A DISCOURSE CONCERNING The Idolatry OF THE CHURCH of ROME: WHEREIN That CHARGE is Justified; AND The Pretended Refutation of Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Discourse is Answered.  
By DANIEL WHITBY, D. D.  Mirum videtur quare in uno articulo qui non est principalis artriculus fidei debeat talis intellectus asseri, propter quem fides pate at contemptui omnium sequentium rationem. Scotus in 4 sent. dist. 11. q. 3. lit. B. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Basset, at the George near St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet, and Ja. Magnes near the Piazza in Covent Garden, 1674.   

TO THE Most Reverend Father in God GILBERT LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.  
May it please your Grace.  
IT is the Custom of the Adversaries of our Church to thrust out their Errors into the World, under some great name; that by the Protection of some honourable Person, to whom they Dedicate their Books, they may render them more plausible in the Eye of the World, and add greater weight and Authority to their gross Falsehoods.  
My Lord, We live in such an age, in which Truth stands in greater need of a Patron than Falsehood itself: and though this little poor Treatise be not worthy to bear your great name in the front, yet the Truth I here defend, will I doubt not, be owned and supported by your Grace; whose great design in this World is to support the Church of England. 'Tis the same Faith, and the same Doctrine I here deliver which your Glorious Predecessors in both your Sees of Canterbury, and London; Cranmer and Ridley owned and asserted even unto Blood. 'Tis a defence of that great learned man, who has made it his business, now for some years, to defend the Writings of the renowned Archbishop Laud; for whose memory and writings you have often expressed so great Veneration. These considerations are enough alone to prove the fitness of this address. But besides these, your Grace may justly challenge the labours of all your own University; You have obliged them to that degree, that the Gifts of half their Benefactors, amassed into one sum, would scarce equal your famous Theatre. And as they fail not to give God thanks for so great a Patron, at the times of public solemnity, so am I under the same Obligation, for that support you bestowed on me for some years together, whilst I was a member of Trinity College, and before I had the happiness and honour to be related to my Lord of Sarum. Whosoever knows this, will certainly excuse my boldness: and if to make this address be impudence; yet not to have done it, would have been ingratitude.  
God preserve your Grace for the Chruches sake. I am Your Graces humbly devoted Servant. D. W.   

TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader.  
I Think myself obliged to give thee an account, 1. Why I undertake to answer this Discourse. And 2. Why having undertaken to return an Answer to it, I have omitted, part, the first; of which, the true account is briefly this, since the Printers would not undertake the Printing of the whole, before the Term expired, I was contented do defer that part, which I conceived to be least material, to the Term ensuing. That which first moved me to frame this Answer to T. G. was this, having perused this Author, and having found him laying the most scandalous accusations and imputations of Sophistry and Legerdemain, Falsehood and Contradiction to the Doctor's charge, I knew not how to think that any person, who professed Christianity, or valued either his credit or his cause, should lay such imputations upon others, and be himself the person Guilty: Nor yet could I be easily persuaded, that any person in so good a cause as ours, in which Authorities and Arguments do press for an admittance, and Men of ordinary Capacities, must be abundantly supplied with them; much less that the incomparable Dr. Stilling fleer, that prodigy of Ingenuity and Learning, should betake himself to such dishonourable Arts. Besides I knew that his Integrity and sense of honour was so great, that he must scorn such sordid dealing; and that it was his business to detect the Frauds and religious Cheats of Rome; and therefore I presumed he would not imitate her when he did confute her. Wherefore my curiosity engaged me to examine all that was devised to blast his Credit, and having found it to be written in the old Roman Style, and to contain nothing, but the pure quintessence of Calumny, I thought it charity to ease the Doctor, and to declare unto the World what was the fruit of this inquiry.  
And should this work be so unhappy, which I hope it will not, as to rob the World of the Ingenious and Triumphant Labours of the Learned Dr. yet I have two things to apologise.  
1. That the Dr. hath given us the greatest evidence, that he can write most admirable Books upon the meanest Subjects, and in answer to the most trifling and inconsiderable Scribblers; so that what ever Adversary he vouchsafes to answer, he almost equally obligeth and instructeth all that read him, but most of all his adversary, whose Name he rescues from obscurity, whilst he vouchsafes to mention it.  
2. That with I have performed will give us this advantage to the common cause, viz. That through the strength and goodness of it, a little inconsiderable David may worst the best Goliath of the Roman Church.  
In prosecution of this subject, I have set down the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, not from the say of her private Doctors, but from her Councils, Catechisms, and Authentic Liturgies, that so I might obstruct all possibility of pleading, that I do falsely represent her Tenets. But though I use this method, I do not think it either sophistical or useless, to represent unto the World what are the Doctrines and Practices, which have so far obtained in the Church of Rome, as to be Doctrines and Practices of no small Credit & Authority amongst them they being held and defended by their most able Writers, and taught and practised with as much freedom in the Church of Rome, as are the contrary Doctrines. And to omit those many instances which do not so immediately concern the present Controversy.  
It is a very common and prevailing Doctrine, among the Doctors of the Church of Rome, that the blessed Virgin, is the Mother of Mercy, not only by virtue of her intercession, but by way of distribution, and of Dispensation, and that Christ having reserved the Kingdom of Justice to himself, hath granted the Kingdom of mercy to his Mother; and that he hath given to her what Assuerus promised to Queen Hester, viz. The half of his Dominions, or his Kingly Office: This Doctrine is delivered by Thomas Bonaventure, Gerson, Gabriel Biel, Antoninus, Bernardinus, Gorrhan, Holcoth, Rutilius Benzonius, Blasius Viegas, Osorius, Paulus Cararia, and many others whose words are cited by Dr. 
* From p. 356. to p. 363.  White, 
* p. 321.323.398.399. p 478.481. p. 480. p. 486.  Crakanthorp, and Bishop Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge, from page 478 to page 496. Where also you may find them teaching, that the Dominion of the blessed Virgin is equal to the Dominion of her Son, that all power in Heaven and Earth, was given to her, that she is constituted over every Creature, and whosoever boweth his knee unto Jesus, doth fall down also and supplicate unto his Mother: so that the glory of the Son may be judged not so much to be common with the Mother, 
Ibid.  as to be the very same. That the mighty God did (as far as he might) make his Mother partner of his Divine Majesty and power; giving unto her of old the Sovereignty both of Celestial things and Mortal. 
p. 478  That in the redundance of effusion of Grace upon the Creatures, the Lords power and will is so accommodated unto her that she may seem to be the first in that, both Diadem, and Tribunal. 
p. 481.  And that all things are subject to the command of the Virgin, even God himself. 
p. 482.  They also teach, that by sinning after Baptism, men seem to have contemned and despised the Passion of Christ: That so no Sinner doth deserve that Christ should any more make Intercession for him to the Father; without whose Intercession none can be delivered either from Eternal Punishment or the temporal, nor from the fault which he hath voluntarily committed. And therefore that it was necessary that Christ should constitute his wellbeloved Mother a Mediatrix betwixt us and him. And so in this our Pilgrimage, there is no other refuge left unto us in our tribulations and adversities, but to have recourse unto the Virgin Mary our Mediatrix that she would appease the wrath of her Son. 
Ibid.  That as he is ascended into Heaven, to appear in the sight of God for men (Heb. 9.24.) So she ought to ascend thither, to appear in the sight of her Son for sinners: that so mankind might have always before the face of God a help like unto Christ for the procuring of his Salvation. And that she is that throne of Grace, 
p. 484.  whereof the Apostle specketh, Heb. 4.16. Let us go boldly unto the Throne of Grace that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need. That she comes before the Throne of Grace not entreating but commanding. 
p. 486.   
In the Psalter of our Lady we have these Addresses, Blessed are they whose hearts do love thee, 
Ps. 31.  O Virgin Mary; their sins by thee shall be mercifully washed away. Have mercy upon me O Lady, 
Ps. 50.  who art called the Mother of Mercy; and according to the bowels of thy Mercies, cleanse me from all mine Iniquities. Save me Lady, by thy name; 
Ps. 53. Ps. 71.  and deliver me from mine unrighteousness. Give the King thy judgement, O God, and thy mercy to the Queen his Mother. Oh come let us sing unto our Lady; 
Ps .. 94. Cant ad Virg. M. post Psal.  Let us make a joyful noise to Marry our Queen that brings Salvation. Oh our Omnipotent Lady, thou art my Salvation, thou hast freed me condemned to death; thou art the beginning and the finisher of my Salvation. There you may find them teaching that by her, 
Ps. 118. Ps. 41. Ps. 136. De Arcan. Ca thol. verit, l. 7. c. 10. White, p. 357.  Sins are purged; by her, true satisfaction is made for sins, the Death and Passion of Christ, and of the blessed Virgin, saith Petrus Galatinus, conduced to the redemption of Mankind. The Stellarium Coronae beatae Mariae, saith, she bought us; and as Christ Redeemed Mankind by his Flesh and Blood, so she redeemed the same with her Soul.  
These Doctrines and many other of the same Blasphemous stamp, are taught and held by many Doctors of the Roman Church: these books and doctrines are written and licenced by that Church, and so have Catholic permission; no censure ever passed upon them, no Expurgatory Index hath cleansed them from these horrid Blasphemies; but it is still left free for any of the Doctors of that Communion to maintain and propagate them; and for any of the members of that Church to practise suitably to these conceptions. To ascribe all this power and Authority to the Blessed Virgin, and all this virtue to her Death, to give her the praises of it, and accordingly to trust in her, to pray unto her for the blessings she hath purchased, and for the distribution of those Favours, which naturally do result from this advancement; and when they address themselves unto her, to use the most extravagant expressions contained in the Lady's Psalter, and in other books of the like nature with it. Whence it will follow,  
1, That any person, who acts according to these Doctrines, and puts up these Petitions, doth not deviate from that Tradition, which the Catholic conceives to be his only rule of Faith (id est) a person may be guilty of horrid Blasphemy and Idolatry, and notwithstanding be a good Roman Catholic.  
2. It follows that no man ought to be condemned for writing or asserting any of these Tenets, or for using any of the forms contained in those books, for Oral Tradition cannot be conceived to condemn what is allowed and practised, without censure in the Church of Rome.  
3. Hence evident it is, that private Catholics may unavoidably be subject to these evil practices; for seeing in these matters they cannot have the judgement of the Church, and must not be permitted to act according to their private judgements, what remains but that they follow the judgement of their Priest, which as we have seen, is often impious and Blasphemous.  
4. Hence evident it is, that neither these opinions, nor practices can ever be condemned by the Church of Rome; for to make the contrary Tenets pass into Tradition, or to make them Articles of Faith, is to empower the Church to coin new Articles, and to pretend Tradition where it is not to be had: So that all these Blesphemous and Idolatrous Devotions must be as lasting as the Church of Rome.  
Secondly, I have observed this method in my whole discourse. 1. To confirm the propositions which I have laid down by Scripture, and by reason, and then to introduce the Judgement of the Fathers. Whereas T. G. is very sparing both as to Scripture and Reason, and doth endeavour to supply his want of Reason and of Scripture, by some impertinent citations from the Fathers. This I conceive to be a very weak and disingenuous way of arguing; for, if the Testimonies of some few Fathers be not sufficient to confirm an Article of Faith, and to give us the true sense of any text of Scripture, he must confess, that what he thus discourseth is weak and infufficient to prove what he hath undertaken to demonstrate: but if he shall assert this method to be good and cogent, than it will clearly follow,  
1. That the Doctrine of the Trent Council must be false, for they have certainly decreed that Doctrine which was asserted by Pope Innocent the first, S. Austin, and which was the current Doctrine of the Church of Christ for many hundred years. I wave the Opinion of Austin and of Innocent the first, saith Maldonate which flourished in the Church six haundred years, 
In Joh. 6. n. 116.  viz. that the Eucharist was necessary even for Infants, the things is now unfolded by the Church, and by the use of many ages, and the decree of the Trent Council that it is not only unnecessary for them, but that it cannot lawfully be given to them.  
2. It must be false which is defined by the Council of Florence, and is received by the whole Church of Rome, that Saints departed before the Resurrection do see the face of God in Glory, for we have proved, and Sixtus Senensis doth acknowledge, that this definition was, 
Bibl. l. 6. An. 345.  Repugnant Ingenti numero illustrium Ecclesiae Patrum.  
3. Hence it will follow that the Trent Catechism and all the Roman Doctors who generally urge that of Jacob, The Angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads, to prove that Angels may be Invocated, embrace that exposition of these words of Scripture which is heretically false; as I have proved, Chap. 10. Sect. 6.  
Thirdly, I have not entered into that deep dispute betwixt him and the Doctor, whether jubere doth signify to command or entreat; and whether imperare be to enjoin or supplicate. I Judge it is sufficient advantage to our cause, that, if Jubere and imperare should not be rendered to entreat and supplicate, but to command, the Romanists must unavoidably be guilty of Idolatry. T. G. indeed informs us, that it is not the dead words, but the intention of the speaker that makes them to be prayer; for otherwise a Parrot might be taught to Pray as well as a Christian, and thence he manfully concludes that in these expressions, Nos a peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus. 
Cassand. Consult. tit. de meritis & intercess. Sanctor. p. 971.  Jube filio O foelix puerpera, jure Matris Impera Redemptori, etc. They only pray to Saints to pray for us. As if a man should call his Prince a Tyrant, and his Brother Knave, and being brought before the Judge should plead, that by a Tyrant he meant only a King, and by a Knave a Servant; and since it was not the dead words, but the intention of the speaker that made them significative (for otherwise a Parrot might be hanged for speaking what he did) he hoped that he had spoken nothing which might give offence, especially seeing he had more Authors ready to produce to justify this sense and acceptation of these words, than had the Church of Rome for this interpretation of jubere and imperare; if when the Sentence were thus passed upon him, Jubemus & imperamus hunc suspendi, he should plead that it did only signify that they entreated him to be hanged: I say should such a plea be made, it would be as significant as is this Answer of T. G. And all that any man can say against the Plea of such a trifling Sophister will equally conclude against this pitiful defence which he hath offered, 
Josh. 10.12, 14.  and hath confirmed by a false citation of that place of Joshuah which doth not say that God obeyed, as from the Vulgar he translates it: but that God harkened to the Voice of man.  
Fourthly, In this discourse I have not waved any thing which had the least appearance of an argument, but have returned a full (and as I hope, a satisfactory) Answer to all that hath been offered by T. G. and all that I desire of him is, that if be should be pleased to Reply he would not nibble at some few Expressions, as is the manner of the Roman party, but would return a perfect Answer to the whole, and then I do not doubt, but, he will Suffer me to rest for some convenient Season.  
Thy Friend and Servant D. WHITBY.   

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

THE IDOLATRY Of the Church of ROME.  

CHAP. I.  
The CONTENTS.  
That according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry. 1. In Worshipping the Host, §. 1. And 2. In Praying to departed Saints, §. 2. The Method used to Justify this Charge, §. 3. The Notion of Idolatry considered Negatively in two Propositions. 1. That to render any Person Guilty of Idolatry, it is not Requisite that he should Conceive the Object of his Worship to be the Great Creator, or the chiefest Good, §. 4. 2. That Worship may be Guilty of Idolatry which is not Given to a Creature, with an Intent to Ascribe unto it that Worship which Agrees to God alone, §. 5. Idolatry is then Committed when any Honour due to God alone, is Attributed to, or is Conferred on that which is not God, §. 6.  
THe Doctrine of the Church of England as it is Delivered in her Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Ordinances and Constitutions, her Liturgies, and Public Homilies commanded to be Read in every Parish Church, and to be Subscribed and Received by all that Exercise the Ministerial Function, and by them to be acknowledged to contain a Good and Wholesome Doctrine, and Needful for the Times in which those Homilies were Published, is this:  
That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry in Worshipping the Host: The Rubric after the Communion, speaks thus: The Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored, for that were Idolatry to be Abhorred of all faithful Christians. The Constitutions and Canons of the Convocation held A. D. 1640. 
Can. 7.  and Published by the Authority of our Royal Martyr Charles the First, affirm: That at the time of Reforming this Church from that gross Superstition of Popery, it was carefuly Provided that all Means should be used to Root out of the Minds of the People, both the Inclination thereunto, and Memory thereof: Especially of the Idolatry committed in the Mass, for which cause all Popish Altars were Demolished.  
That the Church of Rome is Guilty of Idolatry by Praying unto Saints Departed: 
§. 2.  Thus in the Homily touching the Peril of Idolatry, we have these words. Terrentius Vorro showeth, That there were 300 Jupiter's in his time, I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the Honour due to God: Then follows this Apostrophe. Oh Heaven, Earth, and Seas, what Madness and Wickedness against God are men fallen into! What dishonour do the Creatures to their Creator and Maker! And if we remember God sometimes, yet because we doubt of his Ability, or will to help us, we join to him another Helper, using these say: Such as Learn, God and St. Nicholas be my good speed: Such as Neese, God help and St. John: To the Horse, God and St. Loy save thee. Thus are we become like Horses and Mules, which have no Understanding. For is there not one God only, who Governeth the same? and by his goodness maintaineth and serveth them? be not all things of him, by him, and through him? Why dost thou turn from the Creator to the Creatures? This is the manner of the Gentil-Idolaters: but thou art a Christian, and therefore by Christ alone haste access to God the Father, and help of him only. These things are not written to any reproach of the Saints themselves, but against our foolishness and wickedness, making of the true Servants of God false Gods, by attributing to them the Power and Honour which is Gods, and due to him only. And for that we have such opinions of the power and ready help of Saints, all our Legends, Hymns, Sequenses, and Masses did contain stories, laud's and praises of them, and prayers to them; and this we do altogether agreeable to the Saints, as did the Gentile-Idolaters to their false Gods. If answer be made, that they make Saints but Intercessors to God, and means for such things as they would obtain of God: That is even after the Gentile-Idolatrous usage, to make them of Saints Gods, called, Dij medioximi, to be mean Intercessors and helpers to God. This is the Doctrine appointed to be read and taught in every Parish Church of England. In the Injunctions of Edward the sixth, published 1547. All Pastors are enjoined to teach for the reproof of Surerstition and Pilgrimage made to Saints, that all goodness, health, and grace, aught to be both asked and looked for only of God, as of the very Author and Giver of the same, and of none other. And in the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth 1559. We have the same reiterated, viz. To the intent that all Superstition and Hypocrisy crept into divers men's hearts, may vanish away, they shall teach, that all goodness, health, and grace, aught to be both asked and looked for only of God, as of the very Author and giver of the same, and of none other.  
And now to evidence the Truth and Justice of this imputation; 
§. 3.  we shall first show what is the nature of Idolatry; and what actions may be duly charged with it. Next we shall faithfully relate the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome from her own Catechism, Church-service, and Authentic Councils. Thirdly, we shall consider what T. G. and others of that Church have offered to excuse her practice from this imputation; And then shall leave it to the judgement of all impartial and discerning Readers, whether we have not such convincing clear and pregnant reasons to pronounce her guilty of this most heinous sin, that the most subtle wit cannot evade, nor the most obstinate deny.  
And first to show wherein the nature of Idolatry consists, and to confute and baffle all the tricks and Salvoes which the adverse party hath of late invented to excuse their practice in this matter from this heinous guilt, we assert, as followeth.  
That to render any person guilty of Idolatry, 
Prop. 1.  it is not necessary that be should conceive the Creature which he worships to be the great Creator, and the chiefest good, the end and the beginning of all things, or to conceive that which he worships is no Creature. For first, if this were requisite to render any person guilty of this crime, than no man could commit Idolatry, who knows, and doth acknowledge the true Jehovah to be the only God; Though he should Sacrifice to Devils, and to stocks and stones; Though he should worship the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and all the host of Heaven, with all the Rites and Ceremonies that have been used by the Heathen world: nay should he have as many petty and inferior Gods as Egypt, Rome, or the whole Heathen world did ever own; and should perform that homage, which according to the custom of those Nations where they were received was due unto them; yet would he not be guilty of the least Idolatry, because he could not possibly conceive them to be the great Creator, or the highest God, and yet conceive the true God to be only so.  
2. Hence it would clearly follow; that those Christians who refused to Sacrifice or offer Incense unto the Images and Statues of the Heathen Emperors, and to those Daemons which they worshipped as inferior beings, and subject to that being, whom the Heathens style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Supreme and highest God were miserably out, and wretchedly deceived in their apprehensions, for it is evident by all their writings, and by the accusations of their Adversaries, that they refused to pay this homage to them, because they thought it was Idolatry: whereas according to this Rule it was not possible that they who owned the true Jehovah in contradiction to all others, could commit that sin, or justly be suspected of it. 3. The Christians constantly pronounced the Heathens guilty of Idolatry in worshipping their lesser Deities. And when the Arians and Nestorians sprung up, they with one voice pronounced them guilty of the like heinous crime; because, by giving that homage which the Orthodox conceived due to God, to him whom they affirmed to be only man; they did 
* Basil Hom. 27. Ed. Paris. P. 510.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) they introduced that Idolatry the Heathens practised; the Angelitae, as 
* Nomo Can. Tit. 12. c. 8. Cod. Can. Ecc. Uniu. Cant. 139. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 79. p. 1061. B.  Photius, or the Angelicks, as St. Austin styles them who prayed to Angels, and by them thought to have access unto the Father, The Church of God did anciently condemn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being guilty of occult Idolatry. The Collyridians' who offered Cakes unto the blessed Virgin, were said to do a devilish work, and introduce a custom which made them guilty of Idolatry; and yet it is exceeding manifest, that neither any of those Heathens did conceive those petty Gods as they are pleased to style them, the supreme being, or the great Creator of the world; nor could the like conceptions of Christ, the blessed Virgin, or the Angels be any ways consistent to that Christianity which the Arians, Angelicks and Collyridians' did constantly profess. As for the Heathens their Daemons were accounted 
a Plutarc. de Def. Or. p. 416, 417.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ministers of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Secundary Gods, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ministering Spirits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sen 
b Apuleus de daemon. Socratis. p. 45.  potestatis Mediae, a middle sort of Intercessors, 
c Sen Ep 110. p 840  inferioris notae & de plebe Dii, inferior vulgar Gods. Secondly, they held them to be 
d Austin de C. D. l. 9 c. 3.  D●i facti & a summo Deo conditi (i.e.) such as received their beings from the supreme God, who therefore by the Latins was so often styled Divum Pater, and by the Greeks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the like. And Thirdly, they say the Heathens had their 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Julian. apud Cyril. Alex. l. 4. p. 115.  Commission from God, and only were his undergovernours, and by him placed over Towns and Countries. Fourthly, they held the worship due unto them, to be a middle and inferior kind of worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Hierocles: that is, God must be worshipped with Latria: but those inferior Daemons with Dulia; and that to worship them 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hieroc. p. 10.  according to that Dignity they had received from their God and Father, was the true worship due unto them: and hence they gave this caution in paying homage to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hierocles, page the 10. not to give more than was consistent with their Dignity. The 
g This was their Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodoret in c. 2. ad Coloss.  Angelicks did not doubt but that those Angels, whom they used as Intercessors, were the Creatures and Ministers of God, nor could they hope to reap advantage by their Intercession; had they intended by so doing, to confer upon them the worship proper to that jealous God, who will not give his glory to an other.  
The Arians had the same apprehensions of Christ Jesus, they style him Dei instrumentum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Ministers, his Creature: from whence it follows, that they could intent to offer up no other worship to him, but what was proper to a Creature: And hence the Fathers tell us, that they performed to the Sacred Trinity, honorificentiae imparis officium 
h Rulg. l. 2. ad Monim. c. 2.  unequal honours, and could not be induced to worship Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with worship equal to the Father. 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregor. Nyssen. l. 4. Contr. Eunom. p. 588.13.  And that if any man conceived these words of the Evangelist St. John, that all should worship the Son, as they worshipped the Father; to contain a precept or injunction, to give unto the Son a worship equal unto that we give the Father, he was exceedingly mistaken.  
4. The Apostle tells the Church of Corinth, that he who in the Temple of an Idol did eat and drink of what was Sacrificed to the Idol, did drink the Cup of Devils, and was made partaker of the Devil's Table, and had Communion with them. 1 Cor. 10.20, 21. and so was guilty of Idolatry: to introduce and to confirm this charge, he lays down this assertion, vers. 7. that they who did sit down to eat and drink of what was offered to the golden Calf, were by so doing guilty of Idolatry, and upon this account he thus exhorts those persons who endulged themselves in this unlawful practice, be ye not Idolaters as were some of them.  
Whence it is clear, that St. Paul judged this practice well deserved that imputation, and yet it is as certain that they who used it, were induced to do so upon this presumption, that they conceived the Idol to be nothing, 
1 Cor. viij. 4. x. 19  and therefore not the great Creator, and the chiefest good.  
Hence therefore we infer the vanity and falseness of those descriptions of Idolatry, which are delivered by the Doctors of the Roman Church, who being conscious to themselves and having openly confessed, that to the 
(l) Constans est Theologorum sententia imaginem eodem honore & cultu honorari & coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago Azor. Instit Moral. To. 1 l. 9 c. 6.  Images of Christ and of the Cross, and of the blessed Trinity, they give that worship which they style Latria, and which is properly Divine, excuse themselves from this enormous guilt, by saying that they do not give this worship to them as to God, and make the formal reason of Idolatry consist in giving Divine worship to the Creature, upon this apprehension, that it is a God. Idolatry, saith 
(n) L. 2. de Idol. c. 1.  Gregory of Valence is a Superstition, whereby we tender Divine honour to the Creature, as to God: Latria, or that Adoration which agrees to God alone, is the most profound prostration and inclination of the will attended with an apprehenssion of God as the first principle, last end, and chiefest good. So Bellarmine 
(o) L. 2. d● Eccâ Triumph. c. 12. p. 1503 B.  Those words of Christ, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, etc. must thus be understood: Thou shalt not worship false Gods, as the Heathens do, but that true God who is but one, to whom alone theou shalt exhibit Divine worship, as to the true God: So 
(p) Manual l. 1. c. 7. qu. 1.  Becanus, whence he infers, they are not to be counted guilty of Idolatry by Invocation and Adoration of Saints departed, quia non adorant eos tanquam Deos: 
(q) Just weights, chap. 19  The like mistake to say no worse, we find in Mr. Thorndike when he asserts, that this is requisite to make the Romanists Idolaters, Viz. to take the Elements for God.  
That worship may be guilty of Idolatry, 
Prog. 2.5.5.  which is not given to a Creature with an intention to make that Creature be esteemed for a God, or with an intention to ascribe unto that Creature the excellency which agrees to God alone; This proposition may be confirmed by what we have discoursed upon, the first, being certain that the Eunomians, Arians, Nestorians, did not intent by any worship they performed to Christ, to work in any this estimation that he was a God, but that above all things they did endeavour to persuade the contrary, and they who sat at meat in Idols Temples, and by partaking of things Sacrificed to them were guilty of Spiritual whoredom or Idolatry. Believed themselves, and taught to others this assertion; that an Idol was nothing in the world. And it is apparent also that according to this principle the holy Martyrs might have worshipped with all kinds of honour, not only Emperors and Kings, but even their Prince of Devils, without the imputation of Idolatry; Provided they did not inwardly intent by any act of worship to procure unto them the estimation of a Deity. 4. They who resort unto the Hag and the 
(r) Peccant in primum preceptum qui somniss, auguriis caecerisque vanissmais is rebus fridem dem habent. Catech. Rom part 3. c. 1. ss. 7.  Magician, the Sorcerer and Wizard, do not believe, much less endavour to work this estimation in the hearts of others, that they are truly God. And yet the Church of Rome condemns them, who (thinking they can do what they pretend to) consult these wicked Artists, as persons guilty of Idolatry. T. By the like reason, no married man commits Adultery by lying with another woman, provided he intends not to con verse with any other under the notion of a wife: a fine expedient in this debauched age, to make new converts to the Church of Rome. And in like manner no Subject will he guilty of Rebellion though he desert his Prince, follow the Ensigns of his Enemy, and fight in his defence against his Sovereign, provided he intent not by so doing to procure to his Enemy the estimation of a King.  
These false opinions being thus removed, 
§ 6.  we assert, That Idolatry is then committed, when any honour due to God alone is attributed to, or is conferred upon any thing that is not God: and that all actions which give unto the Creature the honour due to the Creator only, are Idolatrous: And this description of Idolatry, is that which was received by the ancient Schoolmen, till the disputes of Protestants constrained them to renounce and vary from it. Thus in the judgement of 
(s) 2a 2ae. qu. 94. Art. 1.3.  Aquinas it is Idolatry, cuicunque Creaturae divinum cultum exhibere, honerem divinum Creaturae impendere divinum cultum exhibere, cui non debet exhiberi; To impart divine worship to any Creature, or any thing to which it ought not to be given. All divine worship given to a Creature is Idolatry: So 
(t) Part. 2. qu. 160.  Alexander Halensis, to omit divens others. This also is the definition, or description of Idolatry we have received from the ancient Fathers of the Church. 
[u] Vid. voss de Idol. l. 1. c. 3. p. 9 Rainold de R. Ecc. Idol. l. 2. c. 9 §. 4.  Tertullian and Nazianzen, St. Augustine, and almost all the Greek and Latin Fathers with one voice consent to this. Idolatry is then committed when divine honour is ascribed to another; hence that of Hilary the Deacon, Idolatry usurps the honour hue to God, and gives it to the Creature: 
* Idololatria Dei honorisicentiam usurpat & vendieat creatuax in cap. 5. ad Ephes.  This Thirdly may be evidently proved from Scripture, for that the Gentiles were guilty of this heinous crime, cannot be doubted by the Christian: now their Idolatry did in the judgement of St. Paul consist in this, that they did homage to those beings which by nature were not Gods: but Creatures only. Secondly, the first commandment in the affirmative, 
* Gal. 4.8.  commands us to have the true Jehovah for our God, and consequently to give unto him that worship which is due to God; when therefore in the Negative it doth enjoin us to have no either God besides him, it must be deened to enjoin us also to give unto no other that worship which we own unto him; and by which we acknowledge him to be our God: and even reason will instruct us, that he who doth ascribe God's worship, he gives his glory to another; and acknowledgeth another God, as much as any man can do. For we know no other way whereby we can acknowledge any thing to be a Deity, but by ascribing to it in our thoughts or actions that worship which is due to God alone.   

CHAP. II.  
The CONTENTS.  
Prop. 1. That if the Sacrament continue after Consecration to be Bread, the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry. Prop. 2. That if it really be doubtful whether it be Bread or not, she cannot be excused from that Crime. Prop. 3. That we have just cause to doubt of every particular Host, according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that it is not duly consecrated, and consequently, that the Sacrament is after Consecration, Bread and Wine. Prop. 4. That were it certain that every particular Host contains Christ's real Flesh and Blood, yet have we no just warrant upon that Supposition, to adore it with Latria.  
THe Church of Rome expressly doth enjoin us to give the Worship of Latria 
* Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi sideles Latrix cultum qui vero Deo debetur huie Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant: neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuer it a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5.  huic Sanctissimo Sacramento to the Holy Sacrament, 
§ 1.  as the Trent Council hath defined, that is, unto that very being which the Priest puts into the mouth of the Communicant, and which he must swallow down into his Stomach, for that they call the Holy Sacrament. Hence presently they tell us, That this Holy Sacrament ought not to be the less adored, because our Lord commanded that it should be taken: This practice we conceive to be Idolatry, and to make good the charge we lay down these preparatory Propositions.  
We may be guilty of Idolatry in paying divine Homage to a Creature, 
Prop. 1.  though we conceive that Creature to be God, and sointend to give that worship only to God; for if such a vain conception which we may have just reason to reject, but can have no inevitable and certain reason to embrace can be sufficient to excuse this guilt: then he who thus conceits touching the vilest Creature, cannot justly be charged with Idolatry, what ever act of worship he should pay unto it; admit we then the Heathen Jupiter, the World, the Sun, the Earth and whatsoever else was worshipped by the ignorant and superstitious world, as their supreme Creator, to be the vilest Devils: pity we may their ignorance and folly, but no man should accuse them of Idolatry, for paying Adotation to a Subject which in their apprehensions did so well deserve it; 
p. 363.  and what T. G. so often mentions as an Aggravation of that worship which Pagans gave to their inferior Daemons, viz. that they esteemed them to be Gods, would be their best excuse, and the extenuation of their guilt. And those expressions of the Prophets which reproach the Jews and Heathens for saying to a stock or stone thou art my God, 
Jet. 2.27. Hos. 4.12.  if they be literally understood, as many Roman Doctors do conceive they ought to be, will be so far from proving that they were Idolaters, that they will perfectly excuse them from this crime; because, according to that supposition, they worshipped only that which they conceived to be God. The Collyridions, if we be well informed by Baronius, conceived the blessed Virgin was a real Deity, and yet St. Epiphanius calls them a Sect of Idol-makers who offered their Cakes unto her. 
Haer. 79. p. 1061. B.  The 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 69.  Samaritans who worshipped Simon Magus; The Romans, who, if Justin Martyr may be credited, 
p. 91,  in honour of him did erect a Satue with this inscription Simoni Deo Sancto, to Simon the Holy God, and many others, who, as 
(c) Hic sgitur a multis quasi Deus Glorificatus est, Iren adv. Hears. l. 1. c. 20. Imaginem quoque Simonis habent factam adfiguram Jovis, & Helenea in figuram Minervea & has adorant. ibid.  Irenaeus tells us, did glorify him as God, and had his Image made like to that of Jupiter, which they adored; all these I say must be excused from Idolatry, for they all did it upon this presumption that be was the highest God, God over all Principalities and Powers, and all other virtues. Thirdly, If this were so, this error in the understanding would equally take off the guilt of other Sins. This would excuse the theft of him who robs his wicked Brother of his goods; provided that he think with our Fanatic, that all Dominion is founded upon Grace, and that awicked person hath no right to any thing he possesseth; for, as he that worshippeth the Host upon this false presumption that it is no Creature, but the great Creator, conceives he worshippeth only God, and doth not give his worship unto another: So this Fanatic conceives he taketh only what is his by right of grace, and what his wicked Brother hath no right unto, and so cannot be guilty of that theft, which necessarily is the taking of what is another's, and is not mine own; Again the Rebel who unsheathed his Sword against his King will not be guilty of Rebellion, provided he erroneously conceived as did the Presbyterian; That the King's Majesty was not the highest power, but that the power of the Parliament was equal with him, and , or if 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 349. c.  or if he think, as did the Irish Rebels, that being excommunicated by the Pope, he becomes presently a Tyrant, and hath no further right to his Dominions: For if the Adorer of the Host (provided that it be a Creature) must be excused from Idolatry, because he therefore only worships it; because he ●al●ly thinks it to be God, why may not both these sorts of Rebels be absolved from such an heinous imputation? Since though the King is really the highest power, and not withstanding the interdiction of the Pope, continues so to be; yet they do only fight against him under the notion of a Tyrant, or of a power . Fourthly, St. Austin speaks of some who worshipped the Sun, as thinking it was Jesus Christ, or that Christ was in the Sun, and yet he sticks not to condemn this worship as a contempt of the Creator. To this example (urged by Dr. St. to evince, that if the Host after the Consecration did continue Bread, the Romanist must be guilty of Idolatry in paying of Latria to it, as were the Manichees in giving of that worship to the Sun) T. G. returns this answer, that the disparity is so clear, 
p. 327.  that not to see it was in the Dr. a very gross mistake, and he appeals unto the Reader for the truth of what he frith, viz. That they worshipped the Sun, whom they falsely thought to be Christ (even as the Papists worship the Sacrament which they falsely think to be Christ) i. e. what they had in their minds and purposes to adore was the Sun, but the Catholics do not believe the bread to be Christ, or worship the Bread which they believe to be Christ; no their mistake, if there was any, would be that they believed the Bread not to be there at all, and therefore what they would have in their minds and purposes to adore would not, nor could not be bread, but the only true and eternal Son of God— Answer, even so the Manichees did not conceive the Sun to be a Creature only, 
* Manscheai dicebant se colere Deum Patrem & filium ejus Christum, sed quia per deum Intelligebant lucem corpoream, per Christum solem istum Corporeum nihil habebant Dei & Christin●●● solum nomen. Bel● larm.  nor did they worship that Sun which they conceived to be a mere Creature; nay, their mistake, if there were any would be this, that they believed no Creature to be there at all, or else that Christ resided in the Creature; what therefore they had in their minds and purposes to adore would not, nor could not be a Creature, but the true and eternal Son of God; but Secondly, this senseless pitiful excuse will free the Heathens from this imputation, for they did not believe their Jupiter to be an evil Spirit, or a Creature, but the God of all things: they did not worship him whom they believed to be an evil Spirit; no, when they appeared before his Image, and there addressed their worship to him, they believed no evil Spirit to be there at all; and therefore what they had in their minds and purposes to adore, would not, nor could not be an evil Spirit, but the true and only God. T. G. proceeds to say the difference then in the mistakes is this; That the Manichees had for the formal Term of their worship an undue object, viz. A Creature instead of the Creator; but Catholics in case of a mistake would have no other formal object of Adoration in their minds, but the Creator himself. Answer, 1 What means this ignorant and simple Tattle of the formal term of worship, but to amuse the Reader, and make him hope that he faith something, when he hath nothing but a mess of nonsense to return unto the Doctor's argument? Divinity and Metaphysics are wholly strangers to this rude expression; in Logic a material term is the word. Homo, The formal term is what the word doth signify, so then the sense runs thus, the Manichees had for the signification of this word, worship, an undue object, admirable nonsense. (2) What is the formal object, but the reason for which the outward or the material object is Adored? This being so, is it not clearer than the Sun, that they who had this apprehension in their minds, that what we call the Sun was also Jesus Christ, and for that only reason did Adore it, had equally no other formal object, as they who had this apprehension that the Host was Christ, and therefore did Adore it: and if the Host continue Bread, must not the Adoration terminated on it, be terminated on a Creature, must not the formal term of the Latria or worship which is given to it, be an undue object.  
If this erroneous conception will excuse the Authors of it from being guilty of Idolatry, than first the Israelites could not be rightly styled Idolaters for worshipping the golden Calf, for many of the Roman Doctors assert, they did it upon this presumption, that the Calf was God, and yet the holy Scripture doth expressly say they were Idolaters, 
1 Cor. 10.7.  by doing thus, and that they offered Sacrifice unto the Idol, which sure is little better than Idolatry. 
7 Act. 41.  To this instance of the golden Calf, he answers thus, The Israelites believed the golden Calf to be God, 
P. 329.  but Catholics (though supposed to be mistaken in their belief) would not worship the Bread for Christ, because their mistake would not be in taking the Bread for God, as the Israelites did the Calf: but in this that they conceived the Bread not to be there at all, but in place thereof the only true and eternal God; and so although the object (or rather Subject) materially there present would in such a case be Bread, yet their act of Adoration would not be terminated formally upon that, but upon God. Answer, as if this also were not their mistake who held the Calf to be God, that they conceived no Creature to be there at all, but in place thereof the only true and eternal God, (for can it be possible that the Israelites should conceive the Calf to be God, and not conceive that when they worshipped him as God, they had no Creature to be the object of their worship) and so although the object materially present would in such a case be the golden Calf, yet the act of Adoration would not be terminated formally on that, but upon God?  
5ly. T. G. proceeds to tell us in the words of Dr. Taylor, that if they thought Christ were not present, 
P. 329.  they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry so to do, which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical. Answer, even so had not the Heathens thought that a good Spirit was present in their Images, had not the Manichees and the Egyptians thought that God and Christ were present where we see the Sun; had not the Israelites thought that God was present where they saw the Image of a Calf, they would have been so far from worshipping the Calf or the material Sun, that they themselves would have professed it to be Idololatrical to do so; which is a demonstration that their Soul hath nothing in it which is Idololatrical. And whereas he proceeds to add from Dr. Taylor, 
P. 330.  that before they pass an Act of Aloration, they believe the Bread to be annihilated, or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped, and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry, as they who understand better: it is manifest this doth as much excuse the Heathen, as it doth the Papist, for they also before they pass an Act of Adoration, do believe that what they worship, is the God of Heaven, who lawfully may be worshipped; and having such conceptions, they according to this argument must be esteemed as much enemies of Idolatry, as were those Christians, and those Prophets which reproved them for it, and passed so wicked and unjust a censure on them. Baronius tells us that the Collyridians' conceived that the blessed Virgin was a real Deity, 
Apparat. 43.  and that she had nothing humane in her, and so before they ventured to Adore her, they believed her humane nature was annihilated, or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped; and yet, if we may credit Epiphanius, it was no better than an Idol-making Heresy and they were Diabolical Idolaters: So that those passages of that ingenious and learned Prelate, serve only to demonstrate that the highest judgement, and the most pregnant subtle wit must strangely shuffle, and most assuredly miscarry, when it endeavours to excuse the Church of Rome from being guilty of Idolatry: when the same Reverend Person undertook to show the vanity and folly of what he had delivered on that Subject to excese the Papist, when he proceeds to show the grourds by which his judgement was established, 
Real presence. p. 347.  no man could more apparently assert, or more convincingly demonstrate what the Roman Catholics alleged to free them from this Sin, 
1 b. p. 340.341, 342.  would free the worst of Heathens, For he entreats them to consider, first, that no man without his own fault, can mistake a Creature so far as to suppose him to be God; (especially not such a Creature as a piece of Bread.)  
Secondly, That when the Heathens worshipped the Sun and Moon, they did it upon their confidence that they were Gods, and would not have given to them Divine Honour, if they had thought otherwise. Thirdly, That no man in the world upon these grounds, except he that is malicious and spiteful, can be an Idolater: for if he have an ignorance great enough to excuse him, he can be no Idolater; if he have not, he is spiteful, and malicious, and then all the Heathens are also excused as well as they. Fourthly, That if good intent and ignorance in such cases can take off the crime, than the persecutors that killed the Aplstles, thinking they did God good service, and Saul in blaspheming the Religion, and persecuting the Servants of Jesus, and the Jews themselves in Crucifying the Lord of Life, who did it ignorantly, as did also their Rulers, have met with their excuse upon the same account.  
T. G. proceeds to urge from Mr. Thorndike thus, 
P. 332.  (and truly he hath nothing worth consideration in his whole discourse, but what is borrowed either from Dr. Taylor or Mr. Thorndike) they who know that the Godhead of Christ is the reason, for which his Flesh and Blood is worshipped in the Eucharist, cannot take that worship for Idolatry, because his Flesh and Blood is not present in the Eucharist, as they who worship it there, think it is: For they know, that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is no Idol to Chistians wheresoever it is worshipped. Answer, This argument is so ridiculous and childish, that I am tempted to believe this worthy person was deserted in this matter by God, because he had deserted the Doctrine of the Church of England; for so far are we from knowing that the Flesh and Blood of Christ is made no Idol by the Christian wheresoever it is worshipped, that we do know that the whole Church of Christ condemned the Arian, Photinian, Nestorian, and Eunomian as Idol-worshippers, because they did Adore his Flesh and Blood, this argument therefore is built on that foundation which gives the lie to the whole Christian World.  
Secondly, This argument doth as much excuse the Heathens and the Manicheans as it doth the Papist, for they that know the Deity of Christ, is the reason why he was worshipped in the Sun, have as much reason to excuse the Manichees for worshipping the Sun, upon this supposition that Christ was there, as they have to excuse the Papist for worshipping the Sacrament, upon a like false supposition that Christ is there.  
But now comes in a Demonstration, 
P. 329.  so full of dazzling light, that nothing can withstand its evidence, and thus it runs; what ever is taken for an object of worship, the understanding must affirm to be.  
But Catholics in the belief of Transubstantiation do not in their minds affirm the Bread to be. Therefore the object of their worship is not Bread but Christ: Answer, what T. G. ignorantly styles a Demonstration, is such a miserable Sophism, so childish and ridiculous that nothing can be more: what Freshman knows not, that a true Syllogism hath but three terms, and cannot possibly admit of more, it being built on this foundation, that quae conveniunt in aliquo tertio, etc. But he hath been so liberal as to afford us five of six, and give us a conclusion from the premises, which never was contained in them. Let us put it into to better form, and see if it have any strength or evidence; thus then, what ever is taken by the Roman Catholic for any object of his worship, must be offirmed by the Roman Catholic to be. But Bread in holy Eucharist is not affirmed by the Roman Catholic to be. Ergo, Bread in the holy Eucharist is not taken by the Roman Catholic for any object of his worship. This Demonstration is so exceedingly convincing, that we grant the whole. For though we do unanimously judge that Papists in the Eucharist do worship Bread, and so are guilty of Idolatry; yet no man ever thought that they imagined they did worship Bread, or take Bread for the object of that worship which they call Latria; to show the vanity and folly of this pretended Demonstration, let us see what service it will do unto the Heathens: what ever is taken for an object of Divine worship the understanding must affirm to be so, for neither the Egyptians had made the Sun the object of that worship, nor yet the Israelites the Calf if their understanding had not first affirmed them to be so. But Heathens do not in their minds affirm an evil Spirit, or a Creature to be an object of Divine worship, but do conceive the object of their worship to be God: therefore the object of the Heathens worship is not an evil Spirit or a Creature but God. This is that weighty Demonstration which our Author boasts of. Having now fully answered all the exceptions of T. G. I will assume the confidence to say, that notwithstanding all his outcries of a clear disparity, and his malicious imputations of want of Reason, and Conscience, in the Dr. who asserts the contrary, I have made it clearer than the light, that he hath not been able to say one word which is not manifestly false, or doth not equally excuse the 
† This consel●●d by Gatherings in these words. Audi in hos●in come adoratur Christus ad Deus, non simplicitur, sed ut existens ful● his speciebus; cum igitur ibi non existat Christus, sed Creatura pro Christo invenitur, cui exhibetur Latria; Idolatria est, Idoloatre enim etiam hae errant ratione, qui caelum, puta, aut aliquid aliud adorabant, putantes se ibi adorare Deum, quem animam mundi dicebant juxta Varronis Theologiam. Catarrh: advers. nova dogmain Cajetani 'tis de veneratione storump, 134.135.  Heathen and the Roman Catholic; and consequently that the discourse of Dr. St. was strong and nervous, and such as only Rats can answer, and shall content myself with this one corollary, that T. G. may be highly confident and boast of Demonstration, when he vents nothing besides plain nonsense, and apparent folly.  
And now to put an issue to this proposition, if men may properly be said to do, and equitably may be charged with doing what they did not intent, because their action in effect is that which they conceived it not to be, as is apparent from a Thousand Scripture instances, then may the Papist be equitably charged with Idolatry, and properly affirmed to commit it; provided the material object of his Latria should be only Bread, although he doth not in the least intent to give the highest worship to Bread, for since Idolatry is only Latria given to, or terminated on the Creature, and seeing Bread is most assuredly a Creature, Latria terminated upon Bread can be no other than Idolatry. but if men must be thought to do only what they intent, than every action must be good, provided it be well intended; and Murder, Theft, Rebellions, Perjuries, Equivocations must be sacred actions, provided they be done for the promotion of God's glory, and the propagation of the Roman saith; which Doctrines thought they are taught, and daily practised by the members of the Roman Church, yet are they villainies too dangerous to be espoused by the English Papists.  
To attribute by way of honour, 
Prop. 2. §. 2.  worship, or respect, that knowledge to a Creature, which for any thing we know unto the contrary, is only due to the Creator, is to be guilty of Idolatry. For first, That which is not of Faith is Sin. Rom. 14.23. what therefore is a sin, because it attributeth to the Creature what may be due to the Creator only, must be the sin of giving to the Creature what is due to God; and so, being an Act of Worship, must be the sin of Idol Worship; for as the man who doth assert what he conceives to be uncertain for a certain truth, is by all Casuists esteemed a Liar, though what he doth assert should prove a truth, because he doth assert that for a certain Truth, which he conceives may be a Lie: And as that Woman who performs the duties of a Wife to any person of whom she doubts that he is not her Husband, is to be esteemed an Adulteress, although he be indeed her Husband with whom she thus converseth, because by doing of this Action, whilst the doubt remaineth, she doth that Action, which for any thing she knows unto the contrary, may be plain Adultery. So he that performeth that honour to a Creature, which he suspecteth only to be due to God, must be pronounced guilty of Idolatry, however he perform that Worship only which is due unto the Creature, because by doing of it whilst any cause of doubt remaineth, he shows an inclination to perform it to the Creature, though it belonged not to him; and in effect doth say. I have just reason to suspect this Worship doth belong to God alone, yet will I give it to a Creature.  
Suppose the Bread, when duly consecrated, 
Prop, 3. §. 3.  were certainly converted into the Body of our Lord, yet since, according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, this consecration often is, and may be hindered by many secret defects which do not fall under the Cognisance of him that Worships; a man may rationally doubt of every particular Host presented to his adoration, that it is only Bread. This 
a Carnettus quidem, cum tale quid ab eo quaeretetur, respondisse dicitur, Merito dubitari de eo posse, nec vel se, vel alium quenquam teneri, temerè credere, aut salutem suam credendo in diserimen adducere; quod vel ipse seilicet, vel alius quis in individuo sacerdos; vel hoc, vel certo alio consecrationis suae rempore, panem Transtubstantiando Christi corpus conficiat. Sratui forsitan posse in genere, atque indefinitè, quod Transubstantiatio sit, & quod ab aliquo, alicubi Sacerdore tale quid, aliquando fieripossit. Epistopus Eliensis, Respon ad Apol. Bel. pag. 7.  Garnet openly confessed, and therefore though they stand obliged to believe that the Bread is Transubstantiated some where or other, at some time or other, by some Priest or other, yet they think no man is obliged to believe, that any Priest now, or at any one certain time, does consecrate effectively. And this concession is not very liberal, if we consider what is acknowledged by Suarez, 
b Multae sut causae propter quas potest accidere, ut Christus non sit praesens: ut si sacerdos non sit baptizatus, vel non sit ritè ordinatus, quod pendet ex multis aliis causis, quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus; ut ex parte materiae saepe accidit defectus. Suarez in 3 Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65.2.  That we may almost infinitely proceed in the enumeration of the defects, which will obstruct Christ's presence in the Holy Sacrament. For as we are informed by the Roman Missal, if the 
c Si aliquid desit ex iis quae ad integritatem verborum in ipsâ consecratione requiruntur. Verba autem consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec, hoc est enim corpus meum, & hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi & aeterni Testamenti, misterium fidei, qui pro vobis, & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum: Si quis autem aliquid diminueret vel immutaret de forma consecrationis corporis & sanguinis, & in ipsa verborum immutatione, verba idem non significarent: non Conficeret sacramentum. Miss. Rom. de Defec. Miss. p. 35.  Priest happen to diminish, or alter any of the words of Consecration, so that the sense be varied, or any word belonging to the form of Consecration be ontitted; in all these cases Christ is not present in the Sacrament, but it remaineth Bread, now since the form of Consecration of the Cup containeth 11 words, and so is the more subject to diminution or alteration, seeing the Priest doth always speak the words of Consecration in a 
d Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae R. ritum quo submissa voce pars canonis & verba consecrationis proseruntu● damnandum esse, aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere anathema sit Concil. Tried, Sess. 22. Can. 9  secret voice, and not to be heard, and in the Latin Tongue, none of the People can be certain that he speaks the words of Consecration so fully and so regularly as to secure them from Worshipping a piece of Bread.  
Secondly, 
e Si panis non sit triticeus, vel, si triticeus, sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tanta quan titate, ut non maneat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui corruptus: non conficitur Sacramentum. ibid. pag. 34.  If the Bread be corrupted, or if it be not Wheaten-Bread, then is it not converted into Christ's Body; and if the Wine be sour, or turned into Vinegar, if it be made of unripe Grapes, if it be mixed with so much Water as will corrupt the Wine, then is it not converted into the Blood of Christ. Now by what means the person that adores the Sacrament, can be assured that the Bread and Wine is subject unto none of these defects, it is not easy to conceive. 
f Si vinum sit factum pe nitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis acerbis, seu non maturis expessum, vel admixtum tantum aquae, ut vinum sit corruptum, non conficitur Sacramentum. ibid.   
Thirdly, 
g Siquis non intendit conficere, sed delusorie aliquid agere non consecrat, quiarequiritur inten tio ibid. P. 35.36.  If the Priest have no intention to consecrate the Bread and Wine, if in this matter he acts dilusorily, if he be asecret Atheist, a Moor, a Jew, in all these cases the person Worshipping must give Latria to a Creature; if none of all this happen, yet 
h Quicquid horum deficit, scilicet mat eria debita, for ma cum intention, & ordo Sacerdotalis in conficiente, non consicitur Sacramentum. ib. p. 34.  if the Consecrated Priest were not Baptised with due form of words, or if the Person that Baptised him, doth not intent to do as the Church doth, if he be not a Priest, (which often happens saith Pope 
* In quaest, quodlib. quaest. 3.  Adrian) and certainly falls out, when he that doth Ordain him, doth noth not intent to do so, or faultreth by diminution of, or by addition to the form of Ordination, so that the sense is changed, or made imperefct; or lastly, if the Bishop that Ordained this Priest that doth now Consecrate, were not himself Ordained and Baptised with due matter, form, and intention, or if this happened to any Priest to Bishop before him, or any one in the same Line of Ordainers till you come unto St. Peter; that is, if this hath happened out in sixteen hundred years, then will the Elements remain still Bread and Wine, as wanting Consecration by a real Priest, for Baptism and Ordination being necessary requisites to Priesthood, he who by the defect of these is only a supposed Priest, can give but a supposed Priesthood, and they that do receive their Priesthood, or do derive it from such as have received it from them, can receive nothing but a shadow, it being undeniably certain, that the unsupplyable defect of any necessary antecedent, doth cause a nullity in all those consequences which depend upon it. So that no R. Catholic can be assured he doth not Worship Bread, without he can have no assurance, there being no necessity that they should be true.  
From the consideration of all these defects, it is exceeding evident, That all that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and daily practise the adoration of the Host, are unavoidably subjected to the continual peril of Idolatry, and have just reason to suspect (although the Doctrine of Transubstantiation should in the general be certain) that the material object of their Worship is but Bread and Wine. On this Objection T. G. reflects with so much insolence and triumph, as if it were the vainest scruple that a tongue could utter, and had been managed by the Dr. with the greatest. weakness: And yet so little reason had he to be thus insolent and pert, that by his first reply unto it, he hath quite overthrown the Roman Cause, and given all considering persons, such a clear convincing motive to desert the Church of Rome, that nothing can be more prevailing. For thus he speaks, The absurdness of the assertion, that another man's defect and wickedness should make me incur the Crime of Idolatry, whether I will or no, might suffice to make any reasonable man depose so Chimerical a scruple. This I confess is a most clear and certain truth, that it is infinitely absurd to say I should be guilty of so great a Crime, only by reason of another's fault or wickedness: But than it must be more absurd to think I shall be damned only by reason of the defect or wickedness of others, which yet all R. Catholieks stand bound as firmly to believe, as any other Doctrine of that Church; for it is certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, 
a Quoties infans aut adultus versatur in vitae periculo, potest sine solemnitate à quocunque Baptizari servata tamenforma & intention Ecclesia, Ritual. Rom. de Bap. P. 7.  That where the perfect form of Baptism, or the intention of 
b Quicquid enim horum deficit, scihect materia debita, forma cum intentione non conficitur Sacramentum. Miss. Rom. p. 34.  doing what the Churth doth, is wanting, the person that is brought unto the Fout is not Baptised: And it is also the definition of that Church, 
c Siquis dixerit, Bapti●mum liberum esse, hoc est, non necessarium ad salutem; anathema sit. Coxcil. Trid. Sess. 7, de Bept. Can. 5.  That Baptism is necessary to Salvation, and consequently, that no unbaptized person can be Saved; and hence the Roman Ritual speaks thus, 
d Ritual. Rom. de Bapt. p. 5.  That Holy Baptism, the Gate of Christian Religion and Eternal Life, 
e Nihil magi● necessarium videri potest, quàm ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse, ita ut niu per Baptifmi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempirernam miseriam, &c interitum a parentibus, sive illi fiddles, sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum erit, quod apud Evangelistam legitur; Nssiquis renatus suerit ex apua & spiritu non potest int●oire in reguum Dei. Catechis. Rom. part. 2. Cap. 11.5.31.  is necessary to the Salvation of all Men, is testified by truth itself in these expressions, unless a Man be born again, etc. and therefore in the due ministration of it, the greatest diligence is needful. (2) It is most certainly the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Sinners are not absolved by the Priest, unless the 
e Nihil magis necessarium videri potest, quàm ut doceatur omnibus hominibus Baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse, ita ut nisi per Baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam, & anteritum a parentibus, sive illi fideles, sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepiùs à Pastoribus explicandum erit, quod apud Evangelistam legitur; Nssi quis renatus suerit ex aqua & spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei. Catechis. Rom. part. 2. Cap. 11. §. 31.  Priest intent to do it; and yet that Church defineth, That this 
f Siquis dixerit, in ministris, dum Sacra mentum conficiunt & conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, anathema, sit. Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Cap. 1. Can. 11. f Est autem hoc Sacramentum Paenitentiae lapsis post Baptismum ad salutem necessarium. ut nondum regeneratis ipse Baptismus. ibid. Stss'. 14. Cap. 2.  Sacrament of Penance is necefsary to Salvation to those that after Baptism do fall; and tells the penitent, 
g Non debet poenitens adeò sibi de suaipsius fide blandiri, ut etiam si nulla illi adsit contritio, aut sacerdoti animus seriò agendi & verè absolvendi deslt; putet tamen se, propter suam solam fidem, verè & coram Deo esse absolutum. Nec enim fides fine penitentia remissionem ullam peccatorum praestaret: Nec is esset, nisi salutis suae negligentissimus, qui sacerdotem joco se absolventem cognofceret, & non alium, seriò agentem, sedulò requireret. ib. Cap. 6.  he must not so far flatter or deceive himself, as to expect to be absolved by God, by reason of his Faith, if the Priest doth not in his mind intent truly to absolve him, and to act seriously in the matter. So that T. G. and all of his persuasion, must recant this principle which he hath here laid down, and which shines with the brightest evidence, or else he must renounce the Church of Rome, and one would wonder at the stupidity of our R. Catholics, that they can think of this without the greatest horror and amazement: for if this be not true, than their Religion must be false, and if it be, then how great soever be the Piety and Virtue of their Lives, yet if their Priest be a secret Atheist, if he be impious enough not to be serious; or if he be so negligent, or so malicious as not to intent their absolution, they must infallibly be damned to all Eternity. Secondly, His instances are all impertinent, and insufficient to take off the scruple upon several accounts, as for example, 
P. 259.  T. G. asks what certainty hath a Husband that the person he takes for his Wife, is so indeeds and yet a Husband may pay the conjugal debt.  
Answer, The case is no way parallel, for here is no apparent cause of doubt, for otherwise the duty ought not to be paid, but there is almost infinite reason to suspect Christ is not present in the Sacrament; once in a Thousand instances perhaps it happeneth that a Man may be cheated with another Woman; but here it is an Hundred to one that we are cheated in our supposition of Christ's Real and Corporal presence. For since the power of the Priest to Consecrate, depends upon the due Baptising, and due Ordination of all that Line which was before him; should we allow to every Ordaining Bishop 16 years, yet must that Line contain an Hundred Bishops at least, and if but one neglect in matter, form, or the intention of the Priest, hath been committed in the Baptising, or Ordaining of one of the whole Hundred Bishops, the Bread must certainly be Bread; so that the want of due intention, form or matter, being as common, and as like to happen in any single instance, as a cheat put upon the Husband; the disparity in this must be as great as that of One to an Hundred; and if we do again consider that according to the Canon of the Nicene Council, One Bishop, and Two Priests are requisire to the Ordaining of a Priest, than the disparity runs thus; as Three hundred to one, so is the possibility of being cheated in the Sacrament, to that of being cheated in my Bed: But then if we consider that throughout the 
a 
Cent. 9  
In eodem concilio de vita & honestate sacrificulorum, quorum mores a Disciplina Majorum lapsi ad luxum libidinemque plus quam profano licet, tendebant, leges latae sunt. Avent. lib. 4. p. 359.  
Isti octo Pontifices sequentes brevi tempore sederunt, nescio notabile aliquid de ipsis dicere, quia non nisi scandalosa de ipsis reperi. Fascic. p. 67. Quod proinde seculum ab Historicis infaelix inscribitur. Genebrard. ad Ann. Christi. 899.   Ninth, 
b Cent. 10. Quo tempore ipsa Romana Ecclesia casura & interitura penitus videri potuisset, tot improbis, sceleratis, impudicis, Praedonibus invasorbus, sanguinariis & grassatoribus hoc seculo (ut audisti) sedem Apostolicam invadentibus. Cbron. 1000  Tenth, and 
c Cent. 11. Quam tunc deploratus fuerit status Ecclesiae, & ferme monstro simillimus, cernere licet apud sigebertum, Vincent. & Antoni. sacerdotes crant moribus depravatissim is, & propterea ipsi & res sacrae populo contemptibiles; quilibet ex plebe audebat de sacris mysteriis disputare; Sacramenta etiam ab Infantibus turpiter tractabantur; in extremo vitae viaticum Dominicum contemnebatur; decimae presbyteris debitae igne cremabantur. Corpus domini saepe pedibus conculcabatur & sanguis effundebatur, multaque alia scclera in Ecclesia patrabantur. Genebrard. Chron. 1079.  Eleventh Ages. The Priests and Bishops of the Roman Church were so abominably wicked, that Tongue cannot express sufficiently their vileness; that by their own confession 50 succeeding Popes were rather Devils, and Apostates, than Apostolic Persons, that their Sacrificators were 
d Sacrificuli principibus a Deo datis, non solum non parendum esse, verum etiam fraud, vi quov is modo tollendos, populum Christianum docere audent; per juria, homicidia, civilia bella, caedes, perfidiam, pietatem vocant, fidem frangentes, faedera dissolventes, pactum praevaricantes, juramentum ujolantes, perfidos, atque perjuros non esse, sibi credi postulant, Quin eos, qui fideles sunt, qui rebellionem, incendia facere, stup, a, incestus committere praedas agitare, proximos opprimere, occidere, compila●e, sanguinem Christianum effundere summopere cavent, in numero sceleratorum atque impiorum computant, etc. Aventinus Annal. Bojar. lib. 5 pag. 591.  Antichrists, Magicians, Invaders of the holy Function, guilty of Simony and Perjury, Monsters and Prodigies of vice, and that on those accounts the Ages mentioned are called the unhappy and the most desperate times, wherein the very 
e Praefari aliquid necessarium duximus ne quid scandali pusillus avimo pateatur si quando videre contigerit abominationem desolationis in Templo. Baron a An. 900.  Abomination of Desolation had usurped the Temple. If we consider that their ignorance was so exceeding great, that 
f Multo jam Tempore indoluit paternitas tua tantam in Ecelesia Dei invalescere inscitiam atque tam Crassam corum qui Sancto ministrant altari, & divinas ex officio personant laudes, ignorantiam, ut rari admodum inveniantur, qui exactè & integrè quae legunt aut canunt, intelligant, aut corum, quae ore expromunt, sensum capiant aut rectam teneant percipiantve sententiam. Clichto v. prelate. Elucidat. Eccles. vid. Nich. de Cleman. p. 16. Hotting de necess. Reform. p. 65.  few knew what it was they read. I say if these things be impartially considered; it must be highly probable to men of ordinary reason, that if the forementioned defects do certainly obstruct the Sacrament of Ordination, there is not any Priest now living in the whole Church of Rome. This answer also shows that all his other instances are also wretchedly impertinent, and therefore cannot possibly deserve to be particularly considered.  
Were it most certain that every particular Host were duly Consecrated, 
Prop. 4. Sect. 4.  and certainly contained Christ's real Body, yet have we no good warrant upon that supposition to Adore it with Latria: 
P. 127.  For as the Dr. excellently argues, the reason of all Adoration given to the Sacrament is this, that Christ hath said, this is my Body, which words if they imply Transubstantiation cannot be understood of any other change than of the Bread into Christ's Body; and if this sense were to be put upon them, why mhy I not imagine much more agreeably to the nature of the Institution? That the mere humane nature of Christ is there, then that his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no end, and where it makes not the least manifestation of itself: To this discourse T. G. returns this Answer, 
P. 23●  That where there is a General command without exception to Worship the word made Flesh, there he hath given a sufficient indication of doing it wherever we are certain by faith, that he is so present. Answer, But what is this to the Doctor's Argument, which proceeds upon this ground, that the presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist is no sufficient evidence, that in the Eucharist it is united to the word; for if Christ's Body may be eaten, and not eaten, eaten by them who have received the Host, and not eaten by them who have not yet received it; If it may be under the species of Bread, and not under the species of Bread, under the species of Bread, as it is in the Sacrament, and not under the species of Bread, as it is in Heaven; why may it not be united to the word, and not united to the word, united to the word, as it is in Heaven; but not united to the word as it lies senseless on the Altar. And therefore the belief of Catholics, that the Divinity is thus united to the Sacrament, is no sufficient motive to Adore it with Latria, because I can have no sufficient reason to think it true.  
Secondly, 
P. 113.  The Dr. Argues thus, if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine nature, than the conversion is not merely into the Body, but into the person of Christ; and than Christ hath as many bodies hypostatically united to him, as there are Elements consecrated. This clear perspicuous Argument is saith T. G. A notable piece of new mystical Divinity, 
p. 141.  and expressed in hard words; and attended with a contradiction. Answer, can it be expected that any man should speak of a Subject that is itself made up of infinite contradictions, and not speak suitably to the Subject? if T. G. would assert the contrary to what the Dr. argues, must he not say that all the Consecrated Elements (perhaps a 1000) are but one Body, and seeing all these Elements are Christ's Body, must not he say that a 1000 Christ's bodies are but one Christ's body? is it not impudence and disingenuity to cry out of hard words upon the mention of Consecrated Elements, and Conversion into the person of Christ, when we are speaking of that change which they all Transubstantiation, and say that it is made by Consecration of the Elements; or because we use that term of hypostatick union, when we are speaking of that union which is so called by all Divines that treat upon that Subject? and is delivered to us in that very word by the whole Church of Christ? 
P. 241.242/  It doth not follow saith T. G. any more than because the Bread the Flesh, the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body, and hypostatically united to him; it follows, That there were as many Bodies hypostatically united to him, as there were several meats eaten by him: no saith he, this Argument carries not the show of probability. Rep. Sure I am, this answer hath but the show of a similitude; for the Elements of Bread are changed into Christ's whole Body, but all the several meats Christ eat were not changed into Christ's whole Body, but only into some part of it; but the similitude is good against him, for as the several meats which by Conversion became parts of Christ's Body, were not the self same parts, but divers: So the several Wafers which by Conversion become Christ's whole Body, are not the same whole Body, but divers; thus doth T. G's. similitudo turn tail upon him. And that the Doctor's Argument is perfect demonstration is most evident, for it depends upon this proposition, that if one Consecrated Element by one Christ's Body hypostatically united to him, then must Two, be Two, and Ten be Ten, and many Consecrated Elements many bodies; which is a evident as this, if one Twenty shillings in a bag be one pound, then must Two, be Two pound, and many Twenty shillings in a bag, must be many pounds.   

