A REVISION OF DOCTOR GEORGE MORLEI'S JUDGEMENT IN MATTERS OF RELIGION OR AN ANSWER TO SEVERAL TREATISES WRITTEN BY HIM UPON SEVERAL OCCASIONS CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME AND MOST OF THE DOCTRINES CONTROVERTED BETWIXT HER, AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. TO WHICH IS ANNEXED A TREATISE OF PAGAN IDOLATRY BY. L. W.  Permissu Superiorum 1683.  

THE PREFACE.  
seeing my Lord of Winton is pleased to wipe off that odious aspersion of his being a Papist [which might in the late conjuncture have cost him his civil, & endangered his natural life] by declaring not only his judgement in matters of Religion; but also the grounds, on which it relies, contained in several treatises, long since compounded, but never till now made public: I presume he will not be offended, that with the respect due to his quality of Peer of the Realm, these be reviewed. Reviewed, I say, for althô Appellations lie only to higher, Revisions are committed to equal, or even inferior courts.  
He protests, he is no Papist: & I think so too. I wish it were as easy to clear him of Calvinisme: of which he owns pag. XII. that he hath been suspected, & to it he seems inclined when he says, that God by Miracles promoted the Jdelatrous worship of the Pictures, & Relics of Saints. This I think in reality is to make God the Author of sin: Which Blasphemy I do not believe the Church of England will own, though it be a choice flower in Calvin's garden.  
He declares his loyalty to the government established, & the Royal Family, etc. And I believe him in this also: nay I judge as favourably of the greatest part of his rank, & moreover, that they are loyal not only for their Interest; but for conscience, & out of a sense of their duty to God, their sovereign, & their country: & that he, & they, will oppose, to their Power, Schism in the Church & Faction in the State. Yet I think all their endeavours will be ineffectual to prevent either, considering the constitution of the Protestant Church, & qualifications of its Clergy. For as in some natural Bodies there is a defect, which maugre all care of Physicians, cuts the thread of life, before it be spun to its ordinary length; so in some Bodies Politic, that of the English Protestant Church, in particular. Here are some reasons to prove this.  
2. The first. Protestancy is a Schism, & those who live in it, live in a Schism. It is a Schism, because it is a party separated from the whole Catholic Church. Luther was a Schismatic, so was Calvin, so was Zuinglius, so was each Patriarch of your Reformation: for each of these at their first breaking forth, left the Whole Catholic Church, or Congregation of Christians, of what denomination soever, not any one single Person in the whole world, to whom he (or they) did join himself. So that if ever any man was truly Schismatic, each one of these was such. Wherefore all who joined to them, as all Protestants did, were Schismatics. Now it is not probable that God will give that great Blessing of Ecclesiastical Peace, to Schismatics, who hate it, & oppose it.  
My 2. is: Protestants are Heretics, that is Choosers of the points, which they believe. For the Catholic Church delivered to her children not only, what they believe; but also many articles which they reject. Each Protestant takes this complex, examines it, & finding some Articles not to please him, he casts them out of his creed. Hence one rejects the Real presence, another Free will; A third Merits; a fourth the Possibility of keeping God's Commandments, etc. Each one culling out what Articles he pleases, & composing of them not a Catholic; but a Protestant Faith: not a Faith of the Ghospels; but of this time, & their Phancyes. What more evident signs of Heretics? Now if they be such, can we think them fit instruments to oppose Heresy, who did introduce, & do still defend it? This shall be further confirmed, by my fifth Reason.  
My 3. Protestants are a Cadmean brood, they sprung out of the Earth armed: & no sooner did their sovereign Lords see their faces, but they felt their Jron hands. Witness Germany, France, Hungary, Bohemia, Scotland, swethland, Denmark, the Low countries, & Geneva. Our English Protestant's say, they are not concerned in these Rebellions: but that is not true, for by approving, & applauding them, they make them their own, & encourage the Practice, by commending the precedent. With what force can they teach Obedience to his Majesty, who praise Rebellion against other? Or divert men from Treason, who transform Traitors into Heroes, & canonize Regicides?  
My 4. There nether is, nor ever was any Authority under the Heavens better grounded than that of the Catholic Clergy consisting of the Pope, & Bishops, was before the Reformation. It was established by Christ, settled by the Apostles, ratifyed by general, & particular Councils, confirmed by an vninterrupted Possession of almost fifteen hundred years, backed by all Laws Ecclesiastical, & Civil, & acknowledged by all Christians then alive. What gentleman can say so much for his estate? What officer, for his Authority? What King, for his crown? What Parson for his tithe? What Protestant Bishop for his mitre? When a Calvin, a Luther, etc. to say no more, private men, start up, declaim against that Clergy, as a humane invention & an Antichristian establishment; & you applaud them, & with them trample under feet, the whole sacred Order, & teach your followers, no submission, no obedience is due to it. When you have taught them to break such cables, can you expect to bind them to their duty with single threads?  
The English Protestant pretence to Bishops doth not satisfy, 1. Because in reality they had no canonical ordination. as we say, & prove. 2. Althô they had imposition of hands, & were real Bishops [which we deny. See Anti-Haman Chapt. xxxv.] yet They entered not by the door; but climbed up some other way, john X. 1. Were not promoted according to any canonical form either ancient, or modern. Wherefore what can we judge of them, but according to Christ's words, Loco citato? 3. Your first Protestant's promoted their Religion, & Spread their noveltyes contrary to all even English Bishops, & in contempt of them, first in Henry VIII. his time, Tindale, & others. Secondly in Q. Elizabeth's time, when all the Bishops alive detested your Reformation, & were for that stripped of their jurisdiction, deposed from their seats, & confined. What wonder then your followers do not regard that Crosier, which you have broken, nor honour the Mitre, which they have seen you trample under your feat? Lastly suppose your Bishops whereas validly, & canonically consecrated, as any ever were, can you say, that their Authority is better grounded, than that of all the Catholic Clergy? Sure you cannot pretend to better grounds for your Authority, than our Clergy had. As it was than lawful & laudable to three, or four private men to contradict our whole Clergy then in being, why may not some private men amongst you, withstand yours? What reason can you allege against a Tub preacher? Some texts of scripture? Canons of Councils? Tradition of the Church? Laws of the Realm? All these stood in favour of our Clergy against the first Reformers, as, & more, evidtntly than for you against your dissenters. So your Schism & Reformation hath deprived you of all means to preserve the Peace of the Church.  
My 5. Is taken from the manner of your Reformation. From Rome our Ancestors had received by the same hands a system of Faith, a body of Ceremonies, & some Ecclesiastical Laws. The whole Faith as necessary to be believed, the Ceremonies as decent to entertain devotion. The laws as convenient to government, & order. And your first Reformers changed all. In Faith they first rejected the whole unwritten word, Tradition: & a great part of the written, scripture. They secondly perverted many places of this, by new interpretations, retaining the word without its sense. The Ceremonies, & laws were treated as licentiously, throwing out of doors whatsoever they pleased. Now why may not another imitate these your Patriarches? Cur non licebit Valentiniano, quod licuit Valentino, de arbitrio suo fidem innovare? What was lawful to Luther, is sure lawful to a Lutheran: & what was laudable in the sixteenth, is not a sin in the seventeenth age, to give new interpretations to scripture, abolish other ceremonies, repeal more Canons. Especially the motives of reforming being common. Which is  
My 6. Your first reformers rejected some Articles of Faith, as being delivered by fallible men: some Ceremonies as men's inventions, & some laws as contrary to Evangelical liberty. Now all this holds as strongly against what they Keep in, as what they leave out: for all Canons were imposed by men, all Ceremonies prescribed by men, & scripture itself brought to you, & continued amongst you by fallible men, as much as the real presence. Now as you blot this out of your creed, why may not another strike out Baptism, a third the Trinity, a fourth the Incarnation, afifth the unity of God, a sixth the Deity itself? & so farewell all Faith. What reason is there, to say, that our Roman Missioners sent by S. Gregory were infallible in delivering the mysteries of the Trinity or Incarnation, & fallible, in speaking of Purgatory, or the Real presence? They say they pared away these Articles, because they were not from the beginning & were abuses. But will not a Monothelit allege the same against the distinction of wills in Christ, an Eutychian, against the distinction of natures, a Nestorian, against the unity of Person in him, a Macedonian, against the Divinity of the Holy ghost, an Arrian, against that of the son, a Manichean, against the unity of the Divine nature, a jew, against the new Testament, & a Libertin, and Atheist, against both old, & new, & God himself? These are not wire drawn conclusions, by obscure mediums, & far fetched illations; but natural, & obvious sequels of the fundamental principles of your Reformation, which are inconsistent with any constancy in Faith, and settlement in Church government. So I must conclude, that your Church building is such, as no principles can bear; & your principles are such, as can bear no building. By which we may guess, from whom your reformers had their vocation, from Abaddon, Apollion, the Destroyer, seeing their principles are good only to Destroy Churches; not at all to Build them.  
In fine, a prudent man, without casting a figure, might have seen the fate of the late troubles, in their principles, which were inconsistent with any settled form of civil gouvernment & would ruin them all successively, as they did, without any hopes of rest, unless these were laid aside, & the just, & ancient government restored. The like conjecture may be made of Protestantisme, its principles being inconsistent with any settled form of Faith, & Church government, will destroy them all by Schism & heresies, & no probability of a settlement unless these be renounced, & the Ancient, Catholic, & Apostolical Faith, & Government restored. For a further proof of this, I appeal to experience, (which is a demonstration A posteriori, as the former is A priori) which is  
My 7. Experience shows, that 'tis much easier to destroy, than to settle a government either in Church, or State. Nothing of Art, or Power was wanting to the establishment of the Prelatical Church in England. She appeared first with the plausible colours of an Apostolical Reformation, was cherished by Royal favour, armed the severest laws imaginable. Yet one age had not passed over her head, when the peccant humours bread within her, laid her in the dust, & the crown itself with her, which it was hoped, she would up hold. Both were again restored: yet how soon was the joy of that over, & both brought again into a like danger? Seek not where abroad the spring of these mischiefs, they rise from the Reformation, & are inseparable from the Protestant Church.  
My 8. And last reason is drawn from the Protestant Clergy, itself, which as it is modelled, & principled, can never sufficiently influence the Nation to preserve its union in the Worship of God, & its duty to the King: to prevent Schism in the Church, & Faction in the State. This appears by experience. The reasons I reserve till some further occasion be given.  
3. D. M. (so we shall hereafter call my Lord of Winton) says in his Preface pag. 11. A french jesuit called Mainbourg published something as written by her late R. H. & he repeats afterwards four times in the Preface & once in his post script Mainbourg the jusuit: when it was Mainbourg the secular Priest who printed it. Which that book of his tells all the world, so did the public Gazettes, containing his dismission out of the society. His superiors did never permit him to print it, whilst he was a jesuit, knowing how sacred the secrets of Princes ought to be. So that paper crept about only in written copies, seen by few, & of these not many believing it to be hers, whose name it bears. Now D. M. hath spread it, & the rumour of her Change in Religion, for his own vindication, & so prejudiced his mother the Church of England: for I doubt not but her R. H. example will move more Powerfully to leave that Church, than D. M. S. judgement, to retain men in it.  
He questions the Conference betwixt her R. H. & the Bishop: which being a matter of Fact, must rely on the deposition of witnesses, & their credit, & interest. She is positive, he conjectural: she had no motive, but Truth; he concerned for the honour of his Church, & his own. His topic is, if the Bishop answered so, he was nether so Learned, nor Conscientious, nor Prudent, as he ought to be. Which many will easier grant, then that her R. H. in a matter of fact would wittingly tell an untruth.  
He relates many things in his Preface to little purpose. v. c. His coming out of England with 130. l. & returning with as much, (as if he had the blessing of the Israelits, in the desert whose  did not wear out) his serving his Majesty, & the Q. of Bohemia, without putting them to any charge, but his diet, his catechising their servants, & preaching to them, his journey to Collen, & return to the Hague: etc. what is the public concerned in all this? Unless it be to help an Hystorian to write his life. But of heroical men even the Cradles, Rattles, & Hobby horses are venerable.  
Pag. viij. He says, he did not convene with the french Hugonots, because if They did not encourage, yet they did not, at least had not, condemned the rebellious proceed of their Presbiterian brethren in England against the K. & Church. Which implies only their being idle spectators of that Tragedy, in which many think they were Actors for the worse side: & many English women in Geneva who followed their husbands thither at the end of the wars, were proof enough. I will relate here what I find in Grotius his Discussio Rivetiani Apostolici pag. 88 & 89. where having said, that the public Peace is disturbed by that Doctrine: Licita esse pro Religione subditorum in Reges arma, he adds: Hoc vir nobilissimus Plessiacus Mornaeus, tanquam pietati consentaneum, testamento etiam suo inseruit. Hinc ille motus Ambaxianus, cum Reformatus Renauderius quosdam sui similes in privatum conclave convocasset, & dedisset eis potestatem Ordinum Regni. Hinc Beze conciones pro classico. Hinc Rupellensis Conventus impudentia; qui omnes in Regno Pontificios, deinde etiam Reformatos, Regis auctoritatem sequentes, declaravit ab honoribus omnibus, muneribusque publicis dimovendos: praefecturas autem per omne Regnum distribuit, quibus voluit● talium consiliorum auctorem sibi fuisse PETRVM MOLINEUM testatur Theophilus Mileterius, vir nobilis, & illis, qui reformatos se dicunt, optimè volens. Thus he. This book hath been printed near these forty years: & never any thing alleged against these matters of fact, that I could hear of. How will Monsieur du Moulin Prebend of Canterbury reconcile with this Council of his Father, that letter, which he printed in his father's name?  
4. These treatises, having been composed on emergent occasions, without any settled design, have no other order than that of the time, they were composed in, amongst those of the same language. I designed once to draw the matters handled in them, into some method, which would help to their understanding. But because that would make my Answer to D. M. less satisfactory (a thing mainly aimed at) I took the easier way, to follow my Author, as he leads me, step by step, without omitting any thing material. I omit in my Revision the letters of the Regular Priest, as not grounding the judgement, in matters of Religion, of D. M. as also D. M. his letter to Trigland, as containing nothing to our purpose. For it treats only two points: the 1. of Fact, that his majesty really was a Protestant. To which no answer is necessary. The second of Policy, that his Majesty was to be restored to his Crown by an Army of the states. To this I cannot answer, as never having commenced Bachelor in Policy. Yet I will say, that God himself found a way to restore his Majesty & put an end to the troubles of the State, without Arms (contrary to the expectation of D. M.) And I hope [at least it long hath been, is, & shall be my constant Prayer] that the God of Peace put an end to these contentious disputes in the Church; that we all may come to compose but One sheepfold, under One shepherd. John X. 16. I thought once to omit his letter against F. Cressey, as being chiefly personal: yet finding besides a too severe charge on him, some Reflections upon his whole holy Order, I took leave to review the grounds of both, yet past it lightly, as entering upon it unwillingly.  
That the Reader may with less trouble see what the Doctor says, & to what I answer, I give his own words, commonly at large, at least their full sense: & I mark the page, where they are to be found. This makes my Revision somewhat longer: but that is compensated with the ease of discovering the Truth, which both sides pretend to, but only one side contends for sincerely, the other opposes with all his Power. God grant to all a sincere love of Peace, & Church union: & then all these disputes will cease.  
Post script. What is contained in my fourth Book, pag. 111. that Factious men were prosicients in the Art of promoting mischief, was written in march last, 1683. I little dreamt to see my conjecture confirmed so soon in such a notorious manner, as it was by The Rye Plot, & Blunderbusses. God hath miraculously both disappointed, & discovered those Ruffians: I beseech him, to grant, that the Root, [at least the pretext, or occasion] of all these traitorous Practices, The hatred of jnnocent men, & loyal subjects, may cease.   

SOME FAULTS TO BE CORRECTED  

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

THE FIRST BOOK. A REVISION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWIXT D. MORLEY AND F. DARCY, AT BRUSSELSS.  

THE PREFACE.  
THE first Treatise, which occurr's in this collection, is the sum of a short Conference with a jesuit at Brussels. I leave others to judge, whether it be an Historical, or a Poetical narration, or, whether it contains only sincerely what was; or what might be, as not thinking it worth the while to inquire, especially when we consider, that certainly the greatest part, & possibly, all those present who could inform us, are dead. Those who have been acquainted with F. Darcy, & know his great abilities in controversy, & consider how weakly he is made to answer, are apt to guests, that our Author, Poet-like brings him, & others, on the stage as he pleases, & there makes him speak, what is easiest to be confuted. I rather incline to the contrary, that really there was such a Dispute & such things, in substance alleged pro, & con. Yet I must beg leave to say, that I beleme the Doctor did not subtract any strength, from his own, nor add any, to F. Darcy's discourse; it being but ordinary that things are so disposed, in such relations, as the Knight may kill the Giant. Hence I regard little what that Father is reported to have said; but attend chiefly if not only, to what the Doctor alleadges against the Church, which I will defend to my power. We shall find his [D. Morley's] chief Argument drawn from the Communion os Infants, by which he endeavours to prove, that the Church can err, seeing it hath erred which Viscount Falkland brought against the credit of our Traditions. Which hath been already answered, though this is not taken notice of. But let us hear the Doctor speak.   

SECTION I. 

1. The English jesuits Civilitys to their country men.  
2. Their manner of living. Which the Doctor approves of & highly commends.    
D. Morley. The Lord Viscount Neubourg ... & D. Morley coming to the jesuits College, ... found Father Darcy with the Lord Andover. 1. He received them very courteously, & to satisfy their curiosities, ... very frankly made us 2. a large narrative of their manner of living, lodging, diet, together with the hours of Rising, studying, eating, & recreations, & of all the spiritual hours, & exercises, they were bound unto. 3. Things all of them in their several kinds, for the substance of them very commendable, & worthy the imitation.  
Revisor. I easily believe, that F. Darcy very well deserved this public testimony of his kindness, 1. because he is known to have been very civil to all men. 2. Because I am informed that it always was, & still is the custom of the English jesuits, to receive courteously, & do all good offices for their country men, in all places, where they meet them: & this not only to persons learned, or noble, whose qualities, or qualifications may claim it as due; but also to others on no score distinguishable from the meanest: which all those can testify, who by design, or chance, pass by their Colleges. And their kindness to their countrymen in distress, hath not been like that of those who james 2.15.16. Seeing their brother, or sister naked, and destitute of daily food, say unto them, depart in Peace, be you warmed & filled. But they have given them those things, which are needful to the Body. I will not mention any, whose names, & necessities are scarce known, but in their neighbourhood. Was Bedlow a Prisoner in Spain at Valladolid? the jesuits there labour to procure his liberty. Was Dangerfield condemned to be hanged in the Low-countryes'? The jesuites leave no stone unmoved to save his life. Was Oats in want of all things necessary for food, & raiment? He finds the jesuits purse open, & hand stretched forth to his relief: this he hath found in England, Spain, & Flanders, as long, as there was any hopes of his amendment. And althô very often this jesuitical kindness meets with a Tru-Protestant gratitude, yet they continue still the like good offices: so these proceed not from the compassion of some tender hearted jesuits; but from the spirit of their order, which they suck in with the milk of jesuitism, confirm by practice, & cherish with hopes of eternal rewards.  
What Hospitals have they not visited, where they heard any of their dearest countrymen lay sick? Into what Dungeons have they not procured entrance, if an Englishman were cast into them? what sickness so loathsome, as to make the jesuits nauseate the sick? or so infectious, as to fright them away? what house for infection so shut up from commerce with all men, as to exclude the jesuits? And what danger so great, as to deter a jesuit from running into the middle of it to relieve an English man in distress? How many of them have destroyed their health, how many have lost their lives, in these works of Mercy? And how little have the surviving jesuits been deterred from the like works, by the evils befallen their Brethren, & hanging over themselves? Have we not seen the famous fable of Pylades, & Orestes so renowned amongst the Pagans, out done by a jesuit, who being indicted by the name of a Benedictin, then present, he chose rather to undergo the sentence of death, than to clear himself by discovering the mistake, & by that, bringing the true Benedictin into danger? The sentence was not executed; it is true: but that doth not diminish the esteem due to the jesuits heroical resolution, to suffer death himself, rather than avoid it, by occasioning any danger to another. He saw death, & an ignominious death according to the world, before his eyes, not to be avoided, but by a Reprieve, which he had nether means to solicit for, nor hopes to obtain, considering how punctually such sentences had been executed on others, not withstanding all endeavours to get them suspended. So his permitting the Verdict to be brought in, & the sentence to pass upon him, without making use of so certain, so obvious, so evident a means to traverse it, was to thrust his neck into a halter, only to hinder his neighbour's danger of it. Was not this very literally the perfectest charity, for one to give his life for another?  
2. Whence proceeds this Zeal of souls, this alacrity to encounter any danger, how great soever, or difficulty [except that one of offending God by sin] in these pious attempts? Answer: from their education, & the practice of their whole life, from their entry into the Society. At their entrance knowing how little it would avail them to gain the whole world, with the loss of their souls, & in imitation of him, who being rich, for their sakes became poor, for his sake they renounce all they have, & all they hope for in this world. Their first two years, or Noviceship is spent in meditating on the life, doctrine, & death of God made Man, which aims at nothing else, but the good of souls. And all their other exercises are to confirm them in the contempt of themselves, the love of god above all things, of their neighbour as themselves, & in this Zeal of souls. At their entrance into the Nouitiate, they are obliged to make for a whole month, the spiritual Exercices: in which they consider first for what end, they, & all men were created: Viz, to serve god in this world, & enjoy him in the next. That all creatures what soever, Heaven, & Earth, Beasts, Birds, & Fishes, are designed as servants to man, on his way to eternal bliss: that even those blessed Angels, so much our superiors in nature, are but our servants, being all Heb 1.14. Ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of Salvation. That all that God & man, Christ-Iesus, did, & preached, & suffered Heb. 5.7. In the days of his flesh, was designed for that same great end, To save souls. Now if god himself, the only competent Judge of the valu of souls, esteems them so much, how can we set too great a price upon them? who will regret any pains taken for their good, who hath before his eyes the travels, the hunger, & thirst, the preach, & other labours of the Son of god? who will be abashed at any danger in pursuit of so great a good, who sees with the eyes of Faith Christ crucified, shedding the last drop of his blood, & suffering death, to purchase by it the life of souls? This in the Exercices.  
After that monthly Recollection, & conversation with only god, & his blessed Saints, their whole employments are such, as may prepare them for that great work, the greatest of all divine works, as S. Denis says, To cooperate with God in the Conversion of souls. Do they pray? It is to unite themselves the closer to Almighty God, that so they may be fit instruments for him to work with, & increase the Zeal of souls. Do they study? It is to render themselves more capable to assist them. Do they Teach Do they Preach? It is to direct men to Heaven by declaring to them saving Truths. Their recreations, eating, drinking, sleeping aim at the same end; for by them they conserve, or repair their strength, that they may continu to serve god, & their neighbour. Thus all the actions of each day, month, year, & their whole life are employed in procuring the salvation of themselves, & their neighbour.  
They rise at Four in the morning, with their hearts full of gratitude to god, who hath preserved them that night; & petitions for a blessing on their Actions that day. At four and a half they begin their meditation, or mental Prayer which lasts for a whole hour, on some passage of the life, or point of doctrine of Christ. Then they say or hear Mass: which being a Commemorative Sacrifice of that, on the cross, renews the memory of what god did, & suffered to save souls: & consequenly renews Zeal to procure it. The rest of the morning is spent either in mental, or vocal Prayer, or study, or dealing with their neighbour, according to the order of Superiors, or present occasions. Only one quarter before dinner is assigned for a severe review of their Actions, of the whole morning, & taking a strict Account of them all, in the presence of god. For what they find well done, they give thanks to god, the Author of all good: for what is reprehensible, they ask God pardon, & endeavour to dispose themselves to receive it, by a true sorrow for having offended him, & a strong resolution never more to offend him. Dinner is followed with a Recreation (as they call it) for an hour, which is spent in discourses of pious things, or others indifferent. The rest of the afternoon till supper is spent as the morning [except Mass, & the first hour of Prayer.] After supper one hour is allowed for mutual conversation: then the great Litanyes of all Saints are said by all together, which last about a quarter: a second quarter is assigned to prepare the morning's meditation: a third for the Examen of their conscience, & the last to go to bed: which all must do by nine. This is their ordinary distribution of time, for the whole day. Which I hear was exactly observed by the jesuits during their close imprisonment, to the astonishment of their keepers, who could not tell how they could so regularly do all those several pious Actions at the same hours, having no communication with one an other: they did not, they could not know, that this was the distribution of time used in their Colleges.  
I need not say, that each one hath a chamber to himself which serves as much for modesty as convenience: that this is fitted [as that of Elizeus, or Elisha 4 Reg. c. 10 by the Sunamite] with things necessary for use; without superfluities: that their diet is frugal, without daintys: & their whole way of living is decent, & neat; without either vanity, which they abhor; or sordidness, in the Poverty, which they profess. In one thing they think they cannot be too prodigal; in their churches, their Altars, their sacred Vessels, & vestments. They know God to be the King of Kings, & Lord of Lords: & adoring him above all the world they think it all too little for him. Wherefore whatsoever they can procure by themselves, or by their friends, they employ freely in the Divine service. From the splendour of their churches, some strangers to their manner of living, guess them to be exceeding rich whereas did they know all, they would correct that error. At Bruges they have a noble church; & but a pitiful building for their own abode. They are thoughht to flourish as much in France, as in any part of Europe: yet a strict survey being made of all their revenues under the French dominions by order of his most Christian Majesty, they were found not to have two hundred French Livers per annum, In singula Capita. Whereas some other very austere & reformed Religious Orders, & who are not noted as rich, have according to the same surveyors above 1300. livers, In singula Capita. Hence is evident, that discourse of jesuits riches is an effect of malice in some, & of ignorance in most men.  
This I say to supply that part of the Conference, which you only hint at, by the words above cited, that He, that Father, Made a large narrative of their manner of living, etc. This Narrative, had you given it to the public, would have given greater satisfaction, than mine, because the Father had greater experience, than I have. However I do not fear to be blamed in the whole, or any part of this relation, so great a confidence I have in those Informations I rely on.  
3. Hence I am not much surprised, to see you approve these Actions, as Very commendable, and worthy the Imitation for the substance of them. A person of so quick a wit, & so solid judgement, could not have any other opinion of them. Yet I dare you to square these circles, or reconcile these contradictions: the Actions of jesuits are for the substance of them commendable. And: the Chief action of Jesuits is not commendable, viz, the Mass, which you, & your Brethren hold to be downright Idolatry. Now Mass is not only one of the jesuits religious Actions; but it is the very Chief of them all. For as in the old law all its rites, ceremonies & sacrifices were but figures, or types of the Sacrifice of the Cross which was designed from the beginning, & which being intentionally present in God's understanding did move his goodness ever since Adam's fall to pardon men's sins & grant them those Blessings, to which, in virtue of that Sacrifice they had a right, on which account the true Lamb of God is said to be Occisus ob origine mundi Apoc. 13.8. Sacrificed from the beginning of the world, so in the new all our devotions, all our prayers, all our pennances, our interior, & exterior virtuous Actions, regard the same sacrifice of the Cross, & that of the Mass, which is a commemoration, or repetition of that other of the Cross. So all our devotions are only as preparations to it, or Thanks givings for it, & the graces we receive by it. Thus in the natural Body all Actions vegetative & sensitive proceed from the head, & hart, & are chiefly designed to nourish, help, & defend them: & in the mystical Body, of Religious Actions, & Duties they all proceed from, & end in the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross, & in the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, for as much as in them is contained our blessed saviour CHRIST-IESUS God blessed for ever more, the Α, & Ο, Beginning & end of our Religion, in whom all our Devotions concentre, he being the Founder, & Author of our Faith, the Ground, & Anchor of our Hope, & the Principle & Object of our Charity. Which three virtues are Chiefly, or rather solely aimed at in Religion. Haec maximè, imo vero sola in Religione sequenda sunt. Aug. Enchir. c. 4.  
Now if Moss the chiefest, & noblest of Religion's Actions be Idolatry, as you say elsewhere, how do you say now it is Lawful, nay Commendable, & Worthy the imitation? If it be so, certainly it is not Idolatry. But Contradictions are unavoidable, when we combat a known truth, which by surprisal will force an acknowledment of itself, although we arm ourselves against it when advertised. Hence you approve here the same thing in Gross, which you condemn in retail. I leave you this bone to pick, & proceed.   

SECTION II. 

