A THIRD LETTER TO F. LEWIS SABRAN, Jesuit; WHEREIN The DEFENCE of his CHALLENGE, CONCERNING Invocation of Saints, Is Examined and Confuted.  

IMPRIMATUR,  
April 10. 1688. GVIL. NEEDHAM.   
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVIII.   

A Third Letter to F. Lewis Sabran, Jesuit: Wherein the Defence of his Challenge, concerning Invocation of Saints, is Examined and Confuted.  
SIR,  
THOUGH you are resolved to break off our Controversial Correspondence by Letters, yet I am for keeping to my former method, and for directing this Answer to you, since you are so much concerned in it; and it is wholly intended to convince you of your further mistakes, and those gross Errors you have been guilty of, in your pretended Defence of your Challenge about Invocation of Saints.  
You begin the Defence with two heavy Complaints, one of which is, That my Answer to your Challenge was so tedious in coming out: The other is, That I have abused you in it.  
The first of these Complaints is a very pleasant one; In my last Letter to you, I told you that I would undertake the business of Invocation, as soon as the Controversy about St. Austin, was either ended or dropped, and not sooner. Upon this I expected when I should hear from you about it, but to no purpose; for it seems there was nothing further to be said, and you had had enough of that Controversy: So that after I had waited Six Weeks for your Answer, but heard of none, I had reason to conclude That Controversy was ended; and therefore in my Answer to the Vindication of the Nubes Testium, resolved to give an Answer also to your Challenge.  
This is the true state of that business; and yet with an Air of Confidence becoming yourself, the World must be told of a tedious expectation of my Answer, which had worn out Three Months; whereas the Answer to your Challenge should not have been waited for three days, could I but have guessed that my second Letter had done your business so effectually as I since find it hath: But to pass this impertinent Preface; you next charge me with abusing you, and slandering you in my Answer. I am not able to find where this Abuse and Slanders are; nor can I guests what it is there, which deserves this imputation, unless it be, that to prove a Jesuit to be ignorant, is to slander him: If this be the thing (as it must be; for I can find nothing else to fix it upon) I do plead guilty; and since you have again compelled me to animadvert upon you, I am resolved to be very free with you, and to speak my mind plainly, though I find I shall quickly fall into the very same slandering humour; for you have made me a large Provision for that purpose, and I will not let any piece of it escape me.  
Well, now we are come to the business of Invocation itself, and you have m●de such Tragical Work about it, as if Invocation of Saints, and Christianity, were to stand and fall together; as if we that oppose Invocation of Saints, were enemies to the Saints in Glory, had denied the Christians common Creed, were contrary to the Catholic Militant Church; and, which is worst of all, had called God's Veracity into question. This is terrible stuff, and I question not but that it takes mightily among the Women of your Party; but I am afraid is quite lost upon our people, who will certainly laugh at such wretched stuff, as knowing very well, that the true Church of God did never practice Invocation of Saints; and that the Creed did no more teach it, than the Worshipping of Idols, or Transubstantiation; but you are one of those, that so you may but gain your end of frighting people to continue with, or come over to you, never boggle at the most unjust, and the most absurd means of doing it.  
I do not in the least wonder at your talking at this extravagant rate; I cannot but remember that you appeared with the same confident blustering in the defence of the forged 35th Sermon of St. Austin; that you made as much noise, and talked to the Protestant Peer with as much assurance, as if it had been the certainest thing in the World, that the Sermon was St. Augustine's, and that I was an impudent ignorant fellow for offering to deny it: But after all that storm, the World remembers, and I hope that Lord was satisfied too, That it was the most Impudent Controversy that ever was attempted by any Man, to defend that Sermon; and that it was defended with Arguments and Authorities that every Scholar would have been ashamed of. What ado had we with S. Hierom, H●phonsus, Mallion's Sermon, with Neceph●rus's Juvenal, every one of which were the most wretched Forgeries that could have been picked up. What a pass were things brought to in the Reply, when you were for denying your own words about S. Bernard, for eating up those about the Assumption signifying the day of the Saints Death; and for asserting that the Louvain Divines had not left the 18th Sermon the Sancth, as doubtful. Never was Cause managed with more Impudence and more Forgeries, and yet after all your confidence at first, and blustering throughout, it was dropped as quietly as if no such thing had ever been, and in your new Defence not a syllable of it, or in Answer to my Second Letter, which it seems now must never have one.  
