum Invocatione nihil dicit. S. Ignatius etiam in suis Exercitiis spiritualibus totus est in tradendo modum orandi Deum. Dicesne propterea illum non existimasse San­ctos invocandos?

D. Morlaeus, p. 29. Si relativam Sanctorum Invocationem agnovissent Patres, cùm iis objicerent Ethnici, Martyres coli à Christianis, quomodo ipsi suos Heroas colerent, hoc non negassent Patres; sed ostendissent aliam esse rationem Martyrum, aliam Heroum, His enim summum cultum soli Deo debitum non deberunt Ethnici.

Resp. Goliae instar gladium adfers, non quo hostem ferias; sed quo [Page 103]ipse feriaris. Nam constat 1. ex cultu, & Invocatione Martyrum na­tam illam Gentilium objectionem: adeoque priscos illos Christianos verè coluisse, atque invocasse Martyres. Constat. 2. non negasse uni­versim Patres à Christianis coli, & invocari Martyres; sed solùm illis offerri sacrificia, quae soli Deo debentur. Templa in eorum honorem extructa, liquet ex Theodoreto, aliisque: Sacrificia illis oblata negat Augustinus, Quis Antistitum, inquit, unquam dixit, offero tibi Petre, Paule, aut Cypriane? non negat precibus nostris eos invocari debere. Similia alii Patres. Quorum unanimi, concordique sententiae, dum nudam tuam Pythagoricam assertionē opponis, & à nobis praeferri speras, nr­mis altè de te, nimis abjectè de tuis Lectoribus sentis. Falsum etiam est, quod ais, Ethnicos non dedisse Heroibus suis summum honorem soli Deo debitum. Singulos enim Heroes caelo donatos, sacrificiis, quae soli vero Deo debentur, coluerunt, ut ostendimus Sect. XVI.

Dr. Morl. p. 31. negari non potest, quin talis sit in Ecclesiâ Romanâ nunc Angelorum, & Sanctorum, qualis olim apud Gentiles Heroum, & daemonnm cul­tus fuit.

Rosp. & negari potest illa cultus similitudo, & de facto negatur. Et licet nostra negatio vestrae affirmationi praeferri debeat, quia à vo­bis accusamur, & Rei partem sustinemus: adeoque nisi demonstra­tivè probetis, quae dicitis, Vindiciae ecundum nos dari debent; tamen ex abundanti negationem nostram iis auctoritatibus probavimus, ut ad iis respondendum & te ipsum, cujus tamen eruditionem plurimi facio, & totam insuper nationem Calvinisticam in Angliâ audacter provocem. Differentiam inter utrumque cultum assignamus eandem, quam Patres Augustinus, Theodoretus, Cyrillus: Ethnicos scilicet Heroes suos veros Deos credidisse; nos Sanctos nostros Dei solùm amicos ae­stimare: Ethnioos Herobius sacrificia, obtulisse; quae nos uni Deo of­ferimus; non item Sanctis: illos suos Her [...]as invocasse invocatione absolutâ, & in ipsis terminatâ; nos verò solâ relativâ, & transitivâ Martyres invocare. Adeoque potiori jure nobis dicere lice bit, asseri non posse inter nos talem esse cultum Beatorum, qualis inter Ethni­cos fuit cultus Heroum.

D. Morlaeus: p. 31. Constat ex temporum serie, à Iosepho meado observatâ, haec tria, Sanctorum invocationem, caelibatus Sacerdotalis institutionem, & cibo­rum quorundam prohibitionem, ab iisdem Auctoribus, Monachis ad Episcopatum evectis, & eodem fere tempore ante finem quarti saeculi, in Ecclesiam publicè in­troduci caepisse.

Resp. nihil moror, quid observet meadus ille; sed quid probet. Si tamen dicat, illa tria eodem tempore caepisse, ab iisdem Auctoribus fuisse commendata, negare non poterit Apostolos illorum trium dog­matum Auctores esse: siquidem ciborum delectus ab Apostolis in­junctus fuit Act. XV, 20, & 29, quod à primis Christianis religiosè observatum, tradit Tertullianus Apolog. c. IX. Caelibatus item Sacer­dotum non aliud invenire est initium, quam Euangelii, sanctis Alta­rium ministris Orthodoxis ab ejus initio semper & ubique se ad ex­emplum summi Sacerdotis, Pastorum Principis, conformantibus, qui est Christus Jesus, Deus Benedictus in secula. Haec obiter dicta suf­ficient in praesenti: eadem tibi fusius probata dabimus, si detur à te occasio.

D. Morl. p. 31. Chemnitius ait circa annum Domini, CCCLXXX, per Basi­lium, Nyssenum, & Nazianzenum, Panegyricarum orationum occasione invectam in publicos caetus Invocationem Sanctorum: quamvis alii dicant ab iis non inve­ctam; sed ministratam tantum aliis occasionem illam invehendi.

Resp. Quid iterum Chemnitii nobis mentem opponis, qui non ir­refragabilis est apud suos, qui non omnia ejus dicta probant? si ullus publici pudor, si ulla Lectorum reverentia, tam negligentèr scriberes, aut sperares Chemnitii objecto nomine, velut ostentato medusae ca­pite silentium nobis impositum iri, nedum contra veritatem; sed etiam contra omnem verisimilitudinem? Quanto enim probabilius est cultum illum Sanctorum (cujus magna pars erat eorum Invoca­tio) occasionem dedisse Panegyricis illis orationibus; non è contra: has Panegyres filias esse Invocationis Sanctorum; non matres, effectus non causas? Maximè cum constet longè ante tempus illarum Pane­gyrum, in publicis Ecclesiae Liturgiis Sanctos invocatos fuisse, & hanc ipsam invocationem à Gentilibus fuisse Christianis exprobratam, nec [Page 105]ab his negatam; sed discrimen ab istis assignatum, inter modum, quo à Christianis Sancti, & quo ab Ethnicis Dii colebantur. Proinde tibi tuum remittimus Chemnitium: in quo si nihil aliud displiceret, quam quod hic ex illo profers, satis est, ilum susque deque habeamus.

D. Morl. p. 32. Nazianzenus (idem de aliis) dum de Sanctorum Invoca­tione loquitur, quasdam correctiones adhibet, ne ab Auditoribus suis secus quam oporteret intelligeretur, qualia sunt: ut puto, ut persuasum habeo, & qui sic lo­quuntur incerti sunt de re, quam ita leniunt.

Resp. voces illiusmodi non semper ex dubitatione nasci. An dubius de sancti Spiritus assistentiâ Paulus, dum ait: 1. Cor. VII, 40. Puto, quod & ego spiritum Dei babeam? si dicam: Persuasum habeo te execrari con­fratris tui Archicpiscopi Ebroacensis facinus, qui depositio pedo Pastorali, gladium sumpsit adversus Regem. Item aliud Protestantium verorum anglorum, qui Re­gem occiderunt, regnum everterunt, & in omnes ordines ferro, flammâ grassati sunt. Item detestari eorumdem Protestantium studia, qui sub praetextu fabu­losae conspirationis à Catholicis initae, veram formaverunt in regni perniciem. Si ista loquar, convenio illis vocibus conscientiam tuam, eam appello ab eâ testimonium postulo de re cunctis apertâ, etiam Calvinistis quam ipsa nec ignorare potest, nec negare. Cur non sic in­telligi poterunt, quae à Patribus simili modo dicuntur.

D. Morlaeus p. 32. Haec est famosa illa Apostasia, de quâ Apostolus 11. Thessal. 11. & 1. Timot. IV. quae non continet plenam à Deo defectionem; sed aliarum rerum cum Deo cultum, dum Deus & Sancti coluntur. Est spiritualis fornicatio propter quam Meretrix Babylonica Maecha dicitur, quia Christum maritum babet, & Sanctis se prostituit. Nam Maecha non est, nisi sit uxor & me­retrix, & talis uxor, quae virum habeat.

Resp. mitte obscuras Prophetias, ad quas nemo recurrit, nisi defe­ctu solidarum rationum. Totus iste discursus hoc fundamento nititur: Maecha non est nisi quae virum habet, & alteri so prostituit. Puto tamen sal­vâ side, dici posse, Maechum fuisse sartoris uxorem, quae ut fertur, re­licto marito. Bezam, Genovam secuto est; nec peccaturum in Spiri­tum fanctum qui cum Christo (Mat. XIX. 9. Mar. X, 11. & Luc. XVI, 18) dieit eum Maechari, qui dimissâ prioti conjuge non fornicariâ [Page 106]aliam ducit: itemque illum, qui Repudiatam ducit. Tu vide, quî sub­sistet tuus discurlus, isto fundamento subducto.

D. Morlaeus p. 33. Nullius momenti est, quod à quibusdam responderi so­let: Gentes aliis quam Deo sacrificasse; se verò Sanctos & Angelos invocare quidem; at sacrificium cultum esse soli Deo debitum. Nam 1. est Petitio principii, quod Invocatio Sanctorum non sit cultus Deo debitus. 2. Gentes eos Invocabant, quibus sacrificabant. 3. omnia sacrificia in sacrificio Crucis consummata, & abo­lita fuerunt. Vnde nulla in novo faedere sunt sacrificia, nisi spiritualia, preces ni­mirum, & supplicationes: quae vituli labiorum, & Thimiamata vocantur cum ergo Invocatio sit sacrificium spirituale, illa soli Deo fieri debet.

Resp. erego nullius momenti tibi sunt, quae à Patribus dicuntur, ab Augustino enim, Cyrillo, & Theodoreto desumuntur, quae contemptim rejicis, velut consideratione non digna: licet nomina celes, ne censu­ra nimium inverecunda videretur. Rationes porrò tuae verè nullius sunt monenti. Enimverò quod Invocatio indirecta, non sit cultus Deo debitus, tam evidens est, ut à mentis compote negari non possit. Quis enim à Mahometis veneno intactus, Deum orabit, ut pro nobis oret? Quem orabit Deus? & ad quid? Constat ergo Invocationem transiti­vam ad Deum dirigi non posse, adeoque non esse cultum Deo debi­tum. Quod à paritate Invocationis Sanctorum vivorum ostenditur, quem si cultum Deo debitum asseras esse, ab Apostolis Idololatriae crimen non amovebis. Vides in quas anguistias Catholicos impug­nandi studium te conjiciat? Quâ arte hine exibis? Gentiles eos ora­bant, & quidem absolutè, quibus sacrificabant: idem facimus & nos: quia Deum invocamus, cui sacrificamus. Alios insuper invocamus, quibus sacrificium nullum offerimus, Sanctos nimirum, & vivos, & defunctos. Sacrificia Mosaica morte Christi consummata fuisse, ve­rum est: tamen manere in novo faedere mundam & indefectibilem oblationem (sive sacrificium) & Malachiae Prophetis, & Ecclesiae Tra­ditio testantur.

D. Morlaeus p. 35. Fundamentum cui (quo) nititur Sanctorum Invoca­tio, Est illorum in caelis Dei intuitio. Vnde cum multi Patres (Irenaeus, Justi­nus M. Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, & alii) negent Sanctos videre [Page 107]Deum, invoeândi non sunt. Ete si quis contrarium asserere videtur, necesse est, ut vel liber sit supposititius, vel locus corruptus, vel Auctorem sibi contradicere. Nec Invocatio Sanctorum eo tempore era introducta in praxim Ecclesiae.

Respondeo: Ampla haec illationum seges, unto ictu succiditur: quia ex principio falso deducuntur omnes. Non enim visio Dei motivum est unicum istius Invocationis: alioquin Sanctos vivos non invocare­mus, quos novimus Deum non videre. Generale ergò motivum, cur Sanctos invocamus, est quod credamus eos esse Deo gratos, quos proinde exauditurus est. Augetur quidem spes de petitae rei conces­sione, ex eo quod Deum intueantur: sed non in ea fundatur, ipsa in­vocatio.

D. Morlaeus p. 35. Pontificii tamen, quâ sunt modestiâ, & ex horum scrip­tis, & ex aliquibus veteris Testamenti locis, Sanctorum Invocationem adstruunt, licet Sanctorum veteris Testamenti animas in limbo detentas fuisse asserant. Quâ in Deum fide, in bomines verecundiâ, aut secum ipsis Constantiâ ea testimo­nia proferre possint, ipsi viderint.

Resp. Habeat iam Roma pudorem.

Tertius è caelo cecidit Cato —

Eum amicè moneo, Censorem, modestiùs agat. Nos contradictionem facilè amolimur; imò jam amoliti sumus, dum ostendimus, non in Dei visione fundari Sanctorum Invocationem. Adeoque tam invocari poruisse Sanctos in limbo subterraneo detentos, ac Sanctos in carnis ergastulo clausos. Sic nostra in Deum fides, in homines verecundia constabit donec constiterint Apostolorum dicta, & facta.

Quae deinde habes ad paginam usque 54. inclusivè, de productis ab aliis Sanctorum testimoniis, pro Beatorum Invocatione, eorumque ignorantiâ rerum, quae hic aguntur, cum aut contra ea, quae dixi non sint, aut superiùs expensa fuerint, ideo de iis nihil opus est agere.

SECTIO XX. Argumenta contra Orationes pro defunctis.

D. Morlaeus p. 55. Augustinus tr. LXXXIV. in Joan. Non sic ad ipsam mensam Martyres commemoramus, quemadmodum alios, qui in Pace requiescunt, ut etiam pro iis oremus; sed magis, ut ipsi orent pro nobis. Vbi ad­vertendum, quod Defuncti, pro quibus Ecclesia tunc temporis orabat, requiesce­bant in Pace. Et proinde Oratio pro defunctis in veteri Ecclesiâ non ponebas, aut supponebat Purgatorium.

Resp. Pari jure dicere posses nec Ecclesiae hodiernae preces pro De­functis supponere Purgatorium: quia tantum pro illis orat, qui nos prae­cesserunt cum signo Fidei, & dermiunt in SOMNO PACIS. Ut habetur in Missali Romano.

Unde duo colligo non levis momenti. Primum est, Ecclesiam Ro­manam etiamnum veteris vestigiis insistere, cujus etiam verba immu­tata retinet.

Aliud est quâ fide tu, tuique similes Novatores in Antiquorum ex­ponendis scriptis versemini: non enim ovum ovo similius, quam pris­corum fidelium, hodiernorum que non modo mens, sed & ipsa verba. Unde tam facile esset praesentium Sermonem in alienum sensum de­torquere ac antiquorum, Pugnatis tamen antiquos aliter sensisse: nec manifestae veritaticedere vultis.

D. Morl. p. 55. Ex illo loco colligi tantum potest Sanctorum intercessio; non verò eorum Invocatio: Nam aliud est Commemoramus, aut nominamus, aliud invocamus. Ait autem ibi Commemoramus: quod nominationem importat.

Resp. Commemorare, ut ipsi pro nobis orent, est Invocare. Idem tantum non iisdem verbis ait Ecclesia hodierna: Communicantes, & memoriam venerantes imprimis &c. Quae verba Sanctorum Invocationem contine­re, negari non potest. Eandem ergo significant invocationem etiam Augustini verba. Duas quippe tommemorationes Defunctorum ex­hibent [Page 109]hibent omnes Liturgiae: prima de iis, qui certò Sancti sive Beati sunt. Secunda de iis, qui non valdè mali erant, at de quorum statu dubita­batur, an scilicet essent in caelo. Prima destinatur ad opem nobis Sanctorum Intercessione impetrandam. Altera ad animarum leva­men. Et utramque Augustinus accurarè distinguit loco laudato: dum ait: Commemoramus alios, ut pro iis oremus, alios, ut pro nobis orent.

D. Morl. p. 56. Quando Augustinus ait: Injuria est pro Martyre orare, cujus nos debemus, orationibus commendari: non loquitur de nostrâ Martyrum Invocatione, sed de eorum pro nobis intercessione tantum.

