A LETTER CONCERNING Invocation of Saints, AND ADORATION OF THE CROSS, Writ Ten Years since, to JOHN EVELYN of DEPTHFORD Esq.  
By Dr Barlow then Provost of Q. College, and now Lord Bishop of LINCOLN.  PSAL. LXV. 2. O Thou that hearest Prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come. 
LONDON, Printed by John Macock for John Martin at the sign of the Bell in St Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXIX.   

My honoured Friend,  
WHen I had the happiness to see you at our Act, you were pleased to show me a Passage of a Sermon of St Cyril 's in Binius, and ask me, whether it might not be a good Argument for the Popish Invocation of Saints. I told you then (upon a sleight perusal of the Passage) that I conceived it was no ground of any Argument for Invocation of Saints: I perceive since (by your Letter to Mr. Walker) that you desire me to give a Reason why I think so; and seeing your desires are, (and ever shall be) a Command to me, I do (without any excuse or Apology) obey. I know my disability to give a just Reason of this particular, (or any thing else) but seeing you require it, and (out of your charity) think I can, I will think so too— Cur me posse negem, quod tu posse putes? I have hereby sent you a tedious, and (I fear) an impertinent scribble: You know I have a great many little businesses to do, and at this time so many, that I had scarce time to review, much less to transcribe, what I have writ. But I dare, (and do) trust you with all my Infirmities, well knowing that you have as well goodness enough to pardon, as judgement to find my faults. If you communicate my Papers to him who urged the Passage in Cyril for Invocation of Saints (or any Papist else) per me licet, you have my free leave, only conceal my name; and if any of them will, or can show me (pertinently and in short) that I have erred in the particular of Cyril's Sermon, or in the other things I have said against their Invocation of Saints, they will do an Act of great Charity to me, for which I will hearty thank God and them. As to the Passage in Cyril, it seems to me (evident, beyond dispute) that 'tis only a figurative speech, an usual Apostrophe, and no Prayer; and for their Doctrine and Practice of Invocation of Saints, 'tis a Novel and Impious Error and Superstition. He who thinks otherwise, and can give me any concluding Argument for it: Either, 1. A lumine Naturae, from the Principles of Natural Reason common to all Mankind: Or, 2. A lumine Scripturae, from Divine Revelation comprehended in the sacred Scriptures: Or, 3. A Traditione Universali, from the Belief and Practice of the Primitive Church especially, and so downward: I say, he who can give me a cogent Reason from any one of these Topiques (nor is there any other medium in the world will do it) shall have me his Proselyte: Otherwise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is now towards twelve a clock, and I more than half asleep (as you may guests by this rude scribble) and therefore (my Respects remembered) pray pardon  
SIR, Your Affectionate Friend, and (for a thousand Civilities) thankful Servant, Q. Col. Oxon. Sept. 28. M DC LXIX. Tho. Barlow.   

The place in Cyril before mentioned, urged by a Popish Priest for the Invocation of Saints.  
Cyril of Alexandria in an Homily before the Council of Ephesus on St John's day, and in a Church Dedicated to his Name, having cited those words, Heb. 1. 6. When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the World, he saith, Let all the Angels of God worship him: And having asked who that was, and how he came into the world? He adds— 
a Extat locus apud Binium Concil. Tom. 2. p. 548, 549. Edit. Paris. Anno 1636.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Mysterium hoc aperi, O Evangelista, effare etiam nunc, O beat Johannes, qui voces habes immortales. Ecce tantus his pastorum coetus ad te venit, remove nobis lapidem, sicut beatus Jacob pastoribus; resera nobis puteum vitae: da, ut nunc quoque de salutis fontibus hauriamus, etc.  
COncerning this Passage, the Query is, Whether 
Quest.  it be not a plain and evident Passage to prove (that irrational and most Apocryphal piece of Popery) The Invocation of Saints?  
In answer to this Query, (though utterly unworthy 
Answ.  of any serious Answer) I shall crave (your pardon, and) leave to say—  
1. That I acknowledge this Homily to be St Cyrils.  
2. That, although there are faults both in the Greek and the Latin version, (which might easily have been amended by the MSS. or better Greek 
a Vid. Acta Oecumen. Synodi 3. Ephesi habitae. Heidelberg. 1591. Graecè p. 216.  Copies extant in print) yet I do not think that the Text (as in other parts of Binius I know it is) has been datâ operâ, and willingly any way corrupted; and so I shall take it as it is, (granting it to be Cyrils, and not corrupted) and let them make the best of it.  
3. That I wonder any knowing person should seriously cite a passage so insignificant, and altogether impertinent: which carries no shadow of proof of that, for which it is produced. Sure I am, Binius (who diligently observes and urgeth whatever may advantage the Catholic Cause, (as they commonly miscall it) takes no notice of this passage of Cyril, (as appears by his 
b In calce Part. 3. Concil. Ephesini, Tom. 2. p. 665, etc.  Notes, in which he hath nothing of it) which he would not have omitted, had he conceived it a pertinent proof of the Romish Invocation of Saints. Nor does 
c Bellarm. de Sanctor. Beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 19  Bellarmine, Hen. 
d Hen. Vicus Tit. 24. de Sanct. Invocatione, pag. 342, 343.  Vicus, Gabriel 
e Vasquez lib. 1. De Adoratione Disput. 5. cap 2.  Vasquez, Gregorius 
f Valentia, Disput. 6. Quaest 2. De Oratione Puncto 7. Tom. 3. pag. 1261.  de Valentia, or any I have yet met with, (though possibly others may) make use of this passage of Cyril to prove Invocation of Saints, when and where they do ex professo, and datâ operâ, diligently quote all the Councils and Fathers they can to prove that point.  
4. It is well known to all (to whom Rhetoric and Theology are not unknown) that there is a vast difference between a figurative, and a proper phrase and form of speech, between a Rhetorical Apostrophe, and a Theological Prayer. And that such Rhetorical and figurative expressions are very usual in all Authors, Sacred or Civil, (especially in Poets and Orators) is certain, and on all sides confessed. For instance, 1. An Apostrophe, they say, is 
g Vid. Eustath. ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homeri, pag. 453. l. 11. Romae 1542. Quintil. Institut. Orat. lib. 9 cap. 2.  Figura cùm à Judice vel Auditore ad absentem aliquem Orationem convertimus, & quasi praesentem alloquimur. So Virgil,— 
h Virgil. Aeneid. 1.  Musa mihi causas memora, etc. So Tully,— 
i Cicero Orat. pro Cluentio.  Te nunc alloquor Africane, cujus mortui nomen splendori & decori est Civitati. And David, (or whoever was Author of that 
k Psal. 148. 11, 12, 13, etc.  Psalm) has an Apostrophe to Kings and People, Princes and all Judges, Men and Maids, Young and Old, calling upon them to praise the Lord. That the words of David (or those of Virgil or Tully) were properly a Prayer, or any more than an Apostrophe, a figurative and Rhetorical Invocation, as none (with any Truth or Reason) can, so, I suppose, none will say; or if any do, they may as well say, That he prayed to the Sun and Moon, to Stars, Beasts, Birds and Fishes; (for the Apostrophe or Prosopopoeia is equally 
l Ibid. vers. 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.  addressed to them) which were very irrational in the judgement of a Learned 
m Sim. de Muis, in Psal. 148. vers. 3.  Papist, who truly tells us, that 'tis a Prosopopoeia and not a Prayer. In the Song of the three Children (which is Canonical to them of Rome) all Creatures in Heaven and Earth are 
n Dan. 3. 52, 53, etc. Edit. lat. vulgatae. So Isai. 1. 2. Hear O heavens, and hark O earth. So Cicero calls to the Hills and Woods of Alba— Vos Albani tumuli atque luci, oro & obtestor, etc. No Prayer, but a Rhetorical Prosopopoeia.  called upon to bless the Lord; and then v. 86. it follows— Benedicite spiritus & animae justorum Domino, etc. The words evidently contain a Rhetorical figure, an Apostrophe, not a prayer, as will, (and must) be confessed by the Popish Party; who say, that in the time of the Old Testament, there was no Invocation of Saints, because their souls (before our blessed Saviour's resurrection) did not enjoy the beatifical Vision, and so could not understand the wants or prayers of men living here below.  