I must tell you, Sir, that the Management of that Controversy about St. Augustine's Sermon, hath prepared me to expect just such stuff at your hands whensoever you should set up for Writer again; and you have not deceived my expectation, for you begin this Controversy about Invocation, with the very same assurance that you did the other, and you manage it with downright Forgeries altogether as bad as the other were; as I will quickly show you.  
It was so trifling a Concern to answer your Cavilling demands in ●our Letter to the Protestant Peer about Invocation, that had I not had the opportunity of tacking it to my Defence of the Answer to the Nubes Testium, I should never have troubled the world or myself with it. And when I had persuaded myself to answer that Challenge, it was my next care to mak● it as useful to the Reader as the thing was capable of. To this purpose, as well as to have stopped your Cavilling for the future, I did enlarge my design, and showed through the first Centuries down to St. Austin, that the Doctrine as well as the Practice of the Primitive Fathers were directly against your Invocation; after this I answered all your Objections, and then assigned the Differences betwixt what is now practised and taught in the Church of Rome, and what was beginning to be practised in the end of the Fourth Century as to Invocation to the Saints.  
It was but reasonable for me who had particularly answered every one of your Authorities and Objections, to have expected the same favour at your hands; but this is a kindness which you and your Party are too cunning to use us to. When I had first answered those Objections as they lay in the Nubes Testium, I did expect you would have given them an Answer; but as if nothing had been ever said to them, you only gave them us over again: Such usage was very provoking; however I prevailed with myself to give them a second and fuller answer; and what must I expect in requital to this? why, we are here presented with 'em a third time, as if you had never seen my two Answers to them.  
And is this ingenuous dealing? what must we call trifling, if this be not it in the highest degree? for shame, Sir, leave off such pitiful dealing; if you be not able to defend or to answer for them be prevailed with to have so much modesty as to let them lie still; I am very well satisfied that you are not, and therefore for the Reader's and the world's sake let us have no more of such Crambe; but if you cannot go o●●…e'ne leave off.  
And this, Sir, is certainly the true reason, why you let my Historical Account against Invocation pass without one syllable of Answer to it, or to my Confutation of your Objections. You tell the Reader you will only consider 13 Pages of it at present; but Sir, count again, and you will find that you must take 12 out of your 13, for it is but one single Page that you have ventured upon, notwithstanding your brag at the beginning; and that is the 78 Page, which assigns the three Differences betwixt the Church of Rome, and the Fathers of the End of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. The first of which was, that the Church of Rome doth use a direct Invocation, or formal Prayer to the Saints and Angels; whereas the Fathers who began the Custom near St. Augustine's time [the time in Controversy betwixt us] used merely such addresses and requests as are made from one Friend to another; which I proved from their own words.  
In answer to this, you say, The Fathers of the Fifth and Fourth Century and UPWARDS, offered with as formal an Invocation, as humble, submissive and devout prayer to the Saints in Heaven, as any that are in present use amongst Catholics. This, Sir, I will own to be very home against me; and the proving of this, as well as the saying of it should end this part of the Controversy; but can you do as well as say these things? Yes sure, or you would not have bid us in the next words to take a few instances of matter of fact in lieu of an INFINITY that could be produced.  