CHAP. III.  
The CONTENTS.  
Prop. The Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated, 1. Because we do not drink blood. 2. Because we do not eat man's Flesh. 3. Because mankind was not redeemed by the first Sacrament. 4. Because the Scripture after Consecration calls it Bread and Wine. 5. Because our senses have no evidence of such a change.  
IN the participation of the Eucharist we do not eat the humane body of our Lord which suffered on the Cross; nor drink of humane blood, 
Prop. 1. Sect. 1.  but what we eat and drink is true substantial Bread and Wine: for, 1. If Christ had given to his Disciples blood to eat, he must have taught them to have done what was forbidden in the Law of Moses, whereas he both exactly did observe that Law, 
Mat. 23 3.  and taught his own Disciples to observe what ever by the Scribes and Pharisees was taught them from the Law of Moses, which was in force till all things were fulfilled by the death of Christ. Secondly, Christ's own Disciples after his Resurrection were strict observers of the Law of Moses for a considerable time; and so were also many Thousands of the Jewish converts. 
21 Act. 20.  St. Peter was so nice in observation of the Jewish Customs, that till a vision had informed him better, 
10 Act. 14.  he thought such meat was utterly unlawful as was forbidden by the Law: and when in a vision on he was bid to stay and eat, he presently cries out, as a man tempted to an unlawful act; not so Lord for I have never eaten any thing that is unclean. St. James gives an account to Paul of the great zeal that all the Jewish Converts had for the Law of Moses, 
Act. 21.20.  in these words; Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law; he declares how highly they were all offended with him, because they were informed that he taught that they were not obliged to yield Obedience to the Constitutions and customs of the Jewish Law, vers. 21. They are (saith he) informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to Circumcise their Children, neither to walk after their Customs: And Thirdly, he exhorts him, for their better satisfaction; so to act, 
v. ●4.  as that he might induce them to believe that he also walked soberly and did keep the Law. And yet St. Peter before this vision, had assembled to celebrate the Holy Sacrament, and all these Jewish converts so zealous of the observation of the Ceremonial Law did very frequently receive this Cup of Blessing; 
Act. 20.7, 11.  and upon every Lord's day at least, did meet together to break Bread; Whence evident it is that they did not look upon that action as any violation of the Law of Moses, and so could not imagine that by participation of this Sacrament they drunk what properly was blood. For they could not be ignorant that blood was by this Law forbidden, 
Leu. 3.17  it having said, it shall be a perpetual Statute for your Generations throughout all your dwellings, 
Leu. c. 7. v. 27.  that ye eat neither Fat nor Blood; and that, whatsoever s●●●l it he that eateth any manner of Blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his People. Nor could they be both zealous observators of the Law, and quarrelers with those that did not keep it, and yet transgress it themselves. The Sect of nazarenes continued in the Church of Christ 400 years, for of the 
a Sectae illius meminit H●●ronymus in Epist. ad August & August ipse l. 4. con. Crescon. Danaeas in August. de Haeres. p. 75.  nazarenes, St. Jerom and St. Austin do make mention, they multiplied and spread themselves throughout the Eastern Church; and yet this Sect observed 
b Nazaraei cum Dei filium confireantur esse Christum, omnia tamen veteris legis observant. August. de Heresibus Cap. 9 vid. Epipha●●um Haeres. 29. § 7.  all the Law of Moses, and held it necessary to Salvation so to do, and therefore none of them did think that by participation of the Holy Sacrament they fed on blood, and so transgressed it.  
Again, when the Disciples met together to consult of what was needful to be observed by the Gentile Converts, the better to avoid the Scandal of the Jews, they strictly charged them to avoid things strangled, and abstain from Blood; 
Acts 15.28, 29.  and judged it necessary so to do: Now had they fed on Blood in Holy Mysteries, no Christian communicant could have observed this precept, and nothing could have been more foolish than to give injunctions to avoid that Scandal, which in their Holy Rites they daily ministered. This therefore is a signal and triumphant evidence, that they who first imposed this Decree, and they who undertook to keep it, were utter strangers to this idle dream of Transubstantiation. The ancient Christians did for many Centuries abstain from Blood, & look upon it as a thing forbidden by this Canon, which enjoins this abstainance, and reckons it amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or things necessary, of which we have sufficient Testimony from that Law of Leo the Emperor, where having forbidden the use of Blood stuffed in the entrails of Beasts, he affirms, That in the Old Law and in the Gospel, it was always esteemed impious to eat it: and in the Canons called 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Canonum Apestol. cap. 62.  Apostolical, it is forbidden to a Clergyman to eat Blood, under pain of deposition, to a Layman under pain of Excommunication: And hence the Penitential Books had warrant enough to impose Canonical Penances upon them that did taste this forbidden Dish: And that they did so, is known and confessed by Pamelius, Rhenanus, and de la Cerda upon these words of Tertulian, Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis ●s ulentis habemus; and being charged with the eating of the Blood of Infants, they, to evince the impudence and falseness of that charge, did constantly return this answer, 
d Nobis homicidium nec videre sas nec audire tantumque abhumano sanguine cay●mus ut neceduilum peccorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus, Minu●. par. 34. cum notis Ousel. porro quale est ut quos sanguinempecoris hor●ere confiditis humano inhiare credatis? Tertul. Apol. c. 9 vid. Eusib. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c 1.  That they who held it utterly unlawful to eat the Blood of Beasts, could not be guilty of Feasting on the Blood of Men: whereas, had they conceived that, by partaking of the consecrated Cup, they drank of humane Blood, this answer could not have excused them, nor could it with sincerity be urged by them, since notwithstanding their abstaining from the Blood of Beasts, they daily fed upon his Blood, who was the Man Christ Jesus, and to depose a Priest from eating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) Flesh that contains the Blood, as the  Canon doth, would in effect, be to depose him for partaking of the Holy Sacrament, that being most emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Flesh with Blood, according to the Roman Doctrine. And therefore this opinion, that it was lawful for Christians to eat Blood, found little or no countenance in the Church of Christ, till the time of Berengarius, when this prodigious Doctrine came in voge; besides, the ancient Fathers objected this against the Heathens as a most horrible reproachful thing, 
e Quod Saturni fili●dignum est mali & nex●● hominis ●ang●in●● g●natur ipso●● credo decu●sse sanguinss foedere conjurare catalinam, & Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere, & Comitialem morbum hominis sanguine, id est, ●orbo graviore sanare. Minuc. p. 34. de sanguinis pabulo & ejusmodi●t ag●es serculis legite nec ubi relatum sit, (est apud Herodotum opi●●●) defusum brachiis sanguinem ex alterutro degustatum nationes quasdam foederí comparasse, nescio quid & sub Catilina tale degustatum est Tertul. Apol. C. 9  That they made Covenants by drinking humane Blood, and used that barbarous custom, as a fit cure of the Falling Sickness, now had this been the Christians daily practice to bind themselves by the participation of humane Blood, to the performance of all works of Piety, as Pliny saith they did, by the participation of the Holy Sacrament. Had they thus used humane Blood to cure the diseases of their Souls, and of their Bodies too, as 
f Erat apud nos Acatius quidam honesto apud suos ortus loco qui clausis oculis natum se esse dicebat. Sed quia intus sani palpeoris cohaerentibus non patebant, medicum eos ferro aperire voluine neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam, sed id effecisse ex Eucharistia Cataplasmare cum jam puer quinque aut fere ampliu● esset annorum unde hoc se satis meminisse narrabat August. l. 3. Sec. adv. Julian. Op. S. 164.  they did use the Holy Sacrament, what had been more a condemnation to the Christians then their own words and arguments; and what could lay upon them an imputation of greater impudence and folly, then to reproach the Heathens for doing what they daily practised? Besides, this they insisted on as a most pregnant evidence, that many of the Heathen Deities were wicked and pernicious Spirits, because 
g Hodie istic Bellonae sacratos sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus esui datus signat. Tertul. Apol. c. 9  a draught of humane Blood, or the Oblation of the Blood of Man, was deemed an acceptable service to them, and that which would appease their anger, and because their Priests were Consecrated by drinking humane Blood. Now if the Christians did daily offer humane Blood to God as a most acceptable Sacrifice; and if both Priest and People did as often drink it, as they did celebrate the Sacrament, what could these charges be, but indications of the stupidity and impudence of those that made them?  
Had Christ commanded his Disciples to eat his real Flesh, 
Arg. 2. §. 2.  and feed for ever on that very body which suffered on the Cross, he had delivered that which could not have been thought of, and much less practised without the greatest horror: For had he only taught them to eat humane flesh, he had enjoined them to do that which is repugnant unto humane nature, and hath been constantly esteemed by the more sober Heathens, a barbarous and inhuman thing. Hence that expression of our Saviour Christ, That they who would be made partakers of Eternal Life must eat his Flesh, was by the unbelieving Jew, rejected as a thing impossible, 
Joh. 6.52.  how can this Man say, they give us his Flesh to Eat? And if they deemed it a thing impossible, that the whole Nation of the Jews should eat of one man's Flesh, well might the Gentiles think it impossible that they should do so. Nay, when his own Disciples heard it, 
verse 60.  they presently cried out, This is an hard saying, who can hear it: they judged it so absurd a Proposition, and were so highly scandalised at it, that notwithstanding all the conviction they received from their Eyes and other senses, that he was the true Messiah, they think this one proposal a sufficient motive to reject him, 
versed 66.  for from that very time many of his Disciples went back, and walked no more with him. So that our Blessed Saviour, to obviate and to remove this Scandal, doth in the judgement of the Fathers, presently expound himself in a Spiritual sense, and doth assert, that this corporal eating was unprofitable, and not the thing he did exhort them to, for thus Eusebius doth paraphrase his words, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 3. Eccles. Theol. contra Marcell. Ancyr. M. S. Bibl. Oxon.  do not think that I speak of that Flesh where with I am compassed, as if you must eat of that, neither imagine that I command you to drink my sensible and bodily Blood, but understand well, that the words which I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and 
h See Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuits, p 48, 49, 50, 51.  Life; This also is the Exposition of Tertullian, Origen, St. Augustin, Athanasius, to omit divers others: And of this Exposition they give this account, 
i August. de Doct. Christiana l. 3. c. 15, 16.  that those expressions taken literally, command what is an impious and 
k Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter ea quaedicuntur adverterit, si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, etc. occidit haec litera Origen in Leu. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87.  wicked think, and are a kill Letter, and therefore must be taken in a Spiritual sense. And we are informed by 
l Horum ergo nefarii ritus Christianis imputati: ca autem immanitas coepit a Simone Mago, ut Narrat. Clem. de rebus geftiss Petri, qui perperam intellexerat illa Johannis cap. 6. nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ipsius sanguinem, etc. Not. in Min. p. 34. vide Elmenhorst. in haec verba Minuc. infans farre contectus, ut decipiat incautos, apponitur.  Wowerius, out of the Writings of Pseudo Clemens, that that accursed practice of the Pepuzians, Quintilians, and others, who mixed the Blood of Infants with the Eucharistick Bread, had its first rise from Simon Magus, misunderstanding those very words of John, except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, etc. Now if this oral manducation of the Flesh of Christ seemed so repugnant at the first view and apprehension to all that heard it, can we suppose it would pass down so glib, not only with the Jewish, but all the Gentile converts? and yet we do not find, that ever Jew or Gentile was offended at the participation of the Holy Sacrament, or that any Heathen or Apostate did object unto the Christians, that they were Cannibals on this account, or that they did devour humane Flesh. When Christ was careful to prevent this gross conception in the Jews, can we believe that he should institute this oral manducation of his Flesh and Blood? or had this Doctrine been delivered by Apostolical tradition, and so received by the Church of Christ, could those renowned Fathers have pronounced the literal and proper acceptation of the words to be a kill Letter, and the injunction of the greatest wickedness? could they have thought that place of John was misinterpreted, by being used to countenance the eating humane Blood? or could those Heretics have any need to fly to such accursed arts that they might truly eat Christ's Blood? But then if we conceive this person, we thus devour, to be also God, and therefore look upon this action as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the devouring of our God and Maker, it is so full of horror, scandal and amazament, that nothing can be more; for what this Doctrine doth assert, was in the judgement of the 
a Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse? de natura Deorum. C. 3.  Orator, such an incredible madness, as humane nature never could be guilty of: And Averro upon this single score pronounceth, that 
b Qui dicit se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire, cujus sectatores suum quem colunt Deum denibus discerpunt & devorant. Vide Perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 29. P. 973.  among all Religious Sects, the Christians were the worst and most ridiculous, because, that God they Worshipped, they with their Teeth devoured and tore in pieces, Hence as the highest Calumny which the Mahometan can cast upon us, we are by them reproached as 
d Christianos atrociores esse in Christum quam Judaeos (ait Akmed Ben. Edris Mahummed:) hos enim Christum occisum reliquisse, illos vero carnem ejus edere & sanguinem bibere, quod ipsa expeperientia teste trucu lentius esse affirmat. V Hotting. Apol. de Luch. §. 14. p. 220.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the devourers of our God; and they are wont to say, that by thus eating of his Flesh, we use him worse than did the Jews that Crucified him. The ancient Fathers do agree in these, with Cicero and Averro, and say with them, That to adore what we do eat, is the extremest sottishness, and hence we often find this objected to the Heathens, as the most pregnant evidence of the absurdity of their devotions, and of the Gods they Worshipped, that what they Worshipped, they did also Sacrifice, and that they did devour him whom they adored, as Tatian and Minutius suggest. And Origen doth represent it as a most foolish thing, That any Men should Worship that which was the food of other Nations. Theodoret also doth affirm, That 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quaest. 55. in Genesin.  God foreseeing Men would fall to such extremity of madness, as to Worship Beasts, the better to restrain that Wickedness, did suffer us to eat them, which he conceived to be the greatest bar unto this gross Idolatry, because, saith he, it is the eutreamest of all folly, to Worship what we Eat. He again adds, That 
f Quaest. in Gen. 55. & in Leu. Qu. 11. p. 124.  God divided Beasts into clean and unclean, that Men abhorring what they judged unclean, and eating what they called clean, might Worship neither; for can any Man of sense, saith he, 
f Quaest. in Gen. 55. & in Leu. Qu. 11. p. 124.  conceive that to be God, which he abominates as unclean, or which he offers to the true God, and himself doth Eat. Thirdly, he adds, That God enjoined the Jews to Eat and Sacrifice those Creatures which the Egyptians Worshipped as Gods, 
Serm. 7. de Sacrif. To. 4. P. 585.  that they might be induced to despise what they did Eat and Sacrifice, and not be guilty of such extreme stupidity and folly, as to conceive them to be Gods. Had therefore this been the received Doctrine of the Church of Christ, it must have given greater scandal, and been a fit matter of reproach to Christians, than was the scandal of the Cross, and therefore had it been the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, they would have been as careful to have removed this scandal, as that other of the Cross. The Jews and Heathens, who cast this always in their Dish, That they did Worship him who lately suffered on the Cross, would not have stuck to load them with this more heinous Crime of Eating and Devouring that very God they did adore, at least when this was frequently objected to them, as the extremest madness, they must have presently retorted, That you Christians confessedly do the same, your God is also deemed your Sacrifice, and you do first adore, and then devour him: The ancient Fathers of the Church, who spent so many Writings and Apologies in vindication of that honour which they paid unto a Crucified Saviour, would surely have afforded some Apology for that, which in the Judgement of Heathens, Turks. and Christians, seems the greatest folly that can be charged on any Sect. Since then we never find, that Christ's Disciples, or the Ancient Fathers were in the least concerned to remove the Scandal, since no malicious Jew, or subtle Gentile, did in the least accuse the Christians of what they all conceived a crime so monstrous; although they were not wanting to seek occasions of reproach against them, and to divulge false stories of them, and were particularly upbraided with doing (what if this Doctrine had obtained amongst them) must be the Christians constant practice. Lastly, Seeing the ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating, as the Heathens did, and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice; And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid. It must be infinitely certain, that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles, or the received tradition of the Church of Christ.  
If Christ when he administered this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body, 
Arg. 3. §. 3.  and his proper Blood, than was his natural Body broken, and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion; for he administered this Sacrament before his Passion, and what he then administered was, if we may believe his words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) his broken Body, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) his blood shed or extravasated; now since his body was then whole, and not yet broken on the Cross for us, seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels, and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out; and therefore what he did then administer, could not in any natural and proper sense be styled his body broken, and his blood shed for us, his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sense, as Protestants do plead for. Add to this, That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sense at the last Supper, than it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; if it was not, than it is not now: and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished, if it was propitiatory at the last Supper, than God was reconciled to all the world, and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour. For Christ expressly saith, that he then gave unto them his body, which was given for us, 
Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28  and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins: which if we literally understand, his future passion must be vain and needless, so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine.  
If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread, 
Arg. 4. §. 4.  for after Consecration he so styles it, 
1 Cor. 10.16, 17.  at the least five times: The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ, for we are all partakers of this Bread. Let a man examine himself, 
1 Cor. 11.28.  and so let him eat of that Bread, for as often as you eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you show the Lords Death, etc. Wherefore, 
verse 26.  whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which expressions it is five times said, that what we eat and do partake of, what is unto us the Communion of Christ's Body, and showeth forth his Death, and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament, is still bread. And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour, whilst he was alive, and had his blood within his Veins, should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body, and so his hand was in his hand, and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed, and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross, and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them, and many thousand contradictions more? and yet that what the Holy Ghost, who knew the meaning of our Saviour's words as well as any R. Catholic, hath called so often Bread, and seems to all our senses so to be, should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread. If Christ had said, This is my Body, and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread, we might have had some reason to suspect our senses in this matter: But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread, and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord, and it is absolutely necessary, that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical, that as great evidence as sense and reason can afford in any case whatsoever, should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgements how to pass sentence in this case, but that it should be thought as rational, all other circumstances being equal, to determine against the greatest evidence of sense and highest reason, as to determine according to the verdict of them both, is most apparently absurd. Add to this, that the Apostles business in this place, was to reprove those persons who profaned this Sacrament, 
1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28.  and used it as Common Bread, and so discerned not the Lord's Body; and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread: and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime, and to discover the vileness of this profanation, to have expressly told them, That what they thus profaned, was the very Son of God that suffered for them; this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt; whereas to say so often that it was Bread, was to extenuate the Crime, and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have expressed himself not as we Protestants are wont to do; but according to the Judgement of the Roman Catholics, had he believed as they do.  
God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body, 
Argum. 5. Sect. 5.  but he still represented it unto their senses, and made it apparent to their eyes, ears, feeling, or their experience that he wrought it; there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture, or any humane Writer; the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their senses, and make them seem to see, hear, or taste, what really they do not. To this convincing evidence and demonstration, T. G. returns this sorry answer, 
P. 293.  that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers, aught to be objects of our sense, but this is not done upon such an account, but for the Sanctification of those that believe already, and for these it is enough, that Christ hath said it is his body, they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their senses: Answer, 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers, but for the benefit of those that did believe, and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses, the Manna, the water of Jealousy, the Vrim and Thummim, etc. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought on the diseased Christians; if then in all those Miracles we cannot find one instance which was not made apparent to the senses of mankind, what reason have we to esteem this so? Besides is not a Miracle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a sign? sure I am the Scripture often calls it so, and is not every sign declared by St. 
* Signum est res praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus aliud aliquid, ex se faciens in cogitationem venire. De Doctrina Christiana, l. 2. c. 1.  Austin to be something sensible, whereby we do perceive what is not sensible, what therefore is no object of the sense, can be no sign or Miracle. Secondly, we cannot possibly obtain a greater evidence that any Revelation is Divine, than is the evidence of sense, whence it doth follow, that we can have no reason to believe a Revelation more than we do our senses: as T. G. asserts; for all the certainty we have of any object of our Faith depends on our assurance, that the deliverers of it were infallibly assisted by the Divine Wisdom in that delivery: and is not this attested by the Miracles they wrought, the Prophecies they delivered, the Doctrine they taught? and that by sense? should any of them be questioned, must not we recur unto the senses of the Primitive Christians to confirm them? and must they not then be the ultimate foundation of our Faith, and our Traditions? must we not be surer of the proof, than of the thing proved? And consequently of the evidence of sense, than that of Faith, which deriveth from it? if not, why, Secondly doth our Lord pronounce them rather Blessed, who believe and have not seen, 
20 Joh. 29  than Thomas who first saw and felt, and then believed? is it not because they do it upon lesser (though sufficient) evidence? and so their Faith is more illustrious and praise worthy. Thirdly, should it be otherwise, how cometh it to pass that men are equally assured of what equally they see, but have not the like fullness of persuasion in what they believe? That being once assured of the objects of sense; they can admit of no greater certainty, whereas after all our boasts of a Plerophory of Faith, we have still need to strive and labour to increase it? Since then the certainty of Faith is proved inferior to that of sense. It is not possible we should have greater reason to believe a Revelation, or any matter of our Faith, than to believe our senses as T. G. suggests: hence also it doth follow that we can have no greater reason to believe that these four words, this is my body, are contained in Scripture, or that they do assert the Sacrament to be Christ's Body, than that assurance which the senses of all Christians do afford us, that it remaineth Bread. And Thirdly, hence it follows, that we can have no greater reason to profess the Christian Faith, than we have to reject the Figment of Transubstantiation.  
Answer, 3. As for that vain pretence that Christ hath said, this is his Body, and therefore we stand bound to think that he doth work a Miracle to make it so, although it be against the sense and reason of mankind that he should do it: This will oblige us also to believe, that by some other like prodigious Miracle before his Incarnation he was Transubstantiated into the Rock, which ministered water to the Jews during their Travels in the Wilderness, for of that it is expressly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. 10.4.  or that Rock was Christ; 2. This will oblige us to believe that Christ hath neither Flesh nor Blood, because the Scripture doth assure us that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 
1 Cor. 15.50.  which yet Christ Jesus doth inherit. We unbelieving Protestants perhaps might think it strange that Christ should have neither Flesh nor Blood; & yet the Sacrament should be his very Flesh and Blood, but as for you, you know the danger of not believing God more than your senses, and your reasons, and therefore this and many thousand contradictions of like nature can be no reason why you should not embrace the Letter. 3. This will oblige us to be Anthropomorphites, and to confess that all the arguments which have been urged against that Tenet by the Church of Christ are vain and ineffectual, for Scripture hath not only said that man was made after the likeness and similitude of God, but also doth in very many places attribute unto him the parts and members of an humane body, what then will you oppose against them? sense, and reason? T. G. will give this answer for them, that they well know the danger of not believing Holy Scripture more than their senses, or their reason. Will you confute them by a Text of Scripture, which seems to contradict their Doctrine? alas! that which is often styled Bread must not be thought to be so, because Christ hath once said it is his body, and can we be so vain as to imagine that one ambiguous passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be rendered, God makes, or searcheth, God loves, or seeks the Spirit, 
4 Joh. 24.  should carry it against so many which more expressly do ascribe unto him the members of an humane body? or shall we fly unto Tradition; alas! is it not that which is derived from the senses of those men which in the matter of Transubstantiation have been all constantly deceived? and if their hearing be a sufficient ground of Faith against the Doctrine of the Anthropomorphites, must not their eyes, and taste, and smell, and feeling be as cogent against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Fourthly, This must oblige us to believe what is the greatest Blasphemy, viz. That Christ by all the Miracles he wrought among them, gave no sufficient motive to the Jews to own him for the true Messiah, for all his Miracles were only motives to believe that Law should be abolished, which God hath often said should last, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or for ever. Doth nor he tell them that the things he had revealed belonged to them, and to their Children for ever, 
Deut. 29.29. Exod. 12.17.  that they might do all the things of this Law. Doth not he call the Passover an everlasting Statute; Hath not he said the Law of their first fruits shall be a Statute for ever throughout their Generations? 
23 Leu. 14  And if you answer that this word Gnolam doth not always signify an infinite duration, but is sometimes used for such duration as admits a period. and so must not be urged against so great conviction of their sense and reason. Will not this answer justify the Protestants when they produce so many instances to show, that when a thing in Scripture is styled this or that, the meaning only is, that it doth signify what it is said to be: for to omit those passages so often cited, 
40 Gen. 12. 41 Gen. 26. 7 Dan. 38. 8 Luk. 11. 13 Mat. 38, 39  viz. The three branches are three days: The seven Kine and seven ears of Corn, are seven years: The four great Beasts, are four Kingdoms: Thou art that Golden head: The Seed is the word, the Field is the World, the Reapers are the Angels; the Harvest is the end of the World; the Rock is Christ, etc. Should we omit, I say all these, and many other instances of this familiar Trope, it would be easy to produce many expressions of the like import with them: For doth not the Scripture say of that same hair which by Ezekiel was burnt, 
5 Ezek. 5.  and cut, and bound up in his skirt, this is Jerusalem? And of that water which the three mighty men procured for David, 
2 Sam. 23. ●7.  this is the Blood of the men that went in Jeopardy of their lives? Have we not clear and pregnant instances of Sacramental Tropes in Scripture, and in Jewish Writers? doth not our Saviour call the Paschal-lamb the Passover? doth not he say the Cup is the New Testament? and was it not familiar with the Jews to say of their unleavened Bread, this is that Bread of affliction which our Fathers did eat, and of the Lamb that it was Corpus Paschatis, or the memorial of the Passover: 
Buxt. de Caena Dom §. 25.  And is it therefore any absurdity to think Christ should affirm of Sacramental Bread, designed to signify and represent his Body broken for us, and to convey the blessings he had purchased, by the oblation of it on the Cross, This is my Body?  
Fifthly, This Answer will render us unable to confute the Marcionites, the Valentinians, and the Manichaeans, who thought Christ's Body to be only the appearance of a Body, and so denied the Article of his Incarnation and his real Passion. This fond imagination, the ancient Fathers did confute by Mediums, which overthrows this answer, and the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation; nor can it be sufficiently confuted by men of T. G's. Principles. 1, The ancient Fathers did confute it from this principle, that we must certainly believe the evidence of Sense; and that to doubt the certainty of what our senses apprehend, is to endanger all Religion.  
Tertullian discourseth thus, 
a Non licet nobis in dubium sensesistos revorate, ne & in Ghristo de fide corum deliberetur. Ne forte dicatur quod salso patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatum. Recita Johannis testa ionem quod vidimus inquit quod audivimus, quod manibus nostris palpavimus etc. falsa utique testatlo si oculorum & aurium & manuum sensus natura mentitur. de anima Cap. 17. B. C  it is not lawful to doubt of our Senses, lest the same doubt be made concerning Christ, lest peradventure it should be said, he was deceived when he heard the voice of his Father testifying concerning him. Recite the Testimony of St. John,, what we have heard with our Ears, and our Eyes have seen, and our Hands have handled of the word of Life, that declare we to you. The Testimony verily is false, if nature do deceive us in the Testimony of our Eyes and Ears, and Hands: And in his Book de Carne Christi, he speaks thus, 
b Sed & qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere, ut & conceptus, & praegnatus & partus Virgins & Ipsrus exindeinfantis ordo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haberentur, eosdem oculos, eosdemque sensus fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit. cap. 1.  He that doth introduce the Tenet of the Imaginary Flesh of Christ, hath equal reason to introduce an imaginary Nativity, and to assert the Conception, Pregnance, and the Virgin's Birth, and the whole Order of the Infant was Fantastical: for they would only have deceived the same Eyes and Senses which were deceived by the opinion of his Flesh. 2. They argue thus, that if Christ had no real Flesh, and if he did not suffer really, the Sacrament cannot duly be styled the Image, Figure, Symbol, Type, Similitude, Memorial or Representation of his real Flesh. 
c Acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis corpus illum suum secit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura Corporis mei. Figura autem non suisset, nisi veritatis esset Corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non possit. Quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem Tertul. contra Marcionem l. 4. c. 40.  Christ (saith Tertullian) said, This is my Body, (i. e.) the figure of my Body; but it had been no figure, unless the Body had been true: for a Phantasm can have no figure. But what he would have Bread to signify, he hath sufficiently declared, calling Bread his Body: and therefore thus he sums up his discourse 
d Panis & calicis Sacrimento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis. l. 5. c 8  against the Phantasm of Martion; We have proved the verity of Christ's Body and Blood by the Sacrament of Bread and Wine: And Maximus, who flourished Anno Dom. 190. discourseth thus, 
e Apud Orig. Dial. 3. part. 2.  If Christ, as these Men say, were without Body and Blood, of what kind of Elesh, or of what Body, or of what kind of Blood did he give the Bread and Cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a Commemoration of him? Theodoret against the Eutichians, disputeth thus: 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. p. 84, 85.  That the Flesh of Christ was not transformed into the nature of the Godhead, because that Christians do participate of the Signs of his Body. Now had this been the Doctrine of the Church of Christ, that this blessed Sacrament contained his very Flesh and Blood, they had much weakened their argument by those expressions; for what is more convincing than this inference, if Christians in the Sacrament, do eat Christ's real Flesh and Blood, then must his Flesh and Blood be real; if they do eat Christ's real Body, he had a real Body. Secondly, Why do they so absurdly and untruly set the Sacrament in opposition to Christ's real Body, as the Figure stands opposed to the Truth. Thirdly, why do they all expressly say, the Bread and Wine are Types and Symbols, and Remembrances of his Body and Blood; and that of them he said, This is my Body and my Blood, seeing such Speeches cannot properly be true, but must admit a Figure. But Secondly, These Heretics can never be confuted by Men of T. G's. Principles, for hath the Roman Catholic one Text of Scripture to build his Dream upon, so hath the Marcionite that passage of St. Paul, which tells us, that as in the Eucharist we have the shape of bread, and yet no real bread, so Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the shape of Man, and yet no Man, as we have there the likeness of Wine, and yet no Wine, so Christ whilst he conversed in the World, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the similitude of Man, but yet no Man. If you should urge against them sense and reason, they will answer with T. G. Christianity hath taught them to renounce them; or if you urge against them all those places of Scripture which affirm Christ to have a Body, they may answer, it was in Scripture called a Body, because it seemed to be so: For this is that very answer which R. Catholics do give to all those places of of Scripture which say the Sacrament is after Consecration Bread and Wine.  
But Chrysostom and Cyril seem to say, 
§. 6.  we must not in this matter trust the Judgement of our our Senses. 
Hom. 82.  The words of Chrysostom are these, Let us obey God in all things, and not gainsay him, though what is said, seem to contradict both our Imaginations and our Eyes. Let his word obtain more credit from us, than our thoughts or sight. And let us behave ourselves in the Mysteries, not beholding only those things which lie before us, but holding fast his words. For his Word is infallible, but our senses are easy to be deceived. That never fails, but this most frequently mistakes. Because therefore the word saith, this is my Body, let us obey and believe, and behold him with the Eyes of our understanding. Answ. These words are Hyberbolical and high, but must be soberly interpreted, viz. That we must not finally resolve all into Sense, but we must certainly believe, that howsoever the Senses do perceive nothing but common ordinary Bread and Wine, yet by God's power they are changed into a supernatural use and operation, and that by those sensible things, spiritual blessings are conveyed unto us. That this is the true sense of this expression, and that it cannot be designed to intimate the change of Bread into Christ's Body, so that the accidents of Bread alone remain, is evident, First, from the words immediately following: 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 82. in Matt. p. 513. l. 41.  For Christ delivered to us nothing sensible, but by things sensible, things which are intelligible; for so it is in Baptism by thing sensible, viz. Water, the gift, to wit, Regeneration and Renovation is performed. Where note, I, That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the intelligible thing conveyed in the Sacrament, is said to be conveyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by things sensible, (i.e.) by such things sensible as Water. Wherefore the things sensible are no more Transubstantiated, then is that Element in Baptism. Secondly, the thing intelligible, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conveyed by Baptism, makes but an accidental change, a renovation, consisting not in the conversion of the nature, but in the addition of Grace to Nature. So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveyed by this holy Sacrament, must not impart the Transubstantiated Bread, but Bread converted in its use and operation by the addition of Spiritual Grace. And therefore what he here declareth touching the Holy Eucharist, he elsewhere doth apply to Baptism in these words, let us believe God's word, for it is more certain than our sight; for the sight is oftentimes deceived, whereas God's word can never fail. And speaking of the poor he saith, when we are charitable to them, let us be so affected as is we gave to Christ himself, for his words are more certain than our sight. So that we may from these expressions with equal reason argue, that the Baptismal Water is Tran. substantiated, and that the poor man is truly changed into Christ, as that the Sacramental Signs are changed into his Body and his Blood. This is apparent Secondly, from what he doth affirm of all good Christians, viz. 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 514. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 B. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 513. l, 21.  That their Tongues are red with the Blood of Christ, that they are nourished and so mixed with him, that they are Christ's own Flesh and Body ' and that the whole multitude is the Body of Christ Thirdly; from what he adds of wicked Men, viz. 1. 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 514. l. 27.  That Christ doth not give his Body to them by the Mysteries, which is impossible, if both the Bread and Wine contain his Body. And Secondly, That the Table, and the place which they resort to, is 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 514. l. 38.  that same very Table, and that same very upper room in which Christ with his own Disciples did eat the Passeover, viz. because it doth contain the same Spiritual Viands. And therefore may he not be thought to say his Sacramental Body is indeed the same which suffered on the Cross, because it doth convey unto us the same Blessings which he purchased by it? Hence in this Homily, he doth not only call the Bread and Wine 
* P. 510. l. 36.  the Symbols of Christ's Body, but he confutes the Encratitae by asserting, that in those Holy Mysteries our Lord delivered Wine, (i.e.) the fruit of the Grape.  
The words of Cyril, 
Catech. Mist. p. 237, 238.  viz. Consider this is not mere Bread and Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the words of Christ himself. And although sense do suggest this to thee, (viz. that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Common Bread) yet let Faith confirm thee. Do not judge of the thing by thy taste, but know, and hold for most certain, that this Bread which is seen of us, is not Bread, though the taste judge it to be Bread, but the Body of Christ, and that the Wine which is seen by us, although it seem Wine to the sense of tasting, notwithstanding is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ. I say, these words. if we consider well the context, cannot admit of any other sense then that which we have given to the words of Chrysostom: For 1. he doth expressly tell us, that Christ pronounced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cotech. Mist 4. p. 237. D.  the Bread, this is my Body, and immediately before these words he gives this caution, look not upon these things as upon common Bread and Wine. Now even Romanists themselves confess, 
n Beharm. de Ench. l. 1. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 19  that if the words, this is my Body did make this sense, This Bread is my Body, this Sentence must either be taken tropically, that Bread may be the Body of Christ significatively, or else it is plainly absurd and impossible: for it cannot be, that Bread should be the Body of Christ. It is the nature of this Verb Substantive Est, or Is, saith 
* Tom. 7. c. 20.  Salmeron, that as often as it joineth and coupleth togehter things of divers natures, which by the Latins are termed Disparata; there we must of necessity run to a Figure and Trope. And therefore should we have been constrained to fly to a Trope: if he had said, this Bread is my Body, this Wine is my Blood, because this had been a predication of Disparates, as they call it. 2. That you may be assured that by denying it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he only meant to say it was not Bread without the Grace of Christ, and the assistance of his Spirit to convey the Blessings Christ hath purchased, but did not mean that it was Bread converted into the real Body of our Lord; He tells us the mutation is like to that of Ointment used in Baptism, Be careful, saith he, that you do not think this is mere Ointment: 
Catech. Mist 3. p. 235. A.  for as the Eucharistick Bread, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is not yet mere Bread, but Christ's Body: Even so that Holy Oil, (as one may say) is not after the Consecration mere and common Oil, but it is the Grace or Gift of Christ, and is effective of the presence of the Holy Ghost: It is not common Bread, saith he, it is therefore Bread, it is Christ's Body, as the Ointment is the Grace of Christ: but Grace it is, not by Conversion, for it remaineth Ointment still, but by the Accession of Grace unto it, and by the presence of the Spirit with it. 3. He adds, That when Christ said, 
Catech. Mist. 4. p. 287. c.  except you eat my Flesh, etc. the Jews were scandalised, as thinking, that he had advised them to Sareophagy, not understanding his words Spiritually. This Eating of Christ's Flesh must therefore be Spiritual, and not Sarcophagy, or Eating of Christ's real Flesh, which yet we cannot rationally deny, if we do literally interpret that passage of St. John; or with the Romanists, conceive that what we in the Holy Sacrament do eat, is that same Flesh of Christ which hung upon the Cross.  
Lastly, if both these Fathers had intended to assert, that notwithstanding the Judgement of our Senses to the contrary, we stand obliged to believe the Sacrament to be that very Flesh and Blood which Christ did offer on the Cross: We have two others to oppose against them, who do expressly argue, that it remains still Bread and Wine, because our senses judge it so to be, 
o Quod ergo vidistis panis est & Calix quod vobis etiam oeuli vestri ren●●tiant, Aug. in Ser. de Sacr. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10. & Ratranum de Corp. & Sang. Domini, vel in Serm. de verbis. Domini ut citatur ab Algero l. 1. de Sacr. c. 5.  That which you see (saith St. Augustine) is the Bread and the Cup which your very Eyes do declare unto you. The Sacramental Signs do still retain their Essence and their Nature, saith 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Dial 2. c. 24.  Theodoret, And both our Eyes and Feeling tell us, they are what they were before. We conclude then with that of Chrysostom, 
q Hom. 29. in Joh.  by these Senses we exactly learn all things, and we are conceived worthy of credit in teaching what we have received from the informations of our Eyes and Ears, as not being guilty of fiction or falsehood in those matters.   

CHAP. IU.  
Contains 1. The judgement of Antiquity against Transubstantiation. 2. An answer to T. G's. allegations from the Fathers. 3. The pretended Confessions of the Protestants. 4. The Confessions of many Roman Catholics, that Transubstantiation is a novel upstart Doctrine. 5. The Judgement of Antiquity, declaring with unanimous consent, that the Sacrament is but the Figure, Type, the Symbol, or Memorial of Christ's Blood and Body, and not that self same Body which suffered on the Cross, and that same Blood which he then shed, as to the Nature and the Substance of them. 6. A Corollary in vindication of the Dr. from the vain Cavils of T. G.  
HAving thus confirmed our Doctrine from Scripture, Common Sense, and Reason, we might by infinite Demonstrations show, that it hath also the perpetual consent of all Antiquity: Why else do they inform us, That 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin. Dial. 2. p. 28. A. Ed. Paris. 1636.  the substance of our Flesh is nourished and augmented by this Holy Sacrament. (is a truth so clear, that 
b Species Sacramentales per candem rationem possunt converti in corpus humanum per quam possunt converti in Cineres vel in vermes & ideo manifestum est quod nutriunt, Aquin. part. 3. qu. 77. Act. 6.  Roman Doctors do confess it, and there needs nothing but experience for confirmation of it to any that dares question or dispute it.) For neither can the accidents augment or nourish; nor can we without Blasphemy assert, That Christ's whole Body is properly converted into the substance of all those that do receive it. Why do they tell us, that albeit the Sacramental Signs do change their names after the Consecration, yet do they still 
d 
Sacramenta, quae sumimus corporis & fanguinis Christi, divina res est propter quod & per eadem divinae consortes efficimur naturz; & tamen es●e non desuat substantia vel natura panis & vini. Gelas. contra Eutychen.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ephrem. apud Phot. Bib. Cod 229.   retain their former Natures? Why do they tell us, That 
e August. in pars 98. Decr. dist. 2. consecr. Can. de Haec.  of that Sacrifice which Christ did offer on the Cross, we neither do nor may partake? why do they say, that bread is by our Saviour styled his body, 
f Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de mul rum g●anorum adunatione congestum, & quando sanguinem sun 〈◊〉 appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum & in unum coactum gregem nostrum s●gnificat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum, Cyprian. Ep. 76. § 4. p. 247.  which is made up of many Corns, and that Wine his blood, which is pressed out of many Grapes? Why do they frequently pronounce, that Christ affirmed of the bread, this is my body, and of the Wine, 
c Et quoniam ●●embra ejus sumus & per creaturam nutrimur, creatura autem ipse nobis praestat solem suum oriri faclens & pluens quemadmodum vulr, eum calicem qui est Creaturae N. B. suum sarguinem qu●effusus est, ex quo nostra auget corpora; Et eum panem qui est a creat●ura suum corpus confirmav●●, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtes calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sarg●inis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostre substartia. Quomodolcarnem negabunt esse capacem ●onationis Dei qui est vita aterna, quz sanguine & corpore Christ nutritus; Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Pd. Colon. 1625.  this is my blood? I might be endless in these Interrogatives, but I shall only add three things.  
First, That when the Encratitae held it unlawful to drink Wine, the Fathers did confute them by this very Argument, That Christ himself drank Wine, and did appoint it to be received in the Sacrament. Wherefore did he not drink Water after his Resurrection but Wine, saith Chrysostom, that he might pull up by the Roots another wicked Heresy: for, because there are some who in the Mysteries use Water, declaring, that when he delivered the Mysteries, he delivered Wine; and that when he risen and spread a Common Table without the Mysteries, he used Wine, he saith, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine. Now the Vine produceth Wine, not Water. Chrysost. Hom. in Mattheum 12. p. 511. l. 12. Edit Eton. 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 158. B. Ed. Paris. 1641.  Be ye sure (saith Clemens to the Encratitae) he also did drink Wine, for he blessed Wine when he said, take, drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the Vine; but that the thing which had been Blessed was Wine, he shown again, saying to his Disciples, I will not drink of the fruit of this Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom. 
h Illud quod lex dicit quia sanguis est anima esse positum dicimus sicut alia multa, & paenè ●mnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta lignis & ●guris N. B. plena sunt suthrae pradicationis, quae jam per Donm ●●strum Jesu d●clatate est. Contr. Adiman Coy. 12. Sic est enim sanguis anima quo modo Petta erat Christus, sicut dicit Apostolus bibehant enim de spirituali sequence eos Petra, Petra autem erat Christus Notum est autem fil●s Israel Petra percussa bibisse aquam in cremo, de quibus loquebatur Apostolus cum haec diceres, nec tamen ait Petra significabat Ch●istum, used ait Petra erat Christus, quz rursus ne Garnaliter accipererur, spiritualem illam vocat. Ib. Cap. 12.  Now had not the Sacramental Cup been truly Wine, this Argument would have been frivolous and vain. Had not they held as the Church of England, their answer must have been a contradiction to the Doctrine of the Church of Christ.  
Secondly. The Manichees to prove the contradiction betwixt the Gospel and the Law opposed to that saying of our Saviour, that none was able to cause the Soul to perish, that of Moses, that the Blood was the Soul. To this St. Austin answers, those words may be expounded thus, the Blood is, that is, it signifies the Soul: this he confirms. 1. by this general assertion, that almost all the Sacraments of those Scriptures are full of signs and figures of the future Preaching, which is now declared by Christ: and I am apt to think they were such signs and figures as were not properly converted into what they signified. Seconly, this he illustrates by a double instance. † So is Blood the Soul, as the Rock was Christ, they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, he said not the Rock signified Christ, but the Rock was Christ. 2. I may expound it thus, saith he, * Blood is the Soul, that is, it signifies the Soul, because our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body, since then as the Rock is Christ, and as the signs and figures of the Old Testament are what th●● Typified in the New, so is the Bread Christ's Bo●●; It is wonderfully evident that in St. Austin's Judgement it is Christ's Body, not by conversion into Christ's real Body, but by signification of it: 
k Nam ex ●o quod s●riptum est sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse possum interpreta●i preceptum illud in signo esse positum, non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret sui corporis. bls.  yea by such signification as excludes Christ's body from being corporally present under the accidents of Bread; for, else the Manichees might have replied upon St. Austin, and given him the baffle thus, as the sign not only signified Christ's real Body, but contained it too, so must the Blood not only signify, but really contain the Soul: Therefore it is apparent that in St. Austin's time the words of Christ were so interpreted by the Orthodox as to exclude Transubstantiation; and to confirm the exposition of the Protestants. Thirdly, The Nestorians and Eutichians asserted that Christ's humane nature was absorbed and changed into the Deity, this some of them affirmed to be done after his Resurrection and Ascension only, but others that it was thus changed at his Conception, whence they affirm, that whilst he lived on Earth, he had the form and shape of man, but not his proper nature. For Illustration and Confirmation of these Heresies, they urge 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΡΘ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΕΡΑ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΕΡΑ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ΟΡΘ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ΕΡΑ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ΟΡΘ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodoret. To. 4. Dial. 2. p. 84, 85.  the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and had the Bread and Wine by Consecration lost their natures, had they been really changed into Christ's Flesh and Blood, no greater Confirmation of their Heresy, no fit illustration of their Tenet could be well imagined. for thus the similitude would run.  
First, That as in the Eucharist there is only the outward shape and form of Bread, and not the real substance; even so, in Christ there was the shape and form of Flesh, but not the very nature.  
Secondly, Even as in the Eucharist, the essential form and material substance of Bread and Wine are swallowed up and converted into the Body and blood of Christ; so likewise after Christ's ascension, the humane nature is absorbed, and converted into the Deity. What is it therefore that the Father's answer, do they confess the thing, and say Transubstantiation was the Tradition of the Church, and was the Doctrine of the Scriptures, but that no like Tradition, nor evidence from Scripture can be produced in favour of the Doctrine of the Eutichians and Nestorians; which is the only thing that can be answered by men of T. G's. principles? No, they expressly say, and that in words as plain, & full, as any Protestant could use, that this similitude doth overthrow the Doctrine it was brought to justify; 
*  imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione Mysteriorum celebrantur, satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus, & sumus. Ut sicut in hance, scilicet in divinam transeant (Sacramenta) Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprietate-naturae, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale cujus nobis eff●eientiam virtutemque veraciter representant, Gelasius de duabus naturis in Christo contra Euthich:— sicut enim panis divinâ illum Sanctificante Gratiâ liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione etiam si natura panis in ipso permansit, & non duo corpora sed unum fili● corpus predicatur, sic & hic divinâ naturâ in corpore, insidente (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mss. Exemp. Bibl. Florent.) Chrysost. ad Caesarium Monachum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. p. 18.  Because the Bread and Wine, though after consecration they become signs and Images of Christ's true body and his blood, yet they abide in their proper substance, and still retain the nature of Bread and Wine, and that the change is wrought upon them, not by destruction of their natures, but by addition of grace to nature, and so 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorit 2 p. 84.85.  the Heretics (say they) are caught in their own Nets. For then the parallel runs thus, as the Symbols are called another thing, because God's grace is added to them, but still retain their proper nature, and the same substance which they had before, Even so Christ's humane body, although by reason of its union to the Godhead, it may sometimes have those names whi●h signify the nature and properties of God ascribed to it; yet must it continue in its former nature, reality and substance. And as the Bread and Wine are not converted into Christ's real body by reason of the grace annexed to them, but do retain their former natures: so neither is Christ's body changed into the Deity by reason of its union with it, but still retains its former substance, nature and proprieties.  
Having thus shown the judgement of the ancient Fathers, we now proceed to the consideration of those Testimonies which T. G. citeth from them to evince the contrary. And here we have just reason to complain, that nothing is produced which is not answered in Morton, Down, in Bishop Taylor, White, and all our modern Writers on this subject: and that if we lay aside his spurious Authors, and his false citations, we have but little left to answer. And  
First, 
P. 152.  That the passages of St. Ambrose de Sacramentis are supposititious, is proved already by Albertinus de Sacramento. Euch. p. 507. So is that book de Caena Domini, which bears the name of Cyprian by the confession of the 
m Author Sermon's de caena Domini non est Cyprianus sed aliquis posterior Be 'larm. 4. the Eucharist. c. 26. Author Sermonis de caena domini est ignorus. Garetius de ver●itate corporis Christi Fol. 181. v. Cochum p. 75.  Roman Doctors: the same we have just reason to assert of Cyril, (for if we may believe 
† James Bastardy of the false Fathers p. 12. † Biblioth  Gesner or Samler, sundry written Copies entitle them to John Bishop of Hirusalem, one, who lived well near Eight hundred years after Christ,) and of Eusebius Emissenus, as is confessed by Bellarmine, Baronius, and by Antonius 
n Quae vero qui hunclibrum imprimendum curavit maxim inovit Homil. 5. in pascha ca etiam non potest es●e Eusebii E●issent quia loquitur adversus Pelagium qui multo post tempore suit D. 〈◊〉 atact: Apparat, To. 1 titul, Euseb. Emiss. vide Rivet Crit. Sa●r●. 3. c. 1.  P●ssevinus, who having told us the chief reason that moved them to the Printing of this Book, was this fifth Homily which T. G. cited; he adds that the said Homily must be spurious, because it speaks against Pelagius who flourished in the days of Austin; (i. e full Forty years after the death of Eusebius) and haply it was upon this account that T. G. citys this passage, not by the name of Hom. 5. de Pasch. as in Eusebius it is: but as it is in Hierom, under the name of Serm. de Corp. Dom. that so we might not take it for that Homily, which is so manifestly spurious.  
Secondly, were they assuredly the works of these Renowned Fathers, whose names they have usurped a Title to, by false Translations, and by concealing of those words, which make against the Doctrine of the Roman Church; they, almost all of them, are made to say the contradictory to what they really affirm. Thus Tertu●ian is suborned to say, that 
o Acceptum panem & dlstributum Discipulis corpus illum iwm fecir dicendo. hoc est corpus meum 〈◊〉 far T. G. then follows) id est, figura corporis mel. Figura autem tion ●uiset nisi veritaris esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phanta●pia figuram capere non posset. Cur autem panc●m corpus suum appallat & non magis Peponem quem Marcion cordis leco liabuit? non intell● gens veterem fuis elstam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Hiere miam, adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum, dicentes, venite, conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus, scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. Advers. Marcionem. l. 4. Cap. 40. vid. etiam. l. 3. c. 19  our Lord having taken Bread, made it his own Body, by saying, this is my Body: but these words must be concealed, that is, it is a figure of my Body; whereas it could have been no figure of Christ's body, unless that body had been real: and those that presently ensue must not be mentioned, viz. Bread was an ancient figure of Christ's body, it being said by Jeremy, come let us put wood into his Bread (i.e.) the Cross into his body.  
Moreover it is told us that St. Ambrofe saith, that when the Consecration is performed, the Bread is made the Flesh of Christ— he spoke the word and it was made; but then we must not know the words that do immediately follow, to inform us that it is so made Flesh, as we are made new Creatures, and that that change is a like instance of the power of God; the words are these, 
o Mandavit & creatum est. Tuipse eras vetus creatura, postea quam consecratus es nova cretura esse accipe ergo Huemadmodum Sermo Christi creaturam omuem mutare consuevit, & mutat quando vult inslituta naturae. Ambros, de Sacram, l. 4. c. 4.  Thou thyself was't an old Creature, but after Confecration thou beginst to be a new: see then after what manner Christ's words do at his pleasure change all Creatures, and alter natures Institutions. Agreeably to this St. 
a Non solum nos Christianos factos esse sed Christum in Job. Trasc. 21.  Austin saith, that we are made not only Christians, but even Christ himself. And 
b De pass. Serm, 14.  Leo that the body of the Regenerate (fit caro Crucifixi) is made the Flesh of the Crucified. And 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Act Hom. 23.  Chrysistom that after Baptism of men we are made Angels, and 
d Epist. 16,  Paulinus, that we are made the blood of Christ. From all which passages we have just reason to conclude with Cyril, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature; and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted.  
Secondly, we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words, and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, viz. 
p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant, N. B. & in aliud commutentur, ibid.  if there be so great force in Christ's words, that by it things begin to be, that which before they were not; how much more operative must it be, to cause, that things be what they were, and yet be changed into another. Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose, and are thus cited by Guitmund, Yvo, Algerus, Gratian, and Anselm, and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus, though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted; and to abet this fraud, Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a divers lection. We must not know what also here he doth affirm, That 
q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet fimilitudinem, sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti, ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis, ut nullus horror cruoris sit, & pretium tamen operetur redemptionis, ibid.  as we do receive (in Baptism) the likeness of his death, so (in the holy Sacrament) do we receive the likeness of his precious blood.  
Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith, 
* T. G. p. 305, de Sacram. l. 6: c: 1.  That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God, not as men are by Grace, but as the Son of the substance of his Father; so it is his very true Flesh, as himself hath said which we receive, and his very true Blood, which we drink. But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine, viz. That 
r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum, sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris. de Sacr: l, 1, c. 6.  we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude, but truly do obtain the grace and the virtue of the nature: whence it is evident, that it is therefore said to be Christ's very Flesh and Blood, because it doth convey the virtue of them; which is more evident form that which follows, to wit, that 
s Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso. Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est & divinitatis & corporis & to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento. ibid.  our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature, thou who receivest Bread, dost in that nourishment partake of his Divinity. And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm, that as Christ said, that which we receive is truly Flesh, and is true drink, but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially; and as when Christ declared, that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, etc. That Flesh & drink he spoke of, was true Flesh and drink; but the receiving, the eating, and the drinking of it, was Metaphorical; so may it be here: and hence 
* De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult. Cyril. Glaphyr, in Exod. l. 2.  Fulgeutius and others tells us, that we do eat it in our Baptism, and therefore as we are said to eat it there, so also, may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament.  
Lastly we must be told, how the same Ambrose doth assert, that the Word of Christ, which of nothing could make that to be, which was not, can change those things which are, into that which before they were not; And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature, but of signification, and of the virtue of the Sacrament, is evident from that which follows in this Chapter, viz. That 
* T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium alia●pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. c. 9 de his qui initiantur.  it is not Corporal meat, but Spiritual, and that before the benediction it is named another kind, but after Consecration it signifies Christ's body; or that elsewhere he tells us, that the power of God so operates to change them, as that they still continue what they were before. Nay this is also evident from the words cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ, which of nothing could make that to be which was not, can it not change those things which are, into those things which they were not; For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things, than to change their natures? where evident it is, that this new nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature; and therefore it is evident, that in the judgement of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine, but by addition of a new nature to them, (i.e.) by the addition of new qualities and virtues, in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us, that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the divine nature. And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith, and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature, and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed. Or this kind 
* De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504.  Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances.  
Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread, is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes, 
T. G. p. 304.  which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things, as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Egypt into Blood, etc. Answ. But this etc. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose, which only signify an accidental change, viz. 
t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nun claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam? Marath fluvius amariss●mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset. Mifit Moses lignum in aquam, & amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit, quam infusa subito gratia temperavit. Sub Haeliseo propheta, uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi, & statim mersum est. Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum, misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam, & ferrum natavit. utique & hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus. cap. 9 the his qui initiantur.  The sweetening of the waters of Marah, the swimming of the Iron, and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan. Whence it is evident that all the instances produced leave it uncertain, whether St. Ambrose did intent a proper change of substance, or only a change of qualities and virtues. Secondly, had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change, it would not hence have followed that he did intent to prove the Sacramental Symbols were so changed, but only a majori, to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change, which was but accidental: Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine, he proves, 
u Credendum jam est, ex hoc mortalem hominem in immortalitatem posse converti, quando vilis substantia in pretiosam conversa est substantiam. Serm. 19  we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body, which change is only accidental, and from 
x Si ergo inquit, superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in virginem, conceptionem operatus est & generationis munus implevit non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem, vel super eum qui Baptismum consequitur, veritatem regeneratiovis cooperetur. cap. 9 the his qui initiantur.  the supernatural production of our Lord by virtue of the holy Ghost, he in this very Chapter proves, we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptised person. So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes, by examples of a change substantial.  
Ob. St. Ambrose saith, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Act. Hom. 23.  the Symbols are not what nature form them, but what the Benediction consecrated them. Answ. True, because they are not only so, but by this more excellent and Spiritual change, obtain a name which is more excellent, denominations being taken from the better. Thus Chrysostom affirms, That such is the power of Baptism, that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo, 
b De Pass. Dom. Ser. 14.  That the Baptised person is not the same-before and after Baptism. And Epiphanius, That when we are endowed with Temperance, the Flesh it no more Flesh. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres. 66.  Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue, that either Baptism or Temperance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian.  
Ob. He affirms further, That by this Benediction nature is changed. Answ. True, but then that word, not only in the Authors before mentioned, but in St. 
d De Virg. l. 2. Haxamer. l. 3. c. 2.  Ambrose, doth very often signify only a change of quality and virtue: For he affirms, That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her, and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature (i.e.) their fierceness and rapacity; and in this very place he saith, That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed, because that it was driven back.  
We must be told that Chrysostom doth say, 
T. G. p. 303.  that things that lie before us are not the works of humane power, we only hold the the place of Ministers, but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ. But then we must not know, that in this very Homily the Consecrated Elements are styled the Symbols of Christ's Body; 
In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36  and that disputing against Marcian and Valentinian, who held Christ had no real Body; he confutes and stops their mouth by saying, That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body. Whereas, could he have truly said, we have their real Flesh and Blood, he had then spoken what would have more effectually confuted their absurd position.  
2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresy of the Encratitae, 
P. 511. l. 10, 15.  by showing, That when our Lord delivered the Mysteries, he delivered the Wine, and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verify this saying, I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom.  
Nor Thirdly, That Christ in those Holy Mysteries doth give himself unto the Faithful, but to none other. 
P. 514. l. 28.  But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom, the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding; for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist, that these things are not the works of humane power, we Protestants acknowledge, as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries, and to make that to be food of the Soul, which naturally can only feed the Body. He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these material Symbols must be God. And hence St. Chrysostom informs us the case is just the same in Baptism, That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water, 
Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8.  but that it is Lord of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who works all things there. That man doth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but that it is the power of God that worketh all things. And whereas he adds, that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them. St. Cyril doth inform us, 
Catech. Mystag, 5.  that whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed. St. 
* Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr, Euch. l. 2. P. 545.  Clemens, That the Devil doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) transmute Women into Whores. Nyssenus, that Regeneration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (i.e.) doth change us into the Sons of Light, and of the day. And Chrysostom himself informs us, That to make the barren Womb to bear, is an example of this Transmutation. Such therefore we may rationally conceive that change to be of which St. Chrysostom here speaketh.  
Gaudentius must tell us, 
T. G. p. 306.  That the Maker and Lord of natures, who produceth Bread out of the Earth, doth again of Bread, (because he can and hath promised to do it) make his own Body, and he who made Water of Wine, maketh of Wine his own Blood. But then we must not know, 
Tract. in Ex. 2.  that in the same place he asserts, That when our Saviour said, This is my Body, he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine: Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith, I am the true Vine, he did sufficiently declare, that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood; or that we eat his Flesh, when we receive his Doctrine: which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine, and show the change of which Gaudentius speaks, to be Spiritual and Mystical. For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine, they are not properly Christ's Body, if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion, it is not the Truth: For as Gandentius there telleth us, figura non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis, (i.e.) a figure is the imitation of the truth, but not the truth. Wherefore Gaudentius doth argue a majori, thus, he that made Water to be substantially Wine, can certainly make Wine to become Sacramentally his Blood. 
T. G. p. 507.   
We must be told that St. Ignatius confesseth Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffered for our Sins. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 2.  But then we must not know, that this Epistle is intended against the Simonians and Menandrians, who held, that Christ suffered only in appearance, & had no real Flesh, & therefore could not confess that the Eucharist was Sacramentally Christ's flesh, least admitting the figure, they should be forced to admit the truth and substance; and therefore his Interpolater disputes against them thus, 
V usher Not. in Epist. ad Smyr. p. 50  That incorporeal things have neither shape nor character, nor figure of a Living Creature that hath form which may be seen, whereas, when Christ shall come to Judgement, they who have pierced shall see him. Secondly, We confess the Eucharist to be Christ's Body and his Flesh; and only do dispute the manner how, of which Ignatius saith nothing. We do acknowledge that it is truly and indeed Christ's flesh and Blood, as knowing that it may be truly, what it is Spiritually: for Christ is the true Vine, 
Job. 15.1. Joh. 1.8. Heb. 8.2. Luk. 16.12  and the true Light; Heaven is called the true Tabernacle, and Spiritual Blessings, the true Riches; and of this we have innumerable instances both from the Fathers and the Church of Rome, produced by Albertinus de Sacramento Euch. p. 218. 854.  
Moreover it is objected, 
T. G. p. 306. Orat. Mag. Catec. c. 37  that Gregorius Nyssen doth affirm, That he believes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) The Bread Sanctisied by the Word of God to be transmuted into the body of the word. Answ. True, but than it is as true, that this transmutation may be as well by the addition of Grace to Nature, as by the substantial mutation of that nature, it being evident from the abundant testimonies of Bafil, 
Vid. Alb. de Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 487.  Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and other Fathers, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and transmutari, are terms indifferently used as well of a mutation, which only doth respect the qualities, States and conditions of the Subject, as the nature of it; and of this we have many instances in the undoubted works of Gregory: Who tells us, That the Soul made virtuous, is 
a In Inscr Psal. c. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, transmuted, and that 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Cant. Hom 8.  Regeneration is a transmutation of it into that which is Divine; and that 
c ibid. Hom. 9  when we appear in Glory, we shall undergo this transmutation: nay, in this very place he twice asserts, That the mortal Body of Christ being received into our body, doth change our body into its self, or its own nature. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid.  So then, these words cannot infer, That the Sacramental Bread and Wine receive by Consecration any other change.  
He tells us further, that the virtue of the benediction doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, change or transelement the nature of things which do appear. Answ. This word is also used ordinarily, to signify not any change of substance, but of qualities and virtues only: and of this kind you have in Albertinus many instances produced, 
l. 2. p. 488  of which no less than twenty are cited from Gregorius Nyssen, declaring, that by Regeneration and Baptism we are transelemented or changed to a Spiritual Nature; and that the Resurrection will thus transelement and change our Natures; So that it may with equal reason be concluded from this word, that in Baptism our Natures are Transubstantiated, as that the nature of the Eucharistical Bread is changed into Christ's real and substantial body. And so much for that spurious or doubtful passage of Gregorius Nyssen.  
The passage cited from St. Cyril saith, 
T. G. p. 306.  That our Saviour sometime changed Water into Wine, and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood. But then the same St. Cyril doth also say, 
Catech. 2.  he who raised Lazarus when four days dead, can he not much more easily raise thee, (viz. from a death of Sin unto a life of Righteousness) who dost live and breathe? And again, 
Catech. 4.  the rod of Moses was changed by the will of God into the dissentaneous nature of a Serpent, and shall not dead Man be restored unto himself again? And both Ambrose and St. 
e Serm. 12. ex 40 a Sirmundo editis.  Austin do argue from the conversion of Water into Wine, That God can change our mortal into immortal Glorious bodies. If then it be ridiculous from any of these passages to argue a substantial change wrought in us by Regeneration, or the Resurrection, it must be also vain to argue a substantial change from the like instance, used to illustrate the change, which is by Consecration made upon the Eucharistick Symbols. (2) The words immediately preceding do clearly evidence, that Cyril argues a majori: For saith he, If God could make this change from Water into Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Catech. 4. Mist.  shall it not much more be confessed that he doth give us the fruition of his Body and his Blood: whereas had he conceived the mutation of the Eucharistick Symbols to have been equal to the change of Water into Wine, that phrase had been improper and absurd; for of two equal changes it cannot reasonably be affirmed, he that is able to perform the one, is much more able to perform the other. (3) I have already largely proved, that Cyril here intended only an accidental change, and shall yet further make it evident from two considerations. 1. That in the following Catechism he speaks thus, we pray unto the God of Mercies, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that he would send his Spirit into the things that lie before us, and would make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood: For whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is sanctified and changed: not that it is substantially changed; for he affirmeth of the Baptismal Oil and Water, that they are Sanctified by the Holy Spirit: And yet no Romanist will hence infer, that they do not retain the nature both of Oil and Water. 2. In his first Catechism he affirms, that as the Eucharistick Bread and Wine before the Consecration, remains mere Bread and Wine, but afterwards is made the Body and Blood of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After like manner truly are the mea●● used in the Pomp's of Satan, in themselves (pure or) simple, but by invocation of the Daemons, they are made impure. As therefore the mutation of these meats, is only a mutation of their qualities, not of the substance of them: so must the change of Bread and Wine, with which it is compared and equalled, be supposed to be. In fine, 
P. 2●.  to set before us the danger of nor believing Christ more than our senses; and to make others know it as well as Roman Catholics, he promiseth to set before them the words of Epiphanius, viz. We see the Sacrament is neither equal nor like unto the fleshly Image, or the invisible Deity, or the Characters of his Members; for this is of a round form, and insensible according to power. And yet because he was pleased to say, through Grace, This is my Body, every one believeth his saying, For, who believeth not that it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace and Salvation. Answ. by this Translation of the words of Epiphanius, we are like to see, and others to know, nothing but the detestable fraud and falsehood of T. G. For Epiphanius doth not say as T. G. translates him, That who believeth not that it is his very true Body, falleth from Grace: But his words are these, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Anch. p. 60  He that believeth not that Christ is true, doth fall from Grace. Now he that differs from another Church or Person in exposition of Christ's words may yet believe, that Christ is true in all his say, as much as they from whom he differs. Secondly had he considered well the context, he would have found this passage is a strong argument against him: For Epiphanius in this very Section, affirmeth Man to be like God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) in a similitude or figure, but not according to nature; for, saith he, men have not the Image of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or equally; and yet what God hath constituted we will not subtract, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib.  for he is true, who by his Grace hath given to man to be like unto him, and we have many like examples; and then immediately follows the example of the Eucharist. Now the force of Epiphanius his argument consisting in this, That we are like unto God after his Image, but yet not according to nature, even as the Sacramental Bread is like the Body of Christ, it is plain, that the Sacramental Symbols are the Body of Christ and his Blood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Image or representment, not according to nature. thirdly, St. Epiphanius affirms, that Christ pronounced of Bread and Wine, this is mine, his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum panem. Petau. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now since that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the things Christ took and blessed, confessedly were Bread and Wine; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth answer to them must be so. I might have added many other answers produced from these Fathers, but I have chosen only to answer what the very places did suggest, that so the Reader might perceive that T. G. either never read the places cited, or else did choose to cite them, though he saw they held the contrary to that Doctrine for which he doth produce them: and to convince the Reader, that the Judgement of the Fathers must be clearly for us, seeing the strongest passages the Romanists cite against us do confirm our Doctrine.  
We have now done with his Fathers, and briefly shall consider what he hath to ●ay from Protestants.  
And thus he gins, 
P. 299.  That Transubstantiation was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from the time of Berengarius, that is 600 years ago, is scarcely denied by any I know of. Answ. One of the Protestants you cite will be sufficient to help your ignorance, I mean the Reverend Bishop Morton, in the Treatise of the Mass: 
Lib. 3. c. 2. §. 3, 4. A.D. 1159  Where we have this confession of Peter Lombard, Master of the Sentences, whether the conversion be substantial or not, I am not able to determine. And Scotus affirming, 
a Si quaeratur qualis sit conversio (viz. panis in Eucharistia) an formalis, an substantialis. an alterius generis, definire non sufficio. Lomb. Sent. l. 4. Destruct. 11. Lit. a.  that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith, before the Council of Lateran. And Suarez saying, that some Schoolmen held, that Transubstantiation was not very ancient; Scotus, to wit, and Gabriel Biel among others. And Erasmus, that it was but lately determined in the Church. And lastly, Cardinal Perroon, (who did not look upon it as 
b Scotus dicit ante consilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem. Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 23. ss. sed tamen  
c In Synaxiserò definivit Ecclesia Transubsiantiationem, di●iatis erat credere sub pane quocunque modo adesse verum Conrpus Christi. Erasm. in 1. Cor. 7. p. 373.  a thing very commendable to oppugn the received Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ) asserts, 
Card. Perroon. En. Sa. H●rrang. Auti●rs Estates p. 33 De Christ. Eccles Suc c●●s. p. 19 208.  That if it had not been for the Council of Lateran, it might be now lawful to oppugn it. Pious and Learned Bishop Usher shows out of ancient and authentic Records, That after the times of Berengarius many continued, even there where Satan had his Throne, who privately employed both their Tongues and Pens in defence of the truth against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Hamelman and Chemniitus are most impertinently cited, 
T.G. p. 301.  for they only do confess, that St. Ignatius said what we all grant, & what doth not in the least confirm the Roman Doctrine, as we have already proved. 
p. 300.  Perkins is also falsely and impertinently cited: for he doth not affirm, that this particular Heresy of Transubstantiation was spread over the whole world during the space of nine hundred years. Nay, he expressly doth assert, That it was not concluded in the days of Lombard, 
Problem. p. 155, 156  nor then received as an Article of Faith, and that for a whole thousand years, the Church of Christ taught Sgiritual Manducation, and that the Ancients did interpret the institution by a figure. That the Centuriators do affirm of Origen. 
T.G. p. 301.  Cent. 3. p. 260. and of Tertullian, p. 58. that they speak not commodiously of Transubstantiation, is a notorious falsehood: what the Centuriators cite from Tertullian, p. 58. is most expressly for the contrary; and of Origen, p. 260. they speak thus, recte in Caena Domini sub pane & vino sumi asserit corpus & sanguinem Domini, (i.e.) Origen rightly doth assert, that in the Supper of the Lord under the bread and wine, we take the body and blood of Christ. What they cite out of Ambrose Cent. 4. p. 294. is from the Author, precationis primae Praepar. ad Missam, which is a spurious piece, as they themselves have noted from Erasmus. 
Erasmus non esse Ambrosii censuit.  The true Ambrose is reckoned among the Fathers, that maintained the pure Doctrine in this point, p. 242. Of Hamphrey and Camerarius I can say nothing, because I know not where to see them: But we have great reason to suspect, that they also are cited more Romano (i.e.) with great impertinence and falsehood. And I am certainly informed from Oxford, that what is cited as from Vrsin, is really the words of Vrsins Adversary. Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party.  
Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers, which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious, and these confessions of the Protestants, which are insignificant or false, or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini, Eusebius, Emissenus; and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream. He thus concludes, that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers, 
P. 308, 309  and strengthened by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable. But alas, this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome, and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm. For First, it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome, that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine, viz. Peter Lombard, Scotus, Biel, Erasmus and Peroon. And Secondly, 
a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job. Yribarn. in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp. 42. Sect. 1.  That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith. Thirdly, 
b Scotus in 4 Distinct. 11. Quaest. 3. s. 1 ●. A●●●m.  That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church, the words of Christ might more simply, plainly and truly be understood and expounded. Fourthly, the Cardinal of 
c Distinct. 4. Qu. 6. A. 2.  Cambray adds, that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain, doth not evidently follow of the Scripture, nor to his seeming of the Church's determination. Fifthly, Your Secular 
d Discourse Modest. p. 13.  Priests affirm, that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society, (and what Catholic would not believe them?) that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation. Sixthly, It is no wonder, saith 
e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est, si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè & Rectè hâc de re senserint & scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7.  Gregory de Valentia, if one or two, or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly. And 
f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus, & alii Veteres quaedam dixerint, quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B.  Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondered at, if St. Austin, Theodoret, and other of the Ancients, speak something which in show seems to favour the Heretics. The say of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ, This is my Body, in a figurative sense, as much as any Protestant can do; and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals, Bishops, Schoolmen, Priests and Jesuits are these; 
g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv. Martion. c. 14.  by Bread Christ represents his Body, saith Tertullian; and again, 
h Panem corpus suum appellat ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, L. 3. c. 19  Christ hath called Bread his Body, that thereby thou mayest understand, that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body. And again, 
i L. 4. c. 4 c.  This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. St. 
k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175.  Cyprian noteth, That it was Wine, even the Fruit of the Vine, which the Lord saith was his Blood. Our Lord, saith St. 
l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100, & 106.  Clemens, did bless Wine when he said, Take drink this is my Blood, and that it was Wine which was blessed, be showeth again saying, I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine. 2. 
Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 & 106.  Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John, doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols, when he saith, Eat my Flesh, and Drink my Blood, an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises. And again, there is a donable Blood of the Lord, 
Paed. l. 2. c. 2.  one Carnal, by which we are redeemed froim destruction, and another Spiritual, by which we are Anointed. Origen speaks thus, 
m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum, & haec quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B.  It is not the matter of bread, but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof, and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body. To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th, the first whereof shall be 
n Euseb. l. 8. c. 1.  Eusebius, who saith, ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation, commanding them to make the Image of his own Body, and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body. And that 
o Euseb. Demonst. l. 1. c. 10 p. 27.  we still celebrate upon the Lord's Table the memory of his Sacrifice, by the Symbols of his Body and Blood, according to the Ordinances of the New Testament. And lastly, 
p Demonist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141.  Our Saviour and Lord first, and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations, celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church, signify unto us by the bread and wine, the Mysteries of his body and blood. 
q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum. p. 979.  Athanasius faith, ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh, that we might learn that the things he spoke were not Carnal but Spiritual: For how many men might his body have sufficed, that it might be the food of the whole world? it is as if he should have said, that which is given for the world, shall be given for meat, that it may be Spiritually given to all. In the Church, saith 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar. Egypt, Hom, 27, p. 164.  Marcarius, is offered bread and wine, the Type of his Flesh and Blood; and they which are partakers of the visible bread, do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover, saith 
s Orat. 2 de Pasch. To. 1. p. 692.  Gregory Nazianzen, but as yet in a Figure, though more clear than in the Old Law: For the Passover of the Law, (I will be bold to say it) was but a more obscure figure of a figure. Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the 
t In Epita. Gorgon. p. 187.  Antitypes of the precious body or blood of the Lord: under the Type of bread the body is given to thee, and under the Type of wine the blood. So St. 
u Catech. Myst. 4. p. 237.  Cyril Hieros. 
x Constit. l. 5. c. 16.  Pseudo Clemens saith, That Christ having given us the Mysteries figurative of his precious body and blood, etc. went up into the Mount of Olives: and that 
y Constit. l. 6. c. 23.  the Mystical and unbloody Sacrifice, is celebrated by the Symbols of his body and blood. And he adds, That in the Participation of this Sacrament they used this thanksgiving, 
z L. 5. c. 16  We give thee thanks our Father, for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, & for the precious body, of which we celebrate these Signs by his command to announce his Death. Of the same Judgement were the Latin Fathers, for 
a Dicit Sacerdos: fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura Domini nostri Jesu Christi.  Ambrose in the fourth Book of the Sacraments, Chap. 5. affirmeth, that in his time this clause was in the public Service, make this Oblation to be set to our account acceptable and reasonable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. And again, 
b Hic in imagine quidem Christus offertur, in caelo verò in veritate L. 1. Officiorum. cap. 48. T. 1. p. 37.  Christ here saith, he is offered in the Image, in Heaven in the Truth. Hilary the Deacon saith, 
c Name & M●ses ●ece p●o sanguine vituli in patera aspersit filios Israel, dicens hoc est Testamentum— hoc figura fuit Testamenti— Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est: Quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est, in cujus typum nos calicem Mysticum Sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis nostri & animae percipimus. In 1 Cor 11.  The blood is a witness of divine benefit, for the Figure of which we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the preservation of the Body and the Soul. Gelasius saith, 
d  Imago & Similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Contra Eutych.  indeed the Image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries.  
In the Fifth Century, St. Chrysostom speaks thus, 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. 82. in Matthaeum T. 2. p. 510.  if really Christ died not, 
Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750.  of what is this Celebration Symbola; 
Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750.  see how he studies to make us always mindful of his death, hence by the Sacraments he calls to mind his passion. Again, it is a carnal thing to doubt how Christ could give his flesh to eat, we ought to understand it Mystically and spiritually: his words were spiritual, and had nothing carnal in them.  
Theodoret speaks thus, 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 1. T. 4. p. 17, 18. G. 12.  Our Saviour changed the names, and gave unto the body that which is the name of the Symbol, and to the Symbol the name of the body. So when he had named himself the Vine, he called that which was the Symbol the blood. And when the Heretic desired to know the reason of this change of names, he gives it thus, Christ would have those who are partakers of the Divine Mysteries, not to attend unto the nature of the things they see, but by reason of the change of names to believe that change which is made by Grace: For he that called that which was Wheat and Bread, his natural body, and again calls himself a Vine; he honoured the Symbols which are seen with the appellation of his body and his blood, not changing the nature, but adding Grace unto it. And ween the Heretic had granted that the Sacrament contained the Symbols of a real body; 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Dial. 2. T. 4. p. 84.  This is well answered saith the Orthodox: For every Image ought to have his Architype, and Painters imitate the nature, and paint the Images of things visible.  
Gaudentius saith, that 
* Tract. 2. in Exod. v. Supr.  in the Bread the figure of Christ's body is reasonably understood. St. Hierom, that the Lord did not offer Water, but Wine for a Type of his blood. St. Austin saith, 
h In Typo sangui nis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum. l. 2. adv. Jovinian. p. 27. F.  the Lord did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And most emphatically in these words, 
i Dominus non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, quum figuum daret corporis sui. Contr. Adimantum. c. 12. T. 6. p. 128.  a preceptive speech for bidding a crime, or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative, but if it seems to command a crime, or forbidden a good, than it is figurative. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, 
k Si preceptiva locutio est aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans; aut utllitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videatur jubere, aut utilitatem, aut beneficentiam vetare, sigurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit Christus, Joh. 6.53. Carnem, etc. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergo precipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria. quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit. L. 3. de Doctr. Christian. c. 16.  etc. Seems to command a wickedness, it is therefore a figure commanding us to Communicate with the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Again 
l Sacramenta sunt signa rerum aliud existentia, aliud significantia, Idem contra Maxim. S. 3. cap. 22. T. 6. p. 522.  the Sacraments are signs of things, being one thing, and signifying another. Again (the Israelites) did 
m Bibebant de spirituali sequente petra: petra autem erat Christus. Videte ergo petrâ manente signa variata ibi perra Christus, nobis Christus, quod in altari Dei ponitur, Id. Tract. 45 in Joh. I. 9 p. 333.  drink of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: see therefore, faith remaining, how the signs are varied, there the Rock was Christ, to us that which is placed upon the Altar is Christ. Lastly, 
n Habes Christum in praesenti per sidem, in presenti per signum, in presenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum, in presenti per altaris cibum & potum.— Secundum presentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem no semper habebitis— Quomodo absentem tenebo? Quo modo in coelum manum mittam, ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte & tenuisti, Idem Tract. 50. in Joh. T. eod. p. 358, 371.  thou hast Christ present by faith, and in the sign, by the Sacrament of Baptism, and the meat and drink of the Altar. According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples, me you shall not have always, how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there? † send thy faith and thou dost hold him.  
To conclude, the Fathers po expressly say, that Christ pronounced of the Bread, this is my body, and of the Wine, this is my Blood, which, say the R. Doctors, had our Lord affirmed, we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically. For proof hereof, 
B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. §, 6,  behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Agustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Gaudentius Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore, thirteen to the dozen, whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech. 
1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57,  The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body. The second Christ to have called Bread his body. Third, that Christ's speech was spoken of Bread. The fourth, that that which he broke, was Bread. The fifth, 
2. Christus panem corpu● suum appellat Tertullianus. adv Judeos,  that it was Bread which he broke. The sixth, that it was Bread of the Lord, & not Bread the Lord. The seventh, that the words (my Body) were spoken of the Bread. The eighth, that Christ saith, of the Bread this is my Body, And the same Father, as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds, 
3 Nec matteria panis est. sed super illum d●ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat. 15.  illustrates the matter thus: So (saith he) did Christ call his Body Bread, as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat; (except the grain of Wheat die, it bringeth forth no fruit.) The ninth, that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the consecrated Bread, this is my 
4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris. Hieron. Ep. ad Helvid. Qu. 2.  
5. Panem fractum tradidit dis●lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc, etc. Ambrose l. 4. the Sacrament. cap. 5.  
6. Judas manducavit panem Domini, etc. Augustinus Tract. 59 in Joh. Cyril. Hieros'.  
7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Catech, Mist, 4, p, 528.  
8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat, ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum, etc. Cyril, Alez Catech. 4  
9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8.  
10. Gaudent tract. de rat. sacra.  Body. The eleventh, 
11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian. Ep. 63.  that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth, that he blessed Wine, when he said drink, and the last; the Bread strengthening man's Body, was therefore called the Body of Christ. To these citations add that of Cyprian and † Theophilus, the Lord calleth Bread his Body, which is made up of many grains, 
12. Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 3.  and that of Tatian, or † Ammonius having taken the Bread, than afterward the cup of Wine, and testified it to be his Body and Blood, 
13. Panis, quia confirmat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur. Is't: dor. l. 1. de officiis. cap. 8.  be commanded them to eat and drink thereof; Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death: That also of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dial. 1, T. 4, p, 17,  Theodoret, that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body, and that which was mixed his blood; And as if this was beyond all dispute, he puts this question to the Heretic, 
* ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ΕΡΑΝ Id. ibid.  knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body, and makes him answer; yea I know it. By all which passages, 
a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat. Ep. 76.  and many more that might be cited it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were not otherwise conceived, than as if Christ had plainly said, this Bread is my Body, and this Wine is my Blood: 
b In Evan, l, 1, p, 152, L. 2.  and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words, 
c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit, etc. Ammon. Harmon. Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28.  this is my Body, to be Metaphorical and figurative, as any Protestant now doth: note also by the way, that this sufficiently checks the clamours of T. G. against the Doctor, for saying, they believe Bread to be God, for let him put what sense he can upon the Father's words, the same will justify the words of Dr. Stilling fleet, which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and liable to no exception, since they import this only, that the Romanist believes that to be a God, which we believe is Bread, and to one of that persuasion, the Doctor's argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith, but to proceed.  
To all these Fathers we will adjoin three Councils. The first, is that of Carthage (held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops: (whereof St. Austin, and Aurelius were two) which thus decrees, that 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cod. Can. Eccles. Afr. c. 37.  in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the lord (as also the Lord commanded it,) that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water. The second is that of Trull, whose judgement Balsamon relateth in these words. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag. p. 653.  The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large, that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water, because Bread is the figure of the Lords body, and the Wine a figure of his blood. 
c In Can. 40. Concil. Carthag. p. 426, 427.  Zonara's saith the same. In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the holy Image of Christ, and the true Image of his natural body, and the Image of his flesh given by God. And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years ago, witness the Homily appointed publicly to be read to the People upon Easter-day, before they did receive the Sacrament, where we have these words, viz. 
* Aeifrick Saxon Homily. v. Usher. Answ. to the Jesuits challenge. p. 79.  Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel, the body truly that Christ suffered in, was born of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in humane limbs, with a reasonable soul living, and his spiritual body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many Corns, without blood and bone, without limb, without Soul; and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but spiritually. This mystery is a pledge and a figure, Christ's body is truth itself. And again, Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering, and said, this is my body and my blood. Yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible virtue, the Bread to his own body, and that Wine to his blood, as he before did in the Wilderness, before that he was born to men, when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood. The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods; out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick: in the one one whereof directed to 
e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali & Ms. in Bibl. Bodl.  Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn, we read thus. That housel is Christ's body, not bodily but spiritually. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke, when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering; and said by the blessed Bread, this is my body: and again by the holy Wine, this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins. In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, thus, The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, and saith that the Bread was his own body, and that the Wine was truly his blood, halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, Bread to his body, and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so, nor the selfsame body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy Wine is that Saviour's blood which was shed for us, in bodily thing, but in spiritual understanding.  
But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church, and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen, and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid, to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants, to show the unreasonableness of this denial, I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers, viz. in supposition that a controversy arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past, and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess, that for the last Two hundred years the contrary, to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law, and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law, held the same with the latter; Nor had there ever been any disagreement, or opposition among them in that point; whether it be not a sufficient proof, that what they taught to be the sense of the Law, was generally received as the sense and meaning of it from the beginning? The Testimonies themselves of those ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough: how much more when strengthened by the confession of the adverse party itself? Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law, where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be, and often are of different judgements; how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received, and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered? surely, if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves, the proof (as St. Ireneus saith) must be true and without contradiction: for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers; and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers, was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish, the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church, and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ, sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate; wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen. 
d Haec qui audire nesci● detorqueat ortasse & averta● auditum, secundum illos qui ●●icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fi●●● estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis, agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt. & ideo tanquam spirituales & non tanquam carnales examinate & intelligite quae dicuntur. Si ●nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt v●s & non alunt-Est & in N. Testamento litera quae occidit etc. ut supra. Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom, 7. p. 87.  If you be Sons of the Church, if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries, and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you, acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumes, and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual, and not as carnal men, for if as carnal you receive them, they will hurt, but will not nourish you. There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it, for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said, except you eat the flesh, etc. the letter killeth.  
Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome (for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick. p. 252.) is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers, that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide, i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the ancient Church, and that the 
e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer, l, 8. v, indulgentia.  thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the ancient Fathers, Nay, they spoke nothing of it: And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies, and the concurrent judgement of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define, and held that exposition of our Saviour's words was true and Genuine, which they have now condemned as Heretical. 2. How can we know what is the present judgement of the Church of Rome, but by our eyes and ears, since therefore one of her determinations is, that all our senses in the Eucharist do actually deceive us, how can we be infallibly assured of her judgement by what she hath declared to be fallacious?   