Once more, we have the like Rhetorical Apostrophe in 
o Nazianz. in Invectiuâ 1. contra Julianum, in principio.  Nazianzene. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Audite haec omnes gentes, omnes qui habitatis terram auribus percipite— Audi Coelum & auribus percipe Terra— Audi haec etiam Constantii magni anima (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) si quis mortuis sensus est, etc. Here we have a Rhetorical figure, but no Prayer (as is manifest) and 'tis observable, that Nazianzene could not tell, whether the Soul of Constantius (whom he so much commends in that Oration) could hear him: and therefore he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or (as the Greek Scholiast expounds it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Si quis sensus sit quo res hîc gestas audiat. And in Cyril's Works (besides this 
p This Oration of Cyrils in Binius, occurs in Cyril's Works, Tom. 5. Part. 2. pag. 352.  Oration of his in Binius, of which we are now speaking) there is 
q Ibid. pag. 379.  another, wherein he has the like Apostrophe to St John and others, thus— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Salve porro, o ter beat Johannes Apostole & Evangelista, virginitatis decus, pudicitiae magister, diabolicae fraudis exterminator, Ephesinae urbis portus & propugnaculum, pauperum nutritor, afflictorum, peregrinorum quies & refrigerium— And then it follows,— Salve Maria Deipara, Virgo Mater, Lucifera, vas incorruptum, etc. all which (and much more which follows) is only an usual Apostrophe, a Rhetorical figure, and properly no Religious Invocation or Prayer: Unless we will say, that he prays to the City of Ephesus, for in the same 
r Cyril. ibidem in Encomio in sanctam Mariam Deiparam, pag. 379. I.  place he invokes that in the same form— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Salve Ephesiorum Urbs, vel potius maris Dea, vel spectaculum, (for so it should be rendered.) This (as the other before) is clearly an Apostrophe, a Rhetorical figure, but nothing of a Prayer. In relation to such passages in Ecclesiastical Writers (especially the Greek Fathers in their Orations and Poems) it is a good caution which is given by a Learned Papist— Saepe monuimus (saith 
s Sixtus Senensis Bibliothecae Sanctae lib. 6. Annotar. 152. Vide Theodoret. Dialogo 3. Where he says, That no Rule of Doctrine is to be taken from the Panegyrical Orations of the Fathers.  he) non esse Concionatorum verba semper eo rigore accipienda, quo primùm ad aures auditorum perveniunt. Multa enim Declamatores per hyperbolen crebrò enuntiant, vel occasione locorum, temporum, ac personarum adducti, vel affectuum impetu & Orationis cursu rapti, etc. So evident it is, and on all sides confessed, that 'tis neither rational nor safe to make Rhetorical expressions Principles, and Foundations, and Grounds of Theological Reasons; to make figures premises, and thence infer (what will not follow) conclusions in Divinity. Now to bring this home to our present Passage in Cyril's Homily: I say,  
5. That the Passage in Cyril (like those abovementioned) is only a Rhetorical Apostrophe to St John; a figurative Speech, but no Prayer. This will be evident to any who impartially considers Cyril's Words. 1. He citys that place, Heb. 1. 6. Cùm inducit primogenitum in orbem terrarum, dicit; Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. 2. He asks, Quis is est qui in orbem terrarum ingressus est? And intending (as appears by the sequel) to answer that Question with a Passage in St John's Gospel; He does, 3. Make a long Rhetorical Apostrophe to St John, as if he were there present, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Mysterium hoc aperi, O Evangelista; effare etiam NUNC, O beat Johannes, qui voces habes immortales; & oblivio ac tempus tuis cedunt verbis. Ecce tantus hic Pastorum coetus ad te venit; remove lapidem, resera nobis puteum vitae: Da ut NUNC quoque de salutis fontibus hauriamus: Imò verò tuum nobis fontem appone. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Anon DICENTEM AUDIMUS? (for so it should be read, and rendered) or, as it is in Binius (for 'tis all one, as to our present business) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, AUDIAMUS itaque DICENTEM. All this is spoken by way of Apostrophe to St John, as if he had been present, and heard them: And then, (as if John had given his Answer, and they heard him) it follows, Audiamus itaque dicentem. Well, First, Where did John speak this which they were to hear? Non in Coelo, (for they had need of long ears, and he a loud voice, if at that distance they could hear him) said in Evangelio. Secondly, When did John speak this? Not when Cyril 
t The Sermon was made when the Council of Ephesus sat, which was Anno 431.  made this Sermon, and said, Audiamus itaque dicentem: but about three hundred and thirty years before, when he 
u Scripsit Evangelium paulò ante mortem: moritur Anno Christi 101. Euseb. in Chronico, & Hieronymus de script. Illustr. in Johanne.  writ his Gospel. Thirdly, What was it he spoke? Not any thing de novo; but what he had spoke and writ so long before in the 1 Chap. and 1. verse of his Gospel; for Cyril having said— Audiamus itaque Johannem dicentem, he immediately adds, (what John said, and he would have them to hear) In principio erat verbum, & verbum erat apud Deum, & Deus erat verbum. Whence I further observe,  
6. That this passage of Cyril, which is pretended to be a Prayer, and a proof of their Invocation of Saints, is only a piece of Cyril's Homily or Sermon, not of any Prayer either before or after it.  
7. All Cyril desires of John in this Passage (and pretended Prayer) is only this; That he would tell them what they well knew already, out of that Gospel he had writ above three hundred years before. For so the words are— Da, ut nunc de salutis fontibus hauriamus; imò TUUM nobis FONTEM appone. By fontes salutis, he means the Gospels; and by TUUM FONTEM, St John's Gospel; and so all he desires is, That St John would set his Gospel before them (which was before them already) that out of it they might draw, or learn that passage— In principio erat verbum, etc. Now for Cyril (or any body else) to desire of John in a serious Prayer, that he would tell them, what he had told them (and they well knew) long before, were irrational and ridiculous: But to do it (as beyond dispute, Cyril here does) by way of an usual figure and Rhetorical Apostrophe, is not only allowable, but in the best Authors commendable. Cyril says here— Audiamus Johannem dicentem, Let us hear what Saint John saith, (though in truth, and propriety of speech, St John spoke not one word then, nor was it possible they should hear him speak what he spoke not.) And so our Church in her 
x In the Communion Service, a little after the General Confession. 1.  Liturgy makes use of the very same figurative expression,— Hear what comfortable words our Saviour saith— And again, Hear what Saint Paul saith— And again— Hear what Saint John saith. The truth manifestly is this: The Priest, who Officiates at our Communion, exhorts the Congregation to hear what our blessed Saviour, what Paul, and John saith (in the present tense) when he reads unto them comfortable Passages spoke by then sixteen hundred years before, and left upon Record in the Gospel out of which he reads them. So St Cyril here in his Sermon, being to prove the Dignity and Divinity of our blessed Saviour's person, out of Saint John's Gospel; he first makes that long Rhetorical harangue and Apostrophe to John (as if he were present and heard it) and then citys the Text, as if he had spoke it then, which he well knew was not then spoken by John, but about three hundred and thirty years before. So that, he who makes Cyril's words here, to be any thing but a Figurative Expression, and a Rhetorical Apostrophe; he who would have his words (in propriety of Speech) a serious Prayer, and supplication to John, that he would tell them, what he had already (three hundred years before) told, and they certainly knew: I say, he who makes this the meaning of Cyril's words, makes both Cyril and himself ridiculous.  
Well, but suppose (though it be evidently untrue) that 
Dub.  Cyril did, in this Sermon and Passage, properly (without any figure) and truly pray to Saint John; will it not be a great Argument for the Popish Invocation of Saints, and confirm the truth of their Doctrine? etc.  