1. Conferences to compose differences in Religion seldom successful, & why?  
2. Security of Priests in England, & danger of Ministers at Brussels.    
D. Morley. 1. My lord Andover wished, that some learned, & moderate men of the Churches of Rome, & England might meet & debate freely, & charitably the Differences between the two Churches, which are not so many, nor so great, but they might find out some expedient to compose them. 2. D Morley Said it would be imprudent, & unsafe for him to disoute of Religion in Brussels: though the Priests in England had often with all boldness, freedom, & safety, before many witnesses mantained their opinions. So upon my life may you do here, said F. Darcy, & be so far from offending me, as I shall take it as a favour.  
1. Revisor. Although I readily grant the capacity of that noble man to be great; yet I must beg leave to doubt, whether he were a competent Judge of the most ready way to end the Differences in points of Faith betwixt dissenting Churches: this requiring a greater search into points of Doctrine, & interest, than Persons of his quality, & education are willing commonly to undergo. Truth is ever pretended on both sides; but it is only pretended on the one side, which in reality applies all its industry to suppress it, for either motives of Passion, Interest, Envy, Spite, Revenge, & what else is contrary to the law of God. When these possess the hart, the head is busyed to make Virtue pass for vice, & vice for virtue, to adorn Falsehood with the dress of Truth, & by sophistical reasons make Truth be suspected of Falshood. He will by calumayes as black as Hell, reader odjoas, or contemptible the persons, who oppose his Passion, & thwart his Jnterest, Cross his design, & procure his real good, by discovering his errors, & by that inviting him to return to the ancient Faith, & Communion of the Church, which he broke through want of Charity. It is hard to discover the wiles of those Foxes, & ways of these wolves, the fraudulent, or fierce enemies of the Churchs' Peace; to see through that mist which they raise on purpose not to be seen, & to fathom these Depths of Satan. Apoc. 2.24. Now thò this noble man's capacity was great, yet perchance not sufficient for so obscure, & intricate a work.  
Yet when all the doubling of these Foxes are discovered, & the secrets of their hearts laid open, yet the work is not half done. The greatest difficulty remains, to wean them from those beloved wander: it being one of the dismallest effects of these sinful errors, that by secret, yet power full charms, they fix the will in the love of them. Hence S. Prosper. Tantum nocet error  
 jwet errare, & veteris contagia morbi  
Tam blande obrepunt, ut quo languetur ametur.  
Such charms before our eyes doth error lay,  
That it even makes us love to go astray:  
Whilst th' evil spreads, we unconcerned go,  
Deceived, & yet contented to be so.  
The secretary of nature Aristotle never dived deeper into the hart of man, then when he said, that althô Reason seems to hold the scales, & discern betwixt two contending parts, yet in reality it is the hart, the will, which deliberates, & decides the thing in question. Hence comes that variety of judgements on the same individual Action, of which one shall make a Panegyric, another a Satire. And though the light of Truth, & the appearance of God, be so clear, as not to be concealed, yet this shall be as ineffectual, as to all influence on our Actions, as if they were dreams, a sensual man prefers Pleasure before his Honour; A virtuous man the contrary. So we judge [as we are affected] not as we should: our will doth not follow, but lead nay drag after it our Reason, & that with so sweet a violence, that it is not perceived without much labour, great attention, & strict search into the beginning, progress, & end of our Actions. This is the root of all incoherent discourses, & illogical deductions of Passion, & interest or self-love, which in many prevail over Truth, control the inclinations to good, & make men break all their duties to God & their country, to Prince, friends, & Relations: & though they see what is better, yet do the contrary. Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor.  
This difficulty seems invincible, when strengthened with the content, which Proud Ring'eaders find in having their followers hearts at a beck, & being esteemed by them, as Oracles: a satisfaction said St Francis Bacon as much above that of Tyrants, as men's souls are above their bodies. In the whole black list of Heresiarks only two occur to my mind, who truly repent, viz, Eutichius Patriarch of Constantinople, who denied the Resurrection of the Flesh, & was converted by S. Gregory our Apostle, & Berengarius Patriarch of the Sacramentarians Only these two to my remembrance died well, professing the true Faith contrary to their several errors. Without doubt some, if not all, other Heresiarks were convinced of the untruth of their doctrines, & were as the Apostle says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Condemned of themselves, or knowing that they deserved condemnation: & doubtless all felt those reproaches of conscience which follows all guilty Actions: yet Pride hardened their hearts against all. Now what can work upon these men in order to their Conversion? set before their eyes Truth? they know; but will not acknowledge it. Reproach unto them their perfidious abandoning God, and his spouse the Church? the Holy Ghost doth it inwardly, & they slyght him. Threaten Hell, & damnation, to torrify them? They are self condemned, & yet are unconcerned, this opposing known Truth, is a sin against the Holy ghost impossible to be forgiven, because it is morally impossible to be repent. This is proved by Reason, confirmed by experience & delivered by the Apostle. Which is to be understood of Heresiarks, & such as school men call Formal Heretics.  
Yet I know many, & I hope most of those who live in schism or Heresy do so, either by misfortune of their birth, or education, or by weakness of reason, or strength of Passion, or fear of punishment, or love of goods of fortune; rather than hatred to the Church, or love to Heresy: & therefore are not Formal Heretics, or Schismatics. Many followed Absalon to Hebron, without any design against their lawful Monarch David; althô they were after engaged in the Rebellion. And many follow Heresiarks intending no evil; but hoping good from such as pretend nothing else [& who would hate these perfectly, if they knew their Hypocrisy or malice] who are insensibly engaged in the guilt of separation, which they strengthen with their presence. These (nether having the guilt of a sin against the Holy Ghost upon their Conscience, nor their soulhardned against the Call of God) we hope may be reclaimed: And a Conference severally to such, as these, may prove beneficial: Though not to the whole body of Separatists, upon which the more factious heads will always have too great an influence.  
How fruitless of old were the Conferences of S. Peter with Simon the magician, of S. Athanasius with Arrius, of S. Austin with Felix, with Pascentianus, Felicianus, Emeritus, or the Arrians: of Lanfrancus with Berengarius, of S. Bernard with Peter Abaylardus! what good came of the Conference of Catholics & Hugonots at Poissy in France? Of those betwixt Catholics & Lutherans in Germany? And that betwixt Protestants & Presbiterians at Hampton-court brought no good, althô directed by K. james, a learned, & wise Prince, to whom both Parties owed Obedience in Ecclesiastical matters, as to one whom both owned to be head of their Church.  
With great reason then Tertullian Prescrip. c. 15.16.17. advices (out of the Apostles words, to Avoid a Heretic after twice warning him) not to meet Heretics, except only to Warn them. That much harm may be feared; but no good hoped for by Disputes with them. That we ought to press them to declare, whence they had the scriptures. If from Catholics [as most certainly Protestant's had] then they must from them also receive the sense of scriptures. Thus he. Out of which it doth not follow, that Catholics are bound to receive the sense of scripture from the jews, from whom they received the Holy scriptures, because those same Persons, who brought us the scriptures from them, & proved their Mission from God, declared the blindness & Apostasy of the jews, & warned us, as from God the Author of Scriptures, to be ware of them.  
S Austin 13. cont. Faustum c. 12. is of the same mind, that all such Disputations are fruitless.  
Hunnericus King of the wandals proposed a conference betwixt his Arrian Bishops, & those of the Catholic Communion. But Eugenius Bishop of Carthage in the name of all the rest rejected the Proposition, saying they could not accept it, without consent of other Bishops, cheïfely of him of Rome. Victor of Utica lib. 2. de Persec. wandalicâ.  
The Civil Law forbids all disputations L. Nemo C. de summa Trinitate. The same are forbidden to seculars, by the Canon law, C. Quicumque de Haereticis in 6.  
For some particular reasons, without any prohibition from the Church, by common consent Catholics refused to encounter some Heretics. Such was Sisinnius, who because he had a pleasant drolling wit, would seem victor by turning all discourse into ridicule when he had nothing substantial to reply. S. Austin when a Manichaean was avoided for his singular skill in Logic. For a like reason (I believe) Christians were warned by the Apostle [Colos 2.8.] To beware of being deceived through Philosophy.  
Yet we cannot, we dare not universally blame those who by Conferences, or Disputes endeavour to bring back stragglers into the way of salvation. For Christ disputed with the Pharisees. S. Stephen with the jews in Jerusalem: S, Paul & Apollo with the same else where: S. Hilarius with the Arrians. S. Austin with the Donatists, Manichaeans, & others. This Saint Epist. 48. Says Cum Hereticis, verbis agendum est, disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum. Treat with Heretics with words, fight them with discourse, overcome them with reason.  
Hence Divines do nether absolutely approve, nor absolutely condemn such Conferences; but hold them law full on some conditions, in certain circumstances, which may be found in them.  
This honourable man hints at two conditions, 1. that the Disputants on both sides be learned, & moderate 2. That They proceed freely & charitably. Which are good; but scarce sufficient. For 1. it is no easy matter amongst those who sincerely have any Religion, to find such as are Moderate in his sense. And 2. even the most Moderate men may be so pinioned by instructions, from those who depute them, that their Personal Moderation will signify nothing: for they must follow their instructions, under pain of being disowned by their party, & left to make good their own Acts. Thus Melancthon, & Bucerus, who were esteemed Moderate, could effect nothing at the several meetings to which they were deputed.  
The same I say of the 2. condition, debating Freely, & Charitably: which signify nothing unless the whole Party 1. give a full power to its deputyes without any reserve, & oblige itself to ratify, & approve what so ever shall be agreed on & consented to by them. And 2. would assuredly stand to that Power. Do we not see, that a separation is first resolved on, & errors sought out & alleged only to colour it? Did not Luther laugh at the labour— in— vain of the Catholics, who confuted his errors, saying that before they had dispatched the old ones, he would find them more work, by broaching new? And how often are the same objections renewed, after a full & satisfactory answer? That, for example, of Pagan Idolatry, reproached to us lately by E. S G. B. & R. C. but answered so home by T. G. & W. E. that it will be laid aside, till these are forgotten: & then we may expect to see some huffing minister thunder all the curses of scripture from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of the Apocalypse against the Church of Rome, as guilty of the very Pagan Idolatry? Thus Trita haereticorum arma colligunt. Says S. Prosper, They take up the broken weapons of their brethren. As some rivers pass unperceived for some space under ground, & then rise again: so that, so other Objections against the Church. And if I am not mistaken in the Horoscope of this Argument drawn from sense against Transubstantiation, it will run the same fate, for while a love of separation continues, these or some other pretexts will be used to excuse it.  
Wherefore The only means to put a good end to all Disputes in Religion, is to procure a sincere Love of Peace, & mutual communion.  
The differences, says this Lord, are not so many, nor so great, but means may be found to reconcile the two Churches. I hope there may be means found, thó this grounds not my hope: for I do on the contrary aver that there never were any Heretics of one denemination, who have erred in more, or more material points, than Protestants. For to say nothing of several, & all most all antiquated heresies received by them, they have cut off all the unwritten, & a great part of the written word of God: destroyed, or which is all one, confounded the Hierarchy of the Church: cast away five Sacraments, & deprived the other two of their efficacy, & reduced them to the condition of jewish rites, to be Beggarly elements: denied the universal redemption, banished Free will, introduced stoic Fate: changed Hope into Presumption (a sin against the Holy Ghost) & so commended Faith, as to destroy charity: made good, & bad works indifferent, by depriving those of merit, & these of offending God in his elect. etc. Besides many points of discipline, which though less considerable, than those of Faith, yet are not to be neglected, which no Church of England man will deny seeing he defends those retained in it against the Presbiterians. If these be Small points, what are Great? And if these be not Many, what Herensy ever had many? It will not be enough to say, the Church of England doth not oblige her Children to believe all these: for she owns Communion with those, who do, & abetteth her children, when they reproach us, with the contrary Truths.  
But suppose there were but Few, but One difference, & that inconsiderable in itself, yet if it causes a Schism, it destroys all hope of Salvation. Now what comfort is it to a wounded man, to tell him, he hath but one wound, & that not great, if that touch the hart, & is mortal? The Novatians, the Miletians, the Quarted ci man's, the Donatists, etc. were true Schismatics, & could not be saved although each of them differred from Catholics, but in one point, & that not of Faith; but of Ecclesiastical Discipline. And they were as obstinate in the defence of that one, as others in that of many great ones. The fewer, & less considerable the points are, betwixt us, & the Protestants, the greater is their guilt in dividing Communion on that score.  
All spiritual & temporal jurisdiction, the Authority of Prelate, & Prince, is derived from the same fountain, God. There is no power but of God, & the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Rom. 13.1. The same persons are subject to both (Let every soul be subject to higher Powers) And this out of the same principle of conscience. Who soever therefore resists the Power, resists the ordinance of God .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath; but also for conscience sake. The same motives are alleaeged to excuse the Disobedience to both, Abuses in government, heavy & unnecessary Impositions, greivances, etc. The same pretexts serve to make the Rebellious Actions against both plausible; Evangelical Liberty, Reformation, Reestablishment of ancient form of Government, etc. Stubbornesse in the Rebellious is covered with the same fig-leaues, Complaints of greivances not hearkened to, petitions for Redresses unregarded, humble Addresses not effectual. Alike Art used, to conceal a resolution never to be satisfied, what ever Answer be returned: for if one request be granted, they will demand more: if denied, than they persuade their followers, they are slyghted, that no good can be hoped from such persons, & that things must be redressed without them. Then they teach that all Power is derived (not from God, as the Apostle says) but from the People: that their superiors are only their Commissioners, & accountable to them, & these having abused their Power, may, nay aught to be devested of it. And so they proceed to change the established Government in Church & state: alleging the Bible, as the Rule of their Actions against the Head of the Church, & ancient Statutes, those against the Prince, yet wresting both to their capricios; not framing these to those. In reality making all Government in Church & state subservient to their Interests. All which are written with a sun beam in the Hystories of our civil wars in England, & those of the first Reformation in Germany, France, Scotland, & England too.  
So change in Church & state are begun with lamentations, & bemoanings of the People grieved, & overcharged: carried on with Humble Addresses & Petitions: & end in confusion & destruction.  
Hence it appears how dangerous it is for a Prince to countenance those Pretences to Liberty against the Prelate, with in his dominions. What is sauce for à goose, is sauce for a gander. Both hold their Authority, on the same renure: what strikes at one, wounds the other. That Principle which shakes the mitre, endangers the Crown, who breaks the Crozier would crack the sceptre: for both are made sacred by the same divine Right. So who dares oppose the one, is disposed to shake hands with his duty to the other: The differences betwixt them, being no other, but only, as of more, & less in the same kind.  
2. Your care of not exposing your dear self to danger is laudable, if that were so great, as to exceed that of Priests in England. But are Priests so safe in England & Ministers in such danger at Brussels? Did you blush, or smile, when you said, & printed this, at this time of day? Had you said it was unsafe at Brussels, it might have passed, & your Prudence commended: but I doubt whether that comparison was Prudent. Look towards Tyburn or Tower-Hill, westminister Hall, or old Bayly: & then tell me whether it is so safe in England for Priests etc. Then cast your eye back on Brussels, & see whether in any corner of the town you discover such Tragical scenes. I grant, that some, nay many of the Ch. of Eng. Are so moderate as not to prosecute a Priest, though known to be such, & I believe you to be of the number. Yet this is no security for a Priest, when known, when any one more Zealous, or malicious may cause him to be apprehended, & brought to the Bar, where he shall avoidable be condemned. And what greater danger can hang over a minister in Madrid, or Rome itself, before the face of an Inquisitor?  
God will in due time discover the Authors of such cruelties, as at certain Periods of time are exercised upon Priests guilty of no crime, unless Preisthood be one. I know the chief Actors in the late Tragedy were as little friends to the Hierarchy of the Ch. of Eng. (& to Monarchy too) as to that of Rome: & that those Cricumcellions, or Cannibals intended to breakfast on us, dine on the Protestant Clergy, & sup on the Royal Family. Yet those who love the cause, do not hate the effect: & those who concurred to the making, & oppose the repealing of the penal sanguinary laws, will not break their hearts, with grief to see them at least some times executed.  
But you cheered up, having F. Darcy's hand & word, for your security. And now gins the dispute.   

SECTION III. 

1. Little good from Conference.  
2. Catholics ready to comply in what they can.  
3. Communion of Infants how believed anciently.    
1. D Morley said There could little fruit be expected from a Conference, when one side is resolved to remit nothing.  
2. F. Darcy Answered they would not be so stiff in all points: for the Church might alter some thing in order to Christian Peace, in things of Ecclesiastical constitution: as v. c. The latin service, the Sacrament under one kind, & the celibate of Priests: though not in things of Faith, such as is the Church's Jnfallibility.  
3. D. Morley Replied: If by the Church he meant all Christians in all places, it could not err. If any particular Church, v. c. That of Rome, it could err, & had erred, which he proved thus.  
That Church, which formerly held as matter of Faith an error, hath erred, & can err But this is the case of the Church of Rome: Therefore it hath erred, and can err.  
To prove the minor, he inslanced in the Communion of Infants, believed to be necessary to salvation. For which he quoted Innocent 1. S. Austin, Binius, & Maldonate. This last says for six hundred years it was Dogma de Fide vniversalts Ecclesiae.  
1. Revisor. you approved here, what I have at large proved above: little good from Conserences in matters of Religion can be expected. But you have a sting in the end; when you reject all the fault, all the opposition of so great a good, as the Peace of the Ch. on us. Who are resolved to remit nothing. A very uncharitable, & rash judgement. And untru to boot, as appears by F. Darcys reply & by that story which Protestants with great confidence relate in Q. Elisabeths' time, viz, that the Pope offered to confirm all she had done in Church affairs, upon condition she would acknowledge him. How can you say We will remit nothing, when your Brethren assure the Pope was ready to remit all? But it is your fashion, to say, & unsay, as you think for your present purpose. Then it served your turn, that the Pope did not dislike your Reformation, to move Catholics to embrace it, & so you spread that report. Now it is to your purpose to throw the odium of the division on the Pope's inflexibility: & so you report that. The true, & only reason, that the schismatical Party is resolved never to rest satisfied, with what is remitted. So the rebellious Part of the Parliament resolved never to be satisfied with what soever answer the King gave to their Addresses: & for that Reason we might say, all Treaties for peace betwixt the King & Parliament would prove ineffectual.  
2. F. Darcys answer shows how desirous the Church is to restore Peace to Christendom, being ready, for so great a good, to remit of her Right in imposing ceremonies, & making Canons. In Faith she can change nothing, that belongs to a higher Tribunal, she receives it from her spouse, in the nature of a Depositum, (1. Tim 6.20.) which must not be altered. But Ecclesiastical Discipline, being lef to her determination, & of her own appointment, she may change, & as the Father said, will change, if by that means she could restore to the sheep-fold of Christ, all his strayed sheep. This is more than the Ch. of Engl. will do: seeing to reclaim her undutiful children she will not omit the sign of the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, & bowing to the Altar, all ceremonies of humane jnstitution, & her own injunction. Nay she would not alter some words in her Lyturgy, to purchase Peace.  
3. If the Church diffusiuè, that is all Christians in all places cannot err, woe be to the first Protestants, whose sentiments in matters of Faith were as contrary to those of all Christians in all places, as to those of the Roman Church, except that one point of Papal Power. So if all Christians did not, & cannot err, the first Protestants did err; & all their followers do err, & will err, as long as they retain those sentiments: for what is an error to day, will be such to morrow, & to the end of the world.  
As to the Communion of Infants: I acknowledge, that for a long time when Baptism was administered solemnly by Bishops to men grown up, [Adultis] two other Sacraments were administered with it Confirmation, & the Eucharist. That when it was administered by Priests, they were ordered to anoint the baptised person not on the forehead; but on the crown. That when Infants were baptised, because the Sacrament could not without danger, be administered to them under the species of Bread alone, it was given under the other species, the Priest dipping his finger into the Holy Chalice, gave it them to suck or a little particle of the species of Bread soaked in the consecrated wine was laid on their tongue. That the Communion was given to Infants out of an opinion, that it was necessary to salvation grounded on those words of Christ joan. 6. Unless ye eat the Body .... you have no life in you. I grant also that some, & haply many in some private Churches believed that to be the literal meaning of those words, & thought consequently that sense was De fide, a point of Faith. Yet I deny, that the universal Church did err in declarations, or definitions of Faith: for indeed she never made any definition in this matter. That Text was exposed with the rest of Holy writ to the view of all Christians, & left to the interpretation of ordinary Pastors, as the rest was. Many understood it literally, & for that reason extended to Infants the Communion in Baptism ordained to men enjoying the use of Reason. The Church seeing no pressing inconvenience in this custom, & consequently no necessity to make a severe examen of the meaning of those words, & a censure of an jnnocent error, permits them to go on, without interposing her Authority, or by any legal definition obliging her children to believe either the one, or the other part. And I doubt not, but there are several other texts of scripture commonly understood one way, & that thought to be the literal meaning, & true sense, & followed as such, & some nay many, may believe that sense to be De fide, & the Church permits them to believe, & practice so, [not seeing any necessity to call a General Council to decide it, the error being nether destructive to necessary Faith, nor good manners] & yet this sense may be different from that the Holy Ghost cherfly intended by those texts: & all this without any prejudice to the Church of Rome's infallibility, which never declared any thing in it. Such I think is the common way of explicating Anti Christ to be one single man: & the three years & a half, to be literally understood, for forty two months vulgar. From alike occasion the error of the Chiliasts, or Millenarians had its rise, & progress: which was not condemned, till its Abettars, grew troublesome to those, who differed from them in the exposition of those words, Apoc. 20.4. on which they grounded their error.  
Hence it so lows that what Maldonate says makes nothing against the Churchs' infallibility in defining things of Faith, for he nether says, nor could say with truth, that she ever defined any thing in this matter. And the practice itself of communicating Infants cannot be proved to be universal, or in use in the Roman Church. Some think the Pelagians introduced that custom: & that S. Austin proves thence the necessity of Baptism argumento ad hominem By a reason drawn from their own sentiments. The same I say of Binius, & S. Austin: for both speak of the practice which they found, without citing any public decree, for indeed there was none ever made, even by Innocent I. whom you cite. For the place you mean is in his answer to a letter written to him by the Fathers of the Council of Milevis in Africa, which had condemned Pelagius & Celestius, who taught there was no need of the grace of God to keep the commandments, & that children might be saved without Baptism. Innocent approves their decrees: & proves none can be saved without Baptism, because none can be saved Without eating the Body, & drinking the Blood of Christ. And he adds: Qui vitam ijs sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur mihi ipsum baptismum velle cassare cùm praedicant hos habere, quod in eos creditur nonnisi baptismate conferendum. Those, who hold they (the children) may be saved without being regenerated, seem to me, to take away Baptism itself, teaching that they have without it, what we believe is not given but by Baptism. Thus he; which words are cited by S. Austin l. 2. count duas Ep. Pelag. c. 4. so what explicates one will serve the other, both saying the same thing.  
Where it is certain, that he thinks a Participation of the Body & Blood of Christ necessary to salvation. Now whether he means a real, & sacramental Participation, by receiving the Sacrament; or only a mystical, or spiritual Participation, which both you & we believe is attained by the Sacrament of Baptism, & is the constant doctrine of the Church to this day, seems not so evident. You say he means the first; I say, the second, & this is my reason: He doth not speak of the participation by Communion, or the Eucharist; but of that by Baptism: for he doth not say: Cum Baptismate conferendum, as if some thing different from Baptism, & administered with it, were the medium of that Participation; but Baptismate conferendum, as if Baptism, were the sole cause or means, of that Participation. Now the participation of Christ's body by Baptism, is mystical, & not sacramental. Therefore he speaks of the mystical Participation of Christ's Body, & avers that to be necessary to salvation. Which both you, & I; both Protestants & Papists do admit for true, & Catholic doctrine. How can you then hence infer, that the Church hath erred, & may err? This is my first answer.  
A second is, that he & S. Austin speak of participation of the Body & Blood of Christ, In voto, in desire, which all have, & are bound to have, when they are baptised .... A third is, that in decrees of Faith, or doctrinal, we make a great difference betwixt what is Ex professo, & directly treated, discussed, & defined, & such other things, as are only accidentally mentioned. Infallibility in the later points, is by us esteemed a Privilege reserved to the writers of Holy scripture, & not pretended to even by general councils: we make likewise a great difference betwixt a decree, & a reason for making the decree, & on which it is grounded. For example: in the 7. general Council, it is said, that Angels may be painted, because they have bodies. We think ourselves obliged to believe Angels may be painted: but not that they have bodies: for our Divines commonly teach the contrary. Now to your objection, I answer, that Innocent mentions only accidentally that point of Infant's Communion, & intends by it, only to prove that Baptism is necessary to salvation. So the real Communion is not held by us, a decree of Faith.  
Thus I have once again broken that weapon which you brandish a new, althô you know it had been broken in Viscount Falkland's hand, whence you took it.   

SECTION IU. 