CHAP. V.  
The CONTENTS.  
The Host was not worshipped with Latria in in the primitive Church. 1. Because we have no command in Scripture for this worship, §. 1. 2ly. Because the Holy Scripture and the Fathers have spoken things extremely contradictory to this worship. §. 2. Thirdly, Because the Ancient Fathers have not informed us of this Worship. §. 3. Fourthly, Because they have both said and practised many things which are very inconsistent with this Opinion, that it ought thus to be Worshipped. §. 4. An Objection Answered. §. 5. The Instances produced by T. G. to prove this practice are considered. §. 6.  
THe Doctrine of Transubstantiation being overthrown, 
Sect, 1.  the Adoration of the Host must fall together with it. 
p, 222.  But since T. G. affirms, That it was universally practised and recommended by the Fathers of the primitive Church, both Greek and Latin, whereas it was not practised or commended by any single person for Eight hundred years after the coming of our Saviour; We shall proceed to evidence the vanity and the absurdness of this practice, and the unconscionable falsehood of this bold assertion. And, 1. The commandment to Worship God alone is so express (saith Bishop Taylor) the distance betwixt God and what our senses represent as bread, 
of Transubst. p. 338.  so vast, the danger of Worshipping that which is not God, or of not Worshipping that which is God, is so formidable, that it is infinitely to be presumed, that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the Holy Sacrament, the Holy Scripture would have called it God, or Jesus Christ, or have bidden us in express terms to have Adored it, that either by the first, as by a reason indicative, or by the second, as by a reason imperative we might have had sufficient warrant, direct, or consequent, to have paid Divine Worship to it. To strengthen and confirm this Argument it may deserve to be considered, 1. That the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul are very punctual in the Relation of what our Saviour did, or enjoined in this Institution; they all inform us that Christ commanded them to eat the Bread and drink the Cup which he had given to them; and had he given them to be adored, would they, who mention things so obvious, forget to tell us that either Christ intended they should be Adored, or that they were Adored by them? that which induced St. Paul to mention this Institution, and to assert that he received it from our Lord, was the irreverence of those that did participate, 
1 Cor. 11, 18, 28.  and their want of preparation to receive those Holy Mysteries. To cure this disease he tells them, that the Holy Sacrament was Christ's own Institution, the charge he left behind him that very night in which he was beirayed, and that the Institution was intended for the Commemoration of our Saviour's death; all which is proper to beget within us a greater Reverence and care in celebration of these holy mysteries; but yet it cannot be denied that this consideration, viz. That what they thus irreverently treated, was that very Son of God which suffered for them, and that it was that Host which they and all good people did Worship for their God. I say, this one consideration would have been infinitely more proper and effectual to aggravate the sin of those who slighted it, and irreverently behaved themselves at the participation of this Sacrament. This therefore was omitted by St. Paul upon no other score but the absurdity and falsehood of the thing.  
Secondly, consider with what expreseness the Scripture doth inform us that Christ is God, true God, God blessed for evermore, and yet because his conversation in the World was in the habit and likeness of a Man, and his Divinity was hid under the veil of humane flesh, and because this Jesus was made subject to an ignominious and accursed death, the Scripture thinks it not sufficient to ascribe unto him in 100 places the nature & proprieties of God, and to leave us upon Record, 
a Mat. 2.11, 8, 2, 9, 18, 15, 25, 20, 20, 28, 9, 17.  examples of his Adoration by the wise Men of the East, and by his own Disciples, and by divers others. I say the Scriptures think it not sufficient to have done all this, and therefore they inform us that this is the decree of Heaven, that to the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
Phil, 2, 10, Joh, 5.23.1 Heb. 6.  and that all should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, and that when this first born came into the World God's Angels were commanded to Adore him: now it is evident the humane nature did not so much conceal the Deity, as do the accidents of Bread, for God sometimes did appear unto his Prophets in a human shape, but never in the shape of Bread and Wine. Christ while encompassed with our flesh, gave signal demonstrations of his Divine perfections by Miracles, and by declaring that he knew the thoughts of those with whom he did converse, but in the Sacrament Christ giveth not the least appearance or demonstration of his presence; He doth not rescue his most Sacred body from the Mouse or Rat, or from the Sacrilegious hands of Theives, and Sorcerers. Here then was greater reason to have told us as often, that the Sacrament was God, and was to be adored, as they have told us Christ was God, and was to be adored Since therefore we have no precept or example in the Holy Scripture for adoration of the Sacrament, nor any information that the nature and properties of God do belong unto it; seeing it is asserted of the Rock, 
1 Cor. 10.4, 6, 15.1 Pet. 2.4,  and of the Church that they are Christ, and of the Saints, that they are made Partakers of the Divine nature; but it is not once asserted of the Sacrament that it is Christ, or that it partakes of his Divinity, but only that it his body; we have just reason to conclude that it neither was adored by Christ's Disciples, nor was intended so to be.  
If that which Romanists adore were truly Christ, 
Arg. 2. § 2. Brevint, p. 72,  one might safely aver (what even to think were Blasphemy) That neither Prophets nor Holy Fathers in their Speeches against Heathenish Gods, either considered well what they said, or ever thought well of their Saviour. And First, to begin with their Original, when the Prophet Isaiah inveighs against them who worship Gods made by a Carpenter, of a Tree which the worshippers had Planted, and after hewn into pieces, whereof one was to heat an Oven, and the other to make a God. Can any rational Man think that the Holy Ghost did foresee, That all true Worshippers in the time of the Messiah, were to adore a God every morning made of, and every morning enclosed within, somewhat of that Wheat that first Country Men had sown, and Bakers baked into Wafers, of which afterwards an Apothecary was to take some to wrap Pills in, and the Priest all the rest to Consecrate into a God? And if the taking that for a God, which before the Consecration was but a Stock, is a Pagan blindness, fit for a Prophet to wonder at, v. 18. Is the adoring that for a Saviour, which immediately before the uttering of some few words, was a thin wafer, such clear understanding as may become a Catholic? 
C 14. v. 20.  The Author of the book of Wisdom makes the Pagan folly chief to consist in this, That they took him now for a God which a little before was not honoured as a Man. Pagans melt Brass, they cast it, they set it up, they fasten it, saith Minucius, 'tis yet no God: they polish it, they adorn it, neither is it yet a God: But see now, they Consecrate it, and Pray to it, then as soon as Men will have it to be a God, it is a God. p. 26. What! were these wise men blind not to perceive, that Pagans might return the same Raillery? Christians, they sow Wheat, they cut, gather, and thresh it, 'tis not Christ yet: they grind it, they sift it, they bake it, 'tis but a wafer: they set it upon an Altar, they elevate it, they cross it several times; no wonder yet: at last they speak five words upon it; presently ten Miracles break forth, and among an hundred Wafers, which are all like to one another, that which they are pleased to think upon, is their Saviour. And though a little before it was not honoured as a Man, it is now taken to be God. Besides, all the Reproaches and Ironies which Holy Prophets or Christian Fathers throw on Idols, fall twenty times more heavy on what is adored at Mass. For example, if you laugh at Laban for serving Gods which a man or woman can steal away, and say with them that comment on that place, 
Synopsis.  Summa caecitas Deos vocat quos furtim auferri posse agnovit, 
T. 1. in Gen. p. 447.  or with St. Chrysostom, O Hyperbole of madness, are thy Gods such as can be Stolen, art thou not ashamed to say, why hast thou stolen away my Gods? Or if you laugh at Micah for crying out so miserably, 
Jud. 18.24:  you have taken away the Gods that I have made, as others do; if you deride the Babylonians for carrying their Gods upon their Shoulders, who otherwise could not help themselves, nor move out of the place where they were seated, as the Prophet Esay doth. 
Isa. 46.7:  Or if you rally upon the Priests of Bell and Nebo, 
Isa. 46.1.  because their Gods fall to the ground, and are carried away Captive. If with the Royal Psalmist you endeavour to expose them by saying, 
Psal: 115.5, 6, 7.  that they have mouths and cannot speak, Eyes but cannot see; Feet, but cannot walk: If with the Prophet Jeremy, you give these demonstrations, that they are no Gods. First, 
Baruch. 6.12.  because they cannot save themselves from rust and moth, though they be covered. Secondly, That they are not able to escape from War, and Thiefs and Robbers. 
v: 15.57.  And Thirdly, That the Priests make fast their Temples with Locks and Barrs, 
v. 18, 19.20.  lest their Gods be spoiled with Robbers. They light them Candles, yea more than for themselves, of which they cannot see one; and their hearts are gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth; and when they eat them and their Clothes, they feel it not. And Fourthly, That they are born upon Shoulders, 
v. 26, & 27  having no Feet, whereby they declare unto Men they are nothing worth. Fifthly, That if they fall, they cannot rise up again of themselves, neither if one set them upright, can they move themselves. Sixthly, That their Gold and Silver, 
v. 58.  and Garments wherewith they are Clothed, they that are strong do take and go away with all. 
v. 72.  And lastly, if you add, That you know them to be no Gods, because afterwards they shall be Eaten. All these considerations do sufficiently expose the vanity, both of these Idols, and of those that worship them. But than what R. Catholics esteem their God, is capable of all these Ironies, and by all these considerations you may know assuredly that it is no God.  
For First, it falls oftener to the ground then ever Nebo did, witness 
a De desect. cir●a Miss. p. 3. Si hostia, etc. locus! ubi cecidit mundetur! & aliqu●ntum abradatur.  the injunction of scraping the ground where it falls, and cleansing it. And being fallen to the ground, it cannot rise again, witness the same command to 
b Reverenter accipiatur.  take it up. It is sometimes stolen away, as the poor Gods of Laban were, and it doth nothing to defend and help itself, witness 
c Decretal. l. 3. Tit. 44 c. 1.  Pope Innocents' Decree that it be so well kept that no rash hand approach it; and 
d Aler. G●●ald in Ep ad Carol. V ●gid. in Itin. IPSUM DEI CORPUS.  Geraldinus, his complaint to Charles the 5th, That the very Body of his God was not safe from Thiefs and Magicians, and from the fire of the Wicked. It is sometimes carried away captive box and all, as were the Heathenish Gods whom Pagan Rome had conquered, witness St. Lewis the 9th. who being beaten, and in great distress, rendered it for a Pawn into the hands of the Egyptian Sultan, insomuch that to this day the Egyptian Escutcheons by way of Triumph, bear upon it a Pix with a Wafer in it. In their processions it is carried upon their Shoulders, as was Bell and Nebo, or if the Journey be long, it is hung about the Neck. 
Ritual. Rom. p, 72.  To it agrees the whole description, which the Psalmist gives us of a Pagan Idol, for it hath Eyes and cannot see, it hath hands and handles not, being deprived of the actual use of all its faculties and senses, and so of all the 
a Lampades coram eo plures, vel saltem una, die noctuque perpetuo collucea●. Ritual. Rom. p. 64. Si ho stia consecrata amure, etc. p. 34.  lights that burn before it, it beholds not one.  
This God is also worshipped, and afterwards his heart is gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth, and when they eat or drink him he feels it not. Witness that Injunction of the Roman Missal, That if the Host be taken by a Mouse, or any other Creature, and cannot be found, they do endeavour to take, kill and burn that Creature, and cast the Ashes under the Altar. And that when either Flies or Spiders chance to fall into the Chalice, 
Si musca vel ar●nea etc. p. 35.  because these little Beasts cannot drink so little, but they drink him whole, and have him in their little Guts, the Priest must by all means swallow down these Flies and Spiders, if he can do it without the endangering of his Life, or fear of Vomiting. Once was the time that Egypt was made ashamed of their chief God, 
Theod. Hist. Eccles. l: 5. c. 22.  when they saw Mice creeping out of his Belly; what would they have said, if they had seen their God creeping down, as the Mass God doth, into the Belly of those Mice or Flies? God doth in Scripture often threaten a wicked Church or Nation, that he would spew them out of his Mouth: And were this Doctrine true, the Wicked of the Church of Rome might do the like to him; nay, they might not only vomit up their God, but cause him to be burnt, witness the constitution of the Mass, 
De desect. circa Miss. Occurrent. p. 38.  That if the Priest do vomit up the Eucharist, and find the Species whole, he should then reverently eat the Vomit; but if the Species appear not, he should burn it.  
Thirdly, If T. G. rightly had asserted, that this was the continual practice of the ancient Church, the ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries would not have quite neglected to inform us of it: some time or other, it is like, they would have styled it God, or Jesus Christ, or have declared that it was, or aught to have been Worshipped by them. For the absurdness of the thing to sense and reason, is so great and obvious, that it seems plainly to require more Apologyes than they bestowed to vindicate, and to wipe of the scandal of the Cross. At least it would have been remembered by Justin Martyr, or Tertullian, who undertake to give us an account of what the Christians practised in this case; and yet neither the Romanists themselves, nor their new Champion T. G. do cite one passage from them to confirm this practice. In the Fourth Century, it was the chief concern of all the Fathers to oppose the Arians, and all their under-Sects, and their chief Argument was this, that 
h communis est illa S. Patrum argumentatio qua verum & a qualem Patridcum esse probant filium quod, summo illo genere adorationis quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant, afficiatur Petavius. Theol. Deg. l. 2. c. 12.55.  Christ according to the precept of the Holy Scriptures and the practice of all Christians was adored, and therefore could not be a Creature. Now had the Adoration of the Host been the continual practice of that Age they lived in, how could they all forget and wave an Argument so plain and obvious, and so convincing as this practice doth afford; it being natural thus to conclude, Christ in the Sacrament is Worshipped with Latria, and this Adoration is there tendered upon presumption of his Deity, and therefore he is God. Since then the Fathers of those times did newer use this Argument, certain it is the practice of the Church did give them no occasion so to do.  
Thirdly, the Marcionites and Valentinians denied that Christ did take upon him real flesh, and the great objection which forced them thus to slight the senses of all those that saw him, and 
* P. 97. 98. Apol. c. 39  all the evidence of reason in this case, was this, that they conceived it 
i Turpe hoc deo, & indignum hoc dei filio, & stultum. Tertul. de carne Christi c. 4. D.  improper for the Son of God to be conceived in the Womb, or come forth of it; The Manichees were also startled with the same objection, 'tis an unworthy thing saith 
k August. contra Faustum Man. l. 3. cap. 6.  Faustus ex utero credere Deum, & Deum Christianorum, to think that God, and especially the God of Christians should issue from a Womb. The Synod held at Ephesus amongst the impious speeches of Nestorius. takes special notice of this one, that he could not 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Ephes. Acts 3. Extr in Ep. Synon, ad Cler, CP, p. 335. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib, Acts 1, p, 265,  endure to Worship one that was two months old, or nourished by Milk. And yet amongst all these and many other Heretics, who were so highly scandalised at the humiliation of our Saviour, and at his sufferings on the Cross, we find not one that ever did except against this Adoration of him in the Sacrament, against the cating of their God, the mixing of him with their spittle, or with the ferment of the most depraved Stomach. During Eight hundred years we have not one complaint or scruple that the Christians God was pitiful immured and shut up in the shape of Bread and Wine, deprived of the use of all his faculties, and exposed to the Teeth of Vermin, which gives just reason to believe that what the Christians of those times did practise, gave no occasion to them to discourse these things, or to be scandalised with them. Besides in answer unto these exceptions, we do not find that any of the Fathers urged this practice, or undertook by saying that Christians did Adore him in the shape of Bread, did lodge him in their Stomaches, and the like, to show that he might properly be God, and regularly Worshipped, although he lay concealed in the Womb, and was subjected unto the like infirmities with other children. Since than no other instance had been more proper to oppose to these objections than this Adoration of the Host, & yet the Fathers constantly declined it, we may be certain that they had no such practice, and that they did not hold that Doctrine from whence this practice took its rise.  
Fourthly, If this had been the judgement of the Ancient Church, why did they 
m Hoc quod reliquum est de carnibus & panibus in igne incendi praecepit quod nunc videmus in Ecclesia sensibiliter fieri ignique tradi quacunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta Hesyck l. 2. in Leu. c. 8.  burn the Host? For can we possibly imagine any thing more heinous, then is the burning of that God we Worship? To prove that Calvinists do offer the most vile affronts to holy Saints and Martyrs, the 
* Bellarm. de Reliq. storum. l. 2. c. 1. To. 1. controv. 7.  Roman Doctors hold it sufficient to affirm they burn their bodies and relics, and cast their ashes into Rivers: And is it not a greater evidence of the abominable contempt these Fathers offered to our blessed Lord, that they did burn and bury that most sacred body which was united to the Divinity. To show the great stupidity of Heathens in thinking that which they had made was God, the Prophet Esay tells them, that part of the same Wood which makes the Image is burned in the Fire; and the Prophet 
† Baruch. c. 6. v. 55.  Jeremiah lays down this strong conviction, that the Heathen Idols ought not to be esteemed Gods, because when Fire fell upon their Temples they could not escape, but were consumed by it. And can we then imagine that all Christians, during this custom were such sots as to imagine that to be God, which was not only subject to be consumed by, but was by them committed to the flames for this intent and purpose? was it not easy to retort upon the Christian that of the Prophet Esaiah that part of the same Corn which was converted into the Host, and of the Wine which was converted into the blood of Christ, served only to be meat and drink, and to descend into the Stomach and the draught.  
Fifthly, 
v. Daille de Cultu Lat. l. 7. c. 30.  If this had been the judgement of the ancient Church, why did they put the Host into the 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Balfamon, p. 460.  Sepulchers of dying friends, or bury what they could not eat, since humane nature doth abhor to offer such affronts unto that God we Worship? The Prophet Esay to express what great contempt the Heathens in the time of Christ should show unto their Idols, saith that they shall cast them to the Moles and to the Bats, & could a Christian cast his God unto the Worms, or lodge him with a stinking Carcase, and not be deemed to contemn him in a viler manner?  
Sixthly, We read that 
o Vituli pulverem quem adoraverat Israel, in contemptum superstitionis, in potum accepit populus, ut discat contemnere quod in secessum projici viderat, Hieron ad Fab. p. 20.  Moses took the Calf and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the Water, and made the Children of Israel drink of it. 
Isa. 1.2. v. 20. Exod. 32. v. 20.  The ancient Fathers tell us, this was done to teach them to contemn what they saw consumed and go down into the draught; whereas this Romish Doctrine confutes both Moses and the Fathers, and lets us know that what we devour may be God, & that that which 
p Si quicquid ingreditur in os, in ventrem abit & in secessum ejicitur & ille cibus qui Sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque observationem juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit & in secessum ejicitur Orig. in Mat. 15. p 17.  Origen assures us goes down into the draught, is that which also ruleth in the Heavens.  
Seventhly, Let it be considered, that if the primitive Church had ever practised this Adoration of the Host, the Heathens would sure have retorted all those Arguments upon their heads, by which they did reprove the Heathens for their Idolworship, for the Christians upbraided them with Worshipping the works of their own hands, to which themselves gave what figure they pleased, and then by certain forms did Consecrate them, and made by invocation, as they supposed, a Divinity to dwell there. They objected to them, that they Worshipped that which could neither hear, nor see, 
Just. Martyr. Apol. 2.  nor smell, nor taste nor move, and in particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things having not the shape of God, they upbraided them with Worshipping what they had baked in the Furnace, and that which could grow old and perish, that could be broken and burned, that was subject to the injuries of Rats and Mice, and Worms and creeping things, that can be taken by Enemies and carried away, that is not able either to revenge or help itself. Is it not the extremity of madness saith St. 
b Tom. 5. p. 51. 7.  Chrysostom to think men do not say or do what's filthy, when they go about to bring their Gods into the Images of Stone or Wood, and there to shut them up as in a Prison. Dost thou not see saith 
c Recognit. l. 5. f. 30.  Clement, That that which thou Adorest cannot see, dost thou not hear that it cannot understand? Your Gods are baked in the Potter's Furnace saith 
d Arnob. l. 6. p. 200. Fornacibus incocta f gulinis.  Arnobius, and wrought into those forms in which you see them. As for your Gods they may be burnt, or broken, or perish saith Lactantius, for they are often broken by the fall of Houses, and often are consumed by fire; what madness therefore is it to fear that whose Ruin, Theft, or Incension may be rather feared? what vanity to hope for help from them, who are not able to defend themselves? what perverseness is it to fly unto their aid, who being injured are umevenged, unless revenged by their Worshippers.  
How great stupidity is it not to see it is a wickedness to think or say that men are keepers of the Gods. 
Ap●l. p. 4●  So 
e l. 2. c. 4.  Justin M 'Tis a shame to to Worship those whom thou defendest, and to hope for succour from them, whom thou thy self preservest, saith St. 
f Ad Len●etr p. 239.  Cyprian. These arguments are frequent in the mouths of Ancient Father; and had the Church then thought and practised, as they have done at Rome in these last Ages, might not the Heathens have replied, why may not we as well as you? do not you Worship that with Divine Honours; and call it your God, which can be barnt and broken, which yourselves form into a round or square figure, which the Oven first hardens, and then your Priests consecrate, and by invocation make to be your God, which can see no more, than the Silver and Gold upon our Images? Do not you adore that which Rats and Mice eat, which can grow Mouldy and Sour, which you keep under Locks and Barrs, for fear your God should be frollen? True it is, that if we are beaten from our Cities, we carry our Gods with us, But doth not your, Roman Ritual command the Priest that undertakes a long and dangerous journey, 
p. 72.  to put his God up into a bag, and hang that bag about his Neck, that so he may be carried with him? Let me then answer. you in the words of your Arnobius, 
Contra Gentes l, 2  how impudent and shameless is it to reprehend that in another which you do yourselves?  
And whereas some reply, 
Sect. 5.  that Christians hide this practice from the Heathens, the vanity of this exception will be evident from this consideration, That many who embraced the Christian Doctrine, were by the heat of persecution driven back to Paganism, who therefore were concerned to save their credit by divulging what they thought liable to most exception in the Christian practice: But this exception is so abundantly confuted by Monsieur Daille, 
De culius objecto l. 2 c. 25. p 31  that it is needless any further to consider it. To conclude therefore, the Synod of Constantinople held, A. D. 754. and consisting of the flower of the Eastern Church, determins thus, 
a Sin, ●. Act 6.7. ●. p. 756. Concil. T. 5.  That Christ commanded an Image, ex ellent matter, or the substance of Bread to be offered, not having humane shape, lest Idolatry should be introduced. Now who knows not that the substance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria, and it that Christ God-man was properly contained in the Sacrament, there could be no suspicion of Idolatry in the adoration of it. What I have thus discoursed, I judge sufficient to convince the Reader; that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church.  
What T. G. offers to the contrary is, 
§. 6.  that St. Basil saith, the words of invocation, when the Eucharistical Bread was showed, 
T G. p. 222, 223.  are Apostolical Tradition. Ergo the Host was worshipped with Latria. St. Augustine's Mother assisted at the Altar, from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp aced. Ergo the Host was Worshipped with Latria. Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshipped with ●atria. He might have added that Protestant: do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord, they do uncover and show it to the people, they therefore do adore it with Latria. These are the wretched Sophisms by which this universal practice is confirmed; and they prove only this, That the abettors of them do not renounce their sense and reason only, when they do believe this Doctrine, but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject.  
Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us, 
p. 224.  That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist, that the Heathens, because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries, objected to them, that they Worshipped Ceres and Bacchus: Nothing is so notorious, as is the weakness of this Inference. For if this argument be valid, the Heathens thought that Christians Worshipped Ceres and Bacchus, because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries, therefore all Christians Worshipped what seemed to be Bread and Wine, this must be also valid; the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn, because they met on Saturday, 
August. con●a Faust Mamich. l. 20. c. 13.  (as the same Austin in the same place informs us) therefore all Jews Worshipped Saturday. 2. St. Austin saith, and he himself confesseth, that the Heathens thus conceived, not because they Worshipped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries, the bare use therefore, not the Worship of these things, was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination, as St. Austin deems it.  
Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom, viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice, 
T G. p. 224.  and the place round about the Altar, is filled in honour of him that lieth upon it. And that of Nazianzen, 
p. 222.  affirming, That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar, and with a loud voice besought, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, him that was honoured upon it. For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table, when by the invocation of his Holy name, the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated, and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithful, who knows not, that the honour done to that which represents, and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord, is Honour done to him? And therefore these expressions only signify that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the memorial of Christ's Body; and this we Protestants do as truly, but more safely than the Church of Rome, witness the preparations made before we do receive them, and the Reverence we use when we receive them; and witness lastly our confession, Eucharistiam, ut signum utile, divinitus institutum, venerandam confitemur, saith Albertinus. And that Nazianzen could intent no more, is clear from what he doth immediately subjoin, viz. 
In Epitaph Gorgon. p. 187  That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lord's Blood and Body, she presently bedewed them with her Tears. What therefore lay upon the Altar, was only the Antitype of Christ's true Body. This also was the mind of Chrysostom, for he declares, 
Epistol. ad Caefar. Monach.  That before the Bread is Sanctified, we name it Bread, but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is s●e●d from the name of Bread, and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body, although the nature of Bread remaineth in it.  
To the words of Chrysostom, 
p. 224.  cited from Hom. 24. in Epist. ad Corinth I answer, That Chrysostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christ's Body, which we do, he also saith, we see this Body on the Altar. Nay, elsewhere he adds, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A● Pop. Ant●oc Hom. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Hom. 24 Vide Albert. l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535, 536.  we see it slain and jugulated. 
d In Mat. Hom. 82.  And when the Heretics do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified, we stop their mouths saith he, by the consideration of these Mysteries; for if Christ be not ●ead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what do these Symbols mean. Christ's Body therefore is seen upon the Altar, not as to its substance (for there according to the Roman Doctors, its being is invisible) but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body; this than must be the mind of Chrysostom, that Body which is really in Heaven, and in the Altar, is seen, slain, and jugulated in effigy, do you adore.  
Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason, in the citations following, we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Conscience could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confirmation of this practice, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2 p. 84.85.  viz. The mystical symbols (
* Those words T. G. leaves out.  do not receded from their nature, for they abide in their proper substance, figure and from, and may be seen and touched as they were before, but they) are understood to be what they are made, and are believed and adored as being the things. they are believed; for can that be a Demonstration of this practice, which is a most convincing demonstration, that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practice is absurd and false? And that the Adoration of the Host, would be the Adoration of what continues B●ead, as certainly, as the humanity of Christ continues to retain its nature and its proper substance? had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words, which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and consequently of the Adoration of the Host, that their, great Doctors are even forced to say, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance, Theodoret doth understand no substance, out only accidents, which are the opposite to substance. And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure; though in this very place, he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure, and consequently that he grants unto the Heretic, that Christ's humanity, is as to the substance and the nature of it, changed into the Deity, and that the accidents, form and figure of it only remain unchanged, that is, he grants. all that the Heretic asserts, and he endeavoured to refure.  
For thus the Heretic dispu●es, As the Symbols of the body and blood of Christ are other things before the invocation of the Priest; but after the invocation they are changed, and made other, so the body of Christ after the assumption is changed into the divine substance: and thus the Orthodox doth answer, thou art caught in thy own Net, for the mystical signs after Sanctification do not recede from their own natures.  
Again, the Orthodox puts this question, are not the mysteries. 
Ibid. vid. p. 57  the signs of the body which truly is, this being granted by the Heretic he makes this inference, If the divine mysteries do truly represent the body, than the body of our Lord now is, and is not changed into the Deity, but only filled with his Glory. When therefore is it affirmed by Theodoret, that this Sacrament is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a venerable Type. And that the Symbols are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Symbols which are Worshipped. This phrase can signify no more than this, That they are venerable Types and Symbols, such as deserve a reverence or honorary Worship from all Christians, which is a very common acceptation of the word; for thus Christian Temples are styled by the Ancients. 
a Concal. sub Menna act. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Venerable Temples, the Apostles Throat; 
b Epist. Leonis 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Venerable Throne, and Baptism; 
c Justinian Novil. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Venerable Baptism.  
The same uncenscionable dealing we meet with in that passage of St. Austin: for no Man eats Christ's flesh, 〈◊〉 be have si●s● adored; for in that very place he tells us, That 
* In ●●s●l, 98. p, 241. ●, G. H,  the Jews interpreted the eating of Christ's Flesh, like Fools for they interpreted it carnally, whereas Christ did instr●● his own Disciples, and say unto them, understand Spiritually what I say unto you, you shall not eat the Body which you see: and drink the Blood which they will shed that Crucify me; I have commended unto you a Sacrament, that Spiritually being understood, will quicken you So that St. Austin in this very place asserts the contradictory to what the Church of Rome believes touching the presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and calls them Fools that think Christ did intent what they imagine he hath said. Therefore it is manifest, that St. Austin in this place, speaks nothing of the adoration of Christ's Flesh under the accidents of Bread, but only of the adoration of his Flesh considered, as united to the Godhead. and placed at the Right Hand of God  
I astly, to that of Ambrose. 
De spir, Sa●cto l, 3. c. 12.  By the Footstool, is understood the Earth, and by the Earth the flesh of Christ. which we Adore in the mysteries at this day, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus. I answer, that he saith no more than this, that in these mysteries we Worship Christ, and consequently the flesh of Christ as being not divided from, him ●u, he doth not say that in adoring the mysteries we adore Christ, or that we do adore the mysteries which are Christ.  
1. Therefore let it be observed, that St. Ambrose doth not say that we adore Christ only in this mysteries: but in mysteriis, or in the Celebration of the Sacraments; which it was the custom of Antiquity to do because they held these mysteries to be instituted by him, to convey unto us those blessings he had purchased by his blood, and did conceive he 
* in Job, 9, 6.7.  Cyril words it, doth invisibly swim in the waters of Baptism. And therefore in the Celebration of that rite, they eal upon us as 
* Paulinus Epist. 4. Chrysost To. 6. in illud simile est regnum czlorum.  Captives to fall down before our King, and with hands lifted up to Heaven, to adore him, and mutually to exhort ourselves, and say, come let us Worship before the Lord who made us. And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that Element of Water to be transmuted into Christ's Body, and therefore Worshipped by the Christians of those times. Secondly, observe that Christ's Sacred Flesh being united to his Godhead, and adored with it, the Worship which at the celebration of those Mysteries was directed to him, as sitting in the Heavens, must be the Worship of his Flesh; and this assuredly must be the meaning of St. Ambrose, who in his exposition of these words, seek those things which are above, 
serm. 58.  etc. speaketh thus, we ought not now to seek our Saviour upon the Earth, or according to the Flesh, it we would find and touch him, but according to the Glory of his Divine Majesty that we may say with the Apostle Paul, but now we know not Christ according to the Flesh. And therefore Blessed Stephen by his Faith did not seek Christ upon the Earth, but did acknowledge him standing at the Right Hand of God, where, with the devotion of the mind he sought him. Now this no Protestant denies, that Christ, even in the celebration of the Eucharist, is to be Worshipped where he is, and where he is to be sought after by such as do desire to sinned him, (i.e.) at the right hand of God.   