No, it will be no Argument at all. For, it being 
Resp.  granted, that Cyril did pray to Saint John; it will not follow, that Invocation of Saints is commendable, or (to him, or us) lawful. All the Argument that can be built upon this Passage (taken in their own sense, which yet is evidently false) is only this— Cyril prayed to John a dead Saint, [ergo] Invocation of Saints is lawful, which is an illogical deduction, evidently inconsequent, no better than these— David committed Adultery [ergo] Adultery is lawful. Peter denied, and forswore his Saviour, [ergo] we may do so. All men know, that A facto ad jus, non valet argumentum. Sempronius or Titius did such a work, [ergo] It was well done, or, we may do it, this is irrational, and a manifest non sequitur. Cyril's Fact (if he had done it) does no more justify Invocation of Saints, than what David and Peter did, the lawfulness of Adultery, and denying our Lord and Master. If it be said, Cyril was a Saint, a great and good man, and therefore his Example of more weight and more imitable. I answer, 1. He is called a Saint, and I (in charity) believe him so; but whether he really be a Saint, none under Heaven does, or can certainly know, no not the Pope, notwithstanding his Infallibility. 2. He was (I grant) a great and (for aught I know) a good man; but David and Peter (for many reasons I do know) were far greater and better, as far before him in dignity and piety, as in time; and therefore his Action (had it been his) will no more warrant Invocation of Saints, than David's or Peter can legitimate Adultery or Perjury.  
But this was not Cyril's Fact or Opinion only, but the 
Dub.  Judgement of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus: It was in that Council he had that Homily. It was Cyril and the Council prayed to Saint John— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ecce tantus PASTORUM COETUS ad te venit, it was the whole Synod which did supplicate to St John; and therefore Invocation of Saints has not only the Approbation and Authority of Cyril, but of the whole Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus. This is the utmost can be said (by those who bring it) in the prosecution and pressing this Argument.  
To this, (which is all gratis dictum) I say, 1. That 
Resp.  'tis evident (and, I believe, may in part appear by what is abovesaid) this whole passage in Cyril, is only a figurative speech, an Apostrophe, but no Prayer to Saint John; and so (though it have the approbation of Cyril, and the Synod too) is altogether impertiment, and no proof of Invocation of Saints. 2. I deny this Sermon, or this passage in it, to have the Authority and approbation of the Council in which it was spoke. 'Tis true, the Sermon was spoke in the Synod at Ephesus, and is registered amongst the Acts of that Council: But all know, who have read and considered the Acts and Editions of Councils, that many things have been read and spoken publicly in them, and are now Recorded amongst the Acts of such Synods, which are but of private (not Synodical) Authority; such are Sermons, Letters, Petitions, Disputations, and such like, which have been spoke or read, or heard publicly in Councils, and yet have no Authority beyond that of their particular Authors, and the persons whose they were, and whence they came. This is most undeniably certain, in the Canons, and Synodical Definitions of all Councils; Whatever, in any Council, has the Assent and Subscriptions of the Fathers in it; this, and only this, as it has the Approbation and Definition, so it has the Authority and Ratification of the Council: But such Authority (arising from the Approbation or subscription of the Synod) this Sermon never had. 3. I confess, these words— [Ecce tantus Pastorum Coetus venit ad te] are in that Sermon; but they are the words of Cyril, not of the Synod; and so all the Authority they have, (or can have) is personal, (depending on one single person) and not Synodical. 4. That many things (Sermons, Epistles, Petitions, etc.) are Recorded amongst the Acts of Synods, which have no Synodical Authority, is, and must be confessed on all sides, seeing a hundred such things occur in the Tomes of the Councils, which neither Protestant nor Papist believe: As may appear in an Instance or two, Thus  
1. In the second Nicene Council, which (though it really was an Erroneous and Impious Conventicle, yet) at Rome is received as a Legitimate General Council: John Bishop of Thessalonica declares publicly— That the Rational Soul, Angels, Archangels, and all Spirits are Corporeal and Visible— 
y Synodo Nicenâ 2. Act. 4. apud Binium Concil. Tom. 5. pag. 701. C. D. Edit. Paris. Anno 1636.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Non sunt incorporales omnino & invisibiles, sicut Pagani fatentur— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— sed subtiles autem corpore, & aerei, aut ignei, prout 
z Hebr. 1. 7.  scriptum est, Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, & ministros suos ignem urentem. And he saith too, that the Catholic Church knows this to be so,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, novit hoc Ecclesia Catholica, etc. Whether the Fathers of that Apocryphal Council approved this Passage then or no, I know not; sure I am the Church of Rome does not approve it now, though it was publicly spoke then, and still remains amongst the Acts of that Council.  
2. In the same 
a Ibid. apud Binium Concil. Tom. 5. pag. 503, 504.  Council (it is in 
b Baronius Annal. Tom. 9 ad Annum 726. num. 30. pag. 68  Baronius too) there is an Epistle of Pope Gregory the Second to the Emperor Leo Isaurus, in which there are several things said by that Pope (who was sure as Infallible as any of his Successors) which are not now believed at Rome, though the Epistle was writ by a Pope, and is Recorded amongst the Acts of that Council: For 1. Gregory there tells the Emperor (and us) that our blessed Saviour writ a Letter to Augarus (so 
c Ibid. p. 503. F.  Binius and 
d Ubi supra pag. 67. E.  Baronius read Gregory's Letter, though 
e Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 13. ultimo.  Eusebius have Agbarus or Abgarus) King of Edessa, and withal sent him— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sacram & gloriosam ejus faciem (the Picture of it he means) ad eum misit. A most putrid and Apocryphal Fable, and (as such) damned at Rome almost 
f Sedet Gelasius Anno Christi 491.  twelve hundred years ago by Pope 
g Apud Gratianum Can. Sancta Romana 3. Dist. 15.  Gelasius (as Infallible as his Predecessor Gregory) in a Council of seventy Bishops. 2. Gregory tells Leo, that they neither pictured God the Father, nor was it possible for them to do it— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Patrem non pingimus, quoniam quis sit non novimus, Deique natura pingi non potest. But now the Case is altered, they know (it seems) more than Gregory did, and do that which he said was impossible, for they do picture God the Father (and the Holy 
* Vid. Breviarium Romanum, Part. Aestiv. in Festo Trinitatis, pag. 132. Antverpiae, 1660. Nay in Henry the sevenths' time, the Picture of the Blessed Trinity was the sign of a Stationer's shop in Paul's Churchyard; and I have seen a Book printed with this in the Title page— Venundantur ad Insigne Trinitatis, etc. Londini, etc.  Trinity too) a thousand times. Nay, there is a Note in the margin of Baronius, which directly confutes the Text, and tells us so. In the Text Gregory saith— Non pingimus Deum Patrem. The 
h Baron. loco citato, pag. 68 B.  Note says, POSTEA in Ecclesia usu venit ut pingatur Deus Pater. He confesseth the Fact, they now paint the Father, which anciently was never done; and he adds a reason to (confute Pope Gregory, and) prove it possible to picture God the Father, as he is described in Scripture— Quod enim describitur, idem & pingitur, cùm sit eadem ratio utriusque, stili & penicilli. The Cardinal tells us, That God the Father may be pictured; and his reason is— The Father may (in words) be described by the pen, therefore he may be pictured with the pencil. And he does prove this— Quia eadem est ratio stili & penicilli; there is the same reason of the Pen and Pencil. But this reason is (like the Conclusion 'tis brought to prove) wildly irrational, inconsistent with truth, and their own Popish Principles. For 'tis confessed by the Trent 
i Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. In princip. de Invocat. Venerat. & Reliquiis sanctorum, etc.  Council, That the Divinity of God cannot be pictured; and the Trent 
k Catechis. Romanus, s●u Trideminus, Part. 3. de 1. Praecepto Sect. 18, 19  Catechism tells us, (and proves it very well) that to picture the Divinity of God, is a Violation of the first Precept of the Decalogue (they make the second Precept an Appendix, or part of the first) so that it is (and must be) confessed, that it ever was, (and still is) utterly unlawful to picture the Deity; and so all use of any Pencil, (as to this purpose of painting the Divinity) is forbidden. Whence it follows, (by the Cardinal's Logic) Eadem est ratio stili & penicilli; that as it is unlawful to paint the Divinity with the pencil; so it must be unlawful to express and describe it with the pen: But this is evidently untrue, for not only the operations, and persons, and properties of God, but his Nature and Divinity are (by the pen) fully described in Scripture, and out of it, by all Divines Ancient and Modern, Protestant and Papist. By which it further appears, that the Cardinal's position [Quod describitur idem & pingitur, quia eadem ratio stili & penicilli] is untrue and Apocryphal; seeing it is, and ever was lawful to describe the Divinity of God by the pen; and yet (by the confession of all sides) it neither is, nor ever was lawful for Jew or Christian, to describe or picture the Divine Nature with the pencil.  