1. No possibility of salvation in schism.  
2. Protestants truly Schismatics.  
3. Catholics hold their salvation desperate.  
4. A parallel betwixt Protestants, & Donatists.    
D. Morley, The jesuit said, that doubless it was more prudent, & safe, to venture a man's self in that Church where in all agree, he may besaved; than in one where in all Catholics say a man cannot be saved. The Doctor replied: it was rather the usual saying, than the settled judgement of all Catholics: for F. knot says the case may be such that a Protestant, dying such, may be saved; which is as much as Protestants grant to Papists. And then it would out of this reason follow, it were more safe to be of the Donatists' persuasion, than a Catholic: for S. Austin granted that a Donatist could be saved; where as the Donatists did affirm, that who soever was not a Donatist could not besaved.  
Revisor. all the substance of what I will here say is contained in this syllongisme: None out of the true Church of Christ & a schismatic, can be saved. The Protestants are out of the true Church of Christ or schismatics. Therefore they cannot be saved.  
The first Proposition or Major, that none can be saved out of the true Church of Christ, is so clear in scripture, in Fathers, & even in Heretics themselves, that all must see it, who do not wilfully shut their eyes. My first Proof, the Church is the Body of Christ. Colos. 1.24. For his (Christ's) Body which is the Church. Upon which words S. Austin discourses thus 1. lib. Cont. Epistolam Petiliani Donat. c. 2. Vnde manifestum est eum, qui non est in membris Christi, Christianam salutem habere non posse. Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per candem capiti suo coherent, quod est Christus jesus. Hence it is evident, that who is not part of Christ's body cannot attain to Christian salvation. And those are in Christ's body, who are linked together, & to their head with the love of union. And in his 19 Chapter. Ad salutem, & vitam aeternam nemo pervenit, nisi qui habet caput Christum. Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit, nisi qui in eius corpore fuerit, quod est Ecclesia. No man can be saved, unless Christ be his Head. But Christ can be head to no man, who is out of his Body, which is the Church.  
My 2. proof Rom. 8.9. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. S. Austin alluding to these words, tract. 27. in joan says: Christi spiritus neminem animat, qui non sit de corpore eius. Christ's spirit doth quicken none but such as are in his Body that is in the Church.  
3. Proof: It seems the express words of Christ joan. 15.6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, & is withered, & men gather them, & cast them into the fire, & they are burnt. This is the doom of such as abandon Christ's Body, which is the Church, according to the express words of the Apostle Colos. 1.24.  
4. Proof out of Fathers. S. Austin, l. 4. de Bapt. cont. Donat. C. 1. having said, that the rivers which risse in Paradise watered Mesopotamia & Egypt, though these countries were not partakers of the happiness of Paradise: so Baptism may be had out of the Church; yet could not convey eternal Bliss but to those who are within It, which hath received the keys to bind, & lose. And lib. cont. Faustum manich. 12. C. 17. Praeter arcam omnis caro, etc. Out of the Ark all creatures living on the Earth were destroyed by the deluge, because out of the Communion of the Church, the water of Baptism, althô it be the same, out, as in the Church; yet it avails not to salvation; but rather to ruin.  
S. Cyprian hath a long treatise against Schismatics. In it he says, they are the work of the devil, who finding his Temples abandoned, his Altars overturned, his sacrifices contemned, his rites slyghted, & his kingdom destroyed by the conversion of the world to Christianity, with design to recover his interest on Earth, introduced Schisms, & multiplied Schismatics. And what opinion he S. Cyprian had of them take in these words: Can he retain his Faith, who does not retain the Communion of the Church? & can any man hope to be in the Church, who resists it? who abandons the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church is built? whosoever leaving the Church, cleanness to the Harlot, foregoes all promises made to the Church, he becomes a stranger, a profane man, & an enemy. God is not a Father to him, who owns not the Church his mother. And he assures that nether Faith, nor working of miracles, nor knowledge of mysteries, not martyrdom itself, can entitle a man to eternal life, who dies in a Schism, that is out of the Communion of the Church.  
To be short, see what the Fathers say severally against the Meletians, the Quarto decimans, the Novatians, the Donatists, & others. With what fervour they plead the necessity of Communion with the Church: & with what horror they reject the crime of Schism which some think the greatest of crimes.  
My 5. proof is, Remission of sins is necessary to attain Heaven. That is not to be found but in the Church. Wherefore in the Creed, after the Article of the Holy Catholic Church, two others are added: the Communion of Saints, & Remission of Sins, as being sequels of, & dependants on that other. Which is Calvin's Reflection.  
My 6. Proof is from the Testimony of such as were actual Schismatics themselves. Calvin l. 4. Instit. C. 1. S. 4. says: Discamus ex hoc uno matris Elogio quam utilis sit nobis Eccesiae Communio, imo necessaria: quando non alius est ad vitam ingressus, nisi nos ipsa concipiat in utero, nisi pariat, nisi nos alat suis uberibus, denique sub custodiâ, & gubernation nos teneat, donec exuti carne mortali, similes erimus Angelis .... Add quod extra eius gremium nulla speranda est peccatorum remissio nec ulla salus. The Church is our Mother: out of which title we may learn how useful, nay how necessary is our Communion with her: seeing there is no possibility of attaining to life unless she conceives us in her womb, brings us forth, suckles us with her breasts, protect, & defends us till leaving this mortal life, we become like unto Angels .... Out of her bosom no hopes of Remission of Sins, nor of salvation. Whence he concludes: Semper exitialis est ab Ecclesiâ discessio. It is always damnable to departed from the Church. Thus this grand sower of Schisms, the greatest Enemy to Church Communion, that ever was: whose furious spirit communicated with his writings hath caused more discords, Schisms, Seditions, Rebellions & Murders, than all other sects together: His followers sometimes wanting Power; but never the will to introduce those plagues their ordinary Attendants.  
How odjous this sin is, appears by the industry all Heretics use, to remove it from themselves, & charge it on the Catholics: as knowing it to be of so deformed a nature that nothing can excuse it: & the stain it leaves of so deep a dye, that a flood of Tears cannot wash it out. Thus much to prove the major, or first Proposition I pass now to the minor, or second.  
2. That Protestants are out of the true Church, the body of Christ, & true Schismatics is evident. Luther, their Pratriarck renounced all Communion with the Roman Church: & nether before, nor after communicated with any Church, even Schismatic. So he separated, when he began to Dogmatise from all Christians living, for he had not gotten followers, & consequently had not framed them into a Church. Wherefore if ever any one was a Schismatic, he was one. Such were likewise those who joined with him in that sinful separation. And he, and they continued such, till their dying day, even when framed into a Congregation: for Non firmatur tractu temporis, quod ab initio de jure non subsistit Reg. juris. Process of time cannot make an Action legal, which from the beginning is contrary to law. Perseverance in sin is a circumstance, which aggravates it: & it is a Paradox to say, that a heinous crime should cease to be such, for being long continued: as if the devil could become a saint, by being obstinate in his wickedness. A new way to sanctity, unknown to ancients. So my minor is undeniable.  
So then the first Protestant made a true Schism: those, who joined in Communion with him, joined in a true Schism: & those, who continu in it, are in a true Schism, & true Schismatics. So The guilt of Schism, (a sin of the first magnitude) lies at the Protestanes door: they are [Say Papists] If they live & dye Protestants, with out hopes of salvation, as living & dying in a grievous mortal sin. Which is the conclusion of that syllogism.  
You say 1. that we forced you upon the Separation by imposing upon our Communion unlawful conditions. Which is Gratis dictum, said without any sufficient proof: for no one point of our faith was ever proved false by you, we having much stronger grounds, for, than you again it. So the most you can draw from your reasons is that our doctrine is not absolutely certain: whereas nothing can excuse your Schism, but an absolute total certainty, that the thing is naught, which we enjoin. v. c. Prayers to Saints: because you ran in to Schism, to avoid a thing, which you know not certainly whether it be good, or bad. Nay you have much greater reason to judge good, than otherwise, 1. for the authority of the past, & present Church practising it: & 2. because you rather reproach us with indiscreet speeches of pious men, or some practice of silly women, then with the doctrine of the Church, defined in our Councils. Which shows you have little to say against our Church doctrine, which is the only thing we enjoin. So you are inexcusable.  
Indeed these reproaches of errors are not the cause; but the effect of your separation. For out of love to dear liberty, you resolved to renounce all subjection to Christ's vicar upon earth: then to secure this, you resolved to separate from his Communion by a Schism; to justify this Schism, these pretexts were invented. And by a just judgement of God the disobedient children of your Church, have meeted you the same measure & framed in your bosom another Schism on the same pretences.  
You say 2. Our excommunicating you was the cause of the Schism: so the causal Schism is on our side. But this is far from satisfiying any thinking man, who calls to mind, that you had forced the excommunication by precedent & justified it by subsequent crimes. Before any sentence was pronounced against you, you had broke the interior Communion with the Church, by altering Faith, & the exterior Communion, by renouncing obedience to the Head of the Church; so the Excommunication was subsequent to the Schism: & what did the Reformation begun before, but perfected after that clap of thunder? Erection of one Altar against another, or rather destruction of all Altars: profanation of Churches, robbery of all sacred vessels, & ornaments, pursuing with fire & sword these who for conscience sake remained in the Catholic Communion. Now what hopes of salvation left? None unless Schism, sacrilege, rapine, CALUMNY, PERIURY, MURTHER, & Heresy, be venial sins, & though unrepented, leave hopes of salvation? For the guilt of all these, & many more ye have contracted, since your separation from the centre of Ecclesiastical Communion. So your debt contracted by the separation is great: but your following demeanour hath inflamed your reckoning to a prodigious sum, not to be discharged with any ordinary satisfaction: & which is yet increased by a pretence to jnnocency, & a resolution to justify all these crying sins.  
I acknowledge with S. Austin l. 6. de verâ Relig. C. 6. that some jnnocent persons by Ecclesiastical censures may be cast out of the exterior Communion of the Church: that De facto, this hath happened to some: that such Persons interiorly retain the Communion with the faithful provided they contain themselves Intra limites inculpatae tutelae, do nothing unlawful, bear their cross patiently, invent no errors, practise nothing for revenge, attempt not to break open the Church doors, to force a readmittance, nor bar them up, to hinder it: do not endeavour to withdraw others from the Church, to increase the number of separatists, & make themselves considerable, by becoming heads of a Party. Give me such a man, & though he seem to live, & die in a Schism, I shall hope for his salvation, with S. Austin. Whose words are these: Sinit divina providentia per nonnullas nimium turbulentas carnalium hominum sediditiones, expelli de Congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros, quam contumeliam, vel iniuriam suam, cum patientissimè pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint, neque ullas novitates vel schismatis, vel haeresis moliti fuerint: docebunt homines quam vero affectu & quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit. Talium ergo virorum propositum est, aut sedatis remeare turbinibus, aut si id non sinantur, vel câdem tempestate perseverante, vel ne de suo reditu talis, aut gravior oriatur, tenent voluntatem consulendi etiam ijs ipsis, quorum motibus, perturbationibusque cesserunt, sine ullâ conventiculorum segregatione, usque ad mortem defendentes, & testimomio iuvantes eam Fidem, quam in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ praedicari sciunt. Hos coronat in occulto Pater, in occulto videns. Thus S. Austin: divine providence some times permits that even good men are by turbulent spirits cast out of the Church: who if they bear patiently this disgrace, & wrong, for the Peace of the Church, without endeavouring to frame a Shisme, or broach heresies, they will by their example teach men, with what sincere charity they ought to serve God. Such men intent either to return to the Church, when the storm is blown over, or if they cannot return, either because the storms ceases not, or to prevent another storm continue quietly, without gathering conventicles, defending to their Power that Faith, which they know is taught in the Church. Such as these are crowned in secret, by the Father, who seethe in secret.  
How many are there of your Party, who have thus peaceably demeaned themselves? I mean of the more conspicuous & governing, or leading part?  
Vix totidem, quot  
Thebarum Portae vel divitis ostia nili.  
Scarce as many, as the Muses, or even the Graces. So the number, that on this score can pretend to salvation, is very inconsiderable. For the rest, how different is their proceeding from the others, of whom S. Austin hopes well? these bear the wrong done to them patiently for the love of peace of the Church, you by tongue & pen, & hands show your Passion. These introduces no novelties, & cause no Schisms, or heresies; you do the contrary. These desire, to return to the Church, the storm being over; you raise new storms, & endeavour to perpetuate the separation. These defend the Faith preached in the Church; you impugn it. Those love Peace; you hate it, & persecute all promoters of it. These are guilty of no crime, which may deserve the Churchs' censure; you have provoked the Heads of the Church, to inflict on you such a punishment. These are ready to undergo any Penalty, without deserving it, you deserve it, & will undergo none. In fine these are jnnocent; you guilty, & guilty of a great crime, & aggravate it, by glorying in it, Peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicaverunt. So we must conclude, that their example serves not to justify, but to condemn you, who differ so much from them, & therefore though we grant with that great saint, that There is life in the way of these; yet your way leads to Death.  
3. Wherefore it is both an Usual saying, & a Settled judgement of Catholics, that Protestants remaining such, cannot be saved. Because that name imports two grievous sins: Schism, by separation from the Communion of the Church, & Heresy, by believing errors contrary to Faith. Which two sins taken severally, or together; make us despair of their salvation.  
You pretend, Protestants will say the like of Papists. I reply, it may be so: but have they such strong grounds, for that saying, as Catholics have. In 1642. the Factious part of the Parliament did vie with the loyal & peaceable party in verbal expressions of Duty & Allegiance to their sovereign. But on the one side were only words; & reality on the other: & it was I think not necessary, to cast a figure, to discern which side only pretended Allegiance; but intended the contrary. And it is as visible, whether side in Religion aims at Peace, & maintains the ancient Faith, & which innovates, the words of both parties being uncyp hered by their actions, the best interpreters of them.  
Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remains in force, that it is safer to join with the Catholics, than with the Protestants (as it was safer to avoid Treason, to join with the king, than with the Parliament) there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholic Church: & two great sins, Schism, & Heresy, in joining with the Protestants.  
You say, that this Reason would prove, that in S. Austin's time it was safer to join with the Donatists, than with the Catholics, seeing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved; & the Donatists denied that possibility to the Catholics. Answer: you are here grossly mistaken [pardon that word] for S. Austin never said a Donatist remaining such Can be saved; nay a great part of his works against them is employed to prove, that they cannot be saved, that their Baptism avails them nothing, but serves for their greater damnation. Let me beseech you, only to open any leaf, any page, of the several books written against them, there is none, which will not correct that mistake. What you should say is, only, that both sides owned true Baptism amongst the Donatists; which these denied amongst Catholics. Which argument the Donatists not only might; but did make use of, to pervert Catholics, as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont. Donat. c. 3. & l. 2. cont. Petilianum, c. 108. & else where.  
To this I answer, that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catholic is of no force, he having no good ground at all for that reason to rely on, & therefore denying Baptism in the Catholic Church, only out of a peevishness of nature, & Religion: & it was by them said with no more cause, than Quakers had to say: Thou art damned, when they had nothing else to say. Where as Catholics prove that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason, drawn from those two crying sins, Schism, & Heresy, of which we accuse the Protestants, & these do not, nay cannot sufficiently clear. I have all ready explicated these reasons. That those of the Donatists were frivolous, is evident, for they said: some Bishops of the Catholic Communion were Traditores, had delivered the sacred books to the Persecutors, & that all Catholics by communicating with them, did contract the same guilt, & had lost the Holy Ghost. And hence they inferred, there could be no valid Baptism in the Catholic Communion: for those who have not the Holy Ghost, cannot give him to others.  
To which the Catholics answered, 1. that those Bishops accused of that shameful compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians, were jnnocent of that crime, which was never sufficiently proved upon them: & no man ought to be condemned unless the crime be evidently proved against him.  
2. They answered, that althô the persons accused were really guilty, yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholics communicating with them: because another man's sin cannot prejudice me, unless I make it my own by commanding, or persuading, approving, defending, or imitating it. Now the Catholics were so far from being accessary to that pretended sin in another, that they detested the sin, & always condemned it, in all persons, who were really guilty of it: but never could find sufficient grounds to pronounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it, as those would have them do.  
They answered 3. that supposing (not granting) that the Persons accused were really guilty, & that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholics, by communicating with them: yet their Baptism might be valid, this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister, but on the justitution, & promises of Christ, & the operation of the Holy Ghost. Hence S. Austin said he did not regard Peter when he Baptises, nor Paul, nor john, nor judas; but he considered the Holy Ghost, who is the Baptist, who ever he be who washes the body, & pronounces the words, as Minister of that Sacrament.  
You see how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were, to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholic Church. Show that ours are as frivolous, & I will grant the parity: but this you can never do. So our Reason stands good against you; that of the Donatists against us falls to the ground.  
It seems not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists, there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churches, that they may seem sisters, & the later to have copied the other: which appears by these parallel points.  
1. Donatists were not where out of one corner of the world, Africa: & Protestants of the Church of Eng. [that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine, & Hierarchy] no where out of England.  
2. Donatists said theirs was the only perfect, unspotted Church; you say yours is the only Apostolical Church, perfectly reform etc.  
3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pretended faults of particular men: you to justify yours allege some indiscreet devotions of old women, and unwary words of some (otherwise) pious Authors.  
4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture, which you use against us; And the Fathers proved against them the Universality of the Church, & the necessity of Communion with her, out of the same texts, which we use against you.  
5. Donatists called Rome the seat, or Chair of pestilence; you call it a Pest-house, [letter to her R. H. P. 17.] & the seat of Antichrist.  
6. Those had their Circumcellions, who thought to do God good service, in murdering Catholics: you have some of the same persuasion, as appears by their works. Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions, & the new ones: Those, when the toy took them, would either break their own necks, or force others to cut their throats; & the new ones in this do not imitate them, they love too much their mother's sons.  
7. Those had the Maximianists, who left them for the same reasons, they had broken off Communion with the Church, these have the Presbiterians, & others, who will not conform with them upon the same grounds, for which they refuse to conform to the Catholic Church.  
8. And lastly: the Nonconformist donatists made evident to the world, that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholic Communion, by forcing them to solve their own Objections against the Church, [of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract. C. 35.] And your Non conformists with the same success force you to answer all your pretences against us, & break those weapons, with which you have hitherto fought against the Church.  
Those who will take the pains to examine further the Donatists' principles, will discover more points of agreement betwixt them, & you. These are sufficient to show, that what is now hath been before, & will be: & that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith, & ways of defending it; so Factious spirits, & seditious Brethren break her Communion, turn Schismatics, broach heresies, & impugn her, & defend themselves, with the same principles.  
I am now arrived at the end of this real, or pretended Conference, without omitting any one material point of it. I hope I have given reasonable satisfaction; of which others will judge more impartially, than myself, if I am mistaken, by judging too favourably of my own labours, & my replies be found unsatisfactory, I desire that defect be charged on my weakness; not on the cause, I defend, which is invincible, being secured by the promise of Christ from all possibility of error, for Against it the gates of Hell shall never prevail. I have given a reason in the preface, why I take no notice of the Father's answers, as they are couched in this Relation. My intention is only to defend the Church, from the Objections of the Learned Doctor. To which it is enough, to show, (as I think I have done) that his Premises are false, his Jllations incoherent, & his whole discourse not convincing. Thus Wisdom is justified of her children. Mat. 11.19.    

THE SECOND BOOK. A REVISION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SENSES AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  

THE PREFACE.  
I Never began to read any Treatise with greater Horror, nor ended, with greater Indignation, than this, which I now come to review. Horror, to see doubts of divine Doctrine submitted to the depositions of faculties common to Beasts, a jury of the Senses impanelled to decide controversies of Faith, & set on a throne, to judge the judge of the world, & determine the meaning of the words of eternal Truth, of divine veracity, althô they are uncapable of understanding the words of the meanest understanding, & most illiterate Peasant. I expect shortly to see some other appeal to Beasts seeing many of the better sort of these surpass man, as to quickness of Senses, which in them are much more perfect, then in most, if not all men: & therefore may be said to be more competent judges of the objects of Senses, than men can be. Indeed Seducers proficiunt in peius, wax worse, & worse, 2. Tim. 2.13. & it is not so great a step from the Senses of men, to those of Beasts, (which are of the same Species, & are rather more, than less perfect in their kind I as it is from the Church directed by the Holy Ghost, for our jnstruction in Faith, to Carnal senses: That having something of divine, by reason of the Holy Ghost assisting; these being mere Corporal, & below all that hath any thing of Reason. A fit judge indeed for such a Church, as the Protestant is!  
My horror changed into Indignation, when I heard the Verdict brought in by this jury, the Sentence pronounced by this Umpire, this Brutish judge [yet from such a judge little less could be hoped for, in such a matter] by which, the Scripture is silenced, Tradition trampled under foot, Fathers rejected, the Practice & Faith of the whole Catholic Church condemned, the Communion with all Faith full, all the Catholic Church renounced, & a horrid & execrable Schism authorized, And all this upon the deposition of so vile a witness, & by the Sentence of so contemptible a judge, as Carnal sense. And this Sentence accepted of, recommended by a learned Doctor of divinity, & a pretended Right Reverend Bishop. Is Christianity, is Divine Faith brought to this?  
Yet I find one sign of Modesty (unless it were rather Cunning, & craftiness in adorning the stage for this piece of Pageantry, & disposing for this extravagant judgement) that there is either no mention at all, of the grounds of Catholic Faith in this treatise: or else it is so silent, & low a mention, that it is scarce perceptible. For had you set before the eyes of your Readers, the practice of the Church, the Testimonies of Fathers, the decrees of councils, the written, & unwritten word of God, in fine the unanimous vote of the primitive & present Church, averring that to be Christ's Body & Blood, the Readers would not have heard the sentence of this mock judge, would have pulled him off the Bench, & forced him to yield the victory to Truth. For if we Must pull out our eye if it scandalise us: we must shut our eyes, stop our cares, renounce all our Senses, when thy contradict God's express word. But if by this you made sure of such a sentence, as you wished, you discovered the unjustice of it, by not admitting the plea of the contrary party. For, qui statuit aliquid parte inauditâ alterâ, aequum licet statuerit, hand aequus fuit.  
This argument is not of the Doctor's invention, it is as old, as the Sacramentarian Heresy. Berengarius used it, so did Zuinglius, & Calvin, & F. Stillingfleet, & G. Burnet. And the answer is as common. To confute this Treatise it were enough to reprint the 33. Chapter of Anti-Haman: so no new reply is necessary. Yet lest he think himself neglected, I will review what he says.   

SECTION V. 

1. Ancient Fathers re'yed not on sense.  
2. S. Paul teaches the senses are not to be relied on.  
3. Reason convinces the same.    
SEnses no competent judges in this Controversy. Are not our Senses the same now, as they were a thousand or sixteen hundred years ago? Are their objects changed? Are not the sensations they cause the same now as then? Did not Bread taste like Bread, & wine like wine than, as well as now? Are not their colour, & odour the same at all times? And had not men then as much reason to rely on their Senses, in framing a judgement of their objects, as now? Sure they had. Now what judgements did Ancients frame of this object, in debate? Let S. Cyril of Jerusalem speak for all the rest. Althô it seems to be Bread, yet it is not Bread: Althô it seems to be wine, yet it is not wine. Thus this great saint, & ancient Father, delivering Christian Doctrine in a Catechism. So this is not his private sentiment; but that of the Church, not things of his own invention; but of public Tradition. Till then Christians retained a sincere, & entire veneration for the word of God; they hearkened indeed to Senses; but more to God: & when these two interfered, one saying That is Christ's Body, the other it is not such, It is Bread, they did not hesitate which to follow, they easily resolved, pronounced in favour of Faith, & subscribed to the son of God, Who had words of life, even life everlasting. Io. 6.69.  
Animalis homo non percivit ca quae sunt spiritus Dei, etc. says the Apostle, 1. Cor. 2.14. The natural man, as your Translation hath-it, Receives not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Thus the Holy Apostle is not Faith one thing of the spirit of God? Is it not of Faith [or revealed Truth preached by the Apostle] that he speaks in that place? Now if Faith be above the reach of the whole Natural man, how comes it to be below Senses, which are his lowest faculties? Just as if what the Apostle says is over my head, you should say is under my feet. But why doth not the Natural man receive Faith? Because It is foolishness unto him. And just such is Transubstantiation to you, & therefore is laughed at by you, the other reason is convincing: He cannot receive Faith, Because it is spiritually discerned. Are Senses spiritual faculties? can they Spiritually discern? If not [as certainly they cannot] pull them off the throne, on which you placed them, of which they are unworthy as being uncapable of discerning the thing in question, which is of The spirit of God, spiritual, & discerned only spiritually.  
No less; but rather more evident are the words of the same Apostle, 2. Cor. 10.4. The weapons of our warfare, says he, are not carnal; but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, & every high thing, that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God: & bringing into captivity every Thought to the obedience of Christ .... do ye look on things after the outward appearance? Thus your own Translation Which words decide the thing in question: For first it is evident he speaks of the Doctrine he preached, which is Faith. And in the first place he clearly discards outward Senses from any share in this judgement? The weapons of our warfare are not carnal: now Senses are Carnal, as is clear.  
2. He rejects inward Senses: Casting down all jmaginations.  
3. He teaches that our understanding must also be subject. Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.  
Thus according to the Apostle, all faculties of soul & body, spiritual, & carnal, interior, & exterior, must veil bonnet to Faith, which is termed Mighty through God. The last question, Do ye look on things according to their out ward appearance? Is a conclusion of the foregoing discourse, & cuts all the nerves of the Doctor's argument. Which is totally grounded Upon out ward appearance to carnal sense. Let us apply the Apostles meaning to our present purpose, by some few questions.  
What will you say that is, on the Holy Altar Mr. Dr? Answer: Bread & wine. But why do you think it to be bread & wine? Answer: we look on the out ward appearance, & judge of the thing after that.  
You know, sir, that the Catholic Church all over the word, even Luther himself, believed it to be the Body & Blood of Christ: with what weapons do you combat their opinion? Answer: The weapons we fight with, are Carnel; they are the senses.  
Now let us propose such questions to a Catholic. What do you believe that to be, which is on the Altar? Answer: the true Body & Blood of Christ.  
But why do you believe it to be the Body & Blood of Christ? Answer: Because Christ says it is so: & the Church teaches me, his words are so to be understood.  
Doth it appear to be the Body & Blood of Christ? Answer: no. But We look not on things after the out ward appearance, when that is not conformable to the word of God, delivered to us by the Church.  
With what weapons do you combat the contrary error? Answer: The weapons we use Are not carnal sense; But mighty through God, to destroy all jmaginations, & beat down all thoughts which are raised in us in opposition to the divine, & revealed truth.  
3. If we consult Reason in this debate, we shall see, that Senses ought not to be admitted as judges, it being absolutely impossible, they should understand the matter in question: & therefore cannot possibly pronounce sentence, on either side. For what is the question? What is the meaning of those words: of our Blessed saviour: This is my Body: this is my Blood: for I suppose your jmpiety is not arrived to that height, as to deny his words to be true: or say, you would not believe any thing to be, what he plainly, & undeniably says it is. That is, you do not believe that God doth, or can tell a Lye. Otherwise farewell all Faith: & we must make use of other Mediums to deal with you. Our dispute then being about the sense of those words of Christ, I prove, that our senses cannot judge in it, with this argument.  
Senses cannot judge of things, which are not their proper objects: But such are the things in debate in this controversy: Therefore senses cannot judge of these things.  
The major, or first Proposition is clear. For the eye cannot judge of a found, because it is not its proper object. Nor the ear of a colour for the same reason. The same of all other senses. Wherefore no sense can judge of any thing, that is not its proper object.  
The minor, or second proposition, viz, things in debate here are not the proper object of Senses, is also self evident: For the proper meaning, or signification of words, is the proper object of no sense. But the matter here in debate, is the proper meaning or signification of the words of Christ. Therefore it is the proper object of no sense.  
These Premises are so evidently true, that I think it enough only to prove the first Proposition: & this I do by induction, for nether eye, nor nose, nor palate, nor hand, nor ear can see, taste smell, feal, or hear the signification of words, wherefore no sense can perceive it. The only doubt can be about Hearing, by reason of the convexion betwixt the sound of an Articulate word (which is the object of the ear) & the signification of it: yet even here my Proposition is true: for the same articulate sound is insignificant to one who understands it not: & sometimes signify different things to persons of different languages. v. c. Lego, to a Latinist signify I read: to a Grecian, I speak: to an English man nothing. Yet the sound in the ear is the same to all these three. Indeed if it were not so, by learning anew language, our ears should be changed, & framed in a different manner, to represent the new signification. Which I suppose no body will say.  
As to the other Proposition [the minor] that our dispute is about the signification of those words, is as evident: For our sentiment is grounded on the words being taken literally: yours upon their being taken figuratively. Both which are the several significations.  
One thing only occurs in answer to this, viz, that the literal signification is so absurd, that it cannot be admitted. Answer: this is said, but not proved: & in du place these absurdities will be considered, & I hope found to be no bsurdities. Answer 2. this doth not satisfy my reason: for no Absurdity can make any faculty judge of what it cannot know. As no Absurdity can make me a competent judge of a composition in the Chinese language, of which I am entirely ignorant.  
Here I might lay down my pen, it already appearing, that all you can allege from Senses can signify nothing, seeing they cannot depose of a thing they are totally strangers to: & you say nothing but from Senses. It was indeed a great sign of a bad cause, when you appealed from the proper judges, to those, who are in competent: & there plead as earnestly, as if you were in earnest, when all is only to amuse your reader, by drawing his Attention, from what might instruct him, to what cannot, as women amuse children with Rattles. Indeed your discourse, & these, are alike significant, as will appear, by discussing the particulars. I will before I pass to that, inquire further into the nature, & force of senses.   

SECTION VI. 

1. What nature chiefly intended by our senses?  
2. Deceits of touching, tasting, & smelling.  
3. Deceits of the sight, & Hearing.  
4. Senses ought not to be attended, when they depose things contrary to the word of God.    
1. THat by our Senses we come to the knowledge of several objects, is an undoubted Truth. Our understanding by its Creation receives little or no knowledge at all, if we believe Philosophers: & therefore Aristotle compares it to a white Paper, or a clear cloth to paint on, in which there is nether one letter written, nor one line drawn: the task of filling up that Paper, or table, being left to objects, which by the means of Senses, as by their Pens, or Pencils, writ or delineat their Resemblances, or Pictures, [which are the knowledges, we have of them] in our mind.  
Some think this is as the most noble, so the most necessary work of senses, & that which nature, in giving them to us chiefly, & even only intended. Others say this is only an accidental, & additional employment scarce intended directly by nature: which in the first place designed them as so many life-guards, or sentinels, to man, to discover, & give timely notice of Approaching objects, & their condition of Friends, or Foes, good, or bad, hartfull, & displeasant; or pleasant, & comfortable: to the end man might not be surprised; but prepared to receive those favourable, & reject & defend itself from the rest. This is the opinion of the french Author of The search of Truth, in the first book of that work: in which by many instances, & experiences he proves that the Senses are frequently mistaken, & deceive us, when soever they stretch beyond that duty, of informing man of the advantage, or disadvantage he may receive from an unexpected, & otherwise unknown neighbour: yet it is undeniable, that they are subservient, & very officious in providing matter for the understanding to work upon, & the sight above all the rest. Those who are desirous of larger prooses of the deceits of those sentinels, & of the false alarms they give, may find satisfaction in that neat Author. My design being here no other, than to show, that the Senses cannot be always relied on, in the reports they make, it will be sufficient to prove by some few, but clear, & undeniable examples, that the Senses some, nay many times do misinform us, by representing things otherwise than they are; and (which is chiefly to our purpose) some times things, which are not.  
First as to Feeling, or Touching, Tactus, those who have lost aleg, or an Arm, feel many times the same pain, as it were in the hand, or foot, as if they had them. Mr. Starkey having in the King's service lost aleg, felt a pain as in that foot [though it had been long before buried] as if it were tickled in the sole with a Feather, sometimes as if it had been trodden on: with a pain sometimes dull, sometimes quick, & sharp, not only equal, to; but even surpassing those, which he had felt, before that loss. It is not to my purpose to inquire into, & explicate the causes of these effects, my design not being to write of mere Philosophical things, further than is necessary to discover that the Senses, of Feeling doth deceive us, by representing a substance, where there is none: & such is that sensation of a Feather tickling, and a foot, or some other hard body pressing upon ours, althô this itself is no more in being.  
Our Taste doth in alike manner deceive us, for Tobacco being totally consumed in a Pipe, the Air sucked through it shall for a while have the perfect taste of the smoke of Tobacco althô it be pure Air, with a tincture of the consumed weed from the warmed Pipe. Alike instance we have in some cider (which S. Austin calls Vinum vinosissimum de pomis) and Metheglin, or Hydromel, which if good, & stolen, & well kept, hath so strong a taste of Aqua vitae, that some could scarce be persuaded, that one half of it, was not of that distilled liquor.  
The Smell is the dullest, & easy est imposed upon of all Senses. Hold a clod of bay fault, newly taken up about Broüage in France [where there is always great quantity of it] to the nose of a man hoodwinked, & he shall take it for a nosegay of violets.  
3. The quickest, & least corporal of all our Senses is the sight: yet it is obnoxious to many deceits. The appearances of a medal in abasin, full of water, which though at the bottone seems at the top: jtem of an oar, which half under water seems broken, I omit, as trivial, & ordinary. Our sight discovers no distance betwixt the top of a hill, or the ridge of a house beyond which the moon rises: nay our eyes represent her as touching, or contiguous to them. It represents the sun, & moon as plain, althô both be spherical. It represents the dïameter of the moon (& sun) lesser when she is in our meridian, then when she is rïsing above, or falling under our Horizon: though it should appear greater as being a whole semidiameter of the Earth, nearer us, when in our meridian, then when in the east or west, if she moves in a perfect circle. Our eyes represent the sun, & moon, as at an equal distance: & all the fixed stars, as in one planis sphere: which our new Sceptics will scarce assent to.  
Our eyes in sublunary things are as uncertain. Look from a Bridge steadfastly on the water, & this shall seem to stand, & the other move. Inaship under sail, the shore seems to move; & not the ship: Hence the Poet: Terraeque Vrbesque recedunt.  
we fixed stay  
The land, & Towns do run away  
Look in a straight line with a Canon bullet, not withstanding the the unconceivable swiftness of its motion, it will seem to the eye to have none at all, except a little falling towards the end. Of how many Angels do we read in scriptures, who appeared like men? As Raphael to Tobias, Gabriel, to Zacharie, & the Blessed Virgin; others to joshua, Gedeon, Manue, & c.? What variety of colours in a Rainbow, & a Pigeon's neck? Here some reflected light affects the eye as if it were real colours: & in the other examples, a little condensed air looks like the real body of a man. Examples of this nature might be multiplied without end, were it need full: but these are enough to prove, that our eyes are in many things mistaken, representing things in motion, which stir not; & in rest others, which move: showing substance other than it is, & colours where there are none.  
As for Hearing, some raving have seemed to hear a consort of music. A person of my acquaintance was once awakened with an exceeding great noise, as if guns had been shot off at his bed side. Calling to mind, that there was nether Canon, nor any thing else, near, which could cause that vast noise, he concluded it must be something in his ear; & picking it, he pulled out a little insect, bred in some roses, which the day before he had thrown over the tester of his bed, which falling from them, & creeping into his ear, with the motion of its little tender feet caused that huge noise.  
Wither these, & such like instances of the uncertainty of our Senses, sufficiently prove, that they were not designed by the Author of nature, God almighty, for instruments of sciences, or to conveygh new notions into our mind, or only, as Guards, or sentinels, for our security, & preservation, (the only thing they can be designed for in Beasts, though these have their Senses as perfect, as men) I leave to the judgement of others: as also to determine, whither these examples can ground a judgement in that doubt. what I gather hence, is  
That Senses are often mistaken, & that even about their proper objects. That these errors are sometimes corrected by our own reason, or discourse, & some times by advice, or information from other men. For example: we know that on oar hath a strong consistency of parts, to which those of the water yield, as having no consistency at all. Whence though our eyes represent it, as broken in the water, we conclude their deposition false, 1. because water cannot break a strong oar gently thrust into it, & 2. because if it were broken by the water, it would not be whole, when taken out, as we see it is. Thus reason corrects our eyes. By discourse likewise we find, that the diameter of the moon is much bigger, than a foot, as our eyes represent it. Now an illiterate Bumpkin, who knows not how the true quantity of a body seems less, by reason of its distance from the eye, heares one, whom he believes to be a learned clerk, say, the moon is bigger than all his grounds are, & he believes him: & upon his credit, corrects that error of his eyes. So he prefers the word of that learned man before his sight.  
4. It is easy to draw from these premises, the conclusion chiefly intended, viz, that it is rash, & presumptuous to allege, & rely on any sensation contrary to the word of God, or any revealed Truth. For if your reason, & discourse, or the Authority of a man, more knowing, & experienced then ourselves are sufficient to make us frame a judgement different from, or contrary to the depositions of the most perfect of our Senses, our eyes, with much greater reason ought we to suspect their depositions, nay & reject them, when we find them disagree from what God hath attested. For I hope the world is not brought as yet by Dogmatizers to such a degree of Libertinism, & Atheism, as to say, that God either can be deceived himself, through ignorance, or can maliciously deceive us. And if the credit of a man be sufficient to reform the judgements we frame on our sensations, shall that of God be less regarded? Wherefore we must neither prefer Reason before Faith, with Socinus: nor [which is worse] Sense before Faith, with Dr. Morley; but with S. Paul, & the Church, submit both Sense, & Reason, to Faith: & let God be true, & all men liars.  
And this conclusion holds true, whither one, or more Senses bepose the same thing, or whither the revealed Truth be confirmed by any Sense, or no: for if a clown doth prudently prefer the word of one whom he thinks learned, before his sight, which no other sense doth, or can correct, it is certainly prudent to prefer the word of God before all Senses, & before our reason too.   

SECTION VII. How far senses are serviceable to Faith? 