CHAP. VI  
The Contents.  
Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature the Homage due to the Creator, we become guilty of Idolatry. Prop. 2. To know the secrets of the hearts of persons, praying at all times and in all places of the World, is a divine and incommunicated excellency. Prop. 3. That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature, to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart, and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose that knowledge, is Idolatry. Prop. 4. Those outward Acts of Worship, which by consent of Nations, or by common Use, do signify the honour due to the Creator, are Idolatrical, when given to a Creature. Corol. 1. That to offer Sacrifice, is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God. 2. That to vow to Angels or to Saints departed, is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. 3. Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible and not corporeally present Being, is the oblation of that Worship to it which is due to God alone. Objections Answered. 
§. 1.   
HAving thus endeavoured to confirm and justify the Judgement of the Church of England, touching the Worshipping of the Host: I now proceed to show the Equity and Justice of her Censure of the Roman practice, in reference unto the Invocation and Adoration of Holy Angels, and of Saints departed. And what we have to say in this particular, as the foundation of this Charge, shall be contained in these ensuing Propositions.  
Prop. 1. When we ascribe unto the Creature that honour and respect, or pay unto it that Love, Praise, Confidence and Homage, which is due only to the Great Creator, we become guilty of Idolatry: as is apparent, 1. From the evidence of Scripture; When Saul had knowingly transgressed the Command of God, Samuel thus represents the greatness of his sin. Rebellion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin of Magic; 
1 Sam. 15.23.  and to resist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double Idolatry, for both those words do signify Idola; and Teraphim is often used for Idolatry. 
Ponitur pro ipso cultu Idololatrico, sen ipsa Idololatria. Kircher. concord. p. 2307.  This then is the clear import of the words, He that doth contumaciously resist, and wilfully refuse to do what God particularly enjoins, is virtually guilty of the sin of Magic and Idolatry: for as by consulting the Magician, or using of that wicked Art, we do ascribe that knowledge of things had and future, to the Creature, which agrees to God alone; And as by worshipping of Idols, we put the Creature in the place of the Creator, and do impart his honour to the Idol; even so by this rebellion, and obstinate resistance of the will of Heaven, and by preferring of our wills before it, we virtually say, our wisdom ought to be preferred before his counsel, our pleasure ought to be esteemed above his will: and so we do advance ourselves into the place of God, and give unto ourselves that honour which is due to him alone, and do ascribe unto ourselves the highest wisdom. And this we have acknowledge by the learned Estius: They sin, saith he, 
In Sentent. l 3 distinct. 33. §. 5. p. 129  against his precept Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, who will not yield subjection to God, but contemn his precept or Authority; of which sin Samuel pronounceth thus: To Rebel is as the sin of witchcraft, and not to acquiess is as the wickedness of Idolatry.  
2. St. Paul expressly saith, 
Col. 3.5. Eph. 5.5.  That covetousness is Idolatry; and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) the covetous man is an Idolater: and of the glutton he pronounceth, That his belly is his God, 
Phil. 3.19.  not that they properly esteem it so, but that they chief are solicitous to make provisions for it, and direct all their care and study to that end. Id enim pro Deo habemus, cujus causâ omnia facimus (saith Grotius.) 
In locum.  And this is manifest from what the Romanists do comment on the first Commandment: For seeing by this precept (saith the learned Estius) we are commanded to acknowledge God is our hope and confidence, 
Loco citato.  they must by necessary consequence offend against 'tis precept, who do not place their (utmost) confidence in God, but in the flesh, (i. e.) in health or riches, strength or friends, or any temporal concern And since this precept doth enjoin us to love God with the highest love, he that by any act proceeding directly from the will, demonstrates an equal or a greater love unto himself, or any other creature, them he shows unto God, whom he standt bound to love and to prefer before all other things, he must offe●d against this precept and so be guilty of Idolatry, by having other Gods besides him  
3. The Prophet Habakkuk complains of some who sacrificed to their net, 
Hab. 1.16.  and burned incense to their drags, (i. e.) they ascribed all their victories to their own strength, saith Grotius: They attributed that to their own virtue, strength and industry, which should have been ascribed to God. So Vatablus, They attributed to themselves what properly belongs to God, viz. the good success of their affaris. This is the Comment of the Hebrews, saith the learned Drusius. And now by ascribing to themselves that properly belonged to God, they must be guilty of Idolatry, because they do ascribe that honour to the Creature which is due to the Creator only. And hence this sin is represented as the oblation of sacrifice and incense to a Creature, which is confessed to be Idolatry.  
And that these actions do partake of the true nature of Idolatry, we have confirmed both from the evidence of Scripture, the judgement of the learned Fathers, the voice of reason, and the confession of our Adversaries. For when our Saviour saith, 
Mat. 6.24.  that God and Mammon cannot both be served, because we cannot serve two Lords, he clearly intimates, that by solicitude for worldly things, they become Gods and Lords unto us, and so we violate the precept of not having other Gods besides him. The Fathers do expressly say the like: Let us not think, saith 
(a) Hom. 2. in Judic.  Origen, because we do not worship Images, that those things do not appertain to us, for that is God to any person which he prefers, admires, and loves beyond all other things. One makes his mammon, saith St. 
(b) In Rom. c. 3. Herald 6. p. 43.  Chrysostom, a second his lust, a third his belly, to be his God: I know thou dost not sacrifice thy Oxen to them, as the Gentiles do, but what is far more pestilent, thou offerest up thy soul unto them; thou dost not bend thy knee, nor worship them, but thou art more obedient to what thy belly and thy gold commands, than to the will of Heaven. Now even reason shows that love, hope, trust, obedience, are parts of that internal worship which we own to God in the most excellent degrees; and which he more regards than building Temples, and erecting Altars, than bending of the knee or body, or any other act of outward worship; and therefore in these acts doth more especially consist God's worship: And therefore he that doth confer them upon any Creature, must do what is more distasteful to him, than if those outward Ceremonies should be imparted to that Creature. The Scripture therefore doth esteem the covetous person to be a worshipper of Idols, because as Heathens place their confidence in Idols, even so the avaricious man doth place his confidence in gold and silver, which are the matter of the Idols; he chief doth pursue them, and for their sakes only doth other matters. And therefore what the Pagan doth unto his Idol, that doth the avaricious person to his glod, saith 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in Rom. c. 3. To. 6. p 43.  Chrysostom; and this we have confessed by 
(d) Forcasse rectius cum S. Thoma dixe●imus, id●irco avaritium vocari cultum Idolorum; quia sicut Paganus in Idolo, sic avarus in Idol materia, quae est au●um, & argentum, suam fiduciam collocat, ejusque gratia omme facit. Est. in loc.  Estius, Aquinas, and others of the Roman Church.  
Secondly, This Proposition may also be confirmed, (1.) From the definition of Idolatry; for if Idolatry consists in giving of that worship which is due to God, to that which is not God, by giving it to any Creature we must be guilty of idolatry, it being the most clear and most unquestionable truth that the most excellent Creature is not God. 2. Whatever doth import and signify the honour due to the Ceator, doth also signify that excellency which is only due unto him: We cannot then perform that act of honour which imports this excellency to the best of Creatures, but we must honour it as our Creator; nor can we honour it as our Creator, but we must worship it as God, and by so ding we must be guilty of what the Romanists confess to by paying honour to a Creature: But we can pay no greater honour to the most excellent of Creatures, than by ascribing to it that honour which is due to God alone: and therefore by ascribing of that honour to it, we must be guilty of idolatry: 4. By giving of that honour to God which doth import that excellence and perfection which agrees to God alone, we exercise that act of Worship which we call Latria; for since Dulia doth import only the worship proper to the Creature, it cannot signify that worship which is due to him whose dignity is infinitely greater than what the best of Creatures doth enjoy; if then we exercise that act of worship to the Creature we give Latria to it, and, in the judgement of our most rigid Adversaries, to give Latria to a Creature is to be guilty of Idolatry  
To know the secrets of the hearts of persons praying, 
Prop. 2. §. 2.  is a divine and uncommunicated excellency. This is apparent 1. from express Scripture testimony, 1 Kings 8.39. 2 Chron. 6.29, 30. What prayer or what supplication soever shall be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, when every one shall know his own sore, and his own grief, and shall spread forth his hands in this house: hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according to all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of the children of men: where first observe, That there it is asserted as a thing proper to God, not only that he knows the hearts of all men collectively taken, but distributively: (i. e.) that he alone doth know the heart of any man: for this is given as a reason why, when supplications are made by any man, God should render to him according to his ways, because he only knows his heart; (i. e.) he only knows the heart of any single person. 2. Observe this knowledge of the heart is thus appropriated to God in reference to whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man: Whence we infer, that whatsoever prayer and supplication shall be made by any man, God only knows the heart and the conceptions of the Supplicant; and therefore that this knowledge is not communicated to Saints or Angels. 3. Observe, that to affirm this knowledge is ascribed to God alone, because he only hath this knowledge from the perfection of his nature; whereas it is communicated to the Saints and Angels only by way of revelation, or by the vision of that God, who knoweth all things: Is 1. without all ground to limit what is universally pronounced in the case of prayer. 2. It we admit this limitation, to say God only knows the secret of the heart of him that prayeth, hath no more of truth, than if I should assert God only hath a being he only acts, he only knows that Christ is come into the world, because he only acts, and hath his being from himself; our beings and our power of action is derived from him, and by his revelation only we do know that Christ is come into the world. 3. We may on like accounts assert. That even when the general hath paid his Soldiers, he alone hath money, because what money and of his Soldiers have, was given by him; and that the Master only of the School of Westminster knows Greek and Latin, because his Scholars have derived that knowledge from him. 4. If we admit of such a limitation, than the exclusive term will not refer to what is spoken, but to that which is not mentioned; not to the predicate, viz. the knowledge of the hearts of men, which is expressed, but only to the manner of that knowledge of which the Text is wholly silent: Now this inter pretation gives such a forced and strained sense, as in a matter of this nature ought not to be admitted without the greatest evidence. Whereas the sense we plead for is the most plain and natural import of the words: For it is natural to conceive the sense of this expression should be this, thou, and no other, knowest the hearts of men, whereas if we do paraphrase it thus, that many myriads of Saints and Angels have this knowledge of the heart, but thou alone dost naturally know, what they receive from revelation; this Proposition, taken as it is expresed, viz. God only knows the hearts of men, will be both absolutely false and uncouth, and what is contradictory to it, viz. God only doth not know the hearts of them that pray, will be absolutely true.  
2. If such a knowledge of the heart was not an uncommunicated excellency, if it was only that which did agree to many thousands of blessed Saints and Angels, than could it be no proof of the divinity of Christ and of the holy Spirit, for what is answered to the Protestant by those who do ascribe this knowledge to the Saints in glory, might be with equal probability alleged to baffle and evade this evidence of Christ's divinity, which is so often and so triumphantly suggested by the holy Fathers: And hence it is confessed by the great 
(f) Quod argumentum nullum esset omnino, si non Dei proprium id foret cogitationes intimas & corda cognoscere. Theol. dogm. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. p. 39 §. 3.  Petavius, that if this knowledge were not proper to God, their argument would certainly be weak and groundless. And yet the Fathers in his Argument are so exceeding full and copious, that it were endless to collect what they deliver. Our Lord, saith 
(g) in Lucam. l. 5. c. 3.  Ambrose, demonstrateth himself to be God, by knowing of the secrets of the heart. Take (saith 
(h) Serm. 50.  Chrysologus) these indications of our Lord's divinity, hear how he penetrates the secret of thy heart, see how he dives into thy hidden thoughts. See, saith St. 
(i) p. 2. Com. in Joh. p. 144.  Cyril, how he is that God who is the 
(k) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril Alex. Com. in Joh. l. 2. p. 133. E.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. p. 144.   searcher of all hearts: For to none other is it given to know the mind of man, as is apparent from that passage of the Psalmist, God is the searcher of the heart and reins: for there the Psalmist mentions it as a peculiar thing which only doth agree to the Divine nature, and to nothing else: if it be proper unto God alone to know the secrets of the hart; then Christ, who was acquainted with them, doth very well deserve to be accounted God. So Novatian 
(l) De Trin. c. 13. p. 715. . In the like manner they are wont to argue and conclude the holy Spirit to be God, for if to know the secrets of men be a propriety of God, to search the hidden things of God, as doth the holy Ghost, must be a greater demonstration of his Majesty; so Paschasius. If we especially conceive him to be God who sees the secret thoughts of man, much more is he to be esteemed God, who searcheth what is hidden in the Father's breast: So 
(m) Hom. de Trin.  Eusebius Emissenus. 
(n) Quia nemo inferior superioris scrutatur interna, divinae enim solius est potestatis ecculta novisse, similiter ergo scrutatur Spiritus Sanctus ut Pater. Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 2. c. 12. f. 108. B. Col. 2. L.  It is recorded of God that he doth search the heart and reins, whence it is evident that in like manner this is performed by the holy Spirit, for no inferior doth search the hidden things of his superior: So Ambrose v. Petau. Theol. dogm. de Angelis, l. 1. c. 7. & de Trin. l. 2. c. 14. It would be endless to recite all that the Fathers have delivered to this effect; if then they taught as doth the present Church of Rome, and practised that invocation both of Saints and Angels, which doth apparently suppose them conscious to the requests and inward motions of the heart; is it not matter of the highest admiration, and a just reason to suspect the ingenuity or common prudence of such men, who did so often urge that as an instance of Divinity which they acknowledged to agree, and by their daily practice did ascribe unto the Creature: Wherefore we are constrained, in reverence to their great names and memories, to judge they never held this knowledge was communicated to Saints and Angels, nor practised that which doth suppose it: Which will be further evident if 3ly. we consider that they affirm without distinction or exception, that to perceive the secrets of the heart is a thing proper unto God alone: this by the concurrent judgement of the ●ather, being no more communicated to the Creature than was the knowledge of what was future and contingent. The Almighty Father only knows the hidden things (saith 
* Lib. 5. in Ezech. cap. 16. pag. 191. E. Mat. 6.4. Psal. 7.9. 1 Kings 8.29.  Jerome) alleging for the proof of this these Texts; Thy Father that seethe in secret, &c God searcheth the hearts and reins. And Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. It is the property of God alone (saith 
† In Matt. Hom. 29. p. 201, 202. Ed. Savil. Jer. 17.9. 1 Sam. 16.7.  Chrysostom) to know the secrets of the heart. For the proof of this, besides the passages now mentioned, he add that of Jeremiah, The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it. And that of Samuel, Man looketh on the out ward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. And of this, saith he, we have many evidences. This he again repeats Hom. 24. in Joban. and proves it from those words of Solomon, Thou only knowest the heart of man. 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Matt. Hom. 19 p. 134.  If thou dost thy good works in secret, wilt thou have no spectactor of what is done? (saith the same Author) yes, thou wilt have, not indeed Angels or Archangels (much less Saints and Martyrs) but God over all Hence was it held a signal honour done to God, and a great act of faith to pray in silence: 
(p) Qui in silentio orat, fidem defert, & confitetur quod Deus serutator card● & renis sit, & erationem tua●an. è lile audiat, quàm tuo ore fundatu●. Ambros. de. Sucram. l. 6. c. 4.  He that doth pray in silence, saith St. Ambrose, brings faith with him, and confesseth that God is the searcher of the heart and reins, and that he can hear his prayer before that it is uttered by his mouth. 
(q) Consideremus bened ct●●●eleslem Christi Sephia●, imprimis de praecepto secretè adorandi, quo & fidem hominis exigebat, ut Dei omnipotentis & conspectum & auditum sub t●ctis & in abdus etiam adess confideret, & m destum fidei desidera● it, ut quem u●ique audire & videre fideret ci soli religionem, saam off●●●●. Tert. de Orat. c. 1. §. 8.  Let consider, saith Tertullian, the heavenly wisdom of our Lord in his injunction to prany in secret, whereby he both requires the faith of man confiding that God omnipotent both hears and sees under our roofs, and in our secret places, and also that our faith be modest, so that we offer our Religion unto him alone, whom we are confident doth see and hear us every where.  
That to ascribe this knowledge to any Creature to whom God doth not thus discover the secrets of the heart: 
Prop. 3. §. 3.  and to pay that honour to it which doth suppose such knowledge, is Idolatry. This I make good, 1. From the confessions of our Adversaries, and from the Argument they use on like occasions. It is truly acknowledged by the Church of Rome. 
Catechism. Rom. part. 3. c. 1. § 7.  That Magic, Augury, and such like wicked Arts are sins forbidden by the first Commandment, and such as cannot be committed without gross Idolatry. Because, whoever doth expect or seek from evil Spirits, or any other Creature, what the Magician promiseth, by seeking, hoping, or expecting that from them which only ought to be expected from God, they act towards that Creature as if they thought it to be God: For instance; he that attempteth to foretell what is future and contingent, without a revelation from God, he doth unduly do it, 
2a 2ª q. 95. Art. 1.  saith the learned Silvius, for since the causes of such thing are undetermined, it is not possible we should attain to this knowledge of them from themselves, or from their causes, and whether we do speak of things contingent, or of the knowledge of the conceptions of the heart, it is certain God alone can know them, it being said, 
Isa. 41.23.  Thou only knowest the hearts of men; and again, Declare the things that are to come, that we may know that you are gods: he therefore that attempteth to foretell such things, we therefore say that he divineth, because after a sort he acts the God, usurping that which only doth belong to him. 2. From the two passages of Scripture cited by him, it is evident, That albeit God sometimes did reveal unto his Prophets the knowledge of things future, and of the secrets of the heart; yet is that knowledge to be esteemed the property of God, and a sure indication of divinity, and therefore to ascribe this knowledge to a Creature, God having not revealed it to him, is to ascribe divinity unto that Creature, and to be guilty of Idolatry.  
If it be said, the practice of the Church of Rome, however they by way of worship ascribe that knowledge to the Saints and Angels, which only doth agree to God, seems yet unduly to be charged with this crime, because they do profess this knowledge not to be inherent in them, but to be derived from God. I Answer, If this excuse may be admitted in this case, then must we free the Heathens, and many others from this crime, who always have been branded with it by the Church of God. For 1. The prayers and supplications which the Heathens made to their inferior Daemons, and the first fruits and offerings which they presented, to them, were only made upon this false presumption, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus apud Orig. l. 8. p. 399. Ed Spenc.  That God by them dispensed earthly things, and that he had appointed them to rule over a City or a Country, and 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Orig. adv. Celsuns, l. 8. p. 381.  that it was his pleasure that we should thus pray and offer to them; and yet both these first fruits and prayers were looked upon as pieces of Idolatry by Jews and Christians. The Nestorians held the Lord Christ to be a man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by grace invested with Divinity; and if any Arians did ever say that Christ was to be worshipped with divine worship, they must esteem this honour to be given to him, not from the dignity of his nature, but from the pleasure of the Father, but notwithstanding they allowed him to be Deus factus; they were most constantly condemned by the Church of Christ, as worshippers of men, and persons guilty of Idolatry. Thus also the Magicians pretended to derive their knowledge of what was hidden and contingent from God, and yet they also stand condemned by the Church of Christ, and by the Roman Doctors, as persons guilty of Idolatry. And 4. This excuse will say the imputation of falsehood and unjust impeachment on the holy Scriptures; for nothing is more frequent in those sacred Records, than to impute to persons what their action did import, however they performed that action upon such presumptions and vain imaginations, which if they had been true, must have excused them from the imputation. The Heathen constantly professed they did not worship stocks or stones, but that spiritual Being, which by their 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ditit Olympius Sophista Sozom. H. Ecc. l. 7. c. 15. v. Dion. Chrysust. S●rm. 12.  consecration they conceived to be present in their Images, or which those Images resembled and represented; and that prefession we have recorded by the 
† Hermes Aegyptius quem Trismegisium vocant— visibilia & contrectabilia simulachra velut corpora Decrum esse asserit. Inesse autem his quosdam spiritus invitatos, qui valequid, sive ad nocendum, sive ad desideria corum nonulla complenda, à quibus cis divint honores, & culius obsequia deferuntur. Hos ergo siritus invisibliles per a●●●n qua●da● vi●●●●bis re●●s corporalis materiae copulere, ut sin quasi animata illis spiritibus d●● ta & subdita simulachre; hoc esse d●ci De●s facere. Augustimde Crivi●. P. lib. 6. cap. 23. v. cap 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb praepar. l. 4. v. Arnch. l. 6. p. 195. Lactan l. 2. c 2. August. in Psal. 113. Conc 2.  Fathers: and yet both the holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers do represent them as worshippers of wood and stone, because they vainly did conceive a Spirit to be present, when only wood and stone were there. Moreover they conceived the objects of their worship to be the great Creator, or some good Spirit, which he had appointed to act as his Vicegerent in the world; and yet because those Spirits which they conceived to be the Ministers of God, were only Satan's instruments, and most pernicious Creatures, the Scripture represents them as worshippers of Devils. The Israelites did not conceive the very Image they had made to be the true Jehovah, (i. e.) they did not think, that gold thus form into the Image of a Calf, had really its seat in Heaven, and did from thence behold the dwellers upon earth; they did not really believe it was the great Creator of the World, and consequently that it made that very matter of which it was compounded, and that it performed all the wonders which their eyes had seen, before it had a being; they did not all conceive that man could at his pleasure make his Maker, or give a being to that God to whom he owes, and from whom he receives his being; and that they who were not able to preserve themselves, could make a being able to preserve the World, and to confer upon it whatever blessing could be wanting to future Ages. Nor did the Heathens, who are accused of the like crime in Scripture, entertain such foolish thoughts. This is a truth self-evident, and writ upon the hearts and consciences of all considering men: and had I no conviction of the Idolatry committed in the Church of Rome, but only this, that they are forced to excuse their practice from Idolatry, by laying such prodigious imputations not only on the 
* Perspicuum igitur ex Scripturis est (quicquid somniet insanum Calvini caput) Judaeos simulachra pro Diis habuisse. Greg. de Valentia.  Jews, but the whole 
† Mendacium est quod Gentiles ea Deos esse non put●rint. Bellarm. de Eccl. Triumph. l. 2. c. 13. s. 10. & rursus causarum quibus movebantur Ethnici ad credendum Idola esse Deos, prima est quia id eis dicebatur à Pontificibus suis, secunda, quia videbant totum ferè mundum is credere. Ihid.  Heathen World, and to assert, they did continue such incredible portentous Sots for very many Ages; this were abundantly sufficient to justify the Charge. For to impute to the whole World for many Ages, the belief of many things, the least of which no single person can imagine to be true, without a miracle of folly, is a triumphant demonstration that their case is desperate. For should any man be forced in defence of any Tenet to assert, that all the World did for some Ages past believe that twice two was six, or that every Ass they fed was the Creator of the World; I humbly conceive we should have reason to believe, he was some mad distempered person, and that only the badness of his cause, and his own obstinacy, and not the evidence of truth, constrained him to espouse a Tenet so reproachful to mankind. And yet this Tenet hath nothing more apparently repugnant to the sense and apprehensions of mankind, than that which is maintained by the Doctors of the Roman Church, viz. That all mankind did for two thousand years conceive, that was their Maker which they had newly made, and that at pleasure they could give a being to him, who hath his being from himself, and cannot possibly receive it from another. This therefore could not be the apprehension of the Jews and Heathens touching their Images and Calves; and yet I say, the Scripture doth expressly say, the Jews asked counsel of their stocks, 
Hos. 4.12. Jer. 2.27. Acts 7.41.  and said unto the stock, thou art my Father, and to a stone, thou hast brought me forth; and that they sacrificed unto the very Idolor Image of a Calf which they had made: and of the Heathens it affirms without distinction, 
Esa. 44.15, 17.  That they fell down and prayed to the very Image they had made; because the homage they performed to these Images, upon presumption of a Deity, presiding in them, (that being an absurd and false imagination) was really performed to stocks and stones: an therefore on the same account this knowledge of the heart of all, that in all places pray unto them, being ascribed to Saints and Angels, upon as vain presumptions of such a revelation which God vouchsafes not to them, must be deemed to be the same, as if they did conceive this knowledge to arise form the perfection of their natures, and upon that account did put up their petitions to them.  
Those outward acts of worship, 
Prop. 4. § 4.  which by consent of nations, or by common use and custom of mankind, do signify that honour they ascribe to God alone, and by the exercise of which they always did intent to give him the glory due unto his name, are to be reckoned acts of worship proper to God, and he that doth perform those acts of worship to a Creature, which by consent of nations have obtained to signify the worship due to the Creator, and which in such a place or country are only used to that intent, is by so doing an Idolater. For by doing of the same, which they conceive an act of worship proper to the Deity, he must be virtually conceived to will the same, and consequently to will the giving of that worship to the Creature, which alone is due to the Creator. For seeing all such actions have their import form custom and institution by whom soever they are exercised, and whatsoever private apprehensions he may have that worshippeth, they must be thought to signify according to that import which institution and custom gives them. If any man should use those words which naturally import, according to the common use and acceptation of the words, that hope and confidence, that love and duty which we own to God alone, whatever private sense or meaning he may put upon them in his inward thoughts, he must be deemed to ascribe unto that object, to which he useth such expressions, the honour due to God. For this being the immediate use of words to signify the thoughts and apprehensions of our hearts, he must be judged to use them in that sense which custom hath imposed upon them, because, they will not otherwise declare the apprehensions of the mind. Since therefore outward rites & ceremonies have their signification from the same original from which our words derive it, or else do naturally import as much, what reason can be given why the use of words, which do import God's Worship, should be thought to signify it; & yet the use of Rites should not be thought to do the same: And hence S. Augustine (saith Aquinas) gives this reason why we must nor sacrifice unto inferior Daemons (quia exterior a sacrificia ita signa sunt interiorum, 
2a 2a q. 96. Art. 2.  sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum) because exterior sacrifices are signs of the interior, even as words are signs & indications of the things they signify: now since all outward acts of Worship are also signs of the interior respect and veneration of the soul, and are performed to express the same, it follows that no act of outward Worship which doth by nature, custom, or institution, signify the honour due to God, can be assigned to any other, without ascribing to it that inward veneration which alone is due unto him: and if this were not so, those wiser heathens of whom St. 
* De. Civ. Dei, l. 6. c. 10.  Austin speaks, who understood that what the vulgar people worshipped were no Gods, and yet complied with the common practice, could not be guilty of Idolatry; and they who understood them to be cheats and devils, and yet for fear of punishment did offer sacrifice or incense to them, must be excused from that crime; because they did perform indeed the outward action, but not with an intent to pay the inward homage which was due to God; but only to comply with the opinion of the Vulgar, or to preserve themselves from the unhappy fate of Socrates; and yet St. Augustine doth pronounce those wise men guilty in an 
† Colebat quod reprehendebat, quod culpabat adorabat— ●o damnabilius quo illa quae mendaciter ogebat, sic ageret ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 6. c. 10.  higher nature than they were, who thought them to be Gods; and 
| 2a 2ª qu. 96. Art. 2.  Thomas gives this clear and pregnant reason why such a sentence should be passed upon them; viz. Because this outward Worship was a sign of the interior: As therefore he that doth affirm by words the contrary to what his heart conceiveth, must be esteemed guilty of a pernicious lie: So also he that doth exterior Worship to that which he conceiveth in his mind is no due object of that Worship, is guilty of the like pernicious falsity; which sure he could not be, if that exterior action did not import that inward Worship of which it is by institution and by common custom made the sign: and hence in Scripture, those actions which in their nature do not at all import religious Worship, yet being tendered to that object which by those actions was used to be worshipped as God; I say such actions are in Scripture mentioned as indications of Idolatry: (viz. to kiss the hand unto the Sun, to eat of what is sacrificed to false Gods, to feast and play before them, to bow the knee to Baal.) Moreover, to bow the body, or to use prostration to the wicked Haman, was that which Mordecai refused, and of this action he gives this account, 
Esth. 13.14.  Thou knowest Lord, that it was neither in contempt, nor pride, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I refused to worship Haman; but I did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God, nor will I worship any besides thee, O God. Sith then we find this outward worship was refused, as being due to God alone; we must confess that it was due unto him, either because God hath enjoined it should be given unto him alone, and then the Papists must confess they have God's precept and injunction against their prostrations made to Saints, or to the Images of Saints; or else because this practice was in those Persian Countries used as a testification of Divinity, which they ascribed to their Governors, and upon that account refused not only by the Jews but Greeks, as you may see at large in Barnaby Brissonius: 
De Regno Persico, l. 1. p. 8, 15.  and if this reason be allowed, it clearly follows, that all religious Rites which are in any Place or Nation used customarily, as testimonies of Divinity, cannot be used in that Place or Nation, to that which is not God, without Idolatry: hence those who sat at meat in Idols Temples, however they conceived the Idol to be nothing, and so intended no such thing, are said to drink the cup of Devils, 
1 Cor. 10.20, 21.  to be partakers of the Devil's table, and to have fellowship with Devils, because those actions were in those places used to signify the worship of those Heathen Gods which mostly were not Gods, but Devils. Lastly, should any person put the Crown upon a Subjects head, and the Sword into his hand, should he proclaim him King, and do whatever else was wont to signify, and to confer the Royal dignity; would not that person justly be esteemed guilty of Rebellion; and of ascribing to the Subject what was due only to the King? though he should frequently protest that by so doing he intended no such thing, but only to do honour to the King, by giving it unto his Subject; and that all this honour which he gave unto the Subject, was only Relative, and transient, and propter principem, or for the greater honour of that Prince whose Minister he was, whereas the honour conferred upon the King by the like actions, was absolute and terminated on himself. If all these subtleties and quirks of wit would not excuse this person from Rebellion, I fear they will as little justify the Papists in using of those Rites to Images, and Crucifixes, and paying their devotions to Saints and Angels in those expressions, which in the common acceptation of them, ascribe unto those Creatures the power of conferring what God alone can give. Now from this proposition do arise these Corollaries.  
That to offer Sacrifice, 
Corol 1. § 5. p. 389.  is to perform that Worship which is proper only to God: For T. G. truly doth aver, That Sacrifice is not only by the custom of the Church, but all mankind, appropriated to signify the absolute Worship due only to God, and this St. Austin did conceive to be the common apprehension of mankind. Hence he expressly saith, That no man certainly dares 
* Sacrifificium certè nullus est qui audeat dicere deberi nisi Domino soli— quis verò sacrificandum censuit nisi ei quem Deum, aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 10. c. 4.  say that Sacrifice belongs to any but to God alone, and puts this Question, Who ever thought that he should sacrifice to any person whom he did not know, or feign, or think to be God. And this is evident from Scripture, 
Ex. 22.20.  which doth expressly say, He that sacrificeth to the Gods, shall utterly be destroyed, except unto Jehovah, even unto him only. And therefore when Manoah would have detained the Angel with him, that he might prepare for him a Kid, 
Jud. 13.16  the Angel answered, If thou intendest to prepare a Sacrifice, it must be offered unto God. When the men of Lystra assayed to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, they rend their , and presently ran in among the people, crying out, that they were men; this being in the judgement of St. Paul and Barnabas, 
Act. 14.14  as well as of St. Austin, to perform the Worship proper to a Deity. But here T. G. assures us, 
P. 392.  That it is far from the hearts of Roman Catholics, when they speak of Sacrifice, as proper to God, to think that this is meant of external Sacrifice, as distinguished from prayer. Now here I cannot but admire at the gross ignorance of this Assertion, which doth abundantly discover, that T. G. neither knows what is the import of a Sacrifice, nor what the Church of Rome asserts concerning it. For Sacrifice doth neither in the nature of the thing, nor in the judgement of the Romish Church, include a prayer, that is by them asserted to be 
(a) In oblatione Sacrificii cujuscunque sacerdotis duo possut censiderari, sc. ipsum Sacrificium oblatum, & devotio offerentis. Aquinas 3. part. q. 22. Art. 4.  another kind of Worship, but Sacrifice as it denotes the outward action, is 
(b) Sacrificium est oblatio rei sensibilis— soli Deo facta per realem mutationem ad testandum supre mum illius Dominium & nostram subjectionem. Becan. Theol. Scholast. part. 3. c. 25. q. 2.  the oblation of something sensible, and this is that, say they, which is the 
(c) D●citur rei sensibilis, ut excludatur in●erna oblatio, quâ quis seipsum & sua omnia Deo subjicit 〈◊〉 offered, quod non est propriè Sacrificium. Ib. Dicitur quarto soli Deo facta, quia Sacrif●cium propriè pertinet ad cultum Latriae qui soli Deo exhiberi potest. Ib.  proper Sacrifice. But seeing this oblation doth also signify the inward consecration, or the oblation of ourselves to God, it therefore is to be esteemed, say they, a Worship due to God alone. And whereas T. G. tells us, 
p. 391. Ad oratione n●s●cundo ●●quiritur petitio.  That this oblation contains the highest act of prayer, it is apparent that it is no prayer, for it is no petition which yet is made the Genus, and put into the definition of a prayer, both by he 
(d) Aqui. 2a 2ae. qu. 84 Art. 17  Schoolmen and the Fathers: And I would gladly know what that man prays for, who only saith, Oh Lord, I offer up my soul and body to thy service. Sith therefore nothing more is requisite to the internal Sacifice, it is extremely evident that prayer is no necessary part or adjunct of it. Prayer may indeed be used with Sacrifice internal and external, and Sacrifice with prayer; but if that be sufficient to demonstrate that prayer is a part of Sacrifice, our Hoods, and Surplices must be a part of Common prayer, because we use them with it. Moreover it is evident, that when the Romanists assert that Sacrifice is proper to God, they mean as well the 
(e) I nagini non convenit cultus imernus verus Latriae, nec externus proprius, qualis est Sacrificium Bellar. l. 2. de Imaginibus, c. 24. Corporale Sacrificium ad Latriam pertinet. Alex. Halensis part. 4. de Orat. qu. 26. Art. 5. p. 704.  outward as the inward Sacrifice; for that Sacrifice which they confess to be Latria, is the oblation of somewhat sensible, of 
(f) Significat autem Sacrificium quod offertur exterius, interius spirituale Sacrificium, quo anima scipsam offert Deo— & ideo sicut soli Deo su●nmo debemus Sacrificium spirituale offer, ita etiam soli Deo debemus offerre exteriora Sacrificia. Aquin. 2a 2ae. qu. 89. Act. 2.  something that doth signify the inward Sacrifice, and suffereth a real change. Now all these things can only be asserted of the outward Sacrifice; that therefore in the judgement of the Roman Catholic is properly Latria, or that Worship which is due to God alone: Which I will further prove 1. 
Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 10. c. 19  From Aquinas and St. Austin, who do argue thus; the outward Sacrifice doth signify the inward and spiritual Sacrifice, and therefore seeing the inward and spiritual Sacrifice must be presented only to the highest God, the outward also must be offered only to him. 2. I ask if this external Sacrifice be not the worship proper to God, whether or no it be Idolatry to offer it to Saints and Angels, or to Heathen Emperors and Daemons: if it be not, why did the ancient Christians refuse to do it upon this account. Why was it always deemed Idolatry even to cast a little 
(g) Non est tan●um in eo servitus Idoli, si quis dumbus d●gieulis thura in bustum arae jaciat. Hieron. ep. ad Heliodorum.  Incense upon the Altar of an Heathen Deity? but if it be Idolatry to give this outward worship to a Creature; it must be only due to the Creator, as is apparent from what we have discoursed touching the nature and definition of Idolatry.  
To vow to Angels or to Saints departed, 
Corol. 2. §. 6.  is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. For before this Superstition of the Church of Rome obtained, whoever offered up a vow to an invisible Being, but he conceived or feigned it to be God? Wherefore this worship, when it began to be thus used by the Roman party, was by the common practice and consent of Nations made to signify the worship only due to God, and so their practice, who do ascribe this worship to the Saints departed, must be deemed Idolatry, because it is the giving of that worship to them which is due to God: and this in Thesi is confessed by the Roman Catholic: to 
(h) Vovere est propriè actus Latriae. Aquin. 2a 2ª q 88 Art. 5.  vow is to perform the worship of Latria, say the Schoolmen. They put God into the 
(i) Est igitur votum promissio deliberata boni cujuspiam melioris Deo facta; per hoc quod additum est Deo facta, distinguitur votum ● promissione quae fit homini. Estius in sent. l. 4. dist. 38. §. 1. p. 206.207.  definition of a Vow, and tell us that it is a 
(k) Votum est quaedam promissio Deo facta. ibid.  promise made to God; and that it 
(l) Votum soli Deo fit, sed promissio etiam potest fieri homini. id.  only differs from a promise made to man in this respect, that it is made to God. It is confessed by Bellarmine, that in the holy Scriptures we have no instance of a Vow that was not made to God alone. Aquinas 
* ibid.  proves a Vow to be the worship of Latria, because the Prophet 
† ch. 19.21.  Esa saith of the Egyptians, they shall do sacrifice and oblation, yea, they shall vow a Vow unto the Lord, and perform it; for to worship God, saith he (to wit, with Sacrifice and Oblation) is Latria, therefore to vow unto him must be so: and this concession of our Adversaries, may farther be confirmed by Reason and Authority. For we do virtually ascribe unto those persons to whom our Vows are made, the knowledge of those Vows, and of the disposition of the heart whence they proceed; for otherwise we must suppose them equally inclined to assist the hypocritical and the sincerest Votary; and if we do suppose them ignorant of what we vow, our worship must be vain and fruitless: now hence it follows that we must pay this worship to him only who understandeth what we vow, and is acquainted with the inward motions of the soul, which only God, who is the searcher of the heart, doth know. Besides, the Romanist doth often vow that his 
(m) I humbly beg of thee, oh Mother of all Clemency, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to admit me into the number of those who have devoted themselves to thee, to be thy perpetual servants. Reflect. on the Devotion of the Romish Church, p. 420.  whole life shall be devoted to the blessed Virgin, or some other Saint. Now in the judgement of St. Austin, thus to 
(n)  sacra faciemus & sacrificemus vel aliqua nostra, sive nos ipsos religionis ritubus consecremus, hic est Divinitati, vel si expressuis dicendum est Deitati debitus cultus. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 10. c. 1.  consecrate ourselves by a religious rite to any thing, is to perform unto it the worship proper to a Deity.  
Prayer offered and put up in any time and place to an invisible, 
Cor. 3. §. 7.  and not corporeally present being, is the oblation of that worship to it which is due to God. For this, before the Superstition of the Romish Church prevailed, was always used as an indication of Divinity, and a thing proper to the Deity. Thus Dio tells us that Caligula was worshipped as a God, because they offered to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prayers and supplications. The consecration of an Image was deemed by some Heathens, to fix within it some invisible and powerful being, and then by supplication to the consecrated Image it was made a God, according unto that of Martial: 
Qui fingit sacros auro, vel marmore vultus  
Non facit ille Deos, 
L. 8. Ep. 24  qui Rogat ille facit.  
'Tis not the carved Gold, or Marble stone  
That makes the God, but Supplication.   
It is adorned. saith 
* Ecce ornatur consecratur oratur tum postremo Deus est. p. 26. Luk. 11.2.  Minutius, and consecrated, and lastly it is prayed unto, and then it is a God: This may be farther proved from Scripture, Reason, and Authority: From Scripture thus; He only ought to be the object of our Prayer who is our Heavenly Father; for thus the Precept runs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when, or as often as you pray, say, Our Father, etc. which Precept must not be supposed to enjoin all Christians to use these words whensoever they do pray, for we do never find in any of the prayers which the Apostles made, that they did so; it therefore doth enjoin us when we pray for any thing which in this Prayer is mentioned or contained, to pray unto our heavenly Father for it. 2. Obs. This form of Prayer must be supposed to contain all things which are the matter of a true and grateful Prayer, according unto that of Austin 
† Dicendum quod oratio Dominica perfectissima est, quia sicut Angustinus dicit ad Probum, si rectè & congruenenter oramus nihil aliud dicere possumus quam quod in ista oratione Dominica positum est. Aquinas 2a 2a q. 83. Art. 8. Ep. 121. c. 12. , Run through all the words of holy Prayers, and you will be able to find nothing which is not included in the Lord's Prayer: in this both Protestants and Roman Catholics agree. Hence therefore I assume, if when we pray for any thing contained in this Prayer, we are enjoined to pray to God, than all our acceptable Prayers must be directed to him, and whensoever we do pray for any blessing, we must call upon him: besides, Our Father doth belong to every Petition, no other person being mentioned in this Prayer; so that the sense runs thus, Our Father, etc. let thy Kingdom come. Our Father, let thy will be done, etc. And then the import of this injunction will be this, when you pray for the advancement of God's Glory, or the promotion of his Kingdom, or the performance of his Will; when you solicit for any Temporal blessing, or for the pardon of your Sin; or lastly, for the prevention of any Evil, or Temptation of what kind soever; when you desire any of these mercies for yourselves or others, pray to your Heavenly Father for them. 3. None of these blessings must be asked of him to whom the Kingdom, Power, and Glory doth not of right belong. For this is added as the cause or motive of making these addresses to God, and where the motive or cause is wanting, the effect must cease: Now to God only the Kingdom, Power, and Glory doth agree, Judas 25. We therefore must address our Prayers to him only for the obtaining of these blessings: And lest you should object that this Argument excludes the third and second persons of the Sacred Trinity; let it be noted that all the Schoolmen do affirm, That the word Father in this Prayer must not be taken personally, but essentially, and so excludeth not the other Persons of the Trinity, but those things only which have not the same nature with them. 2. Prayer offered up in any time or place to an invisible, and for any thing we know, a Being absent from us as far as Earth from Heaven, doth ascribe unto that Being the knowledge of the secrets of the heart: now to worship any Being, whether Saint or Angel, with such a kind of worship which doth ascribe unto it the knowledge of the desires and secrets of the heart, both where and whensoever they are conceived or uttered, is to ascribe unto them by way, of worship what is not due to Saints or Angels, but alone to God, as hath been proved already, and may be further thus confirmed. (1.) If Saints departed were acquainted with the desires of our hearts, why did Elijah speak unto Elisha thus, 
2 Kings 2.9.  Ask what thou wilt before I am taken from thee? The Scripture doth affirm that he was taken up into the Heavens, and therefore did behold the face of God. And Roman Catholics themselves deny that he was held in Limbo, as they imagine other Prophets were: being in Heaven, his love unto Elisha and the Church of God was not diminished, but enlarged, and therefore upon that account he had a stronger reason to ask what he desired then before. Besides, the Prophet being now with God in Heaven, his Prayers would more effectually prevail for any Blessing for his Friend: and therefore he had greater reason to have said, had he believed this Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Ask what thou wilt when I am taken from thee. And therefore we have reason to presume, that he did not believe this Doctrine, but rather thought that his departure would render all Elijah's future wishes and add resses to him vain and ineffectual. (2.) From that known passage of Isaiah, Abraham nescivit nos, & Israel ignoravit nos. St. Augustine thus concludes 
(o) Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum ex his procreatum ageretur ignoraverunt, quibus Deo credentibus populus ipse ex corum stirpe promissus est, quomodo mortui suorum rebus atque actubus cognoscendis adjuvandisque miscentur?— ibi ergo sunt spiritus defunctorum, ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eveniunt in ista vita hominibus. De curâ pro mortuis. c. 13. , If such great Patriarches were ignorant of what was done towards the people that proceeded from their Loins, how should the dead be conversant in knowing or helping of their friends in what they do? There therefore are the Spirits of dead persons where they do not see what things are done or happen to men in this life.  
2. I reason thus, this practice doth ascribe unto the objects of our Prayer such knowledge of the heart, and such a cognisance of all petitions presented to them at all times, and in all places of the world, which we have proved to agree to God alone, or such a presence in all places which is proper to him, and therefore it ascribeth to them the honour due to God alone. 2. If Saints departed do know the minds and inward thoughts of those who put up their petitions to them, they have this knowledge either from Revelation, or from the beatific Vision; but they have no such knowledge either from Revelation, or from the Beatific Vision. Ergo. And  
1. God doth not ordinarily reveal unto them the knowledge of the hearts of their petitioners: For if they do not want this Revelation, God, who doth nothing vainly, must not be supposed to impart it. But these blessed Spirits do not want it; for did they need this Revelation to perceive our minds (saith Bellarmine) the Church would not so confidently say to all the Saints, 
Votis precamur, cordium audite preces supplicum, Brev. in Com. Apost. p. 2.  pray for me, (much less we offer to you the desires of our hearts) but sometimes would desire God, thus to reveal our prayers, and to acquaint them with the desires of our hearts.  
2. If God thus reveal the Prayers of the Petitioner to the deceased Saints, what reason can be given (saith the forementioned Author) why all the holy Patriarches and Prophets were not invoked by the Church of Israel before our Saviour's advent? and he had reason to make this enquiry. For (1.) It is as easy to Almighty God to make this Revelation to the souls in Limbo (that Papal prison of the Ancient Patriarches and holy Prophets) as to the souls in Heaven, nor have we one example or declaration, that what God is supposed now to do, he was not willing to do then. (2.) Certain it is, the charity of those departed Patriarches and Prophets towards their relatives and friends, and the whole Church of God, must be exceedingly advanced by their change, they must be more the friends of God, and their petitions must be more prevailing, then whilst they did continue in the flesh: Wherefore the Jews had as good reason to invoke these Patriarches and Prophets, as hath the Romanist to call upon the Christian Martyrs. And God had equal reason to declare this was the duty of the Jew, and to reveal their Supplications to the Patriarches, as to declare this was the duty of the Christian, and to reveal their Supplications to departed Christians. (3.) What a ridiculous office do they impose upon the God of Heaven by this fond opinion? for when they pray to Apollonia for the toothache. God must not only tell her that such a person supplicates, but also that his teeth do ache, and therefore he particularly imploreth her assistance, when they address themselves to any Saint in this odd language, 
* Cum ad Imaginem Sancti alicujus quis Dominicam orationem pronuntiat, ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere, ut secum oret sibique postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur. Catech. Rom. part 4 c. 6. s. 4. p. 586.  Our Father which art in heaven, etc. which they familiarly do, as is acknowledged by the Roman Catechism. God must inform this Saint both of the person praying, and his prayer, and his intention by so doing, to oblige him to use those words in his behalf. 
† O praeco accelera piae matri● praecare viscera. Propr. Fest. F. 2.  When they desire any Saint or Angel to go unto the Blessed Virgin, this Saint must be informed first of the matter of the Prayer, then must he post unto the blessed Virgin, and she must go unto her Son, and he unto his Father to present that request which he revealed. And are not these men very bold with God, to put such offices upon him, and make him Nuntio to all his Creatures?  
2. The Saints departed do not know the hearts and the petitions of their Supplicants, by virtue of the beatific Vision. This vain presumption depends on this, that seeing God, they must in him behold those things which in Idea are contained in him, or which his knowledge doth perceive, and so the refutation of this dream will be sufficient confutation of it. And (1.) That which the holy Spirit only knows, these blessed Spirits do not know; but the things of God (i.e. his purposes and counsels, etc.) knoweth no man but the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.11. Ergo. If then the blessed Spirits, notwithstanding the beatific Vision, do not see the mind and counsel of God without his revelation, why should we think that by beholding of God, they also do behold the supplications we put up unto them? 
De vita Contemp. l. 5. c. 4.  Those words of Prosper, That nothing is so secret, as that the knowledge of it should be denied to the perfectly blessed: And that of Gregory, 
L. 12. Moral. c. 13.  That they who see that God who seethe all things, must themselves see all things. I say, those words do as much prove that blessed Spirits do know the secrets of God's counsel, as that they see the supplications we put up unto them. To strengthen and confirm this Argument, let us consider, (1.) That the Fathers do from this place conclude the holy Spirit to be God, because he is the searcher of the things of God; which Argument would be invalid, if this could truly be asserted of the blessed Spirits. 2. 
1 Cor. 2.12  Observe that the Apostle argues thus, That as no man knows the secrets of the heart of man, besides the Spirit of man within him, so none can know the secrets of the God of Heaven, but the Spirit of God. Now if the blessed Spirits do know the secrets of the heart of man, the Argument would be invalid; for the Romanist might give the baffle to St. Paul, and tell him, That as the secrets of the heart of man are known not only to the Spirit of man, but also to myriads of blessed Saints and Angels, so may the secrets of God be known not only to the holy Spirit, but to many others. 2. The Scripture doth assure us, That those blessed Angels which always did behold the face of God, had not the knowledge of those things which are revealed to us by the Gospel; and that the curious Wisdom which contrived that dispensation, was made known unto them by the Church: 
Eph. 3.10. 1 Pet. 1.12  and therefore Peter represents them, as stooping down to view this new discovery; which is a signal indication of the falsehood of this fond conceit. That blessed Spirits seeing him who knoweth all things, must have the knowledge of those things he sees, and therefore of the prayers that are put up unto him, they being seen and known to God. (3.) That we may pray in faith, we must be certain that the blessed Spirits are acquainted with the desires of our hearts; for he that doth command us to pray in faith, and without doubting, cannot be wanting to give us certain motives of this faith: and therefore God, who never is deficient in what is necessary, would certainly have given both to Jews and Christians sufficient revelation of his will in this particular, had he intended that they should pay this homage to the Saints departed; whereas we have no certain evidence, that they enjoy this knowledge, either from Revelation, or from Vision. And (1.) We are not certain that they behold our supplications in the beatific Vision; for many of the Church of Rome do hold the contrary, and it is free for all her members so to do, and so this matter cannot be held as any Article of faith, or certain definition of the Church. 2. It is not certain that these blessed Spirits by virtue of this Vision do behold what is contingent, for this is generally denied by the Romish Doctors, and yet these things are seen of God as clearly as are the secrets of the heart. (2.) We cannot possibly be certain that God doth reveal them; for we cannot certainly conclude it from his Attributes, nor have we any certain revelation that he doth reveal our minds and thoughts unto them: for if we can certainly conclude it from his Attributes, than God would not be God, did he not thus reveal our supplications to the Saints departed. And Secondly, Then to deny this Revelation, would be to sin against the light of nature; and then not only Protestants, but the prevailing part of Roman Catholics, must sin against the light of nature, by holding they obtain this knowledge, not by Revelation, but from the Vision of that God who knoweth all things: but if by virtue of some Revelation, we are assured that our petitions are revealed to the Saints, why do they not produce it? Why doth T. G. confess, that Austin and others of the ancient Fathers, were uncertain what to determine in this case? Why do the greater part of Roman Catholics deny what they have certain Revelation for? 3. Where is this Revelation to be found? In Scripture? No, they confess that this is wholly silent in this matter, and give us many Reasons why it was not mentioned in holy Writ. Have we this Revelation from Tradition? Why then do the prevailing part of Roman Catholics reject it? Sith than we have no certainty of what this practice doth suppose, either from Revelation, or from the beatific Vision, we must be guilty of Idolatry, by our compliance with this practice.  
3. That this is the concurrent judgement of the Fathers, and that they judged all supplications to invisible and absent Being's to attribute God's Worship to them, may be evinced from two Considerations: 1. That they looked upon it not only as a Sacrifice, but as the best and greatest Sacrifice. By prayer we honour God, saith Clemens, 
Strom. l. 7. p. 717. A. Apol. c. 30. p. 27. B.  and send up to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the best and the most holy Sacrifice: I offer to him a fatter and a better Sacrifice than he himself enjoined, viz. Prayer issuing from a chaste body. an unspotted soul, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, so Tertullian. And this is verily St. Austin's judgement, in that place which Dr. Stillingfleet had cited to this effect, and all the tragedies and outcries of T. G. against him upon this occasion, are the most false and impudent that ever dropped from Pen: To make this clear, it will be needful only to lay before the Reader Austin's words, viz. 
D● C. D. l. 10. c. 19  Qui autem putant haec visibilia Sacrificia Diis aliis congruere, illi vero tanquam invisibili invisibilia, & majori majora, meliorique meliora, qualia sunt p●ra mentis & bona voluntatis officia, profecto nesciunt haec ita esse signa illorum, sicut verba signantia vel sonantia sunt rerum, quocirca sicut orantes atque landantes ad cum dirigimus significantes voces cun res ipsas in cord quas significamus offerimus, it a sacrificantes non alteri visibile Sacrificium offerendum esse noverimus, quam illi, cujus invisibile Sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus: i.e. They that conceive these visible Sacrifices may agree to lesser Gods, but that to him who is invisible, the greater and the better God, invisible, greater and better Sacrifices do agree, viz. the duties of a pure mind, and a good will; these persons know not that these (outward Sacrifices) are the signs of them, (viz. of the invisible, the greater and the better Sacrifices) as our words spoken are the signs of things; as therefore when we pray or we give thanks, we direct our speech to him, N. B. to whom we offer the conceptions of the heart they signify; so when we sacrifice, we know the outward Sacrifice ought to be offered unto him alone, to whom we ought to yield ourselves a Sacrifice in visible. Where 1. Doth not St. Austin say, That the invisible Sacrifices are greater and better than the outward Sacrifice; for what is it illorum can refer to, besides majorum and meliorum? Doth not he say, The duties of a pure mind and a good will are to be deemed invisible and better Sacrifices? And is not Prayer the duty of a pure mind and a good will? And must he not then say, that Prayer is a greater and a better offering than any outward Sacrifice? And 2. To put the matter beyond all dispute, 
Qui ergo Divinitatem sibi arrogant Spiritus, non cujuslibet corporis fumo, sed supplicantis animo delectantu●.  doth not St. Austin add, That these inferior Spirits who usurp Divinity require Sacrifices, not that they are delighted with the smoke and vapour, but with the mind of him that prayeth? clearly concluding that to be the better and the higher service. Doth not he intimate that they usurp Divinity more by requiring Prayer than Sacrifice? And lastly, Doth not he affirm, That they who offer outward Sacrifice to him alone, to whom their inward aught to be appropriated, do also when (i.e. as often as) they pray or render thanks, direct their words (not to a Saint or Angel but) to him to whom they offer the things conceived in the heart? Which doth not only prove, That Prayer was by him likened to Sacrifice; and that mental Prayer which the Trent Council will not permit us to deny to Saints, is an invisible and higher Worship than the outward Sacrifice, but also that the Christians of his time did pray and render thanks to God alone, for else it had been obvious to reply to the similitude St. Austin gives us, That as we sometimes offer up our prayers and our thanksgivings to the Saints departed, so might we offer up the outward Sacrifice. And this will be sufficient to demonstrace, That T. G. in his whole Answer to this place, hath not one word of truth. For 1. 
p. 391.  It is a false suggestion, that Auctin's Argument runs thus, That external Sacrifice being the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer. aught of all others to be reserved, as most proper to God. For his Argument is clearly this, To him only do belong the signs to whom belongeth what is represented by them, and therefore seeing we must offer up ourselves to God alone, that outward Sacrifice which is the sign of this oblation, must be appropriated to him. That outward Sacrifice is the highest expression of the highest part of Prayer, St. Austin doth not say. 2. It is a false insinuation, that when St. Austin doth deny, that Sacrifice is due to any other but the highest God, he doth not speak of Sacrifice distinguished from Prayer, for he styles it Sacrificium visibile; he doth oppose it to the duties of a pure mind, as the less unto the greater; he represents it as the sign of the invisible; and therefore it is plain stupidity to think, he did not speak of the external Sacrifice, as different from the internal, or distinguished from it. 3. It is prodigiously false that Dr. St sides with the 
* Dr. St. is forced to maintain an Argument of the Heathens against Austin. T. G. p. 390. Do you not think the Dr. used the utmost of his confidence to maintain for very good an Argument of the Heathens confuted by St. Austin in this very place. The Heathen, saith Dr. St. argued very well, I deny it, saith St. Austin. T. G. p. 390.  Heathens against Austin for what the Dr. pleads for; viz. That Prayer was to be deemed an higher act of worship, than the outward Sacrifice, St. Austin doth expressly grant. 4 It is as false that Austin doth confute what Dr. St. approved, for Austin only doth confute this Tenet, That outward Sacrifice might be imparted to inferior Spirits. That which the Doctor doth approve, is this, That in all reason the duty of Prayer ought to be reserved as more proper to God than any external Sacrifice. And lastly, it is false that Austin doth deny what Dr. St. asserted, for he abundantly confirms it; but it is no wonder that persons given up by Gods just judgement to believe a lie, should be so prone to tell them.  
2. The Fathers, when they lay down the definition or description of Prayer, they always do it with express reference to God, whence we may rationally conclude, that they conceived this act of Worship did properly belong to him: Prayer, saith St. Clemens, is a conversing with God: 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bosil. Tom. 1. Orat. in Jusiti. Martyr. p. 318.  Prayer is a request of some good thing which is made by pious men to God, saith Basil. whence elsewhere he asserts, that Prayer is not directed unto man, but God. 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyss. de Orat. Dom. or. 2. p. 724. D. Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 30.  Prayer is a conference with God, saith Nyssen, and a request of good things which is offered with supplication unto God. Prayer is a Colloquy with God, and every one that prays, discourseth with God; so St. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Tom. 4. p. 139.  chrysostom: Hence on that expression of St. Paul, with all that call upon the name of the Lord, he notes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that St. Paul doth not say, that call on this or that, i.e. of any thing but Christ; and on these words, Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, he comments thus; i.e. do all things, praying unto him for help; and before all thy business, making thy supplication to him: or he saith thus; say and do all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to. or according to God, and introduce not Angels. But T. G. hath some Arguments to prove that Saints and Angels have the knowledge of our hearts and actions; viz.  
It is said Luke 15.7. 
Object. T. G. p. 419.  There shall be joy in Heaven; and v. 10. There shall be joy before the Angels of God, upon one sinner that doth penance. And the Saints in Heaven no doubt rejoice as much at the conversion of a sinner, as the Angels do.  
Not only the Angels of God, 
Answ. White against Fisher. p. 315.  but holy men on earth rejoice at the conversion of a sinner, Luke 15.24. 2 Cor. 7.9. Likewise Parents, Ministers, and Friends rejoice, etc. And yet it followeth not from hence, that holy men on earth, which rejoice at the conversion of a sinner, see the secrets of the heart, 1 Cor. 2.11. So likewise Angels, which are ministering Spirits, Hebr. 1 14. may understand by the signs and fruits of true repentance, the conversion of divers sinners, and consequently, they may rejoice, without intuitive knowledge of the heart.  
2. Our Saviour's words, Luke 15.10. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the conclusion of a parable, which must not be strained beyond the true scope. But according to the exposition of sundry 
† Anbr●s. l. 7. in Lucam. Hilar. in Matth. 18 Isid●r. lib. Alleg. Chrysol. Serm. 168.  Fathers, and some learned 
‖ Cojet. & Titus Bostrensis in locum.  Papists: The hundred sheep, v. 4. represent the whole body of the Elect, consisting of Men and Angels: the ninety and nine sheep, not lost, were the Angels, persisting in their prime integrity: The stray sheep, all mankind sinning in Adam. To recover this lost sheep, the Son of God (that good Shepherd, Jo. 10.11.) was incarnate, and by the gracious work of Redemption, he laid the same on his shoulder. Now there is great joy in Heaven before the celestial Angels, for this recovery and salvation of mankind. So that no more can be inferred from this parable, but that the Court of Heaven, and in the same the holy Angels rejoice, because of man's Redemption.  
3. When it is said that there is joy in Heaven, we may expound it, as Dr. Hammond doth, not of the joy of Angels, but of God: and had we no reason to confirm this sense, it is sufficient to destroy the force of what T. G. doth hence conclude from this citation, that it may fairly be expounded in that sense which rendereth it impertinent to his design: but since it is not said to be the joy of Angels, but that joy which is expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i.e.) before the holy Angels; this doth sufficiently demonstrate that it is the joy of him, before whose face they stand continually. Moreover, it is confessedly God, who is compared to the Shepherd, and to the Woman seeking the lost Groat; And therefore the similitude requires that the joy conceived, when the lost Sheep and Groat is found, should be ascribed to him.  
Whereas our Savour himself saith, 
Object. T. G. ib.  That the just in the Resurrection shall be as the Angels in Heaven, Matth. 22.30. (the equality as to knowledge, not depending upon the body) it follows by the Analogy of Faith that our prayers and concerns are known also to the Saints, now enjoying the same blissful Vision with the Angels.  
Christ doth not only say, 
Answ.  That the Spirits of just persons shall be like the Angels, but he expresseth wherein they shall be so, to wit, 1. In freedom from secular actions and passions. 2. Inglorious Adoption, or real Possession of all the privileges of the Sons of God We cannot therefore hence infer a parity of qualities and operations betwixt the Angels and the Spirits of just men, but only a similitude of state and privileges, as 
* Verum haec authoritas (ut ingemiè fatear) solum aequat homines Angelis in hoc. quod nullum mutrimonti usum ha●ebunt, si●●t nec Angeli; non tamen ibidem facit pare● quantum ad facialem visionem Det. Alph. de Castr. l. 3. c. Haer. v. Beat. v. Jansen. Harm. Evang. c. 117.  Papists do themselves confess. 2. Christ doth not 
† In illa requie positus, ceitè securus expectas judicii diem, quando reeipias & co. ●us, quande immuteris ut angelo aequaeris. Aust. in Ps 36. f 61.  say, The Spirits of just men are as the Angels now, but that at the Resurrection they shall be so. 
White, p. 380.  Now I admire, what Papists can extort from hence for invocation of Saints; for there is no connexion between this Antecedent and Consequent, to wit, just men at the Resurrection shall live as Angels, remote from all the necessities of a worldly life, and they shall be as the Angels of God, free from material and corporeal passions, and equal to the Angels in fruition of blessedness: Ergo, The knowledge of our prayers which we make in this life, is not to be denied unto glorious Saints, the fellows of Angels.  
The smoke of the Incenses of the Prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God, Apoc 8.4. Ergo, 
Object. ibid.  Our prayers and actions are not unknown to the Angels.  
1. This place of St. John proveth not, 
Answ. White, p. 314.  either clearly or obscurely, That holy Angels hear the Prayers, or see the actions and affections of men. For the Angel mentioned, is expounded by the ancient Expositors, and by the Romanists themselves, not of an Angel by Nature, but of an Angel by Office; and by some of them, of an Angel by Type. 
* In locum.  Albertus' in his Commentary. St. John, saith, Another Angel, that is Christ, who is the Angel of the Covenant, Esay 9 Dionysius Carthusianus, 
(a) Doctores Cae●belici— per Angelum isium intelligunt Christum, qui magni consilii Angelus, & per incarnationis mysterium venit in mundum stetitqae ante Altar, id est, in conspectu Ecclesia. Dionys. Carthus. in Apoc. 8.  Catholic Doctors, etc. by this Angel understand Christ, who is the Angel of the great Counsel, and which by the mystery of his incarnation, came into the world, and stood upon the Altar of the Cross. Blasius 
(b) Nec vero rectè. quidam è recentioribus argumentantur Angelum istum Christum esse non posse, quod Christus nunquam Angelus absolute dicitur: satis enim est ut ex consequentibus facile intelligi potest Christum esse, quae nifi Christ alteri aptè accommodari non possunt, Cujus enim alterius est universae Ecclesiae incensa, hoc est orationes in Thuribulo aurto tanta Majestatis specie patri offer? Cujus praeterquam Christi fuit de igne quo Thuribulum aureum eaat impletum, partem in terras misisse, easque divini amoris igne inflammasse, etc. Apuaret autem Christus sacerdotis personam gerens ut ejus pro nobis apud patrem intercessio atque interpellatio monstretur. Vieg. in Apoc. 8. Sec. 2.  Viegas, a Jesuit, We may easily perceive, that this Angel is Christ, because the thing here spoken of him, can agree to no other but Christ: for who but he, can with so great Majesty offer up to God the incense, that is, the Prayers of the Universal Church? who besides him, is able out of the perfuming pann, to send down into the Earth the fiery Coals of Divine Charity, and to inflame People with the burning Graces of the holy Spirit? With these agree 
(c) Ambros. super Apoc. Vis. 3. Cap. 8.  Ambrose, 
(d) Primas. in Apoc. 8. Biblioth. Sanct. Colon. to. 9 p. 2.  Primasius, 
(e) Ansbert. in Apoc. 8. Bibl. Sanct. Col. to. 9 p. 393.  Authertus, 
(f) Bed. 5. super Apoc. lib. 2.  Beda, 
(g) Haimo, in Apoc. 8.  Haimo, 
(h) Hugo Card.  Hugo Cardinalis, and the Glosses 
(i) Glossae totum legunt hoc de Christ. . But if it were granted, that this Angel were a created, or ministering Spirit, it cannot be proved that Angels understand the secret cogitations of man's heart any farther than the same are manifested by signs, neither is it consequent, that people ought to pray unto them, for Priests offer up the Prayers of the Church to God, and yet no man doth therefore invocate Priests.  
It is recorded of the Saints enjoying the same blissful vision with the Angels, 
Object. ibid.  that they had golden Vials full of odours, which are the Prayers of Saints, that is, of the faithful upon earth.  
1. 
Answ.  The Reverend Dr. Hammond, and many other Expositors, Ancient and Modern, tell us that the four and twenty Elders are not the Members of the Church triumphant. as T. G. without proof asserts; but the Bishops and the Elders of the Church militant. whose office it is to present the Prayers and Praises of the Church to God. Here it is more plainly declared, saith Beda, that the Beasts and the Elders are the Church, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and gathered from the Nations; also he showeth in what Heaven they are, saying, they shall reign upon earth. So Ambrose on the Apcalyps, and Haimo.  
2. Vossius will tell you, That here is nothing intended, but Eucharistal Prayers not Petitory; and that the four and twenty Elders only intimate, that the whole Family of Christians in Earth and Heaven, did render continual Doxologies to God for the Redemption of the world by his Son.  
The Psalmist saith, I will sing unto thee in the sight or presence of the Angels, Psal. 137.2. 
Object. p. 418.  The Angel of the Lord said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, against which thou hast had Indignation these threescore and ten years. And Michael is a great Prince which standeth for the Children of God's people: Ergo, The Angels know the secrets of the heart, and are acquainted with the Prayers that men in any place put up unto them.  
To these Objections I answer Ha', Ha', He: 
Answ. Valentianus.  Fieri ne potest ut homo qui sic ratiocinatur homo sit. The Psalmist also saith, I will pay my vows in the presence of thy people: Ergo, All God's people knew the secrets of the heart, etc. The Fanatic saith, How long Lord wilt thou not remember, and have mercy upon the Godly Party, who have been under persecution fourteen years: Ergo, The fanatics know the secrets of the heart, etc. And blessed be God, King Charles the Second is a great Prince, who standeth for his People against the Whore of Babylon. He therefore knows the Prayers and necessities of all his People, he is acquainted with the secrets of the heart, and we may put up mental Prayers unto him. If T. G. have an estate worth begging, he may well fear that his performance here, and P. 222, 223. will rob him of it.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Contents.  
The Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, touching the invocation of the Saints departed, delivered from their own Catechism and Liturgies, and the decree of the Trent Council. Sect. 1. the Question stated in seven Particulars. Sect. 2. The Idolatry of this practice proved; 1. Because it doth ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart and of our confessions. 2. Because Prayer to an absent Being is the oblation of that Worship to it, which is proper to God. And so are Vows and Hymns. Sect. 3.3. Because the Apostles gave us no Precept or Example so to do. Sect. 4. The sequel of this Argument is confirmed, and the Objections answered. Sect. 5. And the Argument from Miracles confuted. Sect. 6.  
HAving laid down these Propositions; let us now view the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, which the Trent Council hath delivered in these words: viz. 
* Mandate Sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis & clerieis docendi munuscurámque sustinentibus, ut— fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos— Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare,— ad eorum orationes opem auxiliúmque confugere. Illos verò qui negant Sanctos, aeterna felicitate in calo fruentes, invocandos esse; aut qui asserunt— eorum, ut pro nobis singulis orent, invocationem esse Idololatricam; vel pugnare cum verbo Dei, adversi ique honori unius Mediatoris Dei & Hominis Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse in coele regantibus voce vel ment suppli●are, impié sentire— Saint quis autem his Decretis contraria docuerit aut senserit Anath ma sit. Sess. 25. c. 1.  That it is good and profitable, humbly to invoke the Saints, and fly unto their prayers and help? and that whosoever doth deny, that Saints, who do enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, aught to be invoked, or do assert that to entreat them to pray for any single person is Idolatry, or is repugnant to the word of God, or opposite to the honour of Jesus Christ our only Mediator; or that it is a foolish thing to pray unto them either with vocal, or with mental prayer, doth impiously think. This they command, all Pastors to teach to all their faitful people; and they pronounce Anathema on any person that shall teach or think the contrary. The Roman Catechism informs us, That 
† Jure autem Sancts Dei Ecclesia huic Gratiarum actioni, preces etiam & implorationem Sanct ssimas Dei Matris adjurixit, qud pie atque suppliciter, ad eam confugeremus, ut nobis peccatoribus sud Intermissione conciliaret Deum, bonaque tum ad hanc, tum ad aeternam vitam necessaria impetraret. Ergo nos exules filii Evae, qui hanc lachrymarum vallem incolimus. assidnè misericordiae matrem, ac fidelis populi advocatam invocare debemus, ut oret pro nobis peccatoribus, ab edque hac prece opem & auxilium implerare; cujus & praestantissimu merita apud Deum esse, & summam voluntatem juvandi humanum Genus, nemo, nisi impid & nefariè, dubitare potest. Catech. Rom. Part. 4. c. 5. Sect. 8. p. 584.  the Holy Church of God doth teach us piously and humbly to fly unto the Mother of God, and to entreat her by her intercession to reconcile God to us sinners, and to obtain those good things for us which are necessary both for this present life, and that which is eternal. Wherefore we exiled sons of Eve, who live in this vale of tears, continually aught to entreat this Mother of Mercy, and Advocate of faithful People, that she would pray for us sinners, and by this prayer to implore her help. Agreeable to this Doctrine are many Forms of Prayer recorded in the Ancient Missals and Breviaries of the Church of Rome, and in those likewise which have been published, and corrected by the Decree and order of the Council held at Trent. For to St. Peter they pray thus:  

Beat Pastor Petre, 
Erov. Rom  clemens accipe  
Voces precantum, criminúmque vinoula  
Verbo resolve, cui potestas tradita  
Aperire terris Coelum, apertum claudore.   

Peter, blessed Shepherd, graciously  
Receive our Prayers, our bands of sin untie  
By thy sole word, to whom the power is given  
To open wide, and shut the Gate of Heaven.   
To all the Apostles thus: 
Communt Apost. p. ●.   

Vos sacli justi judices  
Et vera mundi lumina,  
Votis precamur cordium  
Audite preces supplicum.  
Qui Coelum VERBO clauditis,  
Serasque ejus Solvitis,  
Nos à peccatis omnibus  
Solvite JUSSV quesumus.  
Quorum praecepto subditur  
Salus & languor omnium,  
Sanate aegros moribus,  
Nos reddentes Virtutibus.   

You that are Judges of the World,  
And its true lights that brightly shine,  
With heartiest wishes we entreat  
Out humble supplications hear.  
Ye that do shut Heavens Temple Gates,  
And by your word unlock the same,  
Our guilty souls from punishment  
Release, we pray, by your command.  
For in an instant your commands  
Sickness and health do both perceive.  
Heal therefore our diseased minds;  
And every Grace in us increase.   

— Virgo dulcedine plena  
In te sperantes audi, 
Miss. de Sanct● Genovefa f. 12.  miserando precantes.  
Deal Peccamen: Vexatis praebe juvamen:  
Omnibus & moestis solamen porrige semper.   

To Genovefa thus:  
Hear us that pray, blessed Genovefe,  
And pity those who hope in thee.  
Blot out our sins. and send relief  
And comfort in sad misery.   

Cerne tua n familiam, 
Miss. de Sancto Sebast. f. 13.  quae orat flexis genibus,  
Serva à peste patrian istam, & à malis omnibus  
Audi famulos rogantes, o Martyr Sebastiano;  
Serua corpus, sana mentes hujus plebis Christianae:  
Ne incurramus immane Baratrum confusionis,  
Dona vespere & mane genitum compunctionis.   

To Saint Sebastian.  
Behold thy family which prays with bended knee.  
Preserve this Country from the plague, let it no evil see.  
Hear the desires of thy folk, Martyr Sebastian  
Preserve the bodies, heal the minds of people Christian,  
That we the horrid Gulf may fly of sad confusion,  
At night and morning let us sigh with deep ● compunction.   

Ista per te gens sit tuta  
Et ne noceat acuta  
Febris hac in patria; 
Miss. Rom, Antiq.   
Ex quo nostra spes est tota  
In te Martyr, nunc remota  
Sit pestis mortifera.   

May we from this sharp fevers rage's  
Safe and unhurt hereafter be.  
It's deadly influence assuage,  
Since all our hopes are placed in thee.   

Tu nostrum columen, tu decus inclytum, 
Brev. Rom. Jan. 30.   
Nostrarum obsequium respice mentium;  
Romae libens vota excipe, quae pio  
Te ritu canit & colit.   

To St. Martina.  
O thou our stay and chiefest ornament,  
Regard the ready service of our minds,  
Rome's vows receive; which in devotest sort  
Doth praise and worship thee.   

Promove nostras Domino querelas  
Cast âque vota. 
Prev. Rom Antiq. Mart. 20.   
Scis quot hic saevis agitemur undis,  
Triste quos mundi mare defatigat,  
Scis quot adnectat Satanas caroque  
Praelia nobis.   

To Joachim.  
See our chaste vows we make to God, be paid.  
And all our Prayers promote, when we complain  
Tossed in this Sea with many a cruel wave,  
Thou knowst we weak and weather beaten are.  
Thou knowst what combats weare like to have  
Which flesh and Satan, our sworn foes, prepare.   

Sis pro nobis advocata, 
Proprium Fest. Ordinis Minorum, f. 12.  causam nostrae  
Paupertatis coram Deo sustine,  
Et veniam de peccatis servis tuis obtine.   

To the Blessed Virgin.  
Be thou our Advocate with God, and plead  
Our cause with him in thy poor people's stead,  
Obtain that pardon of our sins we need.   

Quicunque in alta syderum  
Regnatis Aula Principes, 
Brev. R.   
Favete votis supplicum  
Qui dona Coeli flagitant.   

To all Saints.  
All ye that with the eternal King  
As Prince's reign above the Stars,  
Favour the Prayers of Suppliants.   
2. They do not only pray unto them, but they give laud and honour to them: And also do entreat them to hear and to receive their Praises.  

Jacobe vindex Hostium  
Huc, 
Brev. R. in Festo S. Jacobi.  Coeli ab altis sedibus,  
Converte dexter lumina,  
Audiqu● laete debitas  
Grates tibi quas solvimus.   

To St. James they speak thus:  
The praises due that we do pay  
To thee, hear joyfully this day.   

Ave salus hominum. 
Miss Prop rtum Fest. p. 35. B. Ed. A●tutep. 1577.  Virgo decus virginum,  
Te decet, post Dominum, laus & honour.   