3. Once more, (to show that many things are Recorded in the Acts of General Councils, which have no Synodical Authority, but are rejected by Papists themselves) in the beforementioned Epistle of Gregory the Second to Leo Isaurus, amongst the 
l Concil. Nicenum 2. apud Binium, Concil. Tom. 5. pag. 504. D. E.  Acts of the second Nicene Council; we have the Emperor's Accusation of Pope Gregory and his Party, for Worshipping Images— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dicis nos Petras, Parietes & Tabellas adorare: That was the Accusation. The Answer there is— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Non est ut dicis, o Imperator: He denies the Accusation, They did not worship Walls or Tables (Images.) The use (he says) they made of them, was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ut memoria excitetur, & mens ad coelestia erigatur, (no harm in this) and then adds— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Spem 
† Spem in Imaginibus non ponimus, says Pope Gregory the second, (he was made Pope Anno 714.) and long after him Pope Innocent the 3d (made Pope Anno 1198.) saith the same— imaginibus inclinamus, non ut spem salutis in illis constituainus, sed ut ad memoriam excitati, devotionem erga Deum demonstremus. Vide Opera Innocentii 3. Venet. 1578. Tom. ●. pag. 75. Col. 2.  enim in illis (Imaginibus) non habemus. This (it seems) was true in Pope Gregory's time (in the beginning of the Eighth Century;) but the Case is much altered since that; the Church of Rome does worship Images, and acknowledge it; nay, they worship them with Latria (as they call it) due to God only, and profess publicly, that they PUT THEIR TRUST IN THEM. Let Aquinas be a Witness for this. He proposeth the Question. 
m Aquinas Part. 3. Quaest 25. Art. 4.  An Christi Crux sit Latriâ adoranda? He affirms it, The Cross (saith he) adoratur eadem adoratione cum Christo, scilicet adoratione Latriae; & propter hoc etiam Crucem alloquimur ac deprecamur, quasi ipsum crucifixum; and that Veneration is to be given, not only to a Golden Cross, but in ●●liâ quavis materiâ (be it made of a rotten stick, or Rubies, all's one for that) adoranda est Latriâ, etc. And he proves it thus, Illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo ponimus spem salutis: Sed in Cruse Christi ponimus spem salutis: [ergo] The first Proposition is certain: The second he proves by (an Infallible Authority) the testimony, and public practice of the Roman Church; Quia cantat Ecclesia, 
n In Dominica de Passione Domini, in Hymno: So 'tis cited in the margin of Aquinas.  (says he) and then he citys that known, old and impious Hynm,—  O Crux ave spes unica, Hoc passionis tempore. Auge piis Justitiam, Reisque dona Veniam. 
This was the Hymn in Aquinas his time, since when 'tis (though not mended, yet) a little altered, for instead of the two last lines, in their late Breviaries, they have substituted these,  Piis adauge gratiam, Reisque dele crimina. 
This Hymn is not (I confess) used now by the Roman Church, In Dominica de Passione Domini, (as 'tis cited in the margin of Aquinas;) yet 'tis very many times elsewhere used, as you may see in the late Roman 
o 
1. Sabbato ante Dominicam passionis. pag. 446.  
2. Sabbato infra Habdomadam Passionis. p. 461.  
3. Maii 3. In festo Inventionis S. Crucis. pag. 876. Partis Hiemalis dicti Breviarii.  
4. Sept. 14. In festo Exaltationis S. Crucis. pag. 649. Partis Aestvae istius Breviarii.   Breviary at Antwerp, Anno 1660. So we see Rome is not much mended since Aquinas his time; they still worship a despicable wooden Cross with Divine Worship (cultu Latriae) they place their Hope of Salvation in it; Nay, their ONLY HOPE, for so their Church-Hymn— o Crux ave SPES UNICA, etc. If it be said, that by The Cross, they mean Christ Crucified; 'tis evidently untrue: For 1. Aquinas says, the Cross is to be worshipped with Latria; 
p Aquinas ubi supra Parte 3. Quast. 25. Art. 4. And yet the 2. Council of Nice, which first established worshipping of Images, expressly denies Latria to be due to any thing save God— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In unum solum Deum Latriam & sidem nostram ponimus (says Tarasius) And the Council assented— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Binius Tom. 5. pag. 570. D. Edition. Paris. 1636.  propter similitudinem, and propter contactum Christi; because 'tis like, and because it touched our blessed Saviour's Body, and that (ex quavis materia) of what Mettle soever the Cross be, Gold, or Silver, or Wood, (all's one) it may, and must have Divine Worship; by all which it is evident he meant (for nothing else possibly can be meant by those words of his) the Material Cross, and not our blessed Saviour. 2. And that the Church of Rome in that most blasphemous Hymn, does (and must) mean so too, and that 'tis not Christ (our blessed Saviour) but the very wooden Cross, which they call Spes Unica, is no less evident from the immediately preceding words of that Hymn, Thus—  Arbor decora & fulgida, Electa digno stipite, Tam sancta membra tangere, Statera facta Corporis, etc. 
After which words (which can relate to nothing but the wooden Cross) it immediately follows—  O Crux ave spes Unica, etc. 
And that this is indeed their meaning, that the Material Cross (be it Gold, Silver or Wood, or what else you will) is the thing which they worship with Latria; is manifestly declared in their Roman Pontifical; where describing the Order of the Procession to be used at the Reception of the Emperor into any great Town or City when the Pope's Legate is there; We are told that the Sword (Insigne Imperiale) is born before the Emperor, and the Cross (Insigne Papale) before the Legate. Then 'tis there ordered, that the Cross shall have the (more honourable, ov) right hand in the Procession, and the Imperial Sword the left hand: The reason there given is this— 
q Vide Pontificale Romanum jussu Clementis 8. restitutum Romae, 1611. In Rubrica Ordinis ad recipiend. Processionaliter Imperatorem, pag. 480.  Crux Legati, QUIA DEBETUR EI LATRIA, erit à dextris, & gladius Imperatoris à sinistris. So then (if the Church of Rome understood her own meaning, and speak truth in Her Public and Authentic Offices) Latria is due, and by them given to that Cross which is carried in Procession, which certainly is not our Blessed Saviour, but the Material Cross, whether of Gold, or Silver, or Wood, etc.  
And here (though it be not directly to our present business, and I beg your pardon for the extravagance) I shall add a little more, not out of any private Author, (of how great Authority and Repute soever) but out of their Public and most Authentic Offices, that you may see how much the Church of Rome (since the time of Gregory the second) is improved in her Image-worship, especially in her prodigious, and more than Pagan▪ Superstition and Idolatry in her Staurolatria, and worshipping the Cross. In their Roman Pontifical, in their solemn Benediction of a New Cross (that's the Lemma or Title to that Office) they pray—  
1. Thus— 
r Pontificale Romanum, p. 359. De Benedictione Novae Crucis, Editionis Romae, 1611. Where the first Rubric gins thus— Nova Crux, seu Tabula, in qua Crucifixus est depictus, hoc modo benedicitur. A New Cross of Gold, or Silver, or Wood, the Picture of it, or the Table in which 'tis pictured (all's one) so it is to be blessed.  Benedic Domine Jesus Christ, HANC CRUCEM TUAM, per quam eripuisti mundum à potestate Daemonum, etc. 1. The Gospel expressly tells us, and all good Christians know, That it was our blessed Saviour's Blood and Passion which delivered us, à potestate Daemonum, not two despicable wooden sticks laid across. 2. But if it had been the Cross, by which he freed us, à potestate Daemonum, yet certainly it was that Cross on which he actually suffered (An. Tiber. 19) and not any Cross which had no being till 1600. years after his Passion, and the Redemption of the World; and yet 'tis here, Benedictio NOVAE CRUCIS: A Carpenter makes a Wooden Cross to day, to morrow the Bishop Consecrates and blesseth it in this Solemn (and Impious) Form— Benedic hanc▪ Crucem tuam (this New Cross, which was never his, any more than theirs) per quam eripuisti Mundum, etc.  