1. Cartesian doubts destroy science, & human society.  
2. Nature of Faith, as it comprehends divine & humane.  
3. Two things necessary to a witness, knowledge & veracity.  
4. Both eminent in the Apostles.  
5. Miracles very serviceable to Faith.    
1. ALthô I think the Senses sometimes are, & often may be mistaken, & for that reason think we ought to reject their depositions, when they are contrary to such things, as we have greater reason to trust to: yet I am far from the senseless error of those, who say, no credit at all is du to them: or that by them we cannot be sufficiently assured, that we have nether horns, nor a coxcomb on our head, that our nose is nether the bill of a cock, nor the trunk of an Elephant: or that our Body is flesh, & not glass, or butter. Which is the sentiment of the Author of the Search of Truth. Cartesius teaches us more, to doubt whither we are awake, or a sleep, or have any body at all. Which doubts, if really admitted, & not pretended only, afford an excellent pretext to all Ignoramus juries: to all malefactors, who may pretend the witnesses are not certain of what they depose: to all Rebels, & Refractory subjects, who may allege their doubts against the King's Proclamation: lastly to all knaves, who may pretend ignorance of the promises, which they have no mind to keep. So this Cartesian way to knowledge, & certainty, by casting off all former knowledge, & senses, as uncertain, lays the Axe at the root of all Authority, dissolves all bonds of commerce amongst men, & is only good to make Sceptics, & Atheists too, seeing it leaves no certain means to teach, or learn Faith, & to understand scripture, or Councils. So that nether Church, nor state can stand, if these doubts against the depositions of Senses, without any ground to the contrary, besides the general fallibility of our Senses themselves, be really admitted.  
Wherefore when D. Morley often repeats, that we deny all authority to our Senses, he is either deceived himself, or deceives his reader, which is worse: for we rely on our Senses, where Reason, or greater Authority doth not contradict them: of both which I have given examples. So a man sees Titius kill Simpronius, & deposes it upon oath: his deposition ought to be admitted, notwithstanding all Cartesian doubts. So Peter relies on a promise of Paul to Pay him within such a time, 100 l. Paul is bound to make it good, & Peter may exact it by law.  
2. Faith taken generally, as it comprehends Divine, & Humane, is an Assent given to a thing as Tru, upon the credit of another. In the first operation of our mind, which consists of single thoughts, called in our schools, Simple Apprehensions, there can nether be Truth, nor Falsehood: these being propertyes of combined thoughts, which are called Propositions [these are the second operation of our mind] for they are true, when conformable to their object: as this The whole is greater, than any part of it. They are false, when not conformable to them, as this: Apart of a body is as great, as the whole. Some add a third kind of Propositions, indifferent to Truth, & Falsehood: but this is only relating to our minds, which are uncertain, whither they be true or false. But in themselves they are determinately either true or false, & it is as certain they cannot be otherwise, as it is certain, that a thing either is, or is not: it being impossible, that any thing should be, & not be, at the same time. That is to say, two contradictions can neither be true, nor false.  
This Truth, or conformity of a Proposition with its object, may be known several ways. 1. by its native light, & self evidence, of the thoughts themselves, which when well understood, evidently appear the same. For example Two & two are four. Jtem: A straight line is the shortest betwixt two points.  
2. By discourse: as when by the thoughts themselves it doth not appear how they agree, we compare them with a third. Thus by applying a line to two bodies, & finding it equal to each severally, we conclude they are both of an equal bigness, 3. by sense: as when I see a man walk, I know he moves. 4. By report of another: as when a friend tells me, he Saw the King a hunting, I take it as a Truth, relying on his word. And this last way of knowing a thing to be true, or giving Assent to it, is properly Faith.  
3. Two things are necessary, to make this Assent prudent. 1. That he who relates the thing to me, (the witness) be not deceived himself. 2. That he doth not deceive me. By reason of the first, we more readily credit an eyewitness, than any other, because a man is less obnoxious to mistake what he sees, than what he hears, or knows by conjectures. For the second, we easilyer believe an honest man, than any other: and we rather believe an honest man with an Oath, then without it: seeing these are greater assurances, that he speaks his mind sincerely, & doth not deceive us. So an Oath is the strongest foundation of human Faith, wherefore by the Apostle it is said to be To men an End of all strife. Heb. 6.16. we will now apply this to Divine Faith.  
Nothing can be more certain, than what God avers. Because he can neither be deceived, being Omniscient, or knowing all things: nor deceive us, by reason of his goodness. So we are never mistaken in believing him. But the assurance we have of what any may says, even upon Oath, is much less. For 1. he may deceived, & think, for example, he saw the King walking, when it was not the King; but some other Person like him. And 2. he may have an intention to deceive us, by making us believe, what he knows to be false: whence no man deserves greater credit, than his personal endowments bear: & to believe him further, is blamed in scripture, He that is hasty to give credit, is light minded. Eccles. 19.4. All this is expressed in few words by the Apostle: Rom. 3.4. God is true; & every man a liar.  
Both Philosophers, & Divines inquire, whither the same thing can be the object of Faith, & Senses, can be seen & believed? & commonly they conclude that it is impossible. At least this seems undoubted of, that, De facto, it is not so.  
For the Apostle says, that Faith is An evidence of things not seen. Heb. 11.1. & S. Austin, tr. 68 & 79. in joan. Quidest fides? Credere quod non vides. Faith is a Belief of things, which we do not see. So that Senses are so far from being the Objectum formale, the motive of our Faith, that it doth not at all depend on them.  
4. The Apostles, being witnesses of the greatest & most important truths, that can be, were careful to persuade their Auditory, 1. that they understood very well the things they preached: & 2. that they did not alter any thing in the delivery of it. And because Eye witnesses are commonly more assured, than others, they mention that 1. cor. 15.8. He was seen of me. 2. Pet. 1.16. We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you, the power, & coming of our Lord jesus-christ; but were eye witnesses of his Majesty,—. This voice, which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. Here are two Senses alleged,  & Hearing. And the beloved Disciple 1.30 1.1. & 3. Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, & our hands have handled of the word of life.— That which we have seen, & heard, declare we that unto you. And S. Peter being to choose a successor to judas, required the choice should be made amongst those, who from the Baptism till the Ascension adhered to Christ. Act. 1.21.22. Of these men, which have companyed with us, all the time, that our Lord jesus went in & out amongst us, beginning from the Baptism of john, unto that same day, that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his Resurrection. And Nicodemus doubting of something, which our faviour had told him, Christ for confirmation of what he said, alleged the like motive: Joan. 3.11. We speak, what we know, & testify what we have seen. And S. Luke in the Preface to his gospel, assures, he writes, what he received from those, who From the beginning were eye witnesses, & ministers of the word, & having a perfect understanding of things, etc.  
Whence is evident, that all that mention of the senses doth not prove, that Faith hath any dependence at all on them; being only alleged to make the Preachers of the Gospel more creditable. But the only true motive of our Faith, is the Veracity of God: the Preachers of the Gospel not delivering their own word; but the word of God: & the Hearers Receiving it not as the word of men; but as it is truly, the word of God. 1. Thes. 2.13. This as to the first qualification of a witness.  
As to the second, that They would not deceive others, was evident from the whole life of the Apostles, free from levity, from vanity, from self interest, etc. & all these strengthened by several other circumstances, whereof each one severally taken had some force; but taken altogether, they convinced all considering men, that it was more them morally impossible, that men so qualifyed, should wittingly tell a lie, or deceive willingly their Auditory. All which things are hinted at in those words: 1. Thes. 1.5. Our Gospel came not unto you in word only; but also in Power, & in the Holy Ghost, & in much assurance (fullness) as ye know WHAT MANNER OF MEN WE WERE amongst you for your sakes QVALES FVERIMUS IN VOBIS PROPTER VOS. And 1. Cor. 2.4. My speech, & my preaching was not with enticing words of men's wisdom; but in demonstration of the spirit, & of Power. Althô it doth not sufficiently appear, whither the words themselves contained that manifestation of the spirit, or the Person, who spoke, or both.  
5. All this was confirmed by Miracles, which may properly enough be called the Broad seal of the King of Kings: for as a Broad seal is a public Attestation of the Truth of a Patent, or Proclamation, to which it is annexed, solikewise a miracle is an Attestation of almighty God of a Truth delivered in his name. Divina potentia etiam factis loquitur, says S Austin, Epist. 49.9.6 Men speak by words; God also by deeds. And Origen contra Celsum l. 2. says the same. This language of God by miracles, is so clear, that even the most stupid understand it; & yet so hard, that none can speak it, but he, who is almighty. Hence Mar. 16 God is said To have confirmed the words with the signs following it. And Heb. 24. To have borne witness with signs, & wonders, & divers miracles, & gifts of the Holy Ghost. So when Christ our Lord Mat. 9.6. said: That ye may know, that the son of man hath Power on Earth to forgive sins he said to the sick of the Palsye: Arise take up thy bed, & go unto thy house: it was to call God to witness that Truth, that he had such a Power: And God by doing the miracle did virtually say. I attest, that he hath such a Power. And who, seeing this, could doubt whither Christ had such a Power, without doubting of the divine veracity?  
Yet we must not hence infer, that Miracles are the formal object of our Faith. For as the only motive, why a Proclamation is obeyed, is nothing else, but the King's will commanding: & the Broad seal serves only to assure us, that is the King's deed. So the sole motive of our Faith is divine veracity authorising what that man, S. Paul, for example, preached; & the miracle confirms us in the persuasion, that man delivers divine Truth.   

SECTION VIII. 

1. 3. Faith by Hearing.  
2. Words are the best of signs.  
4. Scripture the object of Hearing.  
Where of the invention of writing.    
1. THe Doctor of the gentiles, who laboured with greater success in conversions, than all the other Apostles, seems in a particular manner to speak of the Hearing, as conducing to the propagation of Faith in a singular way. His words are these: Rom. 10. a versu 14. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? & how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? & how shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they preach, except they besent? And concludes, so then Faith comes by Hearing, & hearing by the word of God. Which words confound all enthusiasts, & others who undertake to preach, without being lawfully called, or sent by the Holy Ghost. But our present business is to examine, why Faith is so particulary resolved into Hearing. Nothing like this being any where said of any other Sense.  
2. This will be easily understood, if we remember, that, as is abovesaid, Faith is an Assent given to an otherwise unknown Truth on the credit of another. This cannot be done, without the others thought be made known to me: to effect this some outward signs must be used: for men cannot speak to, nor hear one another, as Angels do, by an immediate communication of thoughts; but are forced to make use of outward signs, to which some signification known to both parties, is annexed. Now of all signs, none more easy, or significant, than articulate words, which with their signification are by the Hearing conveyghed to the mind of the Hearer: who by that means comes to know what the other avers, & gives his Assent to it. And so Faith comes by Hearing.  
Yet because there are other ways to communicate our Thoughts, particularly by the eyes, hearing may be thought, not to be the only way to beget Faith. Men may speak to the eyes, by gestures, or motions of Head, Hand, or other parts of the Body, if some meaning be annexed to them. And in this sort of language the ancient Mimi Greeks, & Romans were excellent. Now that mute way of speaking, by gestures of the Body to the eyes, is much out of use, & almost forgotten. As to other senses, they can reckon but very few significant signs: so Hearing surpasses all senses in this, by reason of articulate sounds, which it receives, & passes to the mind. Which I learn from S. Austin l. 2. de Doctrinâ Christianâ, Cap. 3. Tuba, & Tibia & Cythara, daunt non solum suavem; sed etiam significantem sonum. Sed omnia signa verbis comparata, paucissima sunt. Verba enim inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi, quaecumque animo concipiuntur, si ea prodere quisque velit. Several musical instruments give not only a sweet; but also a significative sound. But words are the Princes of all signs, as well for their number & variety, as for their efficacy in signifying.  
Suppose I know a Truth, unknown to another, & would bring him to believe it, how must I do this? 1. I choose words proper to signify my mind, to him. 2. I utter those words, 3. he hears them, & 4. believes the thing to be as I said, because he is persuaded, I am not deceived, nor would deceive him. Thus is propagated Humane Faith. Now to Divine.  
That God can speak without using any words, to the mind immediately, is an undoubted Truth, seeing the greatest part, if not all Revelations were originally made in that nature, to some one Person, who knew certainly not only what was said; but that it was God, who spoke it. But whither this Evidentia rei attestante Deo, this clear knowledge of God affirming it, is consistent with Faith, or transfers that knowledge to another species of science, Vision Theiologi certant, & adhuc sub judice lis est. But this is certain 1. That it is not necessary to Faith, otherwise the mission of Preachers would be superfluous. 2 That God did not use it to all men, to exclude pretences to Enthusiasms of fanatics & prevent the jllusions of the devil. 3. That God seems in propagating his Faith to accommodate himself to the ordinary way of men. A King sends his Ambassadors, whither he goes not in person, with instructions what to say, & credentials to procure belief to what they say: & their words are looked on as the words of the King their master. So God sends the Apostles as his Ambassadors (2. cor. 5.20) he gives them their instructions, to teach what they had learned of him, & for their credentials, he gave them Power 'tis work miracles. Hence The words they spoke, were not received as the words of men; but as they truly were the words of God. 1. Thes. 2.13. And the Faith given to their words, was Divine Faith.  
3. That this was, & is, & to the end of the wood will be, the ordinary way, of conveyghing Faith, is evident. 1. Because the Apostles proposition Faith comes by Hearing, is universal, & unlimited to any time, or place. 2. God sent his Apostles & Disciples to Preach the Gospel, without any express command to use other signs, or write books: & indeed most of those written, were casual. 3. The Apostles sent their successors on alike errand, & with alike Commission: & we find in S. Irenaeus, that Faith was long preserved in some countries, without any written word. 4. Faith (by the Apostle called milk) is still by Parents, Nurses, & such persons instilled into the Tender minds of Infants, even before they are able to read. And if they conceive it rightly, & believe it strongly, they have true divine Faith. 5. The same of several Persons at men's estate, who for Poverty, or other employments, cannot read the scriptures.  
4. Scripture may seem an exception from that general rule, Faith by Hearing; but it is not so, Scripture itself being only an image of what is spoken, & therefore belongs to the same Sense, that words do Hence S. Austiu l. 2. de Doct. Christ. c. 4. Quia verberato aere statim transeunt verba, nec diutius manent, quam sonant, instituta sunt per litteras signa verborum, ita voces ostenduntur non per seipsas; sed per signa quaedam sua. By reason that after a little motion of air, the voice presently vanishs, & is assoon lost as the sound is past, Letters were invented, as signs of words, by which means words are showed, not by themselves; but by their signs. Thus S. Austin. Which was elegautly expressed by a French Poet Brebeuf en sa Pharsale:  
C'est de là que nous vient cet art ingenieux,  
De peindre la parole, & de parler aux yeux  
Et par les traits divers des figures tracées,  
Donner de la couleur, & du corps aux pensées,  
Hence that ingenious art did first arise,  
Of painting words, & speaking to our eyes:  
Where with the pen doth by mysterious draught  
Both colour give, & Body to a thought.  
I do not cite this, as building my assertion upon it; but as a neat expression of what I mean. The ground, on which I rely is scripture, whereof a great part is evidently a description of speeches. For 1. a great part of the Gospel is a Relation of our saviours Admonitions, Sermons, Reprehensions, Justructions, etc. 2. The Acts of the Apostles contain their speeches. 3. the Apocalypse is a representation of visions, & Prophecies revealed to S john. 4. S. Luke in his preface, declares that he writes what he had Herd 5. S. Mark writ what S. Peter preached. Marcus Discipulus, & Interpres Petri, says S. Hierome, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romae a Fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium Mark the Disciple & Interpreter of Peter at the request of the Brethren in Rome, writ in a short Gospel, what he had heard Peter preach.  
My last, & chiefest proof, is from the words of Abraham to the glutton, Luck. 16.29. They (thy Brothers) have moses, & the Prophets, let them hear them. Et verse 31. If they hear not Moses & the Prophets, nether will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead. Here those are said to have Moses, & the Prophets, who have their writings. 2. Moses & the Prophets are said to Speak in their writings, seeing others are said to Hear them.  
Hence I conclude, that the jnstruction we receive from Scripture itself, is reduced to Hearing.   

SECTION IX. 

1. All Senses never contrary to Faith.  
2. Hearing is to correct the other senses.  
3. A conclusion of this digression.    
THe two first points are chiefly aimed at, in all this Preface, & will serve to clear the mist which Humane Reason casts before our eyes, that we may not discern Truth from falsehood, but may embrace a Cloud, for juno; & leave the substance for a shadow.  
Tho' some Senses may, yet all can never be contrary to Faith this is my first conclusion The reason is, Faith must be conveyghed into our mind by some Sense: wherefore that Sense, at least, is not contrary to Faith. Which is evident by the ordinary course of Providence teaching us by Hearing, Preachers, Missions, etc. Of which S. Paul. Rom. 10. Now if God doth at any time by particular inspiration instruct some, that is nothing against this Truth, seeing those thoughes so inspired are conformable to what others Hear: & by consequence not contrary to all Senses.  
2. My second Conclusion is: in matter of Faith, Hearing is preferred before all other Senses. The 1. reason, is, because Hearing is more capable of conveyghing revealed Truths, than any other Sense, nay than all the rest together, it having more significant signs, than all the rest together, as is evident, by the multitude of significant words.  
The second reason is because God doth actually use Hearing, & no other Sense, to communicate to us his Faith: For our whole Duty to God, & our neighbour, what we are bound to believe, & practice, is all delivered either by living words, in Catechisms & Sermons: or in Books, by dead representations of those living words.  
Wherefore when senses interfere in their depositions concerning any object of Faith, we must recurre to Hearing, & adhere to that. For example: Other Senses represent Christ to us, as an ordinary man; Hearing says, he is The only begotten son of God, full of grace, & Truth: we must believe this, & silence the rest. The rest say water only washes from dirt the surface of the Body; this says, it purges the soul from the stain of sin: we must believe this. Why then should not this rule, acknowledged by the Zwinglians in other things to be good, hold in the Blessed Eucharist? So that althô the taste tell us it is bread, & wine, we may subscribe to our Hearing, with S. Cyril nay with the whole Church, & say It is the Body, & Blood of Christ?  
But what if Reason takes the part of the other Senses? Answer I will say still, we must stick however to Hearing. For example: Reason says, the same substance cannot be One & three; Hearing says, the same Divine substance is one in nature, & three in Persons: Our duty is to believe God to be so: & to silence all reasons to the contrary: This is what S. Paul understood, by Pulling down imaginations, & every thought contrary to his Doctrine: & bringing understandings under the subjection of Christ  
I have here delivered, as by a digression, such grounds, as if well used, will be sufficient to resist all the Attacks of God, & his spousés enemies. Yet they are so clear, that I think few can deny them, without rejecting Christianity in some very material points. Yet I have not wandered, in this digression, out of the sight, of my learned friend, D. Morley: if he retains his treatise in his company in passing over these few sections, he will easily observe, there is nothing, but which relates to it. I now return to him the liberty to propose his Argument, & am ready to hear him.   

SECTION X. 

1. The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
2. D Morley's argument against it returned upon him.  
4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine  
4. Nor senses.    
1. D. Morley. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words, This is my Body, Is, that in Sacrament of the Altar, the whole substance of Bread is changed into the Body, & the whole substance of wine into the Blood of Christ: so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread, nor wine; but only the Body, & Blood of Christ under the species, or accidents of Bread, & wine.  
Revisor. Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly, when it is common to all other Oriental Christians, is not hard to guess at: you would insinuate, what you dare not speak out (it is so evidently false) that she [the Ch. of R.] stands alone in this point of Doctrine, whereas all other Christian Churches extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome, their mother, in this point. But let that pass. I acknowledge that you represent our sentiment right. What have you to say against it?  
2. D. Morley: Against this Position I argue thus: that which frustrates all the use, & end of scripture, cannot be the true interpretation of any one place of it. But that interpretation of those words of scripture, frustrates all the end, & use of scripture. Therefore the Ch. of Rome's interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be true.  
I prove the minor, or second proposition thus: that which necessarily implies our Senses are, or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing, may be, & is indeed another, must needs frustrate all the end, & use of all scripture. But that interpretation doth necessarily imply, that our senses may be, & are deceived in their proper objects, by teaching that to be Flesh, & Blood which to all men's Senses appears to be Bread, & wine. Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate, the use, & end of all scriptures.  
Revisor. I deny the minor, or second Proposition of your first syllogism. To the proof of it, 1. I will let the mayor, or first Proposition, pass, althô it be not true: for mine, & all men's senses in the world represent the moon bigger in the east, & west, then in the south, which is evidently false: & yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical error of all men's Senses. Our Reason, is superior to Senses, & doth correct that error, without prejudicing Scripture by it: & why may not Faith which is superior to both Sense & Reason, correct both, when they go astray; & yet Scripture remain entire, seeing Faith is but the Doctrine of Sripture, & as it were its soul? Yet I will Gratis admit your Mayor.  
2. I deny your minor, or second Proposition; for it appears to no man's Hearing, to be Bread, & wine; but Flesh, & Blood. This is my Body: this is my Blood, are the express words of Christ: now, sir, you know out of the Apostle (I have minded you of it) that Faith comes by Hearing. And Hearing is not mistaken, in this matter. Hence S. Thomas of Aquin. 
Visus, Tactus, Gustus in te fallitur:  
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.  
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius:  
Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius.  We acknowledge that Sight, Feeling, & Taste are mistaken here: & we correct their mistake by the express word of God, by Hearing conveyghed to our minds; to which word, we own greater obedience, than to all our Senses together. So your minor is false.  
Thus your Conclusion, that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate, & make void the end, & use of scripture, that came limping in on two bulrushes for crutches, falls to the ground, one of them being broken, & the other insufficient, to bear such a weight.  
2. Now I desire you to show your skill in sophistry, & answer this syllogism, by which I draw the same Conclusion, out of your Doctrine, & exposition of Christ's words: That interpretation which is plainly contradictory to the express words of Scripture, doth frustrate the end, & use of Scripture, But such is your interpretation of those words of Christ. Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end, & use of Scripture.  
The mayor or first Proposition is evident: for what use can be made of Scripture, to what intent can it serve, if we take the liberty to believe & teach the direct contrary Doctrine, to what it delivers. For example, if when the scripture says: God Created Heaven, & Earth: we say God did not create Heaven & Earth. When it says: The word was in the beginning. We say, The word was not in the beginning. When it says: The word was made Flesh; we say: The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest. What can Scripture signify, to what use, to what intent can it serve, when such interpretations are made of it? So my mayor stands good.  
The minor, 2. Proposition is evident, that Such is your jnterpretation of Christ's words. For Scripture says; That is Christ's Body, you say: That is not Christ's Body. Scripture says: That is Christ's Blood; you say, That is not Christ's Blood. Let those frame an interpretation more opposite to Scripture who can: I confess my skill in Logic reaches not to frame any more directly opposite. I fear you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument, than I shall to answer yours, as it is to cure a real, than to cure afeigned sickness.  
4. D Morley: p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning, as S. Paul Says it is, there being no other means, whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture, but our Senses, either reading it our Selves, or hearing it read: if I be not certain of what I see, when I read myself, nor of what I hear, when I am read to by others, it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth: & by consequence the Scripture itself must be useless, or to no purpose. Thus you.  
Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your own head. We say the words of Scripture are clear, that whither we Read, or Hear them, they signify the same thing, & we understand them in their plain, & obvious sense, as any man would understand them, who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we do; & not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses, as you do. Wherefore your method & interpretation frustrates all use of Scripture: ours leaves it in its full force & vigour. You make Scripture wear the chains of Senses; we bind senses, & Reason too, to the triumphant chariot of Scripture.  
Then you discover an unexpected concern for the Church Authority [after having spent your whole life in fighting against it] as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine. Not only the scripture, say you, But the Church itself also must needs be useless: because the Ch. as well the scripture teaches us by no other medium, But that of our senses. Here is matter indeed for lamentation, though you show no great sign of real grief. But God be praised, the Church is not brought so low, as to want your help. Her Authority is not prejudiced by such, as with Humility receive her Doctrine; but by such, as with Pride reject it, by Protestants, who impugn the sense she received, with the words, from her spouse, & his faithful interpreters, the Apostles.  
D. M. p. 5. If I be not certain, that what I see, & feel, & taste, & smell to be bread, & wine, is bread & wine, but something else: by the same reason I cannot be certain that these words, this is my body, whither I see them written, or hear them spoken, be indeed those words; & not some other words of a different, or contrary signification.  
Revisor. You still go on in a false supposition, that we Cartesian like deny all credit to Senses. This is absolutely false: for we give credit to our Senses, though not so great as to Eternal Truth Nether do we doubt of that thing being bread, & wine, which to Senses seems such, except only when God himself tells us It is his Body. Here then is our case. A thing is placed on an Altar, that Looks, feels, tastes, & smells like Bread. What is that thing? God tells me, in the Ear, It is his Body: our Senses tell me, It is Bread. Whither of these depositions shall I believe? That of Senses, say you: that of God, says the Church, seeing it is not impossible our Senses should be mistaken; but it is absolntely impossible, that God should tell Alye. But, say you If we doubt of those sensations of bread, we may doubt of those of the words, whither we read or hear them. Answer. Till you shall show me, by an Authority greater than that of God himself, those words, are something else, I will believe them to be those words. As I believe that to be Bread, which seems such, unless where God tells me the contrary. Do I pass through a market, by a Baker's shop, come into adining tomb, we give as full credit to our Senses, as you, & judge that to be Bread, which seems Bread: only on the Altar, after Consecration we say it is the Body of Christ, because Christ says it is such, & the Church always understood those words, as we do.  
Then you learnedly discourse of Outward signs, & inward invisible grace: Of the Trumpet, & its sounding: of men preparing to battle, God bless us, of Dreams, visions, jnspirations, & what not. From which if you can conclude any thing against us, I will bear your chains. These rambling phancies are extraordinary in one of your age: I wish you to take heed, your pen go not faster than your head, as it seems to do, when you cite those words, as of S. Austin: Quod non lego, non credo: what I read not, I believe not: which make against you: for We read, what we believe, that it is Christ's Body; but we do not read: It is not Christ's Body, nor: It is Bread: which is what you believe.  
D. M. p. 7. If there be a certainty in the sense of Hearing, there must be in that of seeing.  
Revisor. I admit an equal certainty in both, taken by themselves; yet Hearing, when announcing what God says, surpasses Sight, & all the rest; for we are to strike to Faith, & God's Truth; not to any else.  
D. M. p. 8. & 9 If there be no certainty of Senses, in one thing, there is none in any thing, unless I know certainly what that one thing is; & nothing can secure me, unless Christ in express words tell us: Believe your Senses in all things else, but only in the Sacrament.  
Revisor. Whence so great a concern for the Authority of Senses, & so little for that of the Church? All is undone, if the Senses be corrected by the express words of Christ, whom they contradict, no hurt done, though the Church be charged with error, even when she follows the words of Christ! yet by the Church we receive the word of God, & its meaning too. Now why is an error charged on Senses, of so pernicious a nature, as to destroy all their credit, unless Christ's express words are produced to vouch it in all other things: & one, nay many errors, charged on the Church, by which we receive Faith, & no hurt done? Is not Faith handed to us by the Church of as great consequence, as that little scantling of Knowledge, which we receive from our Senses?  
But why is an error of Senses so fatal to their credit? Have they never deceived you, or at least some others, of your acquaintance? & do you therefore renounce them? Have not some men, their eyes only representing a green meadow, fallen into a quack-mire? & do you for that reason either pull out your eyes, as useless, or shut them, as deceivable when you walk? Are these Arguments of such strength, as to beat down the express words of Christ, & Doctrine of the whole Church? what times do we live in, to what pass is Christianity brought, when a Doctor of Divinity, & a pretended Bishop, fyghts with such straws against Christ's words, & Faith I  
Yet because old age is apprehensive, I will give you a remedy against this groundless Fear. You require an exception in express words: I will give you one, at least Aequivalentèr: It is a general Rule Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam. When an exception is made from a Rule, all things not expressed in the exception, remain under the Rule. Wherefore Christ having excepted only the Blessed Sacrament from the Deposition of Senses, he left all other things subject to them. So, sir, althô you hold with us Transubstantiation, when you see a floor, you may walk on it, without fearing a precipice: & when you see a Chair, you may confidently sit down, without Fearing it should prove a Cobweb. Wherefore Cheer up, dear sir, you may be secure, though Christ be believed.   

SECTION XI. OF MIRACLES. 

1. Wither all Miracles visible.  
2. What Miracles are.  
3. The final cause of Miraçles.  
4. Accidents Changeable the substance remaining.  
5. Dr. M.'s Paradoxes.    
1. D. M. p. 9 'tis to little purpose, to tell us, that this conversion of Bread into Flesh, & wine into Blood, is miraculous, & therefore so monstrous, as to be a contradiction to Sense. Miracles are Appellations to Sense, & the end of them is by the evidence of our Sense, to convince our Understanding of some thing, which otherwise we would not, or could not have believed.  
Revisor. You seem resolved to prevent our retreat, by stopping all ways imaginable to it: yet your main industry is to miss; not to hit, that which is most obvious: which I have already taken, & expect you, or any who takes up the Cudgelles for you, in it. Yet I will in short review what you say of Miracles.  
Miracles, when done in Confirmation of Faith, are designed to give credit to a man, who speaks in God's name, & whom otherwise we should not believe, they are by a metaphor proper enough called God's Broade-seale. Now as a Broad-seale is indifferent to all deeds, & authenticates any, to which it is annexed; so a Miracle might confirm any Truth; but is determined by circumstances to some one, rather than others. For example the man sick of the Palsy might have been cured in Confirmation of the Trinity, or Incarnation; but was determined to testify that Christ had power to remit sins by those words, That you may know that the son of man hath Power to forgive sins, than he said etc.  
2. I say when Miracles are done in Confirmation of Faith, for all Miracles are not done for that end. A Miracle, is an effect of God's Power acting contrary to second causes. Natural effects are conformable to their inclinations, as that fire heats. Supernatural are above them: as that water justifyes the soul. Preternatural are besides them, as motion of parts of water within themselves. Miraculous or contra-natural, are contrary to them. Such was the cure of Ezechias, & raising of Lazarus; for second causes required the death of the first, & the corruption of the second. So S. Austin l. 26. Cont. Faustum, c. 3. Cum Deus aliquid facit contra cognitum nobis cursum solitumque naturae, magnalia, vel mirabilia nominantur. When God doth any thing against, or contrary to, the known, & usual course of nature, we call that thing a miracle. Wherefore when S. Thomas & some other Divines say Miracles are Praeter, besides the course of nature, they are to be understood, as I said; & Praeter in them is equivalent to Contra.  
That no Miracles are done, but visible, & in public, you say, but can never prove, because it is false. S. Austin proves this, Epist. 3. ad Volusianum, by Christ's coming into the world without violating the virginity of his Blessed mother: & his coming out of his sepulchre, this remaming shut. See S. Thomas. 3. p. q. 29. a. 1. ad 2. Of which more hereafter, S. 14. Indeed were no miracles done in private, it were in vain, for men in deserts, to implore God's assistance against a Lion, or serpent, which would devour or sting them. But the contrary error of Protestants in Brevint, Burnet, & Morley, is grounded on another erroneous opinion, that no Miracles are done, but in Confirmation of Faith. Whereas it is certain they are done for other intentions. For  
3. Whatsoever can move God to use his absolute Power in thwarting the ordinary course of Nature, may be the Final cause of a Miracle. Pharaoth refusing to dismiss the Israelits, Miracles were done to show it was God's will they should be dismissed. Exo. 7. A doubt being raised whither the Preisthood were to be confined to Aaron's family, God decided it by the miraculous budding of his rod. numb. 17.3. Gedeon wanting resolution to undertake the war against the Madianits was encouraged by the dew on his fur. jud. 6.4. The increase of Oil, to relieve a poor widow distressed by her creditors. 4. (2. Reg. 4.5. Waters causing a curse, to ease a husband of his Jealousy. numb. 5.6. That there were no ill smells in the Temple, notwithstanding all the  offerings, nor flies, where so much blood was spilt, was in respect to that Holy place. The cure of Ezechias, for his comfort, or the good of the Royal family, which wanted an heir. And who can tell how many other even private things may have moved almighty God, to dispense in the common law of nature, & act contrary to second causes? How often, are miracles done in consequence of that prayer of the Church, Ad te nostras etiam rebels compelle propitius voluntates, drawing those to a pious life, who had a perfect aversion to it? This you will say is no Miracle. But S. Anselme says it is, & S. Thomas, 1.2. q. 113. a. 10. & reason proves it to be such, because it is contrary to the inclination of the will, Antecedenter, though Consequenter the will consents, being brought over strongly, though sweetly by the Grace of God. And without all doubt, on The great day, we shall see an infinite number of other Accidents, wholly miraculous, done either for the spiritual, or temporal good of both private, & public persons: which are at present entirely hidden from the eyes of all men, even those in whose favour they are done.  
Whence I infer, that this conversion in the B. Sacrament, may be Miraculous, & yet be observable by no Senses.  
4. D. M. pag. 10. Moses his Rod turned into a serpent, ceased to look like a rod, & in all things was like a serpent, which the Magician's rods (which were not turned into serpents) did not, & water turned into wine, ceased to taste or smell like water. Therefore all Miracles are perceptible to sense.  
Revisor. A false illation out of an insufficient jnduction, as if I should conclude, that all men walk, because Peter & Paul walk,  
D. M. pag. 10. There cannot be a change of one thing into another, without a mutual change of Accidents, as well as of substance: because every thing consists, & is made up of Accidents, as well as of substance.  
Rev. What stuff is this! I perceive your Metaphysics are equal to your Divinity. Every thing consists of, & is made up of Accidents, as well as of substance! I hope you will say a man is made up of his  too. And not be much out of the way, if you speak of those of your degree, who are compounded of lawn sleeves, etc. in lieu of the interior character. How grossly are silly Philosophers mistaken, when they define Accidents, by their separability from substance, without its decay! Quod adest, & abest sine subjecti interitu! what, cannot a man become swarthy, by being exposed to the sun in the summer, or cold in the winter, but his Substance, his Body, or soul must be changed? Excellent Doctrine! And very fit to make us fall out with Transubstantiation!  
As unexpected is that other saying: There cannot be a change of one thing into another, without a mutual change of Accidents, as well as of substance. Unexpected, I say, from so learned a person; it being so far from Truth & so contrary to experience, that to confute it nothing is necessary, but to show you any newly dead Corpse, of one known to you before. Is there no change In substance, when the soul is separated from the Body? And do not many Accidents remain, so as it seems rather a sleep, then dead? Do not believe me, believe your own eyes, for which you plead so earnestly: Is there not the same quantity? The same situation of patts? The same organization? The same colour, moles, warts, scars, etc. as before? How then can you say, There is no change in substance, without one in Accidents too? Do you not see, that by pleading for Sense, against Faith, you endanger the loss of both? And of your Reason too: giving me here a reason against yourself: For if Accidents remain, when the man is no more (as certainly he is not, when his soul is departed) why may not the Accidents of Bread remain, when the Bread is no more?  
D. M. If there could be a substance without its own Accidents, or Accidents without their own substance, yet no man can be obliged to believe there was one without the other, because it is not possible to judge of one but by the other.  
Rev. All men are obliged to believe, what God reveals. So if God reveals that the substance is changed, althô the Accidents remain, we are to believe the Change. But, say you, We cannot judge of one, but by the other. Why not, good sir, if God speaks? Can we not as assuredly ground a judgement upon his word, as upon any Sense, nay all the Senses together?  
5. Having thus reviewed the grounds of your judgement, in this place, let us score up some Paradoxes of yours  
1. Miracles are Appellations to sense. What Sense did Christ appeal to, when Luk. 4.30 He passed through the midst of a multitude of men, & went his way? To what sense doth he appeal, when he converts a sinner?  
2. Miracles Are done to convince our understanding of a Truth. I challenge any man to show in scripture any proof of this saying, taken generally. Many Miracles are private, done for the relief of private Persons. Doth not the Church teach us to have recourse, to God by Prayer, in personal wants? And why so, if God on such occasions never acts contrary to second causes?  
3. The Magician's rods were not turned into serpents. It is expressly said Ex. 7.12. Their rods Became serpents. I know Fathers are divided in this point. But why you should take to that opinion, which seemingly contradicts scripture, I know not, unless it be your custom to regard it little. But if they remained rods, how had they the Appearance, or Accidents of Serpents, & were by the spectators judged to be such? Sure you may as well believe there may be the Accidents of Bread, without its substance, as the Accidents of Serpents, where there never were any serpents. Again how could Moses Rod made a serpent devour the rest, if they remained staffs, is not easy to understand. That one serpent should swallow another, is no great wonder, we daily see the Deigns swallow their young ones, upon approach of danger, & their limber yielding bodies are fitted for it. But a strong staff is not so pliable.  
4. All things consist of, & are made up of Accidents as well as of substance. So that Accidents are essential to man, & to other things: otherwise they would not make him up, as Well as Substance, this being Essential.  
Thus far we have examined the proof of your mayor. Now comes your minor. We will see how that succeeds.   