Well, Sir, for a Promiser, and for an Undertaker, I never did meet, nor ever shall again with your match. This is downright Rhodomontadoing, and the man that could but do half as much as you can promise, would be the greatest man the Church of Rome ever had. But are things to be carried at this rate at this time of the day? I am ashamed that any man that pretends to have looked into Books, should talk at such an extravagant and so absurd a rate, and should assert things so wretchedly false, without the least sign of blushing at it.  
But since you say you can do it, I come now to try those you offer, and will not stand with you for the fifth Century; but desire, as I expected, and challenged you to show from the Fourth Century upwards, some proofs of this extravagant promise, from the first, second or third Century.  
You begin with St. Athanasius, but I pray which of the three Centuries did he live in? You undertake for the Fourth Century and Upwards, but forgetting yourself within six lines of it, your meaning of the Fourth Century and Upwards, proves to be the Fourth Century and Downwards; for St. Athanasius who lived in the middle of the Fourth Century, is the first and the most ancient of all the Fathers you offer us; and is not this very fine? this comes of talking without Book, and blustering, as if confidence would do the business itself. But after all, is St. Athanasius himself for you? You quote him here out of his Tract de Incarnatione Verbi. Alas, Sir, it was always ominous to stumble at the first; and this is your fate, though you, I dare say for you, are far from knowing it; for this Tract is owned by your latest Critic 
* Du Pin Nouvelle Biblioth. Tom 2. pa. 117.  not to be St. Athanasius'; so that your first Author is a Forgery.  
But supposing this Tract to be his, let us next see whether he vouches for what you bring him; you quote him first laying this ground for his practice: If you worship the man Christ, because the Word of God dwells there, at the same time worship also the Saints on God's account, who hath his dwelling in them; and then offering a large Prayer to the Virgin Mary.  
I must own myself to have been surprised at this account of Saint Athanasius, and therefore I can assure you I went strait to Athanasius' Works, and quickly found your words here to be one of the most Scandalous abuses of an Author's words that I ever read; the passage is directly against what you produced it for. The Tract was written against Samosatenus' Disciples, who would allow our Blessed Saviour to be only a mere man, and denied the Union of the Divinity to the Humanity; they would allow that God descending from Heaven dwelled in him; but this the Author of the Tract rejects, because this would make (says he) no difference betwixt Christ and the rest of Christians, concerning whom the Scripture brings in God saying, that he would dwell in them; and that he might further show the Absurdity of that Heresy, he brings in the very passage you quote, and concludes it thus, Wherefore if you worship the Man Christ together with God, because God dwells in him, worship also the Saints together with God, for he dwells in them also: AND IS NOT THIS ABSURD?  
With what face then, Sir, could you bring this passage to teach the Worship of Saints, when the Author designed to ridicule the Worship of Christ himself, had he been a mere man; and had spoke his sense plain enough to be directly against any Worship of the Saints, when he concluded the passage with an AND IS NOT THIS ABSURD? which passage your Paris Edition of Athanasius hath left out in the Translation.  
All the Defence you can make here, will be to tell me, that though you mistook the sense of that passage, yet that the Prayer to the Virgin Mary, so full and so direct, will make amends for all, and that there is no danger of mistaking the sense of it. This Plea I would have admitted, had but the Prayer itself been there, but the greater mischief is, that there is not one Syllable of the Prayer in the whole Tract, nor any thing either near or like to it: And are not you, Sir, than a pleasant Man, that can venture upon these things, with so much Ignorance and Confidence together? if you know nothing of these things, why do you meddle with them? Why do you not employ yourself about something that you are fitter for? These things lie, I perceive, quite out of your way; and you have quite mistaken the business, if you think to bear us down with dint of Confidence in these things.  
I cannot forgive you this horrid blunder, and this vile abuse of Athanasius' words, since I might have expected to have prevented this, by what I had showed you from St. Athanasius himself so lately; who affirmed so plainly that one would not pray to receive any thing from the Father and the ANGEL, or from ANY OF THE OTHER CREATURES 
b Prim. Fathers no Papists, p. 56. : but it seems nothing can either cure or prevent some men's affected Stupidity.  