Resp. Ex verbis prolatis constat loqui de eâ Martyrum comme­moratione, quae cos excitet ad orandum pro nobis. Ut vidimus paulò superius.

D Morlaeus p. 57. Augustinus non ex propriâ sententiâ locutus est; sed ex aliorum. Credidit enim absolutè mortuos nec curam neque cognitionem re­rum hujus vita habere. Sed quia Hieronymum, & alios magnos viros (dicere debuisses omnes omnino fideles) noverat aliter sentire aliqua ex aliorum sententiâ subdit, non per modum affirmantis; sed dubitantis, & quod in aliorum gratiam concederet: nam qui dicit se non videre quid inde emolumenti assequeren­tur, nisi hoc, non affirmat etiam hoc; sed affirmat tantum, nisi sit uttle ad hoc, esse prorfusinutile.

Resp. Acciplo quod das, Hieronymum, aliosque magni nominie viros eadem nobiscum sensisse. Et verò praxis illa Italorum teste Paulino, Afrorum teste Augustino (nisi dicere malimus utroque teste omnium fidelium communem fuisse, sive ut Paulinus loquitur, uni­versae Ecclesiae) opinione nititur tertii status animarum, quem jam com­munissime Purgatorium appellumus. Martyres item invocandos eo­rumque intercessionem & vivis prodesse, & iis defunctis, qui ut ea sibi post mortem prodessent, meruissent. Haec non minus Augustinus, quam Hieronymus, aut Paulinus sentit. Sed de quibusdam aliis du­bitat de modo soilicet, quo Martyres sciunt, quae hic aguntur: an soli­citi & anxii de rebus nostris; quae sepulturae in tall loco utilitas: &c. quae tamen ex ejusdem Ecclesiae praxi constabant, utpater apud eundem.

D. Morlaeus p. 58. Alia responsio est: sepulti ad memorias Martyrum ad­juvantur apud Deum, non quia ibisepeliuntur; sed quod illis Deum orando com­mendantur. Martyribus, inquam, commendantur, orando Deum; non Marty­res. Non enim illos Martyres orando; sed Deum orando se eorum patrocinio commendabant. Sicut nos orare Deum solemus, ut viventium pro nobis preces exaudiat. Vnde Sanctorum Invocatio hinc non evincitur. Et si quid impetretur, id non Martyribus; sed Martyrum Domino acceptum ferri debet.

Resp. Vis videri aliquid dicere, ait Augustinus l. de Unitate Ecclesiae c.XVIII. Dum tacere erubescis, & inania loqui non erubescis. Commendantur Martyribus orando, hoc fateris: negas orari Martyres. At quomodo Commendantur Martyribus orando, si non orentur Martyres? nec rem ex­pedit, quod addis: Oramus Deum, ut viventium pro nobis preces exaudiat. Nec enim hoc est per se orare viventes, nisi [...]: siquidem commendare aliquem alterius precibus, est eum orare, ut pro eo o­ret. Dixi porse: nam ex adjunctis fieri potest, ut sit aequivalenter Ora­re viventes si videlicetalios oravimus ut pro nobis orent, & deinde Deum oremus, eorum preces exaudiat. Sic Collecta de sancto Anto­nio v.c. in Missali: Intercessio nos quaesumus Domine B. Antonii Abbatis commendet, ut quod nostris meritis non valemus, ejus patrocinio assequamur. Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Haec inquam collecta invocatio­nem B. Antonii continet ex mente Ecclesiae, quae in Litaniis suis ait: Sancte Antoni ora pro nobis.

SECTIO XXI. Vindicantur Augustinus, aliisque Patres, & Peronius à calumniis D. Morlaei.

D. Morlaeus p. 59. Haec sufficiunt ad vindicandum non tantum Augustinum, sed etiam reliquos omnes Patres quarti saeculi (exceptis tribus aut quae­tuor) ab illd infamiae notâ, quam illis inurere conantur Pontificii, dum illos pro hodiernâ Ecclesia Romanae Idololatrid, testimonium, velint, nolint, coguns dice­re. Et profectò si non omnem exuissent frontem omnem Augustini praecipuè men­tionem [Page 111]hac in causâ omisissent, quem probè norunt Invocationem Sanctorum adeò non probasse. ut non modo rem ipsam disertis verbis neget; sed ipsa hujus tam pra­vae superstitionis fundamenta convellat. Nam non negabunt Pontificii funda­mentum Invocationis Sanctorum, esse persuasionem, quod Sancti defuncti rebus humanis intersint, preces corum exaudiant, & ea, quae petuntur intelligaue. At Augustinus contraria omnia sensit.

Resp. Ad contumeliosa verba, Infamiae notam, Idololatriam, frontem exutam, pravam superstitionem, & id genus orationis tuae ornamenta non recurreres, nisi deficiente ratione ad sidem faciendam idoneâ, popu­lo imponere sperasses, hac agresti ferociâ. Quae probra jacis, hone­stiùs à nobis audiuntur, quam à te dicuntur. Utinam tui Symmistae frontem retinuissent sinceram, teneram, probitatis indicem, & testem: nec tot schismatibus Ecclesiam divisissent, nec tot erroribus faedassent, nec tot haeresibus animas Christi sanguine redemptas infecissent, lu­gentibus bonis, ridentibus malis, jubilantibus daemoniis, viam per eos ad Libertinismum, & Atheismum aperiri & sterni gaudentibus. Quan­do ostenderis ubi illa diserta Augustini verba reperiantur, quid re­spondendum sit videbimus: nam velle ut decem, imò duodecim ve­grandia volumina percurramus, ad invenienda verba, quae fortè nus­quam extant, & Calvinianâ fide citantur, nimis inhumanum impe­rium est. Interea assevero Augustinum sententiae Catholicae fundamen­ta nunquam evertisse: scire Sanctos ea, quae hic aguntur, asserit, licet de medio illius cognitionis nihil certi definiat. Fieri posse docet per Mortuos, per Angelos, per Dei revelationem, qui Prophetis multa & loco dissita, & tempore futura revelavit. Nos nostris rebus inter­esse posse, sicut Samuel vivo Sauli adfuit, eique futuram cladem prae­dixit: & Paulus vivus Beatorum agmina vidit. Vide libri de Curâ pro Mort. c.xv. Vide, an non frontem tuam requirere debeamus (si flosculum aliquem exhorto tuo decerpere nobis liceat & orationi no­strae inserere) qui tam asseveranter ais Augustinum negasse Beatis re­rum, quae hic aguntur, cognitionem.

D. Morlaeus p. 62. Augustinus l. II. contra Parmenianum cap. VIII, eitatis ex I. Ioan. II. verbis: Si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus [Page 112]apud Patrem, Jesum Christum justum, ait: Si diceret mediatorem me ha­betis, apud Patrom, & ego exoro pro peccatis vestris, quis cum ferret bonorum, & fidelium Christianorum? Quis sicut Apostolum Christi; & non sicut Anti­christum intueraturi Homines enim omnes Christiani inwicem se commendant orae­tionibus suis pro quo autons nullus interpallat; sed ipse pro omnibus, hic unus, verusque Mediator est, & addis: Hicsermo est, de Mediatore non Redemptio­nis; sed Intercessionis. Et probat unum solumque esse ejusmodi Mediatorem ex Ioanne, &c.

Resp. S. Augustinus satis co loco explicat, de quali Mediatore lo­quatur de co scilicet, qui pro omnibus omnino interpellat, & pro ipso nemo. Quo sensu fateor solum Christum dici posse Mediatorem. At vero cum hoc stat, & quod alii pro invicem orare possint (dicit enim expressè omnes Christianos invicem se commendare orationibus suis.) Et quod alios ad illud Charitatis officium invitare possint, etiam mortuos. An verò alius seu vivus, sive mortuus Deum pro nobis interpellans Mediator dici possit, necaer Quaestio est de voce ob quam Ecclesiae membra im­piè divellentur. Agnosce Sanctos pro nobis orare: & nos illorum preces utiliter petere: & hic pax erit, tametsi illâ voce abstineas.

D. Morl. p. 63. Cardinalis Peronius Casau-bono dixit, se nunquam in omni vitâ suâ (praeterquam cùm in publicis processionibus succlamatret cumcateris: Ora pro nobis) aliquem Sanctorum in vocasse. Quod de Peronio Casau-bonus vir fide dignus refert, & ex ipso Andreas vir fide dignissimus. Quâ conscientiâ rem, quam putabat utilissimam neglexit? aut quâ fide rem, quam putabat inutilem, iam acriter defendit, & aliis, tanquam rem utilissimam praedicat, & com­mendat?

Resp. Haec asseris ex aliis, illis side dignior, ut ad faciendam fidem in tribus testibus, tres habeamus gradus comparitionis, si tamen tres di­ci possint, cum duorum assectio Cafau-boni testimonio nitatur, adeo­que tres isti unus tantum testis sint ut exutroque Jure constar. Sed quia ita vis, sint tres. Res est facti, & quae pender à restimonio trium & Peronii, & Ecclesiae inimicorum. Quis verò trium à fide divinâ a­lienorum fidem humanam praestabit? Qui Patrum scripta & ipsa Dei verba, quae manent, & fraudem vestram redarguunt, & vim sibi illa­tam [Page 113]ostendunt, torquetis, ut quae vultis deponant: majori sinceritate dicta transeuntia modernorum, ubi falsitas nullâ ratione detegi potest, tractabitis? Credat Judaeus Apella. Certè hoc malam fidem Casau­boni demonstrat, quod Peronius & sacra more Catholico fecerit, & Ecclesiasticum recitarit officium: in utroque enim Sancti invocan­tur. Adeoque Sanctos invocavit Peronius extra supplicationes pu­blicas.

Verum, ut videas, quam aequi tibi sumus, damus ultrò quod assu­mis: admittimus Peronium non orasse Sanctos. Petis: quâ conscien­tiâ rem utilem omisit? Aut quâ fide rem inutilem commendavit? Re­spondeo: multa utilia, imo utilissima omitti posse sine peccato, si nul­lâ lege divinâ, aut humanâ imperentur. Consilia Euangelica utilissi­ma sunt; nemo tamen illius utilitatis causâ ad illa tenetur; sed illa aut servat, aut non servat pro libitu nisi ex voto ultronee, aut Ecclesiae praecepto, aut aliunde nascatur obligatio. Ecclesia porrò singulis non imperat, ut Sanctos invocent: potest quisque suas preces rectâ ad Deum deferre per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum licet cuique Laico, omissâ salutatione Angelicâ, Litaniisque majoribus & Minoribus, O­rationem Dominicam, Symbolum Apostolorum, &c. totâ vitâ suaâ reci­tare. Exigit tantum Ecclesia credat quisque Sanctos cum Deo regnantes honorandos, & invacandos esse; nusquam cuique imperat, ut eos invocet: vetat, ne quis eos invocandi morem tam pium, tam antiquum dam­net. Damnant autem Calvini gregales, & quidem gravissimi crimi­nis, nimirum Idololatriae. Vides, si demus quod petis, Cardinalem Pe­ronium nonnisi in publicis Ecclesiae precibus Sanctos invocasse, eum & salvâ conscientiâ omittere potuisse rem utilissimam, & salvâ side candem commendare. Sed tamen historia conficta est, ut vidimus, à Casau-bono.

Pag. 64. & 65. recoctam Cramben. adfers Ais: Sanctorum pro nobis Intercessionem creditam ad annum CCL. Eorum Invocation em circa annum CCCLXX. Prioris sententiae Auctorem fuisse Origenem: Po­sterioris verò Rhetores. His sese opposuisse clarissimos viros, Epipha­njum, Augustinum, Ambrosium, Hieronymum, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum. [Page 114]Hinc non-ante sextum saeculum obtinuisse, infers, Sanctorum Invo­cationem, quando S. Gregorius Magnus Litanias instituit.

Resp. Mera Vigilantis, miraque somnia! Quis ista probavit? quis non probanti credet? Quâ in Deum fide, in homines verecundiâ, aut tecum ipso, constantiâ, hoc dicis? ut verba tua tibi remittam, in quem optimè conveniunt. Inverecundo commento, splendido mendacio, unum deest, scilicet, ut asseras Vigilantium & Faustum Manichaeum San­ctorum & venerationem, & Invocationem probasse & docuisse: & eam ob rem fuisse unum â B. Hieronymo, alterum ab Augustino im­pugnatos. Ex operibus ejusmodi quis cor tuum obsideat, satis appa­ret: nec enimverò nisi Calvini spiritu animaretis, haec commentus unquam fuisses.

SECTIO XXII. Vendicatur Ecclesiae praxis à calumniis D. Morlaei.

D. Morlaeus p. 65. Quantumvis inter disputandum dicant Pontificii se Sanctos invocando, nihil aliud intelligere, quam ut Sancti pro illis Deum orarent (pto orent) tamin ex usu commani, & precum formulis & picturis, & Imaginibus, palam est, quod aliam in sinn fovent opinionem, quod Sancti in­vocentur non ut intercessores tantum; sed ut Largitores bonorum omnium. Et profers aliqua verba ex Gabriele Biel, & B. Bernardino.

Resp. Inverecunda accusatio est tam faedam hyprocisim Ecclesiae Catholicae objicere, vestrum nempe crimen, & eorum qui cum verita­te luctantur, eamque ejurant. Apologias hac in re non modo seribi­mus, sed & vivimus. Nec enim solum Ecclesiae in Concilio, collectae decreta; verum etiam ejusdem per totum orbem diffusae communis usus, & solemnes precum formulae cum in Missali, tum in Breviario, mendacem Accusationem puram putamque Sycophantiam demon­monstrant. Ad alias preces, si quae alibi fortassis occurrunt, & ex his non sint extractae; sed solâ cujuspiam privarae personae solitariâ Devotione formatae, nemo nisi litium amans recurret: quia non ma­gis [Page 115]tenetur Ecclesia privatorum quorumque preces, quam facta prae­stare. Iniquissimum verò erit exillis, de Ecclesiae mente ferre judi­cium, ubi illae minus cum Ecclesiae decretis conveniunt. Tametsi ni­hil in privatis illis libellis inveniri, credam, quod non commodè ex­plicetur, si benignum interpretem; & non malignum calumniato­rem, aut malevolum reprehensorem inveniat. Certè cum nemi­nem obligent illae preces, quales quales sint, nemini justam aut ipsam Ecclesiam calumniandi, aut ab ejus communione secedendi occasio­nem facere possunt. Idem dictum puta de iis, quae ex Bernardino, & Gabriele citasti: quae bonum sensum admittere, mox patebit.

D. Morlaeus p. 66. Vidi in monasterio Franciscanorum Antverpiae, & Brugis tabellam in quâ Christus pingitur iratus, fulmen vibrans, quo de miseris mortalibus paenas sumeret, nisi Mater Virgol, Dominici, & Francisci precibus exorata, furoris impetum in ipso impetu sisteret. Quâ admonentur homi­nes, Mariam, potius quam Christum invocandam esse, utpote quae pecca­toribus indulgentior, & ad miseris succurrendum promptior sit, quam ipse Christus.

Resp, salvâ sacrarum Litterarum auctoritate negari non potest, Deum hominum aliquorum sibi gratorum intercessione placatum, iram posuisse ob mortalium peccata justissimè conceptam, & vindi­ctam, quam de iis jam jam sumpturus erat aut remisisse planè, aut certè distulisse. Inter praecipua Dei Attributa Misericordia recense­tur, recensetur & Justitia, utraque, sicut & ipse Deus, Infinita: ita tamen ut Misericordia superemineat, quia super exaltat Misericordia ju­dicium, Jacobi 11, 13. Et Miserationes ejus super omnia oper a ejus. CXLIV. 9. Subinde tamen multiplicatis sine fine hominum peccatis vindictam celerem exigentibus, Justitia ad sumendam paenam armata, piorum hominum interventu exarmatur, Et hoc ipsum Misericordiae Divinae est, hominum bonorum pro aliis intercessionem admittere, imò & quaerere, & ubi non inveniuntur, qui intercedant, veluti dolere, & conqueri. Ezechielis XIII, 3. Non ascendistis ex adverso, nec opposuistis murum pro domo Israël, ut staretis in praelio in die Domini. Hec doctrina Ca­tholica [Page 116]est, quâ stante, nihil est in picturâ Brugensi repraehensione dignum. Sed ei similem exhibet sacra historia nam.