SECTION XII. 

1. What is the object of sense?  
2. Whither senses about it do discern of their objects? & in it are mistaken?  
3. Of the conditions requisite to certify our senses?    
1. D. D. M. p. 11. If Papists say the proper objects of Senses are not the Substances; but Accidents, of things. I answer that though indeed the Objectum formale, or Objectum quo of the sense are Accidents; yet Substances are the Objectum materiale, or the Objectum quod, even of our outward senses. My meaning is, that though Senses do discern immediately of Accidents, only, yet mediately, & by Accidents, they discern of substances also. So that nether Accidents alone, nor Substance alone; but the thing consisting of both, is the complete, & adequate object of Sense.  
Revisor. This place seems not so very proper, to procure by some shreds of Latin, & a few school terms, the repute of a Learned Clerk, when the same things might as well have been said in plain English in the text, as in the margin, had you so thought it fitting. I will not imitate you. Though you cite as many school terms as are to be found in Scotus, & borrow hard words from Arabic, & Hebrew, as well as from Latin, you will never prove that my eye discerns the substance, as such. My eye represents a white object; but whither that white be in an egg, or in astone, or in some other substance, to that my eye says nothing. The same betwixt two eggs: betwixt Chalk & Cheese, etc. And my ears tell me there is an Articulate sound: but what it means, my ear doth not tell. Or else we must say our ear is changed, as often, as we learn a new language. Thus the Senses only discover the Colour, or the thing Coloured, as it is such; & no further. The Eye sees white on a wall, discerns if it be pure or mingled with black, or red spots, clear, or darkish. The Ear hears the voice, & discerns if it be musical, or not. The hand perceives the object whither it be hard, or soft, rough, or smooth, warm, or cold: But to judge that the white is Plaster on a wall, the voice that of a man singing the praises of God, the thing touched, the hand of a friend, is the work of the understanding, directed by Senses, but passing beyond them. For as the understanding discovers the meaning of words, which the ear hears, & understands not, & these two acts, though as different as soul, & Body, are so linked together, as they seem the same Act: so it happens in other Senses, whose Actions have such a connexion with those of the mind, which they stir up, that they seem but one, though they really differ.  
2. D. M. p. 11. & 12. If Senses do not discern of Substances, how could a man say he saw such a man, or heard such a story. Is not every Substance discernible by its proper Accidents? why are our Senses given us, if we cannot by them distinguish things themselves, as well as their Accidents? wherefore did God give us several Senses, but only for the better discerning of objects, that if one Sense fail, the others may supply?  
Revisor Here are four questions, all importing the same thing, & resolved with the same answer. Both you, & we agree, that it is convenient we have some knowledge to discern of objects. This you will have to be the sole work of the Senses. We say it is originally in the Senses, but it is completed in, & by the Understanding. Now to your four Queres.  
To the first: we can say, we saw, & heard a story, because our Understanding helped by senses judged so.  
To the 2. By our understanding we can discern of Objects, & substances, by the means of Senses, which represent their Accidents.  
To the 3. Our Senses are given us, as servants to our Understanding, & as its Informers.  
To the 4. We have several Senses, because there are several objects of Senses, & according to the species of objects, there ought to be divers Senses, as you may find in Aristotle, & other Philosophers.  
D. M. p. 12. Isaac Can not know his sons Esau, & Jacob from one another, by feeling Iacob's hands, being rough like those of Esau, but by hearing he might distinguish them.  
Revisor. To what intent this is brought, is not easily discernible: that Isaac hearing Iacob's voice, surmised it to be like to that of jacob, is very true; but that he certainly knew him to be jacob, is not certain: nay the astonishment, into which the true Esau ask his Blessing cast him, is an evident sign, that till then he was not quite free from the error, into which Iacob's goatish hands, & greasy clothes had brought him.  
You seem to think it necessary, that our Senses either severally, or at least conjointly be able to discern betwixt any two objects proposed. I think it were well, that they could do so; but do not believe, that any great danger would hang over the world, if the Senses should be found insufficient sometimes. They are all together unable to distinguish betwixt two glasses of water, two eggs, two twins, a wolf, & some dogs, etc. as hath been often observed: yet the sun keeps on his course, & women bring forth at their ordinary time. Pompey's father was often taken for his Cook Monogenes: Pompey himself could not be distinguished from Vibius, & Publitius, both obscure men, & the later newly made free. Comelius Scipio was often saluted by the name of Serapio,, a poor Sexton. These & other mistakes are recorded in Valerius maximus l. 9 c. 14. Yet that ignorance of the Romans did not ruin their state. Why then are you so solicitous to provide a Remedy against it? Or if a remedy be necessary, why may not our Understanding act the Apothecary & provide it, as well as our Senses? Methinks it should rather belong to the understanding, to compare several objects together, & state wherein the agree, & wherein they differ, then to the Senses. Otherwise we shall find it no easy matter, to fix the bounds betwixt these spiritual, & carnal faculties: for you will adjudge to Senses what hath hitherto owned the jurisdiction of the Understanding; & as to what will be left to this queen of our faculties, our Reason, this shall only be tenant at will to Senses, who by the same Topick may claim the rest & leave the Understanding, as the Covenanters left the King.  
3. D. M. p. 14. & 15. Hath along discourse about the conditions necessary to make us infallibly certain of what we see. Viz, 

1. An eye well disposed.  
2. The medium betwixt that, & the object as it ought to be.  
3. The object at a convenient distance.    
These conditions being observed, the sight cannot be deceived in judging of colours, or coloratums, as such.  
Revisor. I would not mingle in this place mere Philosophical matter with the rest, if possible: so I pass by these conditions, only proposing some questions.  
1. what certainty have we, that there are no more ways to deceive our Sight, than these conditions provide against? Cannot swiftness, or slowness of motions alter the appearance, of Colours, & coloratums? Are there not some Colours various, according to the situation of the silks, that for example, which the french call Du Diable coessé, something of the nature, of a doves neck? Do not Mountebanks find means to deceive the eyes of their spectators, though their eyes be good, the Medium, & distance competent?  
2. What certainty have we, those three condition be exactly observed? As to the first: may not our eyes be defective, & we not perceive it? Doth not Seneca write of an old woman, who complained of all rooms being obscure, yet never would acknowledge any fault in her eyes, which were the only faulty?  
As to the second, may there not be a considerable difference in the Medium, enough to Refract the Visual rays, & we not perceive it?  
As to the third, what certainty have we, that the object is at a competent distance? Do we certainly know what is the exactest distance? Do not painters direct us, who are unskilled in that Art, what is the proper Distance to see a Picture? And in how many other things may the distance proper for such a determinate object be unknown to us? Again: what certainty have we of the true Distance itself? Doth not the moon rising over a house seem to touch it? When a thing is within 20. yards, or a mile of us, we discern the different distances; but can we perceive the different distances of several parts in the surface of the moon, or sun? Or of those of Other Planets, & the fixed stars. How can the Distance competent secure our eyes, from mistakes, when distance itself is so obscure, & uncertain? When you have answered all these questions, I shall require you to answer two more.  
The 1. what unquestionable certainty you have of all those Answers? If you have none, than these conditions cannot secure us from all possibility of error in crediting our Senses.  
The 2. whither the certainty of these conditions being exactly observed, be equal to that we have, that what God says is true? If the certainty of the truth of God's words be greater than that of those conditions, than we must conclude, that To appeal to Senses, in opposition to God's express words, is rash, dangerous, & obnoxious to Error.   

SECTION XIII. Reasons for the credit of senses. 

1. We may rely on our senses.  
2. Courts of justice as free from error amongst Catholics, as others.  
3. Depositions of senses subordinate to those of God.  
4. Our Doctrine doth not ground scepticism.  
5. Scriptures, & Church not prejudiced by Transubstantiation.  
6. Conclusion.    
1. D. M. p. 17. What can be more known, than Bread & wine? If than we may be mistaken in these, what use, what certainly of Senses in any thing else? And if there be not certainty of Senses, why doth God command the Israelits to remember what they had Seen, & Herd, & teach it their Children?  
Rev. I do not see that Faith is less taught, or less strongly believed, where Transubstantiation is taught, then where 'tis rejected. Or that seasons would be changed, the Earth less fruitful, or men less wise, or less known to Relations, or Friends, should God work some other Changes unobservable to Senses, & reveal it to us. We credit our Senses, as much as you, where God doth not reveal the contrary: what more can be due to any Created faculty? Can we not prefer God's veracity before our Senses, but we must absolutely & universally reject these even where they conform with Faith? All discourse relies on that principle: Eadem uni tertio sunt idem inter se, which is hardly reconcilable with the mystery of the Trinity. Yet we do not suspect a fallacy in all other discourse, because we make no exception, but where God excepts, & he excepts only in that one mystery. So we excepting against senses only in this particular, where God excepts, leaves them at full liberty, & in full credit in all things else.  
D. M. p. 18. All matters of controversy both Civil, & Criminal Were by God's appointment to be decided by the Testimony of two, or three Witnesses. Now how can any man bear witness, if he be uncertain of what he Hears, or sees? How is the judge certain he doth not condemn an jnnocent man?  
Revisor. I suspect it not very prudent, to reproach Catholic courts of judicature with condemning Jnnocent men, & believing uncertain depositions of witnesses, at this time of the day. Those who deny Transubstantiation can take in judgement a dog for a wolf, An jnnocent man for a Traitor, & Peter for judas, as well as their neighbours. Your Aversion to this insensible change hath left Protestants as obnoxious to error, as other folks: witness the Tall slender flaxen haired D. john, the jesuits house in Paris next door to the Lowre: men seen in several places the same time, one sworn to be Blundel, another to be Hesketh, to whom they had no nearer relation, than japhet, as for as we can discover: & for this I appeal to the Heralds. And our last five ye ears transactions afford twenty other odd example, which I wish were buried in oblivion, & recorded no where, but in God's book of mercy, amongst the sins forgiven.  
3. D. M. p. 18.20. If there be no certainty of Sense, why did Christ upbraid Chorasin & Bethsaide for not beleving after having so many Miracles? Why doth S. john to prove the word was made Flesh, tell us, he saw, heard, & handled it? Why did the Angel to prove The Resurrection, bid Mary Magdalen come, & see the place, where the Lord lay? As inferring, if he could not be seen, he was not there. A shrewd inference against Transubstantiation. Why did Christ bid Thomas thrust his hand into his side? Why did Christ ascend into Heaven, in the sight of his Disciples? Why did Luke say, he writ what he had from eye witnesses? Why did S. Peter say he was an eye witness of what he writ? Why was the gospel written, or preached, if we are not sure of what we See, or Hear? Why were true Miracles anciently done, or false ones lately pretended to? Why doth the Church prove her own Being by Notes, which if Senses be fallible can ground no certainty.  
Rev. Your Whies at this rate may reach from Genesis, to the Apocalypse, & hook in, to boot, all Ecclesiastical History, & hold us a long lent's Reading: which would have contributed something more to confound an Ignorant Reader, & tyre out one, who would answer you. Yet you will miss even of that aim, for one answer will satisfy all; all your questions being grounded on one false supposition. To clear this I will use one example.  
We are by Divine, & Humane laws bound to obey the King, & his Officers, according to their several degrees, & the Authority communicated to them. Yet with this difference: that our obedience to the King is absolute, & without reserve, in temporal things: that to his Officers is conditional, only as long as they continue obedient to the King. But if these command us to take up arms against the King, & do what he forbids, we cease to be obliged to obey them, & are obliged not to obey them. If you say: as subjects we are bound to obey them, who have Commissions from the King: I grant it, as long, as they continu in their duty; but no further. now multiply Queres upon this subject till Doom's day, whither at their command, we are bound to take Arms, to come to a Rendez vous, to stand sentinel, shut the gates of a town, open them, seize a man, dismiss him, advance, present, give fire, retreat, & c? To these questions one answer is sufficient. Whilst they command nothing contrary to the Kings will, & service, they are to be obeyed: when we are certain they design a Rebellion, & raise men only to destroy the King, & build for themselves on his ruins, we are not bound to obey them; but rather bond not to obey them.  
I answer in alike manner to all your Whies. Our Understanding receives some knowledge from God, by (either immediate, or mediate) Revelation: & some by our Senses. It is a general duty to admit whatever truly comes from God. We may admit, what comes from senses, provided it be not contrary to what God avers: but if they depose any thing contrary to what God reveals, either in his written, or unwritten word, we must renounce them, & stick to the revealed Truth. So if they tell me athing is Chalk, & God tells me it is Chief, they must pardon me, if I rather believe God, & believe it to the Chief.  
Thus althô (contrary to four Senses, but not to Hearing) I believe Transubstantiation because God reveals it, I may believe that I see a Ship, & go into it to cross the seas: that I see Bread, & eat it, when I am hungry: that I see Wine, & drink it when I am thirsty: that I see a friend, & rejoice in his company: that I see a good action, & commend it. That I see a crime committed, & procure it be redressed by public justice: that I read a History or hear a story, & believe it: In fine give as full credit to the verdict of Senses, as any Protestant, excepting only that point, which God tells me senses are deceived in.  
This well considered, I see no reason for those dismal apprehensions from our belief of Transubstantiation as if by it Laws were made useless, the sword of justice broken, humane society dissolved, all Doctrine Divine, & Humane made void, & of no use, & both Church & state brought to confusion, & destruction. River's may run under a bridge, & winds blow from the same points of the compass, Senses left to their functions, & we to their direction in all other things, though Transubstantiation be believed.  
D. M. p. 21. To deny the evidence, & certainty of Sense, is in effect to deny all Possibility of Learning, or of Teaching, or of Knowing, or of Believing any thing what soever, & brings a necessity of being a perfect Sceptic, not only in other Arts, &c Sciences; but in divinity itself also.  
Revisor. To secure you against this Phantôme, I appeal to common experience to show, where Sceptics in matters of Religion a bound most, in the Catholic, or in the Protestant Communion: & let that decide, whither Doctrine, yours, or ours, opens a wider door to Scepticism. What Doctrine Divine, & Humane have your Brethren Reformers spared? What authority so venerable, as they have not undermined? What law of God so necessary, as they have not rendered ineffectual, by teaching all the commandments are impossible? What rite so sacred, as they have not derided? What Article of Faith fundamental, as they have not questioned, & rejected? And when by your insolent combating Revealed Truths, you have weakened the Church, shaked to pieces Faith, & rooted up what had been planted by Christ, watered by the Apostles, & grown up in following ages, & by this brought into the world, & countenanced Libertinism, Atheism, & Scepticism, you Charge them on us: just as the late long Parliament charged the civil wars, & that Iliad of miseries, caused by themselves, on King Charles 1. Keep to yourselves those deformed brats, they are yours: & the essential Principles of your first Reformers are evident Premises to these unavoidable conclusions. Your Luther, your Calvin, your Zuinglius, your Ivel eat the sour grapes, which set at all your teeth on edge: They laid the eggs, out of which these cockatrices are hatched. And while you retain your own Principles, you must expect the same odious increase of mischief.  
5. E. M. p. 21. If there be no certainty of Senses, how know they, that it is the Body & Blood of Christ? By immediate Inspiration; or by Seeing the Scripture, or Hearing the Church? They pretend to no immediate Jnspiration. Seeing the Scriptures, & hearing the Church cannot be relied on, because there is no certainty of Senses.  
Revisor. The first part, I admit, that we do not rely on any immediate mediate Revelation, or jnspiration. The rest, that we cannot rely on what we See in Scripture, and Hear from the Church, you know is contrary to our sentiments, & absolutely false. Haec si imprudens facis, nihil coecius: si prudens, nihil sceleratius. S. Austin l. cont. Adam. c. 15. If you reproach us that Paradox, not knowing we abhor it, What is more blind than you? If you know we renounce it, yet charge it on us, what more wicked than you?  
6. D. M. p. 21.22. Their Interpretation of this place of Scripture must needs frustrate, & make void the use & end of all Scripture, & of the Church itself also: & consequently it is not a true one.  
Rev. Here is a lame jllation, out of two false Premises as I have showed. And I appeal to any man, who hath but common sense, to decide whither make void the Scripture, we, who subscribe to it, or you, who contradict it? Scripture says: That is Christ's Body. Catholics say: That is Christ's Body. Non-Catholicks say: That is not Christ's Body. Credit your eyes, for whom you plead, & see whither part Frustrates the end of Scripture, we subscribe to Scripture, we defend it: if we are deceived, God hath deceived us. But he cannot deceive us: so we are sure, we are not deceived. As for you, you contradict the scripture, your Senses delude you, you fight against the scripture, or if for it, it is only as your True protestants fought for the King.  
D. M. p. 22 If there be no Transubstantiation, the Papists are as gross Jdolaters as the Heathens says Costerus a jesuit.  
Revisor. If the Heaven's fall, we may catch larks, And if an Ass flies, he will move swiftly. But what do these conditional Propositions signify, while the conditions ramble in the imaginary spaces of impossible Being's, & are only the objects of fanciful heads? You will go hungry to bed, if for your supper you rely on those Larks: & you will as soon perform your journey riding on a snail, as if you expect the winged Ass. And Papists need not fear Hell, or Purgatory, if they have no other sin to Answer for, than believing Christ's Body to be, where he says it is: and Adoring him there, solely because they firmly believe that he is there: having his own express words for their warrant.  
Conclusion of this Book. An appeal from the sole competent judge, which knoweth, & can determine, to one in competent, who nether knoweth the thing in question, nor can decide it, is an evident sign of a desperate Cause. You appeal from the sole competent judge, God & his Church, to one incompetent, the Senses, which nether know the thing in question, the meaning of the words of Christ, nor can pronounce sentence in it. Therefore your Cause is desperate.  
Otherwise thus: A sentence of an incompetent judge is insignificant. The Sensations are a sentence of incompetent judges: therefore they are insignificant.    

THE THIRD BOOK. A REVISION OF THE VINDICATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SENSE.  

THE PREFACE.  
I Do not profess myself a common champion, for all Catholics, that either Attacke Protestants, or are Attacked by them. Had God called me to that task, he would have endowed me with a greater strength of mind, & Body, a larger extent of knowledge, & more leisure from other employments, than I have. Wherefore I confine myself to a much narrower sphere, more proportioned to my abilities, viz, to that Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints jude verse 3. for which seeing all are obliged Earnestly to contend, I see myself under that general obligation. As also to the defence of our Holy mother the Curch, by whom we receive this Faith, without whose assistance Faith itself, that precious give of our bountiful lord, would fail. As for the sentiments of other private persons, the being of the Church, the jnnocency of our Doctrine, & the purity of our Faith, not depending on them, I think it no necessary duty to make good all they say, further than that cannot be destroyed without weakening Faith. And in alike manner I do not expect, nor desire, any should concern themselves for what I say, but only on like occasions, that it be such, as Faith would receive some damage, werer it confuted. If any one, out of an opinion, that I go astray, or am in an error in what I writ in defence of the Church, will take the pains to show it me, with Charity, & meekness, I shall thank him for his labour, & either acknowledge my personal error, if it be such, or give a reason why I do not.  
Hence I was for some time doubtful, whither I should review this Vindication, no body being concerned in it, besides the nameless Author of an obsure Pamphlet, whose merits are as obscure as his person nameless; especially some of his opinions being far different, from what the Church, her , as well as divines hold; if his meaning be sincerely represented by my friend D. M. & rightly understood by me. And I think the Argument from sense low enough, whither this Anonymous stand, or fall: althô M. Doctor page 4. is pleased to say, that if this Pamphlet falls, his Argument remains not only unanswered; but unanswerable: as if that anonymous were our Hector, & our Troy were to be defended by his hand, or by none at all. Yet I am of opinion, that my Reader will find something in my Review of the Argument, to which what is here said, will not give full satisfaction, probably it will scarce be brought within canon shot of it. So my Review of this Treatise is a work of supererogation, which I undertake merely because there is occasion given to handle some few material points, which further confirm what I have said, if well understood.   

SECTION XIV. 

1. Division of Miracles.  
2. Some insensible, out of scripture.  
3. Arguments from Aetymology of words, or names, frivolous.    
1. WHo that man was, whom p. 1. you call Nameless is not material: but why you should style his Pamphlet Worthless, I know not. I have never seen it, to my knowledge, yet what you cite out of him (bating some phrases, which to your polite ears sound harsh, as some of mine will) It speaks it not much inferior to some others. Then you give us a view of as much of the whole treatise as relates to your Argument: which I will omit here, being content with once viewing them, as they occur afterwards.  
The first thing settled by this Anonymous is that some Miracles are Sensible, others insensible. Or, as he says, some are Motives to Faith, others Objects of Faith: which is very near the same, as to our present purpose: This distinction disgruntles you, who cannot suffer that any Miracles should be said to be Insensible. But I will prove there are such,  
Because 1. Christ was borne Clauso Virginis Deiparae utero: without any prejudice to the virginal integrity of his Blessed mother. This was a Miracle, as is evident: yet it was not Sensible. Therefore some Miracles are not Sensible.  
2. His coming out of the sepulchre shut up, with a great stone, & sealed, was it not Miraculous? Can two bodies naturally be penetrated? Can his sacred body pass through that stone, without penetration of two solid bodies [such were that of Christ, & that stone] miraculous? And if you say Christ's body passed from the place in the sepulchre to that without the stone, without passing the middle space Ab extremo ad extremum, sine medio, that skip will be Miraculous, & insensible too. so it will confirm what I say. You cannot say the stone was removed, for him to pass: for it is evident, that Angel coming from Heaven roaled away the stone, who was found sitting upon it. Mat. 28.2.  
3. Alike Miracle happened, when he entered into the chamber, where his Disciples were assembled. Here was again a penetration of two bodies: & by what Senses, or Sense was it perceived? They saw, they heard, they touched him, when he was entered, & stood in the midst of them: but his very entrance, [which was Miraculous] was unknown to all, & not perceived by any till it was past, so the Miracle itself was Insensible. These three Miracles being so evident in scripture, could not escape the piercing eyes of the Fathers, let us hear their opinion of them.  
S. Ambrose l. 10. come. in Lucae c. 24. Mirum quomodo se natura corporea peer impenetrabile Corpus infuderit, invisibili aditu, visibili conspectu. It is wonderful, [or Miraculous] how a corporal substance could insinuate itself through a firm impenetrable body, it being invisible at his entrance, Which was miraculous, visible after it. Note that invisibili aditu: his entrance invisible, or insensible. By these that glorious Doctor of the Church declares that all Miracles are not Sensible, which is a novelty to this old D. D.  
S. Augustin, Epist. 3. ad Volusianum: Ipsa virtus per inviolatae Matris Virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit, quae postea per clausa ostia membra juvenis introduxit. Hic si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile; si exemplum poscitur, non erit singular. Demus Deum aliquid posse, quod nos fateamur investigari non posse. In talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis. That same Power brought to light the Infant's body through the virginal womb of his mother, which afterwards, when at man's estate brought that same body, through the shut doors into the Chamber. If you seek a reason for this, It will not be wonderful; if you require an example, it will not be singular. In such things the Power of the workman is the sole & total reason of the work.  
Amongst S. Austin's works there is a 2. sermon upon the saturday in Easter-weeke, who ever be the Author of it. In it I find these words: Quid mirum, si Dominus ad Discipulos glorificatum Corpus, claustris stupentibus intromisit, qui illaeso Materni pudoris signaculo januam mundi huius intravit. All confirm the same.  
S. Gregory hom. 26. in Evang. Quodomo post Resurrectionem Corpus Dominicum verum fuit quod clausis januis ad Discipulos ingredi potuit? Sed sciendum nobis est, quod divina operatio, si ratione comprehenditur, non est admiranilis: nec fides habet meritum, cui humana ratio praehet experimentum. Thus the Apostle of our Nation. How was Christ's body real after his Resurrection, which could enter to the Disciples, the doors being shut? But we are to take notice, that the divine works cease to be admirable, when Reason comprehends them: & Faith ceases to be meritorious, when it gins to rely on Human discourse.  
Out of these Authoritys, it is evident 1. that those three passages of Christ's body out of his B. mother womb, out of the sepulchre, & into the Chamber, were by the Fathers esteemed Miraculous, & indeed no man in his wits will deny it. And 2. that these passages were not perceptible by any sense; but were truly Insensible: Quod erat probandum.  
My 4. Proof is the Miracle of stopping the fountain of Blood of the woman, mar. 5. no body perceived this, besides God, & the woman herself. Et had not he by enquiry forced her to own it publicly before all the throng, nether we now, nor those then present had known any thing of it.  
5. When our lord walked on the sea, john 6.19. for about thirty furlongs, or near four miles. That walking on the waters was Miraculous from the beginning, for to each part of that fluid & yielding Body, which his sacred feet touched, he gave the consistency of a firm floor. Yet who saw, who heard, who felt, or perceived this In the dark, till towards the end of his walk, when drawing near the ship, he was descried by his Disciples?  
6. The casting out of devils was not sensible: for nether the local motion of spirits, nor spirits themselves are objects of Sense, yet how frequent are these in scripture?  
Lastly john 21.25. An unconceivable number of miracles were said to done by jesus, which are not where written, for the books would fill the world. It is rash to say, all these were done in the sight of many, there being no proof for it in scripture, or Fathers. I know, that john 20.30. Many other signs, not recorded in scripture, are said To have been done in this sight of the disciples. But it will be no easy task to prove, that none but such hinted at here, are meant in that other place. So it is very probable that of those many Miracles some were done in private, none, or very few, knowing of, feeling, seeing, or by any sense perceiving them. Let us now hearken to our friend.  
D. M. p. 4. No such distinction of Miracles is found in the Gospel: those of Christ & his Disciples were evident to Senses.  
Rev. Answer 1. this is not true, I have given you many instances of Miracles not evident to Senses, recorded in scripture.  
Answer 2. The design of the Evangelists in recording the Miracles of Christ, was that men Should believe that jesus is the Christ. john 20.31. & seeing they could not record all his Miracles, they chose out chiefly such as were public, & most convincing the veracity of the True Catholic evidence, jesus Christ. So Catholics, to prove the Falsehood, of the True Protestant evidence, Oats, make use of such untruths, as are public, & confirmed by Oath, leaving out very many untruths, vented by him in private.  
D. M. p. 4. The only end of all Miracles is to make men believe some Truths. This end fails in such as are not Sensible. Therefore there are none such.  
Rev. Your first proposition is absolutely false. I have often acquainted you with several other Ends, for which God may do, & hath done Miracles.  
3. D. M. p. 5. Aquinas contradicts himself, when he says some Miracles are invisible. For he says else where, that name comes from admiration now how can a thing imperceptible to Senses be the cause of Admiration?  
Rev. Answer 1. words in definitions signify not the actual Being; but the aptness to be. Non significant Actum; sed aptitudinem, say Sophists: so if the work be such, as when known it would cause Admiration, that is enough to conclude that it is admirable.  
Ans. 2. Arguments drawn from the Etymology of words, are frivolous, & insignificant. Pontifex was named from making, or mending a Bridge. Praesul from leading a sacred dance of the salij, Priests of Mars, Senatus as an Assembly of old men. Will you thence conclude, that no man ought to be called Pontifex, or Praesul, or Senator, but who hath made or mended a Bridge, lead a dance, or is an old man? In Englisk Alderman comes from Age: yet who regards old Age in the Creation of that Magistrate? A Bishop hath his name from Vigilancy: & a Deacon from serving: yet the first is given to some who are drowsy enough; the second to such, as never served. Some men have transmitted to their successors in Blood names taken from offices, which no way belong to them, such are Smith, Tayler, Butler, Warner, Friar, Priest, Monk, Deane, Bishop, Cook, etc. Why may not some others do the like to their successors in Dignity?  
Ans. 3 cannot we admire things imperceptible to Senses? Is not the Union hypostatical an object of Admiration to all Christians? Is not God's birth of a Virgin, admirable? Can we sufficiently admire the love of Gnd towards man, declared by the Passion of his only son? And is not the Divine Essence, & Trinity of per, fons in one nature, admirable both to men, & Angels? And are these, or any one of them, perceptible to Sense? But enough of this childish Argument.   

SECTION XV. 