You next quote St. Cyril's Prayer to the Virgin Mary in his own name, and of the WHOLE General Council of Ephesus: I would fain know, Sir, where you pick up such stuff; do you invent them yourself, or is there some Office among you for such purposes? That Sermon was no more made, nor the Prayer in the Name of the WHOLE General Council of Ephesus, than it was in the name of the Council of Trent: The Title of it not only in Labbe's Edition of the Councils, but in St. Cyril's works themselves, is a Sermon preached at Ephesus against Nestorius, when SEVEN [Bishops] went down to St. Mary's Church there. In their names it was, and not as you falsely assert, in the names of the whole Council of Ephesus, that Cyril in the Homily in his Allegorical way doth salute (not prey, as you again as falsely assert) the Virgin Mary. The Salutation itself can do you no service, without the helping-hand of a false Translation, nor with it neither, so unhappy is your choice of places to prove Invocation; for though I should let pass your making Cyril say, Hail Virgin, by whose Mediation the Holy Trinity is glorified and honoured through the whole world; in whom Heaven exults; all that this could prove, is that Cyril held that the Virgin interceded for them; but all this is foul dealing, there is not a Syllable of Mediation here, for all the expressions here do plainly refer to the Virgins holy Womb, as will appear by a just Translation of the words, Hail thou that didst bear him that is incomprehensible in thy Holy Virgin-Womb; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which, or by reason of which (not by whose Mediation) the Trinity is glorified; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of which (not in whom as you falsely) heaven rejoices. This is enough to show to how false a purpose this place was produced, when the very false Translation itself could not serve your turn.  
Your next Author is Gregory Nyssen, but this I have answered twice already, and will not dance after you any more. Gregory Nazianzen follows, but to little purpose; for every Body is satsified, but such as you that know nothing of him, but by a borrowed Quotation, that he indulges himself in a Rhetorical way sometimes of talking to Churches and Cities, and stone Walls, as well as to Saints; but no Body takes this for invocating of Churches; and for the other we know whence he borrowed it, even from the Heathen Orators; however for all his familiar talk in some of his Orations (for in them only it is) to the Saints, he did not believe that they could hear him; this is plain from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Constantius, and other Passages in him.  
And now we are got downwards instead of upwards, and are got quite past S. Austin's time, to which I referred you, and about which our Contention was; so that I need trouble myself about no Answer to your Maximus' Sermon upon S. Agnes, which is made up of a great deal of the same Stuff, and with some that is worse than that 90th Sermon in S. Ambrose upon the same Saint, which is owned by all Learned Men to be grossly spurious and very fulsome. Nor need I answer your next Example from Hilary of Arles' Life of Honoratus (whom you call Honorius) whom he does not pray to, but desire as he was their Patron, to continue so; which speaks no more than that Intercession which was then believed.  
Your Nectarius upon Theodore, and Prayer to him, is certainly spurious; and though I have not been able to get a sight of the Book, yet I am able to prove it a forgery from the very Quotation itself, which you produce, wherein Nectarius is brought in praying to Theodore, That he would defend them from the Assaults of Julian, the Enemy of Mankind. Now had you known any thing of Chronology, you might have seen this yourself, Julian was made Emperor 361. and was killed in his Wars within two years; this was 19 years before Nectarius was a Christian, who was while a Catechumen, called to be Bishop of Constantinople 381. and therefore no such Oration against Julian could be made by him, since Julian was in his Grave so many years before.  
You next boasting tell us you could have given us the servant Prayers to the Virgin Mary, of S. Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Athanasius and Leo: I wish you had, that so we might have had all your forged spurious Authors together, for such these are, as to those pieces you allude to. But however, to keep your hand in, you are for letting us have one, and you cannot omit Gregory Nazianzen's Prayer to the Virgin Mary out of his Poetry. It is pity that this Poetry is none of Gregory's own; but if it were, do you think we will be content with your proving Invocation of Saints to be lawful, out of Poetry, where no Poet can be in the mode without calling upon his Muse?  