2. After this follows another Prayer in the same Office, and the same page of that Pontifical, so blasphemously impious, that 'tis a wonder, the Contrivers were not, and the Users of that Prayer are not afraid of a Thunderbolt, or Fire and Brimstone to consume them in the practice of such prodigious impiety. The Prayer (horresco referens) is this— 
* And that you may see the stupidity and madness of Popish Idolatry, in the MS. Missale secundum usum Abbatum Eveshamensis Monasterii (in my possession) there is Benedictio Sepulchri, wherein the grave is blessed with these very words, ut sit Remedium salutare humano generi, Redemptio animae, etc.   
Rogamus te, D. Sancte Paten Omnipotens, ut digneris benedicere hoc Signum Crucis tuae (in the old ORDO ROMANUS it is 
s Vid. Ordinem Romanum veterem apud Georgium Ferrarium de Catholicae Ecclesiae Divinis Officiis, etc. pag. 86. Col. 2. B. Edit. Romae, 1591. where the prayer is verbatim the same, only Lignum Crucis there, is here changed into Signum Crucis.  Hoc LIGNUM CRUCIS tuae) ut sit REMEDIUM SALUTARE GENERI HUMANO; SIT SOLIDITAS FIDEI, PROFECTUS BONORUM OPERUM, REDEMPTIO ANIMARUM, SIT SOLAMEN, ET PROTECTIO, AC TUTELA CONTRA SAEVA JACULA INIMICORUM, etc. Is it possible for any man in his Wits, (who labours not under that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that efficacious and cursed delusion, 
t 2 Thess. 2. 11.  to believe a lie) to believe, that two despicable pieces of Wood knocked, and hewed, and cut, and laid across by a simple Carpenter to day, should the same, (or next) day be made a Saving means of Mankind, the Redemption of our Souls, our Comfort and Protection, and Defence against the Devil? How should two rotten sticks defend our Souls, which cannot any way defend themselves? In the old 
u That Ordo Romanus, was composed by Bernoldus Constantiensis Presbyter, circa An. 1060. Possevin. in Apparatu, & Trithemius in Bernoldo Constantiensi, & Vossius de Symb. Coenae Dom. Thes. 2. pag. 441.  Ordo Romanus, (as is abovesaid) it is— Rogamus, ut digneris benedicere hoc LIGNUM CRUCIS, ut sit remedium salutare generi humano, Redemptio animarum, etc. whence 'tis evident, that (after such Benediction, for, I suppose, they believed their Benediction was effectual) they relied upon the (Lignum Crucis) Wood of the Cross, as on their Saviour, and the Redeemer of their souls; and now (having changed those words into SIGNUM CRUCIS) they must rely on the Sign of the Cross for the salvation of their souls; both which are alike stupidly irrational, and (beyond all dispute) highly Idololatrical. And lest you should think that this impious Prayer or Benediction of the Cross, is only in the old Ordo Romanus, and Pontifical; or that now they have left it out, (as not approving such a stupid and impious piece of Impiety) you may find it (in the same words and Benediction) both in the 
x Rituale Roman. Antverp. 1652. pag. 280, 281.  Rituale Romanum, at Antwerp, 1652. and the 
y Rituale Parisiense, Paris: 1654. pag. 394.  Rituale Parisiense, printed at Paris, 1654. And that you may see the strange folly and contradiction of Error and Superstition, (for Errors are inconsistent both with themselves and Truth, the Church of Rome tells us, That the Images of Saints, the Cross, and such like things, though they be, Rerum sacrarum signa, yet they are no Sacraments— 
z Catechis. Romanus, Part. 2. Cap. 7. de Sacramentis in genere. §. 12.  Quia sanctitatis & Justitiae vim efficiendae non habent; they have no Power or Efficacy to produce Grace or Sanctity. So the Roman Catechism, and so the Trent Council (both Authentic at Rome) 
a Concilium Tridentinum Sess. 25. de Invocat. & Veneratione, & sacris Imaginibus.  Imagines Christi, Deiparae, etc. sunt venerandae, non quòd credatur its inesse aliqua Virtus, propter quam sint colendae, vel quòd ab iis aliquid sit petendum, vel quòd fiducia in Imagine sit figenda, etc. Now, if the Roman Catechism, or Trent-Council say true, (and if they do not, good night to their pretended Infallibility) then neither the Cross of Christ, nor Images, Vim Justitiae efficiendae ullam habent; nulla Virtus iis inest propter quam sunt colendae; nihil ab iis est petendum, nec fiducia in iis figenda. And if this be true, than all the passages before cited out of their Ordo Romanus, their Authentic Breviary, the Pontifical and Ritual are manifestly false, (and then too, good night to their Infallibility:) For in that Hymn,  O Crux ave spes UNICA, Auge piis Justitiam, Reisque dona Veniam. 
They pray to the Cross, and yet they say, Nihil ab iis est petendum. 2. Here they say, the Cross is Spes Unica, and yet they tell us, Nulla fiducia in iis est figenda. 3. Here their Church says, the Cross— Auget piis Justitiam, reisque donat veniam; that it is— Remedium salutare generi humano, soliditas fidei, redemptio animarum, etc. (for so their Ritual and Pontifical have it in the places cited) and yet they tell us too (as above) that neither in the Cross, or any Image— Vis ulla inest sanctitatis aut justitiae efficiendae, aut Virtus ulla propter quam sint colendae. If this be true, (that there is no Power or Virtue in the Cross to hear or help us) than their worship of it with Latria (worship due to God himself, as 
b Concil. Trident. Self. 13. de Eucharistia. Cap. 5. Latriae cultus qui vero Dio ●i●●●●r.  they confess) is evident and impious Idolatry: for what can be more stupidly Idololatrical, than to give Divine Worship, (due only to an Infinite Power and Excellency) to a wooden (and sometimes a rotten) Cross, In qua (by their own Confession) vis nulla inest sanctitatis efficiendae, nec VIRTUS ULLA propter quam est colenda. In short, were I not certainly assured by the sacred Scripture, that all sin is folly, and Idolatry Spiritual 
c Jerem. 50. 38. they are mad 〈◊〉 their Idols.  Madness: I could scarce believe that men in their wits should profess and publish such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such inconsistent Positions, and (as my Countryman Scotus calls them) Incompossibilities. Sed è diverticulo in viam.  
But let it be granted, that Cyril did not only (de facto) 
Dub.  invocate Saint John, but de Judicio too, that he seriously judged it lawful and profitable so to do; that he did not only practice (as David committed Adultery, and Peter denied his Master, as to matter of fact) but in his Judgement, approve Invocation of Saints: I say, if all this were freely granted (which is not proved) would it not be a good Argument for the Romish Doctrine which justifies against ours (which condemns) Invocation of Saints?  