To the blessed Virgin.  
Hail, oh thou happiness of Man  
And Virgin, Flower of Virgin race.  
All laud and honour be to God,  
And to thee in the second place.   
But of this no man can be ignorant, there being nothing more common in their Books and mouths, than Laus Deo & Beatae Virgini.  
3. They also do confess their sins unto them. In the Reformed Roman Missal we have these words:  

† Confiteer D●● omnipotenti, Beatae Mariae s●mper Virgini, Beato Michaeli Archangelo, Beato Joanni Baptistae, Sanctis Apostolis Petro & Paulo, ominibus Sanctis & v●bis Flatters, qu●●● peccavi nimis cogicatione v rbo & opere.— Ideo precor Beatam Mariam semper Virginem, Beatum Michaelem Archangelum, Beatum Joannem Baptistam, Sanctos Apostelos Petrum & Paulum, omnes Sanctes & vos Fratres crareprome ad Dominum Deum n sirum. Ordinarium Missae. p. 217. Ed. Antuerp. F. 1605.  I confess to God Almighty, and to the ever Blessed Virgin, to Blessed Michael Archangel, to Blessed John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you Brethren, that I have sinned in thought, word and deed: And therefore I entreat the Blessed Virgin, the Archangel Michael, St. John the Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the Saints, and you my Brethren, to pray for me to our Lord God.  
This is the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, and it contains these seven particulars.  
1. That it is good and profitable for every faithful man, and exiled Son of Eve, to pray unto the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints departed.  
2. That it is good and profitable thus to intercede not only for the good and welfare of the Church in general, but for every single person.  
3. 
August. Ser. 37. de Sanctis. Ser. 3. de pluribus Mart. In Com. plurium Mart. extra tempus Pasch. Lect. 4.  Whereas the ancient Church spoke thus, As often as we celebrate the solemnities of holy Martyrs, let us so expect by their intercession to obtain from the Lord temporal benefits, that by imitating the Martyrs themselves, we may deserve to receive eternal, (which words are still retained in the Roman Breviary) we are now taught to pray unto them, for all the blessings necessary to eternal life; nay we are told that 
* Gunde mater miserorum quia pater saeculorum dabit te colentibus Congruentem h●c mercedem, & faelicem polisedem, Regnis in caelestibus. Prosa de Beata Maria f. 30. apud Missale Rom. Ed. A●tuerp. 1577.  God will give eternal life to those that do adore the Blessed Virgin.  
4. It is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Saints departed may, and should be invocated, as well by mental, as by vocal Prayer. This was decreed at Trent; this Pastors are enjoined to teach their People; and lastly, this we have confirmed by their practice in these words, With the desires of our hearts we pray unto you, regard the ready service of our minds.  
5. These Practices and these Petitions are many of them built upon this supposition, that the Blessed Saints do hear our prayers, and are acquainted with our hopes, and with the praises which we offer to them; and consequently the Church of Rome, in whose solemnities these prayers are used, must be deemed to ascribe this knowledge to them. For what more foolish and absurd than constantly to call upon them to bear, behold, and to receive, to regard, favour, and promote our prayers; when we complain, to pity, and consider them that pray, to be their Advocates, and plead their causes, if these addresses be not understood by those Blessed Spirits to whom they are particularly directed? Who knows not that to be our Advocate, is to commend our cause to God, and to entreat that our desires may be granted? And who knows not that our cause cannot be thus commended, or our disires represented, till they first be understood? Moreover, seeing they do request these Blessed Spirits to receive their vows, and to take care that they be paid to God, to hear and to receive their praises; seeing they do confess their sins unto them, and therefore do entreat them to intercede with God in their behalf; seeing they do endeavour to move them to commiserate their state, by saying, that they place their hopes and only confidence upon their intercession, they must acknowledge that these Blessed Spirits are acquainted with their confessions and their vows, their hopes and praises: and therefore albeit this consequence should be denied. 
T. G. p.  We pray unto the Saints departed, therefore they do hear us, yet this can never be denied, We pray unto them to hear, and to receive our prayers and praises, vows and confessions, and therefore we believe they do.  
6. Hence it is manifest, that Papists do not only pray unto them, to intercede with God for blessings, but do desire that the Blessed Spirits would themselves confer them. Thus they entreat St. Peter by the power given to him, to untie the bonds of their iniquity; and the Apostles to absolve them from their sins by their command; and to their Guardian Angel they speak thus, Take hold of sword and buckler, and rise up to help me, say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. And therefore that they only do entreat them to pray for and with us, is a great untruth.  
7. Seeing the Church of Rome allows of mental Prayers addressed to the Saints; seeing their Lyturgy speak thus, With the desires of our hearts we pray unto you, receive the ready service of our minds; seeing they do instruct us in all places, and upon all occasions, to fly unto their help and secure; seeing they do ascribe unto them the knowledge not only of their vows and praises, but of their inward hopes, they consequently do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart, and the internal motions of every supplicant, as far as these petitions and other actions do require it. This is that Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which we think justly charged with Idolatry.  
For 1. To ascribe unto the Saints departed by way of worship, that excellency which is proper to God, is Idolatry; but to ascribe unto them by an act of worship, the knowledge of the hearts of them that pray unto them, is to ascribe unto them that excellency which is proper to God, by Propos. 2. Ergo.  
2. Prayer offered and put up in any time, or place, to an invisible and incorporeal Being, is the oblation of that worship to it which is due to God, by Prop. 4. Corol. 3. but this devotion of the Roman Church, is prayer offered up in any time, or place, to an invisible and incorporeal Being, and therefore must be the oblation of that worship which is due to God; and being offered to those Blessed Spirits which are confessedly Creatures, it must be the oblation of that worship which is due to God unto the Creature, which we have proved to be Idolatry.  
3. To vow to Saints departed, is to ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator, by Prop 4. Corol. 2. but Papist vow unto the Saints departed, therefore they do ascribe unto them the honour due to the Creator. The Answer Bellarmine returns unto the Major of this Argument, is this, That to vow, in sign of gratitude to the first and chiefest Good, and in recognition of a benefit received from him as the first Author of it, is the worship due to God; but we may vow to Saints, in sign of gratitude to them, considered as Mediators and Intercessors, by whom we do receive God's blessings. But this distinction hath no foundation to depend upon; and with like reason we may distinguish thus of Sacrifice, (and of whatever else is proper to God) and say, That to offer Sacrifice to any thing, under the notion of the first and chiefest Good, is to ascribe unto it the worship due to God alone; but notwithstanding we may offer Sacrifice to Saints, in sign of gratitude to them, considered as Mediators and Intercessors, by whom we do obtain God's blessings. 
* Dicendu n●quod vetum s●lt ●e●s●, sed promiss●● p●●si etiam f●cri homini— & per hunc medum intelli●●●dum est ●v●●●n, qu● quis v ● t aliquid Sanctis vel Prael●r●is, ut ips● promissio facta Sanctis vel Praelatis cadat sub vo●● 〈◊〉 ria●●er, in quintum scilicit home v●vet Peo● se impleturum quid Sanctis vel Praelatis promi●tit. Aquin. 2a 2ae. qu. 88 Art. 5.  Aquinas doth distinguish thus, That in a vow we have two things, 1. The matter of it, and that is the promise. 2. The form or essence, viz. the direction of that promise to God: the matter of the vow, saith he, i.e. the promise we indeed make to Saints, and only vow to God, we will be faithful to this promise which we make to them. This Answer Bellarmine rejects as being false, and contradictory to what they practise: For, saith he, 
‖ Vota quae faunc Sanctis, termin●niu, etiam ad ips●● Sanct●s, ita● w●revera ipsis v●ta fiant. L. 3. de cultu Sanctorum, c. 9  The Vows we make to Saints, are terminated on the Saints, so that we really do vow unto them. And again, 
† Vo inomen est general, quad convent● D●●. & Sancta, alia●● name di core audent, v●e● Deo & B●●●a● Maria, & ●iam si● 〈◊〉 v● Beata Mariae. Ibid.  The name of Vow is general, and agrees both to God and Saints, for otherwise men would not dare to say, I vow to God and to the Blessed Virgin, and simply I vow unto the Blessed Virgin. And certainly no reason can be given, why I vow to God should be a formal Vow, and I Vow unto the Blessed Virgin should not be so. 3. They by this promise do ascribe unto the Saints the knowledge of our hearts, and of our promises, whence they desire them to hear, and to receive their vows, and so they do ascribe unto them Gods uncommunicated excellency.  
4. To put up Hymns unto the blessed Angels, and the Saints deceased, is to be guilty of Idolatry. But Papists put up Hymns unto the Blessed Angels and the Saints departed, Ergo, The minor is apparent both from the Roman Missal and the Breviary, where we find many Hymns directed to those Blessed Spirits; the major may be thus confirmed. To pay that honour to these Blessed Spirits, which is due to God alone, is to be guilty of Idolatry. To offer Hymns unto them, is to pay that honour to these Blessed Spirits, which is due to God alone: Ergo. The major is apparent from Chap. 6. Prop. 1. The minor I prove thus: To pay that honour to these Blessed Spirits, which Christians paid to God alone, is to pay that honour to them, which alone is due to God (for why should the whole Church of Christ, which, if we may believe the Romanist, received so great advantage by their addresses to these Blessed Spirits, refuse to pay unto them those Hymns and Praises which were due unto them, and which on this account are offered to them by the Church of Rome?) but to offer Hymns unto them, is to give that honour to them which Christians paid to God alone. For Origen doth in the name of all his fellow Christians say, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ita Origcontr. Cells. l 8. p. 422.  We offer up our Hymns only to God and his Son Jesus Christ.  
5. To ascribe to all the Saints departed, and the holy Angels, the knowledge of the confession of our sins, and upon that account to beg that they would intercede for pardon of them, is to be guilty of Idolatry. 
Ord. Missae p. 217.  But the Romanist doth in the Service of the Missal, ascribe to all the Blessed Spirits the knowledge of the sins they do confess, and upon that account do beg that they would intercede for pardon of them: Ergo. The major may be thus confirmed; To ascribe to all these Blessed Spirits, now in Heaven, the knowledge of those confessions which we make on Earth, and those petitions we put up unto them, is to be guilty of Idolatry by Prop 2. Chap. 6. and Prop. 4. Corol. 3. of the same Chapter: But to ascribe unto them the knowledge of the confession of our sins, and upon that account to beg that they would intercede for pardon of them, is to ascribe unto them the knowledge of those petitions and confessions which we make on Earth: For this is to suppose, that albeit these Blessed Spirits are as distant from us, as is Earth from Heaven, yet are they as assuredly acquainted with our confessions and petitions, as if they had been present with us, for who would move another to intercede in his behalf, by reason of that confession he hath made unto him, who did not think he knew both his confessions and petitions?  
6 This may be strongly argued from two considerations: (1.) That the Apostles did not invoke the Saints departed, or give us any Precept or Example so to do. (2.) That they abstained from this pra lise, because they did not think this honour to be due to Saints departed, but to God alone. And first▪ Th●● the postles did not invoke the Saints departed, that they did put up no petitions to the Patriarches and Prophets, or to the B. Virgin, or to the Proto-Martyr Stephen, or to James, the brother of our Lord, is evident from an impartial view or all their Writings and Epistles; for those Epistles, Acts, and Gospels, were written to promote the cause of Piety, and to instruct us in the means and helps which they conceived most proper to preserve us from the assaults and temptations of Sin, Satan, and the World, 
Joh. 20.31.  they do assure us, That these things were written that we might believe, and believing might have life eternal: and so to give us those directions which were chief instrumental to obtain that end; whence it doth follow, that if they had conceived this practice to be so highly instrumental to the promotion of our eternal happiness, as doth the Church of Rome, and the enjoyment of all those spiritual favours which they expect and beg from those blessed Spirits, they would not wholly have omitted what so highly did conduce to the obtaining of those blessings. The Church of Rome commands her Bishops, 
Syn. Trid. Sess. 25.  Priests, and Curates, diligently to instruct the Flock committed to their charge in this important duty; and to inform them, that it is very good and profitable to fly unto their prayers for help and refuge; that we must daily invocate the Blessed Virgin and that it is a wicked and most heinous crime to doubt either her readiness to help, 
Cate●●. ●om. p. 584.  or that her merits are most prevailing for this end. Their practice doth inform us that there is not any blessing which our Souls can wish for, but Christians should implore it from them: And if their Doctrine were according unto Piety their practice must assuredly he so. For what more proper then to implore their aid, who are so highly instrumental to preserve us from our most fatal Enemies, and to procure all those blessings, which are needful both to the Piety of this present life, and to the felicity of that which is to come. St. Paul is in like manner large and copious in these instructions which he gives unto the Pastors of the Church, and to the people committed to their charge: He informs us that we must all pray, and for all men; that we must pray with pure hands, and with hearts free from wrath and doubting: He tells us in what language we should frame our prayers, viz. in such a language that all that hear may understand. 
1 Cor. 14.  and say Amen to our Petitions: in what posture both men and women ought to pray: and that this duty ought to be performed in all places. And yet this person who descends to these minute particulars, speaks not one word of this important duty, so pious and profitable in itself, so necessary to preserve us from the worst of Enemies, and to procure the greatest blessings: Nay, in all the Scripture which was written to make us wise, 
2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17.  and thoroughly instructed unto all good works, we have not the least mention of it: In those Epistles they frequently enjoin us to be instant in prayer, to pray always, with all prayer and supplication in the spirit, 
Eph. 6.18.  and to watch thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all Saints: To continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving: To pray without ceasing: 
Col. 4.2.1 Thess. 5.17. 1 Tim. 2.1. Phil. 4 6.  To put up supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks for all men To be careful for nothing, but in every thing with prayer and thanksgiving to let our requests be made known unto God. And to go unto that God for wisdom, who giveth unto all men liberally, 
James 1.5.  and upbraideth not. They also do exhort us to pray for others that they may be saved particularly, 
5.16. 1 Joh. 5.16.  for every brother, that hath not sinned unto death. Now surely they, who do so frequently discourse upon this subject, and upon the lesser circumstances of this duty, would not have omitted to mention something of this so profitable practice, if they had really believed it so to be, For wherefore do they give us these directions, but to preserve us against the power of temptation, and the assaults of Sin and Satan? Why do they frequently enjoin us to be instant in the performance of this duty but that we may obtain those spiritual blessings which without great danger to our souls we cannot want? If then the Invocation of the Saints departed, and especially of the Virgin Mary, be so highly profitable to these ends, why should these men, I say, be silent in this matter, who being guided by the Holy Spirit, could not forget to do it, and being as concerned for the Church's welfare, as the Trent Fathers, could not for want of zeal unto God's glory, or the good of Souls, neglect to charge all Pastors diligently to instruct the people in this most profitable and pious practice? Why should these men, who both by precept and example do instruct us to request the prayers of living friends, be wanting both in precept and example to move us to request the more prevailing prayers of Blessed Spirits? they who command us when we are infirm to have recourse unto the prayers of surviving Pastors, and to pray for one another, because the fervent supplication of a righteous man availeth much, why should they never send us to the B. Virgin, to the Patriarches and Prophets, to St. Stephen and St. James, and other early Martyrs of the Church; whose Prayers, if we believe the Roman Church, are highly meritorious, and far more prevailing. Nay, they had the greater reason to inculcate this, because it was a novel practice, and never used by the Jewish Church; and therefore they had need of an Express to move and to encourage them to such devotions: Whereas it was the daily custom of all Jews to put up their petitions to the God of Heaven. Since therefore neither Paul, or Peter, or James, or John, Apostles, or Evangelists, have left us any precept or example for this practice, we may be certain they did not approve it.  
Moreover, to move us more effectually to the performance of this duty, they tell us, That the eyes of God are still intent upon the just, 
1 Pet. 3.12.  and his ear open to their prayer; that he is well acquainted with those inward groans and wishes, 
Rom. 8.26  which we do, or cannot utter; and is also able to perform exceedingly above what we can ask or think; 
Eph. 3.20. Marth. 7.7.11. James 1.5.  that he is good and gracious to all that call upon him faithfully, that he will fulfil the desires of them that fear him: Thus also do the Latins teach concerning the Saints departed; they tell us in the words of Basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they confidently ascribe unto them Summan juvandi voluntatem, the greatest readiness to help, and the most prevailing merits: 
Catech. Rom. p. 585.  and this they do most suitably to that presumption they have taken up; for all these things are the more needful to be taught, because both Scripture seems to say the contrary, affirming that Saints departed are ignorant of us, and our concernments here on Earth: and denying that any besides God can know the secrets of the heart. And secondly, the things themselves seem difficult to be believed; viz. That Creatures at so infinite a distance can be acquainted with what is done on earth; much more that they should at such a distance understand the secret motions of the heart. Why is it then that the Apostles, who do so often mind us of what we have less reason to suspect, viz. That God is able, and very ready to perform what we desire, and that he hears the secret groan of our heart, should not inform us of what is so exceeding hard, and yet so necessary to be believed of these Blessed Spirits? Whosoever diligently reads their Writings, will find them praying earnestly to God for all those blessings to be conferred upon the Christians, which Papists do request from Saints and Angels, That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give to the Ephesians the spirit of Wisdom and Revelation in the knowledge of him, 
Eph. 1.17, 18.  the eyes of their Understanding being enlightened: That he would grant that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith, 
— 3.17.18.19,  that they might be strengthened by his Spirit in the inner man, that they being rooted and grounded in love, might be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of God which passeth knowledge, and be filled with all fullness of God. That the Philippians love might abound more in knowledge, 
Phil. 1.9, 10, 11.  and in all judgement, that they might approve things that are excellent, and be sincere, and without offence till the day of Christ; Being filled with the fruits of righteoussness, to the praise and glory of God. That the Colossians might be filled with the knowledge of the will of God in all wisdom, 
Col. 1.9, 10, 11.  and spiritual understanding, that they might walk worthy of the Lord unto all well pleasing, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God: Strengthened with all might according to his glorious power unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness: 
1 Thess. 3.12, 13:  That the Thessalonians might increase in love, and have their hearts established unblamable in holiness before God. 
— 2.1.11.12.  That God would count them worthy of his calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: That the God of Peace would make the Hebrews perfect in every good work, to do his will, 
Heb. 13.20, 21. 1 Pet. 5.10.  working in them that which is well pleasing in his sight: That the God of Grace would make them perfect, establish, strengthen, settle them. These Supplications were their daily exercise, and had they thought the Invocation of the blessed Virgin, the Patriarches and Prophets, the Proto-Martyr, and the brother of our Lord, would have been needful and effectual to the attainment of these things, for which they prayed so earnestly, why do they never once address themselves unto them; why do they never pray as doth the Church of Rome, 
Brevarium & Missal.  that through the deprecation, intervention, patrocination, and intercession of these persons, they may be worthy to obtain these blessings, why do they never pray by the merits of these persons to be delivered from 
* Deus qui beatum Nicolaum P.— tribue q●ae●un us ut ejus moritis & pracibus 〈◊〉 Ochenna incend is liberemus. Miss. in sest. san●. Nich. Dec. xi. Deus q. ● beatu●. Lodovicum— ju, quaesamus meritis & intercessione Regis Regan. ●●su Christ●● f●l ●ui facias nos esse can o●tes. in Fest. beat. Lud. Aug 25.  Hell, and made partakers of the joys of Heaven, as doth the Roman Blashemy? Why do they not declare with them, that they do 
† In Fest. fa●ct. Agapiti Aug. 28.  place their confidence in the petitions of these prevailing Saints and blessed Spirits? Why do they not ascribe their mercies and deliverances to the 
‖ Accepta tib's si●, ●●mine, sacrat●e pleb●s oblatio pro inorum H●nors Sanct●um qu●r●m●●e ●●ritis per●●●●, de tribulatione cognoseit 〈◊〉. Miss Dee ●●●p. 〈◊〉 Ed. Antwerp. 1605.  merits of these Saints, as they most insolently do? Assuredly on this account, because they did not in their hearts approve the practice. Were blessed Paul alive to see his Prophecy so punctually fulfilled: That in these later times men should departed from the Faith, attending to erroneous Spirits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to the Doctrine of worshipping departed Souls, how would he passionately cry out O foolish Romanists who hath bewitched you, etc. Lastly, St. Paul had such an ardent zeal to the promotion of the Gospel, that he omits no help which he conceives might give a blessing to his labours: He therefore passionately entreats the Christians to whom his writings are directed, 
Rom. 15.30, 31.-  That they would strive together with him in their prayers to God, that he might be delivered from them, who did not believe in Judea, and that his Service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints: and that he might come unto them with joy— and with them be refreshed: That they would always, 
Eph. 6.18, 19  and with all perseverance pray for him, that utterance might be given unto him hat he might open his mouth boldly to make known the Mystery of the Gospel: 
Col. 4.1, 2, 3.  That they would continue in prayer, that God would open unto him a door of utterance to speak the mystery of Christ: for which he was in hands that he might make it manifest, as he ought to speak. 
1 Thes. 5. 25.2-3.1.2.  Finally Brethren, saith he, pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not Faith. So blessed Paul; and had he thought that his addresses to the Patriarches, and Prophets, the blessed Virgin, the Choir of Angels, or the Saints made perfect, would have been more effectual to this end, would not his zeal have prompted him to have put up one request unto them? or one Petition to his Guardian-Angel to be defended from these unreasonable men? If all these circumstances be considered it will amount to an invincible conviction of the falsehood of that determination of the Church of Rome, 
* Juxta Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.  that this is the practice which was derived from the Apostles, and hath been still continued in the Church of Christ.  
2. No other reason can be given why they did not practise, or commend the Invocation of the blessed Spirits besides this, that they conceived this worship to be that honour God had reserved for himself, and that they looked upon it as a vain and fruitless practice, The knowledge of the heart, and of the Prayers that are put up by All men, at all times, and in all places of the Earth, being the knowledge proper to the God of Heaven, and not communicated to the Saints deceased. This will appear more evident if we consider and refute those shifts whereby they do endeavour to evade the force of this triumphant Evidence. And  
1. They tell us that 
* Si Apostoli & Evangelistae docuissent sanctos venerandos, arrogantiae iis datum fuisset, ac si post mortem gloriam illam quaesivissent; noluit ergo Spiritus Sanctus expressis Scipturis docere invocationem Sanctorum. Eckius in Enchirid. loc. Com. ex edit. Alex. Weissenhorn. Alanus Copus Dial. 3. fol. 239.  had the Blessed Apostles taught this doctrine it might have been objected to them, that they sought their own advancement, and honour by the propagation of their Gospel, and proudly did endeavour to be worshipped by their Christian followers.  
Repl. 1. This answer gives us some show of reason why this Invocation was not enjoined in Scripture; but it affords not the least shadow of a reason why it was not practised.  
2. Either this Invocation was practised by the Church in the Apostles time or not; if not, 
Quem seu●per Ecclesia Catholica adhibuit. C●t. Rom. p. 3 c. 2. Sect. 8.  than the Trent Council, and the Roman Catechism, falsely do assert, that this was the perpetual and Apostolic practice of the Church of Christ; if it was practised, than that practice must give rise unto the same Objection, viz. that the Disciples of Christ had brought into the world this custom on purpose to advance their honour, and to procure worship to themselves.  
3. This doctrine had it been consistent with the Christian Faith ought more especially to have been often preached to the Jews to reconcile them to that Faith, by giving them assurance, that they might have recourse unto the prayers of Father Abraham, and their beloved Moses, and that Noah, Job and Daniel, Elijah, Samuel and all the blessed Patriarches and Prophets, who were so powerful with God on Earth, would upon their request be ready to procure for them the greatest Temporal and Spiritual blessings, since therefore we have no such Revelation in any of these Writings or Epistles, which are especially directed to them, and were designed for their conversion and satisfaction; it may be well concluded this was no doctrine of the Christian faith.  
2. Some others do assert, That the Apostles did abstain from giving any precept, or example of this Invocation, lest Heathens should conceive, that for the multitude of Heathen 
* Nondum erat tempus in ipsius fidei exordiis eam mundo doctrinam divulgandi ne Gentiles arbitrarentur plures nos Deos colere. Alanus Copus Dial. 3. f. 239. & Eckius ubi supra.  Deities they worshipped, the Christians only introduced a multitude of Christian Gods. Repl.  
1. This evasion is a mere conjecture, of which we have not the least hint in any of the Ancient Fathers, or the Church Historians, which is sufficient to crack the credit of it; for that such a change should happen in the worship of the whole Church of Christ, without the notice or observation of any single person, is incredible. Besides, this figment thwarts that declaration of St. Paul, that he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; and that profession, that he withheld not from them any useful Doctrine: 
Act. 20.20  it thwarts that Doctrine, and Assertion of the Church of Rome, that this hath been the constant custom of the Church of God, including the Apostles time. Besides, the reasons of abstaining from this practice, must continue as long as there were Heathens to be converted to the Christian Faith, and so beyond the time of Constantine. Now albeit it be a certain truth, that Christians till after the days of Constantine abstained from this practice, yet cannot that Assertion consist with the pretences of the Church of Rome for Apostolical Tradition, and derivation of these Doctrines, which they obtrude upon us from the Apostles of our Lord. 4. Either these Primitive Professors were not well advised, to let this fear of Scandal deter them from the publication of a truth, so pious and profitable to the Church of Christ, or else the Roman Doctors are not so cautious in their attempts to propagate the Gospel as they ought to be, as not concealing from the 
† 8. Dali. de cultu Latin. To. 1. l. 3. cap. 25. p. 493.  Pagans, whom they endeavour to convert, this so suspicious practice of their Church. In a word, if the Apostles and the Church of Christ which was converted by, and flourished under them, had no such practice, certain it is we have no reason now to do what they did never practise or command, for all instructions we embrace as from them, must be what they did teach or practise; but if they did admit this practice, than could not Jews and Heathens want the knowledge of it, seeing the number of Apostates and hypocritical Professors was so great, and there were many who took upon them the profession of the Christian Faith, 
Call 2 4. Phil. 1.16  only to spy out what they practised.  
3. If it be said, they might abstain by reason of some precept, which forbade this Invocation. I reply, that which Gods wisdom doth forbid us to give unto the noblest of his Creatures, he by so doing doth declare that he reserves unto himself, and when we act against his precept, we may be certain that he will not reveal or manifest that supplication which he hath forbidden; and therefore they that tender to these Blessed Spirits this forbidden worship, must ascribe unto them that knowledge which agrees to God alone, and that honour which he will not give unto another, and so be guilty of Idolatry. To conclude, If this Invocation were so beneficial to mankind, and was not derogatory to God's honour, it might be well presumed, that Christ and his Apostles would have been careful to instruct us in it, for they neither wanted knowledge to perceive the benefit, or love sufficient to engage them to acquaint us with it.  
Lastly, 
P. 420.  Whereas T. G. objects, That it is certain by many and great Miracles wrought by God, upon addresses made to the Saints, that those who call upon them are heard, and obtain what they desire; and that therefore it cannot be unlawful or Idololatrical to desire their intercession. Answ. This is an Argument in which the Romanists much triumph; but it is only what their Brother Donatists had urged long before, 
L. de unitate Ecc. contra Pet●liani Donatistae Epistolam.  and what St. Austin hath admirably answered. And first, I say, It is but a Translation of that Argument, which formerly was used by the Donatists, in confirmation of their Schism; for thus St. Austin propoundeth their Objection: 
* Non dicat verum est qu●a hoc 〈◊〉 dico, aut quia hoc dixit ille Collega meus aut illi Collegae mei, aut illi Episcepi vel Clerici vel Laici nosiri, aut ideo verum est quia illa & illa Mirabilia fecit Donatus, vel Pontius, velquilibet alius, aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant & exaudiuntur, aut quia illa & illa ibi contingunt, aut quia ille Frater noster, aut illa Seror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit vel tale visun dormiens somniavit; removeantur is●a vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fall icium Spirituum; aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si Haereticorum aliqua mira sunt facta, magis cavere debemus quod cum dixisset Dominus quesdum futuros esse falleces qui nonnu●la signa faciendo etiam Electos si fieri posset fallerent, adjecit vehementer commendans & dit, ecce praedixi vebis, unde & Aposiclus admenens Spiritus autem manifes●e decet quia in novissimis temporibus recedent quidam à fi●e intendentes Spiritubus seducteribus & Doctrinis Daemen●●●um. Ibid. c. 16. p. 116. I. K.  Let him not say that therefore they are in the right, because that Pontius, or Donatus, or any other, did such and such Miracles, or because men pray at the memorial of our Martyrs, (i e. the Martyrs of the Donatists) and they are heard; and because such and such things do happen there; or because such a Brother or a Sister watching there saw such a sight, or dreamt such a dream. This is the Argument of T.G. and his Brother Donatists, and we Protestants crave only leave to answer what St. Austin doth, viz. (1.) That either the things are not true which are spoken, or if some Miracles be wrought by Heretics, we ought to be more careful; because our Lord Christ having said, that there should come Deceivers, who should work such Miracles, 
* Mat. 24.  as to deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect; He adds, by way of vehement commendation, this, Behold I have foretold you; whence the Apostle admonishing us, saith, 
† 1 Tim. 4.  Now the Spirit manifestly teacheth, that in the latter times some shall departed from the Faith, giving heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrinis Daemoniorum, i. e. the Doctrine of worshipping the Spirits of dead men. Which Answer doth contain three things, (1.) That the truth of these relations may be well suspected; and so also may the truth of what T. G. delivers, as from St. Basil, Austin, and Theodoret: for, as I shall show hereafter, we have just reason to suspect the falsehood and depravation of these passages which he hath cited from Austin and Theodoret, and that St. Basil doth not say that any man was cured by the Invocation of those XL. Martyrs, but only by praying with them, or by the intercession which they make of their own accord, for those who frequent their shrines. (2. St. Austin hath but two instances of any benefit received by Prayers put up unto the Martyr, and before he mentions them, he doth ingenuously confess, 
* Quando alibi aliisque narrantur non tanta ea commendat autoritas, ut sine difficultate aut dubitatione credantur quamvis Christianis fidelibus à fidelibus indicentur Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. p. 209. C. 1.  That they are not backed with so good Authority, as that we should believe them without doubt or difficulty. (3.) We have just reason to suspect the truth of these relations, if we consider (1.) That St. 
† Tom. 5. Hom. 88 p. 601. 602.  chrysostom declares that Miracles were ceased in his time, and hath a set discourse on purpose to inform us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. why Miracles then ceased: which had they been so common in the Christian world, had been an idle Question, and no small prejudice unto the Christian cause. Especially, these being the chief Heads of what he answers, (1.) That though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
p. 606.  or such miracles as were the objects of our Senses ceased, yet God did still vouchsafe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his efficacious workings on the souls of Christians. 
p. 607.  And (2.) That Signs were not intended for Believers, but for unbelievers, and then immediately concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this therefore is the cause why Miracles are now ceased. (2.) Because it was more ordinary in these times to pretend Dreams and Visions, then to speak of any cures performed by prayers put up to Martyrs, as you may see in Gregory Nyssens Homily upon the XL Martyrs; and in this Chapter of St. Austin: And yet the Fathers do ingenuously confess, and were at last convinced that they were delusions. Many, both Priests and Idiots, saith Synesius, have been found among us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ep. 5.4. p. 190.  feigning some Dreams, which they call Revelations: 
* Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 5. p. 256. l. 29. Ed. Savil.  The Dreams or Visions which have appeared in the shape of them that have departed this life at this time, have deceived and corrupted many, there being no such thing, saith chrysostom. And that of 
† Aug. Confess. l. 10 c. 42.  Austin is very pertinent to this purpose; Whom should I find, that might reconcile me to thee? Should I have gone unto the Angels with what Prayer? with what Sacraments? many endeavouring to return unto thee, and being not able to do it by themselves, as I hear, have tried these things, and have fallen into the desire of curious Visions, and were accounted worthy of Illusions. The second Answer is contained in the words of Austin, that God may permit some wonders to be done by Heretics, and by Impostors, and hath declared that he will do so 
‖ Quaecunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt ●●pr●banda quia in Catholica fiunt, non ideo ipsi mani●estatur Cub ●●ca quia haec in ea fiunt— utrum ipsi Eccsesium ten●an●, Non nisi Divinarum Scriptur●●um canonic●s libris ostendant. Ibid. p. 117. A. ; this therefore, saith he, is no confirmation of the truth, nor do these Wonders manifest the Church is Catholic, wherein they are performed, but the Holy Scriptures: Show us your Scriptures: Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. This answer will be sufficiently confirmed by these words of Dr. 
* Orig. Sacrae. lib. 2. cap. 10. ●. 6.  Stilling fleet: That after the true Doctrine is confirmed by Divine Miracles, God may give the Devil power to work, if not real Miracles, yet such as men cannot judge by the things themselves, whether they be so or no; and this for trial whether we will forsake the true Doctrine confirmed by greater Miracles, for the sake of such Doctrines as are con-contrary thereto, and are confirmed by false Prophets, by Signs and lying Wonders: Now in this case our Rule of trial must not so much be the Miracles considered in themselves, whether real or no, as the comparing them with the Miracles wrought in confirmation of that Doctrine which is contrary to this, which these words tend to the proving of. Therefore God's people under the Law were to examine the drift and scope of the Miracles; and if they were intended to bring them to Idolatry; whatever they were, they are forbidden to hearken to them, as you may see most evidently Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. So now under the Gospel, the worship of the true God through Jesus Christ, and by the Doctrine revealed by him is the Standard, whereby we ought to judge of all pretenders unto Miracles: So that let the Miracles be what they will, if they contradict that Doctrine, which Christ revealed to the World, we are to look upon them only as trials of our Faith in Christ, to see whether we love him with our whole hearts or no. And accordingly we look upon these Miracles as trials whether we will forsake the Head Christ Jesus, and give this worship of the Creator to the Creature, and the like; and are sufficiently warded against the force of this assault by being told that Antichrist must be ushered in with Signs and lying Wonders. 
2 Thess. 2.9.   
Secondly, What Austin saith unto the Donatists, we also say unto the Church of Rome, Show us your Scriptures for this Invocation; haec sunt causae nostrae firmamenta— The third Particular contained in this Answer is. That the Holy Spirit hath forewarned us that in the latter times this Doctrine of Damon's should prevail: which Doctrine both the ingenious Mr. Mede, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. adv. Antidico marionitas. Haer. 78. §. 23. A.  Epiphanius do well interpret to be the Doctrine of worshipping the Spirits of dead Men, and by the pertinency of this Sense unto St. Augustine's present subject, we have good reason to conjecture that he approved their Opinion.  
St. Augustine's second Answer to this Objection is as followeth; 
† Porrò si aliquis in Hereticorum memoriis orans exauditur, non pro merito loci sed pro merito desiderii sui recipit sive matum sive bonum— nun legimus ab ipso domino Deo nonnullos exauditos in excelsis montium Judaeae: quae tamen excelsa ità displicebant Deo, ut Reges qui ea non everterent cr●lparentur, & qui everterent laudarentur; unde intelligitur magis valere pe●enti● assectium ●u ●m petitio●is locum. ib. p. 116. Col. 2. K. L  Moreover if any person praying in the memorial of Heretics be heard, it is not for the merit of the place, but of his own desire that he receiveth any good. Doo we not read that God himself harkened to many of those Jews who prayed in the high places, although those places so displeased him, that he rebuked those Kings that suffered them. Whence we may understand that the affection of the Supplicant is more prevailing, than the place of Prayer. And accordingly we say, That if any person praying to these Saints was heard, it was not for the merit of this prayer considered as directed to the Saints, but for the affection of his heart, and as it will not follow that it was lawful for the Jew to pray in those high places, or for the Christian to pray in the memorial of Heretics, because that they who prayed there were sometimes heard: So neither doth it follow that it is lawful to pray unto the Saints departed, because of some few instances that they who have thus prayed, have received the desired Blessing.  
Thirdly, saith St. Austin, 
‖ De visis autem fallacibus legunt quae scri●ta sunt, & quia ipse Satanas se transfigurat tanquam Angelum lucis, & quia multos seduxerunt somnia sua. Audiant etiam quae narrant pagani de Templis, & Diis suis mirabili●er vel facta, vel visa, & tamen dii Gentium Baemonia— Exaudiuntur ergo multi & multis modis, non solum Christ●●ani Catholici, sed & Pagant, & Judaei, & Haeretici variis error●lus, & supersti●ionibus dediti, exaudiuntur autem vel ab spiritibus seductoribus, qui tamen nihil faciunt nisi permit●antur Deo subli●iter a●que ineffabiliter judieante quid cuique tribuendum sit, sive ab ipso Deo, vel ad poenam malitiae, vel ad solatium miseriae, vel ad monitionem quaerendae salutis aeternae. ib f. B. Col. 2. L.M.  Let them hear what the Pagans tell of the Wonders done by their Gods, and at their Temples; and yet the Gods of the Heathens are but Daemons: and therefore many, not only Catholics, but Pagans, Jews, and Heretics, may many ways be heard, either by those seducing Spirits, which yet do nothing but with God's permission, or else by God himself, either for castigation of their wickedness, or comfort of their misery, or in admonition of them to pursue eternal safety. Which Answer also doth suggest these things.  
1. That the Argument is vain, because it will serve the Paegan, as well as it well serve the Donatist or Roman Catholic; and proves as much their Invocation of Daemons to be lawful, as the invocation of the Saints departed, which is now practised in the Church of Rome. For, as 
(a) Quibusdam signis & miraculis, & oraculis fidem divinitatis operatur. Apol. c. 21. §. 8.  Tertullian saith, by Signs, and Miracles, and Oracles, they obtained to be reputed Gods. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●om. 6. p 375 l. 20.  They often by their skill have cured diseases, and restored to health those that were sick; what should we partake therefore with them in their iniquity, God forbidden? So chrysostom. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. l. 5. c. 2.  The wicked Daemons, saith Eusebius, counterfeited by working many Miracles, the Souls of them that were deceased and thence they were thought worthy to be celebrated with greater service. 
(d) Frustra tantum arrogas Christo cum saepe alios sciamus & scierimus Deos, & laborantibus plurimis dedisse medicinas, & multorum hominum morbos valetudi●ésque cuirass. Arnobius l. 1. p. 28.  In vain, say they, you arrogate so much to Christ, for we have often known that other Gods have given Medicines to, and healed the infirmities of many. Moreover, these benefits they still pretended to receive by virtue of those Supplications which they offered to them. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Orig. l, 8. p. 407. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 416.  How many, saith Celsus, being troubled, that they had no children, have by them enjoyed their wishes? How many, being maimed in their bodies, have been healed by them? Hence saith 
(f) Daut cautelam periculi, m●rb●s medelam, spem afflictis, ope●● m●seris, s●latium calamitatibus, laboribus levame●um. Minur. p. 7.  Cecilius, they give us caution in dangers, and medicine in diseases, hope to the afflicted, help to the miserable, comfort in calamities, ease from labours.  
2. This Argument is vain, because it serves the Heretic as well as Catholic. For what can be more glorious than what Philostorgius records of 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philost. Hist. Eccl. l 2. §. 8. p. 14.  Agapetus one of his fellow Heretics, That he wrought many miracles, he raised the dead, and healed many that were sick, and converted many to the Christian Faith. And of Theophilus, another of his brother Arrians, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem. l. 3. § 4. p. 27.  That his wonders were so great, and such convincing demonstrations of the Christian Faith, as to constrain the obstinacy of the Jews, and Silence all their contradictions.—  
Lastly, Hence we may learn, that although Austin should have related some few instances of persons healed by Supplications tendered to the Saints, we cannot thence infer, as T. G. doth, that by so doing he commends them, or doth relate them as patterns for our imitation.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The Contents. The Judgement of the Fathers proved to be the same with that of Protestants, because they do assert that Prayer must be offered unto none but God, and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ. Sect. 1. And this Assertion they prove, 1. Because God only can be called good. 2. Because he only can answer our Petitions, ibid. 2. They do affirm, That by addressing a Petition to a Saint or Angel, we become guilty of distraction from God, and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ. Sect. 2. 3. That to pray unto a Creature, or to that which is no God, is to worship it as God, or give that honour to it which is due to God alone. Sect. 3. 4. They hence infer that Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, because we put up our Petitions to them. Sect. 4. 5. Because the invocation of the inferior Heathen Daemons was by the Fathers censured as Idolatry. And there is no desparity betwixt the invocation of those Daemons, and that invocation of the blessed Martyrs which is now practised in the Church of Rome, sufficient to acquit the Papist from that Gild, if it be duly charged on the Heathens by reason of their Supplications tendered to inferior Daemons. Sect. 5. 6. The Father's dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practice, and confute this Doctrine. Sect. 6. 7. Because the ancient Fathers prayed for all the Saints, without exception of Martyrs or Apostles, or the blessed Virgin. 8. Because the Fathers gave no Rules touching the Canonising of the Saints departed. ibid.  
TO what we have discoursed from the holy Scriptures, and from the Principles of Reason, we shall now add the suffrage of those ancient Fathers who flourished in the first and purest Ages of the Church. Who do not only say expressly, that our Prayers should only be directed to God (asserting this without those limitations and distinctions which are now used by the Church of Rome) but also do it upon the very same enducements and motives which Protestants are wont to use for confirmation of this truth. Moreover, in their conflicts with the Arrians, and other Adversaries of the Church of Christ, they use those very weapons wherewith we fight against the Church of Rome, and do pronounce that Doctrine and Practice which that Church contends for, to be the giving to the Creature what is due to God.  
And first, the Fathers do assert that prayer must be offered unto none but God, and by no other Intercessor but our Saviour Christ. When Celsus had pronounced that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. p. 394.  Heathen Daemons did belong to God, and thence inferred, we should entreat their favour. Origen replies two things. 1. That those Daemons being wicked Spirits could not belong to God. 2. That this advice of 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origen. contra Cells. lib. 8. p. 395.  Celsus, to put up our Petitions to them, was to be utterly rejected, and by no means allowed by Christians: Because, God only was to be made the object of our prayer, nor were we to solicit any other than our great High Priest, to offer and present them to the Father. And hence in two Catena's, both published by the Doctors of the Church of 
‖ Nicet. Caten. in Psal. 5.  Rome, we have this free confession of an ancient Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We Christians pray to God alone. And upon this account, they tell us the Psalmist uttered this expression, Attend unto the voice of my petition my King and my God: For unto thee will I pray; because 
(a) Ora●io enim so● Deo ●ff●rtur. Aurea Catena in 50. Psal. edit. Ven●t. Anno 1569. Pag. 53.  Petitions were to be offered unto God alone, according to that Question of St. Austin 
(b) Cui alteri praeter te clamabo? Aug. Confess. lib. 1. cap 5.  to whom else shall I cry but unto thee? and that expression of 
(c) L. de Creatione.  Dracontius esse nihil prorsus se praeter ubique rogandum: that nothing besides God should be invoked. And this assert on they do not barely offer, but also they confirm it by many pregnant Arguments; as first, He only must be prayed unto, because, he only can be called Good: 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alexand. Strom. l. 7. p. 721.  since God alone is good (saith Clemens) it is reasonable we should solicit him alone: for the Donation and Continuance of good things. (2.) because God only is present in all places, and so at hand to hear, and help us wherever we address our prayers to him. It is an absurdity (saith 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. contra Celsum lib. 5. pag. 239.  Origen) having that God with us, and nigh at hand, who filleth Heaven and Earth, to go about to pray to that which is not omnipresent. This I confess is spoken to demonstrate, that intercessions were not to be made unto the Sun and Moon and Stars: but than it must be noted that this Father held both Sun and Moon and Stars to be intelligible Creatures, and in this very place asserts, that 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id pag. 238.  they do offer up their Prayer to God, and from this very Argument concludes, we must not pray to them, because they pray to him. Whence it will follow that he conceived them as fit and able to be our Intercessors as the Saints departed, and that it was absurd to pray to any, who themselves properly did pray for us. And (2.) he adds, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Id ib.  if any Christian be not sufficient immediately to direct his Prayers to God, let him address them to the Word of God; making no mention of an address to be preferred either to Saint, or Angel, or to the B. Virgin in this Case. (3.) He adds that put the 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. p. 239.  Case that Sun, Moon, and Stars were heavenly Angels, and Messengers of God, yet were they not to be adored for this, but he whose Messengers and Angels they were. Where by the way observe, that he insensibly slides from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to adore. Whence we may certainly conclude, that in the Judgement of this Father, it was the same to pray to any person, and to adore that person, and that nothing may be invocated, which may not be adored. (last) it is evident his reason will hold good as well against addresses made to Saints, as to the Sun and Moon, they being neither of them omnipresent. (3.) They say he only must be prayed unto, who seethe and heareth every where? Let us consider (saith 
(i) De Orat. c. 1. Sect. 8.  Tertullian) the Heavenly Wisdom of our Lord in his Injunction to pray in secret, whereby he both requires the Faith of Man, confiding that God omnipotent both hears and sees under our Roofs, and in our secret Places, and also that our Faith be modest, so that we offer our Religion unto him alone, whom we are confident doth see and hear us every where. And Chrysostom, upon the same Expression, finds fault with those that pray aloud, and bids us Imitate the Hymns and Melodies of holy Angels, who pray with us, although we do not hear them: for, saith he, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Tom. 2. Homil. in Matt. 19 pag. 137.  thou dost not pray to Man, but to God omnipresent, to him that hears before thou speakest, to him that understandeth, what the Mind doth not utter.  
(4.) Because he only can Answer our Petitions, and from him only can we obtain what we desire. 
* Precantes sumus proomnibus Imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domun tutam, populum probum, orbem quietum, quaecunque hominis & Caesaris vota sunt. Haec ab alio orare non possum, quam à quo me scio consequnturum, quoniam & ipse est, qui SOLUS praestat, & ego sum cui impetrare debetur, famulus ejus qui eum Solum observo. Tertul. Apol. c. 30. Sect. 2, 3.  We beg for all our Emperors long life, safe Empire, valiant Armies, a faithful Senate, an honest People, and a quiet World, and whatsoever any man or Emperor could wish. So Tertullian: And then he adds, These things I may not pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them: because, both it is he who alone is able to give, and I am be to whom it appertaineth to obtain that which is requested, being his servant who observe him alone. From all which sayings it is evident these ancient Fathers did not only think as we now do, that all our Intercessions should be made to God, but also that they did it for these very Reasons we allege viz. that he alone is omnipresent, that he alone discerns the secrets of the Heart, that he alone is able to confer the Blessings which we want, and pray for.  
(2) The Fathers do affirm, that by addressing a petition to a Martyr, Saint, or Angel, we become guilty of distraction from God, and of deserting our Lord Jesus Christ. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 15. pag. 135.  We cannot be induced, saith the Church of Smyrna, to forsake Christ, or worship any other Person; where first it well deserveth to be noted, that what is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the ancient Interpreter of the Acts of Polycarp, Alteri cuiquam Orationis precem impendere (we cannot pray to any other. 
Act. Polyc. in Append. Ignat. Usser. p. 27. ) And what the Jews objected; (that if the Christians could obtain the Martyr's body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deserting Christ they would begin to worship him) is by the Metaphrast thus rendered, huic fundenda esset oratio singulorum, they would all pray unto him. Now seeing this Translation was of such credit in the Western Church, that it was read in their assemblies; it is most certain that Church did anciently conceive (1.) that the Church of Smyrna did deny that any genuine Christian would pray to any Saint departed. (2.) That to put up a petition to a Martyr was to renounce their Saviour. And (3.) that to pray to and afford religious worship to a Martyr was the same. And (4.) that we must only put up our petitions to the Son of God; because, he only must be worshipped. Secondly, observe the reason of this assertion of the Church of Smyrna; We cannot worship any other, delivered in these words; For him being the Son of God we worship, but the Martyrs, as the Disciples and followers of the Lord, we highly love for their exceeding great affection to their own King and Master. The Church of Rome could have informed them of a better Reason why they should affect them, (viz.) as being Intercessors, and Mediators for, and Patrons of the Christian Church, and the Procurers of all spiritual Blessings for them. She could have told them it was ignorantly done to comprehend that Service which was due to the deceased Martyrs in this one expression, We love them worthily: For if the Veneration and Worship of the Saints departed, nay, the Worship of their very Ashes, hath been the constant Custom of the whole Church of God; and if the Invocation of them be that, which Holy Scripture teacheth, and the Apostles have delivered, and which the Church of God hath always practised, as is delivered in the * Catechism of the Church of Rome, 
Part. 3. c. 2. Sect. 8.  it may be well admired that the Church of Smyrna which daily practised (say they) this veneration and invocation of the holy Martyrs, should, without distinction, appropriate all worship and adoration to the Son of God, in opposition to the Martyrs, and comprehend the Service they performed to the blessed Martyrs in a word which doth not in the least import the Veneration which they daily practised.  
(2.) Observe the Reason which is given by the Church of Smyrna why they could not worship any other, viz. Because they worshipped the Son of God: if any worship had been then paid to Martyrs, or any other Saints departed, by the Church of Christ, what could have been more stupid than this Way of reasoning? Now that this Doctrine is introduced into the Church of Rome we hear them speaking thus; 
† Tantum abest ut Sanctis invocandis Dei gloria minuacur, ut eo maximè augeatur. Cat. Rom. part 3. c. 2. Sect. 11.  We worship Saints and Martyrs in honour of the Son of God: So far do they esteem that honour which they pay to him from being any prejudice unto the Worship of those blessed Spirits.  
(3.) Observe the Argument which the Jews urged to move the Proconsul to retain the body, viz. That if the Christians could obtain it, it might be feared they would leave Christ, and worship Polycarp. The Jews could not be ignorant of what the Christians practised in this case, by reason of those numerous Apostates who daily left the Church, and of that liberty they had to come to their Assemblies. Had then the Christians worshipped other Martyrs with Christ, and had they professed to do it for his sake and honour, could this have been objected by the Jews with any sense and reason, that they would quit Jesus Christ, that they might worship Polycarp? Must they not rather have objected, that with Christ they would worship Polycarp? which since they did not, we may well suspect the practice of the Church gave them no reason so to do.  
Athanasius discoursing upon these words of Jacob; The Angel that delivered me from all evil, defend the Lads, (which by the Arians were urged to the same purpose as they are used by Roman Catholics, viz. to prove that Invocation was not so proper to God, but that it might be used to Creatures, and therefore that it was no evidence that Christ was God) declares, that Jacob did not speak of a created Angel: (1.) Because he joins the Angel with God, and saith, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas. Orat. 4. contra Arianos. p. 260.  The God that fed me; the Angel that delivered me, which, though it be familiar with the Roman Catholics, he looked upon as an absurd, illegal practice. (2.) Because no man, deserting of that God that fed him, would ask a blessing for his kindred of the holy Angels: whence it is evident, that in the judgement of this Father, to pray to holy Angels was to desert the God of Heaven, even when we made our first addresses to him, as here Jacob did.  