You are resolved next to dispatch me throughly, and therefore you'll prove that the Ancients used the term Invocation itself, to the Saints. This is very terrible, and you begin as luckily with Gregory Nazianzen's Oration upon Theodore; but with your good leave, Sir, you were too hasty here, for Gregory Nazianzen hath no such Oration upon that Saint; and therefore, you must look again. You next play S. Basil upon me, who you say had precendency in Death of Gregory Nazianzen; but where must I find what you quote? You neither cite Book nor Volume; must I then go turn over three large Folio's, to find out one simple Line, that you pretend to quote from him? This is too much ill-natured, and too hard; and makes me highly suspect that this silly Passage is no more in S. Basil's Works, than the former in Gregory Nazianzen's.  
A third, I must have, however to make up the matter from S. Austin, who upon Jacob's words, that his Name should be named on the Lads, had observed that the word Invocation, as well as Exaudition, is used in reference to Men, as well as God; but to what purpose is all this? Is not the sense plain enough, that all he means is, that the word Invocation is used in a civil Respect to Men, as well as in a religious respect to God? and hath not this very Father fully secured us from taking it as to men in a religious Sense, when in his Book, De Civit. Dei 
† Aug. de Civ. d. l. 22. c. 10.  he tells us, That the Martyr's names indeed were recited during the Divine Service, but that they were not INVOCATED by the Priest who did officiate.  
But notwithstanding the Vanity of your Attempt here, you preface it with a lusty Bravado, That you could cite me all the HOLY FATHERS ALPHABETICALLY practising and recommending Invocations of Saints, in the very term.  
And are not you a pleasant Man, Sir? does not your own Conscience tell you, That this is the most extravagant, and most impossible Attempt that ever man undertook? if it do not, I will then assure you, and prove it when you please, that-this absurd Brag did proceed from an Ignorance so great, that it can be matched with nothing but the Confidence with which you have so vainly undertaken an impossible thing. But since you have such an Assurance, and dare venture upon such promises of an Alphabetical Catalogue of all the Fathers, practising and recommending it in the very term; I challenge you to produce that Catalogue in the next Sheet you threaten; I Challenge you to show me but one of that Catalogue that is genuine for the three first Ages; so certain I am, that you have undertaken a thing that you know nothing of.  
You are next for answering St. Paul's Authority against Invocation of Saints, How shall they invocate or call upon him, in whom they have not believed? And tell us, you are ashamed to suggest an Answer to the meanest of your Readers. Ashamed, do you say? This I am mighty glad to meet with, and cannot but congratulate the very hopes of Modesty in you. Well, but you say, Tho no one can invocate God as God, who believes not in him; yet is every one that is invocated, believed to be God▪ No, God forbid; but this we say, That no one ought to be invocated, but he that is believed to be God, and that is not only S. Paul's Sense here, but was the Sense of all the Fathers against the Jews and Arians, who always insisted upon it, as a certain Argument of Christ's being God, in that he was invocated, which no Creature was capable of. This I have abundantly shown in my Answer to your Challenge from Origen, who makes Invocation and Adoration the same, from S. Athanasius, and Epiphanius, and others, that Christ could not have been invocated, except he were God; but all this it seems, is lost upon you, as much as those Arguments of the Fathers would have been then, had Saints been invocated as well as Christ. But to pass such trifling arguing, and your parallel betwixt the Love of God, and this Invocation; I will now pass with you to the second Difference assigned, which was, That those Requests were made at the Memories of those Martyrs to whom they were presented, and who were believed to be present, though invisible at the same time; but the Invocations of Saints in the Church of Rome in every place, to a particular Saint in ten thousand distant places at the same time. Which I then said, and say here again, is to ascribe to the Saints an Omnipresence, an Attribute that none of them is capable of.  