Exodi XXXII, 10. ait Deus ipse Moysi: Dimitte me, ut irascatur furor meus contra eos, Israëlitas, & deleam eos. Sed Moyses Deum oravit, ad­hibitis etiam Intercessoribus Abrabam, Isaac, & Iacob, ut populo suo par­ceret; & exauditus est: additur enim Versu 14. Placatusque est Domi­nus ne faceret malum, quod locutus fuerat adversus populum suum. Haec sa­cra Scriptura. Quid est in imagine illâ vel Brugensi, vel Antverpia­nâ, quod sacer textus hic non exhibeat? Deus utrobique videtur ira­tus, homines peceatores delere paratus. Utrobique interveniunt Bea­tae animae, illic Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, hic verò Beata Dei Geni­trix. Utrobique ad illud Charitatis officium viventium piorum pre­cibus excitantur, illic Moyseos, hic Dominici, & Francisci. Vtrobique par exitus, illic Deus placatus dicitur, ne faceret malum; hic deposito fulmine Dei manum exarmatam fuisse pingitur. Deest utrobique Ad­monitio, quam tu de tuo tabellae addendam finxisti: quamque pari jure historiae addere potuisses. Haec ad imagines illas à tuis calum­niis vindicandas abundè sufficiunt. Amplius adhuc aliquid ex sacris Litteris didicimus, non solùm Deum, cum irasceretur, piorum pre­cibus placatum fuisse ne malum infligeret; sed etiam dum actu saevit & paenas sumebat, eorumdem interventu quievisse. Numer. XVI. 46. & 47. Egressa est ira Domini, & plaga desaevit. Cum Aaron cucurrisset ad mediam multitudinem, quam jam vastabat incendium, obtulit Thymiama, & stans inter mortuos, & viventes, pro populo deprecatus est, & plaga cessavit. Haec S. Scriptura: cui nihil par habet Imago Brugensis, aut Antuer­piana, quae tanto tibi scandalo fuerunt, homini nimirum scrupuloso, & de Dei honore solicito!

Dixi Misericordiae esse, quod Deus hominum piorum pro impiis intercessionem admittere dignatur. Vnde consummatae, & (sit venia verbo) implacabilis irae indicium fuit, quod dixerit Hieremiae VII. 16. Ne assumas pro eis orationem, & laudem, & non resistas mihi, quia non exaudiam te: Quibus verbis satis indicat, aliàs fuisse & exaudi­tum, [Page 117]& exaudiendum. Vide Hieremiae XV. 1. & Ezech. XIV, 20.

D. Morlaeus p. 66, Dolendum est, quod his impiis fraudibus cor Christia­norum à Deo, & Christo, alienatur, & omnis ferè Devotio à Deo ad Sanctos, à Christo ad Mariam transfertur. Adeo ut quemadmodum Athanasius olim dixit, mirari orbem Christianum se factum Arrianum, sic orbis Romanus mirari pos­sit, se factum Marianum. Sunt enim hi, qui se dicunt Catholicos, revera Ma­riani, potias quam Christiani.

Respondeo: utrum Athanasii sint illa verba, ut tu pro tuà in rebus Theologicis peritiâ dicis, an Hieronymi, quod res est (hic enim dialo­go contra Luciferianos ait: Ingemuit totus orbis, & Arrianum se esse mi­ratus est.) Non magni momenti quaestionem arbitror. Minùs Mariani nomen horreo, quam aut Calvinistae, aut Zuingliani, aut etiam Ariani, sive Manichaei. Mariae cum Christo, matri cum filio, Dei Genitrici cum Deo incarnato optimè convenit: Vnde Mariae, veluti personae super omnes puras creaturas summè dilectae, adhaerendo, nunquam à Christo discedemus, cui illa inseparabiliter adhaerer. Vide an pari cer­titudine, id de Vigilantio, Aërio, Calvinove dicere possis. Frustra proin­de Patrinjum agis, & nobis invitis, & reclamantibus, nihilque simile meritis nomen imponis, ab omnibus eruditis exsibilandum. Nomina sectae cujuspiam novae iis tantum imponuntur, qui à toto se corpore reliquo segregant, schisma conflant, altare contra altare erigunt, hae­retica dogmata aut cudunt ipsi nova, aut ab aliis cusa cum pertinaciâ tuentur. Haec, aut his similia, ubi nos facere videris, Ducis, quem se­quemur nomen nobis imponito; quemadmodum nos jure merito Galvini nomen vobis imponimus, qui ipso Duce haec omnia fecistis, nisi quod Altare contra altare non erexistis; sed quantum in vobis fuit omnia evertistis altaria: in quo ipsum Circumcellionum immanissi­morum furores superastis. Nos hactenus Deo laus nihil ejusmodi vel mente designavimus: Christi corpori mystico indivulsìm adhaere­mus, dogmata non cudimus nova, Totum non scidimus, Partem non conflavimus, nec ullum altare contra veterem, & semper pro­batum in Ecclesiâ morem ereximus: Fidei Depositum inviolatum [Page 118]custodimus, & immutatum posteris tradimus, quòd à Patribus velu­ti manu traditum accepimus, quod hi ab Apostolis, Apostolià Chri­sto, Christus à Deo. Vnde & Christiani nobis nomen optimè conve­nit, qui Christo indivisim adhaeremus: & Catholici, quòd unam san­ctam Catholicam, & Apostolicam fidem tueamur, quàm Christi pro­missione, arque Petraesoliditate corroborati, tucbimur in saecula.



DUo erant, Origene supra laudato teste, capita praecipuè con­troversa, Christianos inter & Paganos: de Polytheismo u­num, aliud de Idolis. De priori jam diximus, quantum sufficere visum est, ad avertendum ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ cum Ethnicis in re tanti momenti concordiae crimen, & eluendam maculam illi inhaesuram, ex illâ concordiâ, si daretur. Ostendimus enim nostrum Sanctorum cultum, cum Gentilium Polytheismo nihil habere commune. Superest altera pars de Idolis, corumque eultu: de quâ Doctissimus D. Morlaeus nullam nobis litem movet; eam ta­men omittere nolui tum quia dicunt aliqui ejus symmystae Idolorum cultum non alium fuisse, quam quem Catholici suis Imaginibus exhi­bent, tum quia plena de Paganorum Religione notitia, sine Idolorum cognitione haberi non potest. Ex hac verò patebit Imagines nostras immeritò vocari ab antiquis & modernis Iconoclastis Idola: earum­que cultum nonnisi maligne velut Idololatricum infamari.

De Idolis frequens in Sacris litteris mentio; non ita frequens de Hominibus in Deorum album translatis: Vnde constat illa primum in Ethnicorum Theologiâ locum habuisse. Quod confirmatur ex no­mine falsorum Deorum cultoribus imposito; Paganorum enim nomen recentiùs est, Ethnicis nimirum impositum, vel quòd urbibus exclusi, in Pagis sacra sua facere coacti fuissent, vel quòd vacatio illis fuisset data à militiâ, & muneribus publicis Ethnicorum, sive Gentilium nomen [Page 120]illis inditum est, ad distinctionem eorum ab Abrahae posteris, & illâ Gente, quam Deus inter alias omnes selegit, cui sua judicia, suam vo­luntatem revelare dignatus est, cui notus fuisse Deus dicitur a Prophe­tâ. At verò Idololatria nomen est Religionis, quam professi sunt Eth­nici, à cultu supremo Idolorum, qui Latria dicitur, impositum. Hinc Au­gustinus [...]. XX. contra Faustum C. XX. Ad hunc cultum pertinet oblatio sa­crificii. Vnde Idololatria dicitur eorum qui hoc (Saerificium) etiam Idolis of­ferunt. Enimverò si vel Polytheismus, vel hominum mortuorum cultus pri­marium fuisset Catechismi Paganici caput, Ethnici [...], sive [...], sive [...] potius quam [...], dici de­buissent, & ipsa Religio non [...]; sed [...], aut [...], sive [...] fuisset appellata.

SECTIO XXIII. Qui primi Idololatrae?

CAlvinus l. I. Instit. C. XI. S. VIII, asseverat omnibus ferè à mundo condito saeculis Idololatriam extitisse. Vnde sequitur eam fere fuisse mundo coaevam. Caeterùm nec ullâ ratione confirmat hanc suam assertionem, nec ullum Auctorem laudat, unde ea desumatur. Hinc nihil mirum si fidem ei denegemus.

Rabbi Maimonides ait incepisse ab Enos, Sethi filio, Adami nepo­te: cujus tempore ait homines errasse, & inter errantes fuisse Enos. Quod probare conatur ex Gen. C. IV. 26. Caeterùm Enos ab eo crimine im­munem arbitror: quia loco laudato vulgata dicit: Iste capit invacare nomen Domini. Et reliquae versiones omnes in Enosi laudem, potiùs quàm vituperium illa verba sumunt. Solum Targum Onkelos pecca­tum aliquod insinuat: quod tamen potius in Enosi posteris, quam in ipso resedisse indicat. Vnde R. Maimonidi nullo modo subscribo: cu­jus fententia dura, & injusta est, & vix à calumniâ differt, cum ex ver­bis aut evidenter bonis, aut, quod proximum est, indifferentibus, [Page 121]tantum crimen elicere voluerit. Quae verba septuaginta Interpretes sic reddunt: Speravit invotare nomen Domini Dei nostri. [...]. Quae verba si ad personam ejus referas, sen­sum reddunt a Bellarmino traditum, Enos nempe caeteris religiosiùs coluisse Deum, & quasi Religiosam vitam observasse. Si verò referas ad homines eo tempore viventes, significant eos vel statis diebus so­litos fetiari, ut uni Deo vacarent: aut etiam certis cujustibet diei ho­ris, circa Auroram, meridiem, aut vespertina crepuscula, aut etiam quando praecipua opera aggrediebantur, v.c. cibum sumebant, dor­mitum ibant, è strato surgebant, &c. Perpetuus enim omnium homi­num bonorum mos est, semperque fuit, illiusmodi opera à Dei invoca­tione auspicari. Aliqui ergo per verba illa intelligunt publicas homi­num Enosi tempore viventium preces: Bellarminus privatam illius pietatem. Utrique probabilitèr; Nicolaus Liranus, Bellarmino suf­fragatur, cùm ait: Enos instructum à Patre suo justo, tantum profecisse in cultu divino, ut adinvenerit verba quaedam devota, ad deprecandum Deum. Haec ille: quae tamen cautè legenda, & cum grano salis explicanda sunt: quatenus vim quamdam aliquibus verbis inesse innuit ad pla­candum Deum. Quod Magicum quid sonat.

Nobiscum Patres sentiunt, quia docent ante diluvium nusquam fuisse Idololatras. Tertul. l. de Idololatriâ, ait Enoch (quem Judas in suâ Canonicâ septimum ab Adamo vocat, & diu post Enos vixit) praedi­xisse, & praedamnasse Idololatriam longè post extituram. Quare sen­tit necdum notam fuisse Enochi tempore. Idem sentit Cyrillus l. I. cont. Julianum: Idque colligit, ex eo quod Idololatriam ante Dilu­vium nullus idoneus Auctor asserit extitisse. Nec etiam ante Turris famosae aedisicationem, eamdem ob causam. At verò pauloò post ea semina jacta sunt, quae copiosam malorum messem protulerunt. Ini­tium mali à Saruch, qui fuit Abrahae Proavus, si fides Suidae, qui tradit eum, Polytheismum, & Idololatriam in mundum invexisse: cui sub­scribere malim, quam Constantino Manassi hoc non ipsi Sanuch; sed ejus posteris attribuenti. Enimverò Judith v. 8. refert Achior, Abra­hamum deseruisse ceremonias Patrum suorum, quae in multitudine Deorum [Page 122]erant, & unum Deum colere caepisse. Plures ergo majores Abrahae, & non eorum aliquis unus fuerunt Idololatrae, tres scilicet aut ad minimum duo. Cum ergo Saruch inter, & Abraham, duo tantum intercesse­rint, Nachor, & Thare, hic Abrahae Pater, alter Sarugi filius (ut colli­gitur ex Luc. III. 34.35.) sequitur Sarug illâ voce plurali fuisse com­prehensum. Confirmatur, quia Aug. l. XVI. de Civ. Dei C. XII. docet Thare fuisse pium, & unius Dei veri cultorem. De quo vide Salianum ad annum Mundi bis millesimum.

Cum verò duplicem errorem erratint Idololatrae, Idola colendo, & etiam multos Deos, quaeri potest, uter error fuerit antiquior? Respon­deo: antiquior videtur Polytheismus: atque primùm omnium stellas & admirationi fuisse propter pulchritudinem, & venerationi, propter utilitatem. Hinc Sap. XIII. primò refertur, & refutatur Astrorum Adoratio: deinde Idolorum. Idem sentit R. Maimonides, & Diodo­rus Siculus l. I. Bibliothecae. Germanos non alios Deos agnovisse, quam Solem, Lunam, & Vulcanum, testis est Caesar.

Lucianus lib. de Deâ Syriâ ait Aegyptios omnium Gentium primos fortassè Deorum habuisse notitiam, iis templa statuisse, lucos conse­crasse, & solemnes indixisse conventus. Quae si vera sint, falsi fue­runt; qui vel Sarug, vel Ninum primum Idololatram, Belum verò pri­mam personam Deificatam asseruerunt. Caeterùm tota difficultas sol­vitur, dicendo, Graecum fuisse Lucianum: ac proindè totam suam doctrinam ab Aegyptiis accepisse: à quibus, teste Diodoro Siculo, suos Graeci Deos acceperunt. Vnde nihil mirum ipsos de antiquio­ribus Diis non cogitasse, quorum nulla in Aegyptiorum Menologio mentio. Sed de his satis.

SECTIO XXIV. Quae fuerint occasiones Idola faciendi?

TRes fuisse Idola faciendi occasiones, antiquorum testimonia probant, quae sunt. 1. Luctus ob aliquem Charum ereptum. 2. Honor absenti deferendus. 3. Gratus in benè meritum animus. Sin­gula probemus.

Prima causa traditur Sap. XIV. 15. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò sibi rapti silii (vel Patris, addit Salianus) fecit imaginem & illum, qui tunc quasi homo mortuus fuerat, nunc tanquam Deum colere caepit: & constituit inter ser­vos suos sacra, & sacrificia. Infra S. XXIX. dicemus quomodo hoc maesti Patris qualequale solatium innocens, in omnium criminum maxi­mum degenerarit.

Dicit quidem Patrem superstitem erepti sibi filii imaginem fecisse: non negat autem filios Patribus suis similem honorem procurasse. Sic Belum coli cura vit Ninus ejus silius, & ditionum haeres. Idem de Sa­rug dicendum, eum Patri suo statuam erexisse, si vera sit Rabbinorum sententia, dicentium, Aran omnium primum ante Patrem suum ob­iisse: quod colligunt ex illis sacrae Scripturae verbis Gen. XI. 28. Mor­tuusque est Aran ante Thare Patrem suum: Quod frustra fuisset annotatum, si quod modo passim sit, etiam tunc fieret, ut Patres frequenter filio­rum funera ducerent. (Quod intelligi debet, de filiis ante Patres suos morte naturali defunctis: nam si sermo sit de iis etiam qui violen­tâ morte sublari sunt anre Patres suos, constat Aran non fuisse pri­mum; sed Abel (qui ab homicidâ Cain occisus est) unde sequitur Sarug Patri suo Idolum statuisse, quia nullum filium amisit ipse: nam Aran Abrahae frater post mortem Sarug vivere desiisse videtur: quia dicit Scriptura ipsum ante Thare Patrem suum mortuum esse; non verò ante Proavum Sarug. Idem fecit Ninus Patri suo Bel, & sine du­bio varii alii fecerunt. Videatur Epiphanius Epist. ad Acatium, & Paulum, qui disertè dicit filios Parentibus suis Idola statuisse.