1. Accidents without a subject.  
2. Extension of quantity in a place.  
3. A Body in two places.    
1. D. M. p. 9 Thomas contradicts himself in other places. For 1. p. q. 90. ar. 2. C. he saith: An accident hath no being, but as something is denominated by it. That it rather belongs to, than is an entity, That its whole being is to be in something. Yet he teaches that in the Sacrament Accidents are without a subject.  
Revisor. What difficulty is there, that God should do, what nature cannot? And how great soever is the dependence of Accidents on Substance why can not God separate them, & supply by his omnipotency, the want of a subject, as the Protestants own he can preserve Substance without Accidents, althô it needs them very much? The being of an Accident is to Inform, inesse: & that of a Substance, is to recerue information, Subesse. Now if God can preserve a Substance, without receiving Accidents, why not Accidents, without being received? These two are correlatives, 'tis true: but Relatives may have a being without their term You will say, they cease to be relatives, when the term is gone, retaining only an aptness to a new relation, when it hath a new term: & I reply this is just what passes in our case. For the Accidents after Transubstantiation have no actual Relation to Substance, but an aptness to one, when occasion is presented. And for this reason Accidents in the Sacrament, are said to have an ex stence like in some sort, to substance: Habent modum existendi substantiae Yet it is distinguished from all Substance, by that express, & natural propension it hath to denominat substance, & it suffers violence till it be restored to its innate manner of being in a substance, as a stone doth, when it is suspended in the Air.  
D. p. q. Aquinas teaches that quantity hath extension of parts, in respect of place; yet in the sacrament he saith it hath none. In which he contradicts himself.  
Revisor. Quantity hath two effects; one in the Substance, which it informs: the other in the place, which it fills. The first is In genere causae formalis, as a form: & this effect of quantity is in Christ's Body in the sacrament very perfectly, for his sacred Body being alive, or animated with his rational soul, it must be Corpus organicum which imports a distinction of parts from one another.  
The other effect, as to the place it fills, is In genere causae efficientis, as an efficient, & active cause, by a certain elasticity, & springinesse of the parts of a body, which thrust bacl such bodies, as on all sides press upon it. which by modern experiences is evident in the Air, & in alike manner may be proved of other things. Hence the same Quantity hath sometimes a greater, sometimes a lesser extension in order to place, according as the ambient bodies do more, or less, press upon it, & its elasticity is more, or less active. Thus in the top of a very high hill in Auvergne, askin well stopped seemed full of Air; & at the bottom of it, where the Athmosphere pressed much, it wanted much of seeming full. Also a ball of Brass, with a little pin hole, being half filled with water, contains it all very well: till by being to a certain degree heated in afire, its elasticity is increased, for then the water & Air mingled will break through that narrows passage, & fill the chamber with a kind of mist. Now if a Quantity of five foot, for example, by diminishing its Elasticity, or increasing the pressures of ambient bodies, be brought to four, or three feet, why may it not be reduced to two, or one? Or by Divine Power quite suspending its Elasticity, be brought to an unconceivable littleness of place, which would scarce deserve that name. If fire, the most active cause known, had no effect on the three children in the Babylonian furnace, God suspending its virtue, why cannot God suspend the active vertu of a little Quantity?  
Which I do not say, to demonstrate fully the whole mysterious manner of the existence of the Body of Christ, in this Divine Sacrament (that being a thing to be believed by faith; not to be proved, or even comprehended, & perfectly understood by natural reason) but only to diminish the difficulty of the belief of it, by explicating in some probable manner a part of the mystery.  
You see, sir, how easy it is to excuse S. Thomas from the contradiction, you charge him with: for it is no contradiction to say: A fire well kindled burns matter combustible duly applied: & in the furnace fire did not burn those three young men. Both which we know to be true, one by experience, the other by Revelation, why may not such an obvious explication excuse this great Doctor, from so shameful a fault as contradicting himself is? That all quantity fills some space is a general rule: that in the Sacrament it doth not, is an exception from this rule. Can you not understand how a man without contradicting himself admits an exception from his Rule?  
3. D M. p. 10. Lastly Thomas, & all the rest teach, that no other body can be in more places, than one at one time: yet they say Christ's body in the Sacrament, is in many places at the same time. Thus they mantain what their church hath defined, though it be with doing violence to all the principles not of Divinity only; but of Nature, sense, & Reason: & not without manifest, & manifold contradictions not of one another only; but even of themselves also.  
Revisor. The contradiction you charge on S. Thomas, & all Catholics, is that we teach that Christ's body is in two places, at once: & that we deny, that Any other body can be in two places at once. Where your first fault, is against Logic: for you believe these two propositions to be contradictions, & they are not so. For a contradiction is Affirmatio, & negatio eiusdem de eodem, the same thing must be said, & denied of the same subject: now here is not the same subject: for Christ's body, & other bodies are not the same. Hence it is no contradiction to say: Christ's body is personally united to the word: and, no other body is personally united to the word.  
Your second fault is more reproachful, a lack of sincerity in relating our sentiments. You say, we teach that No other body, (but that of Christ) can be in more places than one, at the same time. Which is so far from being true, that I will challenge you, or any other in the world, to produce any one, either Divine, or Philosopher, of the Catholic communion who denies to Any body a passive capacity of being in two places, when God shall determine, in that same manner, that he believes Christ's body is in two places. And if I am disproved in this, I am content to be thought the Impostor. Had you consulted either our Philosophers, or Divines, or even any of our yearly conclusions, you would have found instances enough to correct your mistake, if it were not affected: which I will not determine. I say In that same manner, that he believes Christ's body is in two places: because I know the Thomists hold a body cannot be Extensiuè, Localitèr, or Desinitiuè in two places, [& the Scotists hold the contrary] but those same learned men say the same of the Body of Christ. So your mistake is unexcusable.  
Your third fault, is, that Our Doctrine is contrary to all principles of Divinity. I know no other, at lest no better, Principles of true Divinity, than Scripture, Tradition, Definitions of the Church, & Fathers. If you know any better, make us happy by communicating them. Now I am sure our Doctrine is not contrary to these; nay it is grounded on them all: & this you knew so well, that you have carefully avoided all mention of them, as conscious of your contradicting them all, & foreseeing that they are rocks, on which this Sensual Heresy would split itself. Scriptures says, It is Christ's body: Tradition says the same, so do Fathers, so doth the Church: so do we. Not one Egg more like another, than our Doctrine, is to theirs. What violence then do we do, to all the principles of Divinity? But it is not unusual, that men, who rob, cry Theives. You know you cannot prove that we oppose any one principle of Divinity: so you never attempt it. Yet you would have it believed, & Therefore you beg it.  
Your fourth fault is, that you blame us, as faulty, for going in matters of Faith, against Nature, Sense, & Reason. Sir we are Disciples of S. Paul, of him we have learned, To cast down jmaginations, & every high thing, that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, & bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. 2. cor. 10.6. This we practice in this, & other matters. If in this we are blameworthy, condemn him, who directs us to do so: if you dare not condemn him, you must absolve us.  
Call to mind S. Augustine's words, mentioned above, in Epist. ad Volusianum: Si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile: si exemplum poscitur, non erit singular. If a reason be found out, it will cease to be admirable: if an example be produced, it will not be singular. We own it is Admirable, we profess it is Singular. So we expect nether Reason, nor example to confirm us in the belief of it. That is, we are nether Socinians, nor Morleyans. Just so we believe the same Christ to be borne of a virgin, though nether Reason, nor experience confirm it.  
Yet out of some other places of scripture joined together, it appears, that Christ's body hath been in two places, at the same time. For we learn out of Ephes. 4.10. that He ascended up far above all Heavens: whence Heb. 7.26 he is said To be higher than the Heavens. And Act. 13.21. we read: Whom the Heavens must receive, till the time of restitution of all things: that is till the universal Resurrection, he must remain above the Heavens. Yet he was seen by S. Paul, 1. Cor. 15.8. & Act. 9 Therefore he was in two places at the same time: In Heaven, & above the Heavens, as the scripture says: & near the Earth, otherwise the Apostle could neither have seen his Body, nor heard his voice.  
You begin pag. 11. a long discourse about mysteries. Which being nothing to the purpose, I leave it, as I find it: & pass to the your 19 page, where I find something in which I am concerned.   

SECTION XVI. Transubstantiation is a Miracle.  
MY reason is, because it is a work not only Besides, or Above; but Contrary to second causes. Therefore it is a Miracle. The illation is evident, as being from the definition, to the thing defined. The antecedent is clear, first from the littleness of the space or rather the no space, to which Christ's Body is reduced. Secondly from its being in many places at once. Answer this Reason, & eris mihï magnus Apollo. What have you against this?  
D. M. p. 19 Scripture makes no mention of any Miracle in this Sacrament, as no doubt it would have done, if there had been any, seeing no man can perceive it.  
Rev. Must nothing be counted a Miracle, but what scripture calls such? Then we must blot out of our Catalogue of Miracles, a great part of those recorded in Scripture itself. But you say, No doubt it would have called it so: & I say I doubt of it, & my doubt is confirmed by many instances, of Miracles recorded in scripture, without being called so. That of rays, for example, on Moses I ace. But you say, this was Sensible, which the other is not. And I say that is nothing to the purpose, as I have often showed. How ever it is evident enough: for it appears by the words of Christ, that he is there: & our Senses tell us that he is not visible there.  
D. M. p. 19 It is no Miracle, because it is not only not evident to Sense; but moreover it is contrary to Sense.  
Rev. Here you serve up again your cold cabbadge: which how insipid they were at first, we have Seen, now we nauseate them. Yet for four pages you afford us no other food.  
D. M. p. 23. God never works a Miracle, but for some great, & good End, which cannot be obtained without it, for God doth nothing in vain. Now such a Miracle would be to no purpose, for Christ said the flesh profiteth nothing.  
Revisor. The Apostles, the Fathers, the Church, the Faith full all over the world had & have a far different opinion of the sacramental Communion of the Body & Blood of Christ, than you have. S. Paul makes use of that consideration to move men to try themselves before they approach the Divine Table: lest by receiving it unworthily, they become guilty of the Body & Blood of Christ. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, says that by it we are Christophori, Bearers of Christ, jtem Consanguinei his kinsmen. S. Chrisostome: yOu desire to see Christ, to hear his voice, to touch the hem of his garment: more is granted to you; that you eat him, etc. Again when describes a Priest at the Altar, with quires of Angels round about him the Heaven's open over his head, God the holy ghost cooperating with him, God the son in his hands to be offered to the Eternal Father, who is above expecting to receive that most grateful offering, doth all this avail nothing? Was the centurion moved with the consideration of his own unworthiness, being to receive Christ under his roof; & is our Faith so dead, as to be insensible when he vouchsafes to come into our bosoms? What can, if this doth not, stir up in us sorrow for having offended almighty God: Faith in him, whom we believe present: Hope, that he, who hath given himself unto us, will not, can not refuse us any thing. And an entire & sincere Love of him, who hath loved us, & doth love us so much, as to give himself for all in general, & to each one in particular? Besides acts of Devotion, of Adoration, of Humility, of Zeal, etc.  
All which if you esteem inconsiderable, & to Profit nothing, I desire you to tell me, what doth profit in the way of virtue? You will say Faith. And I will answer we have that as well, as you, & that quickened, & strengthened by the consideration of him really present, who is both Author, & Object, or last end, the Λ. & Ω. of our Faith.  
In fine S. Eucherius said: Tria sibi Deus struxit tabernacula, etc. God hath set up for himself three tents, the Synagogue, the Christian Church, & Heaven. In the first, there is nothing but Types of things hoped for: in the last, Substance without any Types: in the Christian Church Substance under Types: That same Christ, who was figured to the jews, & is clearly seen, & enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven, being really present under Types on our Altars. And you Protestants by denying this presence of Christ, in this Divine Sacrament, what do you, but degrade your Communion from the dignity of a Sacrament of the new law, & bring it to the condition of a jewish rite, of a base Beggarly element.  
But The flesh profiteth nothing, say you. I grant it, if it be taken carnally, & without spirit, or Faith, without discerning betwixt that, & other Bodily food; not otherwise. For can you, or will you say, that That flesh avails nothing, by which we were redeemed? Will you say with your late true Protestant Oracle, that we were never the better, for Christ's being crucified for us?  
D. M. p. 24. 25. Lastly there can be no such Miracle, as Transubstantiation, because all Miracles are possible; Transubstantiation is impossible. And you send us to see this proved in D. Whitaker Bishop Morton & Mr. Chillingworth, who show say you that this implies contradiction, & such things cannot be done: nay it would argue rather an impotency, than omnipotency in God to do such things.  
Revisor. You had done us appleasure, & Protestants would have thought your time well spent, in producing Reasons to prove this implicancy; & not to send us, & them on this wild goose chacé, to find what those learned men say in this point. The mean while, what you have said, proves nothing: & the belief of Transubstantiation remains firm: & God, and his Church Tru.  
D. M. p. 27. There is therefore no such Miracle as Transubstantiation; it being not only an useless thing, if it were so; but an impossible thing, that it should be lo.  
Revisor: That Transubstantiation is a Miracle, is a thing so evident to Reason, that I never fear to see the Reasons for it answered. That it is Useless, & impossible, you say, but you will never be able to persuade the first; to any pious man, nor the second, to any learned man.    

THE FOURTH BOOK. A REVISION OF D. M.'s ANSWER TO Mr CRESSEY'S LETTER. HIS SERMON BEFORE THE KING. HIS LETTER TO HER ROYAL HIGHNESS'. ET HIS LETTER TO A PRIEST.  

THE PREFACE.  
THese three pieces, containing not many doctrinal Points controverted betwixt the two Churches of Rome, & England, will not detain me long, in reviewing your judgement declared in them, especially considering that a great part is personal, of Mr. Cressey, the Gun powder Plotters, & her R. H. which kind of things, whither true, or false, may be let without any prejudice to the Catholic Caeuse. For Personal sanctity of all Catholics spread all over the world, is a thing to be wished; not hoped for. And althô some faults, even of the first magnitude could be proved upon some of them, yet that ought no more to move any man to abandon the Communion of the Church now, than it did to abandon it in the Apostles times, when some of her children were Detractors, Gluttons, Incestuous, Contentious, Proud, & Avaricious men, as may be seen in S. Paul's Epistles. In these, indeed, mention is made of a Church free from spot, & wrinkle: & that we hope for in Heaven. But at present there are in the net, good & bad fish: in the field, Corn & Darnel: in the barn, wheat, & Chaff: in the house, Vessels to honour, & to dishonour. Amongst the virgins, some foolish: amongst the Apostles, a judas; an Ishmael in Abraham's family: an Esau, in isaac's, a Reuben in Iacob's: an Absalon, in David's: an Adam in the terrestrial Paradise, & a Lucifer in the Celestial. All which bad men did nether excuse a separation from the Church, in which they lived, nor prejudice the rest, who did not approve, or abet the sins: as the Church hath long since declared against the Donatists. We profess we believe the Sanctity of the Catholic Church, which consists in her Doctrine, her Laws, her Rites, & many of her children; not all: And it is the goodness of God to make us partakers of all the good works, which any one doth; but not of the bad: For we believe a Communion of Saints; not of sinners; of merits; not of offences. So the guilt of sin is confined to the person sinning: but the merits of virtuous actions spreads to all the faithful who are in the state of grace. Wherefore we ought not to think the worse of the Church, for any fault committed by any of her children, seeing she nether teaches, nor commands, nor approves it. But the Protestant Church cannot so easily clear herself from such spots, as the sins of her children leave: her Doctrine of the impossibility of God's Commandments, that we are nether the better for good, nor the worse for bad actions (which are nether meritorious, nor demeritorious in the praedestinate) & of Evangelical liberty, the root of all Sedition, & Rebellion in Church & State, etc. These I say, & the like, having been taught by same of her children, & never condemned by her, make her answerable for all sorts of sins, which are but the natural sequels, of those Premises, effects of those causes, fruits of that tree, which the first Protestants planted, & their followers water, & cherish. In Catholics a bad life is contrary to Catholic Doctrine & laws; in Protestants, it is a natural sequel of both.  
I do not say this, to excuse any fault, with reason charged upon the persons mentioned (except the gun powder plotters) or to forestall my Readers judgement, in favour of the Church, if those accused should be really found guilty. There is no cause for such an Apology. The faults alleged against Mr. Cressey are at the worst indiscreet expressions of edjous things which he thought true, & D. M. thinks not so. And her R. H. did show in effect, that no Worldly consideration should move her to profess a Religion, of which in her conscience she was not. Of which more hereafter. Who, but Atheists, & Libertins, can blame this? Which is only a preferring Heaven to Earth, Eternity to time, the soul to the body, God to man: & the Peace of a good conscience, before the reproach of some bad men. Those who think all Religions indifferent, & that the King is to determine which we are to follow, the Hobbians, may blame this; but not a Disciple of Christ, & his Apostles.   

SECTION XVII. Mr. Cressey excused. 

1. Wither the Kingdom may be said to have taken the Covenant?  
2. Wither the K. was the only sufferer for his Religion?  
3. Many of the Protestant Clergy renounced their Dignities?  
4. Wither the Clergy suffered for their Loyalty, or their Religion?  
5. Of the Actings of the English Protestant Clergy in the troubles.    
1. D. M. p. 7. It is false & injurious to say, that the Presbiterians did constrain the whole kingdom to forswear their Religion: for it must be the whole Kingdoms taking, & not the Presbiterians imposing generally of the Covenant, that must prove this assertion.  
Revisor. You take Mr. Cressey's words in a very strict sense, that you may accuse them, & condemn him. Yet I think in good Philosophy, & divinity too, Propositions In materiâ contingenti, althô they seem Universal, are not such, but only Indefinite. For example: Philip. 2.21. All seek their own; not the things, which are of jesus-christ. & 'tis 1.12. The Cretans are always liars, evil Beasts, slow bellies. These Propositions are as to their form Universal, the first with a distributive particle to Persons, All: the second with alike particle, of time, Always. Yet nether are truly Universal: not the first, for nether S. Paul, nor several of the Apostles then alive, Sought their own. In alike manner amongst the Cretans some were very good, sincere, & virtuous men. Such Propositions are frequent in common discourse: v. c. All Spainards' are Grave: All French men civil. All Italians cautious: All young men rash: All women talkative: All old men morose. etc. Which are taken as true, because commonly they are so, taken Indefinitè. But taken as Vniversals, they are false, seeing several instances can be brought, in which they are not true: & great wariness is necessary in applying any one of them, to particulars. This is my first Answer.  
Another is, that the Kingdom by an ordinary figure is taken for the governing part of it: so what is decreed by that, may be said to be decreed by the Kingdom. Which is true, though some of this part oppose it. Thus a Peace, or Truce is said to be made by the Republic Of Venice, v. c. when the Senate decrees it, or when the major part of Senators resolve it, althô some Senators oppose it, & are for war. Livy. Vbi semel decretum erit, omnibus id etiam, quibus ante displicuerat, pro bono, atque utili foedere erit defendendum. Plinius l. 6. Epist. 13. Quod pluribus placuit, omnibus tenendum. Dionysius Halicarnassaeus: Parendum his, quae pars maior censuerit. Even those who dislike a decree before it be made, are bound to approve it, after it is made. Provided it contain nothing against Conscience. Indeed we see in all Assemblies, where things are carried by plurality of votes, all, even the noah's, are bound to approve the order, unless in some cases, when they are admitted to a Protestation. Now the major part of the then Gouvernours of the Nation, or Kingdom decreed the taking of the Covenant: & the major & more conspicuous part of the subjects may be said to have admitted that decree, althô very many, considerable both for number, & quality, by some industry shifted off the taking of it. so the Kingdom may in some sort be said To impose the Covenant: & also To take it. Thus we say, that England changed its Religion such a year: though a very great number at that time did not admit of any change. And we may say that the Oaths are imposed upon, & taken by, the Kingdom: though several refuse them. Were not Mr. Cressey a Papist, I believe either of these answers would suffice.  
2. D. M. p. 8. His second crime, is his saying The King was almost the only man, who remained so constant to his Religion, as to hazard for it the loss of his estate & life too. This is false, say you, for many thousands did the same.  
Revisor. In the ruin of others there was a complicancy of causes, which procured it: loyalty to their King, hatred to their persons for fighting against them, their estates etc. For Naboth was not the only man, who lost his life, for his inheritance. Now there was a time, when the demands of the Presbiterians seemed not intolerable to the King, who only stuck at the destruction of the Bishops. So Mr. Cressey might say, he was Almost the only man who suffered on the score of his protestant Episcopacy. I have not heard of very many ruined, & killed, because they Would not renounce the Bishops. Nether did the Rebels use to say: Renounce Bishops, or we will hang you. Several said, renounce Popery, or we will kill you: & many were killed by the Rebels for not complying. But to no Protestant was given such sour sauce, that I heard of.  
3. D. M. p. 8. Thirdly he says: Several of the wisest, & learnedest of the English Clergy were content to buy their security with a voluntary degrading of themselves, from their offices, & Titles. Which, say you, is injurious to the Bishops.  
Rev. Why the Bishops should be understood in that proposition, I know not. In our Canon law, when only an inferior, & generical degree is named, in odious thing's (as this it in your eye) the superior, & particular is not comprehended. [vide C. Sedes Apostol. de Rescriptis, & the gloss upon it] now Mr. Cressey mentions only The Clergy, which is the lowest & most common degree. Wherefore nether Bishops, nor Deans, nor any Person in Ecclesiastical Dignity must necessarily be comprehended. What then doth offend you, in this Proposition? Did not several of the English Clergy become Catholics? Did not these degrade themselves From the offices, & titles which they enjoyed in the Church of England? Can they retain them remaining Catholics? Did not some of the English Clergy yield to the stream, & comply with the times? Did not some bear arms? Did not one, & he a Metrapolitan, lay aside his Crozier, & take up a sword? Did not all these degrade themselves? May not these different sort of Desertors, be named Several of the English Clergy? Were it not in the book of a Papist, probably they might so, & the book pass without offence.  
But Mr. Cressey says, that he means the Universality of the Bishops, who seemed to degrade themselves, by not filminating any censure against the Rebels. Answer: If he doth so, he says more, than what was necessary to make good his first Proposition. You say that censures are not a Necessary duty of a Bishop. So you both agree that To censure is a duty of a Bishop, in time & place: yet with this difference, that you think it is not a Necessary duty of a Bishop; & he thinks it is: doth this diversity of Thoughts make him Criminal? Especially being conformable to scripture. 2. Trin. 4.2. Reprove, Rebuke, exhort. Tit. 1.13 Rebuke them sharply. Did not Christ give power to bind, as well as to loosen? To retain, as well as to release? To shut, as well as to open? If on pressing occasions they neglect the use of that Power To bind, retain, shut, is it not as much as to renounce that Power? & if they renounce that, do they retain the other? Is not Episcopacy one individual Power?  
I desire you to show me any one Catholic country, where such a Rebellion happened, & all the Bishops remained silent. By what doth Christ distinguish a Pastor from a Mercenary? Joan. 10. The first sees a Wolf coming, & exposes his life, for the defence of his flock: the later seeing the wolf coming, runs away, & lets the wolf worry his flocke at Pleasure. Which of these two did our English Bishops imitate? But I leave the application to the Reader.  
But what can you allege to excuse this silence in such an occasion, as would make even the dumb son of Croesus' speak? you have three motives: The first is, that it was not seasonable. But doth not S. Paul command that it be done even Out of season?  
The second: that it would have done no good. But that was De futuro contingenti. How ever in a desperate sickness, is it not better to apply an uncertain remedy, than none at all? Would any one have thought that the Laity had complied with their duty to serve the King in his wars, if they should have remained at home, & said, Our fighting for the King will do no Good?  
The third: you would not tempt God, nor expose your order to their malice, who might extinguish it. The others are but pretended; this is the true reason: here the  wrings: you thought it good sleeping in a whole skin, & were desirous to keep your mather's sons out of harms way. Indeed you would secure your persons; not your order: for the Rebels had before vowed to root out your degree; so that could not be brought into greater danger, than it was in. Wherefore your fear was for your dearly beloved persons.  
D. M. p. q. His 4. crime is saying: that Though many of the Clergy suffered, in extremity, yet it was not properly with an eye to their Religion; but to their fidelity, & loyalty to their Prince. A bold & uncharitable Assertion.  
Revisor. Why so? 1. Because says the Doctor, they did not tell him so. Answer: the factious Rebels did tell him so, declaring they did not persecute for Religion; but for the security of the state. Name any Protestant Parson, hanged for being such. Dr. Hewit was executed for either real, or pretended crimes against the state; not for Religion. So the rest.  
Your other reason is because Loyalty is a point of your Religion. Answer: then Susan is innocent: & all M. Cressey's fault comes to this, that he thought some crimes against the state, were not against Religion. And if this be a crime, there are so many, & so great offenders, that you will scarce find a jury to pass upon them.  
D. M. p. q. I think those Martyrs who suffer in defence of the V commandment, as well as of any other.  
Rev. You will I hope find a place in your catalogue of Martyrs for those Papists, & jesuits, who chose rather to die, than To bear false witness.  
5. What motives the Regicides may have had to leave unmolested some obscure Parsons, is to me as uncertain, as what you say p. 14. is improbable, Viz, that it was Out of sear of their interest, & reputation in the countries where they lived. They had cut down the stately Cedar, & would they stick at a shrub? They cut off the Head of your Church, & would they fear the toe, or paring a nail? They pulled down King & Nobles, the primate & his Brethren: & would they be awed by a country Parson, scarce known even by name five miles from the place of his residence? To morrow I may believe this; not to day.  
D. M. p. 17. Providence seems to have suffered, that those heroical Confessors should be ejected out of their stations, that being dispersed over the Nation, they might sow the seeds of Loyalty, & Truth.  
Rev. Very pretty! As if the Hay of a great meadow, were Dispersed, by being gathered into stacks, or the Atlandick Ocean, by ruming into half a dozen Fishponds. What corner in all the Kingdom, without some of your ministry before the troubles? How then did this mysterious Dispersion spread them? some of them traveled, it is true, but haply as many did so before: & what Seeds did they sow abroad? You yourself were so wary, as not to speak of Religion, till you had a jesuits hand & word, that it would not be ill taken. A broad than you did not sow those seeds. Did you sow them in England? who sowed the Seeds of Treason, & falsehood, of which there was such store, that it overrun the Nation, & are not as yet weeded out? Were the Ministers negligent in sowing those good seeds before the war? Or was their labour, & industry lost? And how was it so successful after the wars, that it should be a work of Providence? But you thought it honourable, that Providence should appear in the concerns of your Ministry: so you bring it in, without well considering to what intent, & purpose.  
5. D. M. p. 18. Gins to excuse the Bishop's neglect of Excommunication all the time of the troubles. Upon which I ask him some questions: Have not the Bishop's Power to excommunicate? Is not that Power to be used against obdurate sinners? Were there none such from 1640. till 1650? Sure there were. How comes this censure to be forgotten? The Parliament, say you p. 21. could not be excommunicated. Right; but the Persons in, & of the Parliament might: & if the censure did not bring them to their wits, nor restore them to their duty, it would have fryghted many well meaning men, who adhered to the others innocently. Which is one effect of censures. 1. Trin. 5.20.  caeteri timorem habeant.  
D. M. p. 22. We would not cast our Pearls unto swine, (nor our holy things to dogs p. 26.) nor expose Christ to contempt, who saith, who so ever despiseth you, despiseth me.  
Rev. A pretty pretext for all hen-harted Prelates! The Apostles, & Fathers were of a far different opinion, let one speak for all: Non calcatur qui persecutionem patitur; sed qui persecutionem timendo infatuatur. Aug. l. 1. de serm. D. in mon. c. 6. Heis not despised, who suffers persecution but who through Fear of persecution is infatuated, so as to neglect his duty. Had the Apostles, & primitive Bishops, been so timorously prudent, Paganism had never been destroyed. Semen est sanguis Christianorum says Tertullian: Plures efficimur, quoties metimur. Our Blood is seed: our number increases, by our being mowed down with your swords. One grain falls, & hundreds grow up: One Christian is martyred, & thousands of Pagans embrace his faith: & the remnant honour Christ, & his Vicegerents, even when they persecute them. But this lesson is not learned in the Protestant Church.  
D. M. p. 22. Thirteen Bishops made a trial of their Authority, when they made a solemn & public. Protestation against the forcible keeping of them out of the House of Peers, & were for that impeached of High Treason, & clapped up in the Tower.  
Rev. What is this to the purpose? Is Protestation an Episcopal Act? Cannot mere lay men enter a Protestation? Is your seat in the house of Peers of Divine Right? Show the canon of a General Council, or a text of Scripture, that ground either of these two things. If you can show none, no wonder the thing should not succeed, which is not of your Ecclesiastical Function. But how comes that concern for your seat in Parliament, to be greater than for all other things, how sacred soever? You see Faith destroyed by Heresy, & you are silent: the Church torn in pieces by Schisms, & you are silent: the Royal Power undermined by Factions, the King's sacred person endangered by Seditions, & affronted by Insolent varlets, & souls poisoned with damnable opinions, & you are silent. You are debarred sitting in the house of Peers, & you cry out so loud, as to provoke the Rebels to shut you up in a Cage. Is this seat of greater importance, than souls, than the King's person, than Royal Authority, than the Church, than Faith?  
D. M. p. 24. The Bishops thought they were obliged not to draw that sword of Excommunication, to cut nothing but the Air with it, or by striking on a Rock, to blunt, or break the Edge of it.  
Rev. A straw is as good, as such a sword, which must strike only the Air, or it will fly in pieces. Oh, but we must not strike Rocks. Are then all the children of your Church as insensible of your censures, as a Rock, of the stroke of a sword? If so: whose is the fault, but yours, who have the breeding of them?  
D. M. p. 25. By Excommunication they had exposed not only their Persons; but their Order itself to be ruined: for who can tell, whither those, who imprisoned some for the Protestation, would not have taken away their lives, if they had interdicted the houses of Parliament, and excommunicated their adherents. And then what would have become of the Episcopal Order itself of our Church? Rome would give us no Bishops, Lutherans & Calvinists can give none: other Churches are too far off. Tarbox.  
Revisor. Did I not know your intention, I should think you prevaricated, your reasons are so far from giving satisfaction to a Christian, so contrary to what hath been practised. Nothing, but temporal motives, & humane respects in all your discourse. Was not the whole Catholic nay Christian Church, in as great danger when all the Bishops in the world were in Jerusalem? And did this make them be silent? Quite contrary, they resolved to preach on, & beseeched God to confirm tem in this resolution. Behold their threaten, said they Act. 4.29. & grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness, they speak thy word.  
D. M. p. 29. We think the Power of Excommunication in the Church to be more than either a Political, a Parliamentary, or a merely Ecclesiastical constitution, as being an Ordinance, & Institution neither of the State, or of the Church; but of Christ himself.  
Rev. It is not worth the while, to examine whence you have it, when many doubt whither you have it at all: & this neglect of using it, in such urgent occasions, confirms them in that doubt. The same of other questious, which pa. 29. You propose: why the Pope did excommunicate Henry VIII. Why not Charles V. Which are nothing to our purpose. I will only, say that if the Pope had no better, nor other grounds, than you allege, his case is hard to be excused.  
D. M. p. 32. Cressey May confess truly, that this whole passage was put into his Book by another hand, without his knowledge, & that as he was forced to own it at first, so he was not permitted to retract, or correct it, in his second edition.  
Rev. Here are three odious Accusations. 1. Against the Benedictins, of corrupting another man's works, making him say, what he never said.  
The 2. against Mr. Cressey of owning a thing as his own, which he knew was not his own; & was to boot false.  
The 3 against them all again, for not permitting that untruth to be corrected: whereas Mr Cressey says expressly He would have corrected them, but his corrections come too late to the printer. He sent them than to the printer, & this, he would not have done, but by consent of his superiors. Wherefore they consented to that correction: contrary to what you say.  
The mean while these Crimes are charged by you upon that ancient grave order, & not a word of proof offered. I will not say they are Calumnies; but I desire you to Act the God father, & give them convenient names.   

SECTION XVIII. Revision of the Sermon nou. 5. 