No, it will be no Argument at all; For we grant, that 
Answ.  not only about the time when Saint Cyril made that Sermon, (which was Anno Christi 451.) but about eighty years before, that is, about the year three hundred and seventy, Invocation of Saints begun to be held by some, and practised (quite contrary to the Doctrine and the practice of the Ancient Church) especially by some Monks, by some Orators, Preachers, and Christian Poets, as you may see both confessed and proved in Two Learned Men, 
d Chemnitii Examen Concil. Trident. part. 2. pag. 200. Col. 1. Edit. Francofurti, 1578.  (Martinus Chemnitius, and 
e Vid Vossii Theses de Invocat. Sanctorum Disp. Historica altera. These 1. etc. pag. 189. Edit. Oxon. 1628.  Joh. Ger. Vossius;) in whom you may find a just account, when, and how, and by what steps and degrees Invocation of Saints came into the Church. They acknowledge, that about the end of the fourth Century, Basil, Nyssen, and Nazianzene have several passages, which are not only Rhetorical Apostrophe's, or Prosopopoeia's, but such as are indeed Invocations, and not to be excused. Nor does this any way prejudice our Cause, who willingly acknowledge and confess such instances, toward the end of the fourth Century, well knowing they come too late to prove Invocation of Saints a Catholic Doctrine. For Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule is, (and that much magnified every where by the Popish Doctors) that, That is Catholic only— 
f Vincentius Lirinensis adversus Haereses, Cap. 3.  Quod ubique, quod 
g Semper, that is, it must be (else it cannot be Catholic) veritas à Christo & Apostolis tradita, & ab Ecclesia successive credita. So that whatever commenceth after Christ and his Apostles, is a Novelty, no Catholic Verity.  semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; and therefore, if the Primitive Church for above three whole Centuries, neither approved nor practised any invocation of Saints; if all their Addresses and Prayers were made to God only, and by the Mediation and Intercession of Jesus Christ (and not of any Saint or Angel) solely desired; then (by Lirinensis his Rule) whatever is postnate to this, and has its Birth and Original in the fourth Century; this (whatever it be) will be so far from being a Catholic Verity, that it will be an upstart Novelty, as indeed it is, & sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus. 2. When Nazianzene (and some others about that time) begun to use (in their Panegyriques, Poems and Homilies) some more than Rhetorical Invocations, they did it with such Qualifications, and limiting clauses annexed, which plainly show that they were dubious, and had no assurance to be heard. So Nazianzene making his Address to the Soul of Constantine (or Constantius, as it is in some Copies) says thus— 
h Nazianzene Orat. 1. contra Julianum in principio. Other such examples you have in Vossius his Theses de Invocat. Sanctorum, pag. 199, 200. Edit. supradictae.  Quin haec quoque audiat Constantini Magni Anima (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) si quis mortuis sensus sit. His Invocation is Hypothetical, on supposition that he could hear his Prayers; which whether he could or no, he knew not. Nor was it possible he should, (without Divine Revelation) there being no Principle in Nature or Scripture from whence it can certainly be deduced, that Souls departed can either hear or help us here below. He (whoever he be) who thinks otherwise, let him produce such a principle and deduction, and I do hereby promise to be his Proselyte. 3. Besides this (according to the Popish Principles) Invocation of Saints presupposeth the Saints to enjoy the 
i Lombardus Sent. lib. 4▪ Dist. 45. Durandus ibidem Quaest 4. §. 8. etc. & Scholastici (quos scio) omnes.  beatifical Vision; for on that they do ground the knowledge the Saints have of things here below. It is in speculo Trinitatis, that they see our wants and desires; Qui videt videntem omnia, is videt omnia, (that's the Schoolmens Axiom) and then it will follow, that they who deny the departed Saints to enjoy the beatifical Vision, must also (unless they will contradict themselves) deny their Invocation, this necessarily presupposing that. But now it was a common Opinion amongst the Ancients for above four hundred years, (infra aetatem Augustini, says 
k Joseph Scaliger Annot. in Joh. 18. vers. 31. where he saith, OMNES VETERES etiam infra aetatem Augustini, etc.  Scaliger truly) That Souls departed did not enjoy the beatifical Vision till the day of Judgement, but were Extra Coelum in abditis quibusdam receptaculis, where (in Tertullia's language) they did— In candidâ expectare diem judicii. Sure I am, 
l Vid. Sixt. Senensem Bibl. Sanctae lib. 6. Annot. 345. where he confesses this, and citys the places of these Fathers (and almost as many more) who were all of this Opinion.  Irenaeus was of that Opinion, and so were Justin Martyr, Origen, chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Euthymius, Aretas, Victor, Lactantius, Hilarius, Prudentius, Ambrose, Augustinus, Bernardus,— (nec aliter omnes, if you will believe Scaliger) and very many more, as might easily be demonstrated, were it now pertinent. So that none of those were of this Opinion, unless they contradicted their own Principles, and if they did, we have little reason to believe them. 4. If it be said, that Basil, Nazianzene, Nyssen, (and others in the latter end of the fourth and following Centuries) were Excellent Persons, Learned and Pious Fathers of the Church, and therefore we may securely embrace their Doctrine, and follow their example in the Invocation of Saints: To this we say,  
1. We both may and will follow them, so far as they follow Christ, S. Paul requires no more: 
m 1 Cor. 11. 1.  Be you followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Whatever Doctrines pretend to be Catholic and Evangelical, and cannot derive their Pedigree from our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles (let their Antiquity be what it will, if short of this) (all men should, and) we do reject. Christus solus audiri debet, (says 
n Cyprian. Epist. 63. ad Caecilium, apud Pamelium pag. 249. Col. 2. A.  Cyprian) Hic est filius meus dilectus, IPSUM AUDITE, and then he adds,— Quare si SOLUS Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quid ALIUS ANTE NOS faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, CHRISTUS, prior fecerit. Neque enim HOMINIS consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed DEI veritatem, etc. As Cyprian neither did, nor would follow any before him, further than they followed Christ and his Apostles: so neither should we follow any before us. And therefore, if an hundred Fathers in the end of the fourth Century, should preach up, and practise Invocation of Saints (without warrant from Scripture, or the doctrine and constantly received practice of the primitive Christians down from the Apostles) this would be no argument to us, nor should to any. Sure I am, Communicating 
o So Clemens Roman. Constit. Apost. l. 8. cap. Cyprian. Epist. 59 ad Fidum. Gennad. de Dogmat. cap. 52. Concil. Toletan. 2. Can. 11. August. Epist. 93. Paulinus, Episc. Nolanus, Epist. 12. ad Severum. Fulgentius ad Ferrandum Diaconum, Cap. 11. Graeci usque hodie communicant Insantes. Azorius Instit. Moralium, lib. 5. cap. 11. Duravit etiam haec Consuetudo communicandi Infants in Eccles. occidentali usque Tempora Ludovici Pii & Lotharii. Ita Beat. Rhenanus in Tertullianum de Corona Militis, pag. 38. Edit. Junii.  Infants at their Baptism, and abstaining from all 
p No Church Latin or Greek allowed eating any blood, for 1215. years after Christ; that is, till Transubstantiation was decreed. The Greek Church allows it not to this day.  Blood (as utterly unlawful) were more ancient, and far more generally believed and practised in the Primitive Church (East and West, Greek and Latin) and yet the Church of Rome has (notwithstanding their antiquity, and that great authority which received them) rejected both: and therefore she must pardon us, if we reject Invocation of Saints, which begun later, and had far less authority and consent of Fathers to establish it.  
In short, he who impartially considers the doctrine and practice of the Church of England and that of Rome, (as to the business of Invocation) I say, such a one, who has eyes and will impartially use them, may evidently see, that our way is sure, and theirs wholly uncertain (to say no worse) and irrational. We direct our Prayers neither to Saint nor Angel, but to God only, and in the name and mediation of Jesus Christ only. And for this, we have  
1. Divine Precept, and a command to come to him.  
2. A promise that he will hear and help if we do come. Psal. 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, etc. and Matth. 11. 28. Come unto me all you that labour, and I will give you rest. And John 16. 23. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name (not in the name of any Saint or Angel) he will give it you. So John 14. 13, 14. And Phil. 4. 6. In every thing, by Prayer, let your Requests be made known to God, etc.  
3. The practice of all good men (so far as we have any Record) from the foundation of the World till above 300. Years after Christ. For all the Prayers of the Patriarches, Prophets, and holy men mentioned in the Old Testament, of our blessed Saviour and Apostles in the New, and of the primitive and pious Christians afterwards (for the time before limited) are solely directed to God, and never to any Saint or Angel. So that, we having so many great and good Examples to follow; so divine a command to come, and so gracious a promise to be heard when we do come; Here is the ground and foundation of our faith and confidence of success, when we pray to God, in the name of Jesus Christ: being also fully assured (by the clear principles of nature, as well as Scripture) 1. That the God to whom we pray, is omniscient, and so able to hear all our Prayers. 2. That he is All-sufficient, and therefore able to supply all our necessities. 3. That his mercies in Jesus Christ are infinite, and therefore he is willing (which also evidently appears by his many and most gracious promises) both to hear and help us: These are the just and satisfying grounds of our praying to God only, and of all our comfort and assurance of success in so doing.  