Cur ergo Patris in filium impiam illam pietatem nominat hic sa­piens, potiusquam Filii in Patrem? Respondeo, quia amor descen­dit, & teneriot est Patris in filium & Magistri in Discipulum affectus, quàm ècontra. Vnde Patres filiorum suorum mortem veris lacry­mis ferè semper lugent; non item filii Patrum: cum exempla non de­sint eorum, qui ante diem Patrios inquisierint in annos, ut eorum ad­irent haereditatem.

Sic ergo Parentes filiis, filii Parentibus primùm sepulchra cura­runt, eorum statuis ornata: his deinde superaedificarunt Templa: de­nique sacra & sacrificia constituerunt. Quae fuit prima & maximè communis Idolorum constituendorum causa, adeò ut à Patribus sub­inde sola nominetur, quasi unica esset. Minutius Felix: Sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant assumpta solatia. Et Hieronymus l. 1. Comment. in c. 41. Oseae: Omnia Idola ex mortuorum errore creverunt.

Altera causa fuit Reverentia Regibus debita, & obedientiae futurae stipulatio, quam posteriora saecula barbarâ voce, Homagium appellant. Sap. XIV. 16. Interveniente tempore, convalescente iniquâ consuetudine, hic error tanquam Lex custoditus est, & Tyrannorum imperio colebantur figmenta. Et hos, quos in palam homines honorare non poterant, propter hoc, quod longè essent, è longinquo figura eorum allata, evidenter Imaginem Regis, quem hono­rare volebant, fecerunt; ut illum, qui aberat, tanquam praesentem colerent suâ solicitudine. Horum Regum statuis initio solus civilis cultus exhibitus est; qui postmodum in sacrum transiit: & licet ex primâ intentione ad supplendum tantummodo praesentiam institutus fuerit, tamen et­iam praesentibus erectae subinde statuae. Quod Nabuchodonosori fa­ctum. Visum etiam id Regibus magis honorificum, dum non ipsi solum; verum etiam Imagines, statuae, sigilla, vestes, denique quid-quid ad eos spectaret peculiari modo, honoraretur. Hinc Imperato­rum Romanorum erecta signa, statuae insuper, venerationi militum expositae, quoties eis dona distribuebantur.

Civilem illum Imaginum cultum ab alio sacro & separabilem esse, & defacto separatum, liquet, quia Christiani Milites, Apostarae Ju­liani statuas honorare non detrectarunt: & hac eorum voluntate [Page 125]simplici abusus est astutus Apostata, dum cum suis, Deorum Ima­gines conjunxit, atque in eâdem tabellâ pingi curavit, ut dum suas colerent, Deos falsos unà coluisse viderentur. Prudentiores fraude observatâ cingulum solvere maluerunt, quam civilem cultum Impe­ratori persolvere, cum Idololatrico conjunctum. Alii simpliciores ni­hil mali suspicati, & Imperatoris imagines venerati sunt, & eis, ut mos erat, thus adoleverunt. De quo vide Theodoretum l. III. hist. C. XVI. Sozomenum & Nazianzenum Invect. I. in Julianum, pag LXXXV. & sequentibus, ubi refert, quam nobili Fidei suae confessione, cum perfidiae Impiissimi Apostatae detestatione maculam sibi inustam eluerint, Christiani milites.

Ubi nota, quod quando solus cultus civilis exhibebatur, eum unà cum Rege, cui debebatur, interiisse: sic conjux a lege Viri teste Apo­stolo, subditi ab obedientiâ Regi suo debitâ, cujusque morte liberan­tur. Secus, ubi in sacrum, atque Religiosum transivit, quia ipsorum Sacerdotes, aliique Ministri adeò non extingui permittebant, ut etiam augere conarentur, quasi aucta foret ipsâ ex hoc mundotranslatione Numinis Potestas, cum humanis exemptum, caelo sideribusque dona­tum esset, & major esset è longinquo Majestas. Hinc factum credo, ut praeter communes cunctis Idololatris Graecorum Deos, Jovem, dico, Neptunum, Plutonem, variae gentes suos nactae sint. Sic in Oriente Bel, in Syriâ Adad, & Azael, ut ait Josephus l. IX. Antiq. Jud. C. II. In Aegypto Osyris, Isis, Serapis, Apis. Saturnus, Janus, Romulus, sive Quirinus, & Flora, Romae, Trojae, Hector, Delphis Apollo, in Chio Aristaeus, in Samo Lisander, in Siciliâ Niobe Narriae Viridianus, As­coli Ancaria, Volsinii Nertia, Sutrini Nutria, alii alibi. Enimverò ta­metsi de singulis dicere non possimus, quo modo eorum cultus aut primùm introductus, aut postea propagatus ad posteros fuerit, is ta­men quem diximus maximè verosimilis visus est.

Tertia causa statuas erigendi fuit gratus in benè de se, deque hu­mano genere, sive de Patriâ meritos animus. Videtur quasi omnibus à naturâ insita quaedam inclinatio erectâ in honorem Benefactoris, & Beneficii memoriam statuâ, Beneficium acceptum aut compensare, [Page 126]aut saltem agnoscere. Luculentiora optari non possunt testimonia, quam ex foris Romanis, & Atheniensibus, in quibus tot erectae, tum pedestres, tum equestres statuae. Similem ob causam Syrophaenissa Christo Domino statuam aeneam posuit, ut ait Sozomenus lib. v. hist. C. XX. Metaphrastes, & Nicephorus: quam Julianus confringi cu­ravit, & suam ipsius in alterius locum substitui. Verum Juliani statua de caelo tacta circa pectus dissecta, & disjecta, fuit.

SECTIO XXV. Pagani Idola sua Deos esse crediderunt, quia eos Deos vocârunt.

PRima ratio, quâ veritatem hanc probamus, in quâ totius contro­versiae cardo veritur, est, quia vocantur disertè Dii. Quod ex sa­cris Litteris, Paganorum confessione, sanctisque Patribus, qui cum Pa­ganis vixerunt, & Fidei Christianae veritatem, eversâ Paganorum im­piâ superstitione, & linguâ, & calamo propugnarunt, & confirma­runt & stabilierunt. Nulli videntur assignabilia certiora veritatis in re antiquâ. & pridem antiquatâ inveniendâ principia: ad quae recur­remus in sequentibus, & ex iis, quae dicturi sumus hauriemus.

Ex sacris quidem litteris constat Idola Deos vocata esse. I. cum Ja­cob è Soceri sui Laban domo aufugeret, ut ad patrem rediret Rachel ipso inscio Patris sui Idola clam abstulit. Quod facinus Laban Jacobo exprobrans, Geu. XXXI. 30. ait: Quare furatus es Deos meos? Et ver. 32. respondet Jacob: Apud quemcumque inveneris Deos tuos, necetur coram fra­tribus nostris. Haec dicens, ignorabat quod Rachel furata esset Idola. Haec ibi: ubi & Idololatra Laban Socer Idola sua Deos appellat: & Fidelis Ja­cob Gener Deorum audito nomine Idola intellexit.

2 Gen. XXXV. 2. Abiicite Deos alienos, qui in medio vestrisunt. Et versu 4. Dederunt ergo ei omnes Deos alienos, quos habebant. At ille, Jacob, infodit ea subter terebinthum, quae est post urbem Sichem. Quidnam Jacobi familia­res [Page 127]atque Domestici potuerunt illi dare, aut hic infodere subter terebin­thum, praeter Idola? Dicitur ramen & illos ei dedisse Dus, & hunc Deos infodisse. Idola proinde & vocabantur, & censebantur Dii.

3. Exodi XXXII. 4. Israelitae dixerunt: Hi sunt Dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti; cum de Vitulo recens ab Aarone conflato loquerentur: cui, Vitulo, Aaron idem altare sacravit, solemni cultu sacrificium obtulit, & festum diem ei colendo indixit.

4. Judicum XVII. 5. Michas aediculam in domo suâ, Deo separavit, & fecit Ephod. & Theraphim, & Idola. Deo separasse, id est, consecrasse dicitur aediculam, qui Idolo, à se facto sacellum aliquod ad ejus vene­rationem destinavit. Deinde ejusdem libri C. XVIII. 24. cum Michae à Danitis ablatum fuisset Idolum, jacturam illam Idoli, his verbis de­plorat: Deos meos, quos feci mihi, tulistis.

5. Sap. XIV. 21. Aut affectui, aut Regibus deservientes homines, incommu­nicabile nomen lapidibus, & lignis imposuerunt. Scilicet, quia Dei nomen statuis lapideis, ligneisque imposuerant homines; quod nomen incom­municabile dicitur, ob singularitatem naturae Divinae per illud significa­tae. Et cap. XV. 15. ejusdem operis dicitur: Omnia Idola Nationum Deos aestimaverunt.

6. Dan. XIV. 5. v. 6. Rex Babylonis Danieli, Deum ipsius mortuum esse exprobranti, ait: Non videtur tibi Bel esse vivens Deus. Annon vides quanta comedat, & bibat quotidie? Et ait Daniel arridens: Ne erres, Rex, iste enim (nempe Bel) intrinsecùs luteus est, & forinsecùs aeneus: neque comedit aliquando. Ex quibus verbis patet de ipsâ statuâ sermonem fuisse, cui singulis diebus cibi apponebantur, quos Rex ab ipsâ statuâ consumi solere, indeque eam vivere deducebat. Cujus errorem redarguit Da­niel: qui refertur etiam in consequentibus Sacerdotum Idololatra­rum fraudem detexisse, qui cibos illos consumebant, Idolo oblatos.

Secundum Testium agmen ex Paganis idem attestantibus constat. Lucianus in Dialogo, cui titulus Iupiter Tragaedus, cum retulisset Mer­curium Jovis nomine Deos omnes in Concilium convocasse, haec ve­lut à Jove dicta refert: Iam plenis viis conveniunt, nempe Dii Quaprop­ter, O Mercuri, assumens illos in sedes colloca, pro suâ quemque dignitate. [Page 128]Priores quidem sedes occupent Aurei post hos locentur Argentei: Deinceps verò subsequantur quot quot sunt Elephantini: his postremò succedant Aenei, atque Lapidei. Verum iu his etiam ipsis Phidiae, aut Alcamenis, aut Mironis, aut Eu­phranoris, aut talium Artificum gratia praehonoretur. Caeterum vulgares illi nullâ arte nobiles, longè alicubi conclusi in angulum locentur cum silentio; com­plentes tantùm concionem. Dubitat exinde Merourius, quâ ratione de Deotum meritis judicare possit, cum inter Aureos aliqui essent valdè ponderosi, leviores alii. Aliud etiam incommodum ex eâ Sedium di­stributione consecuturum ait, quod Dii Barbari praesiderent, Graecis postpositis, cum hi ut plurimùm tantum essent Lapidei, aliorum ve­rò multi Aurei: cum tamen Graecis Diis ob Artis excellentiam prae­stantior locus deberetur. Alia difficultas subinde nata, de Colosso Rhodio, qui licet Aeneus tantum esset, ob magnitudinem tamen, & Aeris copiam, majoris esset precii, quam ipsi Dii Aurei: Cum tamen iste prae magnitudine in Scamnis aliis praeparatis sedere non posset, jussus est in medio consistere. Haec & id genus alia non pauca, ex­plieari quî possunt, nisi Idola Dii censerentur?

Deinde Jamblichus apud Photium in Bibliothecâ Cod. CCXV. do­cet Idola divina esse, sive caelo delapsa sint, sive hominum manu ar­teque fabricentur: omniaque naturam excedere. Quem eam ob cau­sam Philoponus impugnavit: ut ibidem traditur.

Plato ab Eusebio l. XIII. de Praepar. Euangel. C. VIII. dicitur simu­lachris, quae manibus hominum fiunt, & ad corum similitudinem for­mata sunt, Dei appellationem turpiter attribuisse. His plura addemus è Paganorum operibus desumpta testimonia, obiter inferiùs.

Huic etiam Veritati Patres attestantur. 1. sit Justinus M. Epist. ad Diognetum. Vide non solum oculis; sed etiam Prudentiâ, inquit, cujus sunt subsistentin, aut eujus forma ii, quos vocatis, & existimatis Deos. Nonne eorum alius est Lapis, ei, qui calcatur, similis? alius autem est aes, nihilo melius, quam quae in usum nostrum fabricata sunt vasa? alius lignum, & quidem etiam putri­dum? alius argentum, cui opus est homine custodituro, ne furto auferatur? alius ferrum rubigine corruptum: alius testa, nihilo speciosior eâ, quae ad abjectissimum ministerium facta est? Nonne ex materiâ corruptioni obnoxiâ sunt haec omnia? [Page 129]nonne ferri, & ignis ope fabricata? nonne eorum aliud sculptor Lapidum, aliud Faber aerarius, aliud faber argentarius, aliud figulus finxit? Minimeque in ta­lem formam unumquodque mutatum erat, priusquam arte alicujus horum haec im­pressa ei fuisset? Nonne quae nunc eâdem è materia sunt vasa, similia his reddi possunt, si eosdem artifices naneiscantur? Nonne haec quae à vobis adorantur, ab hominibus vasa reliquis similia fieri rursum possint? Nonne surda sunt omnia? Nonne caeca? Nonne inanima? Nonne sensus omnis expertia? Nonne immobilia? Nonne omnia putrescunt? Nonne omnia corrumpuntur? HAEC DEOS VOCATIS, his servitis, haec adoratis, & omnino similes istis reddimini. Idcirco sunt vobis odio Christiani, quoniam hos esse Deos non arbierantur. Haec Justinus M.

Consonat Tertullianus Apolog. C. XII. De simulachris ipsis, in quit, ni­hil aliud deprehendo, quam materias sorores esse vasculorum communium, vel ex ipsis vasculis: quasi fatum consecratione mutantes, licentiâ artis transfigurante, in ipso opere sacrilegè: Vt revera nobis maximè, qui propter Deos ipsos plectimur, solatium paenarum esse possit, quod eadem & ipsi patiantur, ut fiant. Crucibus, & stipitibus imponitis Christianos: quod simulachrum non prius argilla deformat Cruci, & stipiti superstructa? In patibulo primum corpus Dei vestri dedolatur. Vngulis deraditis latera Christianorum: at in Deos vestros validiùs incumbunt asciae, & runcinae, & scobinae. Cervices ponimus ante plumbum, & glutinum, & gomphos: Sine capite sunt Dii vestri. Ad bestias impellimur, certè quas Libero, & Cibele, & Cereri applicatis. Ignibus urimur, hoc & illi à primâ qui­dem massâ. In metalla damnamur: inde censentur Dii vestri. In Insulis relegae­mur: Solet & in Insulis aliquis Deus vester aut nasci, aut mori. Si per haec con­stat Divinitas aliqua, ergo qui puniuntur, consecrantur, & numina erunt di­cenda supplicia. Sed planè non sentiunt has injurias, & contumelias suae fabri­cationis Dii vestri sicut nec obsequia, &c.

Item ejusdem operis C. XXV. Nifallor, inquit, omne regnum, vel impe­rium bellis quaeritur, & Victoriis propagatur. Porrò bella, & Victoriae, captis & eversis plurimùm urbibus constant: id negotium sine Deorum injuriâ non est: Caedes, & strages maenium, & templorum, pares caedes Civium. & Sacerdotum, nec dissimiles rapinae sacrarum divitiarum, & prophanarum. Tot igitur Sacrile­gia Romanorum, quot Trophaea: tot de Diis, quot de gentibus triumphi: tot ma­nubiae, quot manent adhuc simulachra captivorum Deorum. Et ab hostibus ergo [Page 130]suis sustinent adorari, & illis imperium sine fine decernunt, quorum magis inju­rias, quam Adulationes, remunerasse debuerunt. Sed qui nihil sentiunt, tam im­punè laeduntur, quam frustra coluntur.