‖ 〈…〉 l. 4 c. 4. M.  St. Hilary the Deacon saith, That the Idolaters made use of this 
† Solent tamen pudorem passi neglecti Dei miserâ uti excusatione, dicentes per istos posse ire ad Deum, sicut per comites pervenitur ad Regem. Age nunquid tam demens est aliquis, aut salutis suae immemor, ut honorificentiam Regis vindicet comiti; cum de bdc re siqui etiam tractare fuerint inventi, jure ut rei damnantur Majestatis? & isti se non putant reos, qui benorem nominis Dei deferunt Cr aturae, & relicto Domino conservos adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod servetur Deo, nam & ideo ed Regem per Tribunos aut comites intur, quia homa utique est Rex, & nescit quibus debeat rempublicam credere. Ad Deum autem (quem utique nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit) promerendum suffrugatore non opus est, sed ment devota. Vbicunque eniae talis l●cu●us fuerit ej, respondebit illi.  miserable excuse for themselves, that by those inferior Deities they worshipped, they went to God himself, as we go to the King by his Courtiers. But, saith he, is any man so mad, or regardless of himself, to give the Honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, which if a man does he is condemned for Treason? And yet they think themselves not guilty, who give the Honour due to God's Name to a Creature, and forsaking God adore his fellow-servants, as though any thing greater than that were reserved for God himself. But therefore we go to a King by his Officers and Servants, because the King is but a man, who knows not of himself whom to employ in his public affairs. But to procure the favour of God, from whom nothing is hid, (for he knoweth the merits, or works, of all men) we need no spokesman, but a devout mind; for wheresoever such a one shall speak unto him, he will answer him. Where we have these three things considerable: 1. That to go unto God by a Creature, as we go to earthly Princes by their Ministers, is to be guilty of Rebellion against God, by giving of his Honour to a Creature, and by worshipping the Minister as if he were the King 2. That this is to desert the God of Heaven. And (3.) That by doing thus, we do ascribe unto our fellow servants as great Honour as we can give to God himself. To this T. G. replies; p. 370 First, That this Author speaks of those who gave the Honour due to God, to a Creature, and forsaking God adored their fellow-servants; very true: But then he adds, That he is guilty of all this, who goes to God by a Creature, as a man would recommend himself to the King by his Minister, which is the daily practice of the Romanist. This plaster therefore doth not heal the wound, but make it wider.  
2. As he who only makes use of a Courtier to recommend him to the King, doth not give the Honour due to the King to any of his Courtiers, so neither do Catholics give the Honour due to God, to the Saints, who only require the favour of their prayers to God, 
P. 371.  so T. G. Repl. This is as if he should have said, St. Hilary thou liest: For he expressly saith, That to recommend ourselves to God by a Creature, as we do to the King by his Courtiers, is honorificentiam Regis vindicare Comiti. For as he who sets up a Viceroy or subordinate King in any Commonwealth, and gives the Honour of a Viceroy to him without the King's Commission, doth give that Honour to him which is due only to the King, and aught to be esteemed as a violater of his Kingly Power; so must he also be esteemed, who having no Commission from God and Christ, sets up subordinate Mediators, and Masters of Request to God. 
Ibid.  3. T. G. doth charge the Doctor with a terrible blunder; because he rendereth, Suffragatore non opus est, We need not any to recommend us to his favour. Repl. 1. This is a Calumny, for what he rendereth thus, is Suffragatore non opus est ad promerendum Deum, which cannot otherwise be rendered. T. G.'s Translation is confuted by the Reason following, which (as the Doctor doth translate the words) is this, The devout person needs no spokesman to obtain God's favour, for if he speak himself, God will be sure to answer him. But according to T. G.'s it will run thus, We need not any to inform God, that so we may procure his favour, but a devout mind; which is sufficiently ridiculous. 3. To this Interpretation of Peroon Du Moulin answers thus, 
Novelty of Pop. p. 420  To this word the Cardinal giveth an absurd Interpretation, saying, that it signifieth a Counsellor. Every one that hath some taste of the Latin Tongue will smile at this, knowing that this word was never taken in that sense. The votes of every Roman Citizen in the Comitia or City Meetings were called Suffragia, and he who helped or favoured any with his vote, was called his Suffragator. Now it is clear, that the Author of this Book speaks of Colonels and Governors, or Comites, which are used as Intercessors, not as Counsellors.  
But T. G. doth object against St. Hilary; If a devout mind be enough to recommend us to the favour of God, what need we the prayers of others, or the intercession of Christ? What Hilary would answer I am not able to divine; but if he were alive, he might well wonder, that speaking against them, Qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt Creaturae, he should be thought to exclude Christ Jesus, whom he so often denies to be a Creature. 2. As to the prayers of others, St. Chrysostom saith the same with Hilary in very many places. 
* chrysost in Matth. T. 7. p. 768  When we have suit unto men, saith he, it falleth out ofttimes, that we cannot go strait unto the Lords themselves, and present our gift unto them, and speak with them, but it is necessary for us first to procure the favour of their Ministers, and Stewards, and Officers, both with praying, and using all other means unto them, and then by their mediation to obtain our request. But with God it is not thus: For there is no need of Intercessors for the Petitioners; neither is he so ready to give a gracious answer being entreated by others, as by our own selves praying unto him. And again, 
† Serm. 7. de paenit. T. 6. Ed. Savil. p. 802.  With God there is no such matter, without an Intercessor he is entreated, it sufficeth only that thou cry in thine heart. Lastly, 
‖ Serm. de profectu Evang. To. 5. p. 416.  With God (saith he) thou hast need of no Intercessors; but although thou be alone, and hast no patron, thou by thyself praying unto God shalt certainly obtain thy request. He useth not to yield so soon, being prayed unto by others for us, as when we ourselves do pray unto him, although we be replenished with a thousand evils. 
* Serm. in Psal. 4. p. 524.  Thus did he deal with the Woman of Canaan: When Peter and James came for her, he did not yield, but when she herself did remain, he presently gave that which was desired. All this, and much more to the same effect, we find in Chrysostom; and yet in his fifth Homily upon the first of Matthew, exhorting us to pray 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To. 2. p. 34.  by ourselves, rather than by others, and giving us examples of many, for whom the prayers of their good friends that lived with them, prevailed not; and the example of this Woman, who by herself prevailed, when James and Peter could not: He adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i. e.) I speak not this that we should not request the prayers of holy men, (i. e.) of those we do converse with here on earth, as the examples mentioned do interpret it, but to prevent our sloth. The like might Hilary have answered to T. G.'s. objection. Lastly, that he might give some colour to his exposition of the words of Hilary, he very disingenuously and lamely represents his Argument, for he makes it to be only this, that because nothing is hid from God, there is no need of a suffragator. Whereas his Argument runs thus, to make him favourable who is acquainted with the merits (or the works) of all men, there is no need of any Suffragator: now I conceive it is as well the business of an Intercessor, as of a Counsellor, to plead the merits, or good works, of him for whom he intercedes.  
4. When 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 8. p. 381.  Celsus had affirmed, that by giving worship to those Daemons which were subject to the highest God, he would not be offended whose Subjects they were: Origen replies, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Orig. contra Celsum. l. 8. p. 382.  That he who doth not any work that is grateful to the Daemons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth ascend above the worship of them. And that be ascends above the portion of them, who by St. Paul are called Gods, (i. e.) the Angels, who, as they do, or any other way doth look, not at the things which are seen, but which are not seen; and who beholding that the creature waiteth for the revelation of the Sons of God, etc. doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i. e.) doth speak well of, or wish well to them, and understanding that the creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the liberty of the Sons of God, is not himself distracted, or withdrawn from God, to worship any other with him, nor doth endure to serve two Lords. Wherefore, saith he, it is not a seditious speech of those, who being well content with one Lord Jesus Christ, do think and say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they will not give Dulia to more Lords. Now that the strength and pertinency of this Discourse may be conspicuous to the Reader, let it be observed that 
(b) Eam verò Origenis doctrinam fuisse, quod omnes Angeli sublimésque virtutes in delore, & gemitibus sint antequam nos penitus liberemur, non dubium est legenti commentarium ejus hoc loco, & ca quae scribir libr. 1. de principiis, c. 7, 8. Esth. in locom. Vide Not. Spenceri. in l. 5. contr. Celsum. p. 63.  Origen conceived this passage of St. Paul, which speaks of that corruption and vanity to which * the Creature was unwillingly subjected, was to be understood as well of Angels, as of inferior Creatures, as is apparent both from his Comment on the place: And from his first Book de Principiis, Chap. 7, 8. so that his meaning in these words must undeniably be this, the Christian in his Devotions doth ascend above the Angels, and is not so distracted and withdrawn from God, as to worship Angels with him; but maketh God and his Son Jesus Christ the only objects of his Worship. 2. 
(c)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. p. 383.  We Christians, saith he, do not decline the worship of any other with God, and by his word, because we think, God can be hurt, as a man may, by serving of another with him, but that we may not hurt ourselves, by separating of ourselves from the Portion of God. (3.) He adds, that 
(d)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. p. 384.  we have better reason to serve God only by his Son, by whose conduction we are brought to God; than to serve two Lords, or perform what Celsus had affirmed to be grateful to God: (viz.) the worshipping of those who were his Subjects, and belonged to him (4.) He affirms, that when St. 
(e)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id ib. p. 382.  Paul asserted that to us there is but one God the Father, from whom are all things, he speaks there of himself, and of all them who do ascend unto the highest God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, which persons he describes by these three Notes, 1. That they were such as did 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Id. ibid.  inseparably and undividedly worship this God of Gods by Jesus Christ. 2. That they were such as came unto him by Christ alone. 3. That they were such as so ascended to him, as to 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. 〈◊〉.  transcend even these blessed Spirits which are in Scripture called Gods. 5. He comprehends the Honour which the Christians gave unto the Angels, in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bene precatur creaturae, saith the Latin. Whereas St. 
(h) Aug. Serm. 17 de verbs Apost.  Austin telleth us, It is an injury to pray for them, unto whose prayers we ought to be commended. To these citations T.G. returns this Answer, viz 
* p. 357.  That the worship which Origen here contends, is not to be given to Angels is Divine Worship, proper to God alone. But 1. this Reply makes Origen dispute impertinently, and to say nothing to the purpose. For Celsus only did contend for this, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. l. 8 p. 381  That together with the highest God, inferior Being's might be worshipped as his Subjects. No, saith St. Origen, the Christian goeth immediately to God by Christ, he comes unto him by no other, he ascends above the service of Daemons and of Angels, and doth not suffer himself to be distracted from God, so as to worship any other with him. If he intended to assert the Christians did not worship Angels or Daemons with him, as his Subjects, the Discourse is pertinent, if he intended only to affirm that Christians did not worship Angels or Daemons with him, as his Peers, this doth not hinder the worship of them, as his Subjects, according to the plea of Celsus. 2. When he affirms that Christians did ascend, or go to God, only by Jesus Christ, having no other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conciliator, or Intercessor to give access unto him, when he affirms all this, in opposition unto that of Celsus, that it would be grateful to God to worship them who did belong unto him, when he asserts that Christians did ascend, or go to God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without dividing of their service betwixt him and any other, and more particularly, that in ascending to God they overlooked the blessed Angels, which are in Scripture called Gods, and that both Reason and St. Paul had taught them so to do. What greater evidence can be desired to prove that the Christians of his time did never call upon the Saints and Angels to be their Advocates with God? or tender any part of their Religious Worship to them, or think it reasonable to worship them, because they did belong unto God? 3. If this had been the mind of Origen, is it not to be wondered that he makes no distinction of the kinds of Worship, or of the parts and actions of it: but absolutely and indefinitely pronounceth, that to worship any other with God, is to be distracted from him, and that Christians undevidedly did worship God by Jesus Christ? For if the Christians of his time did also worship Saints and Angels, and go to God not only by Christ Jesus, but by them, these say, without limitation, are both absolutely false, and perfect condemnations of the Church's practice. But yet T. G. 
† p. 358.  assures us, It is plain, Origen speaks only of divine worship, and not of such an inferior worship of which Creatures are capable upon account of their holiness or relation to God, 1. From the Reply which Origen gave to that evasion of Celsus, viz. that none were to be honoured For Gods, but those to whom the Supreme God doth communicate it. Repl. Since then, the plea of Celsus was that we ought to worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Relations of God, what an Impertinent was Origen to speak only of an other matter? 2. The strength of this citation entirely depends upon the words, For Gods, which T. G. disingenuously adds unto the words of Celsus 
* l. 8. p. 384 , which are only these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not lawful to worship any but those to whom he granteth to be honoured: But (3.) he expressly adds, that he speaks of the worship of the Gods, or the Daemons, or the Heroes, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. p. 384.  Let us ask Celsus, saith he, concerning those that are worshipped either as Gods, or Daemons, or Hero's, whence he is able to demonstrate that God hath granted to them to be honoured. And then having produced Alcinous as an instance of the first kind, he asks how it can be demonstrated that it was given to him to be worshipped as a God; and then he adds, this Question I would ask 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. of the Daemons and the Heroes. Then he proceeds to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be honoured, was a thing granted to Christ, which he confirmeth from that passage of St. John, that all should honour the Son as they honour the Father: i. e. as truly, but not equally, that being inconsistent with origen's opinion, as you will presently perceive. Obj. When Celsus objects, 
T. G. p. 358.  that by the same rule that Christians gave honour to Christ, he thought they might give it to inferior Deities, the account which Origen gives of the worship which Christians attribute to the Son, (viz. because it is said, I and my Father are one) makes it yet more evident that he speaks of Divine Worship. Answ. In the close of this Argument we have the same cheat repeated which I observed before, for he expressly saith, that Celsus objected that they worshipped Christ for God. Which is not only false, but flatly contradictory unto the very words of the Objection, viz. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Celsus apud Orig. l. 8. p. 385.  that if the Christians worshipped nothing else besides God, they might seem reasonable in their contempt of others, but when they do excessively extol with honour him who was of late original, and yet believe that they do not offend against God by reverencing of his Minister, they are unreasonable: Whence evident it is, that Celsus did not think they worshipped him as God, but as the Minister of God, and one besides God. 2. Hence it is also evident, that Celsus did not contend for Divine Worship to be given to his Heroes, but only that they might be worshipped as the Ministers of God. And lastly, it is evident that 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. p. 386.  Origen by that expression, I and my Father are one, did not intent to argue the Unity of Essence, but of affection only betwixt God and Christ, as in this very place he doth distinguish, nor yet to say our Saviour was that God who was the Lord of all, for this 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. p. 387.  expressly he denies. And so this Answer can be no evidence that he speaks of Worship properly Divine: But if we do at last admit it, what Argument is more ridiculous than this, Origen denies that there is the same reason to give honour to Christ and to inferior Daemons, Because, Christ is God, therefore he only doth deny the attributing of Divine Worship to them: For should a Roman Catholic object against us in the words of Celsus, by the same Rule that we Protestants give honour to Christ, we may give it unto Saints departed, and should the Protestant answer, No; Because Christ is God, could it be thence inferred that Protestants denied to Saints departed that honour only which is called Latria, but did allow that kind of worship which is called Dulia.  
To pray unto a Creature, 
Arg. 3.  or that which is not God, is in the Language of the the ancient Fathers to worship it as God, or give that honour to it, which is due to him alone; is it not the extremest ignorance, saith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 721. D.  Clemens, to ask of them who are no Gods, as if they were Gods; and of this imputation he gives two accounts. 1. That seeing God alone is good, he only should be called upon. 2. That prayer is a discourse with God. We find in Scripture (saith 
(a) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. contra Cells. l. 5. p 233.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ib.   Origen) That Angels are sometimes styled God, but notwithstanding that these Gods do also minister, and bring the gifts of God unto us, we must not worship them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in place of God, for all our prayers and supplications (by whatsoever name we call them, for he mentions all the Kind's of Prayer,) they must be all sent up to God by that high Priest, who is above all Angels, and is God. Why so I pray you, but that all prayer is worship which alone belongs to God, and Jesus Christ? And therefore to offer it to any Creature, or by any other Mediator, is to ascribe that to him which is due to God alone: had he been of the Church of Rome he must have said with them, that notwithstanding you have that High Priest, yet may you send up your Petitions to the Saints and Angels, this is an honour to him not an Encroachment upon the office of this great High Priest; it is confessed you must not worship them instead of God, but notwithstanding you may put up to them Supplications, Prayers, Thanksgiving. Intercessions, you may say unto them Pater noster, and ask all temporal and eternal blessings of them, provided you do not pray unto them with absolute, terminative, and sacrificial Prayer, distinctions which in reference to this matter, the Fathers knew but little off.  
The Fathers hence conclude that Christ is God, 
Arg. 4.  and that the Holy Spirit is God, because, we put up our Petitions to them, and because that they are present to relieve us, being called upon. 
(b) 
Si homo tantummodo Christus qùomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut udesse omni loco possit? No vat. de Trinitate c. 14. p. 707.  
Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in Orationibus Mediator invocetur, cum Invocatio hominis ad praestandam Salutem inessecax judicetur. Novatian. ibid.   If Christ were only man how comes he to be every where present when he is invoked, since to be omnipresent is the property of God, and is not competent to humane nature? If Christ was only man, why is a man invoked in our Prayers, as if he were a Mediator? for the Invocation of a man is (by Christians) judged inefficacious to the obtaining of Salvation, so Novatian: It was so by the ancient Christians, but is it so esteemed by the Church of Rome? Is not the blessed Virgin by them styled 
(c) Ave salus hominum. Prosa. Miss. f. 35. B.  Salus hominum, or the Salvation of mankind? Do they not say that 
(d) Ibid. fol. 30.  God will certainly confer eternal Life on them that worship her? Do they not bid the 
(e) Missa in Honorem proprii Angeli. f. 16.  Guardian Angel say unto their Souls, I am thy Salvation? It is written, saith Athanasius, be thou to me a God, Protector, and as house of refuge that thou mayst save me: which words if Arians conceive to have been spoken of the Son, 
(f)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contr. Ar. Orat. p. 369.  let them know that (Christians or) Holy Persons do not Petition any thing that was begotten to be an helper to them or a house of Refuge. What are they then who do declare that it is good and profitable 
(g) Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.  ad corum opem auxiliumque confugere to fly for refuge to their help and aid, whose daily practice is to fly unto the blessed Virgin, 
(h) Catech. Rom. Par. 4. c. 5. Sect. 8.  ab eâque opem & auxilium implorare, i. e. and to petition her to be our helper? who do advise us 
(i) Sub Matris refugio fuge causa veniae. Prosa. Miss. f. 33. B. 34. A.  to fly under her refuge for the pardon of our sin? Lastly, who say unto their Guardian Angel, 
(k) Exurge Angelo in adjutorium meum. Miss. in Hon. Pr. Angel. f. 16.  Arise O Angel to my help. Origen lays down this as a most certain Rule, 
(l) Sed in Principio Epistolae quam ad Corinthios scribit, ubi dicit cum omnibus qui invocant nomen domini jesu Christi in omni loco ipsorum & nostro cum cujus nomen invocatur Deum jesum Christum esse pronunciat: Si ergò & Enos, & Moses, & Samuel invocabant Dominum, & ipse exaudiebat eos sine dubio Christum jesum Dominum invocabant, & si invocare Domini nomen, & adorare Deum unum atque idem est, sicut invocatur Christus, & adorandus est Christus. Orig. l. 8. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 10.  That to invoke the name of God, and to adore him is the same: Whence he infers that as Christ may be invocated, so also must he be acknowledged to be God: and he adds, that when Saint Paul doth mention those that in all places call upon the name of Christ, he proves the same.  
Having thus manifested from the judgement of the ancient Fathers that invocation is a part of worship proper to God, and that it cannot be ascribed to Saints departed without Idolatry, much less to the inferior Heathen Daemons: 
Pag. 1.5.  We shall subjoin what Dr. St. affirms, viz. That there being other intermediate beings between the supreme God, and men whose office, as the Heathens did conceive, was this, to carry the prayers of men to God, and to bring down help from him to them, they thought it very fitting to address their solemn supplications unto them, this (I say) being so, there was the very same cause in debate betwixt the ancient Fathers and the Heathens, which is between us and the Church of Rome. Here T.G. swells and cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: this is a most injurious Calumny and such as scarcely ever dropped from the pen of the greatest enemies of Christianity: So he, this being his continual Custom to begin with false and disingenuous accusations, and to confirm them by most impertinent and weak discourses. We therefore will a little draw the parallel, and then proceed to answer his impertinencies.  
First then 
(m) Oratio porrigitur alicui dupliciter. Vno modo quasi per ipsum implenda. Alio modo sicut per ipsum impetranda. Primo quidem modo soli Dec Orationem porrigimus: quid omnes crationes nostrae ordinari debent ad gratiam & gloriam consequendam, quae solus Deus dat. Secundum illud Psal. 83. Gratiam & Glorian dabit Dominue. Sed Secundario modo orationem porrigimus Angelis & hominibus— Aq. 2 2ae. q. 83. Art. 4.  Aquinas thus propounds the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the Invocation of departed Spirits; a prayer may be directed to a person so as that we do request him to fulfil, and by himself accomplish our desires, and thus we pray to God alone, or so as that we do solicit him to beg or to obtain them for us, and thus we pray to Saints and Angels; now this is that very Office which the Platonists ascribed to their Daemons; They saith 
* August. de C. D. l. 8. c. 18.  St. Austin, bring the prayers of men unto the Gods, and what they beg and do obtain, quae poscunt impetrata they bring back to men. And again, They think them so to intermediate betwixt God and men, as that they carry out desires hence, illinc referunt impetrata, and from thence bring back what they have obtained. Hence are they often styled by them Advocates and Mediators, Intercessors, and Pararii i. e. the obrainers of our Suits.  
2. On this account they thought it reasonable to honour them with supplications. 
* Ficinus tradit Platonem universan. Deorum Synagogam unico Regi subdere prout vult sengulis imperanti, Jubere primum Deum adori propter seipsum, sequentes vero, qui participes ejus Dii queque dicuntur amari tanquam illi similiores, honorari etiam ut Vicarios, imo & advocari lanquam Conciliatores.  Plato, saith Ficinus, subjected the whole number of Gods unto one King, who as he pleased did command them all, and he commanded that the chief God should be worshipped for himself, the other who are also called Gods by participation to be loved as likest to him, and to be honoured as his Vicars, and to be addressed to as to reconcilers. And Plato hath himself determined, 
(n)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epinom. pag. 1010.  That they ought to be honoured with our Prayers, by reason of their laudable Province: which he saith is double. 1. 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Symposium p. 1194.  To be our Interpreters to God. 2. To carry up the Prayers and Sacrifices of men to God, and to bring back the commands and answers of God to them. 
(p)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Celsus apud Origen. lib. 8. p. 394.  We ought to pray unto them to be propitious to us, so Celsus. 3. They did not think them to be Gods properly so called, but only the ministers and servants of God, as I have proved above. 
† C●●cta coelestum voluntate, numine, & autoritate fiunt, sed Paer. num obsequy, op●●a, & ministerio. Apulesus de Daemons Sociate p. 45.  All things are done, saith Apuleius, by the will, majesty, and authority of the heavenly beings, but by the ministry, work, and obsequiqusness of the Daemons. Hence do they style them, virtutes & ministeria Dei magni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. God's Ministers and Messengers. Hence do they rank them in the second and third place from God, and put this Office on them quia nullus Deus miscetur homini, because no God, that is, properly so called, doth immediately converse with man; this is so plain that Austin doth acknowledge that the difference betwixt 
† Hos si Platonici malunt Deos, quam Daemones dicere, eisque annumerare, quos a summo Deo conditos Deos scribit eorum author & magister Plato, dicant quod volunt non enim cum eis de verborum controversia laborandum est.— & rursus, Quamvis nominis controversia videatur. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 9 cap. 23.  Plato's good Daemons, which he acknowledged to be made by the highest God, and the good Angels was only in the name. Having thus drawn the Parallel, we are prepared to attend T. G's. pretences of a great disparity betwixt this Invocation of the Heathen Daemons, which by the ancient Fathers was charged with Idolatry, and that Invocation of the Saints departed, which is now practised by the Church of Rome, which will be quickly done, since all his great disparities are only great impertinencies: for what is this unto the Doctor's Argument concerning Invocation, that they do not offer Sacrifice unto the Saints departed; which is his fourth disparity: Or, that the God they worship is the true immortal God, who sees the secrets of the hearts, which is his first disparity. What is it to the purpose to say, the persons they address their prayers unto are not Devils, or wicked wretches, but the blessed Spirits; for if the same kind of Invocation be used to both, it must be deemed Idolatry in both, because in both it is the giving of the worship due to God unto the Creature; when this is done unto the best of Creatures, then is Idolatry committed; when this is not done, we may be guilty of Superstition or (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in giving of inferior worship, or Dulia, to the worst of Creatures, but cannot be guilty of Idolatry: And this cuts of his third disparity.  
4. 
pag 351.  Their Office is not to inform the supreme God of what he knows not, saith T. G. but to be joint Petitioners with us: and what is this unto the purpose? seeing the Fathers neither did, or could condemn them of Idolatry for thinking God did not know our Prayers without Interpreters. But for what was consequent upon it, viz. the making their addresses to them to present their requests to God, and by their prayers to obtain his blessings: the first opinion made them sacrilegious in robbing God of what did properly belong unto him, and with this we do not charge the Papists in this case. The second is Idolatrical in giving of his honour to a Creature, of which they are but too much guilty. This T. G. saw, as well as I: and therefore for the same good reason that some unskilful Painters writ under their work this is a Dog, a Cat, 
Pag 352.  etc. T.G. at the foot of his performance writeth thus, I have spoken home to the Case, and then he states it thus, whether the practice of Catholics in honouring and invocating the Saints, be the same with that of the Heathens, in the worship of their inferior Deities? 
T.G. pag. 440.  Thus expiring Candle gathers up its Spirits, and forces itself into a blaze before it dies. Alas! that we should all this while have been mistaken in the question. The question hitherto controverted betwixt Dr. St. and him, in this particular, was concerning the Invocation of Saints, as T. G. doth himself confess, p. 350. but now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand, this is dropped under the Table, and all the show above board is, whether their Invocation of Saints doth differ, not from the Invocation, but the whole worship of inferior Daemons. The business of solemn supplication to them is the Case in debate between us and the Church of Rome (saith Dr. St.) If ever you would speak home to the case do it upon this point. 
Pag. 145.  I beg your pardon, saith T. G. I am not free to speak upon that point; I know my foot must slip if I should touch upon it, and therefore though you press me, and call upon me to speak home unto it, I am resolved to be reserved; nay, I am conscious to myself, that all that I have spoken is impertinent to that Case, I have not, nor I cannot show the least disparity betwixt their Invocation of inferior Daemons: and that Invocation of the Saints, which Roman Catholics do practise: but if instead of speaking to this one case of supplication, you will let me wander, through the whole worship of those Daemons, than I have three disparities to offer; this is the twig the poor man catcheth hold of, to save both him and his whole Church from sinking, but in vain; for the disparities which he hath represented betwixt that honour which they give to Saints, and what the Heathen do ascribe to their inferior Daemons is not only horribly impertinent, but also vain and frivolous, as will appear by reassuming of his heads of difference, as 1. The persons to whom we address ourselves for their prayers, 
T. G. pag. 351.  are not Devils or wicked Wretches, but the Friends and Servants of God. Answ. 1. St. Austin manifestly doth assert, 
Dec. D. l. 9 c. 23.  That either all, or at the least, the better sort of Platonists, Hoc ipsum dicunt quod dicimus, did assert the same of their good Daemons, which we do of the blessed Angels; that there was also no dissension betwixt them and Christians touching these blessed Spirits; and that the controversy was but this, whether they should be called Daemons, as they were wont to style them, or Angels, as the Christians called them: and therefore it is manifest he did not think the Platonists good Daemons to be Devils, or wicked Wretches, as T. G. suggests. 2. It is apparent from their Writings, that other Heathens had the same apprehensions of them, which the Papists have of Saints and Angels, for they distinguished them into such Spirits, as 
* Verum haec omnis distributio corum Daemonum fait, qui quondam in corpore bumano fuere. Sunt autem non posteriore numero praestantiori longe dignitate superius aliud angustiusque genus Daemonum, qui semper à corporis compedibus & nexibus liberi. Apuleius l. de Deo Socratis. p. 50.  were by death delivered from the body, and such as never were united to the body. And hence that Law of the old Romanists, 
† Divos & eos, qui coelostes semper habiti, colunto: & ollos quos in coelum merita vocaverunt. Cic. de legibus. l. 2.  Let them be worshipped who have always lived in Heaven, and those whose merits have advanced them to that place; where we have both the same objects of our worship, and the same reason of that worship given, viz. their merits, or as Trismegistus hath it, the virtues of their life. And though I grant they were mistaken in their apprehensions, yet he that doth so confidently assert, That Roman Catholics would not be guilty of Idolatry, provided the material object of their worship should be bread, because they apprehend what is bread not to be there, but Christ; cannot have any reason to quarrel with the Heathens, because, when they performed their worship to an Image in whom these Spirits were conceived to be present, they apprehended no evil Spirit to be there, but only pure and holy Souls, and blessed Daemons.  
2. Their office, saith he, is not to inform the supreme God of what he knows, but to be joint Petitioners with us. Answ. Admit all this, the Fathers do expressly hold they ought not to be worshipped upon that account. But 2. Let me crave leave of good St. Augustine to assert, That the Platonists did not conceive that God was ignorant of what was done on Earth, or that he needed Daemons or any other Spirits to inform him of our words, thoughts, or actions. St. Augustine (I confess) infers this Doctrine from what they did assert, but that they constantly professed and taught the contrary, is clearer than the Sun. 
* Theolog. Dogm. Tom 1. l. 8. c. 4.  Petavius tells us, That the tenth Book of Plato is spent in proving that God wants neither power, will, nor knowledge, to make his providence concerned about the least things which are done on Earth, and that expressly he declares, that the Gods discern, know, and hear all things, and that nothing which our sense or reason can perceive, can be concealed from them. This, saith 
† 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 10. de leg. p. 955.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ammonius Comment. ad librum Aristotelis de interpretatione.   Plotinus and Ammonius, must be certain, that if the Gods are the first causes of all things, they cannot possibly be ignorant of any thing which is in any manner done by them Moreover the 
‖— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plotinus Enn. 5. l. 9 c. 5 Vid. Petavium T. 1. l. 4. c. 2.  Platonists affirmed, That God had this knowledge from and by himself, and from no other, and that nothing was required but his nature to make him understand all things. Particularly, both Platonists and others held that God was the searcher of the heart, and was himself acquainted with the thoughts of men. Hence 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laertius in vit. Thaletis p. 24 Nihil Deo clausum est, interest animis nostris & cogitationibus intervenit; Senec. Ep. 83.  Thales being asked, whether the actions of men could be concealed from God; he answers, No, nor yet our thoughts. Nothing is hid from God, faith Seneca, he is both present to our minds and thoughts, Whence he exhorts us so to live as in his sight, and so to think, as having one who looks into our breasts. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Xenophon memorab l. 1.  The Gods, saith Socrates, know all things which are spoken, done, and which in silence we consult. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. M. Antonini l. 12. Sect. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. l. 11. Sect. 13.  God sees all minds, saith Antoninus, devested of those Barks and material Vessels that contain them, for with his mind alone he reacheth all those minds which are derived from him, and are lodged in them. Whence he exhorts us so to be 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epict dissert l. 2. c. 14.  affected in our minds, as that the Gods may see that nothing doth trouble or disgust us. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plutarch. de tarditate divin. vindict.  This we are first to learn, saith Epictetus, that there is a God, whose Providence doth reach to all things, and that not only what we do but what we think cannot be hid from him. It is more agreeable to God, saith Plutarch, to perceive the actions of the soul than of the body; he therefore knows the dispositions of all men. This is but little of that which might be easily produced to confirm this truth; but yet it is sufficient to inform the Reader, that T. G. was scandalously ignorant if he did not know it, or scandalously wicked, if knowing this, he ventured to declare the contrary.  
3. We, saith T. G. do not procure or buy this favour of them by offering Sacrifice to them. Answ. True; but than you offer up your prayers unto them, which in the judgement of the ancient Fathers is the best and highest Sacrifice, as I have proved already, Prop. 4. Corol. 1. 2. As Roman Catholics do pray to Saints departed, and do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart, because they vainly do conceive these things are not so proper to God, but that they may be attributed to the Creature; so Heathens offered their first fruits and Sacrifices to inferior Daemons, because they vainly did conceive they were not properly that worship which was due unto the highest God, but such as might be given to those Daemons, which they acknowledged to be Creatures. This is apparent from what St. Austin doth assert concerning them, viz. 
De C. D. l. 10. c. 19  That they conceived these visible Sacrifices might agree to lesser Gods, but that to him who is invisible, the greater and the better God, invisible, greater, and better Sacrifices do agree, viz. the duties of a pure mind, and a good will. I grant they were deceived in this apprehension: But if the Romanists cannot be justly charged with Idolatry, although the object of their worship should be Bread, because they do conceive it not to be so, why should the Heathens be deemed guilty of Idolatry in this particular, although the act of worship which they confer upon the Creature, be proper to God, seeing they also do conceive it not to be so? For as Dr. Taylor argues in behalf of them; if these Heathens thought this act of worship proper to God, they who command us not to exceed in paying honour to them, would be far from doing of it; which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is Idololatrical.  
Lastly, The Doctor saith, 
P. 145.  The wiser Heathens acknowledged one God, not Jupiter of Crect, but the Father of Gods and Men. 
P. 350.  To this T. G. replies, That Origen saith that Jupiter was a Devil. But if Origen spoke this of Jupiter of Crect, or if he did not speak it of the Philosophers supreme God, which T. G. never offers to assert he did, 
De Theol. Gent. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7.  what can be more impertinent? The Learned Vossius had met with some as ignorant as T. G. who thought that the Philosophers God was not the true Jehovah, and that the Heathens had not the knowledge of him; and thus he puts the Question to them: What will these persons say to Blessed Paul, who calleth Jupiter God? What, doth he understand that Jupiter who was so infamous for his Adulteries? Sure it is no such matter; he with the Philosophers did understand that infinite mind that runs through all things; why else doth he approve that saying of Aratus, For we are all his offspring? Why doth he manifestly apply that to the true God which Aratus spoke of Jupiter, for he begun his Verses with him. This therefore is the mind of the Apostle, that we are his offspring, whom the wiser Heathens understood by Jupiter, which he would not have said, had not some of the Heathens had the knowledge of the true Jehovah. When St. Paul saith, Him whom you ignorantly worship, 
Acts 17.  I declare unto you, how manifestly doth he affirm, that the Athenians worshipped that very Deity of which he was about to speak, viz. God that made the world, etc. And how can any man deny this thing, saith he, when the same Apostle doth affirm that they knew God, 
Rom. 1.20  and that he had manifested to them that which may be known of God; for what is more absurd than to imagine, that the true and only God should manifest unto them any other God besides himself? 
‖ Veteres cum adversus Deorum cultores Christianam causam agunt, insignium Poetarum, ac philosophorum, necnon Sibyllarum testimonia quamplurima referunt, quae unicum Deum esse, Deos autem illos, quos vulgus ascivit, mentitos & inanes esse praedicant. Petav. T. 1. l. 1. c. 3. p. 17.  Petavius could have informed him, That it was the business of the Fathers, in their Apologies and Exhortations to the Gentiles, to show, that both the wisest and the most eminent Poets and Philosophers acknowledged the one true God, and laughed at those vain fictitious Deities the vulgar worshipped. But 2. The God whom we adore, saith T. G. is not that wise Father of Gods and Men, who was so high as not to know what was done here below, but the true and immortal God, who sees the secrets of our hearts, and knows our necessities before we utter them. Answ. This also did the God of the Philosopher, as we have largely proved. 
* Quisquis est Deus, totus est sensus, totus visus, totus auditus, totus animae, totus animi, totus sui.  Let God be what he will, saith Pliny, he must be all sense, all eye, all hearing. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Lipsii Physiol. Stoicorum l. 1. dissert. 6. p. 30.  He must be deemed, saith Hypocrates, to be immortal, and to hear, and see, and know all things, both present, and to come. Of this we have innumerable evidences in Lipsius' Physiol. Stoic. l. 1. Dissert. 6. xi. Petau. de Deo. To. 1. l. 4. cap. 1.2, 3, 4. and l. 8. c. 4. sec. 6. and Gataker in Antoninum. l. 1. sec. 3. l. 6. sec. 13. l. 12. sec. 2.  
To this convincing evidence of Dr. St. That invocation of the Saints deceased was not the Doctrine of the ancient Church: we add these four Considerations: 1. That Lactantius and others dispute against the Heathens with such Arguments as perfectly destroy this practice, and confute this Doctrine, and which could never, without the highest folly, be alleged by those who did approve either the Doctrine or practice of the Church of Rome. 
* Quid— sibi— volunt denique ipsa simulachra, quae aut mortuorum aut absentium monimenta sunt? Deos igitur in quorum numero reponemus? Si in absentium: colendi ergo non sunt: si nec vident quae facimus; nec audiunt quae precamur. Si antem Di● absentes esse non possunt ●qus quoniam divini sunt, in quacunque mundi parte fuerint, vident & audiunt universa: Supervacua ergo sunt simulachra, illis ubique praesentibus; cum satis sit audientum nomina precibus advocare. Lactant. de Origine Erroris, l. 2. c. 2.  Quid sibi volunt simulacra, what mean their Images, saith he, which either are the Monuments of the Dead or absent Persons? for upon this account were these similitudes invented, that the memory of them might be retained, who are either dead, or absent from us: in which of these two orders will you place your Gods? If in the number of the dead men, is any man so foolish as to worship them? If in the number of the absent, they are not to be worshipped, if they can neither see what we do, nor hear our Prayers: Where note, that it is here supposed, as an unquestionable thing, that persons absent can neither hear our Prayers, nor see our Actions. Let me then ask T. G. what mean the Images of the Church of Rome, which are either the monuments of the dead, or absent persons; in what order will you place your Saints and Angels? If in the number of dead men; Why then are you so foolish as to worship them; If in the number of the absent, they are not to be worshipped, since they can neither see our actions, nor hear our prayers. What I have thus retorted on the Church of Rome, if the like practice had then obtained in the Church of Christ, might have been with like evidence returned upon Lactantius.  
Tertullian tells the Heathens, that by allowing many Gods 
(a) Cum alii alios Deos colitis, eos quos non colitis, utique contemnitis: praelatio alterius sine alterius contumelia esse non potest, nec ulla electio non reprobatione componitur. Qui de pluribus suscipit aliquem eum quem non suscipit despexit. Sed tot ac tanti ab omnibus coli non possunt! Jam ergo tunc primo contempsistis, non veriti scilicet ita instituere, ut omnes coli non possent. Tertul. ad Nationes, L. 1. c. 10.  they do affront as many of them as they do not worship, for the prelation of any one, is a reproach to all the rest: which Argument doth equally impugn the worship of the Church of Rome: For who knows not, that many of their Saints, who in some Countries are worshipped more than Christ himself, are scarcely known in others.  
2. The Ancients prayed for all the Saints departed, excepting neither Apostles, Martyrs, or the blessed Virgin: The Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, ascribed to St. chrysostom, saith; 
(b) Chrysost. Tom. 6. p. 998, 999.  We offer unto thee this reasonable Service, for those who are at rest in the faith, our Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Religious Persons, and every Spirit perfected in the Faith: But especially for our most holy, immaculate, most blessed Lady the Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary.— Remember all them who are fallen asleep in the hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, give them to rest where the Light of thy Countenance presideth. The Liturgy ascribed to St. Mark, having made mention of the Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles, etc. speaketh thus, 
(c) Biblioth. Patrum Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. p. 35. A.  Lord make the Souls of all these to rest in the Tabernacles of thy Saints, in thy Kingdom, conferring on them all the good things promised. Which is a pregnant evidence, that the first Authors of those Liturgies did not invoke the Blessed Virgin, or the Evangelists, Apostles, Martyrs, or any other Saints departed, this being a known Rule (and as 
(d) Cum sacrae Scripturae dicat auctoritas, quod injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyr. Innocent. III. P. R. Decret. l. 3. de celeb. Miss. tit. 41.  Pope Innocent declares the voice of Scripture) that he who prays for any Martyr doth offer an affront unto that Martyr. Nay, even common sense and reason shows, that it is very foolish and absurd to pray for them, and to commend them to God's favour, to whom we therefore pray, because, we think their merits and their interest with God is such as that they can prevail by virtue of them for all the blessings they can ask for others.  
3. The Heathens did object against the Christians, that they put up Supplications to the Man Christ Jesus, whose birth and ignominious death they owned. 
(e) Inique non scis quem invocas hominem quendam factum, sub custed à Pontii Pilati punitum? In Act. Andr. apud Bar. A. D. 290. §. 26.  Dost thou not know, saith Maximus unto Andronicus the Martyr, that him whom thou invokest was a man who suffered under Pontius Pilate? And in Arnobius, the Heathen thus disputes, 
(f) Sed non, inquit, idcirco Dii vobis infesti sunt, quod omnip●lentem colatis Deum: sed quod hominem natum, &, quod personis infane est vilibus, crucis supplicio interemptum, & Deum fuisse contenditis, & superesse adhuc creditis, & quotidianis supplicationibus ad●●atis. Arnobii adversus Gentes l. 1. p. 20.  You Christians do adore with daily Supplications, and look upon him as a God, who was both born a man, and suffered an ignominious Death on the Cross. And had the Christians of that time put up their Supplications to the Apostles, Evangelists, and Martyrs, and the Blessed Virgin, had not the Heathens greater reason to object, that they offered up their Supplications unto such as were but ordinary men, and who continued in the state of death?  
When in the days of Julian this custom did insinuate itself into the Church of Christ, and they began in Panegyrical Orations to speak unto the Martyrs, as to men present with them; Eunapius presently cries out, 
Eunap. in Aedesso. p. 65.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that they call their Martyr's Ministers, and Legates of their Prayers to God. That therefore this was not objected by Porphyry or Celsus, or taken notice of, as their objection, by any of the ancient Fathers, is an assurance that they had no such practice in the purest Ages of the Church.  
4. This will be farther evident, if we consider, that in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, and of the ancient Fathers, we have no rules prescribed for the Canonising of any Saints departed, or any mention of this custom till the seventh Century: for since it is so great a Crime to worship damned Spirits next to God, seeing to celebrate their praises, and to give God thanks for their Examples, and for the Graces of his Spirit, is so absurd a thing: And yet it is a thing, saith 
(g) Nisi judicio Ecclesiae certi Sancti proponerentur colendi, facile: fieri posset, ut populus saepe ●rraret, & damnatos pro Bea●is coleret. Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat. c. 7. §. Sed.  Bellarmine, that easily might happen from the neglect of this Canonization; we may conclude that they who never took the care to practise it, did not allow that worship which made its observation necessary.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Contents.  
General Heads of Answer to the Testimonies produced by T. G. from Ancient Fathers, 1. That the Fathers of that time did more unquestionably practise and approve what hath been since condemned by the Church of Rome, V.G. They practised the communicating of Infants, they approved the necessity of it to Salvation. Sect. 1. They approved the Doctrine, that the Righteous did not enjoy the sight of God before the Resurrection. Sect. 3. Secondly, That the Fathers cited by him, do many of them in words more clear, and writings more authentic, deny, or disapprove this practice. Sect. 2. Thirdly, Many of the Fathers of those times beld Doctrines inconsistent with that practice, Sect. 3. viz. that Saints did not enjoy the Beatific Vision, ibid. Secondly, That they did not hear or understand our words directed to them, and that it was doubtful whether they had the knowledge of our condition, yea, or not. Sect. 4. Fourthly, That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present, although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly, That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures, which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's. ibid. Sixthly, That there is great difference betwixt the practice which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World, and the practice of the Church of Rome, as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them, or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart. 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs, and Oratories. Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful. Sect. 7. Partly impertinent, and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes. Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection, but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer. Sect. 9 Or only do assert that they did pray with us, and so did help us with their Prayers. Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiring God, that for their intercession he would be gracious. Sect. 11.  
§. 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries: We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers, to prove the invocation of the Saints departed, to have been the practice of the Primitive Church: Unto which purpose he allegeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen, and Nyssen, St. Cyril, and St. Ambrose, Ruffinus, St. Basil, chrysostom, St. Austin: to which we Answer.  
1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century, or after the conclusion of it. Bas. M. A. 370. Nazian. 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost. An. 398. Hierom. ob. 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers; so that if all these Fathers did expressly say what T. G. doth contend they do, it would be only this, That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries, and to the middle of the fourth, were in this matter perfect Protestants, whereas some of the middle Fathers, who lived in the declining Ages of the Church, do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome: Now in this case we say with Cyprian, 
(a) Si in aliquo nutaverit, & vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam, & Evangdicam, & Apostolicam traditionem revertamur, & inde surgat actus nestri rati●, unde & ordo & origo surrexit. Ep. 74. Sect. 14.  If verity doth warp or lean aside, we must look back, and return to Divine, Evangelical, and Apostolic Tradition; and derive the order of our action, from the original ground where it first began. And with Tertullian, 
(b) Ostendam— hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum, non patrocinia personarum, non privilegium regionum, ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur, & ita adversus veritatem vindicatur, sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit, siquidem semper Christus, & prior omnibus, aeque veritas sempiterna, & antiqua res. De Veland. Virg. c. 1.  If a custom proceeding from ignorance or simplicity, be confirmed by use of succession, and opposed against verity, we must observe that neither space of time, nor privilege of persons may prescribe against truth; for Christ is eternal, and before all, and in like sort, verity is most ancient: For who knoweth not, that above 100 years before this time, the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church: St. 
* De Lapsis Sect 7. & 20.  Cyprian makes mention of it twice; the 
† l. 8. c. 13.  Apostolic Constitutions declare, that first the Priests communicated, than Virgins, after them, Widows, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or their little Infants. In the same Century 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177  Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily, concludes against his Adversaries, that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin, because, it was the custom to administer Christ's Body to them for the Remission of Sin. They also held, that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament. When Christ saith, If you eat not my flesh, you shall not have life in you; should I say that an Infant should have life, who ends his life without that Sacrament: So Austin. Again, 
(d) Dominum audiamus, inquam, non quidam hoc de Sacramento javacri dicentem, sed de Sacramento San●● monsae suae, quo nemo ritè, nisi Baptizatus, accedit, nisi manduca●●● 'tis carnem meam & biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis— an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad par●●● los haec sententia non pertineat, possinique sine participatione corp●●● hujus & sanguine is in se habere vitam? Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat. 〈◊〉 ritis & remiss. c. 20.  Let us hear our Lord, saith he, speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table, whether none rightly comes, but he that is baptised: and then citing this place; Unless you eat my flesh, etc. he adds, Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children, but that they may without the participation o● the body and blood of Christ, have life in themselves. For this he also urgeth the Testimony of th● See of Rome; (for then this Doctrine, 〈◊〉 well as Practice, was received there.) 
(e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi, & sine participatione Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, vitam non habere parvulos dicit. To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt (Pelagiani) Apostolicae sedi, vel potiùs ipsi Magistro, & Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, etc. (quod nisi Baptizati non ut●que possunt) nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse. Epist. ad Paulinum, Ep. 106. p. 101.  Behold, saith he, Pope Innocent of blessed memory, declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism, and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ: And in his Epistle to Paulinus, if the Pelagians, saith he, will yield to the Apostles Seat, or rather to their Lord and Master, saying that except we eat his flesh, and drink his blood (which the unbaptised cannot do) we shall not have life, they will at last confess that unbaptized Infants cannot have it. The Words of Innocentius are these; 
(f) Haec enim ejus verba sunt, Illud verò quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis Gratia posse donari perfatuum est, risi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis. August. contr. duas Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c 4.  Whereas your Brotherhood asserts, that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism; this is a very fond opinion, for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, they have no life in them. 
(g) Hinc constat Inncoentii primi sentententia (quae 600 circiter annos in Ecclesia viguit, quamque Augusitnus sectatus est) Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus nece●sarium fuisse. Concil. Tom. 1. part. 4. p. 624.  Whence it is evident (saith Binius) that this was Pope Innocents' opinion, which also was maintained in the Church 600 years, viz. that the participation of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants: and what he thus confesseth is made good by * Dalle from the fourth inclusiuè, to the eleventh Century, by the plain pregnant Testimonies of them that lived in those Times; Who also doth abundantly confute that vain imagination of Mr. Cressy and Vasquezius, that they conceived it necessary that Infants should partake Christ's Body and his Blood not Sacramentally, but Spiritually, by such a participation as may be had in Baptism. Lastly, they also do affirm this Doctrine to be derived from 
(h) Optimè Funici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil a lived quam salutem, & Sacramentum Corporis Christi, nihil aliud quam vi●um vocant, unde nisi ex Aatiqua, ut existimo, et Apostolica traditione; qua Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum & participationem dominicae mensae, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed we ad salutem, & vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire, hoc enim & scriptura testatur (viz. Tit. 3.5. 1 Petr. 3.21. John 6.51, 53.) si ergo, ut tot & tanta Divina testimonia concinunt, nec salus, nec vita ae●crna, sine Baptisms & Corpore & Sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra ●●ne his promittitur parvulis. Tom. 7. lib. 1. de peccat. meritis, etc. c. 24. p. 144 D. E.  Apostolical Tradition, and deeply settled in the Churches of Christ, as doth most evidently appear from that of Austin: From an ancient, and (as I suppose) Apostolical Tradition, the Churches of Christ have this deeply settled in them, that without Baptism and the participation of the Lords Supper, no man can attain to the Kingdom of God, nor yet to life eternal: If therefore so many Testimonies Divine convince us, that everlasting Life is not to be expected without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ, 'tis in vain to promise it to children without them. And yet the Church of Rome hath laid aside this practice, and determined against this Doctrine thus: 
(i) Concil. Trid. Sesi. 21. Can. 4.  Si quis dixerit Parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae communionem anathema sit: Which must be thus interpreted; If any Person now doth say, what the whole Church of Christ did for 600 years together; viz. That it is necessary for Infants to be partakers of the Eucharist, let him be accursed. I will not quarrel with them, as Mr. Dalle doth for their intolerable irreverence to the ancient Fathers, or for the Curse they have pronounced on the whole Church of Christ, for many Ages; but I will take the Boldness to infer, that if they may condemn a practice far more ancient than was the Invocation of departed Saints, a practice not opposed, as that was, by many Fathers of the Church, upon its first encroachment, when about A. D. 360. it began to creep into the Church, a practice so deeply settled in all Christian Churches in St. Augustine's time, when that of Invocation of Saints departed, was but in the Embryo; Lastly, a practice proved from clear, unanimous, and numerous assertions of the learned Fathers; (Whereas what is produced for the other practice is obscure and contradictory to what in other places they deliver, and fairly may admit another sense, as you shall see hereafter;) I say, if they may wholly lay aside this practice, and may pronounce anathemas against it: I hope we also may refuse to practise this Invocation of the Saints departed, provided that it were as ancient as the Times of Nazianzen, Basil, and St. Austin.  
2 Observe, 
§ 2.  That though these Fathers cited by T. G. seem in some places to assert or use this invocation of the Saints departed, in others they deny the Doctrine, and disapprove the practice of it; and this they do in Writings more assuredly Authentic, and in words more clear and pregnant, than are, or can be brought to justify it. This I might easily make good, by an induction of the places cited pro and con, from all these Father; but since T. G. hath singled out St. Austin, 
p 431.  as a man so clear and pregnant in this Point, that whosoever shall deny St. Austin, to have held such formal invocation to be the Worship due to Saints, must shut his eyes, and fight against the light of a noonday truth: Let any man peruse the places which are cited from that Father, and say, whether I have not reason to affirm this bold Assertion to be a manifest untruth.  
The passages produced out of the genuine Works of Austin for Invocation, are,  
1. Let Blessed Cyprian help us with his prayers. T. G. p. 430.  
2. We Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs, both to excite us unto the imitation of them, and that we may become partakers of their merits, and may be helped by their prayers. T. G. p. 433.  
3. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought to be commended. T. G. p. 434.  
Against it we produce these Testimonies.  

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

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

‖ Non est quo cas nisi ad me, non est quâ eas nisi per me. Tract. 22. in Joh.  (3.) Thou hast not whither thou canst go but to me, nor hast thou any other way to go but by me.  
Thirdly, 
§. 3.  Observe, that many of these Fathers held those Doctrines and opinions which are inconsistent with this practice, according to the Judgement of the Romanist. As 1. It is the Judgement of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, 
(a) Illi qui sunt in Purgatorio, nondum fruuntur visione verbi, ut possint cognoscere ea quae nos cogitumus vel dicimus, & ideo eorum suffragia non imploramus orando. Aquin. 2a 2ae. qu. 83. Art. 4.  That our petitions should be directed only to such Saints as do enjoy the beatific vision, or a clear sight of God, and are admitted into those glorious Mansions which are emphatically styled Heaven. And this they do imagine to be necessary upon three accounts: 1. That they may give a reason why this practice was never used by the 
(b) Notandum est quia ante Christi adventum sancti qui moriebantur non intrabant in coelum, nec Deum videbant, nec cognoscere poterant ordinariè preces supplicantium, ideo non fuisse consuetum in Testamento veteri ut diceretur sancte Abraham, Ora pro me. Bellar. de Sanctorum Beatitud. l. 1. cap. 19 S. item Exodi.  Prophets, or the Jewish Church, and why it is not said in Scripture, or in the Jewish Records, Sancte Abraham, Ora pro me, Holy Abraham, Pray for me. And 2. Why neither they, nor any other persons, did ever put up a petition to the 
(c) Dicendum est ideo non fuisse morem in veteri Testamento adeundi Sanctos Intercessores, quia nondum erant beati & glorificati ut modo sunt. Alphons. Salmer. in 1 Tim. 2. disp. 8.  Saints in Purgatory. 3. Because this 
(d) Quod autem aliquis dirictè oraverit Sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent, vel pro se orarent nusquam legimus, hic enim modus orandi est proprius legis Gratiae, in quo Sancti videntes Deum possunt etiam in co videro orationes quae ad ipsos fundantur. Fr. Suarez. in part. 3. Th. To. 2. disp. 42. Sect. 1. V Albert. Pigh. Controu. 13.  beatific vision is conceived to be that glass, in which the blessed do behold the prayers that are made unto them, or at the least it is required as a preparatory to this Revelation. Now Thomas Stapleton informs us, That 
(e) Tot illi & tam celebres antiqui Patres, Tertullianus, Irenaeus, Origenes, Chry sostomus, Theodoretus, Oecumenius, Theophy lactus, Ambrose. Clemens Romanus, D. Bernardus, huic sententiae (quae nunc in Concilio Florentino magnd demum corquisitione factâ ut dogma fidei definita est) quod justorum animae ante diem Judicti Dei visione fruuntur non sant assensi s●d sententiam contrariam tradiderunt. Defence. Eccles. Authorit. contr. Whitak. l. 1. cap. 2.  many famous ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ambrose, Clemens Romanus, and Bernard, did not assent unto this sentence, That the Souls of the righteous enjoy the sight of God before the day of Judgement; but did deliver the contrary sentence thereunto. To these Franciscus Pegna adds, 
In part. 2. direct. Inquisitor. comment. 2●.  Justin Martyr, Austin, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, Aretas, and Euthymius. The truth of which Confessions of these Roman Doctors, you may see largely proved in 
† De poenis & satisfact●. 5. c. 3, 4, 5, 6.  Dalle: And that this Doctrine was almost generally received, about that time when all those Fathers flourished which T. G. citeth, to confirm the invocation of Saints, is evident from that of 
* Post vitam istam parvum nondum eris, ubi erunt Sancti quibus dicetur, Venite benedicti Fatris, percipite regnum quod vobis paratum est ab initio mundi. Nondum ibi eris, quis nescit? Sed jam poteris ibi esse, ubi illum quondam ulcerosum pauperem, dives ille superbus & sterilis in medits suis tormentis vidit à longè qutescentem. Tom. 8 in Psal. 36. fol. 61. G.H.  Austin, Nondum ibi eris: qu●s nescit? Thou shalt not as yet be there: who knoweth it not?  
2. It is confessed by many Doctors of the Church of Rome, that if the Saints deceased do not hear and understand our Prayers, it is a vain and idle thing to pray unto them: if this, saith 
(a) DeBeatitud. disp. 25.  Lorca, was not supposed by the Church of Christ, she would first pray unto God to reveal our Prayers, and then would put up her Petitions to them: Now almost all the Fathers cited by T.G. held that the Dead did neither know nor were acquainted with our Petitions or our wants, or at the least, they were of 
(b) S●etiam ex●ra corpus positi, vel sancti qui cum Christo sunt, agunt aliquid & laboran● pro nohis ad similitudinem Angelorum, qui salu●is nost●ae ministeria procurant,— habeatur hoc queque inter occulia Dei, ●ee char●ulae committenda mysteria. Orig. in Rom. l. 2. p. 472.  origen's Opinion, that it was doubtful whether they did or no. Thus Ambrose speaking of his dead brother, saith didst thou now know how 
* Si nunc urgeri Italiam tam propinquo bosie cognosceres, quantum ingemisceres. Ambros. de obitu sr. Satyri.  Italy was pressed with so near an Enemy, how wouldst thou groan within thyself? St. Hierom in Nepotians' Epitaph professeth he belieus him 
(d) Quicquid dixero quia ille non audit m●tum vide●ur. f. 8. B. Scimus quidem Nepotianum nostrum esse cum Christo & Sanctorum mixtum ch●ris. ib. 1. F●lix Nepotianus qui haec non videt, felix qui haec non audit. p. 10. B.  mingled amongst the Choir of Saints: And yet he adds, whatsoever I shall say will be but speaking to the Deaf, because, he hears not: and again, happy is Nepotian, who neither hears nor sees these things: 
(e) Ibi ergo sunt Spiritus defunctoru● ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur, aut eveniunt in isrâ vitâ hominibus. De cura pro mortuis. c. 13.  The Spirits of dead men are there where whatsoever things are done or happen in this life to men, they do not see them. So St. Augustine; and therefore Anselm in his interlineal Gloss upon that Text, Abraham is ignorant of us, noteth thus, Austin saith that the dead do not know what the living do. Else where he is less positive, and only saith, 
(f) Respondeo magnam quidem esse quaestionem, utrum, vel quatenus, vel quomodo ea quae circa nos aguntur 〈◊〉 ver●nt Spiritus mor●norum. August. in Psal 108. Enar. 1. p. 276, A.  whether at all, or how far, or after what manner the Spirits of the dead could know the things that are done here, is a great question. And the like doubt we find in Nazianzen in his Rhetorical Apostrophe's: for in his invective against Julian he speaks thus; 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 2. Ed. Eton.  Hear O thou soul of great Constantius (if thou hast any understanding of these things) and as many souls of the Kings before him as loved Christ. Where the Greek Scholiast upon that Parenthesis nutteth this Note; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaketh according to the manner of Isocrates, meaning, if thou hast any power to hear the things that are here And therein he saith rightly, for Isocrates useth the same form of speech, both in his Evagoras, and in his Aegineticus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If they which be dead have sense of the things which are done here. The like limitation is used by the same Nazianzen toward the end of the funeral Oration, which he made upon his Sister Gorgonia where he speaketh thus unto her; 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nazian. Orat. 2. in Gorgon.  If thou hast any care of the things done by us, and holy souls receive this honour from God, that they have any feeling of such things as these; receive this Oration of ours, instead of many, and before many funeral obsequies. Whence it is evident, that the Foundation of this Doctrine was doubted by them; And than it follows, that the thing itself was in those times only a doubtful, or a disputable point, and therefore that it was not delivered to them by tradition, or confirmed by Scripture, and cannot be required as the Condition of Communion without Schism: 2. Hence we have just reason to suspect that in those other passages, we meet with of like Nature, these words, If thou hast any sense, or apprehension of these things, when they are not expressed, may very well be understood: and that this is the genuine import of their Rhetorical Petitions.  
§. 4. Observe that the afore mentioned Fathers did often speak to their deceased Friends in such a manner, as if they did suppose them present, although they did not think them so to be: thus 
* Tom. 1. p. 314. B.  Nazianzen, when ready to conclude his Funeral Oration upon his Father, speaketh thus, What sayest thou Father, is this sufficient? And 
† l. 1. contra Julian. c. 6.  Austin speaks to Chrysostom, who had been dead some years before; Enter, St. John, enter, and sit together with thy brethren. And 
‖ Tom. 1. in Psal. 50. p. 703. l. 27.  Chrysostom to David thus, What is it thou desirest, David, thy sins are pardoned, what wouldst thou more? Oh David, go, give God thanks, and ever glorify him. And again, why art thou troubled, David, let me know. This 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 19 ed. Eton.  Nazianzen doth acknowledge to be the meaning of his addresses to Constantius when he believed he did enjoy the vision of God: for thus he speaks, What was the matter, oh divinest King, and greatest lover of our Lord, for I am moved to find fault, as if thou wast here present, and didst hear me, though I do know thee to be now with God, and in possession of his Glory. And this way of speaking they borrowed from the Heathen Orators and Poets, whom we find speaking thus; O M. Drusius I appeal to thee; O 
† Audisne haec Am●●hiarie sub terram abdite? Tuscul. Qu. l. 2 p. 147.  Amphiarius, who art now buried in the Earth, hearest thou this? 
‖ Quid dicem●● C●eanthe? num in illa re— mali nihil fuisse. Tusc. Quaest. l. 3. p. 163. Ed. Paris. 1555.  What shall we say Cleanthes, is this a wicked thing.  
§. 5. The very same Authors do many of them make the like Apostrophe's to insensate Creatures, and use Expressions which contain as formal and direct petitions, as any which are used in the places cited by the Roman Doctors. St. 
* Nazianz. Orat. Decima. quarta. p. 214.  Nazianzen invokes peace thus, Oh friendly Peace, who art that good which all men praise, but few observe, where hast thou so long left us, and when wilt thou return unto us? And unto Easter he speaks thus; 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O at. 42. p. 696.  Oh great and holy Passover, who art the reconciliation of both the Worlds: For I will speak to thee, as unto one endued with life. In his invective against Julian he speaks thus: Hear O Heavens, and perceive O Earth: Hear all ye Nations, perceive all you that dwell upon the Earth: For to you all I speak. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 1.  Hear you who live at present, and hereafter shall be born. St. Ambrose speaks unto the Water thus; 
* Ambros. l. 10. in Luc. c. 22.  Oh Water which hast obtained to be the Sacrament of Christ, which washest all things, and art not washed thyself, thou dost begin the first, and dost complete the perfect Mysteries. In the like manner we find 
* De Vir. Constantim l. 5  Eusebius calling upon Piety, and 
† Optat. l. 6. p 98.  Optatus upon Water: and this they did agreeably to the Example of the 
‖ Vos vos Albani ●umuli atque luci, vos inquam i●ploro a●qu: obtestor, vosque A ●banorum obru●ae arae, etc. Orat. pro Milone, p. 558. Ed. P●ris.  Orator, who doth implore, and doth beseech the broken Altars of the Alban; and puts up his Petition to their Tombs and G●ove●: and to the frequent custom of the sacred Writers, who cry out, 
* Isa. 1.2.  Hear O Heaven, and perceive oh Earth! Hear ye, O Mountains, the Lords controversy, and ye strong Foundations of the Earth. 
† Micah. 6.2.  Praise the Lord from the Earth, ye Dragons and all Deeps. 
‖ Psal. 148.7, 8, 9  Fire, and hail, snow and vapour, stormy wind, fulfilling his word. Mountains and all Hills, fruitful Trees and all Cedars. Which form of Compellation is still retained in our Liturgy. And yet I hope T. G. will not infer that the Jews of old did, and English Protestants do at present properly invoke and intercede to those insensate Creatures. Lastly, we find in Lipoman one speaking to the girdle of the Blessed Virgin in this manner; O venerable girdle, make us Heirs of eternal and blessed Life, and preserve us in this our present life, from perdition: O undefiled Girdle, preserve thy people from pollution. If this and such like speeches of the Church of Rome must be acknowledged to be figurative, why may we not assert the same of such Expressions of the Fathers as are used to those Saints departed, of whom they do assert that what is spoken to them, because they do not hear it, is as if it had been spoken to insensate Creatures.  
6. Observe, 
Sect. 6.  there is great difference betwixt the practice that in these times began to be approved by some men, and what is now the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. For,  
1. That which we chief do object against that Church, is, that she doth enjoin us to believe, That even mental prayers are well addressed to them, and consequently that they have the knowledge of the conceptions of the heart, and the sincerity of its intentions. Whereas the Fathers of that age, without distinction or exception, held that it was proper to God to perceive the secrets of the heart; this, by the concurrent judgement of the Fathers, being no more communicated to the Creatures, than was the Knowledge of what was future and contingent, as I have proved already chap 6. Prop. 2.4.  
2. Whereas the Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, doth make it good and profitable for all people, to call upon them in all places, though as far distant from them as is Earth from Heaven, or as one corner of the Earth is from the other; some of these Fathers did conceive the Saints were present at their Tombs and Shrines, and being so, they might attend unto the prayers of them that did resort unto them. Thus when it was objected by Vigilantius to St. Jerom, If it be so, than the souls of Martyrs love their ashes, and hover still about them, and are always there, lest if any Petitioner should come, they being absent, should not hear him; I say, when this was urged by Vigilantius, agreeably to that opinion which then began to gather strength, and to be owned in the Christian Church: St. Jerom doth not, as T. G. deny the sequel, but lays down this absurd and monstrous Tenet to defend it, That 
* Si agnus ubique, ergo & high qui cum agno sunc ubique esse credend● sunt.  if the Lamb be every where, they also that be with the Lamb, must be believed to be every where. Moreover, he represents it as a wicked speech of Vigilantius, 
† Ais enim vel in sinu Abrahae, vel in loco refrigerii, vel subter aram Dei animas Apostolorum & Martyrum consedisse, nec posse de suis tumulis, & ubi vol●erunt, adesse praesentes. Hier. adversus Vigilant.  That the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs could not be present at their Tombs, never suggesting in the least that such a presence was needless to this end. 
* De cura pro mortuis c. 16.  St. Austin doth affirm, That either the Martyrs themselves must be at one time in such divers places, so far distant from one another, (viz. as they were distant with whom they were conceived to pray at their memorial) or if they were not present, they must be removed from all commerce with the affairs of men here, and only prayed in general for the necessities of supplicants. Sulpitius upon the death of St. Martin comforts himself with this consideration, 
‖ Non deerit nobis ille, mibi crede, non deerit, intererit de se sermocinantibus, adsiabit orantibus. Epist. 2. de obitu & appar. S. Martini p. 533 ed. Lugd. Batav.  That he would not be wanting to them; and of this assertion he immediately subjoins this reason, viz he will be present with us speaking of him, and will stand by us when we pray; upon which passage the Scholiast observes, that it was vulgarly believed, that holy Martyrs were present at their Sepulchers. That this was also the Opinion of Nazianzen, Basil, and all the Fathers cited by T.G. is largely proved by † Bochartus. If then these Fathers did in this particular maintain what is confessedly erroneous, why might they not be subject to the same mistake, touching the doctrine of invocation of the Saints departed, and then that error in their judgement must necessarily give rise to that unwarrantable practice, which in those times began to be approved.  
Having in general laid down these propositions, 
Traiteé second de●l'invoc. des Saints c. 4.  I might decline all farther Answer to what T.G. produceth from the testimonies of the fore mentioned Fathers, in favour of that practice we dispute against; but, that he may not think we study to decline what he hath offered, we proceed to a particular reflection on them; and shall endeavour to demonstrate that they are either cited out of spurious and doubtful books, or are impertinently alleged. And, 
Sect. 7. Hom. 26. in 2 Cor.   
1. Amongst the spurious, or doubtful Authors, we reckon that passage cited from St. Chrysostom; this was the Judgement of Erasmus, who in his preface before his Latin Translation of Basil de Spiritu sancto, saith, that there are somethings in that book which must own him for their Parent, who mixed his weak and wordy trifles with the sweet works of Athanasius on the same subject, and who, in this Epistle, and in the Acts of the Apostles, endeavoured to be esteemed Chrysostom. And therefore when Erasmus came to the 7th. Homily of this Epistle, he would translate no farther: 2. this passage in some editions is not extant though these editions have proceeded from the hands of Romanists. 
Novelty of Popery. p. 422, p. 423.  3 Peter Du Moulin makes evident the falsehood of this passage and the words preceding, not only from the diversity of the stile, and want of a connexion with the precedent words, but chief from the doctrine, so full of ignorance & absurdity, as shows it to be inconsistent with the Judgement and Learning of that Holy Father. Lastly this place is cited by Garesius under the name of Theodorus Daphnopatus, 
De Sanct. i● unc. p. 〈◊〉.  who therefore is most like to be the Father of this spurious passage.  
Secondly, amongst spurious and doubtful writings, We may reckon the Oration upon Cyprian falsely ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen, where S. Justina is brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i e) Entreating that the Virgin Mary would defend her against C●●●an, who being then a Pagan endeavoured by Magical enchantments to attempt her chastity, but finding his attempts all frustrate, was by that means converted to the Christian Faith, and was that famous Bishop of Carthage, whose memory was precious through the Christian World. Whereas (1.) It is certain, St. Cyprian was never in his life a Sorcerer, 
Pag. 1.  for Pontius his Deacon, who hath writ his life assures us, that whilst he was a Heathen he was addicted to good arts, and such as tended to the benefit of the World, which sure no Christian would affirm of a ‛ Magician. (2.) Whereas this fable ascribeth his conversion to Justina, or the experience of his vain attempts upon her; This Pontius wholly omits that Fable, and doth assure us, that he was converted by 
* Erat sane illi etam de nebis contubern 'em viri justi & laud ibilis Memoriae Cecilii, & aetatetune, & honore Presbyteri, qui eum ad agnition●m verae divinita●is a saeculari errore correxerat. P. 2.  Cecilius a Carthaginian Presbyter: (3.) 
† Explosâ fabula illa de Cypriani Macicâ arte. Baronies A.D. 250. Sect. 5.  Baronius himself confesseth this story of the Magic of St. Cyprian to be explodendam fabulam: now hence it follows that this Oration is not the genuine work of Nazianzen, or else that Nazianzen was a man of very easy Faith, one prone to tell the most absurd and foolish sables for truth, and therefore one who can deserve no credit in this relation of Justina's prayer unto the blessed Virgin.  
Such thirdly is the passage cited from Theodoret, for, as 
‖ Disp. Hist. de Invoc. Sanct. Th. 8. p. 198.  Vossius well argues, had that Book been his; Nicephorus, who gives us the Catalogue of his books, would have made mention of it. And Photius when he makes mention of the writings of this Author which he had perused, would not have lest out this. Besides, what is here cited from him, directly contradicts what he delivers in his undoubted Comment on the second and third Chapters of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians. Lastly, the same we have just reason to suspect of the two instances related by St. Austin De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 2. for Ludovicus Vives doth ingenuously declare, In hoc capite non dubium quin multa sint addita, that many things have, without doubt, been added to this Chapter. The 33. Homily de diversis is one of those, which have been lately added to St. Augustine's Works, by the Divines of Louvain, and so deserves but little credit.  
2. 
Sect. 8.  Those places which are cited from the true writings of the Fathers, are made to speak what they did not intent, and pressed to testify what they do not assert. Thus when T.G. objects that passage of St. Austin, let B. Cyprian help us with his Prayers. I answer, May T.G. repent of his accursed Apostasy from the Church of England. This I entirely wish and yet, I hope I pray not to T.G. but saith T.G. whoever considereth the motive alleged by him why he add ressed himself to St. Cyprian, which was for that in Heaven, he saw more clearly the truth of that Question, of which himself had formerly doubted, and 
* E. B. Cyprianus ●wd●m ●a●n c●●●pore quid corrum●itur n●n aggravante animam nec deprimen●e terr●na i●●ab●●a●ione sensun mul●●●●git●nte●, ●e●enius perspiei● veritat●m quam m●●u●t adi●●s●● 〈◊〉 Ch●i 〈…〉 in istius c●rnis m●●talitate, tanqu●m in caligin●sa nu●e lib 〈◊〉, at donante Domino quantum possu ●us bona ●ju, ●mi●emur. To. 7. de Bap●. l. 7. c. 1. B.  St. Austin was then treating of, and the necessity he had of his prayers, as being yet in the mortal Flesh, and labouring as in a dark cloud, will easily see that it was not a counterfeit, but a true and serious address to him for the assistance of his prayers. Answ. and why not rather an address to God for his assistance, by virtue of the prayers of Cyprian. 2. Had Austin said, let Cyprian help us, that we may be enlightened or instructed in this question, this Answer might have had some show of strength, but when he only 
* E. B. Cyprianus ●wd●m ●a●n c●●●pore quid corrum●itur n●n aggravante animam nec deprimen●e terr●na i●●ab●●a●ione sensun mul●●●●git●nte●, ●e●enius perspiei● veritat●m quam m●●u●t adi●●s●● 〈◊〉 Ch●i 〈…〉 in istius c●rnis m●●talitate, tanqu●m in caligin●sa nu●e lib 〈◊〉, at donante Domino quantum possu ●us bona ●ju, ●mi●emur. To. 7. de Bap●. l. 7. c. 1. B.  wi●●● to be assisted by his prayers, that he might imitate his goodness, certain it is that not St. Cyprians Knowledge, but his charity, and his enjoyment of God, of which that Knowledge was a consequent, was the true motive of St. Augustine's wish, since he desires not to be instructed in the truth, but to be confirmed in Goodness, it was not the want of Knowledge but of Goodness, which he desired might be advantaged by the Prayers of Cyprian. Moreover, had he desired to receive these things from Cyprian, either by converse with him, or by some secret influence upon his clouded understanding, the circumstances mentioned might be conceived a proper motive to that wish; but since he only wishes to receive them donante Domino, or from the Gift of God, and by the Intercession of St. Cyprian, certain it is that the consideration of St. Cyprians Knowledge could be no motive unto that address, but only the consideration of his enjoyment of God, and his power with him, and of his charity by which he had obtained that enjoyment. To that of Jerom, 
* Vale O Paula, & Cultoris tui extremam sen●ctutem oration●bus juva, fides & cperatua te Christo consociant, praesens facilius qu●d p●stulas, imp●trabis. Epitaph. Pa●lae.  Farewell, O Paula, help the old Age of thine honourer with thy prayers; We have sufficiently replied by showing, that it was frequent with the Fathers by an Apostrophe to speak to their deceased Friends, as if they did suppose them present, although they did not think them so to be: and this must necessarily be the sense of Jerom: For he declareth that his dear friend Nepotian, bein● once joined to the Choir of Saints, whatever he should say unto him would be but speaking to the deaf because he would not hear it: he therefore must conceive the same of Paula, of whom he here affirms this she was present with Christ.  
The better to reply unto some other passage objected by T.G. observe first, 
§. 8.  that the antie●● Fathers did yield a threefold Service to the Sa●r● departed, as first, the honour of love and Society. Secondly, The Recognition and praises of their excellencies. Thirdly, The Imitation of their virtues, and their godly Examples: this service the writers of the fourth and fifth Century, sometimes call worship, and Veneration, but the more ancient Fathers styled it honour, accounting all religious worship to be due to God alone, as is most excellently proved by Dalle. 
Advers. Lat. Cult. l. 1. c. 5, 1.  And when the Heretics and Heathens did object against these latter Fathers the worship of the holy Martyrs, they reply two things.  
1. That they did not worship them as Gods. Thus when it was objected by the Apostate Julian, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Cyril. l. 6 contr. Jul. p. 203.  instead of many Gods the Christians worshipped many miserable men; St. Cyril answers, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid.  We do not make them Gods, nor do we worship that which by nature is not God. And when Faustus had objected against the Christians, that they had 
‖ Vertistis Idola in mart ires quos votis, inquit, similibus colitis. Apud August. contra Faustum Man. lib. 20. chap. 21.  changed their Martyrs into the Heathen Idols, and in like manner paid their Homage to them; St. Austin answers, that 
* At illo cultu, quae Latria dicitur, nec colimus, nec colendam docemus, nisi unum Deum. August. ibid.  they gave not divine worship to them.  
2. That Reverence and honour, which they oppose to this Latria, or divine worship, and which they acknowledge to be due, and given by them to Saints departed, they comprise in the forementioned particulars, or in such other matters as are, and do include no formal prayers, and no elicit actions of Religion; whence we may rationally conceive that neither Prayers, nor Vows, nor any actions, which were properly religious, were then tendered to them, and that they did not think them parts of that Dulia which was due to Saints, 
Contra Faustum lib. 20. c. 21.  but rather parts of that Latria, which was due to God alone. This is apparent from St. Austin's Answer unto Faustus, viz. the worship therefore, which we give the Martyrs, is that worship of Society and Love which we afford unto those holy men whom in this life we worship, but with that worship which is called Latria, we worship God alone. Where (1.) observe that he ascribes unto the Martyrs only that worship which in this life we give unto our fellow Saints. Now is it any part of that affection or society we bear unto the living, to put up our petitions to them, when at great distance from us and invisible? (2.) Unto this worship of Society and love (which doth not comprehend addresses made by way of Prayer to persons absent and invisible) St. Austin doth oppose Latria, the worship proper to God: Whence we infer that worship which could not be included in these expressions of Society and Love, viz. all mental prayers, and supplications made by Speech to persons at great distance and invisible, must in St. Augustine's judgement be Latria, or the worship proper unto God alone. The like we may observe in Cyril, for having said, We neither do affirm the Martyrs to be Gods nor do we worship them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Latria, but with the worship of honour and affection, He gives three instances of their honour: 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril adv. Jul. l. 6. p. 204.  We give them all Veneration, we honour their Sepulchers, and we remember their resplendent Virtues. Moreover the honour given to them seems therefore to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or relative, Because as Basil notes, the honour given to the best of our fellow Servants is the sign and demonstration of our good will and respect towards our common Lord. Whence that of St. Gregory Nyssen speaking to the Martyr Theodorus, 
Orat. de Theod. Martyr.  We hold this assembly for thee, to adore our common Lord, and make full commemorations of thy Victories. So then these Answers and Objections which T. G. reckons a confirmation of this practice of invocation of the Saints departed, are rather a just prejudice against it, it being never mentioned by them upon these occasions, as any portion of that honour they bestowed upon these blessed Spirits, nor yet contained in what they mention.  
Secondly, 
§. 10.  Observe it was the custom of those times to put up their Petitions at the Martyr's Tombs, and this they did for these considerations, viz. (1.) From a presumption, that when the Christians came unto these Tombs, the blessed Martyrs joined their Supplications with them, and by so doing helped to speed them, Whence Basil in his Oration on the 40 Martyrs, saith, Together with these Martyrs let us pour forth our Prayers, for here are 40 sending up one Prayer, and if where two or three be gathered together, God is present, who doubts his presence where forty are? (2.) That their Devotions might be enlivened, and their affections raised by the place. Thus Austin tells us, that 
* Quod offertur, offertur Deo, qui Martyres coronavit, apud memoriam corum quos coronavit: ut ex ipsorum locorum admonitione major affectus exurgat, ●d acuendam Charitatem & in illos quos imtrari p●ssumus, & in illum quo ad●●●nte p●ssu●us. Contra Faustum Man. l. 20. c. 21.  What was offered to God was offered at the memories of the Martyrs, that by the admonition or remembrance which the very places give us, a stronger affection may arise to inflame our charity both toward those whom we imitate, and him by whose assistance we may be enabled to do it.  
Another custom of these Ancients was to 
† 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Catech. Mystag 5. p. 241.  
Ideo ad ipsam mensammon sic eos commemoramus quemadmodum alios qui in pace requi●scunt, ut etiam pro iis o emus, sed magis ut ipsi prò nobis orent. August. Tract. 84. in Joh.   pray unto God, 
§. 11.  that for the intercession of those Saints and Martyrs, he would grant them their requests, just as the Israelites did desire kindness for the sake of Abraham and David. And this, saith Austin, haply may be conceived that 
‖ De cura pro Mortuis, cap. 16.  they in general making addresses unto God (as we do for the Dead, although we know not where they are, or what they do) for all the wants of such as come to these assemblies, God may be moved by their Prayers to grant what he sees needful for them; as haply he is moved by the fervent Prayers of some Relations distant from us, to vouchsafe us blessings, and by the addresses of some Churches, to grant deliverance from Persecution unto others.  
This observation is a sufficient Answer to many of those passages which T.G. citys to prove it was the custom of the ancient Church to invocate the Saints departed; as V G. Ruffinus doth relate of Theodosius, 
* Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 33.  That he went to all the places of Prayer, and lying prostrate before the Martyrs and Apostles Tombs, he asked succours by intercession of the Saints (which upon supposition that they prayed with him, and did continually intercede for all that put up their petitions there, or for the whole Church militant, he might well do) but than it is not intimated that he begged these succours by invocation of the Saints. We also hope for benefit and secure from the intercessions of our pious friends, and of the whole Church militant, and may entreat God to help us for the sake of their petitions, yet is not this a warrant to put up supplications to our pious Relatives, or to the universal Church.  
St. Basil in his Oration on the forty Martyrs saith, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bas. Hom. 20 in XL. Mart. p. 459.  He that is pressed with affliction flieth to them, and he that is glad runneth to them; the one that he may be freed from his affliction, the other that he may continue in that joyful state. But then to fly, and run unto them, is only to fly and run unto the Tombs and Churches where they were interred, as is apparent from the following words; Here it is that a woman praying for her Son is heard: And from the Exhortation following; Wherefore together with these Martyrs let us pour forth our Prayers: Here therefore is a demonstration, that this blessed Chorus were judged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  co-helpers of our Prayers by interceding with us (as are our fellow Christians here on earth, 2 Cor. 1.11. Rom. 15.30.) but here is not one tittle to demonstrate that they did, or that we ought to pray to them.  
4. When Austin saith that Christian People do with religious solemnity celebrate the memory of Martyrs, both to excite them to the Imitation of them, and that they may become partakers of their merits (or Good works) and may be helped by their Prayers: This passage only proves that Austin held, what was then commonly asserted, that when the Christians came to Church, the blessed Martyrs joined their Supplications with them, and by so doing helped to speed them: But it is no evidence that either Christians prayed unto the Martyrs, or that the solemnity was styled Religious upon that account: For Protestants do bring their Children to the Church to be baptised, not only that they may be excited by that rite to the performance of the Christian Covenant, but that they may obtain advantage by the Church's Prayers, but yet they do not pray unto the Church. And T.G. may perhaps expect advantage from the Prayers of Christ's Church Militant, and yet I hope he is not so express for Invocation of the members of it, as for the invocation of the Church Triumphant. 
De cura pro Mort. c. 16.  Besides, Austin himself expounds how we are helped by their Prayers: viz. because that God may be induced by their intercessions made in general for all that pray, to grant what he sees needful for them.  
Moreover, that this passage is no evidence that Christians held Religious Solemnities to the Martyrs, or did religiously worship Martyrs, is extremely evident: For Protestants do also celebrate the memories of their deceased Friends with a Religious Solemnity performed in those places where they were interred, and yet they give unto from no Religious Worship: It therefore may be ●●●ed a Religious Solemnity because of the Devotion paid to God, and not unto the Martyrs: But this Exposition, saith T. G. is opposite both to the words themselves, 
p. 432.  and is refuted by St. Austin, for he declares himself not to speak of that Religious Worship which is due only to God, but such a kind of Worship with which even holy men in this life are worshipped; we worship therefore, saith he, the Martyrs with the Worship of love and society: thus T. G. And yet in the same page he adds, It is evident that St. Austin speaks of such Religious honour as is due to God himself: If then within the space of ten lines St. Austin speaks both of Religious Worship, and of that Worship which is not in the strictest sense Religious, I hope the Dr. may be allowed to Answer with T. G. that when St. Austin saith, We worship Martyrs with the worship of love, he did not speak of Religion's Worship, though in this sentence he expressly doth so. For doth not St. Austin say, That to speak 
† Ipsa Religio quamvis distinctius non quemlibet sed Dei cultum significare videatur, etc. de C. D. l. 10. c. 1  properly, Religion signifies that Worship which is due to God alone: Doth not he thus advise all Christians, 
‖ Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum, quia si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur ut tales quaerant honores, sed illum à nobis coli volunt, quo iltuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse consertes.  Let not the worship of the Dead be any part of your Religion, for if they have lived well, they will not seek these honours. Doth not he say, 
* Henorandi ergo sunt prepter imitationem Non adorandi prepter Religionem. August. de vera Rel. Tom. 1. cap. 55. pag. 166. B.  They should be honoured with our imitation, but not be worshipped with Religion? and is not this sufficient reason to conceive, that when he saith we honour the memory of Martyrs with religious Solemnity, the Religion of that Solemnity belongs to God, and not unto the Dead? Secondly, St. Austin saith 
† Populus autem Christianus memorias Martyrum religioso solennitate concelebrat, & ad exitandam imitationem, & ut meritis corum consoctitur atque orationibus adjuvetur; ita tamen ut nulti Martyrum, sed ipsi D●o Martyrum quamvis in memorias Martyrum constituamus. Altaria. l. 20. contr. Faustum Manich. c. 21.  We Christian People do celebrate the memory of Martyrs with Religious Solemnity— but albeit we erect Altars in memory of the Martyrs, we do not do it to them, but to the God of Martyrs. If than constituere Altaria in memorias Martyrum, be to erect Altars to God in memory of the Martyrs, to celebrate Religious Solemnities in memory of the Martyrs, aught in all reason to admit of a like sense, viz. we celebrate Religious Solemnities to God, in memory of Holy Martyrs.  
Whereas S. Austin saith, It is an injury to pray to Martyrs, unto whose Prayers we ought to be commended; This also may refer to the forementioned presumptions; viz. That we ought to commend ourselves to their Prayers, by going to the places where the Martyrs pray together with us, or by entreating God to hear us by virtue of their intercession, as doth the Church of Rome. Elsewhere he teacheth, that we commend our Friends unto their Prayers by burying of them where the Martyrs lie interred; so that we see this commendation of ourselves and others to the Martyr's Prayers, doth not imply the Invocation of those Blessed Spirits.  
The same St. Austin in his Book de Cura pro mortuis, speaking of such as did forecast to bury their departed friends, about the memories of the Saints, passeth his judgement of that action thus, 
* Cum talia vivorum solatia requiruntur, quibus eorum pius in suos animus appareat, non video quae sunt adjumenta mortuorum, nisi ad hoc ut dum recolunt ubi sint posita eorum quos diligunt corpora iisdem sanctis illos tanquam patronis susceptos apud dominum adjuvandos orando commendent. Cap. 4. f. 214. E.  When the survivors seek such comforts, wherein their well disposed mind towards their friends may be conspicuous, I see not what advantage these things may be unto the dead, except that whilst they cast about where the bodies of them that are dear to them should (or may) be laid, they may commend them so received, to the Saints as to Patrons, to be helped by their prayers to God. Which passage only doth import, that by depositing their bodies by the Martyr's shrines, they engage the Martyrs to pray to God for them. And to the like effect is that which follows, viz. 
† Cum itaque recolit animus nbi sepultum sit chari ssimi corpus, & locus nomine occurrit Martyris venerabilis, eidem Martyri animam dilectam commendat recordantis & precantis affectus. Ibid. F.  That when the mind doth cast about where the body of a dear friend may be buried, and strait a place occurreth to his mind, renowned for the name of some Martyr, the affection of him who thus remembreth and prayeth, forthwith commends the beloved soul to the same Martyr, viz. that affection which induced the surviving person to think of placing his beloved friend by the memorial of that Martyr, and made him choose that as the place where he would commend the soul of his beloved friend to God. For that the prayer was directed to God, though put up at the Martyr's Tomb, is evident from the following words, 
‖ Plurimum intersit ubi ponat corpus mortui sui, qui pro Spiritu ejus Deo (N. B) supplicat, quia & precedens affectus locum elegit sanctum & illic corpore posito recordatus locus sanctus eum qui praecesserat renovat & auget offectum. Cap. 5. H.  It may very much concern any, where he should place the body of his deceased, who prayeth for his Spirit unto God, because both the preceding affection hath chosen an holy place, and the body being placed there, the remembrance of that holy place renews and augments the affection. That this is the true import of the place, and that the benefit St. Austin speaks of, was to be expected not from any prayers put up unto the Saints, but partly from the desire of burying the deceased by the Martyr's shrine, upon presumption of some advantage he might receive by being there interred, and partly from the increase of the affection of him that prayeth in that place to God, is admirably evident from that which follows, viz. 
* Cum ergo fide lis mater fidelis filii defuncti corpus desideravit in Basilicam Martyris poni, siquidem credidu ejus animam meritis Martyrts adjuvari, hoc quod ita credidit supplicatio quaed in fuit, & haec profuit siquid profuit, & quod ad idem sepnichrum recurrit anime, & filium precibus magis magisque commendat, adjuvat defuncti Spirtum, non mortui corporis locus, sed ex loci memoria, vivus martyris affectus. Ibid G.  When therefore a believing Mother desireth that the body of her Son may be buried in the Martyr's Temple, as believing that his soul may be advantaged by the merits of the Martyr, this very thing that she believeth thus, is a kind of prayer, and if any thing profiteth it is this. Since therefore nothing else doth, in St. Austin's judgement, profit, certain it is he doth not speak of prayer directed to the Martyrs, for if so, he could not have confessed, that the  faith did only profit, much less could he affirm it to be that supplication (to the Martyr) which alone did profit.  
Lastly, It is confessed, that Basil, Nazianzen, and Nyssen, do in their Panegyrical Orations seem to invocate the Holy Martyrs. But than it is apparent, 1. That they doubted, whether these Martyrs had any sense or apprehension of the Requests put up unto them, and therefore prefaced their addresses with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If you have any sense. 2. They do ingeniously confess, that though they knew them to be absent, yet they were moved to speak unto them as if they had been present, and could hear them. 3. They make the like addresses to insensate Creatures, of whom they were assured that they could not hear them, which makes it reasonable to interpret their Addresses, rather as Wishes and Rhetorical Apostrophes, than direct Invocations and Petitions tendered to them; especially if we consider, that all those Fathers when they discourse of Prayer, define it to be a Colloquy with God, and therefore did not think that those addresses made unto the blessed Martyrs, had the true nature of a Prayer. Moreover, it is certain that they never offered any mental Prayer to Saint or Angel. And 2. That they conceived the Martyrs present in those places where they offered these devotions, and therefore were not guilty of those Doctrines and unwarrantable practices, for which especially we do condemn the Roman Church.   