1. Festival days for Thanks givimg good; yet sometimes abused.  
2. That of the 5. of nou. notoriously.  
3. No seditious Doctrines in the Church of Rome.  
4. Of the gunpowder Plotters.  
5. Of the penal Laws against Papists.    
1. TO return thanks to almighty God, for the Benefits received of him, especially when they are great, & signal deliveryes, is a duty enjoined by the law of nature: & that some singular favours should be acknowledged with annual solemnities, is prescribed both in the old, & new law. Such were in the old, the Phase, the Phurim, the Encoenia, the New moons, & the Sabbath. In the new, Christ mass, Easter, with suntide, & the sundays.  
That these Anniversary Feasts were grateful to God, when duly kept, is evident, seeing he commanded them; exacted their being kept: checked, & punished such as broke, or profaned them, by any servile work. Yet that they were sometimes offensive to him, is as evident as any thing in Scripture. Amos 5.21. I hate, I despise your feast days, & I will not smell in your solemn Assemblies. And Amos 8.10. I will turn your Feasts into mourning. And Malachy 2.3. I will corrupt your seed, & spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn Feasts, & it shall take you away with it. There is then dung in solemn Feasts, for which God hates, & despises them: for which he will turn them into mourning, which he will spread on men's faces, & destroy them: as well as Flowers or Fruit grateful to God, & men. What is this Dung? What the Fruit, or Flowers?  
The Feasts are as pleasant as Flowers, or Fruit, when they are spent in considering the danger men were in, their inability to avoid it, & God's mercies, in discovering, & disappointing it. Then than king God, for his help in over coming it, & praying him to continu his Protection. To make themselves worthy of this Blessing, men must be sorry for their offences, & resolve not to offend again. These Feasts so kept would entail the like Blessings upon us. But they become as odious as Dung, when they are occasions not to praise God; but curse his servants: when men, in them, in lieu of magnifying his mercy, provoke his justice, & deserve the mischief they have escaped by uncharitable invectives against innocents, to satisfy their Passion. What is this but to turn God's Blessings into curses: to dry up the fountain of his mercy; & stir up his Anger: & to draw upon their heads those, or greater punishments, than those they escaped? In fine, to make themselves unworthy of his Protection?  
2. How little Fruit, & what a prodigious quantity of this Dung is found in your Gun powder solemnity, is evident to any man, who sees the sermons made on that occasion. This, which I now Review, contains 37. pages: yet all it contains of the delivery from the plot itself, might be said in one. The rest (excepting some commonly known Truths at the beginning, as that There is a God, etc.) is spent in charging that horrid plot on Persons certainly, or at least probably jnnocent, & our Religion itself. Now if you, D. Morley, one of the most moderate of your coat, in presence of his Majesty, [whose merciful disposition, & aversion to violent courses, is known] have so much of this Dung, what can we guess of your hot headed Prophets amongst their furious blind Zealots?  
And now, o ye Priests (Parsons) this commandment is for you. (I use the words of Malachy. 2.) If ye will not hear, & if ye will not lay to hart, to give glory to my name, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, & I will curse your Blessings: yea I have cursed them already, because you do not lay to hart. Behold I will reprove your seed [your whole Ministry] & spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn Feasts [5. noven] & it shall take you away with it. Which words are so clearly verified in our days, of your Gunpowder Feast in England, that they seem not an Obscure Prophecy of a thing to come; but a Relation of a thing past, or description of one present. How little you glorify God's name, on this day, I have said already. That God Hath cursed these your Blessings, & spread the dung of this solemnity upon the face of the whole English Protestant Church, is evident: for from the year 1641. that fiery Zeal against Popery, which yourselves had kindled, & entertained, fell on your own Church, as Popish, & took it away with it, & Monarchy also: leaving scarce any hopes of restoring either. And again with in these last five years how near it brought both again to subversion, & utter ruin, you cannot but know. And how great was the danger of this Feast Being turned into mourning, as Amos foretold c. 8.10. is evident, whence our vigilant Magistrates were moved to forbid Bone fires, those ordinary signs of joy: as the best means to prevent some dismal effects of that Malice, which you of the Ministry keep still up at height, althô you have found it fatal to both Church & State.  
Yet I am not convinced, that Prohibiting bone fires is a remedy proportioned to the evil, that is feared, or rather felt, as long as you by your reproaches, & invectives, are permitted to entertain that hatred of Popery: it is only to cut off a branch, & leave the tree, to skin a wound, & leave the Arrow head in it: not to quench; but to cover a fire, which when lest expected will break out into new flames. For if you are permitted to sound the Alarm, what wonder those who defer too much to your words should take it, & being fryghted out of their wits, by your representation of their danger, they mistake a Trojan for a Grecian, & some blows leveled at Papists, fall on Papists in Masquerade? In fine your Gunpowder sermons preach the People into gunpowder: & then a little spark is enough to set them on fire, & blow all to pieces. And at whose door must this lie, but yours, who dispose all to it?  
One observation more, & I pass this point. Factious men, who make use of your labours to your destruction, are great proficients in the Art of promoting mischief. Forty years a go it cost them much labour, money, blood, & time, to get their armed Myrmidons about the King's person: within these four years, few hours were enough to bring 20000. armed men. to Temple Bar, near the King's Palace: & who knows but the next attempt will bring them to, or within his gates. Deus omen avertat, say I, as well as you. But humanely speaking, that can scarce be avoided, without God's opening your eyes to see the mischief, you promote, or stirring up public Authority to stop your mouths. Otherwise, You conceive chaff, you bring forth stubble, your spirit, as fire, will devour you. Isayas' 33.11. Now to your sermon.  
In your 16. first pages I see little to the purpose. The greatest part is De communi Sanctorum, appliable to other things, mingled with some slips, through inadvertency: such I take that to be, p. 13. S. Paul saw it with his own eyes: when he says himself, 1. cor. 1.11. He heard it from those of Chloe.  
3. D. M. p. 17. This horrid conspiracy, to which the Actors were prompted by some Doctrines of their Religion.  
Rev. That it was a Horrid conspiracy, I grant; but not, that the Doctrines of our Religion prompted the Actors unto it. Let experience decide the cause. What Kings more absolute in their Dominions, than Catholics? In England when were our Kings more honoured, & readily obeyed, by their subjects, than when Papists? when more beloved by their friends, and Allies, when more feared by their Enemies, than when Papists? Popery teaches to give every one his due: to God, what is Gods, & to Caesar, what is his: that is, it teaches to obey both Prelate & Prince, both spiritual & temporal Magistrate. Whereas your Reformation quite cast off obedience to the Prelate, & so weakened that to the Prince, that this broke too. And althô you have endeavoured to piece it again, yet the common voice says, that without a dose of Popery, or Popish principles, it can never arrive to its former vigour. So different are the judgements of the world from your pretences! But what are these Doctrines?  
D. M. p. 19, That of the Pope's supremacy not of order, or precedency Only; but of Authority, & jurisdiction.  
Rev. That supremacy had been acknowledged 1000 years, & yet Monarchy remained in its vigour: & so it continues in Spain, & France, & Germany, without any bad effect to Monarchy. But you lay the faults of your Reformation at our door. Then you cite some hard opinions out of Bellarmin, & Aug. Steucus, who being no Rules of our Faith, I pass by them.  
D. M. p. 21. The Clergy was forbidden to marry that they might have no tye to their country: & exempted from secular jurisdiction, that it might depend only on the Pope.  
Rev. You speak more dogmatically, than the Pope, for in doctrinal points, he gives a Reason, & you give none. You may find other motives for these two points, if you consult our Divines, or Controvertists.  
D. M. p. 22. Oaths cannot bind them to their Allegiance Because 1. they take them with Aequivocation. 2. The Pope can dispense in them. 3. They keep no faith with Heretics.  
Rev. Such stuff might pass in Oates' narrative, or railing I Philips, before the Rabble; but scarce in one of your degree before such an Auditory. If Oaths to us are such Cobwebs, why do so many of us lose their Estates, their Liberties, & their Lives, rather than take some? Why doth the Parliament take the Pains to frame, & impose them? You contradict experience, & I fear, your own Conscience.  
D. M. p. 23. Another horrid Doctrine, is the obligation of Priests, to conceal what they hear in Confession. And you mention Clement, & Ravaillac.  
Rev. You might with as much reason, have mentioned Brutus & Pausanias: for it doth not appear that either of these two ever discovered their design in Confession. The secret of Confession may bring a Ruffian to discover his damnable intention to a Priest, by whom he may be diverted, or the mischief prevented: & Divines teach how, without breaking the seal of Confession. But it gives no advantage to a Priest to communicate bad designs, because the obligation of secrecy binds not the Penitent.  
D. M. p. 24. It is not enough to say, these are not Doctrines of the Church of Rome; but only of some particular Doctors of it: because they never were condemned by the representative Body of that Church, etc.  
Rev. A discourse much below yourself, & your Auditory, yet you repeat it again p. 30. What obligation is there, that if one do a thing contrary to his duty, all those of his Communion must by some public act declare against it. Doth a man suspect his son, of taking a purse, if another doth so? Or his wife of being unfaithful to him, because his neyghbour's wife is so? Or you & your breath, ren, to be in a readiness to take up Arms against the King, because a Bishop did so? Because that man's son, or wife, or the Bishops never declared their abhorrence, of those several Crimes?  
Moreover some of the Doctrines, you mention, are censured by our Church, in Santarelli, & Becanus. In France, & Rome itself: which you knew, & therefore say They were not condemned by the representative body of the Church, that is, a general Council. But if you read the last Chapter of S. Augustine's fourth book Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, you will find that general Councils are not always necessary to condemn emergent errors, that many more have been condemned out of, than in Councils; that without an absolute necessity [all other means failing] the Church uses not to have recours to a general Council. Indeed were it not so, such Councils must either be perpetual, & so the chief Pastors would be always absent from their flocks, or be so frequent, that they would scarce ever reside with it. Wherefore God hath appointed in the Church for ordinary & more frequent occasions inferior Tribunals, some of which have declared already their dislike of some of these Doctrines: others they leave, as likely to whither of themselves, Sicut foenum tectorum, as hay on the house top: & some it may be are left, as not being legally known to those Tribunals. How ever either there is, or is not, an obligation to condemn all bad Doctrines? If there is none, why do you blame our Church for omitting it? If there is one, how can you excuse your own Church, which never complied with that Duty? In reality there is an obligation, which being a positive precept, obliges in time & place; not always: & is so kept by us; not at all by you.  
D. M. p. 25. Bishop Andrews tells us, that Paul iv offered to confirm all that Q. Elisabeth had done in Church affairs, upon condition she would own his supremacy.  
Rev. This requires a better proof, than the bare word of one interessed man. How ever if it were so, the guilt of Schism sticks closer to you: & you may see how much you were mistaken, when you told F. Darcy at Brussels, that one Side was resolved before hand to relax nothing. But it is an ordinary custom amongst you, to make us hold contradictory things, as they serve your turn.  
D. M. p. 26. The eastern schism was caused by the Pope's assuming the title of universal Bishop: & of being Head of the whole Church.  
Rev. That cannot be: for the Pope never took the title of Universal Bishop. And that other, Head of the Church, was acknowledged by the 2. General Council: you preside over us, as a Head over its members. Says that Council.  
D. M. p. 27. & 28. Cates by said this, & F. Garnet said that, etc.  
Rev. Just the stile of Oates' narrative, & might serve as a Model of it.  
D. M. p. 30. They suffer Garnet, & Oldcorne to be put into the Catalogue of Martyrs, by the Jesuits.  
Rev. If they do so, it is because they judge them Innocent of the Treason, for which they suffered; not that they like the Treason itself. Thus several have written in defence of some Persons lately accused of Treason, believing them to be innocent of it, who hate Treason more heartily, than either Oats, or Shaftesbury, the grand promoters of that Accusation.  
D. M. p. 31. Beware of false Prophets, who come to you in sheepe's clothing; but are inwardly wolves, nay ravening wolves.  
Rev. The same I say: yet still I wish it were not in the Power of every malicious man, to call Wolf & then all the dogs in the country shall be set on a Sheep, & worry it. Which hath been lately done on this side the line, to the astonishment of the world, & no little discredit of our Nation.  
D. M. p. 32. It is not their persecution, but our own preservation that we contend for.  
Rev. The law of nature obliges you to seek Self preservation: but Prudence must guide you in the choice of proper means to find it. And Experience is the best rule of Prudence: & this demonstrates, that Persecution of Papists, is the way to Ruin; not to Preserve yourselves. For about 70. years, through the mercy of our Kings we have had but two Persecutions of Papists, & both opened a door to Factious. Rebels, who the first time ruined both Church, & State: & the second time brought both to the brink of a precipice, & down both had gone, had there not been put a stop to the precedings against Papists. So the Persecution of Papists is such a remedy to your fainting Church, as cutting his throat is to a man in an Ague.  
Dic mihi, num furor est, ne moriare mori?  
Will any man in his wits, prescribe such physic?  
D. M. p. 34. I will add for justifying the laws made against Papists, that if they seem to have a watchful eye, & hold a stricter hand over them in jealous times, they must thank themselves, who refuse to take, & the Pope, who forbids them to take the Oaths.  
Rev. I wish you had explicated, what you mean by jealous times? Wither such as are occasioned by some Actions, or designs of Papists, against your Church, or State? Or without any cause, besides the fancy of some melancholy Parson, or the Calumnies of some such Flagitious wretches, as of late appeared on the English stage? If your jealousies are are of the first sort, no body will blame your severity, upon the guilty Persons. If they have no other ground but the dreams of a fanciful Parson, or the word, & Oath, of an Oats, or a Bedlow, who would starve or be hanged, if by such a trick they did not get a meal's meat, and their neck out of a halter, by a Pardon: I leave you to judge, whither this doth justify your strict hand; & not rather aggravate it. A wise man said: England is in a strange condition! For if any man in the Parliament do but cry, Popery, they will act, & decree, as if they were besides themselves. Is this a laudable disposition of the Body Politic? Would our taking the Oaths cure this distemper, when you yourself in this very sermon tell the world, that no Oaths can bind us? Me thinks an unblemished loyalty both acting, & suffering, as is our duty to the Royal Authority in such variety of hard times, as we have seen, might be a better assurance, than such Cobwebs, as you describe them.  
D. M. p. 38. The Church of Rome uses greater severity in Spain, & Italy, etc.  
Rev. We are very thankful to his Majesty for The grace he shows us, either in quite suspending, or abating the rigour of the law: & weacknowledge it as an act of Mercy. yet give me leave to tell you, that our case in England, is far different from that of Protestants either in Spain, or Italy: we brought Christianity to the English Nation: your Bishops, & Priests, your Hierarchy & Orders, if you have any, you have them from us. Your Churches we built, & founded, your Celledges & universities are our Donations: Your Canon, & Civil law, your Sacred, & profane learning are the product of our studies. The very Rites, & ceremonies, which you use, you borrowed from us. Which of all these things did Protestant's bring, & settle in Italy, or Spain? If none; then certainly the case of Catholics in England, is not the same, with that of Protestants, in Catholic countries.  
D. M. p. 38. Let me entreat you all to join with me in this short prayer.  
Rev. We willingly give God thanks for preserving the Nation from ruin: & pray him to continu his protection to it: & that He will give our Dread sovereign along life, a peaceable reign, a wise Council, faithful Ministers, stout soldiers, & an obedient, contented, & united people, without those groundless animosities, which you of the Ministry foment. Amen.   

SECTION XIX. A Revision of the Letter to her R. H. 

1. The publishing of this Letter unexpected.  
2. What kind of Directors are the Ministers?  
3. The report of the change of her R. H.  
4. Motives alleged to retain her in the Protestant Religion.  
5. Spiritual state of the Protestant Church.    
1. I Was very much surprised, to see this letter made public, much more, that is was by your order, by reason of the character you bore, of Confessor to her R. H. For a far different reason, there ought to be as great a freedom of communication betwixt Confessor, & Penitent, in matters of Conscience, as to the soul, as betwixt Man, & Wife, as to the Body. Which liberty is much checeed, with the thought, that such things may some day become public. The people of Athens would not let Philip of Macedon's letters to his wife Olimpias be opened, though he were an Enemy, as thinking the converse betwixt such persons, sacred. With more reason ought those betwixt Confessor, & Penitent, be looked on as such. But it seems in the Protestant Church nether secret is regarded: for that betwixt Man & Wife was broken by order of Parliament, for the printing the letters of king Charles I. to the Queen, & you, a father of the Protestant Church publish those betwixt your Penitent, & you. And I hear that some persons of your Communion have found, that they had not made their Confessions themselves to Mute fishes. Witness Capt. Hind.  
Catholics have indeed printed a letter of a Priest to my Lord of Stafford, & something written as is believed by her R. H. but nether of these comes home to the point of this letter. For what was written by her R. H. was probably designed to be seen, at least it was not written to her Confessor: nor was that letter to my Lord of Stafford, by his Confessor, it might, & probably did come from one, who never saw him, nor knew of him, but only that he was preparing for Death.  
Another reason, why I was surprised at the sight of this letter, is that it doth in a manner confirm the Report of her being a papist. Now this lady being by alliance entered into the Royal Family, & making a very eminent figure in it, I thought she should have been partaker of that privilege, that none should publish their being Papists: for if this be Treason by law, when said of the head of that Family, it ought to be held a heinous offence, when spoken of others. Besides this, we learn in Toby, 12.11. That it is Good to reveal the secrets of God; & to conceal those of the King. So that whereas Divines are permitted to dine as deep as they can into Divine mysteries, as to those of the King they are to remember, that Qui scrutator est Majestatis, opprimetur a gloriâ, He that pries into Majesty shall be oppressed with glory Prou. 25.27. Death to the fool hardy.  
2. The book called Anti Haman p. 309. hath these words: There seems to be as much difference, betwixt the spiritual food, which souls receive in the Catholic Church, & that of Protestants, as there is betwixt the nouriture a child receives sucking a breast, stretched with milk, & that he gets, by sucking a moistened finger. We have an occasion here to see whither this judgement be well grounded.  
Two things are remarkable in the instructions, which Ministers give to the souls under their direction, as appears by their sermons, & spiritual books. 1. A horror, & hatred of Popery. 2. A slyght touch of some wholesome Catholic Truths, yet so handled, as not to move considerably the soul, for fear it move them too far. For example, they speaking of some former sins, the sorrow for them, the purpose of amendment: the preventing God's judgements, by judging ourselves, & appeasing his wrath by Penitencial works, they do it well; yet knowing that those points are mere Popery, to prevent their passing over to it they added an Antidote, which destroys all they had said. One instance shall suffice. Dr Hewit, Repentance, & Conversion p. 51. hath these words: we must confess to men, & that both privately, & publicly, according to the quality of the sin, (This is catholic Doctrine: now he corrects it) For though we condemn Auricular Confession, as a trick of state Policy; yet we allow, & exhort all Christians to a true, voluntary, & sincere Confession of their sins to the Bishop, & superintendents of the Church. Thus he. Now what is Private Confession, but Auricular Confession? Yet to the one he exhorts; the other he condemns: or rather he approves, & condemns the same thing under different names. And what is this, but to build with one hand, & pull down with the other? to plant, & root up, the same thing? To teach in Churches, as true Protestant evidences depose in Courts plain Down right contradictions?  
Now what can a soul do, hearing this, if she be truly desirous of salvation? Practise those Truths? They bring her to Popery? Then they cannot seriously practise what you teach. This inward combat seldom ceases, till they leave the Protestant Communion: for either they become immediately Papists, if the love of virtue overcomes: or Presbiterians, if the hatred of Papists prevails, by the help of a Morose nature. Thus the surest ties to Protestaney seem to be, 1. a carelessness of what is to come in the next world, 2. a Presumption of God's goodness, & 3. Temporal motives of all sizes. All which are insignificant to a soul, that prefers her eternal concern, before her temporal, & resolves to advance in virtue an Earth, that she may be more grateful to her celestial spouse in Heaven.  
3. For this reason the report of the change in Religion, of her R. H. easily found credit with me. Of which report, you speak p. 4. & 5. God had given her a serious desire to serve him, as he would be served. I heard she was earnest in pursuing what she thought was for his glory, attentive in her Devotions, & exact in performing what seemed to be the will of God, & for the good of her soul: & that though her Fortune was exceeding great, yet she would rather forgo it all, then hazard her soul: that Jewel being too precious, to be compensated with any thing. God had Given her an extraordinary good understanding, say you p. 14. with which she could easily discern betwixt what was True, & what only Seemed to be so. Whence without any help of Books, or instructions of men, by only Hearing the discourse of Religion (which is the most common in England, & will be so, till men talk themselves either out of all Religion, or into a good one, either into Atheism, or Popery) she might easily discover, that the devil was not so ugly, as he was painted: that somethings were charged on us, which we did not hold: & that what we really taught, was not Blame worthy: so on both sides we were jnnocent. And probably she might declare so much, being unwilling to hear us wronged. Which gave you occasion to say, p. 4. that she Declared in favour of Papists, & grounded that Report, of her being one.  
Then you spend several pages in proving how fatal a like Report had been to her Father-in-law, K. Charles I. & what prejudice it had like to have done to Charles II. although both were jnnocent of that Crime, & averse to the Religion. Which confirms what I said, how dangerous it is to entertain that animosity against Popery, which enables knaves to compass the ruin of honest men, even the King himself, with only traducing him, or them, as Papists, how jnnocent soever they be, & averse to that Religion.  
D. M. p. 12. It is Impossible to silence this Report (of your being a Papist) unless you yourself appear in it, & upon all occasions declare your detestation of it. etc.  
Rev. How insignificant this remedy would have proved, appears by its success in the late King's time: Whose declarations of that nature, even at the Communion, could not silence his Enemies, nor check a like report.  
D. M. p. 15. None shall ever be able to prove, that either we omit any thing necessary to salvation: or teach any thing destructive to it.  
Rev. Your Schism is destructive to Salvation. It is undeniable that Schismatics remaming such cannot besaved; They shall not have God for their father, who have not the Church for their mother. S. Cyprian. And you are in a Schism. I might allege several other things destructive to Salvation: but this one is enough.  
D. M. p. 17. & 18. The Papists say there is no salvation, out of their Church. The Donatists said so too. And was it not for that, saying so, that they were pronounced Heretics?  
Revisor: Here are three gross mistakes, of which I have spoken sec. 4. The 1. that the donatists said there was no salvation out of their Church. Their grande error was, that the Church was lost by communicating with a sinner. All their other errors were but sequels of this: viz that there was no Church, but theirs, the rest of the Christians communicating with Cecilianus, who had delivered up the holy books. 2. That there was no valid Baptism but in their Communion. 3. That the son, was lesser than the father, & the Holy ghost, than the son. See S. Austin l. de Hereticis ad Quod vult Deum §. 69. & Epi. Baronij ad annu Dom. 321. n. 4. For these errors the donatists were true hertics. But for saying, that Heresy destroys salvation, they could not be Heretics, unless you will make S. Athanasius one, who says in his creed: Quam, fidem, nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. No hopes of salvation, where any point of Faith is denied.  
The 2. That they were pronounced Heretics for saying so. They were pronounced Heretics for saying other things: as I have shown.  
The 3. that they were held for Heretics. The Catholic Church held them at first for schismatics, & such they were; but not for Heretics. The Catholics exacted nothing of them, but that they should join Communion with them: they offered to that intent, that in those cities, which had two Bishops, one of each Communion, the survivor, which soever it was, should govern alone the Diocese, that by that means the Schism might be extinguished. A condition never offered to any Heretic, or Heretics what soever. At last indeed they turned true Heretics, as I said, on another score.  
D. M. p. 19 For you to conclude in favour of Popery, without hearing Protestants, is that which cannot be done either in Equity, or Conscience.  
Rev. She did not conclude for one side, without hearing the other, She had heard Protestants from her jnfancy, & had weighed maturely what they could say for themselves, or against Popery. It is wonderful, that a short Conference with some Papist, [it could be no more, if there were so much] should be of force sufficient to root up all those prejudices against God's Church, which you so careful instill to those under your conduct, althô they had been confirmed by long practice, & reiterated Acts contrary to the Catholic Faith: & all these backed with almost the greatest temporal interest in the world: for on the one side, she saw honour, Riches, & the probable expectation of our Imperial crown; on the other, Reproaches, Calumnies, disgrace, & probably a tragical End, for such had been the fate of her Father-in-law indeed; & what misery, or unjustice is so evident, so great, as a Papist may not fear from a True Protestant? But Magna veritas, & praevalet: Truth seconded by God's interior grace, & assisted by her generous resolution, never to admit the whole world into consideration, when her soul was concerned, overcame all those difficultyes. With this Truly Heroical resolution you acquaint us. For you say to her.  
D. M. p. 21. You yourself have told me more than once, (even since this false report hath been raised of you) that you would not do any thing, whereby you might seem to be of a Church, or Religion, which you are not of indeed; no not for any worldly consideration whatsoever. And p. 22. you are wont to say, that no worldly either Advantage, or Prejudice, is to be considered, when the gaining of the One, or the avoiding of the Other, comes into competition with the hazarding, or securing of our spiritual, & everlasting jnterest of our souls: & consequently, that if you were convinced there were no Salvation to be had, but in the Church of Rome, no consideration either of Loss, or of Danger here in this world, you might incur by it, should keep you from it.  
Rev. Out of these truly Christian Resolutions, often declared to you, I gather many material points, either unknown before, or not sufficiently known.  
1. That her R. H. was really inclined to be a Catholic. So that Report was grounded.  
2. That you knew this inclination.  
3. That you endeavoured to divert her from it, alleging chiefly temporal interest, to divert her from becoming a Papist. This I gather out of those declarations, which she so often made: & out of this very letter, which contains little, if any thing at all else.  
4. That either you, which I do not believe, or some other Protestant, advised her to dissemble in matter of Religion, & profess herself a Protestant, though she were not so. What other occasion could she have to make that declaration, that She would not do any thing to seem to be of a Church of which she was not, for all the world?  
Lastly, that she was too generous to be fryghted with such Bug bears. When her soul lay at stake: knowing full well, it Would avail her nothing to gain the whole world, if she lost that. Mar. 8.36.  
5. Thus this letter confirms what was said, but not commonly believed, of the Religion in which her R. H. died, that she truly was a Catholic, or as you call us, a Papist: for you own her inclination that way, & you had little to allege to divert her from it, but temporal interest: which was as little able to retain her, as a cobweb to hold a Lion: so it is impossible to miss in the conjecture of the event.  
But what judgement will the world make of your Church, out of this letter? The concern you writ for, was as great almost as could occur, the retaining within your Communion a person, as considerable almost, as any whatsoever, a person worthily esteemed as great for her qualifications of mind, as to virtue, & understanding, as for her dignity in the Kingdom: a person, who was a great ornament to your Church, nay a Pillar of it. So no doubt but all industry was used to prevent her leaving you: & that whatsoever your Art, your wit, & learning could do, was employed to that intent, & we may guess, that as the cause was common, so the concurrence was: & therefore we may conjecture, that all the nerves of the Protestant Church joined to give this Blow. Yet how weak, how inconsiderable is it!  
And is then your Glorious Apostolical reformed Church come to this? Have you no motives, to commend her Communion, & retain pious souls in it, but Temporal? will these weigh down in the scales of reason all considerations of Eternity? And if they should be judged weight, by men, will God judge so too? At the great day, will it be a sufficient excuse for Schism, & Heresy, to say: I was afraid of losing my estate, of hindering my fortune, of offending my friends, of giving advantage to my Enemy's? Will not Christ answer.  You have disowned me, & my Church, before men, I will disowne you before my father?  
I will not deny, but you have given satisfaction, as to what concerns yourself, that you are a Protestant. Yet I must profess, you give little satisfaction, as to your Church. Nay I do declare, that I would never desire other, nor better grounds to vindicate the Truth of Catholic Religion, & the necessity of living in the Communion of the Catholic Church, than what this letter affords. For by it, we may gather the condition of the Protestant Church to be like that of Laodicea, Apoc. 3.17. Wretched, & miserable, & poor, & blind, & naked. I heartily wish you & those of your rank, were truly sensible of this Truth, & that you made a right use of it, by seeking ways to return to the Communion of the Catholic Roman Church: & so put an end to this horrid Schism. Though the difficultyes to be overcome were great, yet great difficultyes ought not to fright us from so great, so necessary a good, as that of the Peace of the Church. But in reality they are less, then apprehended, which you must say, if you believe, what you report after Bishop Andrews, that the Pope was willing to confirm all, that Q. Elizabeth had done in matter of Religion, provided she would acknowledge his Supremacy. This is then the grand, nay the only obstacle. Now all, who have been conversant in Catholic countries, & see their customs, even where that Supremacy is acknowledged, see clearly, that this is no such formidable thing, as to excuse, & justify a separation: & by consequence can be no just hindrance of Peace. which the God of Peace grant us: & give all Schismatics a true desire of. Amen.   

SECTION XX. A Revision of his Letter to a Priest.  
WHo this Regular Priest is, you do not tell us; yet what you say, of him, & he of himself, describe him by infallible notes. You endeavour to prove in this letter to him, three things.  