Deinde ibidem cap. XL. Si quid adversi accidit, Vrbibus, caedem clades Templorum, quae & murorum fuerunt: ut jam hoc revincam, non à Diis eve­mre, quia & ipsis evênit.

Denique lib. de Resur. Carnis C. VI. Phydiaemanus Iovem Olympium ex Ebore molitur, & Adoratur: nec jam bestiae, & quidem insulsissimae dens est; sed summum saeculi numen: non quia Elephas; sed quia Phidias tantus. Vt ho­nestiùs homo Deum; quam Deus hominem finxerit.

Cyprianus l. de exhortat. Martyrii c. I. ex professo probat: Quod Idola Dii non sint.

Hier. l. altero Comment. in Mat. XV. Idololatras ait: Ignorasse Deum, & adorasse Lapidem.

Legantur quae habet B. Ambrosius l. II. de Virginibus, non pro­cul à sine: veritatem hîc traditam evidenter confirmant.

Augustinus l. I. de consensu Euang. C. XXVII. Quaerunt Pagani, ubi Deos suos intrudant, ne à Christianis inveniantur, & confringantur.

Quod B. Augustinus paucis verbis complexus est, pluribus expo­nit Theodoretus lib. X. de Curandis Graecorum affect. pag. DCXXXIV. Si fateri ipsi non vultis, inquit, at omnibus conflat, qui Deos terrâ obrutos sae­penumero suis oculis viderunt, indeque ab iis, qui Pietatem didicerant, erutos, & in lucem prolatos. Alii enim daemonum cultui mancipati defoderunt, Diis opem ferre se arbitrantes: alii talia quaerentibus, ubi laterent indioarunt. Hi verò in­ventos, erutosque publicè spectandos proposuerunt, ut mulierculis, adolescentulis­que ludibrio essent, qui Dii vocabantur. Erant enim partim reptilium, partim quadrupedum simulachra, etiam vespertilionum, & inurium imagines adorabant. Cumque animalia ipsa; serpentes, inquam, & scorpiones, & mures vespertillio­nesque interficerent, eorum tamen simulachra ut Deos colebant. Haec Theo­doretus.

Arnobius lib. VI. contra Gentes. Simulachra ista, quae vos terrent, in­quit, quaeque Templis in omnibus prostrati, atque humiles adoratis, ossa, lapides, aera sunt; argentum, aurum, testa, lignum sumptum ex arbore, aut commixium [Page 131]glutinum gypso: ex ornatibus fortassè meretriciis, aut ex muliebri mundo. Iste non error est, non, ut propriè dicatur, amentia, Deum credere, quem tute ipse for­maris: supplicare trembundum fabricatae abs te rei: & cum scias, & certus sis, tui operis & digitorum artem, pronum in faciem ruere, opem rogare supplicitèr, adversisque in rebus, atque in temporibus asperis, propitii numinis favorem suc­currere, &c. Haec Arnobius.

Eusebius lib. IX. hist. Eccles. C. VI. orationem refert Luciani Pres­byteri, Fidei suae & Conversionis â Paganismo rationem reddentis, in quâ haee habet: Fateor, erravimus etiam nos aliquando; & simulachra, quae ipsi finximus, Deos Coeli, & Terrae putabamus Auctores. Sed arguebat eos fra­gilis substantiae suae à nobis praestita Consecratio &c.

Denique Ruffinus lib. II. Hist. (qui ab aliquibus liber XI. Eusebii dicitur) pugnam refert inter Ignem Chaldaeorum Deum, & aliarum Gentium Deos, ex metallo, lignove factos: illumque alios omnes vicisse, ligneos comburendo, metallinos verò liquefaciendo atque conflando. Eum tamen victum à Canopo Aegyptiorum Deo, cujus Caput Vase ex Argillâ magno aquâ pleno, foraminibus cerâ clausis imposuerunt ejus Sacerdotes. Cum enim liquefactâ cerâ, aqua dif­flueret, ignem à Chaldaeis adoratum extinxit. Unde colligitur Chal­daeos quidem Ignem adorasse, reliquas verò in circuitu Gentes co­luisse simulachra.

Hinc patet meritò dictum Sap. XV. 17. Meliorem esse hominem opi­ficem iis, quos colit: cum ille vixerit aliquando; isti verò nunquam.

SECTIO XXVI. Pagani Deos coluerunt ab hominibus factos.

HAec secunda est ratio, quâ primariam propositionem probamus: Nec enim verum esse potuit, Paganos opera manuum suarum coluisse, scilicet supremo cultu, soli Deo debito; nisi Idola Deos existi­massent. Coluisse porrò Deos hominum manu factos, frequentissimè fuit illis exprobratum, tum in sacris Litteris, tum à sanctis Patribus: [Page 132]nec minus frequenter ab ipsismet Paganis agnitum. Nam.

1. Exodi XXXII. 1. Israëlitae dixerunt Aaroni. Fac nobis Deos, qui nos praecedant. Cumque factus illâ occasione fuisset vitulus, dixerunt iidem. Hi sunt Dii tui Israël, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti.

2. Lib. III. Reg. XIV. 9. Operatus est mala super omnes qui fuerunt ante te, & fecisti tibi Deos alienos, & conflatiles, ut me ad iracundiam provocares: me autem projecisti post corpus tuum.

3. Lib. IV. Reg. XVII. 29. Vnaquaeque Gens fabricata est Deum suum; po­sueruntaue eos in fanis excelsis, quae fecerant Samaritae, Gens & Gens in urbibus suis, in quibus habitabat,

4. Isaias 11.8. Repleta est terra ejus Idolis, opus manuum suarum adorave­runt, quod fecerunt digiti eorum. Et incurvavit se homo, &c. Et C. XXXVII. 19. cum gloriati fuissent Regis Assyriorum Legati, illum variarum Gentium Deos destruxisse, quatenus Idola comminuerat, id agnoscit Ezechias verum esse. Dederunt, inquit, nimirum Assyrii, Deos eorum igni: non enim erant Dii; sed opera manuum hominum, lignum, & lapis, & com­minuerunt eos.

5. Sapientiae XIII. 10. Infaelices sunt, & inter mortuos spes illorum est, qui appellaverunt Deos opera manuum hominum, aurum, & argentum, artis in­ventionem, & similitudines animalium, aut lapidem inutilem, opus manus an­tiquae.

6. Oscae XIV. 4. Israëlitae ad Dominum conversi, de praeteritis pec­catis dolentes, suum benè vivendi propositum his verbis exprimunt: non dicemus ultrà: Dii nostri. opera manuum nostrarum.

7. Apocal. IX. 20. Caeteri homines, qui non sunt occisi in his plagis, neque paenitentiam egerunt de operibus manuum suarum, ut non adorarent daemonia, & simulachra aurea, & argentea, & aerea, & lapidea, & lignea. &c.

8. Prohibentur Dii manu facti. Exod, XX. 23. Non facietis Deos ar­genteos, nec Deos aureos facietis vobis.

9. Paena indicitur non servantibus Dei mandata, quod essent Diis manusactis servituri. Deut. IV. 28. Servietis Diis, qui hominum manu fa­bricati sunt, ligno, & lapidi, qui non vident, nec audiunt, nec comedunt, nec odorantur.

10. Denique cum Act. XIX. 26. Demetrius Argentarius seditio­nem adversus B. Apostolum excitaret, quod Religionem publicam violasset, id unum allegavit, eum ubique docere: Quod non sunt Dii, qui manibus fiunt. Credebant ergo illi Deos esse, qui manu fiunt.

11. Audiamus iterum Isaiam c. XLIV. à v. 13. ubi errorem istum stupidissimum refert, eumque solito sibi vigore confutat. Artifex lig­narius extendit normam, inquit, formavit illud in runcinâ, fecit illud in angu­laribus, & in circino tornavit illud, & fecit imaginem viri, quasi speciosum ho­minem habitantem in domo. Succidit cedros, tulit ilicem, & quercum, quaestete­rat inter ligna saltus: plantavit pinum, quam pluvia nutrivit: & facta est ho­minibus in focum, sumpsit ex eis, & calefactus est; & succendit, & coxit pa­nes: de reliquo autem operatus est Deum, & adoravit, & curvatus est ante illud. Medium ejus combussit igni, & de medio eius carnes comedit: coxit pulmentum & saturatus est, & ealefactus est, & dixit: Vah! calefactus sum, vidi focum. Re­liquum autem ejus Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi; curvatus est ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Haec de simulachris ligneis, sive sculptilibus.

De Metallinis vero, sive conflatilibus, addir C. XLVI. 5.6. & 7. Cui assimilastis me & adaequastis, & comparastis, me, & fecistis similem? Qui con­fertis aurum de sacculo, & argentum staterâ ponderatis, conducentes aurificem, ut faciat Deum: & procidunt, & adorant. Portant illud in humeris gestantes, & ponentes in loco suo: & stabit, & de loco suo non movebitur.

12. Idem habet Hieremias, licet obscuriùs, X. 3. Lignum de saltu praecidit opus manus artificis, inquit. in asciâ, Argento, & auro decoravit illud, clavis, & malleis compegit, ut non dissolvatur. In similitudinem palmae fabricata sunt, & non loquentur, portata tollentur, quiaincedero non valent. Nolite ergo ti­mere ea; quia nec malè possunt facere, nec benè. Et v. 15. Vana sunt, & opus ri­su dignum. Et cap. XVI. 20. Numquid faciet sibi homo Deos, & ipsi non sunt Dii?

Clarius Auctor libri Sap. XIII à VII. Si quis artifex faber de sylvâ lignum rectum secuerit, & hujus doctè evadat omnem corticem, & arte suâ usus, diligenter fabricet vas utile ad conversationem vitae, reliquiis autem ejus operis ad praeparationem escae abutatur: & reliquum horum, quod ad nullos usus facit, [Page 134]lignum eurvum, & vorticibus plenum, sculpat diligenter per vacuitatem suam, & per scientiam suae artis figuret illud, & assimilet illud imagini hominis, aut alicus ex animalibus illud comparet, perliniens rubricâ, & rubicundum faciens colorem illius, & omnem maculam, quae in illo est, perliniens. Et faciat ei dig­nam habitationem, & in pariete ponens illud & confirmans ferro, ne fortè ca­dat, prospiciens illi, sciens quia non potest adjuvare se. &c. Haec è sacrâ Scri­pturâ.

Secunda probatio ducitur ex Paganorum ipsorum confessione. Horatius lib. IV. Carm. Ode VIII. ait

— Neque tu pessima munerum
Ferres, divite me scilicet artium,
Quas aut Parrhasius protulit, aut Scopas,
Hic saxo, liquidis ille coloribus,
Solers nunc hominem ponere, nunc Deum:
Sed non haec mthi vis.

Q [...]d. in statuariâ, aut Picturâ se non adeo excellere, ut Deos formare posset, quod fecerunt nobiles illi sculptores, atque Pictores. Clariùs adhuc l. I. Sat. Satyrâ VIII. ubi haec habet:

Olim truncus eram ficulnus inutile lignum
Cum faber incertus, scamnum faceretne Priapum,
Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego, furum aviumque
Maxima formido.

2. Concinit huic Poëtarum Latinorum omnium judicio Princeps, Virgilius Bucolic. VII. eundem faedissimum Deum alloquens:

Nunc te marmoreum pro tempore fecimus: at tu
Si faetura gregem suppleverit, aureus esto.

3. Lucianus in Dialogo, cui titulus, Iupiter Tragaedus, non solùm idem docet; sed etiam Artifices nominat clarissimos, à quibus Dii ce­leberrimi facti sunt, v. c. Phidiam, Alcamenem, Euphranorem, alios­que Deum Auctores, quasi diceremus Creatorum Creatores: verba dedimus supra.

4 Mercurius Trismegistus, ut testatur Augustinus lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei, C. XXIII. & XXIV. aliquos Deos ab hominibus factos agnoscit, eos [Page 135]scilicet qui in Templis colebantur. Cumque nulli essent, qui non in Templis colerentur, nulli erant praeter Idola, & ipsa daemonia velut unum quid cum Idolis adorabantur.

Tertia probatio desumitur ex Patribus: 1. Origenes lib. I. contra Cels. pag. VI. Christiani Deos manufactos, inquit, pro Numinibus non hae­bent, cum rationi non sit consentaneum, communia nequam artificum, & ple­rumque scelestorum opera inter Deos censere.

2. Justinus M. Apol. II. p. LVIII. O stuperem è fulmine attonitum! Homines impuros, Deos, qui adorentur, fingere, & transformare, profitemini.

Tametsi Tertullianum supra dedimus, non pigebit ejus verba ite­rum exscribere, ex l. de Resur. Carnis, C. VI. Phidiae manus Iovem Olym­pium ex Ebore, melitur, & adoratur: nec jam Bestiae, & quidem insulsissimae dens est; sed summum saeculi NUMEN: Non quia Elephas; sed quia Phidias tantus.

Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei C. XXIII. fusè idipsum probat ex Hermete Trismegisto. Quod paulò superiùs ostendimus.

SECTIO XXVII. Pagani suis Idolis supplicabant & in iis spem habebant.

Haec tertia est ratio, quâ nostra Assertio praecipua confirmatur: cum enimverò suis Idolis supplicaverint, ab iis petierint, quae desiderabant, spem in iis repositam habuerint, ea sibi eorum virtute praestitum iri, consequens est, credidisse verè Deos esse. Haec autem assumpta vera esse, patet, nam

Sap. XIII. 17. dicitur, de eo, qui Idolum erexerat: De substantiâ suâ, & de filiis suis, & de nuptiis votum faciens, inquirit. Non erubescit loqui cum eo, qui sine animâ est: Et pro sanitate quidam infirmum deprecatur, & pro vitâ mortuum rogat, & in adjutorium inutilem invocat: & pro itinere petit ab eo, qui ambulare non potest: & de acquirendo, & de operando, & de omnium re­rum eventu petit ab eo, qui in ommbus est inutilis. Et cap. XIV. Iterum alius [Page 136]navigare cogitàns, & per feros fluctus iter facere incipiens, ligno portante se, fragilius lignum invocat.

Similia sunt, quae scribit Hieremias in Epist. suâ ad Contribules suos in Babylone captivos (habetur Baruch VI. 40.41.) Chaldaei, in­quir, cum audierint mutum non posse loqui, offerunt ilum ad Bel. postulantes ab eo loqui: quasi possint sentire, qui non habent motum: & ipsi cum intellexorint, relinquent ea. Sensum enim non habent ipsi Dii illorum.

Scio quidem utrum (que) hoc opus inter Apocrypha recenseri ab iis, quo­rum causâ haec scribimus. Adeo (que) causaturos non satis ea auctoritatis habere, ad faciendam fidem divinam. Caeterùm in materiâ facti (qua­lis est, quam tractamus) cur iis fides humana saltem denegetur scire percupio. Scripta sunt ea opera cum totum orbem occuparet Idolo­latria: atque eum in finem scripta, (saltem Epistola dicta) ut Capti­vos Judaeos adversus dominatricem illam superstitionem armaret, & muniret. At verò incredibile est, argumenta ab Epistolae scriptore adhibita, quorum falsitas ipsis oculis deprehendi posset: id enim con­trarium prorsus effectum habuisset ei, quem intendebat, & potiùs ad Idololatriam amplectendam induxisset, quàm ab eâ quemquam re­vocasset.