But on the other side, the Church of Rome praying to (I know not what) Saints and Angels, and having no just ground or warrant for it, do that, which is not only irrational and vain, but (what, I fear, they will one day find) sinful and impious. For,  
1. There is no Precept for Worshipping and Invocation of Saints: nor is it pretended to. All the Trent-fathers' durst say (and that's not true neither) is 
q Concil. Tridentinum Sess. 〈◊〉. de Invo●●t. Sanctorum. vid. Catechismum Roman. part. 3. cap. 2. §. 11, 12, 13, etc. where the Doctrine of Invocation is ex professo explained, and (as well as they can) provide by Councils and Fathers, (partly in the Text, and partly in the Margin;) but not one word of Scripture to prove either precept or promise for Invocation of Saints. See the last and best Edition of that Catechism, Paris. 1635.  Bonum & utile est, suppliciter Sanctos invocare. Bonum, sed non ex lege necessarium: there is no pretence of any law to enjoin it. And then 1. Our refusing to pray to Saints, is no fault in us; seeing no law requires it. 2. Their praying to them, their worshipping Saints and Angels, will be (at best) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a piece of Will-worship, damned by the Apostle, Col. 2. 19 And (notwithstanding all 
r Vid. Gul. Estium in Col. 2. 19  their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their wild expositions and shifts to avoid that censure) they really are guilty of that crime, and liable to that damnation.  
2. There is no promise, that our Prayers shall be heard, or any way beneficial to us, in case we do pray to Saints. If any think otherwise, let him show that promise; and (for my part) Cedat Iülus agris, let him take the Cause.  
3. There is no Example, or any Record of any Patriarch, Prophet, or pious person, who directed their Prayers to any Saint, from the foundation of the World till our Saviour's birth, nor of any Apostle or good Christian for 300. years after it. And here, 1. For the time before our Saviour's Birth, I confess 
s Bellarmin. De Beatit. Sanctorum, Lib. 1. Cap. 29.  Bellarmine brings some places (most impertinently) out of the Old Testament, to prove Invocation of Saints.  
But he confutes, and evidently contradicts himself in the same 
t Bellarmin. Ibid. Cap. 19 §. Item Exod. 32.  Chapter; and expressly says, That the Saints in the time of the Old Testament did not enjoy the beatifical Vision till our Saviour's Resurrection, and so could not hear the Prayers, or know the wants of the living, (and so it had been vain to pray to those who could not hear.) His words are these. 
u And 'tis the Opinion of Pet. Lombard, Sentent. lib. 4. Durand. Ibid. Quaest 4. Ad tertium, and their Schoolmen generally.  Sancti qui ante Christi adventum moriebantur, non intrabant in coelum, nec Deum videbant, NEC COGNOSCERE POTERANT ordinariè preces supplicantium; etc. So (by their own Confession) there was no Invocation of Saints before our Saviour's Resurrection; or if there was any, it was vain and unprofitable, because (for all that Period of time) the dead were in such a condition (extra coelum) that they could not hear the Prayers of the Living. I know that the Trent-fathers' say, Invocation of Saints, is, 
x Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. de Invocat. Sanctorum, in Principio.  Juxta usum Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae, primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum. And the Trent Catechism tells us, that the Chief Argument they have to establish Invocation of Saints, is, Custom continued since the Apostles time. The words these: 
y Catechis. Roman. ubi supra, part. 3. cap 2. §. 12.  Et, quod CAPUT EST, consuetudo accedat ab Apostolis accepta, & in Ecclesiâ perpetuò retenta, etc. This they say: Invocatio sanctorum est consuetudo ab Apostolis accepta, etc. But when they come to prove this, they have not one Author to witness for them in the first three hundred years, (the time of which we speak.) The Compilers of the Roman 
z Locis supra citatis.  Catechism, and 
z Locis supra citatis.  Bellarmine, and 
a Lindanus in Panoplia, lib. 3. cap 26. He citys (I confess) there, Origenes in Jobum, a spurious work, not by Origen, but an Arian.  Lindanus Ruraemundensis Episcopus (and so others) data opera, and diligently rake up all the Testimonies they can out of Councils and Fathers, and yet bring not one Father (there is no pretence for Councils) who writ within the three hundred years next after our Blessed Saviour, save Dionyfius Areopagita, and Irenaeus. Now for Areopagita he is a spurious Author, (of no Authority, as to the particular we now speak of) as is evidently demonstrated by 
b Vid. Cocum in Censura Patrum in D. Areopagita. Rivetus in Critica sacra, lib. 7. cap. 9 10.  our Authors, and confessed by Cajetan, Erasmus, Valla, Gul. Grocinus, and others. 2. For Irenaeus, him (I confess) to be Testis Idoneus, within the time mentioned, for he flourished about the year of our Lord 170. But for the place in Irenaeus which they cite to prove Invocation of Saints, it is so ridiculously impertinent, that I wonder any knowing person should produce it; and yet the wonder is the less, when I consider, that as a drowning man will lay hold on any twig, how insignificant soever to save or help him: So (being resolved to maintain a desperate and dying Cause) they must use bad Mediums who have no better. The place in Irenaeus is this, 
c Irenaeus adversus Haereses l. 5. ca 19 pag. 464. Edit. Fen-Ardentii. Et cap. 16. pag. 341. Edit. Gallasii. Et in Editione Irenaei per Erasmum, pag. 238.  Sicut Eva seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, sic Maria suasa est obedire Deo, ut Virgins Evae Virgo Maria fieret advocata. This is the place in Irenaeus so much (and so impertinently) magnified. Here I observe,—  
1. That Feuardentius (that all might take notice of it) puts this Note in the Margin over against it— Beata Virgo Maria, Evae & aliorum peccantium advocata est. But (that I may, and justly enough, use that old saying) Maledicta sit Glossa quae corrumpit Textum. Had he said only— Maria Evae advocata est, the Text of Irenaeus would have been some ground for it: But when he puts in— Et aliorum peccantium Advocata, (of which nothing in Irenaeus) this must be reckoned amongst the piae frauds of Rome, by which they usually and impiously cozen inconsiderate persons into their Superstitions.  
2. In his Notes on the place, he gins thus— 
d Feuardentius in Irenaeum. Ibid. pag. 464. num. 3.  Hinc EVIDENTISSIMUM est priscos Patres & Martyrs, proximè ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus, Deiparam Virginem invocasse, caeterisque, ut implorarent, Authores fuisse. Sure I am, there is nothing in Irenaeus (notwithstanding his— Hinc evidentissimum est) to prove any one thing in this confident Assertion; and yet I shall not call him impudent, but this I may modestly and truly say, That certainly a little thing will not make him blush.  
3. As Feuardentius has a long Note and Discourse, to prove how much that Passage makes for Popery, and Invocation of Saints: So 
e Gallasius in cap. 16. lib. 5. Irenaei §. 3. pag. 399.  Gallasius has as long (indeed thrice as long) a Discourse to clear the Text, and Irenaeus from the suspicion of it; or (in case he meant what Rome would have) to confute him. Now (that I may freely say, what I believe is true in this particular) they are both beside the Book; nor has Feuardentius any just ground to brag and magnify, nor Gallasius to be afraid of this Passage in Irenaeus. For indeed it makes nothing for them, nor against us. That this may appear; I say—  
1. Admit (which is not true) that Irenaeus in this Passage did really approve Invocation of Saints, and affirm that the Virgin Mary was their Advocate; He affirms too, That our Saviour lived till he was 
f Irenaeus, lib. 2. Cap. 39, 40.  about fifty years old, (and yet 'tis certain, and on all sides confessed, that he was Crucifi'd Anno Aetatis 34 currente.) He affirms also the Millenary 
g Irenaeus, lib. 5. cap. 32, etc. confessed by Feuardentius, and largely explained, pag. 494. & sequentibus, usque ad finem libri.  Opinion to be True, That the Saints shall Reign One Thousand years in temporal felicity before the day of Judgement, (and yet this goes for Heresy at Rome, and has done so this thirteen hundred years at least.) Now as it will not follow, Irenaeus affirms our Saviour to have lived about fifty years; and that the Millenary Opinion is true; [ergo] Those Affirmations of his are truth, and we to believe them; (for both Protestant and Papist disbelieve both, notwithstanding Irenaeus his Authority) So neither will it follow, Irenaeus approves Invocation of Saints (dato hoc, sed non concesso) [ergo] We are to approve it too. Seeing there neither is, nor can be any reason why his Authority should necessarily conclude this, and not the two former Positions, he equally asserting all.  