CHAP. X.  
The CONTENTS. The Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, touching the Invocation of the Blessed Angels, delivered from their own Catechism and Rituals. Sect. 1. The Question stated. Sect. 2. The Idolatry of this Practice proved. 1. This practice doth ascribe unto them by way of Worship, what is proper to God: viz. The Knowledge of the Secrets of the Heart. Sect. 3. 2. Because, it is the Worship of the Mind. Sect. 4. 3. From the silence of the Old Testament. Sect. 5. An objection answered. Sect. 6. The Reasons of this silence which are alleged by the Romanist, Refuted. Sect. 7. And from the silence of the New Testament. Sect. 8. 4. From the Consideration of those principles whereby the Romanists condemn White Magic, as a practice guilty of Idolatry. Sect. 9  
THe Catechism of the Church of Rome, 
§. 1.  Published by the Decree of the Trent Council, gives us the Doctrine of that Church, touching the Invocation of the Holy Angels in these words; 
* Extant divinae scriptuae testimonia hujus invocationis. Jacob enim ab Angelo quicum luctatus fuerat petit ut sibi benedicat immo cogit, se enim non dimissurum illum profitetur nisi benedictione accepta, neque solum sibi ab eo tribui quem intuebatur, sed ab eo etiam quem minimè videbat tum cum dixit Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis benedicat pueris istis. Catechis. Rom. Part 3. cap. 2. See. 10.  concerning this Invocation we have the Testimonies of the Scripture extant; For Jacob requested of the Angel with whom he wrestled that he would bless him, and he compels him so to do, for he professeth that he would not let him go without his Blessing; nor doth he only put up his Petition unto the Angel whom he saw, but also unto him whom he saw not, when he thus said, the Angel who delivered me from all evil bless the Lads. Agreeable unto this Doctrine, is the continual practice of that Church in her Authentic Liturgies: For to St Michael they pray thus.  

* Sancte Michael Archangele defend nos in praelio ut non percamus in tremendo judicio. Miss. festo Appar. Sancti Mich. Maii. 8.  Defend us in our Warfare we thee pray, Lest we should perish in the dreadful day.  
In the Roman Ritual, a Dying person is taught to pray with his Heart, when he cannot do it with his Mouth thus; 
* 
Hortetur praeterea ut co modo quo potest, saltem, ex Cord, ita per intervalla precetur. Maria Mater Gratiae, Mater Mifericordiae tu nos ab host besiege, & hora mortis suscipe.  
Omnes Sancti Angeli & omnes Sancti intercedite prome, & mihi succurrite. Rituale Ed. Antuerp 1617.   All ye Holy Angels intercede for me, and secure me. To the Guardian Angel they pray thus;  

* 
Huc eustos igitur pervigil advola  
Avertens patria de tibi credita  
Tam morbos animi quam requiescere,  
Quicquid non sinit incolas, Brev.  
R. Reform. Off. Angeli Cust.  " Thou watchful Guardian hither therefore fly," And from that Country where thy charge does lie," Divert what ere may prove their Minds Disease," And what disturbs the people's quiet peace.  
And again, 
* Tu es spes mea Gloriose Angelo, altissimus te posuit & mihi dedit refugium tuum. Non accedat igitur ad me malum, & flagellum non appropinquet tabernaculo meo. Mi custos Gloriose me consigna, & servis Dei aggrega Gloriosis. Apprehend arma & scutum & exurge Angelo in adjutorium mihi, dic animae meae salus tua ego sum. Missa in honorem proprii Angeli.  Thou art my Hope, most glorious Angel, the most High hath given and appointed thee to be my Refuge, Let then no Evil come unto me, Let not the Scourge come nigh my Tabernacle. Mark me and gather me unto God's glorious Servants; take hold of Shield and Buckler, and stand up to help me, say unto my Soul, I am thy Salvation. The old Roman Missal f. 52. had a Prayer to this Effect.  

* 

Omnis homo omni die  
Gabrielis & Mariae  
Poscat beneficia   

Ex his manet fons virtutis  
Dulcor vitae spes salutis  
Et diffusa Gratia.   " Let every Man on every day," To Gabriel and to Mary pray" These are the spring whence virtue flows apace," Heavens hope, life's sweetness, and diffused grace.  
Whence we observe, 
§. 2.  that according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, Angels when absent and invisible, should be invocated: for this they daily practise, and endeavour to confirm from the Example, and by the words of Jacob.  
2. Observe that we must pray unto them, not only to obtain deliverance and protection for us, by their Prayer, 
Intercedite pro me & mihi succurrite.  but to perform it by their power; for what they do conceive to be the Office of those Angels, viz. to keep us, to avert those dangers that are imminent, and to remove a present evil, must they not think it proper to request? If God hath placed a Guardian Angel for their refuge, may they not ask him to do the office of a Guardian, as well as any other thing, and to preserve them in their ways, that so no Evil may befall them? this, upon supposition, that they do always hear our Prayers, is very Rational.  
When therefore T. G. doth insinuate, that they only do desire these Blessed Spirits to offer up our Prayers, 
P. 361.  or to pray for us, as we desire the Prayers of just Men upon Earth, he doth insinuate a most apparent falsehood: for besides that signal difference betwixt requesting of our Brother to pray for us; and their Petitions directed to the holy Angels, to preserve them from the assaults of Satan, and to 
* Tu Gloriose Angele qui stas ante Dominum preces meas offer Altissimo & veni tribue mihi desideriorum meorum abundantiam. Missa in hono●em proprii Angeli in Missali Rom. Ed. Antuerp. 1577.  confer upon them the greatest Blessings we can ask. I say besides all this; 1. We never do by word of Mouth, request an absent Person, nor do put up any Mental Prayers to our surviving Brethren, both which are tendered to the Holy Angels, by the Roman Catholics.  
3. It is apparent from what we we have discoursed, that it is in vain to put up these Petitions to the Blessed Angels, unless we do ascribe unto them the knowledge of the Hearts of those that supplicate, and unless we do suppose them either present with us, or able to help us, being absent, and that they do accept this service when we pay it to them, that so as they are deemed to be able, they may assuredly be willing to relieve and help us. Now to ascribe this Knowledge to them, and upon this account to Worship and invoke them, is to be guilty of Idolatry. This we endeavour to demonstrate. 1. From the Reason of those Addresses which we make to God, viz. that we believe him to be the searcher of all Hearts, one that doth see the inward Motions of the Soul, and is acquainted with our most secret thoughts and actions: Now this we have already proved, to be an excellency so proper to the God of Heaven, that it is not ordinarily communicated unto Saints and Angels; and therefore to ascribe this Knowledge to them, is to ascribe unto them, what is God's propriety, and consequently to be guilty of Idolatry by Prop. 1. And as a farther evidence, that no such Knowledge is Communicated to the Blessed Angels, either by Revelation, or by the beatific Vision, consider that from this supposed Communication it would follow, (as it is well suggested by the Learned 
* Addamus Angelos ne quidem supernaturaliter de facto cognoscere quaslibet cordium cogitationes quasi hoc eis competat communi lege Beatudinis, nam si ita esset, nondum absolutam haberent veritatem generales sententiae soli Deo tribuentes notitiam occultarum cogitationum, quandoquidem beneficio beatudinis id esset multis communicatum; sed intelligendae essent cum limitatione hac aut simili solus Deus naturaliter novit etc. quam utique limitationem nusquam insiavant addendam esset ut sicut absolute verum maneat solum Deum de facto nosse (quaelibet) futura contingentia non obstante eo quod quaedam seis amicis revela, ita etiam absolute verum maneat solum de facto nosse passim (quaelibet) occulta Cordium, quoniam ut dictum est Authoritates de ●troque loquuntur eodem modo. in senten. l. 2. distinc. 7. § 12. p. 80  Esthius that all those sentences of Scripture, and the Holy Fathers, which attribute this Knowledge of our secret thoughts, and of the inward Motions of the Heart to God alone, would not be absolutely true, but without this limitation, viz. God only naturally knows them, or some like exception, they would be absolutely false: And yet this Limitation the Scriptures and the holy Fathers never do insinuate; so that as it is absolutely true, that unto God alone belongs the knowledge of contingent Being's, although he sometimes did reveal some matters of that nature, to his Priests and Prophets: nor do we notwithstanding think, that such a Knowledge doth belong to Saints and Angels; so is it absolutely true, that unto God alone belongs the Knowledge of the inward Thoughts and Secrets of the Hearts, nor have we any reason to conceive, that such a Knowledge ordinarily belongs to Saints and Angels.  

§ 4.  2. To worship any Creature with the Mind, is to be guilty of Idolatry: This was the Ancient and undoubted Doctrine of the whole Church of Christ; for this St. Austin witnesseth, that 
* Divinè & singulariter in Ecclesla Catholica traditur nullam creaturam colendam esse animae (libentius enim l●quor his verbis quibus mihi haec insinu●ta sunt) sed ipsum tantummodo rerum quae sunt omnium Creatorem. August. l. de quant animae. p. 34.  in the Catholic Church, it is divinely and singularly delivered, that us Creature is to be Worshipped by the Soul, but he only, who is the Creator of all things. But Roman Catholics do, and (upon supposition that they have the Knowledge of the Hearts, and do by seeing God, 
p. 418.  perceive the Secrets of it; And as T. G. asserts, do know both our Necessities and Prayers, Concerns, and Actions; I say, upon this supposition) they ought to worship Saints and Angels, not only with the Body but the Soul; for seeing mental Prayers, Vows, and Thanksgivings, are by all confessed to be parts of that Religious Worship which our Souls perform to God, to make such Vows, and put up such Petitions and Thanksgivings to the Saints and Angels, must be to Worship Saints and Angels with the Soul: Besides all inward Fear and Reverence, must be the Worship of the Soul. And yet if we may Vow, and Pray, and tender our Thanksgivings to them upon presumption, that they know the inward Motions of our Hearts; we may well be afraid to do these actions Hypocritically, and remissly, upon the same account. We may well dread to think, or vow, or pray amiss; and fear their Anger, and their just Displeasure if we do so: thus to deter us from our secret Sins, the Stoics tell us, not only God, but our good Doemon is in secret with us. And when St. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To. 1. p. 741. A.  Basil had asserted that these Angels did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold us every where; he adds, that upon this account, the Virgin that was devoted to God ought to reverence those blessed Spirits. And surely then by parity of Reason, if their Knowledge reach unto the Heart and inward Motions of the Soul, we ought to have that Fear and Reverence of them upon us, in reference to all those motions.  
3. This may be strongly argued from two Considerations. 
§ 5.  1. That the Jewish Church had no such practice. 2. That they abstained from this practice, because they did not think this honour to be due to Angels, but to God alone. And  
1. I say, the Jewish Church had no such practice; for, run over all their Sacred Records, the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms: Look into their most ancient Writers, Philo Judaeus, and Josephus; into their Litanies, or forms of Prayer, their Misnah, or Traditions, and in all these Records you shall not find one Precept or Example of any Invocation directed to the Saints departed: consider all the Motives which have induced the Church of Rome to use this practice, and you will find that they are chief taken from the Jewish Records, and from those say of the Psalms of David, which tell us, that the Angels of the Lord do pitch their tehts about them that fear him, to deliver them; 
34 Psal. 7.  And that he gives his Angels charge concerning them, that they dash not their foot against a stone: 
91 Psal. 11.  Or from those Doctrines which were received by that Church. Besides, they had great evidence, and manifold Examples, that God did Minister his Blessings to them by the holy Angels: an Angel lead them out of Egypt, through the Wilderness, into the Land of Canaan, the Law was given to them by the hand of Angels, they often did appear unto them in an humane shape, and God himself, when he appeared, was still attended with an Host of Angels, and by them they were oft preserved from their Enemies. Sith therefore notwithstanding all these Motives, they never put up one Petition to an absent Angel; We have just Reason to believe, that in the judgement of the Jews, they had no knowledge of the Heart, or the desires of the Soul, especially when absent from us, and that this honour was not to be given to them, but was entirely to be reserved for the God of Heaven. Add to this, that they do frequently entreat of God, that he would cause those Angels to preserve them, and annoy their Enemies; 
Psal. 35, 5, 6, 7.  Let them be as Chaff before the wind, saith David, and let the Angel of the Lord chase them; Let their way be dark and slippery, and let the Angel of the Lord persecute them. Why therefore do they never use the Language of the Church of Rome? 
Horae Sec. Us. Rom. Manual of Godly prayers 1610. with licence. Horae Sec. Us. Sarum.  Why do they never pray to Michael the Captain of God's Host, the vanquisher of evil Spirits, to be their refuge and defence against the Power of the Enemy, to drive away their foes, and overthrow their Machinations; Why do they never call upon their Guardian Angel, to take hold of Sword and Buckler, and rise up to help them? Or to their valiant Champion Gabriel, to rise up to help them against the Malignants, and to be with them against all their Adversaries?  
3. According to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, when they appeared, the Jews did sometimes put up their Petitions to them: Why therefore did they not invoke them when absent and invisible, if they had held as doth the Church of Rome, that being absent they were as able to perceive their supplications, and obtain the Blessings they did want, and that their aid was such an excellent and present help against the violent assaults of a Temptation, and all those Floods of Evils we are continually exposed to? With us consent the Ancient Fathers in this matter, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. l. 5. p. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 235.  none that observes the Law of Moses doth worship Angels: For so to do is not a Jewish Custom, but a transgression of their Customs, saith the Learned Origen; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 4. cont. Arrian.  Jacob and David did request deliverance of none but God, saith Athanasius.  
And whereas T. G. and the Roman Catechism, 
Object. § 6.  produce those words of Jacob, the Angel that redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads, as an example of this Invocation, and a proof that it was practised by the Ancient Jews. If we consider what the Fathers have delivered upon this Text, and how expressly they assert, these words must certainly be understood of Christ: We may admire that any Roman Doctor, who stands obliged by his Oath, 
* Nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimen consensum patrum accipiam & Interpretabor. Bulla pii 4. super forma juramenti professionis fidei.  not to Interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers, should make so little Conscience of that Oath, as to Interpret this, and many other Scriptures, in opposition to the prevailing Judgement of those Fathers.  
2. It is admirable to consider, with what incredible advantage to our cause, the Fathers speak upon this Text: if we had nothing more to say, but what they have delivered on these words, yet should we have what is abundantly sufficient to confirm our Faith, and justify that Imputation which we lay upon the Cburch of Rome; for, first they do expressly say, that this Exposition of T. G. and his Infallible Mother, is not only false, but an heretical exposition. 
* Ac si aliquis Haereticus pertinaciter obluctans adversus veritatem voluerit in his omnibus exemplis proprie Angelum aut intelligere aut intelligendum esse contenderit in hoc quoque viribus veritatis frangatur necesse est. de Trin. c. 15.  If any heretic, saith Novatian, who pertinaciously strives against the truth, would have us in all these Examples properly to understand the Angel, or would contend for such a sense of that expression, in this he must assuredly be broken by the force of truth. This Exposition of the Papists, saith St. Cyril, 
Thesaur. p. 115.116.  is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i.e.) the sottish exposition of the Arians. The Exposition of the Protestants must therefore be both true and Orthodox. 2. They add, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Alexandr. Thesaur. p. 116.  if the Enemies of Christ did think that Jacob was a Holy Man, and one endned with the Prophetic spirit, when he spoke these words, they might be well ashamed to charge him with so gross an error, as was the Invocation of an Angel with God.  
This Custom therefore of putting up the same Petition in the same sentence to God and to the Blessed Angel, or to God and to the Saints or Angels, must be acknowledged to be a thing 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 4 contr. Arr.  exceedingly repugnant to the Doctrine which then obtained in the Church of Christ, and that which they esteemed the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. B. Cyrill. Alexandr. Thesau. p. 115.  grossest error 3. They give us this as a sufficient Evidence, that Jacob spoke not to a Creature, because he saith, 
Orat. 4. contra Arian. p. 260.  the Angel that delivered me from all evils. Hence it is manifest saith Athanasius and St. Cyril, that he did not speak of a created Angel, but of the Angel of the Covenant: and therefore it is manifest, that these petitions prescribed in the Church of Rome, and often tendered both to Saints and Angels, are in the Judgement of these Fathers, such as ought not to be tendered to a Creature, and so are guilty of Idolatry: As therefore Athanasius to the Arians, so say I to the Church of Rome, 
* Contr. Arian. Ora 2. p. 369.  Let them know, that never any good Man put up such a Prayer to any thing that was begotten. They being taught by Christ to pray to God the Father, to be delivered from all Evil. 
c. 16. v. 8.  And by the Son of Syrach to confess that it is he who delivereth from all evil. And this Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers, will manifestly appear to be the truth, if we consider who this Angel was, for the Angel who delivered him from all Evil, must be that very Angel which delivered him from Laban's wrath, and from the fury of his Brother Esau; now the Angel which said unto him I have seen all that Laban doth unto thee; 
31 Gen. 13.20. 28 Gen. 13.  return thou therefore into the Land of thy Kindred, was the God of Bethel, the God to whom he vowed a vow, that God who did appear in Haran to him, it was the God of his Father Abraham, and the fear of Isaac that rebuked Laban, and charged him not to do him hurt. 
v. 29.42.32 Gen. 23. 12 Hos. 4.  The Angel that he wrestled with, and with whom he prevailed, was the God of Heaven. Lastly it was his Prayer to this God that made his Brother Esau melt into expressions of the greatest love.  
2. I answer, this is no Prayer but a Wish thus when St. Paul concludes in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, 
2 Cor. 13.14.  and the Communion of the holy Ghost be with you all. I hope he doth not pray unto the Grace of Christ, and the Love of God, and the Communication of the holy Ghost: so then, this passage may be thus Expounded, I wish to God, that he, and that good Angel who under him, preserved me from all evils, may preserve the Lads.  
Some Roman Catholics confess that which we now contend for, and tell us, 
Vide Vossium de invoc. Sanct. disp. 2 Th. 18.  that although this practice in its self was good and profitable, God would not suffer his own people to invoke these blessed spirits, lest they should worship them as Gods: Idolatry being a Vice they were so prone, upon the least occasion to commit. Answer, we find, that notwithstanding the proneness of this people to that sin, God often did appear in the similitude of Angels to them, he used the Ministry of Angels in the delivery of that Law, they did so highly reverence: he used their Ministry both in conferring of the choicest Blessings on his people, and the inflicting of the most remarkable Judgements, both on them, and on their Enemies: And he delivered those things touching the Ministry and custody of holy Angels, which Romanists conceive to be sufficient ground and motive for their Invocation. Whence we may very well conclude, it was not out of fear of any proneness of that people to this Idolatry, that he did not enjoin this practice, but only because he is a jealous god, and will not give his honour to another. Against the Worship of an Image, or of the Host of Heaven, or any other Gods, which by the Heathens were still worshipped under some visible representation, we have frequent Cautions, and very dreadful threaten in Moses and the Prophets; but against this Idolatry of Worshipping those spirits, which in their nature are invisible, those writings give us not one Caution or Prohibition, though they do often call them Gods, of which affair I am not able to conceive a better Reason than this is, that it was just matter of suspicion, that this rude heavy people might be prone to worship what they saw: but it was not to be feared that they should worship what was invisible and seldom did appear; and hence we find this people continually revolting from the invisible Jehovah, to the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and to the Heathen Deities: but never do we find them in the least inclined to the worship of these blessed spirits.  
Moreover if we do consider that in the whole New Testament, 
§ 8.  we have not any precept to enjoin; Example to commend, or promise to encourage us unto this Invocation, we have a further reason to believe, that Christ and his Apostles disapproved of it, for can we think that Christ himself, and all his Servants and Apostles, would have neglected to commend unto us some way or other, that Invocation which they themselves approved, and if the Church of Rome doth not deceive us, did know to be exceeding profitable for the Church of Christ. For, 1. We cannot without Blasphemy conceive, that Christ or his Apostles wanted the knowledge of that great advantage which Christians might receive, by virtue of this supplication; it is no derogation I conceive from T. G. or his Partisans, to say, that Christ and his Apostles knew, as well as they, what were the proper motives to this practice, and what were the benefits it could bring to the Christian supplicant: nor yet to say that they as hearty desired the Welfare of the Church as doth T. G. or the Compiler of the Roman Catechism; if then they had conceived as they do, they would undoubtedly have been as exact and punctual in this injunction; it being in itself so highly profitable and the more necessary to be mentioned, because omitted in the Law of Moses, and never practised by the Jews, especially if we consider that nothing could have been more properly suggested for the consolation of all Christians under those fiery trials they endured, than this consideration, that they might pray in Faith as doth the Roman Missal; Oh most glorious Angel, the most high hath given thee to be my Refuge, let then no evil come unto me.  
Moreover, the Church of Rome doth offer this as a present help in trouble; unto this refuge she exhorts us all to fly; 
* Quoties gravissima cernitaer urgere tentatio & tribulatio veheme ns imminere invoca custodem tuum, ductorem tuum, adjutorem tuum in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione; inclama eum, & dic domine salva nos perimus. Brev. in Festo Ang. Cust. lec. 6. ex Bern. in ps. 90. P. 190.  when any violent temptation doth assault and press thee, when any vehement tribulation threatens thee, call thou upon thy Guardian Angel, thy Leader and thy helper in due season, in tribulation call upon him, and say, Lord save us we perish. So the Roman Breviary; and this is their continual practice. Whereas our Heavenly Father doth instruct us thus, call upon me in the day of trouble, 
50 Psal. 15.  and I will deliver thee, etc. The Apostles and Evangelists are very copious and frequent, in suggesting consolations and encouragements, to bear with joy and patience those cruel persecutions, with which the Primitive professors of Christianity were still infested and perplexed; they have delivered many excellent discourses touching the Comforter, the presence of their Saviour with them, the Example of his Sufferings, and of that Cloud of Witnesses which laboured under the same fiery trials; and lastly that exceeding weight of Glory, which they should purchase by those Sufferings, but not one hint have they vouchsafed us of this Comfort, which is administered by the Church of Rome. They frequently inform us, that God is able and willing to preserve us from, sustain us under, and give an happy issue to our trouble; they bid us arm ourselves against Temptations by Faith and Patience, and assiduity of Prayer, but never tell us that we should pray to any Angel for this end. St. Paul, when buffeted by Satan's Messenger, hath thrice recourse unto our Saviour, but never unto Raphael or Michael, who by the Church of Rome are styled tentatorum firma propugnacula, the sure Defenders of the tempted. 
2 Cor 1.9, 10 11.  Elsewhere he tells us, that being pressed above pleasure, and above strength, insomuch, that he despaired even of Life, he was delivered by that God who raiseth the Dead, in whom, saith he, we trust that he will yet deliver us, you also helping together by Prayer for us, this he expressly tells us were his hopes from the petition of Surviving Saints. But then he never gives us the least hint of the like expectation from the Prayers of Holy Angels, nor doth he once direct a Prayer to them. Is any sick, saith the Church of Rome; 
Rituale Rom. p. 117. Ed. Antue. 1617.  let him say to his Guardian Angel, O Holy Angel of God assist me as my Keeper. To all the Saints and Holy Angels let him say, O all ye Holy Angels, and all ye Saints intercede for me, and succour me. Is any sick, 
5 Jam. 14.15.  saith the Apostle James, let him send for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, and the prayer of Faith shall save the sick. Had he believed that practice of the Church of Rome, had been the more prevailing means for their recovery; had he conceived it proper and beneficial to the dying person, should we have had no mention of it? no Rubric to direct those Elders to mind those dying Christians of this thing? The same Apostle doth command all Christians to confess their faults to one another, 
v. 15.16.  and pray for one another, that they may be healed, and gives this reason of that precept, that the effectual fervent prayer of any righteous Man, availeth much; why doth he not exhort them to confess their Sins to all the Holy Angels, as doth the Church of Rome? why doth he never send them to the Medicinal Angel Raphael, who, as they do inform us, 
Animarum corporisque optimas Medicator. Her. Sec. us. Sarum f. 92. 1. Pet. 1.21. 10. Rom. 14. 1 Jam. 5.  is the best Physician both of Soul and Body? add to this, that these Apostles have not been only silent in this matter, but they have delivered many things which seem to be repugnant to it, they do expressly teach us, that our Faith should be in God, and ask, how we can call upon him in whom we have not believed. They say, if any Man want wisdom (to direct him how to bear the Cross) let him ask of God, that giveth to all Men liberally, and upbraideth not: and it shall be given him. What therefore we are taught by them to seek from our Petitions made to holy Angels, St. James directs us immediately to ask of God: as being most able, and most kind, and therefore prone to help us. Whence it is easy to collect, that it seems very vain and idle to go to them, who are less able, and less willing so to do. St. Judas concludes his General Epistle with these words, to him that is able to keep you from falling, 
v. 24, 25.  and to present you faultless: to the only wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power. To him alone he doth ascribe this Power: to him alone he gives the Glory of all our preservations; nay they assure us that Christ hath not subjected the Christian state unto the Angels, 
2 Heb. 5.  as the Jewish was; that they are now our fellow-Servants, and therefore must not be adored: And that we must be cautious lest any do obtrude upon us the worship of those blessed Spirits: 
22 Rev. 9 2 Coloss. 18.  this they deliver without the least suggestion of any of those limitations and distinctions which are so frequent in those Writers of the Church of Rome which comment on the places mentioned. These blessed Apostles were not so careful to prevent the Errors and Mistakes of Heretics in this particular, as are the Doctors of the Roman Church: they do not seem so tender of the Invotion and Worship of those blessed Spirits, or so solicitous we may not lose so great a benefit, as are those Roman Doctors; which gives us reason to conjecture, not that their Knowledge or their Piety was less, but that they did not very much approve that Doctrine which gave the rise unto this Superstition of the Romish Church, and so much for the first particular.  
2. That both the Jews and Christians abstained from this practice; because they did not think this honour to be due to Angels, but to God alone is evident from what we have discoursed already to confirm this inference: the Apostles and Evangelists left us no precept or example to put up our petitions to departed Saints, and therefore they conceived it the Worship due to God alone. 2 Having removed and taken off those reasons which the Romanist assigns of this neglect, it follows that that reason must stand good which we assign, at least till they can find a better. With us consent the learned Jews; 
(a) Joseph. Albus, l. 3. in Icarim. c. 18. Idololatriam primam corum fulsse existimans qui Angelos & similes creaturas ut sequestres inter se at Deum colluissent ait Deum in Decalogo quando ait Non cru●t tibi Dit a●ieni ante faciem meam: id voluisse ne homines ullos ponerent sequestres aut deprecatores inter se & ipsos. Vossiu. in Maim. de Idolol. c. 2. Sect. 1.  Josephus Albus supposeth this Worship of the Angels as Mediators betwixt God and us, to be the most antique Idolatry; and 
(b) Fundamentum Mandati de Idololatria est nequis Serviat Creaturae, non Angelo, non Sphae●ae, non Stellae— quanquam autem is qui ca colit sciat illa non esse Deum, ac colat Creaturam hanc quomodo coluit Euos & illius coaetanei nihilomi●us est Idololatria. Maim. ibid. Maimonides sue definitione non tantum se complecti ait Eos qui creaturis cultum exhibent, us Deo, verum qui iis supplicant, ut ministris Dei. Dionys. Vossius in locum.  Maimon adds that the foundation of the precept of Idolatry is this, that no man serve or Worship any Angel or created being.  
As the Foundation of our last evidence of that Idolatry which is in this particular committed by the Church of Rome, 
§. 9  we do premise.  
1. That Magic is that art of Divination which in conversant about the Revelation of things contingent and concealed; as v. g. touching the victory of contending parties, the future condition of the Church, etc. The declaration of our future State, Fortune, Marriage, Death, Prosperity, Adversity, and many other things which it is very useful for Mankind to know. 
Alii dicunt hos esse effectus bonorum Angelorum, Delrio disq. Mag. l. 2. qu. 2. p. 96. B.   
2 I premise that there was amongst the ancients an opinion that by the help of Souls departed, or good Angels, they might obtain the knowledge of things contingent and concealed: and hence that Divination which they exercised who did pretend to know things secret or contingent, by their means, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or white Magic, in opposition to Divination by evil Spirits, which they styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or black Magic: it was a very old opinion especially of the Platonists of Jamblick, Porphyry, Plotinus, Proclus, and Julian the Apostate, that Divination was the effect of holy Angels. So 
(a) Disquis. Mag. l. 2. qu. 2. p. 96. B.  Delrio, 
(b) Strom. 3.  Magicians who observe Angels and Demons are careful to abstain from Wine and Venery, and living creatures: So St. Clemens. And,  
3. I premise that this white Magic is by the Church of Rome condemned as Idolatry: For such is all unlawful Magic, saith 
(c) Tacita Idololatria est omnis Magia prohibita Belrio, l. 1. disqu. Mag. cap. 1. p. 3. Col. 3.  Delrio. Whosoever exerciseth the art of Divination, or consults them that do it, are guilty of having other Gods, saith 
(d) Estius in Sent. 3. dist. 4. Sect. 6. p. 130.  Estius, because they attribute unto the Creature what is God's propriety, viz. The knowledge of things future, and which in nature have no certain Causes, but which depend upon the will of man, or other things which are mutable. Valentianus adds, That they affront his Majesty by a vain expectation of those things from Creatures which are to be expected only from God: for God having said, declare to us things future that we may know that ye are Gods. the knowledge of things future and contingent must be the knowledge proper unto God alone. And again the procuration of the knowledge of things hid, or secret, belongeth to Divine Worship, for these are to be expected only from God by prayer and other lawful means: when therefore we expect them vainly from the Creature, we do ascribe unto the Creature that Worship which is properly Divine. These things premised,  
4. I add, that either this white Magic must be lawful, or else the Invocation of Saints and Angels, as it is practised in the Church of Rome, must be unlawful, and guilty of Idolatry; either we vainly do expect that they should hear and understand our mental Prayers, and know the secrets of our Hearts, or the Magicians who do expect the knowledge of things secret, or contingent by those blessed Spirits, cannot be justly charged with Idolatry: For whatsoever the Romanist pretends in vindication of the first, doth equally excuse and vindicate the second: for if you do conjecture with the Church of Rome, that the affection of those blessed Spirits to mankind is so exceeding great, that, it will prompt them most assuredly to intercede in our behalf for other temporal concerns, to be our refuge, and Protectors, and to Minister to the concernements both of this, and of the future life, why may we not conceive that the same love should move them to declare those future things which it doth Equally concern us to know, both that we may obtain the greatest blessings, and may be able to fly and to prevent the greatest perils, or may prepare to bear those evils, with a Christian courage which we cannot escape? When Florentius having lost his Cloak, 
T. G. p. 424.  and had not where withal to buy another, by praying to the twenty Martyrs caught a Fish with a Gold Ring in t, sufficient (I suppose) to buy another. Caniw e doubt but when we lose a Cloak, that praying to all Saints and Angels, some kind hearted Saint, that perhaps in his life time lost his own (and so must be supposed according to 
* Part. 3. cap. 2. Sect. 4.  T. G. to be more ready than the rest to pity any body that sustains that loss) will tell us where this lost Cloak is? If God doth either from the Law of Friendship, or for our profit reveal the secrets of men's hearts unto them, and inform both Saints and Angels of our Prayers, and our Necessities, why should we not conceive that he is as ready to inform them of those hidden and contingent things, which, it as much concerneth us to be informed of, as to receive an Answer to our Prayers, v. g. if he informed the twenty Martyrs of Florentius his Petition that his Cloak might be given to him, 
T. G. p. 423, 424.  why should he not inform them where it was; or if those blessed Spirits do by virtue of the beatific Vision see our Prayers and Wants, why should they not be thought to view our Losses, and our future state in the same beatific Vision? If that could represent unto the twenty Martyrs Florentius' Prayer, why not his Cloak, and where it was? They who see God see all things in him which belong unto him, say the Roman Doctors, therefore they see the Prayers directed to him, for they objectively must be in God, they that see God saith the Magician, see all things in him, and therefore they must see things future and concealed, for they objectively must be in God; and with what show of reason can any man reject the latter inference who doth allow the former, for to be the Searcher of the Heart, is not less proper to God then is the Knowledge of what is future and contingent? Nay Holy Scripture seems more clearly to appropriate to God the Knowledge of the Heart, then of things future and contingent; for it expressly saith thou only knowest the Hearts of men, but doth not so expressly say, thou only knowest what is to come. Moreover the secret motions of our Heart do equally depend upon our will, which is uncertain, and very subject unto change, if therefore it be truly said that what is future and contingent cannot be known by any creature, because it doth depend on what is mutable and therefore to expect this knowledge from a Creature, or to ascribe it to him is to be Guilty of Idolatry; the like must be affirmed of the thoughts and inward motions of the Heart, which equally depending on the free motions of the will, must be obnoxious to the same uncertaintyes.   

CHAP. XI.  
The CONTENTS. The Canon of the Council of Laodicea, de iis qui Angelos Colunt, is laid down, and the Judgement of Theodoret and Photius upon it. Sect. 1. And it is proved. 1. That it contains the Sentence and belief of the whole Church of Christ. Sect. 2. That it forbids the Invocation and Worship of Angels. Sect. 3. That the Angels whose Invocation and Worship it forbids were blessed Spirits and not evil Angels. Sect. 4. That it forbids what is the Practice of the Church of Rome. Sect. 5. That it pronounceth the Worship and Invocation of the holy Angels to be Idolatry. Sect. 6. That in the Judgement of the Fathers, this was the Worship which St. Paul condemned. 2 Coloss. Sect. 7. The evasions of T. G. confuted. ibid. And all the other Answers of the Romanists. Sect. 8.  
THat what we have thus confirmed from Scripture and the voice of Reason, 
§ 1.  hath also the consent, and the concurrent suffrage of Antiquity we shall demonstrate, not from the words of any single Father, but from the clear decision of the whole Church of God, which is delivered to us in these words, viz. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Codex Canonum Eccles. Univers. Can. 139.  That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and departed a side, and invocate Angels, and make meetings which are things forbidden. If any man therefore be found to give himself to this privy Idolatry, let him be accursed. Because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and betaken himself to Idolatry. In the Epitome of Canons collected by Dionysius Exiguus, and which Pope Adrian delivered to Charles the great, this Decree is thus entitled, 
(a) Jus●el. Cod. Can Eccles. p. 106.  Canon de his qui Angelos colunt, a Decree concerning those that worship Angels 
(b) Brev. Canon. 90.  Crisconius hath the like. Theodoret, who lived in the next Century upon those words of the Apostle, Let no man defraud you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels, writes that 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. in Coloss. c. 2.  They who were zealous for the Law, persuaded men to worship Angels, because say they, the Law was given by them. This did they council to be done, pretending himility, and saying, that the God of all things was invisible, and inaccessible, and incomprehensible, and that it was fit we should procure God's favour by the means of Angels. And again 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. in Col. 2.  Because they commanded men to worship Angels (saith Theodoret) he enjoineth the contrary, that they should adorn their words and deeds with the Commemoration of our Lord Christ: and send up thanksgiving to God and the Father by him and not by the Angels. The Synod of Laodicea also following this Rule, and desiring to heal that old disease made a Law that they should not pray to Angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. And lastly, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. in Col. 2.  This vice (saith he) continued in Phrygia and Pisidia for a long time. For which cause also the Synod assembled in Laodicea, the chief City of Phrygia forbade them by a Law to pray to Angels, and even to this day among them and their Borderers, there are Oratories of St. Michael to be Seen. The like hath Oecumenius upon the same place, saying, that 
(b) Oecumen MS. in Coloss. 2. apud Hoechelium in Origenem contra Celfum. In libris editis desideratur.  this Custom continued in Phrygia, insomuch that the Council of Laodicea did by a Law forbidden to come to Angels and to pray unto them. From whence it is also, that there be many Churches of Michael the Chief Captain of God's Host among them. This Canon of the Laodicean Fathers, Photius doth note to have been made against the 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Nomocanon tit. 12. c. 9  Angelites, or the Angelicks rather. For so St. 
(a) Angelici, in Angelorum cultum inclinati Aug. de haeres. c. 39  Augustin names those Heretics, that were inclined to the worship of Angles, being from thence called 
(b) Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt. Isidor. Orig. l. 8. c. 5.  Angelici, as Isidorus noteth, because they did worship Angels. Now that the strength of what we argue from this Canon.  
And that the vanity of what the Romanists except against it, may appear,  
1. Let it be noted, that the forementioned Canon containeth the Sentence and Belief of the whole Church of Christ, 
5 2.  for it is a Canon of that Code, which the whole Christian World did use both in their Councils and Ecclesiastical Judicatures, until the Seventh Century; and which is cited both by the Council of Chalcedon and of Ephesus, as 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ex Concil. Ephes. act. 1. p. 2. p. 327. To. 1. Concil. General. Edit. Rom.  the order of Canons, the series of Ecclesiastical Laws, the Ecclesastical constitutions, and 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 act. 2. p. 400. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 426. v. p. 425. p. 491. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex Concil. Calced. act. 3. p. 241. Tom. 2. Concil.  the Code; It is a Canon of that Code to which the Council of Chalcedon gave the force, and the Authority of an universal Law in these Expressions, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. act. 4. p. 297. vic. Justel. Cod. Canon. p. 6.— 12.  we think it equal that the Canons made by Holy Fathers in every Synod until now, should be observed. 
Can. 1.   
2. Observe that what the Canon thus expresseth, 
§ 3.  viz. that Christians should not name the Angels; is an Anathema directed against those which pray to Angels, so Theodoret and Photius, who call upon them for help or introduction to God. So Zonaras and Aristenus, who worshipped them. 
In locum  So Theodoret, Dionysius, Christonius, and the Epitome of Canons presented by Pope Adrian to Charles the great; who said, we must be brought to God by Angels; so Aristenus and the Amerbachian Scholiast; 
In locum.  and that to cure that Disease, the Council did command all Christians not to pray unto them, so Theodoret and Oecumenius. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And therefore evident it is, that Zonaras doth truly say, that to name Angels, in this Canon, was as much as to invoke them: whence it will follow, that the whole Church of Christ for two whole Centuries and upwards, did forbid all Christians to Invoke Angels, to worship or to call upon them, and did pronounce anathemas on them that did so.  
3. Observe that what this Canon doth forbid, 
§ 4.  was not the Invocation of wicked Daemons, or of Damned Spirits, but of the Blessed Angels. For, 1. According to Theodoret and Photius, they did condemn the worshippers of Michael, the Archangel, and those that went unto the Oratories or Churches of St. Michael. 2. The Canon doth relate to Christians, who surely would not meet to worship Devils, nor doth it recall them to good Angels, but to Jesus Christ. 3. The persons reprehended are said to have took up this Custom of going thus to good Daemons, from a pretence of their unworthiness, to go to God or Christ immediately, and from an appearance of humility: So chrysostom, Theodoret, and others; but to expect the help of Devils to introduce them to God, and to pretend humility in doing such an horrid act, is to be guilty of the highest madness. 4. Theodoret and Photius inform us, that they who brought up that forbidden practice, were zealous for the Law; now that most strictly did forbid the worship of all evil spirits, it was delivered not by them, but by the Blessed Angels.  
4. That which is here forbidden, 
§ 4.  is what the Church of Rome doth daily practice, for they do worship Angels, saith the Roman Catechism; 
Part 3. p. 434.  this is, and hath been their perpetual Custom to call upon them, and to expect their help and patronage, by virtue of those supplications: Hence that Expression of the Roman Missal 
(a) Hos fidenter deprecemur ut ab ipsis adjuvemur apud deum jugiter. Prosa ad S. Angelos. f. 32. B.  To them with confidence let's pray, for God's assistance every day. They do expect Salvation from their intercession, in that very sense in which Theophylact asserts the Heretics expected to be saved by Angels, viz, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as persons ministering unto our Introduction to God and Christ: Hence their petitions, that 
(b) 
Hostias tibi Domine laudis offerimus suppliciter deprecantes ut easdem Angelico interveniente suffragio & placatus accipta, & ad salutem nostram provenire concedas. Missa votiva de Angelis. p. 5.36. Ed. Aut. fol. Gaudium erit tibi Angele dei super me peccatore— tuis intercessionibus deum obtinente. Missa in honorem proprii Angelif. 16. B. Ed. Antuerp. So. 1577.  
Angelorum concio sacra, & Archangelorum turma inclyta, nostra diluant jam peccata, praestando superacaeli Gaudia. Prosa de omnibus sanctis ibid. f. 33. B.   by the intercessions of the blessed Angels, they may obtain God's favour, and may be brought to Life Eternal. If then that Invocation which is here forbidden be Idolatry, the practice of the Church of Rome must be so too.  
5. This Invocation of the Blessed Angels, 
§. 6.  is expressly said to be Idolatry: and therefore, if it be not truly so, this Synod and the Church of Christ must be pronounced false accusers; now of this enormity, they could not justly be accused for deserting Christ; for, notwithstanding this, they did not look upon those Angels they invoked as Gods, but as inferior Creatures; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or presons instrumental and subservient unto our Introduction to God; and therefore thought we should procure God's favour by the means of Angels, because that God himself was not to be approached or apprehended, and because Christ was so exalted, that they durst not make their immediate addresses to him, now to think Christ greater than that we sinful Creatures should make addresses to him, maketh some show of our humility, but cannot possibly be charged with Idolatry. For should any Man conceive himself unworthy to appear before God, or look upon him as unaccessable by one of so defiled a spirit, and therefore should entreat the Prayers of his pious Neighbours, we might conclude that he was very ignorant and vain in his imaginations, but could not thence conclude, that he was guilty of Idolatry. And so the Reader sees, that notwithstanding these mistakes of the Angelicks, the Church of Rome hath no wrong done them, when we charge their Invocation of the blessed Angels with Idolatry; for if the Invocation of them when absent were not guilty of this Crime, these by-mistakes could never make it guilty of that imputation. Besides the Synod and Theodoret do put a clear distinction betwixt these two particulars, which by the Exposition of the Roman Doctors are confounded, and made to signify the same, viz. desertion of Christ, and being guilty of Idolatry, by praying to the blessed Angels, as is apparent from this expression of Theodoret: the Synod of Laodicea made a Law that Christians should not pray to Angels, nor forsake the Lord Christ; whosoever doth such things, say they, accursed let him be; because he hath deserted Christ, and given up himself unto Idolatry. Lastly, we do not find that they did so reject or desert Christ, as to deny his intercession in the Heavens, but only, upon this account, because they did not make immediate addresses to him. For as St. Paul asserts, 
1 Gal. 6.  that the Galatians had deserted him that called them, because, they joined the observation of the Law to the profession of the Gospel of Christ, so doth St. Paul, and the Laodicean Fathers declare, that those Angelicks had deserted Christ, because, they joined the Mediation of the blessed Angels, to Christ, the only Mediator of his Church.  
6. Let it be noted, 
§. 7.  that those Fathers and Interpreters do with one mouth affirm, was what this Canon thus condemned, was what St. Paul had long before condemned in his Epistle to the Colossians; and therefore that St. Paul did in the judgement of those Fathers, condemn the worship and invocation of the belssed Angels as Idolatry. Theodoret expressly saith, that because they commanded men to worship Angels, he enjoineth the contrary; that they should adorn their words and their deeds with commemoration of our Lord Christ: 
p. 378.  and send up thanksgiving to God and the Father by him, and not by the Angels: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  to this T. G. replies, That these words of Paul, viz. in a voluntary humility, and not holding the bead, sufficiently intimate a particularity in the worship which St. Paul condemned, and this was saith St. Crysostome that some among the Colossians said that we ought to be rceonciled, and have access to the Father not by Christ, but by the Angels; and this saith he, is that which is said (id est, condemned) by the Apostle, that they so admitted and worshipped the Angels for Mediators, as to exclude Christ. Ans. In this Reply according to T. G. his constant custom we have two horrid falsifications of the words of chrysostom: For, 1. These words we ought to be reconciled, are disingenuously added to the words or chrysostom, that he might seem to say that they whom Paul condemned did attribute unto the Angels our reconcilement unto God. 2. What he asserts to to be assigned as a reason why St. Paul condemned their Worship, is in St. chrysostom a reason why they were 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. in locum.  puffed up, and did pretend humility, but is not assigned as a reason why St. Paul condemns this worship.  
3. He doth expressly say that because these men introduced Angels, St. Paul in opposition to them did exhort us to do all by Invocation of the name of Christ, and not to introduce the Angels; now he that doth exhort us, whether we eat or drink or whatsoever else we do, before we set upon it, to put up our Petitions to him: and then adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must in all reason be supposed to forbid us to put up our petitions to them, in reference to any thing we do.  
T. G. 
p. 378.  proceeds to tell us that the reason why they excluded Christ from reconciliation is given by Theophilact, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  because they esteemed it a thing unworthy of the Majesty of the only begotten Son on the one side to make the Reconciliation, and far transcending Man's poverty and lowness on the other. Reply, 'Tis an old saying, and a true, that one  begets an other. Thus T. G. having falsely cited Chrysostom, he gives as false a Reason of what he never said. For doth Theophylact say, they esteemed it unworthy of Christ, on the other side to make the Reconciliation? no T. G. confesseth, that he doth not, by putting this in a different Character from the words of Theophylact: doth he say that something was esteemed unworthy, but doth not tell us what that was, that so T. G. might have some colour for saying it was reconciliation? No, he expressly saith, they deemed it beneath Christ, to bring us unto God, or to procure our access unto him; and that it was beyond our meannes immediately to go unto him. Do any of the latter Scholiasts, since that this practice was used in the Church of Christ, suggest this sense? No, they expressly say, that which these Heretics asserted was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Balsamon Zonaras Aristenus  that we ought not to pray to Christ for his assistance, or introduction to the Father. Must that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus expounded, To make this reconciliation, is a thing far transcending Man's lowness? No, St. Chrysostom and all the Scholiasts do manifestly say the contrary, and they all expound it thus, that Christ was greater than that we should go unto him, and that to be introduced by Christ, was a thing greater than we could expect. Or lastly, doth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import this Reconciliation? no, the proper import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to procure access, and they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who obtained admission or favour for the supplicant.  
Thirdly, 
p. 379.  he answers, that St. Paul, and the Council of Laodicea (in the Judgement of Theodoret, forbade the worshipping or praying to Angels, upon account that the Law was delivered by them, (and therefore, as Theophylact saith, they brought us Salvation) Answer, As if Theophylacis assertion, who lived above 400 years after this Council met, were to be valued, when both Theodoret and Photius and Chrysostom, who lived almost 400 years before him, gave not one item of it, but do assign such reasons of that Prohibition, as nothing do relate unto it. (2.) It is false, that Theophylact affirms, that they who prayed to Angels, because the Law was delivered by them, did therefore say they brought us Salvation; for he asserts not that this Law was made against Judaizing Christians, as doth Theodoret and Photius, but against those who from pretences of humility, excluded Christ. (3.) To be so far our Saviour's only, as to bring or to discover the tidings of Salvation to us, is no otherwise to be our Saviour's, then were the Blessed Apostles and Evangelists; and so to worship them as such, is but to worship them as Papists do St. Paul and Peter. (4.) This will be more apparent from his words. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  They said it was unworthy of the Majesty of Christ, to bring us to the Father, and that it was beyond them to desire it, and therefore did conceive it more agreeable to reason to think that Angels ministered to our Introduction, and hence they introduced the worship of Angels, and persuaded the more ignorant to go unto them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those that saved us by ministering unto our Introduction to God, from whom we do obtain Salvation, and thus the Papists also do persuade the ruder people to look upon them as their Saviour's, for by the suffrage of the Holy Angels they hope to obtain Salvation, and by the intercession of their Guardian Angel, they hope to enjoy God, and therefore in this language call upon him, Say unto my Soul, thou art my Salvation— We meet with many other answers to this Canon, and to that passage of St. Paul in Perroon, Bellarmine, Petavius, amounting to this only, That they forbidden only that supplication, which was tendered to them as to Gods, or as to primary and only Mediators. But (1.) the Canon speaks of Christians, now to suppose that they, whose Fundamental Principle it is to own one only God, should also worship Angels as God, is the extremity of folly (2.) Theodoret and Jerom declare, 
Epist. ad Algasiam quest. 10.  that they who did abet this Doctrine were Jews, or persons zealous of the Law, Now these Men knew that Angels were but the Instruments and Creatures of God, and therefore could not worship them as Gods. (3.) They chose these Angels as fit persons to introduce them to God, and used their Meditation upon this pretence, that such mean persons should not go directly to him, and therefore could not look upon them as partakers of the nature to God.  
In a word, 
§ 8.  what can be more incredible than that St. Paul being assisted by the Holy Spirit, and the whole Church of Christ, should daily practise this worship, and Invocation of the Holy Angels, and teach all Christians so to do, and yet affirm these things without any limitation or distinction, which if we may interpret them according to the plain and obvious meaning of the words, do manifestly condemn that which they did daily practice, and lay upon Saint Paul, and the whole Church of Christ, on supposition of this practice, the imputation of Idolatry, and of deserting our Blessed Lord, and should deliver and approve these things, as the Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which all Men stood obliged to believe. Nothing can be more contrary unto the worship and Invocation of these blessed Spirits, than an express command, that we should neither worship nor Invoke them can it then enter into the heart of any sober person to believe, that the whole Church of Christ, even when they taught and practised both, should make, receive, and in their Universal Synods should solemnly confirm a Law, without distinction or exception, forbidding both the worship and Invocation of them, and requiring all good Christians to avoid this practice, as being the deserting of their Saviour, and the giving of God's worship to those Spirits? Since this Devotion hath obtained in the Church of Rome, who ever heard of any Romanist, who roundly and without distinction, would assert, that to invoke an Angel was Idolatry or that this Invocation was forbidden by the Church of Christ, as doth Theodoret and Photius, and the Laodicean Council? who of them ever cautioned all Christian people, as St. Paul hath done, that no Man should seduce them to the worship of those Blessed Spirits? What Council ever did decree, that they should not be worshipped or invoked, or own such Doctrine as any part of Christian Faith? And yet we find this done both by Saint Paul, and by the Laodicean Council, by Origen, Theodoret, and Photius, and the whole Church of Christ; viz. what they confirmed by their daily practice, they not only did forbid, but they pronounced it to be Idolatry and the deserting of their Saviour, what they had thus decreed in opposition to their own daily practice, that they obtruded as a dictate of the Holy Ghost, and as the matter of their Faith; but against the worshipping of Angels with Divine Worship, or as sole or primary Mediators, which (if we may believe the Church of Rome) was the only thing in which they did offend, we have no mention in the least. That there were in the world such Heretics, as said it was beyond us, or was too great an arrogance to go directly to the Son of God, and that God was Inaccessible, and therefore we must go to Angels, this Synod I suppose must know as well as Chrysostom and Theodoret, why therefore do they never mention as do the latter Comments on this Canon, what they alone designed to prevent? Why do they not recall these Heretics unto that invocation of these Blessed Angels, which had obtained in the Church of Christ, and tell them that they need not to desert the Church, or gather private conventicles in order to the Invocation of these Angels? Why do not they or or any other person, that flourished in the fourth or fifth Ages of the Church, when this injunction was in force, distinguish between the Invocation of the Holy Angels, which the Church did practise, and that which was forbidden by this Canon? Why doth S. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 5. contra Celsum. p. 236.  Origen conclude that Celsus had not read that passage of St. Paul to the Colossians, because he said the Worship of the Holy Angels was no transgression of their Law? For what is this but to suggest that this text of Scripture is so plain against the worship of them, that he that reads it cannot think that they who own it can admit that Worship? Why doth Theodoret affirm that because Heretics commanded men to worship Angels, S. Paul enjoined the contrary; for what is contrary to a command to worship Angels but an injunction not to Worship Angels? Why doth he say that the Apostle doth command us to send up our Thanksgivings by Christ, and not by the Angels, for by whom we may send up our Petitions why may we not send up Thanksgiving too? Why doth both he and Photius inform us that the Laodicean Synod being desirous to heal this old disease enjoined Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to pray to Angels? For is not this a shrewd suspicion that this Idololatrical disease, was only that of praying to Angels; or else that both Theodoret and Photius were such intolerable dolts as to represent the very practice of the Christians as the disease of the Idolaters, and the desertors of our Blessed Lord? Why is it lastly that St. Chrysostom informs us that for a cure of this disease St. Paul enjoined all Christians to invoke the name of Christ, and not to bring in Angels, suggesting this unto us, that the Invocation of Angels was not consistent with that of Christ, and that by saying do all things in the name of Christ, he hath commanded us to pray unto him, and call upon him as our helper, and not upon the holy Angels? Who knows not that a sentence against any person ought in some words or other to specify the crime that it condemns, and that an act so framed as to condemn a person as guilty of the highest crimes and worthy of the severest punishments for doing what in the plain and literal meaning of the words all they that framed the act and they that owned it as a Law did daily practise, is an absurdity that Humane Nature cannot possibly be guilty of? When therefore I can find an Act of Parliament, intending only to condemn Incestuous conversation, framed thus, whosoever shall marry any Woman let him be severely punished; or a decree of any Council, intending only to forbid us to go to the Assembly of Heretics, thus worded, Whosoever shall go to Church let him be Anathema; then shall I think this Synod and the whole Church of Christ, intending only to forbid such invocation of the Blessed Angels as made them Gods, or sole and primary Mediators, would make a Law M 〈◊〉 not to pray to Angels, and thus decree, whosoever shall go and invocate the Angels let him be Anathema. When I can find that such determinations and decrees shall pass for current in a Church or Nation without all limitation, or restriction for some hundred years, though contradictory to what they practise and believe, then shall I be induced to believe this Canon could be thus admitted and confirmed as a Law of the whole Church of Christ in contradiction to their Faith and practice.   