Caeterùm non solum fide Humanâ; verum etiam Divinâ constat ista veritas, cum ex locis laudatis, quae verè sacra sunt (quidquid in contrarium dicant siue antiqui, sive moderni Haeretici) quia libri, un­de desumuntur, sunt in Canonem Scripturae ab Ecclesiâ recepti: tum etiam quia idem re ipsâ dicit Isaias (de cujus auctoritate Canonicâ nemo dubitat) C. XLIV. 17. Reliquum ejus, ligni, Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi, curvatur ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Nescierunt, neque intellexerunt; obliti enim sunt, ne videant oculi eorum, & no intelligant corde suo, non recogitant in mente suâ, neque cognos­eunt, neque sentiunt, ut dicant: medietatem ejus combussi igni, & coxi super car­bones ejus panes: coxi carnes, & comedi, & de reliquo ejus Idola faciam? Ante truncum ligni procidam? Pars ejus cinis est, & cor insipiens adoravit illud. Quid habent illa testimonia priora, quod in istodesideretur? stat itaque il­lorum auctoritas etiam divina, quae convelli non potest, nisi iste liber [Page 137]convellatur. Unde dubitari non potest salvâ fide Paganos suis Ido­lis supplicasse. Quod probandum erat.

Patres huic veritati adstipulantur. Pro aliis loquatur Origenes l. III. contra Cels. pag. CLVII. Nos certò eos omnes pro ebriis habemus, in­quit, quotquot statuas sensu carentes, ut numen invocant. Idem lib. VI. ejus­dem operis pag. CCLXXXIV. Nos eos dicimus ineruditissimos, inquit, quos non pudet alloqui res inanimas, & sanitatem petere ab infirmis, vitam à mortuis, opem ab inopibus. Haec Origenes.

Nec solum petebant ab Idolis opem; verùm etiam spem in illis collocabant. Hinc Regius vates Psalmo CXIII. 8. Similes illis (nempe Idolis (fiant qui faciunt ea, & omnes qui confidunt in eis. Erant ergo aliqui Idolorum cultores, qui in iis spem, fiduciamque reponebant, qui o­pem flagitantes, iis supplicabant, quantumvis os haberent, nec loqueren­tur, oculos haberent, nec viderent, aures, nec audirent, nares, nec odorarentur, &c. quod eleganti inductione exponit Psalmista. Quae omnia sequens Sectio confirmabit.

SECTIO XXVIII. Pagani quidquid boni contingebat, suis Idolis acceptum ferebant.

PRaecedenti affinis est ista rario, quâ probamus Paganos sua Idola veluti vera numina, veros Deos coluisse, quia cuncta bona ab il­lis proficisci credebant. Hoc ostendimus 1. ex sacris Litteris. Exodi XXXII. 4. Viso vitulo, quem Aaron recens suderat, Populus excla­mat: Hi sunt Dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti. Quae verba de ipso vitulo, de illâ ipsâ Bovis imagine sive statuâ intelligi, quam erexerat Aaron, & ipse textus clamat, & testatur B. Cyrillus lib. VI. cont. Jul. p. CCCVIII. Mira caecitas, mera stultitia fuit, fateor, ita sen­tire, quandoquidem priusquam Aaroni suas detulissent inaures au­reas, ex quibus in ignem conjectis conflatus est iste vitulus; jam ex [Page 138]Aegypto fuerant educti: adeoque suam inde liberationem vitulo ad­scribere, idem fuit, ac effectum facere causâ suâ priorem etiam tem­pore: causam verò realiter causare priusquam existat.

2. Par [...] fatuitate Hier. 11.27. à Judaeis Idololatris dictum, Ligno Pater meus es tu: & Lapidi: tu me gennisti. Quem errorem confutat. C. X. 5. Portata, nimirum idola; tollentur. quia incedere non valent. Nolite ergo timere eos, Deos, quia nec malè possunt facere. nec benè. Quo argumento pla­nè demonstrative usus est etiam Isaias C. XLVI. 7. & Baruch C. VI. Et Ambrosius infra creandus.

3. Daniel C. V. 4. ait: Bibebant nempè Baltassar cum Aulicis suis, Vinum & laudabant Does suos aureos, & argenteos, aereos, ferreos, ligneosque, & lapideos, scilicer ob Victorias, quas de Judaeis, aliisque gentibus retule­rant, quas Idolis suis adscribebant. Deinde versu 23. ejusdem capitis Regi stultissimam illam persuasionem expro brat Propheta: Deos argen­teos, inquit, & aureos, & aereos, ferreos, ligneosque, & lapideos, qui non vident, neque audiunt, neque sentiunt laudasti: porrò Deum, qui habet flatum tuum in manu suâ, & omnes vias tuas, non gloificasti. Haec Propheta. Utinam aut nulli, aut pauci essent inter Christianos ipsos, qui suae Industriae, suae solertiae, labori suo, cuncta quae nacti sunt bona adscribant, pari erro­re: tametsi sciant certissimè nihil profuturum neque laborem Do­mum aedificantium, nisi Dominus unà aedificet, neque vigilantiam custodum, nisi Dominus civitatem custodierit. Psal. CXXVI. Id est, ta­metsi certò credant perinde inutilem esse operam suam, quantumli­bet magnam, ac sensibus ipsis percipere poterant Ethnici inutilia esse sua Idola.

Probatur 2. ex Paganorum confessione Virgilius Bucolicâ vii.

Nunc te marmoreum pro tempore fecimus: at iu,
Bi fatura gregem suppleverit, aureus esto.

Priapum marmoreum, sive marmoream ejus statuam, alloquitur, ab eo petit gregem novo foetu augeri, proposito praemio aureae statuae illi erigendae, in grati animi testimonium, casu quo grex augeatur: quasi ipsa statua illa marmorea Gregi faetus largirtur, eosque ser­varet.

Deinde obsessi ab Alexandro Tyrii rimentes ne ab Hercule, Ty­riorum tutelari numine desererentur, eum, sive ejus statuam catenis vinxerunt. An id, sine fiduciâ in ipsam statuam? Quid sensêre de suo Palladio Trojani? Quid de eodem Graeci? nonne utraque gens cre­didit Trojam, nisi Palladii praesidio destitutam nullâ vi capi posse? Quid de Anciliis suis Romani? Longum esset per cunctas Gentes Latinas, Graecas, Barbaras, discurrere: Nulla extitit Idololatriae de­dita, quae non singulari cultu Idolum aliquod prosecuta sit, velut in rebus obscuris lumen, in adverfis solatium, in asperis lenimen, in pro­speris firmamentum, in omnibus Deum malorum Averruncum. Quae una observatio tantam adducit in medium Testium molem, ut iis fi­dem negari nullo modo posse videatur:

Probatur 3. ex Patribus, qui cum Idololatris vixerunt: Cyprian. 1. ad Demetrianum: Pudeat te eos colere, inquit, quos ipse defendis: pudeat tutelam de iis sperare quos tu ipse tueris.

Arnobius l. VI. contra Gent. Iste non error est, non, ut propriè dicatur, amentia? Deum credere, quem tute ipse formaris, supplicare tremebundum fa­bricatae abs te rei: ut cum scias, & certus sis tui operis, & digitorum artem. pro­num in faciem ruere. opem rogare suppliciter, adversisque in rebus, atque in temporibus asperis, propitii numinis favorem succurrere, &c.

Ambrosius l. II. de Virginibus ante sinem, Dionysii Tyranni, pal­lium aureum Jovi, Barbam Aesculapio, alia aliis Diis sacrilegè simul & impunè rapientis exemplo, docet nihil nec boni sperari, nec mali timeri posse rationabiliter ab Idolis, quae Gentium Dii erant.

Augustinus toto ferè eruditissimo opere de Civitate Dei supponit Paganorum errorem, quem referimus, cumque confutat. Data fuit illi occasio opus illud componendi ex clade Romanâ à Gothis illatâ, quam Ethnici Christianis adscribebant, quòd isti Diis Romae tutela­ribus spretis, eorum praesidio spoliassent urbem, quae eorum ope diu invicta steterat, & floruerat, quamque ipsi porrò à Barbarorum insul­tibus texissent, nisi à Christianis ibi degentibus offensi, eidem sese subduxissent. Vide illius operis lib. I. C. III. in quo eos redarguit, qui [Page 140]à victis Trojae Penatibus Urbem defensum iri, semperque victricem fore, stultâ persuasione credebant.

Accedat Rabbi Maimonides, ut à Dionysio Vossio redditur p. VIII. Congregati, nimirum Idololatrae, adorabant ea, Idola, Vniversis indicantes, ab his simulachris bona, & mala omnia provenire: & proinde summo jure coli, ac metui.

Denique Athenagoras Legatione pro Christianis p. XXV. tradit I­dololatras asseruisse multa miracula ab Idolis fieri consuevisse: quos confutat, docendo nihil aut boni, aut mali fieri ob Idolis, quae verò illis tribuuntur, ab Assistente spiritu malo fieri. Quorsum ista, si Pa­gani non illum errorem errarunt, quem illis adscribimus, nempe Ido­la ipsa, bonorum malorumque causas esse?

Ex iis, quae hactenus dicta sunt, constat, Paganos Idolis suis ad­scripsisse quidquid vel boni tecipiebant, vel mali patiebantur. Eos illa invocasse: adeoque credidisse veros Deos esse, vera numina. Haec il­lis exprobrant Patres, haec Ethnioi ipsi agnoscunt; haec denique de illis tradunt ipsae Divinae Scripturae, Quae susiùs à me pertractata sunt, variis (que) auctoritatibus cum sacris, tum Prophanis confirmata, quòd tam insulsus sit error, quem errarunt, ut fidem vix essem inventurus, nisi tam evidentes tamque solidas rationes adferrem ad id probandum, quàm evidenter patet cum sano sensu, & nativo ra­tionis lumine (quod in illis summum fuisse ultrò fatemur) pugnare dictum errorem. Tanta quippe erat ex unâ parte superstitionis in­sulsitas, ut nullus mentis compos eam amplecti posse videatur. Tan­ta vero ex aliâ parte in plerisque Ethnicis, Philosophis potissimùm, ingenii subtilitas, tanta judicii soliditas, ut à quovis errore saltem Cras­siori tuti videri possent. Hinc ex quo ad Controversiam istam expli­candam animum applicui, suspectae mihi saepe fuerunt rationcinatio­nes meae, & dubitare subinde coactus fui ne fortè minus eorum men­tem esse assecurus, aut nimis abjectè de illis entirem: nec plenum illis rationibus meis, assensum antea praestiti, quàm quae hinc inde di­cta fuissent expendissem: quid scilicet Ethnicis Patres exprobrassent; quid verò his rospondissent illi: & potissimùm quid de his in saciâ [Page 141]Scripturâ Divinus Spiritus revelasset. Cumque tandem vidissem â Patribus unâ voce firmiter, & asseveranter Idolorum, & Hominum mortuorum, daemonumque cultum supremum, quem Latriam appel­lamus, Ethnicis objici; neutrum verò ab istis rotundo ore, simplici­ter, & absolutè negari; sed aut agnosci planè, aut recurrendo ad Al­legorias excusari, atque veluti incrustati, tum enimverò omnis dubi­tatio evanuit, maximè cum viderem quidquid à Patribus dictum fuis­set, ex Divinis litteris confirmari. Superest, tam faedi, tam pudendi erroris fontem investigemus.

SECTIO XXIX. Causae tam probrosi Erroris ex Apostolo.

DE hoc agit Apostolus cum Rom. 1. à Versu 18. tum Ephes. IV. 17. In priori loco haec habet: Revelatur Ira Dei de caelo, super om­nem impietatem, & injustitiam hominum illorum, qui veritatem Dei in injusti­tiâ detinent: quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est illis, Deus enim illis ma­nifestavit. Invisibilia enim ipsius, à creaturâ mundi, per ea, quae facta sunt, in­tellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque ejus Virtus, & Divinitas: ita ut sint inexcusabiles, quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut GRATIAS EGERUNT; sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, & OBSCURATUM EST INSIPIENS COR eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes, STULTI FACTI sunt: & mutaverunt Gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem Imaginis corrupti­bilis hominis, & volucrum, & quadrupedum, & serpentium. Haec Apostolus ibi. In posteriori verò loco. Gentilibus exprobrat similem in men­te caecitatem: Dico, & testificor in Domino, inquit, ut jam non ambuletis, sicut & Gentes ambulant, in vanitate sensus sui, tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum, alienati à vitâ Dei, per ignorantiam, quae & in illis, propter caeci­tatem cordis ipsorum, &c. In utroque loco Gentilium Stultitiam, Insipien­tiam, Ignorantiam, cordis caecitatem, exponit. In priori verò illarum causas breviter complexus est. Quarum

Prima est, Justum Dei judicium, eos homines, qui ejus veritati re­sistebant, mentis Insipientiâ, cordisque caecitate punientis. Eo nimi­rum modo, quo Pharaonem indurasse dicitur, talem illi non dando Gratiam, quâ emollitetur; non verò quod nullam prorsus illi dede­rit, multò minus, quod eum positivè, inspiratâ mali voluntate indu­ruerit. De quo alii. Revelatur, inquit, Ira Dei de caelo, super impietatem eorum hominum, qui veritatem Dei in Injustitiâ detinent. Id est, ejus (veri­tatis) progressum, hominumque ad eam conversionem, injustè impe­diunt.

Secunda causa est Ingrati animi vitium. Non sicut Deum glorificave­runt, aut Gratias egerunt. Ingratitudo porrò est velut ventus urens, exsic­cans fontem Misericordiae, & fluenta Gratiae, ait S. Bernardus.

Tertia est ipsorum superbia, nimiùm de suorum Ingeniorum Prae­stantiâ praesumentium: Evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, inquit, Dicen­tes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt:

Audiamus Origenem haec eadem paraphrastic [...]s enarrantem: l. VI. contra Celsum pag. CCLXXVII. Absolutis Disputationibus egregiis, in­quit, De Animâ, ejusque post exactam rectè vitam faelicitate, missa faciunt Philosophi illa praeclara, quae Deus illis aperuit, humilia parvaque sapiunt, Gallum vovent Aesculapio (Socratem sugillat) & invisibilia Dei, atque Idaeas contemplati, ex creatione hujus mundi, rebusque sensibilibus, à quibus ascendentes ad intelligibiles, aeternam ejus potentiam, & Divinitatem non obscurè viderunt, nihilominus stulti facti sunt in suis ratiocinationibus, & cor eorum, quasi nihil intelligeret, volutatur in tenebris, atque ignorantiâ verae Religionis. Licetque videre valde sibi placentes, Sapientiae atque adeo Theologiae nomine, adorare si­mulachrum hominis corruptibilis, velleque videri id facere in honorem Numinis. Quin & ad Aegyptorium superstitionem se dejicere, & ad cultum volucrum, quadrupedum, atque Reptilium. Haec Origenes: ubi supra.

SECTIO XXX. Ejusdem Criminis aliae causae ex Libro Sapientiae.

HAbentur istae Sap. XIV. à v. 15. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò sibi rapti filii fecit imaginem, & illum, qui tunc quasi homo mortuus fuerat, nunc tamquam Deum colere caepit, & constituit inter Servos suos sacra & sacrifi­cia. Deinde interveniente tempore convalescente iniquâ consuetudine, hinc error tanquam lex custoditus est, & Tyrannorum imperio, colebantur figmenta. Et hos, quos in palam honorare non poterant, propter hoc quod longè essent, è longinquo fi­gura eorum allata, evidentem imaginem Regis, quem honorare volebant, fecerunt: ut illum, qui aberat, tanquam praesentem colerent, suâ solicitudine, Provexit au­tem ad horum culturam, & hos, qui ignorabant, Artificis eximia diligentia. Ille enim volens placere, illi, qui se assumpserat, elaboravit arte suâ, ut similitudinem in melius figuraret. Multitudo autem hominum aebductae per speciem operis, eum, qui ante tempus tanquam homo honoratus fuerat, nunc Deum aestimaverunt. Et haec fuit vitae humanae deceptio: quoniam aut Affectui, aut Regibus servientes homines, incommunicabile nomen lapidibus, & lignis imposuerunt. Haec ibi. Quae causas varias continent ab iis quas praecedenti Sectione retuli­mus planè diversas.