The practice of your own Church herein, you dare not deny, that they are thus seperstitiously guilty of praying to any Saint in such distant places at the same time; your care is to make the Fathers of the end of the 4th and 5th Century as guilty, by disproving what I had laid down of their putting up those Requests at the Memories of the Martyrs; but, how I pray? In proving it unanswerably most false, what I there assert? this is great, and like yourself. And you began with S. Austin, who having in the 15th Chapter of the Book you quote, asserted▪ That the Dead know nothing of what is done below on Earth, was put to it, how to solve the Objection of the Martyrs helping those that Addressed to them at their Memories; and concludes it past his understanding to solve it, how they could do it; whether or no they be present in so different places at once. If it was past his understanding to solve it, it had certainly been his best way not to have meddled with a thing which had no certainty, and which no finite Nature was capable of.  
You quote next Gregory Nazianzen, in his Sermon before Fifty Bishops: It was before 150 Bishops; and tho' I have not time to read over that long Sermon, yet I have good reason, by the casting of my eye upon it, to believe that your quotation is not there; but suppose it is, How is it against me, when it only says, That where the Martyr's Bodies only are, the same effect is had as from their Souls? This is directly for me, but your ignorance is too great to let you see it.  
S. Ambrose is next quoted in Natali S. Naz. & Celsi; but there is no such thing in his Works, in the Edition of Froben, which I use; nor does Bellarmin, in his de Scriptoribus, mention any such Tract; so that I have great reason to give you thanks for the great civility of making me turn over Five Tomes, to look for a wretched Forgery, which could find no place there.  
To finish your doughty proofs unanswerably, you last bring Gregory's Dialogues; but he is too far off to be concerned here, and was Two hundred years after S. Austin.  
But here, as though conscious that these unanswerable proofs would be found trifles, you begin again, and will prove it further against me from Gregory Naz. Jambic. de Veritat.  
You accuse me here of citing Fathers I never saw; but I believe I shall quickly find that somebody else does it, though I do not; for I honestly went to Gregory's Works, and do here tell you, that the piece you quote here is not in his Works. And is not this very becoming you? I do not know what name to give such behaviour, when a Man shall have the face to accuse another, and falsely too, of that very thing which he himself is guilty of in this very place: But I begin to despair of doing any good upon you, and look upon you in the state of those who can be guilty of the worst things, without the expense of one blush.  
You are after this, for giving me again a piece of Theodoret; but this I have answered twice already, and therefore will pass it; and S. Austin's Story about S. Stephen's Relics, of which, had I room, I would give the Reader a very diverting account about their being found; but neither it, nor the passage itself is to our purpose: And the next from Bede is far less, about S. German's carrying some Relics about him; so that I must take leave of your unanswerable Arguments, which were able to prove just nothing, but the extravagant Confidence and Ignorance of him that brought them.  
The Third Difference I offered was, That those Requests and Interpellations to the Martyrs, begun at the end of the fourth Century, were neither commanded by the Primitive Church, authorized by her Councils, nor used in her Public Offices; but that on the contrary, the Prayers to Saints in the Church of Rome, are enjoined by that Church, are authorized by her Council of Trent▪ and used in her public Offices, and in the most solemn part of them.  
Here you are grown very angry, and de●e me to show any Canon of the Council of Trent, or of any other, that commands Prayers to Saints as an obligation of Catholic Faith: But why all this Anger, and all this Shi●ting? Is there then any danger or hurt in those Invocations of Saints, that you should be so shy of its being believed that your Church commands them? Ay; But, say you, where does it command them as an obligation of Catholic Faith? This it is to be afraid of one's own shadow, and to be so cautious as to run into Nonsense; who else would talk of a matter of Practice's being commanded as an obligation of Catholic Faith? Cannot your Church enjoin the Blessing of Bells, without making it an obligation of Catholic Faith? But to pass this frightful Nonsense? Does not your Church enjoin the use of the Breviaries and Offices? Upon whose Authority are they used among you? Did not the Council of Trent sufficiently authorize them, when it appointed the Reforming of the Breviaries? You will not say that was to strike out the Prayers to Saints; you cannot be so ridiculous; and you needed not have been so over-cautious about nothing. No one can be married in our Church without the use of the Ring, and yet no body looks for, or demands a Canon of our Church for the use of it.  