CHAP. XII.  
The CONTENTS. The Invocation of Angels confuted from the Testimony of Irenaeus and st. Augustin, etc. Sect. 1. From the Testimonies of Origen. Sect. 2. The exceptions of T. G. against them largely confuted. Sect. 3. The Testimony cited from Origen. Hom. in Ezech. considered. Sect. 4.  
TO this so pregnant Testimony of the whole Church of Christ, we shall adjoin such say of the ancient fathers as do directly overthrow this doctrine, or manifestly affirm that no such practice was allowed by the Church of Christ. 
Non est numerum dicere Gratiarum quas per universum Mundum Ecclesia a Deo accipiens in nomine Christi Jesu crucifixi sub Pontio Pilato per singulos dies in opitulationem Gentium perficit— neque seducens, aliquem nec pecuniam ei auferens, nec invocationibus Angelicis, faciat (i. facit) aliquid nec incantationibus, nec aliqua prava curiositate, sed mundè, purè, & manifestè orationes dirigens ad Dominum qui omnia fecit, & nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi invocans, virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seductionem perfecit. Iren. l. 2. c. 57  Thus in the second Century it is declared by Irenaeus, that the Church of Christ did nothing by the Invocation of Angels but purely, simply, and openly addressed her prayers to God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, To this T. G. Replies that Irenaeus speaks only of such superstitious Invocating of Angels, as was used by the Martionites, and Carpocratians in their Magical operations, and working of false Miracles. p. 388. Repl. 1. The words of Irenaeus do absolutely say that Christians did nothing by the Invocation of angels; which if T. G. will limit thus, he stands obliged in equity, and and by the Laws of Disputation to give some reason of that limitation, which since he hath not done, it is apparent that he hath answered nothing to the Doctor's argument. But, 2. what he replies, as it is absolutely groundless, so is it false and inconsistent with the words of Irenaeus: For he doth manifestly distinguish betwixt those magical operations and the invocation of holy Angels, and affirms that the Church doth nothing by incantations, or by Angelic invocations. 3. He doth oppose unto this Angelic invocation, the invocation and directing of our Prayers purely to God and Christ. What therefore he ascribes thus purely unto God and Christ, he must be deemed to deny to Angels, and consequently must deny that they directed their petitions to them. Besides why doth he tell us, that the Church addresseth her petitions to that God who made all things, if not to show that this was the true reason of our praying to him alone, seeing he only is the maker of all things? 4. He manifestly speaks of the miraculous gifts of Christians in curing diseases and casting out of Devils, which things not only Irenaeus, but 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lib. 3. contra Celsum. p. 124. l. 1. p. 7.  Origen affirms to be performed only by the invocation of the name of God and Christ. Lactantius tells us that 
* Ille autem preses Mundi & rector Universi qui scit omnia, cujus divinis oculis nihil septum est, solus habet rerum omnium cum Filio suo potestatem nec in Angelis quicquam nisi parendi nicessitas it que nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt quorum omnis honour in Dao est. l. 2. c. 16.  the holy Angels will not have any honour bestowed on them, because their honour is in God and they have nothing else to do but to obey. S. chrysostom is very copious on this subject; For (1.) he tells us the Devil brought in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e. The Calling upon Angels as is apparent from its opposition to calling upon God) and that, saith he, he doth endeavouring to rob us of this honour (of going unto God by Christ alone) as is apparent from the words preceding 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  do all things by God, and introduce not Angels. And lastly, he concludes in these expressions, 
(c) Hom. 9 in Epist. ad Coloss. Tom. 4. p. 139.  be he Angel, or Archangel, or Cherubin, do not suffer it; for neither will these powers receive this honour but reject it, when they see their Lord dishonoured. I have honoured thee, saith God and have said call upon me, and dost thou dishonour him? Again, 
* Hom. 3. ad Heb. p. 443.  Why gape ye (saith he) after Angels they are our fellow servants? Now from that very name the Fathers argue that they are not to be adored. Hence 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Orat. 3. p. 394.  Athanasius concludes no Creature ought to adore his fellow Creature though he be an Angel, because the Angel said to John, see thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant. And, Gregory Nazianzen saith 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. Qudragessim. p. 668, 669.  If I adore the Creature what shall I say to the Idolatrous Heathen, since I myself adore my fellow servants: For Creatures are all servants, though some more excellent than others. Of the same judgement was St. Angustin who speaks thus; 
* Quem invenirem qui me reconciliatet tibi, an eundum mihi suit ad Angelos? qua prece? Quibus Aacramentis? multi conantes ad te redire neque per seipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentave●unt haec, & inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum & digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Counsel. l. 10. c. 42.  Whom should I find that might reconcile me unto thee? should I have gone unto the Angels? With what Prayer? With what Sacraments? many endeavouring to return unto thee, and not being not able to do it by themselves, as I here have tried those things, and have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were accounted worthy of illusions. 
de C. D. l. 9 c. 23.  Elsewhere he tells us, those blessed Spirits, however they are called, are no Mediators to bring miserable mortals to blessedness and immortality, where, saith the Doctor, 
p. 154.  It would be ridiculous to distinguish between Mediators of Redemption and Intercession: for all that they attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession: to this T. G. Replies, 
p. 375, 376.  that this is manifestly false, and that Doctor Stillingfleet not only contradicis the Truth, but himself too, to wit because he had before affirmed that the Egyptian Daemons, saith Celsus, healed the diseases of the parts proper to themselves: and therefore might justly be Invocated. And 2. because he had told us from S. Augustin, that it was their Office to inform the superior Gods of what they could not know otherwise; this is the only ground of this rude imputation of falsehood and contradiction to the Doctor: and yet this ground is as ridiculously vain as if I should affirm this Proposition to be false; that all the Heathens attributed to their good Spirits was only Intercession, because they attributed to them Wings, and an Aetherial body: who is so blind as not to see, that when the Doctor saith they made them Mediators of Intercession only, not Mediators of Redemption? by that exclusive only he could not intent to say that they asserted nothing else concerning them, as he most grossly doth mistake, or most unconscionably doth interpret him: but only that they ascribed nothing to them which made them Mediators of Redemption. Moreover, is it fair dealing when he thus rails against Dr. Stillingfleet to do himself what he imputes unto the Doctor and quote him falsely in that very place, which yet he manifestly doth in setting down this passage as the Doctor's words, viz. that the giving them Divine Worship proceedeth upon that superstition, etc. For both to this citation and to many passages pretendedly translated from the Fathers, or cited as the sense and meaning of their words, he adds this word Divine where it is not expressed; or in the least intended, only that he may seem to answer when he doth nothing less; which is a fraud so horrible and disingenuous that no man can sufficiently detest it, or judge that man can make a conscience of his actions, who makes a common practice of it. 2. Let any man peruse S. Augustin's whole discourse upon this matter, and he will find that to overthrow this Tenet of 
* Sed quia eosdem Daemones inter homines & Deos ita medios constitutos putant, tanquam nullus deus homini misceatur, ut hine perferant desiderata, inde referant impetrata: atque hoc Platonici precipui Philosophorum ac nobilissimi sentiant, cum quibus, velut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem, utrum cultus plurimorum Deorum prosit ad consequendam vitam beatam, quae post mortem futura est. De Civitat. Dei. l. 9 c. 1. p. 268. D.  Apuleius, and all Philosophers that were of the same judgement with him, and held that their good Doemons did so mediate betwixt the Gods and men, as that they carried our petitions up to them, and did return the Aids and Blessings of the God to us. He undertakes the Refutation of this Platonic Doctrine, and the examination of this Question, whether the worship of those many Gods or Daemons was profitable to the obtaining of our future Bliss; and to confute this Doctrine of the Platonists, and to prove this Mediation not to be profitable to this end, he argues thus; 
* Proinde mediatorem inter nos & Deum & mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem, & beatudinem permanentem: ut per id quod transit, congrueret morituris, & ad id quod permanet transferret ex mortuis. Boniigitur Angeli inter miseros mortales & beatos immortales medii esse non possunt quia ipsi quoque & beati & immortales sunt. Id. ib. c. 15. vid. etiam c. 13.— Multi sunt medii Separatores— ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perveniri, ad quod▪ ut perduceremur, non multis, sed uno Mediatore opus erat, & hoc eo ipso cujus participatione sumus beati, hoc est Verbo Dei non facto, sed per quod facta sunt omnia. Ib. c. 15. A.  This Mediation cannot be performed but by a middle person, who partakes of some what that makes him like unto hoth parties: and therefore cannot be performed by good Angels, such as the Platonist asserts these Daemons are, because Good Angels have happiness and immortality with God, but neither misery nor mortality by which they may agree with Man. This is his argument even in that place, whence Dr. Stillingfleet doth cite these words, that those who are Christians do believe, that we need not many, but one Mediator, and that such a one, by whose participation we are made happy, i. e. the word of God not made, but by whom all things were made.  
Now here the Doctor is with great confidence, 
p. 373.  and with as little reason accused of false translation, and addition to St. Augustine's words; of addition, because he saith, those that are Christians do believe: Of false Translation in those words, we need not many but one Mediator: but it is easy to vindicate the Doctor from these false aspersions; for, that Christians only could be brought to the Enjoyment of God, was certainly St. Augustine's Faith, so then ut perduceremur (sc. nos ad Deum) non multis, sed uno Mediatore opus erat, (sc. nobis) must import thus much, That we Christians may be brought to God, we have no need of many Mediators. To cavil at this Translation is to expose his ignorance to every School Boy: But to the Testimony of St. Austin, he returns this Answer, that it is plain he speaks of such a Mediator, 
p. 374.  by whose participation we are made happy, that is, a Mediator of Redemption, and not a Mediator of Intercession, Rep. it is as plain that St. Austin speaks of such a Mediator, who is the word of God, not made but making all things, and that the Platonist acknowledged his Mediating Demons, to be made by God; the Platonist may therefore with T. G. infer, that it is plain he speaketh not against them, though he designed nothing else, because he speaks of such a Mediator by whose participation we are made happy; that is, (saith he) the word of God not made, etc. 2. Doth not St. Austin tell us in the beginning of this Book, that seeing some Philosophers affirmed, that their Good Demons were Ministers to intercede with God, or carry up our Prayers to him, and to bring back his Blessings unto us, therefore he would enter upon this dispute, whether the worship of those many Gods was profitable to Salvation. And therefore it is evident he stood obliged to show they did not contribute to our Salvation, by being Mediators of Intercession for us, as well as to exclude them from from being Mediators of Redemption.  
The Works of Origen against Celsus, 
§. 2.  are so express and clear against this practice of the Church of Rome, that if he had designed to confute the Doctrine of that Church, he could not have devised expressions more repugnant to it: for having confessed that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 233.  holy Angels did carry up our Prayers to God, and bring down blessings from God to us, (as he had learned in the School of Plato) lest any should be tempted to infer from this, that we should pray unto these Angels, or that it was useful or needful so to do, that so these Blessed spirits might be more propicious or helpful to us; he doth expressly say, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 233.  to invoke them is no reasonable thing, and this assertion he confirms by many arguments. 1. It is absurd (saith he) to call upon them, because we want the knowledge of their nature, and because it is above the reach of Man. And 2. That if we could attain unto this Knowledge, that very Knowledge which declares their Nature and their Offce to us, would not permit us to pray to any other, but unto God the Lord of all, who is abundantly sufficient for all, by the Son of God. 3. He reckons up in the Apostles language, all the kinds and sorts of Prayer, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Celsum l. 5. p 233.  Petition, Deprecation, Intercession, and Thanksgiving: And then he adds, all these we must put up to God by that high Priest, who doth Transcend all Angels; and that this worship in any of the kinds forementioned, was therefore not to be conferred upon the Angels, because they were not to receive 
(b) Ibid.  the worship due to God. 4. He adds, that it was sufficient to obtain the favour of the holy Angels, and the assistance of their Prayers, to labour to have God propitious, and to procure his good will by godliness and virtue, and by imitation of the Angel's Piety. And therefore not only in his answer to this objection, 
Lib. 5. p. 233.  but elsewhere he tells us, me must endeavour to approve ourselves to him, who is one God over all, and we must pray to him for mercy, and that if Celsus will yet have us to procure the good will of others after him, who is God over all, he must consider, that as when the body is moved, the motion of the shadow thereof doth follow: so in like manner, having God favourable unto us who is over all, it followeth, that we shall have all his Friends, both Angels, and Souls, and Spirits loving unto us: For they have a fellow feeling with them that are thought worthy to find favour from God. To whom they are not only favourable, but they pray with them. So as we may be bold to say, that when Men which with resolution propose unto themselves the best things, do pray unto God: many thousand of the sacred powers pray together with them unspoken to. Moreover when Celsus affirmed, 
Id. l. 8. p. 420.  that thanks were to be given to Daemons, and that our Prayers and first Fruits were to be offered to them; 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 8. p. 396.  that so we might obtain their presence with us, and their favour to us, who have obtained of God to be Dispenser's of inferior things: to this it is replied by Origen. 1. That God had given no such Government to Daemons. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. p. 400.  2. That first Fruits must be offered to God alone, who said, let the Earth bring forth Fruit, and to him to whom the Christians offered their first Fruits, they offered also their petitions. 3. He doth acknowledge that office which Celsus had ascribed to wicked Daemons did agree to Angels, who upon that account in Scripture were styled ministering spirits, and do encamp about God's servants for their protection and deliverance. But lest we should infer with Celsus, that we must therefore pray unto them, to be thus propicious; he adds, we shall sufficiently obtain their favour, by imitation of their Piety, and Invocation of that God to whom they pray. For thus he speaks; If we have a desire to a multitude, whom we would willingly have to be favourable unto us, 
l. 8. p. 400.  we learn that thousand thousands stand by him, and Millions of Millions minister unto him, who beholding them that imitate their Piety towards God, as if they were their Kinsfolks and Friends, help forward their Salvation and call upon God, and pray sincerely, appearing also, and thinking that they ought to do service to them; and as it were upon one watchword to set forth for the benefit and salvation of them that pray to God, unto whom they themselves also pray.  
Now to all these and all the Arguments that any man can bring, T. G. returns this Answer, 
§. 3. p. 360.  Viz. That Prayer implies either a total dependence upon God as the Author of all good, and so we ought to pray to God alone, or an address unto the Members of the Church triumphant, for the assistance of their Prayers to him, who only can give what we ask, and in this sense it is still used by Roman Catholics, when it is applied to Saints and Angels; when therefore Origen denies that our Prayers are to be offered to any but to Christ alone, he speaks of Prayer in the first sense. This is that Catholic answer, which upon all occasion he produceth. This Origen and all the Fathers mean, verily it is this, and nothing else; Not that the Fathers of the four first Centuries, when they so roundly and frequently assert, that Prayer is to be offered unto God alone, did ever thus distinguish or speak one title of this nature, no, simple Creatures as they were: they absolutely, and without all distinction condemned what they daily practised, and practised what they had condemned; they all spoke what was absolutely false, and meant only what was true; so that no Man could have imagined this to have been their meaning, had not T. G. been their Interpreter. Thus when Origne expressly saith, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 8. p. 402.  It is no reasonable thing to pray unto the Angels, 
† l. 5. p. 258.  we must only pray to God and to his Son Christ Jesus. He nust affirm, what was a plain and absolute contradiction to the Church's Doctrine, but then his meaning must be Orthodox, and contradictory to what he doth assert. When he adds almost by way of Syllogism, to whom we Christians offer our first Fruits: to him we offer up our Prayers: But to God alone we offer up our first Fruits, Ergo to him alone we offer up our Prayers. When he informs us, that the Christians were such as did not pray to Angels, but undividedly and inseparably did worship God by Jesus Christ, 
l. 8. p. 382.  and came to God by Christ alone, and so, as to transcend even those blessed spirits, which are called Gods, He must apparently belly the Christian World, according to the plain Interpretation of his words, but his intentions must be Orthodox. And yet 3. he doth not only deny the Doctrine, and the practice of the Church of Rome to be the Doctrine and practice of the time wherein he lived, but he destroys the very ground and reason of that practice, viz. the benefit we may receive by putting up requests unto them; and the concernments which lie upon us so to do in order to our preservation from all evil, and the obtainment of the greatest blessings, for he expressly tells us our care must be to get his favour who alone is God: and that if Celsus (or the Church of Rome) would have us to procure the favour of the inferior beings he must know that all good Spirits, Souls and Angels, (if we do obtain God's favour, when we pray to him) they need not be called upon for the assistance of their prayers for they will pray together with us, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not being called upon so to do. This he doth frequently repeat, and indeed it is the common language of those times he lived in, witness the like expression of Arnobius, 
* In ho omne, quod colendum est colimus: quod adorari convenit adoramus: quod obsequium Venerationis exposcit Venerationibus promeremur. Cum enim divinitatis ipsius tencamus caput, à quo ipsa Divinitas divorum omnium, quicunque sunt, ducitur, supervacuum putamus personas ire per singulas: cum & ipsi qui sint, & quae habeant nomina nesciamus: & cujus sint praeterea numeri, neque liquidum neque comprehensum, neque exploratum habere possimus. Atque ut in terrestribus Regnis necessitate nulla compellimur, regalibus in familiis constitutos nominatim cum Principibus adorare, sed in Regum ipsorum cultu, quicquid illis annexum est, tacita & se sentit honorificentia comprehendi: Non alia ratione quicunque hi Dii sunt, quos esse nobis proponitis: fi sint progenies Regia, & principali oriuntur è capite, etiam si nullos accipiant nominatim à nobis cultus, intelligunt se tamen honorari communiter cum suo Rege, atque in illius venerationibus contineri. Arnobius contra Gentes, lib. 3 p. 101.  In worshipping the Father and the Lord of all things we worship all things that are to be worshipped, we adore all things that may conveniently be adored, we venerate all that calls for veneration. For holding to the head from whence these Divi borrow their Divinity, we think it needless to go to every Person; seeing we know not what they are, what names they have, or of what order they may be. And as in honouring the King we honour all that do belong unto him, so what ever Gods you do propose unto us, if they be of this Kingly progeny, and do belong unto this head, although they do receive no worship from us they understand that they are worshipped together with their King, and are included in that veneration, which we pay to him.  
4. This Answer renders the discourse of Origen impertinent, and a perfect declination of the Question betwixt him and Celsus: For Celsus thus disputes, no God nor any Son of God can possibly descend from Heaven; but if you do assert this of the Angels of God these are no other than our Daemons. 
Orig. l. 7. 5. p. 23●.  To this St. Origen returns this Answer. 1. That to deny that any God descends from Heaven, is to deny what was esteemed a thing common by the Heathen World. 2. That Christians do indeed confess this is the office of the Angels to come down from and to ascend to Heaven, and to offer up the Prayers of men to God, but yet, saith he, we must not worship them as God, for all our Prayers must be directed to God, and to his Son Christ Jesus who is the living Word and God. Which argument if it have any strength at all consists in this, that whi●h you must not worship and adore as God you must not pray unto, but Angels you must not worship and adore as God. Ergo, Angels you must not pray unto. This is that Father's plea to which T. G. may answer in behalf of Celsus as well as of the Church of Rome, that he apparently distinguisheth those Angels both from God and from the Son of God, and therefore did not contend that we should pray unto them as to that God, who is the Author of all good, but only as to the Ministers and Servants of God, whom he appointed to preside over such persons, Families, and Countries. And therefore he was contented only that it might be lawful to say unto them as doth the Church of Rome to St. Sebastian, Cerne familiam tuam (id est) behold thy family: and to St. Gabriel, preserve thy Country. 2. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Celsus objects that if with God we do adore his Son, then may we (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) venerate his Ministers.  
To this St. Origen replies; that if 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Contra Celsum. lib. 8. p. 386.  Celsus by the Ministers of God had understood Gabriel and Michael and other Angels and Archangels and had contended that they should be venerated, perpaps by purifying of the word, and of the actions of the venerators, we might say something of that matter (i.e.) Perhaps some actions which in some sense may bear the name of veneration might be performed to those Angels.  
This T. G. thinks a great advantage to his cause; and wonders that the Doctor would produce this passage. But I conceive it is the clearest confutation of it, that we could desire; For having granted this, and then restraining our petitions unto God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, as he expressly doth, he most apparently demonstrates that prayer could be no part of the forementioned service he allowed to Saints. 2. In that he thus distinguisheth of veneration and never doth distinguish in the like manner of prayer and supplication, or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, of adoration and worship: it follows that although he thought some veneration might be allowed to Angels in some inferior kind: yet no petition was to be put up unto them, and that no worship and adoration should be given unto them. 3. When Origen in answer to this passage saith, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Ibid.  we (Christians) venerate with supplications only God and his Son Jesus Christ, and put up our petitions to God by his only Son: If he doth understand only such supplications as are made to him as to the Author of all good, he is as vain and impertinent as T. G. in his Answers to the Dr. for Celsus only doth contend for such a worship, and consequently for such addresses only as agree unto the Ministers and Servants of God. 4. Origen plainly doth inform us that the veneration he allowed to Angels was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. l. 8. p. 416.  to speak well of them and pronounce them blessed, and imitate to their virtues; and what is this to supplication? 3. Celsus objects that Daemons do belong to God and therefore must be prayed unto: and a little after that, to them it was given to preside over the Earth, or to be patrons or Inspectors of such a City or of such a Country; and upon that account infers we must both pray and offer our thandsgiving and first fruits unto them. To all this Origen replies, that we must offer up our prayers to God alone, and we must pray to him alone to whom we offer our first fruits: in both which places if Origen intended only to affirm that prayer was due to God, which implies the object of our supplication to be the highest God and the chief Author of all Good, it is apparent he doth not in the least deny what Celsus pleaded for, viz. such supplication as he conceived due to such Daemons as were commissionated from God and belonged to him.  
5. This Answer renders the discourses of this learned Father rediculously weak and unconcluding: as v. g. 1. We cannot rationally pray to Angels, saith this learned Father; Because we do not know their natures, nor are we capable of the knowledge of them. 
lib. 5. p. 233.  Which if we understand it thus We know not what their understanding is, or whether they have any knowledge of our hearts when present, or of our prayers when absent. And therefore do not conceive it rational to pray unto them, it is both pertinent and conclusive: But if we understand it thus, we must not pray unto them, as we do to the great God of Heaven; because we do not know their Natures. Nothing is more absurd and foolish, for certainly all Christians knew so much of their nature as to believe they were not Gods. Besides we neither know the nature of God nor are we capable of understanding it, and yet it will not follow that we we may not pray unto him, 
lib. 5. p. 239.  as to the Author of all Good. Again it is absurd, saith he, having God always present with us to pray unto the Son which is not always present: now this absurdity doth equally respect Prayer relative, and absolute; for if the Son can hear our prayers, and can obtain God's blessings when he is not present, it cannot be absurd to pray unto him, because not present, but if he cannot, then must it be absurd to put up to him such petitions as the Church of Rome doth tender to the holy Angels. Moreover we do not in the least contemn (saith he) so admirable a work of God, but yet we must not pray unto (the Creature or) this work of God, 
lib. 5. p. 238.  because it prays for us: Now here can any man conceive he should intent no more but this, you must not look on that as the supremest Deity, which I have told you is his Creature? No sure, had he and all the Christian World prayed daily to them, who do pray for us, he would have rather said you must not pray unto him, as to that God who is the Author of all good, because he is a Creature. 6. When Origen discourseth of this subject he usually saith that we must put up our petitions unto God by Christ, and having once confessed that we may pray directly to Christ whom he conceived to be inferior to the Father) he makes that very same distinction which our Author and his party do, viz. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. p. 233.  That prayer may be taken properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an improper and abusive sense: and in this sense alone he doth approve of prayer made to Christ, whereas had he allowed of any prayers made to Saints and Angels, it is to be presumed having so many provocations and occasions to treat upon, and to explain the subject, he would have sometimes used this distinction, and would not always have denied this practice and condemned that doctrine, without distinction or exception: elsewhere, he saith, If any man be not sufficient, (viz. to go directly to God) let him go to the Son of God who is able to heal him. Since than he never saith as doth the Church of Rome let him go to Saints and Angels, certain it is that he did not approve this practice: and this is yet more evident from his reply to Celsus, 
Orig. lib. 8. p. 416.  for when Celsus had objected that according to the Doctrine of the Egyptians every part of a man hath a particular Daemon or Aethereal God, and every one of these being invocated heals the diseases of the parts proper to themselves. Why then may not the Christians justly invocate the favour both of them and others if they had rather be in health than sickness? To this it is replied by Origen; 1. That Celsus by advising us to go to Daemons, sufficiently declared his distrust of the inseparable and undivided worship of the God of all, 
lib. 8. p. 417.  and did imagine that to Worship God alone and honour him, was not sufficient to preserve those that did so from diseases and the insidiations of evil spirits; which is an evident conviction that he did not think the invocation of the Archangel Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, or of Sebastian, Valentinus, or any other Roman Saint, (which they of Rome do daily invocate for their protection from these evil spirits, and the diseases which they are subject to) was needful for that end: or that it could be practised without distrusting of the all-sufficient God. 2. He adds, It is much better to commit ourselves to God, the Lord of all things by Jesus Christ, and ask of him all help, 
lib. 8. p. 418.  and in particular the custody of the holy Angels who may deliver us from these terrestrial Daemons. where also it is manifest that he would have us ask the help and custody of Angels, not from them, as is the manner of the Roman Church, but only from the God of Angels. 
Orig. ib.  3. He affirms that health is to be sought either by means of the Physician, which is the ordinary way, or by extraordinary means, viz. by piety towards God in our addresses to him, by which expression it is also manifest that he was ignorant of that way of seeking health, which had its rise from after ages, and is so common in the Church of Rome, for otherwise, as it is excellently observed by the learned Doctor, 
p. 150.  he must have told him that Christians were not to address themselves to Chnumen, Chnaachnumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biu, Eru, or any other Heathen Daemons to obtain these Blessings but unto Raphael and Appollonia, Sebastian and Roach.  
Unto the first and second argument urged by the Doctor, and most apparently confounding the doctrine and common practice of the Roman Church; T. G. affords us not one word of answer; the evidence being too plain and pregnant to admit of a reply; but over the third remark he triumphs and undertakes to render it ridiculous to all sober Readers by showing two things. 1. The difference between the Doctrine and Practice of the Egyptians, and that of the Catholics. 2. The reasonableness of the practice of making addresses to one particular Saint rather than another: But 1. were both these things as true as Gospel, yet are they horribly impertinent to what the Doctor urged, viz. that Origen had he conceived the invocation of any holy Angels or of Saints departed proper to obtain deliverance from the diseases of the body he would have mentioned their names, in opposition to the names of those Egyptian precedents or Daemons, whom Celsus did advise us to invoke on that account, Which argument is more convincing, because he doth oppose unto them the holy name of Jesus as that which was invoked by all true Christians to that end: Now unto this consideration nothing is more impertinent and more ridiculously opposed than these two things: For what if the Egyptians did conceive their Gnat and Sicat to be Gods, why should not Origen reply, that, we expect assistance rather from our Saints and Angels, than your Gods? And if the practice of making such addresses to particular Saints had been conceived so reasonable by this learned Father, he had the greater reason upon so fair an opportunity to have made mention of these Saints. T. G. saw this and knew that if the Doctor's Argument had been propounded thus he could have nothing to object against it: And therefore that he might be able to frame some colour of an Answer he makes the Doctor speak as if he did affirm there was no difference between the Egyptian Daemons or Aethereal Gods, 
p. 362.  and the Saints deceased, but in the names: or between the Egyptians addresses to these Devils, and those of the Catholics to the holy Saints and Angels, but in the language; and that there needed no more but to correct the names as you would do faults in Printing; viz. for Chnumen to read Raphael, for Chnaachnumen, Apollonia, for Gnat Sebastian, etc.  
Whereas this affirmation is plainly inconsistent with the Doctor's words, 
p. 150.  who introduceth one of the Church of Rome affirming that the thing was rational which he said, only they were out in their names: For instead of Chnumen, Chnaachumen, Cnat, Sy●at, Biu, Eru, etc. they should have chosen Raphael for travelling, and against diseases; Apollonia against the toothache. Now it is sure not Roman Doctor ever taught the very name of Raphael and Appollonia would cure diseases, but that the Souls or persons called by those names, could do it And, 2. No Romanist can be presumed to confess, according to the principles of his profession, that it was either rational to pray to evil Spirits, or to bare words and names: and therefore when he brings him in asserting that the thing was rational which Celsus said, only the names were to be changed, he cannot be conceived to mean it otherwise than thus it is rational we should pray for health, provided that we do not do it to these evil Spirits which are called by the names of Cnat and Sicat, but to those blessed Spirits which in our Liturgies are called Raphael, Apollonia, Sebastian and Roach. 2 Of these two things the second, viz. the reasonableness of this practice the Doctor was so far from mocking at or making it the subject of his mirth, as doth Arnobius, that it is barely mentioned by the Doctor without the least reflection on it, that unless to mention be to expose this practice to derision, the Doctor cannot without the greatest falsehood be accused of it; and if it be so, this guilt falls heavy on T. G. who spends so many pages to justify what is exposed if it be only mentioned: 
T. G. p. 368, 362, 363.  The difference he puts betwixt the Egyptian Daemons and his Saints and Angels is (1.) that the Egyptians believed their Daemons to be Gods. 
p. 363.  But this is either manifestly false, or else intended only to delude the Reader; for Celsus calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Earthly Daemons: 
apud Orig. l. 8. p. 417.  and adds that wise men taught their power was limited, that they could only heal men's bodies and foretell future things to private Men, and Cities, and had the power to do such things as did concern the actions of Mortal Men; and therefore bids us to beware, lest we be guilty of excess in paying Homage to them, and so forget that service which we own unto their Betters. Whence it is evident, that Celsus did not speak of them as Gods in the most famous sense, as it imports the great Creator of the World; but in that sense, in which St. Austin saith, whether you call them Angels, 
de C. D. l. 9. c. ult.  Gods, or Daemons, the difference is only in the name: Hence in this very place, Celsus first calls them Daemons, and then by way of Paraphrase aethereal Gods. (2.) Saith he, 
Ibid.  the Invocation which Celsus here contended for, was votiva illis sacrificia reddere, to offer Sacrifice to them, (which is due to God alone) and that upon account, that they had power to heal the Diseases of the parts proper to themselves.  
Answ. (1.) this is that disingenuous art of adding to the words of Origen, which T. G. is so unconscionable guilty of. For doth Celsus say, that if we sacrifice unto them they will heal us? No; he expressly saith, invocati sanant, they do it being called upon: doth he say, that what he called Invocation was a Sacrifice? No, Doth he move us to sacrifice unto them because they heal? No, but only doth infer, 
p. 416.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why may we not endeavour to procure their favour, doth Origen reply, that though he mentioned Invocation, he intended Sacrifice? No, but only thus, Celsus would have us to believe the Daemons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and pay them Reverence, if Celsus did contend for sacrificia votiva, Origen answered not one word. to that which he contended for. Did the Egyptian  
Magis procure these blessings from them by Sacrifice? No, Origen tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Egyptian Magicians did this by Invocation of their Daemons, 
p. 417.  did he imagine that Celsus so conceived? No, he expressly saith, that he had given us a Catalogue of Egyptian Names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being called upon, 
Ibid.  healed the distempers of their parts. Hath then T. G. no colour for this Interpretation? Answ. For saying, that by Invocation Celsus intended votiva sacrificia, he hath no pretence. For mentioning votiva sacrificia he hath only this, viz. that Celsus before he came to mention the Egyptian Daemons, speaking of other Daemons, he contends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Sacrifices of thanksgiving must be due unto them; 
p. 415, 416.  which T. G. very fairly turns into votiva sacrificia, or petitory sacrifices, that so he might have something to pretend by way of Answer, though it be contradictory to Origen and Celsus, and to the practice of those Egyptians he mentions.  
Origen acknowledgeth, 
Object. p. 361. § 4.  that the Angels do offer up the prayers of Men to God: and surely it can never be Idolatry to desire them to do what they do: Answ. The minister prays for his Parish, and yet should every Parishioner in his private Closet desire him to pray for them, should they put up mental prayers unto him, and so ascribe unto him the knowledge of the heart, and of the desires of Men absent from him, they would make an Idol of him. Thus albeit the Angels are present in the assemblies of Saints, and offer up the prayers they hear, yet to invoke them when absent, and with mental prayer, may duly be esteemed Idolatry.  
2. T. G. informs us, 
Ibid.  that Origen in his first Homily upon Ezekiel, invocates an Angel in these words, 
* Veni Angele suscipe sermone conversum ab errore pristino, a doctrina Daemoniorum, ab iniquitate in altum loquente, & suscipiens eum quasi Medicus bonus confove, atque institue, parvulus est, hodie nascitur senex repuerascens, & suscipe tribuens ei baptismum secundae regenerationis. ● 133. E.  Come holy Angel and receive him who is converted from his former Sins. Answer.  
1. We have just reason to suspect this place is an addition to the works of Origen, 1. Because it contradicts his constant plain opinion delivered so often, and so industriously confirmed in his reply to Celsus, it also contradicts the practice of Church then being, (as Origen himself declares.  
2. He speaks thus to the Angel, Receive him, and confer upon him the Baptism of the second regeneration. Now who ever heard of any Baptised by an Angel, who ever heard so uncouth and absurd a Phrase as is the Baptism of second Regeneration? these therefore cannot be the words of Learned Origen, as all that know him must confess. Besides, this speech can be applied to none but Origen himself, and if it hath any sense, 
A. d. 153. ●. 121, 122, 123.  it seemeth plainly to refer to his repentance after his lapse into Idolatry, which haply is styled the Baptism of a second Regeneration, since then that story is confuted by Baronius, it follows, that this passage which refers unto it, must be also false.  
3. Were it granted that those are the true words of Origen, they contain only an Apostrophe, such as is that of Austin to St. chrysostom, enter St. John, sit with thy Brethren and others mentioned, c. 9. Or (2.) If I should grant them to contain a formal Prayer, it is directed only to an Angel whom he conceived to be present, and it is only a vocal prayer, (for Origen conceived not only that every person, but also every Church had a 
* Ego non ambigo & in caetu nostro adesse Angelos non solum Geperaliter omni Ecclesiae sed etiam figillatim. Hom. 23. in luc.  particular Angel that presided over it, and so was present there:) And therefore this Example is not pertinent to prove what we deny, viz. that it is lawful to pray unto them, when we have no assurance of their presence, or with mental prayer.   

THE CONCLUSION  
showeth 1. That what T. G. allegeth to prove the Dr. Guilty of false and disingenuous Citations, is most unconscionably false. 2. That T. G. is notoriously Guilty of false and disingenuous citations. 3. That he very falsty represents the question touching the Invocation of the Saints departed. 4. That T. G. is a Man of Wit; but in his Book, he hath not in the least discovered himself to be a Man of Learning or of Judgement, but given us just reason to suspect his want of both.  
WE are informed by the incomparable Dalle, 
§ 1. De usu Patrum Cap. 3. p. 43.  that it was a Thesis publicly proposed and defended by the College of Louvain, that it is no mortal sin to elude a great Authority, that is detracting from, or noxious to us with a Lie; and that the Jansenists do frequently object against the Jesuits, the same ungodly Tenet. That this hath been the constant practice of T. G. and that he owes the glory of his Book to his exact Conformity, to this accursed Doctrine, I have demonstrated already from many instances so clear, that nothing can admit of greater evidence. Before I enter into a farther demonstration of this Charge, I must assure the Christian Reader, that from my heart I wish, that I had nothing of this nature to object against T. G. and I do think myself unhappy that I have to deal with one, who by so base a prostitution of his Conscience, doth seek advantage to his cause. Indeed the subject is so unpleasant and unwelcome to me, that I would certainly have wholly waved it, had not my Duty to my Brother, and the disadvantage which the truth might suffer from these Arts, obliged me to proceed in this discovery, which both in pity to myself, and to my Adversary, I shall confine to the consideration of what he hath delivered Part the Third, that so my Labour and his Gild may be the less. This being thus premised, the Truth of what I charge him with, shall be made good. (1.) By consideration of what he offers to crack the credit of the Dr. and cast a Disrepute on his incomparable Labours. And (2.) From divers instances of his endeavours by the forementioned Arts, to weaken the Authorities produced against him. And  
First, 
§. 2.  the Dr. is very often (but most unjustly) charged with false Citations, Interpretations, and suggestions, touching the Authors cited by him, v. g. The Dr. saith he, makes a terrible blunder by his dextrous Translating, etc. p. 371. And again p. 373. The Dr. saith he, first makes a Preface of his own, as if it was St. Augustine's, and then turns opus erat, there was no need, into we need not, etc. And p. 375. he makes the Dr. to aumich in the face of the World 156. what was a perfect contradiction to what he told us out of St. Austin p. 155. and out of Celsus. p. 150. These imputations I have already proved to be false and groundless in their respective places; whither I refer the Reader. 
v. Ch. 9 § 3.  Again, the Dr. having given us the descant of Theodoret, upon that passage of St. Paul, and upon that Canon of Laodicea, which forbids Christians to Worship Angels, he subjoins these words, No wonder that Baronius is so much displeased with Theodoret, for this Interpretation; 
p. 155.  for he very fairly tells what he condemns (and St. Paul too) was the practice of their Church, and those Oratories were set up by Catholics, and not by Heretics. This is foul dealing saith T. G. and these are pitiful slights of Sophistry, to delude an unwary Reader: 
p. 380.  And he shall wonder if the Dr. find any one that will believe him, 
p. 383.  so that what Dr. Stillingfleet hath here delivered, must be incredible foul dealing, or else T. G. must certainly be guilty of much disingenuity and falsehood in this accusation, which runs thus, viz. That the Dr. saith that Baronius very fairly tells us, 
p. 383.  that not only what Theodoret condemned, but what St. Paul too condemned, was the practice of the Church of Rome. Answ. These words Baronius fairly tells us (saith the Dr.) that what St. Paul condemned was the practice of the Church, are a malicious untruth, the Dr. having taken all the care imaginable, to prevent this mistake in all judicious Readers, for this expression (and St. Paul too) which is the only ground of this rude charge, he did not only put in a Parenthesis, but in a different Character, that so no Reader might have the least appearance of colour for so false an imputation. This T. G. saw, as is apparent from the words cited by him, p. 380. And therefore when he comes to lay his accusation (p. 383. Sect. 3.) he very craftily sets down the Doctor's words without Parenthesis, or any difference of the Character. This I am sure is foul dealing, and these are pitiful arts of Sophistry. What therefore Dr. Stillingfleet asserts, is only that Baronius tells us, 
* Ex his videas (quod necessario dicendum est) Theodoretum haud feliciter, ejus pace sit dictum, assecutum esse Pauli verborum sensum cum in hujus ad Colossenses Epistolae commentariis dicit haec a Paulo esse scripta quod tum grassarentur haeretici qui Angelos colendos esse jactarent— sic ergo errore semel lapsus in alium Graviorem impegit, ut diceret Canonem trigessimum quintum Laodiceni concilii de his Haereticis esse intelligendum qui Angelos colendos esse docerent quique in eadem regione Asiae oratoria erexissent Sancto Michaeli Archangelo, incautè nimis quae a Catholicis essent antiquitus instituta, haereticis quorum nulla esset memoria, tribuens. Annal. An. 60. § 20. caeterum Angelos venerari non Haereticorum sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit § 21.  That what Theodoret condemns, and in his judgement, St. Paul too, was the Practice of the Roman Church, than which nothing can be more true and certain, for having told us that Theodoret asserted, haec a Paulo esse scripta, quod tum grassarentur haeretici, qui Angelos colendos esse jactarent, or that the admonition, beware lest any Man deceive you by worshipping of Angels, etc. was written by St. Paul, by reason of some Heretics, who taught that Angels should be worshipped, and that the 35 Canon of Laodicea, was directed against such Heretics as worshipped Angels, he adds, caeterum Angelos venerari, non haereticorum, sed Catholicae Ecclesiae mos fuit: this he erroneously taught; but to worship Angels was not the Custom of Heretics, but of the Church Catholic. And now let the discerning Reader judge what reason T. G. 
p. 381.  had to say, that these are not Baronius his words, but the Doctors; which is another of his Demonstrations, that it is but too too evident, that the Dr. hath not dealt fairly with Baronius: But saith T. 
Ibid.  G. these are not Baronius his words, but the Doctors, for Baronius saith there expressly, that Theodoret, as to the Doctrine of the veneration of Angels, recta sensit, that is, held the same which the Roman Church holds at his day. To which I answer in his own expressions, such arts as these were enough to make a Man suspect a good cause, 
p. 145.  much more to desert a bad one: for Baronius doth not absolutely say, that Theodoret did rectum sentire, but makes a manifest exception as to this his Interpretation of St. Paul and the forementioned Canon, his words are these, 
* His igitur de germano sensu illius Canonis Elucidatis, satis Theodoreti perperam facta interpretatio remanet refutata; cum Alioqui N. B. in his quae spectant ad dogmata, non sit dubium ipsum rectum sensisse de Angelis. Annal. An. 60. § 23.  These things touching the true sense of this Canon being thus cleared, the false Interpretation of Theodoret remains sufficiently confuted, whereas otherwise, as to his Doctrine, it is not to be doubted, but he thought right of Angels; which passage doth not only manifest the wretched fraudulency of T. G. 
p. 380.  but gives him an example of what he thought incredible: for if Theodoret could affirm the practice of the Roman Church was an heretical practice, and as such condemned both by St. Paul, and by the Canon of the Universal Church, and yet hold the same with the Roman Church; why might not Baronius do the like; either Theodoret was a very great Dolt, or Baronius deals not fairly with him, which is but too too evident.  
2. T. G. concludes, that these are not Baronius his words; 
p. 381.  because the point in which Baronius differs from Theodoret, is not that those were not condemned by him. And St. Paul too, who worshipped Angels upon the Erroneous account aforesaid, viz. That access could only be made to God by Angels: But that Theodoret judged Baronius mistaken in asserting the Authors of that Doctrine, not to have been the Heathen Philosophers, but certain Heretics: This is what Baronius saith. Where first he cunningly (but falsely doth insinuate) that in the judgement of Theodoret, St. Paul and the forementioned Canon, only condemneth them, who worshipped Angels upon this erroneous account, that access could only be made to God by the Angels: and if this be the grievous error, and that false interpretation, 
p. 379.  with which Baronius doth so smartly charge him, T. G. does very ill to espouse it in his Interpretation of this Canon. But the truth is, Theodoret in the Exposition of this passage of St. Paul, only affirms that this was the opinion of the Heretics, but doth not in the least insinuate, that either the Council, or St. Paul condemned them only upon this account, but without all limitation or exception, he affirms that they condemned praying to them. (2.) What he says was not the point in which Baronius differs from Theodoret, is so apparently the point, though not the only point, that nothing can be more. For his great peak against him is, that he asserted, that both St. Paul and the forementioned Council condemned the Heretics for teaching the Worship of Holy Angels; whereas saith he, this was the very practice of the Church of Christ, and not of Heretics.  
Another instance of the Doctor's juggling tricks, 
The Dr. translates it eqquivocally to perform any sacred offices. T.G. p. 386.  T. G. produceth p. 386. viz. that when St. Austin had affirmed the blessed Spirits are not willing we should Sacra eis facere, perform sacred Offices to them, he translates Sacra facere to perform sacred Offices, as if he did imagine, ignorant person that he was, that Sacra signified Sacred Offices, and facere to perform: whereas T. G. informs him, that Sacra facere is to Dedicate, and because this ridiculous interpretation would not help him out, for Papists dedicate their service to the blessed Spirits; he adds that it is evident, St. Austin speaks of the worship which is due to God alone; that is, of such dedications and consecrations as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods: And having T. G's. word for this, you ought not to expect his proof. But (1.) The words of St. Austin do apparently distinguish betwixt performing Sacred Offices and Consecration of ourselves unto them; for saith he, the Question is 
* Quomodo Credendi sint velle a nobis religionem pietatemque servari: hoc est, ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibi●●an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam nosier est, placeat eis ut sicra faciamus, Et Sacrificemus, vel aliqua nostra, sen nos ipsos Religionis Ritibus consecre mus.  Whether it can please those holy Spirits that we should perform Sacred offices and Sacrifices to them, or should consecrate ourselves or any thing belonging to us by Religious Rites: The affirmative is the opinion of the Platonists and of the Church of Rome, but that we should not consecrate ourselves unto them by any Religious Rite is the opinion of S. Austin. (2. St. Austin had in the immediate foregoing Chapter undertaken to evince 
† Quos autem bonos, & ideo non solum immortales verum etiam beatos Deorum nomine Sacris & Sacrificiis propter vitam b●●tam post mortem adipiscendam colendos putant, qualescunque illi sint, & quolibet vocabulo digni sint, non eos velle per tale religionis obsequium nisi unum Deum coli, a quo cre●ti, & cujus participatione beati sint, adjuvante ipso in se venti libro diligentius disseremus, de Civit. Dei, l. 9 c. 23.  that those blessed spirits would not be worshipped, Sacris & Sacrificiis (id est,) by Sacred Offices and Sacrifices, but that God only was to be worshipped by such rites: and though he saith they would not be worshipped Deorum nomine, which gave occasion to this Answer of T. G.  
St. Austin in this very Chapter doth inform us, that these Palatonists against whom he disputed did not differ from the Christians in their apprehensions of their Daemons, and as if he had intended to exclude this exposition of T. G. he adds that Platonists acknowledged their Daemons to be good Spirits, 
De C D. lib. 9 c. 23.  made by God and therefore only called them Gods, in such a sense, in which the Scripture was wont to Style the Angel's Gods: So that it is most certain (1.) that Sacra facere was not equivocally translated to perform Sacred Offices. And (2.) that Austin doth not speak of the worship due to God alone, but of the worship due to good Spirits, made by God.  
Pag. 390, 391. 
§. 5.  We have a fresh attempt to blast the Credit of the Doctor, but I have throughly considered it, Chap. 6. Prop. 4. Corol. 3. and have made it clear beyond all contradiction, that it is, only a rude heap of false suggestions, and desingenious insinuations: be pleased Reader to consult the place, and disbelieve me if thou canst.  
From p. 390, 
§ 6.  to 430. he is more sparing in his accusations; but from that Page to the conclusion of his book, we have but little besides Prodigious outcries and admirations of the miserable shifts, and disingenuous arts of Dr. Stilling fleet; 
p. 431.  and thus the Charge gins. I must desire the Reader to take the pains to peruse attentively the words of S. Austin, as they stand cited in the Reply, and the Doctor's Considerations upon them (for himself thought not fit to call them an Answer;) that by his performance in this point, he may see to what miserable shifts, and disingenuous arts they are put, who will shut their Eyes, and fight against the light of a Noonday truth. And then he proceeds to charge the Doctor with corrupting the words of Austin, 
li. 22.  and with an exposition not only opposite unto the sense of Austin, 
li. 29.  but confuted by him. And with affirming what if he had not shut his Eyes could not have been affirmed, 
li. 16.  and yet all this I have demonstrated to be false, Chap. 9 Sect. 11.  
But than what follows (p, 432.) is that disingenuous accusation which deserves for ever to to be branded with a note of Infamy; viz. Whereas he saith that I conveniently left out, what St. Austin adds, 
p. 432.  that not only Sacrifice was refused by Saints and Angels, but any other Religious honour, which is due to God himself; had he not conveniently put in those words (any other Religious honour) into the Text, (for they are not in S. Austin) he had had nothing to blind his Reader with. Whoever looks into the Text will judge he had done much more conveniently for his Cause had he left it out. 
p. 433.  Answ. This he avoucheth here in the face of the world but as I suppose in confidence that neither his Reader or his Adversary would be so rude as to look into the Text, or to suspect the truth of what he doth assert with so much confidence: For thus St. Austin speaks, Cum autem ad hunc Cultum pertineat oblatio Sacrificii unde Idololatria dicitur eorum qui hoc etiam Idolis exhibent nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus. Now let it only be observed that Sacrifice is on all hands confessed to be religious worship, 
lib. 20. contra Faust. c 21.  and then let Romanists themselves be judge, whether nullo modo tale aliquid offerimus do not signify we do not offer  other religious honour which is due to God himself, and which would render us Idolaters? so unhappily did he advise us to peruse attentively the words of Austin, which do so clearly evidence that it is not the Doctor but T. G. who is forced to fly to miserable shifts, and disingenuous Arts.  
The Doctor (p. 173. 
§ 7. ) Speaks thus, we do not say, that some superstitions did not creep in after the Anniversary meetings at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs grew in request; for St. Austin himself saith that what they taught was one thing, and what they did bear with was another, speaking of the Customs used at those Solemnities. Now here T. G. is pleased to represent him as a most unconscionable Cheat, and with great wonderment Cries out; Is it possible he could think so great a forb as this could pass for current in the World? 
p. 439.  Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place, where these words are to be found, and not fear a Rat, Observe I pray. What St. Austin condemns is this, that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them, that they made themselves drunk: His words are these, as for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs: how can they be approved by us whom sound doctrine condemns, even when they do it in their own private houses. This was the Custom of which S. Austin saith that the Governors of the Church did not teach it but bore with it till it could be amended. And the Doctor had the conscience by a subtle Insinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what S. Austin condemned, was the desiring, or, as he calls it, wishing the Martyrs to pray for them, I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World. Repl. Here I am at a stand for I am loath to think that any Christian should with such confidence and pertness accuse his Brother (though he be an Adversary) without the least occasion or reason so to do. Conscience and credit are so deeply interested in so foul a Charge, that I cannot imagine that it should be laid by any person who values either of them, against one who is wholly innocent. I will not therefore say the Doctor is not Guilty, but will crave leave to tell the Reader what mine Eyes can wittness too. viz.  
1. 
p. 174.  That what the Doctor doth affirm is that St. Austin Speaking of the customs used at the Solemnities of Martyrs, saith, that what they taught was one thing and what they did bear with was another. Now what those Customs were St. Austin and from him the Doctor tells us in this very Parapraph viz. 
* Novi multos esse Sepulchrorum & Picturarum Adoratores: novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos bibant, & epulas Cadaveribus exhibentes super sepultos seipsos sep●liant. Nunc vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere desinatis vituperando mores hominum, quos & ipsa condemnat, & quos quotidie tanquam malos filios cotrigere studet. De moribus Eccles. Cath. lib. 1. cap. 34.  Their banquet at the Martyr's Tombs, and their worshipping of Sepulchers and Pictures: viz. the Pictures of those Martyrs, which Image worship being relative, must certainly refer unto the worship of the martyrs by them; which custom St. Austin had no sooner mentioned but he cries out, Now I advise you (Manicheans) that you cease to speak evil of the Catholic Church by upbraiding it with the manners of those whom she herself condemneth, 
quam aperte irrepenten, improbat cor s●etudinem. Th. Theol. 206. Th. 12.  and seeketh every day to correct as naughty Children: when the Excellent Vossius had alleged this place he presently cries out See with what clearness St. Austin reprehends this growing Custom.  
2. My Eyes can witness that what St. Austin doth refer to, not only in the place now cited and quoted by the learned Doctor, but in the passage he excepts against, is not only the luxury of the intemperate, as T. G. suggests, but it is also error infirmorum i. e. the error of the weak; as Austin testifies. To make this farther evident let us consider that the objection of the Manicheans, which St. Austin Answers in this place, was this: viz. 
* Hinc nobis calumniatur Faustus quod Martyrum memorias honoramus, in hoc dicens, nos Idola convertisse. l. 20. c. 21.  that the Cathocicks had converted the Christian Martyrs into Idols, that they did drink and feast at their Sepulchers, and that they worshipped them with like addresses, 
Vertisse dicit Idola in Martyrs, quos votis, inquit similibus colitis, Defunctorum umbras vino placatis & dapibus. Advers Faust. lib. 20. ibid.  or by presenting of the like desires to them. To the second part of this objection St. Austin largely Answers that it was true they gave to holy Martyrs the worship of society and love, but did not give to them that worship which was due to God. And then proceeding to the other part of the Objection, touching those who at the feast of Martyrs did eat and drink unto excess, he tells us that the Church condemns them, and then immediately he adds, 
† Qui autem se in memoriis Martyrum inebriant, quomodo à nobis approbari possunt, cum eos, etiam si in Domibus suis id faciant, Sacra Doctrina condemnet? Sed aliud est quod docemus▪ aliud quod sustinemus: aliud quod praecipere jubemur, aliud quod emendare praecipimur; & donec emendemus, tolerare compellimur. Alia est disciplina Christianorum, alia luxuria vinolentorum, vel error infirmorum. Advers. Faustum lib. 20. cap. 21.  that it is one thing which we teach, another thing which we endure, it is one thing which we are enjoined to commanded, but it is another thing which we are commanded to amend, and till we can do so, we are constrained to suffer: the discipline of Christians is one thing, the luxury of Winebibbers, or the infirmity of the weak, another.  
And now I leave it to the judgement of all sober persons, to consider, whether the luxury of wine bibbers, was the only thing St. Austin speaks of here, and whether he doth not also speak of the infirmity of such as gave occasion to that objection of the Manicheans, similibus votis eos colitis.  
3. Whereas he adds, 
p. 439.  the Dr. had the Conscience by a subtle insinuation, to make his Reader believe, that what St. Austin condemned was the desiring, or as he calls it, wishing the Martyrs to pray for them. Ans. this is another instance of T. G's. Excellency in the Art of Calumny. For all that can be Rationally inferred from the Doctor's words, is only this, that St. Austin did affirm, that superstitions at that time had creeped into the Church, and therefore this as well as others might do so. But had the Dr. used this insinuation, it would have been as true as it is counted subtle, for St. 
* Veruntamen & in hoc ipso distant plurimum culpae vinolentorum & Sacrilegorum. Long quip minotis peccati est, ebrium redire a Martyribus, quam vel jejunium s●cuisicare Martyribus. Sacrificare Martyribus dixi, non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis Martyrum, quod frequentissime facimus, illo duntaxat ritu, quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit: quod pertinet ad illum cultum, qui latria dicitur, & uni Deo debetur, Ibid.  Austin here affirms, it is a less Sin to return Drunk from those Solemnities, than to sacrifice unto the Martyrs whilst we continue to be Fasting; I say, (quoth he) to sacrifice unto the Martyrs but I do not say to sacrifice to God at the Memorial of Martyrs, which we often do, after the manner only, according to which God hath commanded us to Sacrifice under the Gospel, which Sacrifice doth appertain unto Latria, and is due to God alone. Whence I thus argue.  
That which is a Gospel Sacrifice ought not to be offered to a Creature; But prayer is a Gospel Sacrifice; (for so St. 
† Quas autem habere simplices & puras orationes tanquam divinos honores & sacrificia poteritis? ubi sunt sacrificia vestra simplices ac purae orationes vestrae? l. 20. contr. Faustum. c. 17.  Austin doth often style it in this very Book) Ergo, prayer ought not to be offered to a Creature; and now it is not easy to declare, whether the folly or the falsehood, the confidence or the weakness of this accusation were the geater: but I am not willing to expose him farther in this matter, I pray God he may repent of this Iniquity, and make due satisfaction to God and the World, and Dr. Stillingfleet, and so I pass on to some fresh discoveries of the same.  
In his reply to the first Answer of the Dr. he affirms, 
§ 8.  that Austin himself held formal Invocations a part of the Worship due to Saints. This he confirms, 
p. 25.  first from that passage of St. Austin, let blessed Cyprian help us with his Prayers, and for a farther confirmation of it, 
p. 26.  viz. that Austin held this Invocation to be a part of Worship due to Saints. We have, saith he, the ingenious confession of Calvin himself, Instit. lib. 3. Ch. 20. n. 22. where speaking of the Third Council of Carthage, in which St. Austin was present, he acknowledged it was the Custom at that time to say, Holy Mary, or Holy Peter pray for us. 
p. 174.  To this the Doctor answers thus, I cannot but wonder, if he saw the words in Calvin, that he would produce them; for Calvin doth there say, that the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, lest the public prayers should be corrupted by such kind of addresses, holy Peter pray for us: To this T. G. replies, have not I more reason to wonder at his wonder, 
p. 444.  for why, I pray, was such a Decree made, and why did the Fathers of that Council fear, lest the public prayers should be corrupted by such kind of addresses, if there were no such Custom at that time? either the Doctor corrupts the words of his dear Master Calvin, or, it is manifest, they imply it was the Custom at that time to say Holy Peter pray for us. Answ. The Dr. doth confess that there was such a Custom, condemned by Councils and Fathers, as was that Custom of those times, of Banqueting at the Sepulchers of Martyrs, and that which is condemned by the same Council in these words, It pleaseth us that the Altars which are commonly erected in the Fields and Roads, as the Memorials of the Martyrs, in which it is not evident, that the body or any relics of the Martyrs are preserved, should be demolished by the Bishops, if that can be done, but, if the popular tumults will not suffer it, then let the people be admonished, that they do not frequent these places. Can. 3. so that T. G. discourseth thus, that which was condemned by the Councils and Fathers was the Custom of those times, but direct prayer and invocation, was condemned by the Counsel and the Fathers, Ergo it was the Custom of those times: and if this be a good Argument, this Doctrine was condemned by the Church of Christ: Ergo this was the Custom of the Church of Christ: Then all the Heresies that ever were condemned by Councils and by Fathers, must be acknowledged to have been, the Customs of the Church of Christ. But T. G. will set down the words of Calvin, and make it thence appear that there was such a Custom. Answ. By all this what the Dr. doth confess, viz. That some people condemned by the Council used this Custom, shall appear, but what T. G. had undertaken to make good from this Citation, 
p. 445.  That St. Austin held, that formal Invocation, was a part of the worship due to Saints. This shall disappear. But then again, who seethe not saith T. G. that for fear the Reader should see this; the Dr. most. conveniently left out of his Citation, those words of Calvin, which were most material to the present purpose, viz. That the Decree was made, to forbid direct praying to Saints at the Altar, and the reason, in his opinion, why those Fathers made that Decree, was to restrain the force of an evil Custom, which they could not totally repress? for had these words been put down, the thing had been too clear to be denied, viz. that Calvin acknowledged there was such a Custom at that time: where first the Dr is introduced as one denying that Calvin did acknowledge, that there was such a Custom at that time, whereas he manifestly confesseth what T. G. doth affirm, that he denies, 
p. 174  for he expressly saith from Calvin, that the Council did condemn and forbid those prayers, which were in use by some of the people, Secondly, whereas he doth accuse the Dr. for leaving out the words of Calvin, which were most material to the present purpose. This also is a loud untruth, as will appear by setting down the Doctor's words, and by comparing of them with the words of Calvin, as they are represented in T. G. and they are these; That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints, lest the public Prayers should he corrupted by such kind of Addresses, Holy Peter, pray for us. And again, the Council did condemn and forbid those Prayers, which were in use by some of the People: And now what is there is the words of Calvin Translated by T. G. which is not contained in the words of Dr. Stillingfleet. These things I have collected, not that I take delight in the discovery of this unchristian spirit of Calumny. I can assure T. G. it is no small Grief to me to find a Dr. of Divinity, so prone to wound his Conscience, and expose his credit to the censure of discerning Men. I am afflicted that the Atheist should have such great Temptations, to suspect that we are guilty of the like insincerity, in managing of the Christian cause against him; or that the people should have such reason to cry out, behold the falsehood of our Priests; see here what little reason we can have to credit any thing they say; since what they confidently avouch in the face of the World, is so unconscionably false and full of Calumny: But I entreat them to consider, we have great reason to suspect, 'tis the unhappy principles of the Roman party, which do betray them to this evil practice. They think it lawful to equivocate and lie to those they are pleased to call Heretics, and to promote the Cause of Holy Church by such unchristian Arts. This I in charity believe, because I would not think them guilty of what this practice must import, if it were used by Protestants.  
A second Art whereby T. G. endeavours to evade this charge, 
§ 9  and bring a disrepute upon the Doctor's Person and Performance, is a false and disingenuous representation of the Question betwixt us and the Church of Rome, and an undeavour to possess the Reader with an apprehension that the Dr. waved it, and durst not speak unto it. Thus p. 334: That the Reader my see what a prodigious stock of Wit is roseisle to make it out, that Invocation of Saints is Idolatry, I will, saith he, set down the Doctrine of the Church, as it stands Recorded in the Council of Trent: What that Council teacheth, is, that, it is good and profitable for Christians humbly to Invocate the Saints, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, assistance whereby to obtain benefits of God, by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour. These are the very words of the Council, and any Man but of common reason, would think it were as easy to prove Snow to be black, as so innocent a practice to be Idolatry, even Heathen Idolatry. Answ. That the Reader may see what disingenuity is here insinuated, it is sufficient only to advertise him that we do not accuse the Church of Rome as guilty of Idolatry, for holding what she delivers in the words now cited, but for holding what she insinuates in the words which follow, and which T. G. thought most convenient to conceal, viz. That every person may pray unto them, and that not only with vocal, but with mental prayer; and for enjoining the sick, to pray with his heart when he cannot do it with his mouth, O all ye Saints intercede for me, and secure me. What we teach, saith he, and do in this matter, is to desire the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as we desire the Prayers of one another upon Earth, and must we for this be compared to Heathens? Do we not profess to all the World, that we look upon the Saints, not as Gods, but as the friends and Servants of God, that is, as just Men, whose prayers therefore are available with him? where then lies the Heathenism? where lies the Idolatry? Answ. it lies in praying to them with mental prayer, and in praying to their when they are as distant as is Earth from Heaven. 
p. 353.  But saith T. G. the Question at present between Dr. Stillingfleet and the Church of of Rome, 
p. 353.  is not whether Divine Worship be to be given to the Saints, but whether an inferior worship of the like kind, with that which is given to holy Men upon Earth, for their holiness, and near relation to God, may not be lawfully given to them, 
p. 389.  now they are in Heaven? And again, we pray no otherwise to them, than we do to holy Men upon Earth, though more devoutly, upon the account of their unchangeable estate of bliss. Answ. This he doth frequently affirm, but till he can produce some instance of this practice of praying, only with mental prayer to any Man alive, or of petitions vocal directed unto living persons at so great a distance, his affirmation can be no better than a manifest untruth; but this is a peculiar Topick, of which, all those who vainly do endeavour to excuse this Idol worship of the Church of Rome, are forced to make use of, viz. to affirm her Doctrine and practice, not to be what certainly it is, and thence conclude her not to be guilty of that crime, which could not be denied without this Artifice.  
Again, the Question between us, 
§ 10. p. 173.  (saith the Dr.) is not how far such wishes, rather than prayers, were thought allowable, being uttered occasionally, as St. Austin doth this in St. Cyprian, but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the Duties of Religious worship, as it is now practised in the Roman Church, 
p. 44●.  were ever practised in St. Augustine's time, Here T. G. represents him as a very Shuffler, and most Rhetorically cries out, alas, that so many Learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question, that they should have spent so much oil and sweat to no purpose! The Question hitherto controverted between Catholics and Protestants was held to be, whether it be lawful to invocate the Saints to pray for us? and whether this were agreeable to the practice of the primitive times? But now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand, this is dropped under the Table, and all the show aboveboard, is, whether it may be clone in the Duties (as the calls them) of religious worship? Thus T. G. as if all persons that ever writ before them, must have spoken nothing to the purpose, if this had been the Question between T. G. and him, or that this could not be the Question, if what he mentions were another; or that it were impossible that Men disputing whether this were agreeable to the practice of the Primitive times, should also dispute whether it were the practice of St. Augustine's, time. Who knows not that one medium to prove this practice to be lawful, is, that it was the practice of the primitive times, and that St. Augustine's times are instanced in, as a sufficient Confirmation of that grand assertion. This is the very method of T. G. and these are his formal word, This was the Doctrine and practice of Christian people in St. Augustine's time; 
p. 25.  this he endeavours to confirm from that of Cyprian; and unto this the Dr. returns this Answer, and yet this must not be the Question betwixt T. G. and him. 
§ 11.  Lastly, the Dr. saith he undertakes to show out of the Primitive Fathers, that it was the property of the Christian Religion, to give Divine Worship to none but God, and in this strain he runs on for no less than ten leaves together and without ever proving that Catholics do give Divine Worship to holy Angels and Saints, he most triumphantly concludes them to be Idolaters. Answ. The falsehood of this passage is so exceedingly notorious, that there is nothing requisite besides the use of reason to discern it, for p. 146, 159. We have this triumphant Argument. Upon the same account that the Heathen did give Divine honour to their inferior Deities, those of the Roman Church do so to Saints and Angels. And how unhappy T. G. was in his attempts upon this Argument I have abundantly evinced: Again the Doctor Argues thus The Fathers do expressly deny that Invocation or Prayer is to be made to Angels; for so Origen, 
p. 158.  and theodoret speak expressly that men are not to pray to Angels, and any one that reads St. Austin will find that he makes solemn Invocation to be as proper to God as Sacrifice is. 2. On what account should it be unlawful to Sacrifice to Saints and Angels, if it be lawful to Invocate them? May not one be relative and transient as well as the other, can any man in his senses think that a mere outward Sacrifice, is more acceptable to God than the Devotion of our heart is? Thus the learned Doctor, and there needs nothing to convince us of the strength and pertinency of this discourse, but to reflect upon the vanity and weakness of what T. G. hath ventured to oppose against it. See. Ch. 6. Prop. 4. Corol. 3. besides in vindication of the Testimonies of Irenxus, Origen, Theodoret, St. Austin, Hilary the Deacon, and of the Council of Laodicea. I have clearly manifested that all these Fathers cited by the learned Doctor, do very evidently prove the Invocation of Blessed Saints and Angels to be, according to their judgements the giving of that honour to them, which is due to God, and so is properly divine.  
I might be large upon the second head viz. 
§ 12.  in giving many pregnant demonstrations that he n●ost wretchedly corrupts those Fathers which he citys or Answers. But reader having glutted thee with manifold examples of thiskind already, part 2. I beg thee to accept of these few instances which I shall represent unto thy view, noting what he hath added to the words of those few Fathers which he hath ventured to produce or Answer, in a larger Character.  
1. 
1. The words of Celsus are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. advers. Cells. l. 8. p. 416. What T. G. citys is not where to be found.  The invocation which Celsus contended for was Votiva illis Sacrificia reddere. T. G. p. 363.  
2. Celsus his evasion was that none are to be honoured for Gods but those to whom the supreme God doth communicate it. 
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Celsus apud Orig. l. 8. p. 384.  T. G. p. 357.  
3. 
3. The words of Celsus are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid. p. 385.  By Celsus this was not objected, but only that they were by the same rule by which they worshipped Christ for God, to worship in like manner the inferior Deities. p. 358.  
4. Chrysostom saith that some among the Collossians said that We ought to be reconciled and have access to the Father not by Christ but by the Angels. 
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in locum.  T. G. p. 378.  
5. The reason why they did so is given by Theophylact because they esteemed it a thing unworthy of the Majesty of the Son of God on the one side to make this reconciliation, 
5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. in cap. 2. ad Coloss.  and far transcending man's poverty and lowness on the other. T. G. ibid.  
This I confess is not so properly an addition (because he owns it so to be) as a most palpable depravation of the Father's sense.  
These are some few discoveries of the unchristian arts, and disingenuous deportment of T. G. towards the Dr. I wish I could say something better of his learning or his judgement. But alas the whole Book clearly manifests that he is unacquainted with the thing called Learning. Let any man produce in his 440 pages one considerable notion which is not ushered in with the great names of Dr. Taylor or of Mr. Thorndyke, let him point but to one single instance wherein he shows himself a Scholar, or a man of reading, let him produce one observation or Authority which is not trivial and common in almost every Roman Pamphlet, and I will beg his pardon for passing so severe a censure on him. In short, the only new thing in his book is this, 
p. 369.  that he advises Whores to have recourse to Mary Magdalene.  
Lastly, his want of judgement and dexterity in making inferences, 
Note, that the word Honouring though it be printed in the Italic Character, is an addition of his own, the Canons cited by him only do enjoin us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  cannot be doubted by any who considers what he hath discoursed, p. 222, 223. and p. 418. all which I have abundantly refuted with an ha' ha' he, and to consider all the examples of like nature to them, would be to frame a second Answer to his book. One farther instance of this kind we have p. 384. where he thus argues. The Council of Laodicea both in in the Canon 34 as also Canon 51. alloweth the honouring and celebrating the feast-days of the Martyrs which is a plain indication that it intended not to condemn in this Canon the worship due to Angels. Which Syllogistically runs thus, they who allow the honouring and celebrating the feast days of the Martyrs cannot intent to forbid the invocation of Angels, but the Canons of Laodicea do allow the honouring and celebrating the feasts of the Martyrs, Ergo. Answ. And is it not notorious that the Protestants allow the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of many Martyrs, why therefore doth he not conclude that they cannot condemn the invocation of the blessed Angels.  
Again they who are more to be honoured than men are to be invocated, according to T. G. but Angels in the Judgement of Theodoret are more to be honoured then men, Ergo. Answ. and is not this the judgement also of the Protestans, why therefore did he not infer that Protestants do not condemn this invocation.  
And now consider whether T. G. had reason to usher in this inconsiderate and Childish tattle, with the ensuing Preface it is manifest that the Council of Laodicea cannot with any show of probability be understood of that worship which the Catholic Church gives to holy Angels. And to conclude with such a triumph, by this the Reader may see whether we had more reason to fear the force of this Canon, etc. Whereas that which is manifested and plainly indicated by this whole discourse, is chief this, that T. G. labours not only under a great want of Learning but of judgement too. But to them who know that he is an Apostate from the Church of England all demonstrations of this nature must be needless. What I have written I am humbly confident must be sufficient to convince his conscience of that horrid action if God peradventure will give him repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth which is the hearty desire of him who honours his Person, and his Wit, whilst he detects his want of Learning and of Judgement, and refutes his Calumnies.   
FINIS.