Prima est affect us in consanguineos. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò si­bi rapti filii fecit imaginem, eumque tanquam Deum colere caepit, & constituit in­ter Servos suos sacra, & sacrificia. De quo Minutius: Sic sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant inventa solatia. Ex Saliano observavi supra, non solos Pa­tres filiis suis; sed etiam filios Patribus statuas constituisse, eorumque cultum sacrum propagasse tametsi solùm Patrum hic fiat mentio, ob rationem alibi datam.

Similis affectus causa fuit, quod Antinous puer Bithinicus ob sin­gularem formae elegantiam Adriano Caesari gratissimus, ab ipso, tem­plo Mantinaeae constructo cultus fuerit, & caelo, syderibusque inser­tus. Hunc ultimum fuisse ferunt, quem Ethnici tali modo consecra­runt. [Page 144]Galilaeus equidem Jovis satellites, stellas Medicaeas vocavit; & Recensiores Astrologi clarorum virorum nomina Lunae disco in­scripserunt. Nemo tamen ita desipiet, ut credat aut hos, aut illum quidquam cum Paganâ superstitione, aut Hominum inter eos Apo­theosi commune habere.

Huic affinis est alter affectus Gratitudinis in benè de se, devè hu­mano genere meritos, ob inventam artem aliquam hominibus uti­lem aut aliquod insigne beneficium. Hinc Minerva ob repertum La­nificium, Ceres ob panis, Dionysus, sive Bacchus, ob vini usum, Vul­canus ob fabrilem autem; Romulus, quod aeternam Urbem condi­disset: Flora, quod eandem suis opibus ditasset, Larentia, quod Ro­mulum, & Remum expositos nutrisset, Stercutius, sive Sterquilinus, quod agros stercorare docuisset, mutinus item sive Matunus, aliam ob causam (vide Tertul. Apolog. C. XXIV.) Alii ob alias Artes, five Be­neficia, Dii facti sunt.

Regali imperio non modò Regni pomaeria prolata; sed & Religio­sum alicujus Numinis cultum propagatum, dubitari non potest. Ex Danielis C. III. liquet injunctam statuae à Nabuchodonosore erectae venerationem, propositâ non adoranti acerbissimae mortis paenâ. Alter Nabuchodonosor Holoferni militiae suae Principi praecepit, ut omnes Deos terrae exterminaret, ut ipse solus haberetur Deus ab iis Natio nibus, quas sibi sub­jugaret. Judith 111.13. Unde duplici jugo civili, & Religioso Victo­rum colla premi volebat.

Solitum Romanum Senatum Caesares deificare, notius est, quàm ut à me referri onorteat. Initium à Cajo Julio Caesarum primo factum; qui mos ad Constantini Magni tempora duravit. Quibus id fieret ce­remoniis, dicunt passim alii. In Jure Civili Justinianeo Imperatores defuncti Divorum titulo insigniuntur, sive id factum ex more à Paga­nis ad Christianos transmisso, sive (quod magis arridet) ex privato Triboniani Pagani studio, cujus operà praecipuè Justinianus in eo Jure concinnando usus esse dicitur.

Haec quidem omnia concurrisse nullus dubito. Certum non mi­nus est statuarum speciem, homini similem, haud parum ad fascinan­dos [Page 145]homines, & ad colenda figmenta illa traducendos plurimum at­tulisse momenti: Dicitur enim loco supra laudato, Provexit ad horum culturam Artificis eximia diligentia. Ille enim volens placere illi, qui se as­sumpsit, elaboravit arte suâ ut similitudinem in melius figuraret; multitudo au­tem hominum abducta perspeciem operis, eum, qui ante tempus tanquam homo honoratus fuerat, nunc Deum aestimaverunt.

Audiamus Minutium Felicem: Quis dubitat, inquit, horum imagines consecratas vulgus orare, & publicè colere, dum Opinio, & metus Imperitorum Artis concinnitate decipitur.

Augustinus idem confirmat in Psal. CXIII. Conc. II. Homines tali­bus superstitionibus obligati, inquit, plerumque ad ipsum solem dorsum ponen­tes, preces fundunt statuae, quam Solem vocant: & cum sonitu maris à tergo feriantur, Neptuni statuam, quam pro ipso mari colunt, quasi sentientem gemi­tibus feriunt. Hoc enim faecit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figura membro­rum, ut animus vivens in sensibus corporis, magis arbitretur sentire corpus, quod suo simillimum videt, quam rotundum solem, undasque diffusas, & quid­quid non iisdem lineamentis formatum conspicit, quibus illa formata sunt, quae viventia videre consuevit. Eteum dixisset, apud nos, Christianos, in honore esse vasa Sacra, per quae Deo supplicamus, non tamen à nobis adorari, addit: Illa causa est maxima IMPIETATIS INSANAE, quod plus valet in affectibus miserorum similis viventi forma, quae sibi efficit supplicari, quam quod eam manifestum est non esse viventem, ut debeat à vivente contemni. Plus enim valent simulachra ad curvandam infaelicem animam, quod os habent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corri­gendam, quod non loquentur, non videbunt, non audient, non odorabunt, non con­trectabunt, non ambulabunt. Haec Augustinus.

Hinc factum arbitror, ut tametsi in Mosaici Tabernaculi, & Tem­pli Hierosolymitani Sacris statuae Seraphinorum, & aliorum etiam animalium similitudines sculptae collocatae fuerint, extra tamen ejus­modi septa Sacra aliquid ejusmodi nosquam extiterit, imò severissimè prohibitum fuerit aliquid illiusmodi fieri. Sacerdotibus enim solis, atque Levitis patebat illa Templi pars, in quâ statuae, oratus causâ, collocatae erant: quibus, nempe Levitis, non magnum erat ab Idolo­latriâ [Page 146]periculum. In atriis verò cum Judaeorum, tum Gentium nihil ejusmodi occurrebat, ne esset imperitis Judaeis ad Idololatriam pro­pensis lapis offensionis, & petra scandali.

Male tamen hinc inferes, etiamnum in Ecclesiâ permitti non de­bere ejusmodi statuas eandem ob causam, periculum scilicet Idolo­latriae. Non enim eadem est ratio; tum quia plebs non adeo jam pro­pendet in faedam illam superstitionem; ad Irreligionem, & Atheis­mum magis inclinatur: tum quia diligentia, quam ex Tridentini Concilii praescripto adhibent Concionatores, & Parochi ad explican­dum verum statuarum usum, tutas ab eo periculo praestat eorum oves.

SECTIO XXXI. Vltima nefandi criminis causa, diaboli Praesentia in Idolis.
ubi De statuarum Consecrationem & Oraculis.

NUlla quantum memini in sacris Litteris occurrit mentio diabo­li fese intra staruas insinuantis, indeque praestigias suas expli­cantis, quibus homines Deo ingrati, externâ artis specie capti, vel a­more vel metu commoti, planè corrumperentur, & à sanâ mente alie­narentur; non dubium tamen mihi est ita evenisse: & daemonem statuae Consecratione ad eandem alligari. Lucianus Presbyter apud Eusebium l. IX. hist. c. VI. ad Consecrationem revocat Deificationem statuae. Tertull. Apolog. c. XII. ait: Statuas Soreres esse vasculorum communium, aut ex ipsis vasculis; quasi fatum consecratione mutassent. Et l. de spectaculis C. X. In mortuorum Idolis daemonia delitescunt. Et l. de coronâ militis: Ipsum opus (statua) mortuum quantum in Idolis; vivum planè quantum in daemoniis, ad quae pertinet superstitio. Et minutius Felix: Isti impuri spiritus sub statuis, & Imaginibus delitescunt. Idem habet Cyprianus lib. Ad Demetrianum.

Arnobius lib. VII. adversus Gentes: Isti impuri spiritus, inquit, ut ostensum est à Magis, à Philosophis, & à Platone, sub statuis, & Imaginibus consecratis delitescunt, & afflatu suo auctoritatem quasi praesentis numinis on­sequuntur: dum inspirantur interim vatibus, dum sacris immorantur, dum non­nunquam extorum fibras animant, avium volatus gubernant, sortes regunt, ora­cula efficiunt, falsis pluribus involuta: nam & falluntur, & fallunt, ut & nes­cientes sinceram veritatem, & quam sciunt, in perditionem sui non confitentes. Haec Arnobius.

Et Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei cap. XXIII. Haec ex Hermete Trismegisto refert. Ille alios Deos dicit àsummo Deo factos, alios ab homini­bus: hoc qui audit, sicut à me positum est, putat dici de simulachris quae opera sunt manuum hominum. At ille visibilia simulachra Deorum esse asserit. Inesse autem his quosdam spiritus invitatos, qui valeant aliquid sive ad nocendum, sive ad desideria eorum nonnulla complenda, à quibus iis divini honores, & cultûs ob­sequia deferuntur. Hos ergo spiritus invisibiles per artem quandam visibilibus re­bus corporalis materiae copulare, ut sint quasi animata corpora illis spiritibus di­cata, & subdita simulachra: hoc esse dicit Deos facere: eamque magnam & mira­bilem Deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem. Et subinde refert illius Ae­gyptii verba Latio donata.

Ceremoniis aliquibus, solemnibusque ritibus fieri consuevisse di­ctam Idoli consecrationem, mihi indubitatum est, praescribentibus eas daemonibus, quo potentiùs infatuarent homines. Potentes eas fuisse, & ut plurimùm sortitas effectum, aequè certum videtur. Ter­tullianus l. de Idololatriâ: Vtique scimus, inquit, licet nomina inania, at­que conficta sint, cum tamen in superstitionem deducuntur, rapere ad se daemonia, & omnem spiritum immundum, per consecrationis obligamentum. Unde sequi videtur, ex Peregrinis, Barbaris, nihilque significantibus vocibus con­secrationis Idoli formam, fas sit ita loqui, compositam fuisse. Quod in Magicis ut plurimum usu venit.

Quod ad materiam hujus consecrationis spectat, videtur oleum adhibitum, & fortè coronas, sive serta, insuper addita. Id colligo ex Luciano in dialogo, cui titulu [...]: Deorum concilium. Lapis omnis, inquit, emnisque ara vaticinatur, quae sit oleo perfusa, & coronas habeat, cuique vir [Page 148]praestigiator suppetat, quales multi sunt. Et eo facilius sentio oleum à dae­mone (qui Dei Simia est) requisitum fuisse, quòd Jacob simili modo lapidem oleo delibutum, in titulum erexisse dicitur, Gen. XXVIII. 18. Et altaria holocausti, thymiamatis, & totam Tabernaculi Mosaici sacram supellectilem olei (licet non simplicis; sed variis aromatibus mixti) unctione consecrata fuisse, habetur Exod. XXX. 26. & 27.

Licet verò credam adhibitam saepe fuisse solemnem ejusmodi con­secrationem, non tamen semper. Nihil quippe opus magno ceremo­niarum apparatu, ad accersendos daemones, quò suâ sponte propera­bant ad dementandos homines miseros. Martialis alicubi dicitur in­sinuare, Deûm invocatione exercitè consecrari statuam. Sed firmiorem habemus Propheticum sermonem cui attendimus, apud Isaiam C.XLIV. à versu 14. ubi Ligni progressum describit à primâ ejus in saltu plantatione, donec in Deum mirabili metamorphosi transeat, & adoretur, & nul­lam de ejus consecratione facit mentionem: eam non omissurus uti­que, si semper adhibita fuisset, cum longè minutiora recenseat. Reli­quum ejus Ligni, inquit, Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi, curvatur ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Solâ pro­inde veneratione statua initiabatur; quia ea daemonem illum, qui no­men Viri per statuam illam repraesentati assumebat, invitabat ad te­standum sibi grata fore obsequia illa, preces exauditas esse, & se in posterum propitium fore, statuam illam, seu Idolum, quod Deus ex­inde credebatur, adorantibus, & invocantibus.

Aliquando clarâ, & cunctis intelligibili voce loquebatur Idoli in­cola, daemon, ut cum militi statuam Junonis jocose interroganti, an Romam ire vellet? Respondit: Volo. Plerumque tamen per alios re­sponsa reddebant. Apollo nimirùm per Pythiam, alibi per columbas Dodonides, de quibus supra obiter, sed communissimè apud Roma­nos per Avium volatum, pullorum cibatum, communissimè per ex­torum formam in Sacrificiis.

Quod ad res ipsas, quas nunciabant, attinet: eae vel actu existe­bant, licet in locis dissitis, vel erant futurae. De Prioribus certam po­terant habere notitiam, easque verè nuntiare, velob intellectus sui [Page 149]praestantiam, ad loca remotissima pertingentis: vel ob summam Agi­litatem, illuc transire poterant, ubi & res quaeque gerebatur, & inde veluri momento redire, vel denique per spiritus sibi similes illinc ad­venientes. Unde fieri poterat, ut in iis enunciandis nec fallerentur ip­si, nec alios fallerent. Aliquando tamen etiam in his falla nunciabant, ut habetur in Actis B. Bartholomaei, quando dixerunt bellum immi­nens fore anceps, & valde cruentum: cum tamen tantum non prae foribus Regiae adessent Legati ab aemulo Rege missi, Pacem quibus­cumque conditionibus petentes.

De futuris rebus cum solùm conjecturalem earum cognitionem ha­berent, qualem habent saepenumero Viri Prudentes, in iis enuncian­dis, frequenter aberrabant à vero: ne tamen error facilè deprehende­retur, oracula iis verbis concipiebant, quae in alterutram partem ac­cipi possent (quod faciunt etiamnum nostri Astrologi) unde quîdquid contingebat, sua apud stupidos. & superstitione dementatos homines Oraculo constabat auctoritas. Quod observat Cicero l. altero de Di­vinatione, & B. Hieronymus. Tale fuit Oraculum à Pythiâ Craeso redditum, si fluvium Halim transiret, eum maxima regna perditurum. Quod tum de suo, rum de Cyri imperio intelligi poterat. Item aliud Pyr­rho datum, cum Romanis bellum inferre vellet: Dico te, Aeacida Roma­nos vincore posse. Hinc Prudentiores quique Pagani Oraculorum frau­des subodorati illa susque deque tandem habuêre. Lucianus in dial. Jupiter Tragaedus, cum Apollo vaticinatus esset, subdit tamquam à Momo dictum: Perspicuè dicit Oraculum, Apollinem esse praestigiatorem: nos verò clitellarios Asinos, & Mulos, qui credimus ipsi non tantum habentes Pru­dentiae, quantum locustae Solius quippe Dei est futura certò cognosce­re, qui vocat ea, quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt Unde Isaias C.XLI. 23. Annuntiate, quae ventura sunt in futurum, & sciemus, quia Dii estis vos. Hinc Tertullianus Apologetici C.XX. Testimonium Divinitatis est veritas Di­vinationis.

SECTIO XXXII. Vsus Imaginum & statuarum licitus est in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ.

DE statuis & Imaginibus quia eadem est ratio, de utrisque indis­criminatim agemus: & quae de alterutris dicentur; de aliis in­telligenda sunt.

Primus usus, sive prima utilitas sacrarum Imaginum, est, ut Idio­tas, & rusticos. qui legere non possunt, instruant. Gregorius M. lib. IX. Reg. Epist. IX. Quod legentibus Scriptura, inquit, hoc Idiotis praestat Pictura: quia in ipsâ vident, quid sequi debeant, in ipsâ legunt, qui litter as nesciunt, sic qui vident Christi infantis in praesepio jacentis imaginem, filium Dei carnem factum, nobis in vili tugurio natum discunt. Qui eundem intuetur, Cruci affixum, discit quanta pro nobis passus sit. Qui Stephanum in medio lapidum imbre, Laurentium in craticulâ, Petrum in Cruce, Paulum Gladio cervices porrigentem intuetur no­vit, quanta Sancti passi sint tormenta, ut ad Martyrii palmam perve­nirent.