But we have next a very great rarity, and it seems my Assertion is very false, That no Councils in the Primitive Church did authorize Praying to Saints; you could have given us many Proofs▪ but are straitened it seems, and so can give us but two or Three: I hope these choice ones will prove of the best sort, and be very convincing. You begin with the General Council of Chalcedon, which was not held till after St. Austin had been twenty years in his Grave. This Council, you tell us, authorised Invocation of Saints by practising it: And did it so? Why then how comes it to pass, that the Church of Rome does not authorize Invocation of Saints, by practising it? How comes the Council of Trent not to authorize the Romish Breviary, which was certainly used by them a Thousand times during their Sessions? But some men are so fierce, and so forgetful, that they cannot remember their own Method of Arguing, for ten lines together: Well, but did that great Council practise it? You tell us that these were their words, and the general voice of all those holy Bishops there assembled, Behold the Truth, Flavianus lives after Death, that the Martyr pray for us. I was past wondering at you, or else I should admire so much Fraud and Falshood crowded together in so little room: It is false that those words were the voice of all the Council, or that they did Invocate the Martyr that used them; and it is as false, that these set down are the words used. The true account of the business is this; Bassianus, who had been ejected out of his Bishopric of Ephesus, put in his appeal to the Council against Stephen then Bishop of that See; the matter was heard, and whatever both could say for themselves; it was urged for Bassianus among other things, that Flavianus of Constantinople had communicated with him; upon this the Bishops and Clergy that belonged to Constantinople, rose up, and cried out, This is the Truth, we all say the same, the Memory of Flavian is eternal, behold the Truth, Flavian lives after Death; the Martyr shall entreat you for us, Flavian is here, Flavian judges with us. From all which it is plain, that the words so much insisted on, plainly refer to Flavian as judging for Bassian, and entreating the Council with the rest on Bassian's side; not a syllable here of Invocation to him; and yet this is the place your side have so often urged, and hath been so often answered.  
The Council of Gangrae you next produce, but quite mistake the design of it, to make your Ignorance more and more notorious. All Learned Men own the Council was called against the Disciples of Eustathius, who were guilty of that gross Error, mentioned by St. Paul, of forbidding to marry; and were so set against it, that they would not Communicate with Married people, would not receive the Eucharist at the hands of a Married Priest; but despised not only them, but the Christian Assemblies, the Memories of the Martyrs, and the Fasts of the Church; and appear to be a people, who made it their business to be directly contrary to the rest of Christians.  
The Council was called to condemn this Heresy, and in their 20th Canon which you quote, they condemn any one that through Pride, and detesting them, should accuse the Assemblies where the Martyrs lie, or the Divine Offices which are performed there, or the Memories of the Martyrs. And what is all this to Invocation of Saints? Is it commanded here, or is it mentioned here, or any thing like it? You were forced to help the place a little, by adding your wise Note to the beginning of it; when having translated it, if any one through Pride, as believing himself perfect, you add, that is, not needing the Intercession of Saints: But there is no need to expose the folly of this addition, the very reading of it is sufficient to show the miserable shifts you are put to, when you meddle with these things.  