2. But further, 'tis certain, Irenaeus neither did, nor (without evident contradiction of his own Principles, and theirs of ROME too) could believe, that Eve (or any body else) did invocate the Virgin Mary, or any deceased Saint whomsoever. For 'tis his express Opinion, That the Souls of all dead Saints (of the Apostles, Martyrs, and the Virgin Mary too) are in an invisible place, and shall not be admitted to the Vision of God till after the Resurrection— 
h Irenaeus, lib. 5. cap. 31. pag. 491. in Edit. Feu-Ardentii. & pag. 250. Edit. Erasmi.  Discipulorum Animae (saith Irenaeus) abibunt in invisibilem locum (He writ in Greek, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was his word, which properly, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, locus invisibilis; or, as Tertullian and Augustine call those places, Abdita animarum receptacula,) & ibi usque ad resurrectionem commorabuntur, sustinentes resurrectionem; post recipientes corpora, sic VENIENT IN CONSPECTUM DEI, etc. This was evidently Irenaeus his Opinion, (and Saint Augustine's too, as 
i Feuardentius in Irenaeum, pag. 493. Col. 2.  Feuardentius there confesses, and proves out of many places of that Father,) That the Saints departed did not enjoy the Presence of God, and the beatifical Vision; and seeing it is confessed by Bellarmine (in the place before 
k Bellarmin de Beatitudine Sanct. l. 1. cap. 19 §. Item Exodi. 32.  cited) and the Church of Rome, that without such Vision of God, the Saints departed cannot hear our Prayers, or know our particular desires or wants; it follows, that if Irenaeus held Invocation of Saints, he must hold Invocation of those who could not hear, which contradicts the clear Principles of Reason, and the declared sense of the Church of Rome too, etc.—  
3. But let Irenaeus his words be taken in what sense they will, yet 'tis manifest, they afford nothing like an Argument, to prove invocation of Saints. For 1. Irenaeus says indeed, Quod Maria suasa est obedire Deo, ut fieret Evae advocata: Whence they may (with some seeming consequence) conclude, That Mary was Eve's Advocate, and pleaded or prayed for her: But this does not prove any invocation of Saints. They may be our Advocates, and (in the general) pray for us, (as all confess) and yet, we not pray to them. Had Irenaeus said, that the Virgin Mary prayed for Eve, that had looked like Invocation, but he says no such thing: And indeed 'tis most irrational and ridiculous to say, That Eve prayed to Mary, or that Mary prayed for her. 1. Eve could not pray to the Virgin Mary, seeing she was dead above 
l Natus est Christus (secundum Jac. Usserii Armachani computum) Anno Mundi, 4004. Vid. ejus Annal. Parte posteriori. pag. 54●.  three thousand years before Many was born. 2. Or thus— If Eve did invocate Mary, then, either while she lived here in this world, and that was impossible, because Mary was so far from being a Saint while Eve lived, that she had no being till three thousand years after; or, after she was dead, and to say that, is impertinent; for the invocation we speak of, is that of the Living, who pray to Saints departed, and not of one departed Saint to another. 3. And further, (notwithstanding what Irenaeus seems to say, and what they of Rome would make of it) it was impossible that the Virgin Mary should be ADVOCATA EVAE, even according to the received Principles of the CHURCH of ROME. For, 1. Eve was confessedly dead some thousands of Years before the Virgin Mary was a Saint; and so if the Virgin prayed for Eve, it must be after she was dead; but no Papist ever said, (nor with any sense can say) that the Saints departed are Advocates for Saints departed this life as well as themselves; but for the living left behind. That which they say (and in vain labour to prove) is, Quòd Sancti defuncti & coelo donati sunt vivorum Advocati. 2. Eve was a glorified Saint before the Virgin Mary, so that (upon their Principles) Eve might have been Mariae advocata, she being in Heaven, and enjoying the beatifical Vision, while Mary was alive here below. That this is so, I prove from the received Popish principles, thus. 1. They say, 
m Aquinas Parte 3. Quaest 52. Art. 5. Durandus in 4. Sent. Distinct. 45. Quast. 4.  that the Fathers and Saints of the Old Testament, were not in Heaven, but in Limbo Patrum, till our Saviour's Resurrection. 2. That our Saviour at his Resurrection (or immediately after it) freed them from thence, and brought them to Heaven and the Beatific Vision, and (so amongst the rest) Our Grandmother Eve must be a glorified Saint in Heaven, about the time of our blessed Saviour's Resurrection; whereas it is confessed, that the Virgin Mary 
n Vid. Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum 48. n. 4.  lived 13, or 14. Years after; so that Eve (being in Heaven, a glorified Saint, for 13, or 14. Years, before the Virgin Mary came thither,) might be Advocate for the Virgin Mary, but it was impossible (what Irenaeus seems to say) that Mary should be Evae advocata: for she could not be Eve's Advocate till she came to Heaven; and when she came, it was too late; Eve did not need her Advocation, seeing she was glorified before, and so Signior to the Virgin 13, or 14. Years, or (for they agree not about the Year of her Death) at least for some number of Years. The Issue is; Eve neither did, nor possibly could Invocate the Virgin Mary (who had no being for above 3000 Years after Eve was dead:) nor was it possible that the Virgin Mary (in her own person) should be Eve's Advocate, seeing she was in Heaven before her. I say, in her own person, the words being properly taken: But if the words of Irenaeus be taken figuratively, by an usual Metonymia, (or Hypallage, as the Rhetoricians call it) and the Virgin Mary be said to do that, because she was the happy mother of a Son who did it; Then the sense of the words will be plain, Maria est Evae Advocata, not by herself personally, but by her Son; who is indeed a Mediator, Intercessor, and Advocate for Eve, and all, who are saved, from the foundation of the World. The words taken this way, are good sense, (but neither prejudicial to us, nor beneficial to Rome) otherwise they are manifestly false.  
1. From the premises, I argue thus. They who have no ¹ Precept to pray to Saints; nor any ² Promise that they shall be heard, or have any benefit by it, in case they do pray; nor any ³ Practice of the 
o 'Tis confessed, That towards the end of the 4th Century, some particular persons did invocate Saints, (yet doubtingly, and therefore vaitly) but it was long after, before any Church in the world used it in their Liturgies; in all which, all their prayers are directed solely to God; in the Liturgies of James, Mark, Peter, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory the great, etc. (all extant in Gr. and Lat.) in the Missa Latina Antiqia circa Annum 700. usitata, etc. In all these they pray for the Saints departed, (even the Virgin Mary) but no prayer directed to any of them. And so in the Canon of the Mass (the only ancient piece of their Missal) they pray for all the Saints departed; but in the whole Canon there is not ●●● Prayer to any Saint or A●g●l.  Primitive Church, (for above 300. Years after Christ,) to encourage them; nor any cogent ⁴ reason to assure and satisfy their understandings, that the Saints do hear, and can help them; these cannot pray in faith without doubting; seeing they have no medium strong enough to exclude doubting, and create a certainty in their assent. But the Papists have no such ¹ Precept, or ² Promise, or ³ Practice, or ⁴ Reason (from the light of Nature, or Scripture) to assure them, that such Prayers will be profitable to them; [ergo] They cannot pray in faith without doubting. He (who ever he be) that can rationally make it appear to me, that they have any one of the four things, mentioned in the minor Proposition; I shall be thankful to God and him for the discovery, renounce my opinion, (which now I really believe) and embrace the Popish Invocation of Saints, which (as a novel, groundless and impious error) I now abhor.  
2. Whence I argue further, thus— All Prayers not made in faith, without doubting, are vain, and (as to the obtaining any thing) ineffectual, Jam. 1. 6, 7. But such are the Popish Invocations of Saints (as wanting all those just grounds of assurance and certainty) [ergo] they are vain and ineffectual.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FINIS.