Secunda utilitas est, ut iis, quorum sunt Repraesentationes, debitus honor deferatur. Viris Illustribus, de Patriâ, de clientibus de consan­guineis bene meritis erectas olim statuas fuisse, adeo notum est, ut, id probare velle, esset & meo labore, & Lectoris ocio vehementer abuti; maximè cum aliquid eâ de rejam dixerim. Constat de statuâ â mulie­re Christi D. virtute à sanguinis profluvio sanatâ, quam Julianus cog­nomento Apostata amoveri jussit, & suam eidem basi imponi, ut alibi diximus.

Tertia; magna sunt Ecclesiarum ornamenta, quae tantum inde splendorem accipiunt, ut caelestis Hierusalem speciem quandam ex­hibere videantur.

Quarta: mentem intuentium fugacem & versabilem, detinent ab evagationibus distractionibusque, & ad objectum aliquod bonum alligant. Etenim:

Segnius irritant animos dimissa per aurem,
Quàm quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus —

ait Poëta Lyricus. Si Christum in Cruce pependisse audiam, id lon­gè minus diu afficit, quàm si ejus effigiem affabrè factam conspiciam. Eam ob causam praeceptum credo in veteri Lege Phylacteria extimis vestibus assui, quorum conspectu de mandatorum observatione iden­tidem admonerentur Israëlitae. Huic affinis est

Quinta: potentissimè ad Christi Sanctorumque imitationem exci­tant conspectae eorum imagines. B. Chrysostomus prae oculis habere solebat S. Pauli effigiem, quâ conspectâ ad ejus imitationem exardes­cebat. B. Teresia secum circumferre solebat imaginem Samaritanae, cujus verba identidem repetebat: Domine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut non si­tiam in aeternum. Ipsa alibi describit, quam commota ad Dei super omnia amorem, peccatique detestationem fuerit, ubi inexpectatò in Christi columnae alligati, flagellis (que) crudelissimè caesi oculos conjecit.

Quae omnia paucis complexa est Sacro-sancta Tridentina Sy­nodus, Sess. XXV. Illud verò diligenter doceant Episcopi, per historias myste­riorum nostrae Redemptionis, picturis, vel aliis similiiu dinibus expressas, erudiri, & confirmari populum in articulis fidei commemorandis, & assiduè recolendis: tum verò ex omnibus sacris Imaginibus, magnum fructum percipi; non solùm quia admonetur populus beneficiorum, & munerum, quae à Christo sibi collata sunt; sed etiam quia Dei per Sanctos miracula, & salutaria exempla oculis fide­lium subjiciuntur, ut pro iis Deo gratias agant, ad Sanctorumque imitationem vi­tam, moresque suos componant; excitentur ad adorandum, & diligendum Deum, & ad pietatem colendam. Haec sacra Tridentina Synodus.

Objiciunt Haeretici: prohibitas cujuscumque creaturae similitudi­nes lege Naturae, si quidem Exo. XX. 4. Dicitur [...] Non facias tibi sculp­tile, neque omnem similitudenem, quae est in caelo desuper, & quae in terrâ deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terrâ. Non adorabis ea, neque coles. Ubi duo prohibentur: primum, facere sculptile, sive quamcunque similitudi­nem, stellarum, animalium, plantarumve, atque piscium: Alterum, ejusmodi similitudinem sive apud eam Deum adorare, sive colere. Er­go quantaeçunque sint Imaginum, statuarumque utilitates, illicitae tamen sunt.

Respondeo 1. non toti generi humano data omnia illa praecepta, quae ad versum usque 17. illius Capitis inclusivè continentur. Hoc constat 1. ex praefatione iis praefixâ. Ego Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terrâ Aegypti, de domo servitutis. Quod solis Israëlitis dici potuit. Constat 2. ex versu 8. Memento, ut diem Sabbati sanctifices. Illius enim diei observationem non omnes homines obligare, etiam post Christi Dom. adventum, liquet, quia a Christianis nunquam fuit observata, nisi ad tempus, ut Synagoga honorificè deduceretur ad sepulchrum, ut ait in simili Hieronymus. Fuerunt itaque praecepta illa directè solis Israëli­tis imposita, licet aliqua ad cunctos se extenderint homines, quia aliàs data fuerant Adamo, atque Noë, & exinde eorum posteros ob­ligârint.

Resp. 2. hoc speciatim praeceptum de non faciendis rerum creata­rum similitudinibus, non fuit de Lege naturae. Probatur: nam dubi­tant Theologi, an in eâ lege à Deo dispensari possit, & plerique cen­sent non posse, saltem in praeceptis primae tabulae, quale est hoc, quo de agimus. Magis adhuc concordes sunt in negando Deum de facto dispensasse, aut aliquid unquam imperasse contra praecepta Legis na­turae. At imperavit aliquid contra hoc praeceptum, si ita intelliga­tur, ut volunt haeretici: quia jussit fieri Seraphim, serpentem aeneum &c. Et scientiâ infusâ instruxit Ooliab, & Beseleel, Exod. XXXI. ad ea formanda. Non ergo est de Lege naturae istud Praeceptum.

Verus itaque dicti praecepti sensus est, non licuisse Israëliticae Ple­bi facere rerum quarumcumque similitudines. Idque primò propter periculum Idololatriae. Secundò, quò magis ab aliarum gentium mo­re secederent. Constat enim varia Israëlitis injuncta fuisse, ut quàm longissimè ab aliarum Gentium moribus separarentur. Quod non so­lus Maimonides; sed etiam Epistola, quae Eleazaro adscribitur, & ci­tatur ab Eusebio in Praepar. Euang. testantur.

Unde constat non obstante illo praecepto licuisse Christianis, & etiamnum licere facere similitudines illiusmodi: Saltem ex illo prae­cepto non sufficienter evincitur illud esse, prohibitum. Quod confir­mat antiqua Ecclesiae Praxis. Tert. l. de Pudic. C.VII, & X. testatur [Page 153]ipsius tempore in ipsis sacris calicibus descriptam fuisse Christi ovem humeris suis gestantis imaginem. Aug. l. I. de cons. Euang. cap. X. testatur eundem Christum Dom. in Templi Parietibus depingi consuevisse cum BB. Apostolis hinc inde ab utro (que) latere pendentibus. B. Gregorius Nazianzenus oratione in Laudem Defuncti Patris, re­fert Templum ab ipso constructum variis picturis sacris exornatum. Denique B. Paulinus Epist. XII. loquitur de Imaginibus SS. Trini­tatis, & mysteriorum vitae Christi, in Ecclesiae apside pingi solitis: cu­jus consuetudinis vestigia etiamnum Romae cernere est, in antiquiori­bus Basilicis.

SECTIO XXXIII. Sacrarum Imaginum, & statuarum Adoratio, sive cultus.

SUppono 1. Honorem, Adorationem, Cultum diversas esse vo­ces, quae tamen eandem propemodum rem important, demissio­nem nimirum Animae coram alio ob Perfectionem aliquam in excel­lenti gradu, sive nostrâ majorem, vel reipsâ, vel in hominum existi­matione, eorum saltem, qui illam venerantur, & adorant, in altero repertam.

Suppono 2. duo in quâque statuâ, vel imagine considerari posse; rem absolutam, lignum, nimirum, lapidem ex quo conflatur (idem est, proportione servatâ de Imagine) & relativam, ipsam formam, huma­nam verbi causâ, sive speciem secundum quam similis est objecto, quod repraesentat. Ex quibus patet hujus Difficultatis explicatio. Quia

Si statua consideretur, ut est res quaedam absoluta, & talis materia, ebur scilicet, aes, lignum, aut aliquid ejusmodi, nullus honorilli debe­tur; quia sic sumpta nullam habet excellentiam honore dignam. Imò homo quilibet eâ sic spectatâ melior, & honore dignior est.

Si verò sumatur, ut res relativa, alteri rei honore dignae similis, [Page 154]similis, illam repraesentans, illi cultus, honor, adoratio debetur, quem­admodum & prototypo: cum istâ tamen differentiâ, quod Prototypo debeatur ille cultus propter se, & excellentiam illi intrinsecam: sta­tuas verò tantum propter connexionem, & velut unitatem, ne dicam identitatem moralem cum illo, cui proinde excellentia extrinseca est. Unde objectum colitur primariè, per se, & propter se; statua ve­rò secundariò, propter aliud, & per accidens.

Hoc didici ex Concilio VII. Act. III. In quâ lectae fuerunt, & ap­probatae Orientalium Episcoporum litterae, haec verba continentes: Sanctas Imagines reveremur, &c. non in materiâ, aut in coloribus honorem conslituentes; sed per hoc officium nostrum, quod ipsis debemus, quorum typum Imagines gestant, impertientes. Et Concilium Tridentinum Sess. XXV. in Decreto de Vener. Imag. Imaginibus venerationem debitam impertiendam esse, &c. quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad Prorotypa, quae illae reprae­sentant: ita ut per Imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & Sanctos veneremur, quorum illae similitudi­nem gerunt.

Sancti Patres Imaginum cultum & venerationem laudibus prose­cuti sunt. B. Athanasius in quaest. ad Antioch. q. XXXIX. eos ait esse dementes, & fastu quodam arreptitio, quia crucem, effigiesque San­ctorum adorare recusant. B. Basilius Epist. ad Julianum Apostatam, possquam de cultu Christo Domino, Deiparae Virgini, aliisque Sanctis debito, & à se exhibito locutus est, subjungit: Vnde & Characteres Ima­ginum ipsorum honoro, & adoro: praecipuè cum hoc à SANCTIS APOSTOLIS TRADITUM SIT. B. Hieronymus in Epitaphio S. Paulae c. III. dicit, illam prostratam ante crucem, quasi pendentem in eâ Dominum cerneret, adorasse. Plures alii Patres in hujus veritatis confirmationem citantur in Synodo VII. generali, Act. IV. Ubi videri possunt etiam varia miracula à Deo per intercessionem Sanctorum facta. Vnde hujus veritatis confirmationem certissimam colligo: nec enim Deus super­stitiosum, illicitumve cultum, multò minus Idololatricum, unquam consirmavit, ne tanti Peccati Auctor censeretur.

SECTIO XXXIV. Cultus Imaginum, & Statuarum sacrarum non est Idololatria.

QUidquid Ecclesia à nobis exigit, quidquid Concilium Triden­tinum definivit, quidquid Concionatores Ecclesiâ approban­te docent, his paucis verbis Professionis Fidei, Pii PP.IV. jussu editae continetur: Firmissimè assero, Imagines Christi, ac Deiparae semper Virginis, nec non aliorum Sanctorum habendas ac retinendas esse: atque eis debitum honorem ac venerationem impertiendam. Haec ibi. Illis porrò de­bitus honor est relativus; non absolutus: non sistit in Imagine; sed transit ad Prototypon: nec enim Imago quidquam habet laude, ho­nore, aestimatione dignum, ut jam diximus.

Haec cum ita sint non mirari non possumus, quâ fiduciâ, quâ fronte cultus iste dicatur cum Paganorum Idololatriâ convenire: in­ter quae tantum Chaos firmatum est, ut aequè facilè duos caeli po­los conjungere possimus, ac duplicem illum cultum, in unum con­flare. Ad quod demonstrandum abundè sussiciunt, quae diximus: adeo ut nihil jam agendum supersit, quàm ea ad praesentem mate­riam applicare; unde clarissima discrimina ultrò sese offerunt. Nam

1. Pagani crediderunt Idola sua veros esse Deos, vera numina; Veramque virtutem Divinam in iis residere, nos nec Imagines, sta­tuasve Christi Domini Christum esse dicimus, neque Sanctorum repraesentationes Sanctos ipsos appellamus, nisi [...], vel ex­pressè addito, vel tacitè subintellecto, Syncategoremate diminuente, aut alienante, quo modo Imago equi dicitur Equus pictus, & homi­nis Imago, homo pictus: quod nihil aliud signisicat, quam Pictura hominis, aut equi: nec ullam virtutem supernaturalem, multò minùs divinam his inhaerere sentimus. Hinc Synodus Tridentina Sess. XXV. saepe laudatâ, cum sacras Imagines colendas esse decre­visset, [Page 156]subdit, id non fieri, quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae, veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus.

2. Pagani sua colebant Idola, ut veros Deos, Sacrificiis, liba­minibus, suffitibus, qui actus ex communi Gentium consensu & usu temporum illorum, in honore divino usurpabantur; Ecclesia nec Sanctorum Imaginibus, nec ipsis Sanctis, Sacrificium un­quam obtulit (imò iis sacrificantes anathemate percutit) nec ullum sacris Imaginibus cultum supremum, sive Larriae, exhibuit.

3. Spem illi fiduciamque in suis Idolis collocabant, ab his fa­tum urbium, Monarchiarum incolumitatem, Gentium faelicitatem pendere credebant. Sic Trojam capi non posse, nisi ablato inde Palladio stulto errore sibi, persuaserant & Graeci, & Trojani: pa­rem in victis Trojae Penatibus, suisque Anciliis fiduciam habuêre Romani; in Herculis statuâ Tytii, in aliis alii. Nos in nostris sta­tuis, Imaginibusve, nullam fiduciam reponimus. Hoc etiam discri­men ex Tridentino desumitur: Non quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit fi­genda, inquit, quod fiebat olim à Gentibus. Ex hoc discrimine sequitur

4. Suis Idolis illi supplicabant, ab iis petebant, quae illis usui essent; nos nostras Imagines nunquam invocamus. Scimus nos ab iis non audiri, multò minus exaudiri. Has oculos habere ag­noscimus, & nihil videre; aures, nec quidquam audire; os, non tamen loqui; pedes, nec eos movere posse, Denique veros truncos esse, veros stipites, quovis homine, Bruto, plantâ, si naturam spectemus, deteriores, & inutiliores, sensu, motuque privatos. Vnde nonsolum frustra, sed etiam stolidè invocarentur. Hinc se­quitur discrimen.

5. Nos ex iis, quae vel boni nanciscimur, vel mali toleramus, nihil ab Imaginibus nostris proficisci putamus: his nec habemus, nec agimus Gratias, pro beneficiis: è contra suis Ethnici Idolis cun­cta accepta ferebant: si quid mali patiebantur, Idola sua placabant; si quid boni obtinebant, Idolis habebant Gratias, & Laudabant Deos suos aureos, & argenteos, &c. Dan. v. 4. pro Victoriis de aliis Genti­bus reportatis.

Superest sextum, & ultimum discrimen: Imago est Rei verae re­praesentatio; Idolum verò rei falsae. De quo videantur Bellarminus, qui id ex sacris Litteris nervosè probat, aliique Theologi, & Con­trovertistae qui pedibus in ejus sententiam ierunt. Nobis satis esse videntur alia discrimina ad id, quod totâ istâ Appendice probare conati sumus, nimirum Imaginum cultum cum Idolorum Adora­tione nihil habere commune: Ecclesiam à faedo, detestandoque Ido­lolatriae crimine immunem esse: nec minori injuriâ scelus illud ei exprobrati, à Cervicosis Calvini Gregalibus, quàm iidem recenter innocentissimis Catholicis, Regique fidelissimis subditis in Angliâ execrandum Majestatis crimen exprobrarunt, sua nobis facinora ob­jicientes; quae si successissent ex voto, ob eadem Catholicos truci­dare constituerant, ut sceleris ab ipsis commissi paenas nos insontes, nihil eâ de re cogitantes lueremus, quae constant cum ex homi­num side dignissimorum testimonio, tum ex ipsorum Reorum con­fessione, tum denique ex ipsorum chirographis. Haec Calviniana Fides!


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