The Council of Laodicea's 6th and 34th Canon are urged next by you, but they are certainly urged by one that never read them, except in Caranza or Coccius, or some such Writers: The 6th Canon orders, that Heretics shall not be permitted to go to God's House, as long as they continue in their Heresy: And is this a Canon, Sir, for Invocation of Saints? it would have served fully as well to prove that the Council of Trent was held in the last Century; and that Innocent the 11th. is now Pope at Rome. The 34th. forbids any Christian to leave the true Martyrs of Christ, and to make Assemblies at the Memories of false or Heretical Martyrs. Here is no more mention of, or command for Invocation of Saints, than there is in the first Chapter of Genesis; and yet this Council must be dragged in for the proof, and for the Authorising of Invocation of Saints, which in the very next Canon does condemn the INVOCATION OF ANGELS [and consequently of Saints for the reason of the Canon holds equally against both] as IDOLATRY, and a FORSAKING OF CHRIST. This is a very bold attempt; and this shows that you dare venture upon any the most absurd of things; and I am not able to make any other Apology for you, than that this Council was quoted for Invocation of Saints by you out of the abundance of your ignorance. But I must recant this excuse, since if you read my Book against you, that Canon could not escape you. I know not what to say for you: I look upon you to be the most daring, and yet the unhappiest man that ever put Pen to Paper. You have still one other Council for us, the 5th. of Carthage, which has not one word to your purpose any more than the rest. All it orders is, that Christians should not assemble at any Church where there were not some Martyr's Relics. But such proofs as these, though nothing to the purpose, we must be content with, when a man undertakes a thing for which there is no colour.  
St. Austin's express Testimony that the Martyrs were not Invocated, we have had already, so that we need not trouble ourselves about him; and now you have brought us to your last undertaking, to show that the Fathers in the Liturgies had as formal Prayers to Saints, as your Church hath. You do well to wave the Liturgies of St. Peter, James and Mark, etc. since they are confessed Forgeries; but upon the same reason you should not have troubled us with St. Basil's, or St. Chrysostom's, since they are not genuine, but have been interpolated. However what you bring from them, proves only that they believed that the Virgin Mother interceded for them; which is nothing to the purpose of proving that in the Ancient Liturgies solemn Prayers were put up to the Saints, such as now are used by your Church.  
The passage from St. Cyril (allowing that Catechism to be his) proves not one jot further, than the belief of the Saints Intercession for those on Earth. And St. Austin's does but the very same; so that after all this Confidence, and bold Undertaking, you have not been able to produce one Canon of any Council for Invocation of Saints, nor one line of a Prayer to the Saints, out of any ancient, genuine, no nor Interpolated Liturgies.  
You have but another Proof to offer from Pelagius the Second, but he comes two hundred years too late; and yet all he speaks for, or Leo alludes to, is that they believed the Saints Intercession for those on earth; and is there no difference between the Saints interceding for us, and our praying to them? You have been often enough told there is: Have you neither Memory nor Judgement, that these things must be always confounded? And when you should prove the Invocation of Saints, you fall to proving that the Saints intercede for you. I heartily pity you, that nothing can do good upon you; I pity you the more, that you seem in the end of your Paper to believe, that you have satisfied all unprepossessed and unbiased Readers with such Arguments as had not one grain of reason in them: But I pity you most of all, for being employed about such things, and yet to be no better furnished by those who set you on work, but to be left so lamentably to the mercy of him that answers you; to be suffered to quote nothing but Forgeries right, and the genuine works of the Fathers quite wrong, was a very cruel task; and I am almost tempted to believe that it was a Penance imposed upon you, to help to mortify some proud stubborn humour. Alas, Sir, now I am pitying you, I cannot but give you a little good advice, Not to be put upon these things by them, to be made a laughingstock to the world, in obedience to them: you have done enough already; if such things must be done, why must the whole burden lie upon you?  
But if all this will not cure you, but that I must lose such good Counsel upon you; and that you will obstinately continue in your own way, let me beg this at last from you, That you will look into the Fathers themselves, which you quote, and give us Edition as well as Book; if you will not, this I promise you, That I will never answer you, but that if you trouble the world with such another Paper as this I now have under my hands, you shall even answer it yourself, for I know how to employ to better purposes, your Christian Friend.  
FINIS.