1. That being so persuaded, as he was, he was bound in Conscience to leave the Communion of the Roman Church.  
2. That he was bound to join Communion, with the Protestant Church of England.  
3. That he was bound to do it out of hand.   
Which Propositions are built one upon another, the third on the second, & this on the first. Which being Conditional; not Absolute: supposing his Present persuasion, we must see what that is: & according to this Meridian we must calculate his Duty.  
What this poor man's Persuasion is, (if he have any settled) is hard to judge of. He hath vowed Obedience to his Regular Superior; & will not keep it. He hath vowed Poverty, & breaks that vow. He profess the Catholic Faith, & believes it full of Errors, nay heresies. He says, he will remain in the Communion of the Roman Catholic Church, & yet believes her to be Heretic, & Schismatic. He hath been ordered bacl to his Convent; & he refuses to return: he hath been Canonically admonished of his extravagances, & he slights it: he hath been Excommunicated, & he Laughs at it. In fine, in him Heretics find a constant friend, Schismatics a sure Advocate, Apostates, a certain Patron, & Catholics an implacable Enemy; & yet he pretends he is nether Heretic, nor Schismatic, nor Apostata; but a Catholic, & member of the Roman Church,  
Who can square these circles, & reconcile these Contradictions, betwixt his Declarations & Actions, that so a judgement may be framed of his True Persuasion? Whither shall we give credit to, his declarations? Or his Actions? Those speak his being a Catholic, & he is nothing less. These declare his hatred to Catholics, & their Religion, which yet he professeth. So we must conclude him a Chimaera, one composed of contradictions, & his Religion is made up of parts mutually destroying one another. Or else, that he hath no Religion: for as a Chimaera cannot have a being In rerum naturâ: so there can nether be an Entity composed of Contradictions, nor a Religion, for the same reason. At least at the great Audit, he can never fail to hear Discede a me, etc. Begun from me: & whither so ever Religion he be of, his own words will condemn him: Ex ore tuo te judico, serve nequam.  
What can hence be gathered, but that his Persuasion being so uncertain, & his Religion so dubious, or certainly none at all, nothing can be thence gathered, as to the Communion, which he should enter into. If you think him well disposed for your Church, you discover what kind of men it is composed of. Ours, that is the Catholic Church, doth not desire such, nor tolerate them, further than there is hopes of their amendment: & little, or none at all being left of this man, she hath cast him out by Excommunication: As I learn from your own letter. So by what I see, I conclude that, You have spoilt a Catholic, & not made a Protestant.  
Yet to move him to come quite over, you very learnedly distinguish three ages of the Church. The first, whilst she continued in that Faith, which was once delivered to Saints. p. 31. The second [p. 32.] from the time, the Pope took upon him the title of universal Bishop. Yet you are not resolved what time to allow to this Second age, whither one thousand, or eleven, or twelve hundred years. The third, (p. 42.) from the two Councils, of Lateran under LEO X. & Trent. jmplying, that all were bound to communicate with the Church of Rome in its first age, might communicate with it, in the second; & must not in the third. In the first, Communion with it was a necessary duty: in the second, it was lawful, but not necessary: in the third unlawful, & a sin. And these dreams take up above 30. pages.  
Rev. All this is a dream: for the second age, which you speak of, is yet to come: the Pope never having taken the title of Universal Bishop. Besides this, Christ promised his assistance to the Church not for any determinate time; but for all times: & assured her of his presence, till the end of the world: now when you shall prove, that Christ hath broken, or can, or will, break his word, we will think your second age possible; not till then: so the first age, in which all are obliged to join in Communion with the Church of Rome, is not expired, nor will, nor can ever expire.  
D. M. p. 62. Having quitted the Communion of the Roman Church, he is bound to join with that of England, in Conscience, it being the most perfectly reform Church in the world: & in Prudence, in order to the protection of his Person & provision for his future subsistence.  
Rev. You boast much of the perfection of your Reformation: yet were never able to get it approved by any one extern Church, of what denomination soever: & how many, or rather how few do universally approve it in England, appears by the number of your Sectaryes, & Schismatics. At what tribunal have you not been condemned, wherever you appeared? The Pope hath anathematised your Reformation: so hath the General Council of Trent, that Church representative. This Amphibium, this your Anonimous Priest, says you appealed to the Church diffusive: which he gathers by the Apologyes you published for all men to see. But you have had as ill success here, as at Trent, or Rome: having never been able to find any one Kingdom, or Province, or City, or any considerable number of particular men, who in all things approve your Reformation. So that you are in this inferior to the Lutherans, to Calvinists, to Anabaptists, to Adamists, nay to Independents, & Quakers, etc. Who all have in several countries some of their Persuasion; but of yours none out of England: & how many even there, own their vocation to your Reformation more to the Royal Authority, than to the force of the Truth, you teach, or the Beauty of your Church, which you commend?  
D. M. p. 63. Prudence obliges him to the same: for He can hardly be safe any where beyond seas: & by joining with us, he will: as also find provision for his subsistence: which you say you will undertake shall not be wanting.  
Rev. You sow the fox's skin to that of a Lion, & Spiritual motives falling short, you piece them out with Temporal. When we call to mind that within these fifty years your whole Church was turned out of God's Blessing into the warm sun, & that within these five years she was very near the same fate, we may conclude, that there is not much greater assurance of your Temporal, than of your Spiritual promises. Here I observe two things:  
The first: that Temporal motives are never omitted, when there is any hopes of gaining a Proselit. Indeed they are your best Card, as appears by your using it so frequently: & by using it, you show what weight it hath with you.  
The second: that in this you differ very much from Papists, who propose hopes of eternal life, indeed; but as for this, they promise nothing but what Christ promised his Disciples: 30.16.32. In mundo pressuram habebitis: you shall be hated, calumniated, persecuted, imprisoned, Oppressed, hanged, In this world: But better all this, than to lose your soul, by Schism, & Heresy.  
D. M. p. 64. It remains therefore, that being obliged to quit the Communion of the Church of Rome, & join with ours, of England, you are obliged to do this speedily, etc.  
Rev. All this falls to the ground: for there nether is, nor can be an obligation to quit the Church of Rome; there being an obligation to conform to her, to submit to her devisions in matter of Divine Truths, & to renounce all errors, contrary to the true Doctrine of Faith, which she teaches, & will teach to the end of the world.    

Imprimatur.  
Act. in Vïc. die duodecima May 1683. De Mand. Ampliss. ac RR. adm. DD. meorum praefat. B. D. SECRET.   

DUARUM EPISTOLARUM GEORGII MORLAEI S.T.D. ET EPISCOPI WINTONIENSIS AD JANUM VLITIUM REVISIO. In quâ, de Orationibus pro Defunctis, Sanctorum Invocatione, Dijs Gentilium, & Idololatriâ agitur. AUTHORE IOANNE WARNERO S. I. THEOLOGO.  
M.DC.LXXXIII.  Superiorum Permissu.  

PRAEFATIO.  
DVae istae Epistolae, quarum summam tibi hic exhibeo, Erudite Lector, uná cum responsionibus ad earum singula capita, pars sunt Libri ante quinque circiter menses, in Angliâ typis editi, á Dom. ac Mag. nostro Georgio Morlaeo S. T. D. Oxoniensi, ac Episcopo Wintoniensi: qui Regem exulem olim secutus, inter Catholicos degens, aliqua zeli sui pro matre suâ Ecclesiâ Protestanticâ Anglicana specimina dedit, cum viuâ voce, tum calamo, varia Fidei Ortodoxae capita impugnando. Quae omnia libro isto continentur, additis alijs, quae Patriae postliminio restitutus & dixit, & scripsit. Adeoque complexus est hoc uno volumine (quod cento vocari potest, ex varijs tractatibus conflatus, nihil praeter odium in Ecclesiam orthodoxam commune habentibus) hoc, inquam, complexus est, quidquid longissimo vitae tempore (octogenario major est) adversus varia Ecclesiae Romanae dogmata improbo labore, & continuo studio colligere potuit.  
Putabamus bonum Senem, contentionum istiusmodi pertaesum, cogitare cogitationes Pacis, charitatem potius quám schisma promovere malle, unionem inter discordes Ecclesias, illi cordi esse, quam Prudentiores multi ex illâ sectâ aut seriò, aut simulatè optant. Et quidem aetas ingravescens, & planè capularis, ut receptui caneret, suadebat; turpe fenex miles. Cum ecce subitò, nemine de certamine ab illo futuro cogitante, in arenam descendit, seniles lacertos juveniliter jactat, de victorijs praeteritis sibi gratulatur, easque ita praedicat, ut non senili Prudentiâ; sed juvenili levitate, sortis humanae, & propriae infirmitatis parùm memor, novas laureas, futurosque triumphos sibi polliceri videatur.  
Quominus cum hac in re imiter, facit rerum humanarum incertitudo, & propria infirmitas, quas prae oculis semper habeo. Quo facilius judicium ferat Lector, Eximii Domini argumenta ipsiusmet verbis expresla meis responsionibus praemitto: non sum mihi conscius, me uspiam eorum vim dissimulasse. An planè ijs satisfecerjm, iudicent alij. Novi hominum studia, & suos cuiquam affectus haud ita facilè avelli: nec incompertum, quantam isti vim habeant, ad judicium inflectendum, ne dicam corrumpendum. Hinc in causâ nostrâ non praejudico, neque veluti de partâ victoriâ in antecessum glorior: haud tamen exiguam spem in sinu foveo, ex bonitate causae, ex assistentiâ Spiritus Sancti Ecclesiae promissâ, & ex tuâ, Lector, veritatis amice, humanitate, responsiones nostras Eruditis, & aequis judicibus, à partium studio liberis probatum iri.  
Docet nos Epistolarum Auctor eximius, eas ante viginti quatuor annos fuisse scriptas: quia posterior data est anno MDCLIX. & in lucem prodiit tantum hoc anno MDCLXXXIII. Vnde non ad novem annos tantum, ut consulit Poeta, sed ferè ad ter novem eas penes se retinuit. Ego verò ne quidem totidem dies ad responsa concinnanda impendi, licet variis interea temporis aliis implicarer occupationibus: illa siquidem auspicatus sum XI. Aprilis, & I. Maji absolvi. Quod non ita accipi velim quasi laudem aliquam ex festinato opere sperem (quod novi ancipitis esse ad laudem & vituperium aestimationis) sed ut ostendam nullam in iis Epistolis difficultatem occurrisse, quae nos properantes diu remoraretur. Festinavimus autem, quo certius ad illum, fato jam vicinum, certè non valde remotum (quia Senes non possunt diu vivere, ait Latinae linguae Princeps) responsiones nostrae pervenirent. Licet enim dixerint graeci, Senis errorem corrigere, & mortuum suscitate perinde difficile esse, de nullius tamen in melius mutatione desperandum est, donec vivit. Hinc spes est, fore, ut aut melius, aut certè minus malè de Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, & Apostolicâ sentiat, ubi scierit eam injustè de Idololatriâ accusatam esse: nihilque ab eâ fieri hoc saeculo, dum orat pro defunctis, & Sanctos invocat (quae duo puncta ferè unicè in his Epistolis tractantur) quod non fuerit factum primis, & etiam Haereticorum judicio purissimis saeculis.  
Aliud Idololatriae caput à D. Morlaeo intactum, ab aliis tamen eius Symmistis Ecclesiae exprobratum, est Imaginum veneratio, quam ajunt cum Idolorum cultu convenire. Hos ut confutarem, Appendicem addidi, de Idololatriâ, sive cultu Idolis exhibito à Paganis: ex cuius explicatione patebit longè diversam esse venerationem Imaginibus exhibitam in Ecclesiâ, à cultu, quo sua Pagani Idola prosecuti sunt: adeoque non minori iniquitate abominandum Idololatriae crimen Ecclesiae objici, quam non ita pridem Viris innocentissimis, Regique suo fidelissimis, obsequentissimique subditis, horrendum Majestatis crimen à Dei, Ecclesiae, Regisque ipsius hostibus objectum fuit, Fide verè Protestanticâ, verè Calvinianâ: cum interea veram ipfimet in Regis, Regnique perniciem conspirationem adornarent, Regemque, eiusque Fratrem unicum occidere meditarentur, & execrandi facinoris invidiam in Innocentes, nihilque eâ de re cogitantes Catholicos derivare, ab eis paenas sumere, eosdemque ob crimen ab aliis commissum, internecione delere. Quot in uno facinore facinora! Et haec omnia, ut eliminatâ Monarchiâ, & extinctâ, aut exilio mulctatâ totâ Familiâ Regiâ, Genevensem in Angliâ Reipublicae formam stabilirent; ut quique Prudentiores ab initio subodorati sunt, jam verò manifestè apparet.  
Aliis Libri huius partibus Anglicè scriptis alia Fidei capita impugnat; quibus Anglicè respondi, ut juxta Grammaticae Regulas cum Questione solutio conveniret, & Responsio quadiaret objectioni. Qui linguam illam callent, de utroque judicium ferent.   

INDEX SECTIONUM.  

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

REVISIO PRIORIS EPISTOLAE DOCTISS. D. GEORGII MORLAEI, ad Janum Vlitium.  

SECTIO I. An Augustini sit Liber meditationum ipsi inscriptus.  
D. Morlaeus p. 3. v. 4. Erasmus ait se nec asseverare posse nec inficiari velle Augustinum libri hujus Auctorem esse. Bellarminus dubius etiam est, quia neque Possidius diligentissimus collector Operum Augustini in Indiculo ejus meminit nec citatur à Bedâ.  
Mihi vero ex hac Bellarmini observatione constare videtur, Augustinum non fuisse Auctorem hujus libri: qui alioqui non effugisset Possidium diligentissimum Operum Augustini collectorem.  
Responsio. Si probabilitè colligi dixisses, ex Possidii silentio librum non esse Augustini, ego sensui tuo non contentiosè refragatus fuissem. Sed dum ais Constare, tibi non assentientur, qui norunt argumenta negativa ab Auctoritate infirma esse. Hoc autem, quis non novit? & verò Possidium aliqua indubitata Augustini opera omisisse, notum est: talis est Liber de Vrbis excidio. Item Tractatus de eo quod dictum est: Ego sum, qui sum. Et Bellarminus in Observatione ad tom. 6. Operum Augustini, disertè dicit, Possidium singulos tractatus in Indicem non redegisse: qui tamen Diligentiae laudem meretur quod tam multa collegerit; licet aliqua illum effugerint; sic diligentes imo diligentissimi dici possunt messores, licet relictis aliquot spicis locum dederint spicilegio. Dei quidem semper perfecta sunt opera: in operibus hominum semper aliquid humani invenitur, aliquid incompleti, quod aequi rerum aestimatores humanae fragilitatis memores facile condonare, ubi non à voluntate malà proficiscitur. Hinc merito dictus est Possidius diligentissimus operum Augustini Collector: licet ex ejus silentio solo Constare non possit opus aliquod Augustini non esse.  
D. Morl. p. 5. sunt quaedam in isto Meditationum libro, quae non possunt esse Augustini: nempe Hymnus cap. 26. numeris metricis, & Rithmicis compositus, quod genus Carminum Augustini saeculo ignotum fuit: utpote à Scholasticis post Augustinum multis annorum centenis excogitatum, ut ex Sixto Senensi Biblioth. l. 3. colligi potest. jam verò si hoc rithmicum metri genus Scholasticorum inventum fuerit, quam absurdum sit hujusmodi Hymnum Augustino affingere (inter quem & Lombardum omnium Scholasticorum magistrum, sex ad minimum saecula intercesserunt) nemo melius judicare potest quam tu, Vliti.  
Resp. Tuum ego vicissim judicium appello, mi Morlaee, an verosimile sit opus illud Petri Lombardi saeculo posterius esse? Posterius inquam nam si illud Rithmi genus à Scholasticis inventum fuerit, cum hi illius discipuli extiterint, necesse est opus ipsum illo Parisiensi Episcopo recentius esse, quod è Scholasticis aliquem habeat Auctorem. Hoc autem nec tu puto dicturus es; cum res tractatae, tractandi modus, cogitationes, phrases, omnia reclament, à Scholasticis planè diversa. Adde, quod non facile dabis ullum opus, Scholasticorum saeculo compositum, in ullum è priscis Patribus nomen, & familiam irrepsisse. Et Ethnici & Christiani sua habuerunt saecula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive fabulosa Sicut ergo inter Ethnicos datum fuit aliquod tempus, ultra quod nemo ex hominibus ad Majorum Gentium Deos transcriptus est, ita & inter Christianos datum ultra quod nemo illorum Patrum opera scripta sua transtulit. Quod de justis operibus intelligi volo, ne quis ob aliqua Instrumenta vel sacra vel prophana mihi litem moveat.  
Error tuus futili tibicine sulcitur, scilicet: Scholasticos Carmina Rithmica invenisse: quod nec verum est, nec à Sixto Senensi tradi potuit. Sixtum Senensem ab aliquot annis non vidi. Ejus apud me magna est Auctoritas: quominus tamen ei assentiar hac in re, si sincerè illum hic citasti facit manifesta veritas, quam ostendi. Scholâ totâ quanta est, à Petro Lombardo, ortâ, antiquior fuit S. Bernardus, qui Epist. CCCXII, ad Guidonem, ait. Hymnum composui metri negligens, ut sensui non deessem. Fuerunt ergo Bernardi tempore, qui carmina sine metro, paangebant. Beda in Gentis nostrae historiâ multa habet rithmica carmina. Quid de versibus Leoninis dicam, quorum tam frequens in mediâ à Christo D. Aetate mentio, ut mirum sit tibi latere potuisse, imo & ante mediam aetatem. Vnde constat ex rithmis de Carminum saeculo judicium certum formari non posse. Neque dicas, quemque Leoninum versum duas habere partes, rithmo connexas; istos verò, de quibus agimus, tales esse, ut duo, vel etiam tres similitèr sonantibus syllabis claudantur: hujusmodi etiam Carmina antiqua sunt, ut patet ex coenotaphio Ethelberti, primi Anglorum Regis Christiani.  
Rex Ethelbertus hic clauditur in Poliandro,  
Fana pians, certus, Christo meat absque meandro.  
Accipe alterius Carminis simili Rithmo currentis exemplum:  
Wenefreda Virgo foelix, gloriosa meritis:  
Assistentes tuis festis, caeli junge gaudiis.  
Item & ista de eâdem Beatâ Wenefredâ:  
Virgo vernans velut rosa,  
Agni sponsa speciosa  
Martyr Christi preciosa  
Wenefreda floruit.  
Ex Britannis oriunda,  
Fide firma spe jucunda,  
Actu Sancta, ment mundae  
Mundi mendâ caruit.  
Haec, spero, non dices à Scholasticis profecta: etsi dixeris, facile erit ex antiquis tabulis contrarium evincere.  
Quid ergo dicemus ad Sixtum Senensem, quem Laudas tui velut erroris Patentem: concedemusne illum in re facti falsum fuisse D. Reip: nihil aliud dicere potuisse videtur, cum veritate quam apud Scholasticos Rithmos ita fuisse in precio, ut metri nulla ratio habita sit, sive quod syllabarum quantitatem haud intelligerent, sive quod eam spernerent, aut etiam aversabantur. Cum ad eorum aetatem aliqua saltem metri fuerit existimatio. Caeterum illum penes me non habeo, nec ea est difficultas, ob quam operae precium esset per aliorum bibliothecas eum quaesitum ire. Vides, doctissime morlaee, primam impressionem tuam male successisse: Argumenta tua nihil probare: adeoque Meditationum librum germinum Augustini faetum esse posse, nisi aliud obster.  
Caeterùm quod tu frustra nobis extorquere conatuses, id tibi ultrò damus, librum non effe Augustini. Aliqua enim de se dicit illius Auctor, quae in Augustinum non conveniunt: nempe C.XXXI ait: Fidem suam ab ipsis incunabulis illuminatam fuisse semper per illustrationem Divinae gratiae. Et C.XLI. ait se gravia peccata commisisse post Baptismum. Haec ab Augustino dici de se ipso non potuerunt, qui in Manichaeorum sordibùs diu volutatus est, ante Baptismum (quem adultus suscepit) & post eum semper pientissimè vixit.   

SECTIO II. De Sanctorum Invocatione.  
D. Morl. p. 5. Istius libri Auctor multa ex Augustino consarcinavit, quibus multa de suo addidit, & inter alia illas. Sanctos invocandi formulas: quae cum nullum habeant in S. Scriptura fundamentum, nec in praxi veteris, & nondum corruptae Ecclesiae exemplum, illarum Meditationum consarcinator, ut superstitiosis sui tempore genio inserviret, Augustini nomine & auctoritate abutebatur abusus est, debuit dicere.  
Resp. Quo Auctore haec dicis? nullo. Quo teste? Teipso. Quâ siduciâ talia de illo asseris (quae ad arcana cordis secreta spectare) quem nec de facie nosti, nec de nomine, neque dicere potes, quo loco, quove saeculo vixit? Ego verò censeo, Meditationum Auctorem virum fuisse pium (quod & liber ipse confirmat) qui in eo intimos animi sensus coram Deo effundit, ad id Augustini exemplo provocatus, cujus confessiones haud indiligenter legeret, ex quibus desumptas aliquas lacinias operi suo attexuit. Quale illud C.XXXIII. Laudat te homo magna portio creatura suae. Augustinus dixerat l. 1. confes. c. 1. Laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae. Aliae proferentur infra. Caeterum non credo Auctorem sibi nomen Augustini indidisse, aut personam induisse, alioqui melius scenam instruxisset, nec ea de se dixisset, quae ignorare on poterat ab Augustino aliena esse. Vnde suspicor ab aliquo alio ad sixum ei magni Doctoris nomen, idque bonâ side: quòd videret librum istum in non paucis cum aliis ejusdem sancti Doctoris operibus indubitatis convenire. Nec mirum est, viros obaesae naris id minime olfecisse, quod nec Bellarmino nec Erasmo patuit, quorum neuter opus Augustino abjudicat.  
Falleris verò, quod pace tuà dictum sit, dum ais Sanctorum Invocationem nec in S. Scripturâ fundamentum, nec in veteris Ecclesiae pravi exemplum habere? Vtrumque enim falsissimum esse, dicemus, ad Epistolam tuam alteram, in quâ seriò nos aggrederis, qui in istâ tantum praeludere videris & quasi velitari. In praesenti sat est, dicamus in vocatos in S. Scripturâ sanctos vivos: Vnde sequitur invocandos esse & sanctos mortuos. Et priscam Ecclesiam sanctos Martyres invocasse, unde data ethnicis occasio Christianis exprobrandi, quod quem illi Diis suis cultum exhibebant, Christiani in Martyres transferrent. Adde quod nulla sit Liturgia antiqua, in quâ Sancti non invocentur. Haec obiter.  
D. Morl. p. 6. Non inficias eo, quin in ipso Augustini saeculo hujus superstitionis semina & sparsa fuerint, & pullulare caeperint. Sed nego Augustinum in illo errore fuisse, aut tales invocandi sanctos formulas in Augustini temporis Eclesiâ communiter receptas, aut publicè usurpatas fuisse.  
Resp. Quid semina sparsa pullulare incipientia dubitas, cum ampla seges totius Ecclesiae agrum impleus appareat? eam Propherae seminarunt Apostoli rigarunt, & Deus variis miraculis testatus sibi gratam esse, incrementum dedit. Paulus Diaconus, vir minimè superstitiosus, refert Theodorum Heraclii Imperatoris fratrem ingentem Barbarorum multitudinem Deo per intercessionem B. Virginis capitulante parva manu concidisse.  
Hae superstitiosa tibi videntur, & qui ea fovebant in errore versatos esse putas. Dic ergo quibus antiquis Auctoribus ita sentias? quis primis illis saeculis sanctorum invocationem improbavit? Aliquos enim fuisse non nego: qui fuerint, quaero. Haeres, nec miror; tamburlaine infames two sunt, qui soli tibi, tuisque Symmistis, hac in re patrocinantur, ut probro; non honori tibi futuri sunt Tales Manichaeu, Eunomius, Vigilantius. Hi nobis adversantur, quos Ecclesia illorum temporum rite devovit, anathemate percussit. Tales autem erant, à quibus nihil nisi magnum aliquod bonum condemnari potuerit.  in simili dixit Tertullianus.  
D. Morlaeus: p. 6. Cum Melancthone audater dico, perversum hunc, pravumque sanctos invocandi morem (quantumvis postea cum Dei & sanctorum contumeliâ in Ecclesiâ invaluerit) in tribus primis post Christum saeculis, non modo inusitatum; sed aut inauditum, aut damnatum fuisse: nec posse ullum certum & indubitatum testimonium ex ullis Patrum, qui ante quartum saeculum vixerunt momentis in contrarium proferri. Vale.  
Resp. Non modò quaeritur, quid aut te, aut hic similes Reformatae Ecclesiae Paranymphi, novae sectae Vindices audacter dicatis; sed quid probetis. Scilicet perversus pravusque mos est, quem Hieronymus, quem Augustinus, quem Chrysostomus, quem Ecclesia tota Catholica propugnavit. Vnici verò illis saeculis Pietatis patroni sun Manichaeus, Vigilantius, & eujusdem furfuris alii! Cum Dei contumeliâ copulatur honor sanctis exhibitus, qui testatur sibi fieri, quae illis fiunt, quos haeredes suos, Amicos, fratres, membra sua, seipsum appellat, propter quem illos, quem in illis veneratur Ecclesia, qui variis miraculis honorem illis exhibitum, & illorum Invocationem sibi gratam esse testatus est? Addis cum Sanctorum contumeliâ eos à nobis honorari? Quanta orationis stupiditas? & tamen in eâ stupiditate astutè insidias incauto Lectori struis, dum rejecto in nos, qui Possessores sumus, probandi onere, Defensoris ipse partes adis; unde jure per tot saeculorum possessionem acquisito cederemus, & pares nobis essetis, qui tantum heri, ut ita dicam, nati estis: & vindiciae secundum vos dandae sint, si nos in probatione deficiamus.  
Dicis eundem morem aut inauditum fuisse, aut damnatum. Quae quâ ratione componi possint, non video. Si damnatus fuit, ergo non fuit inauditus etc. inauditus: ergo non damnatus. Sed auditus, id est cognitus, fuit ille mos, ut constat, quia Manichaei, & Vigilantius illum improbarunt. Sed ostende per quem, quo loco, quove tempore damnatus fuerit, & manus damus. Non tamen velim nobis satisfactum putes, si quos modo nominavi damnatae ipsos memoriae homines morem istum improbantes produxeris. Nec iniquo animo ferre debes nos Ecclesiae priscae mole istorum nomen elidere, qui Calvini furores ejusdem ecclesiae auctoritati postponimus.  
Nec desunt indubitatae fidei monumenta, ex priscis saeculis pro sanctorum Invocatione. Talia sunt antiquae Lyturgiae, quas tempus edax rerum non consumpsit: illae enim omnes, & singulae sanctorum invocationem continent. Non dices opinor, Ecclesiam per tot saecula lyturgiâ publicâ caruisse, ne vestrae, quam ab Enthusiastarum assultibus aegrè tuemini, securim infligas. Agnosco varia singulis lyturgiis antiquioribus addita fuisse: verùm illud, in quo omnes conveniunt, etiam antiquissimae, ab initio fuisse videtur. Talia verò sunt, quae de essentiâ sunt Sacrificii, oratio pro Defunctis, & Sanctorum Invocatio: quae tria Lyturgiae omnes exhibent.  
Deinde Patres, qui IV & V saeculo floruerunt, & vestris non negantibus Sanctorum invocationes favent, de eâ loquuntur non ut de ritu novo; sed ut de pridem usurpato, Si paucius eâ de re locuti fuerint Antiquiores, id fieri potuit, quod Idololatrae ad Politheismum defendendum eâ abusi sunt, utpatet ex Origine, Augustino, Hieronymo, Cyrillo. aliisque quorum tamen nemo respondit Ethnicis ritum illum esse novum ab Ecclesiae ment alienum, priscis ignotum, aut, quod tu dicis, à Christian is damnatum; sed illum admittunt, illumque defendunt, ab Idololatrarum errore distinguunt, & toto caelo differre demonstrant. Vnde liquet non eo tempore incoepisse; sed prius multò extitisse, fuisse Christianismo coaevum ab Ecclesiâ receptum, à sanctis defensum, à bonis omnibus approbatum, à solis verò Haereticis tum antiquis, tum modernis improbatum.    

REVISIO Posterioris epistlae ad janum Vlitium.  

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

SECTIO III. Britannorum error in celebrando Paschate non probat eos ab Asiaticis fidem accepisse.  
D. Morlaeus p. 7. Plusquam verosimile est Britannos rudimenta Christianae Religionis ab Asiaticis primum accepisse: quoniam Augustinus à Gregorio I, ad praedicandum Euangelium Saxonibus missus veteres Insulae incolas jam Christianos, & Orientalis consuetudinis in celebrando Paschate observantissimos invenit; nec ad contrariam Ecclesiae Romanae praxim ullis vel minis, vel pollicitationibus persuadere potuit. Et hoc mihi videtur esse Apodicticum argumentum nos primam in fide Christianâ instructionem non Romanis (ut illi jactitant, & inde jus, & jurisdictionem Romanae Ecclesiae in nos vendicare) sed Apostolorum, aut Apostolicorum virorum alicui debere, qui una cum Catholicâ fide ritus in illis unde venerat locis usurpatos hic docuit.  
Resp. Noli, noli nimium de mutuò acceptis à Centuriatoribus argumentis gloriari: noli telis pridem exarmatis, & etiam fractis nimiùm confidere. Noli rationes futiles, in quâ praemissae falsae, & mala illatio Demonstrationes vocare, unde fiat, ut non melius de argumento tuo; sed longè pejus de te sentiamus, qui ipso in limine tam faedè impingis, ut non solum quales fuerint antiqui Britannorum mores, aut Quarta decimanorum errores ignorare; sed & quid sit Demonstratio, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nescire videare. Appulsus ad Anglos Fidei sacris imbuendos Augustinus, Britannos Christo nomen dedisse invenit. Vnde allatum Christi nomen, quaeritur.  
Româ dicimus nos cum totâ antiquitate, ex Oriente dicis tu, & Magdeburgenses. Vnde id probas? quò Orientalis consuetudinis in celebrando Paschate observantissimi erant. Atqui hoc falsissimum est: nam Orientales, Pascha lunâ XIV celebrabant, inquamcumque hebdomadae diem incidebat ut ipsum Quartadecimanorum nomen illis impositum indicat, & disertè tradit Eusebius L. v. Historiae C.XXIII. At verò Britanni Scotique festum illud celebrabant semper, die Dominicâ, illâ scilicet quae incidit inter lunam decimam tertiam, & vigesimam. Romani verò, hoc est Catholici, similiter jejunium die Dominicâ solvebant, eâ scilicet, quae est inter Lunam decimam quartam, & vigesimam primam. Quos inter mores ea est differentia, ut Orientales quotannis judaizarent, Pascha eodem cum Judaeis die celebrantes. Britanni & Scoti cum iidem perfidis Judaeis convenirent, quoties Luna decima quarta incidebat in Dominicam.  
Romani verò, sive Catholici, cum illis nunquam coincidebant. De quibus vide Baronii Epitomen ad an Dom. CLIX & ad an. Dom. DCXXXIII. Alfordum, natalem Alexandrum, & alios.  
Unde sequitur Britan nos. Scotosque magis cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ, quam cum Orientalibus convenisse: siquidem Pascha in solâ die Dominicâ celebrabant, ut Romani ita Britanni; Orientales verò indiscriminatim, quâlibet hebdomadae die. Deinde Orientales singulis annis; Britanni rarò cum Judaeis conveniebant; & Romani nunquam.  
Patet ergo non ab Oriente; sed Româ ductum Britannorum morem, qui solâ die solis Dominicam Resurrectionem soluto jejunio colebant, quod Romae servabatur. Natus autem eorum Britannorum, error est ex solâ Cycli Paschalis ignorantiâ, quòd non scirent expectandam Dominicam sequentem, ubi concurrit luna decima quarta cum Dominicâ, in quo solo a Romans differebant.  
Hinc si quod ex Paschalis festivitatis observantiâ deduci possit argumentum ad ostendendum unde venerint primi Britannorum Apostoli, potius ostendet Româ, quam aliunde venisse.  
Falsum etiam est, quo aliàs assumis, in solâ Gentis alicujus conversione fundari Jus Pontificis ad eam regendam. Jus enim illud, ea potestas, atque Jurisdictio à Christo Domino B. Petro una cum clavibus regni caelorum data est, quando Petrum creavit ovilis sui custodem, cujus Pastorem suum in terris Vicarium. Vnde quâcumque ratione aliquis Fidei lumine illustratur, & in Ecclesiae gremium admittitur, spirituali Christi Vicarii potestati subjicitur, & velut ovis Pastoris sui vocem audire, ei parere in spiritualibus tenetur.  
Denique si fundet conversio jus, hoc Summo Pontifici éo etiam titulo computet in angliam. Nec enim Anglis Euangelium per Britannos antea Christianos annuntiatum est: sed per Augustinum aliosque à B. Gregorio I, Româ missos: qui veri semper habiti fuerunt nostrae gentis Apostoli. Multa verò etiam magnaque fuerunt Ecclesiae Romanae in Britannicam ipsam officia, ex quo Angli advenae Romanorum Missionariorum operâ suavi Christi jugo sua colla submiserunt, â qua suam habet Britannica Ecclesia Hierarchiam. Vnde tota Ecclesia Britannica quanta est, Romanae filia est, & quidquid piae indulgentique matri filia debet observantiae, obedientiae, dilectionis, id totum Romanae Britannica debet.  
Vides, opinor, doctissime Morlaee quot visus laboret Apoduricum istud, si Deo placet, argumentum. Firma stabilisque manebit sanctae Sedis Apostolica in Britanniam auctoritas, quandiu non aliis arietibus concutietur.   

SECTIO IU. De curribus militaribus, & Essedis Britannicis.  
D Morlaeus p. VIII, & quatuor sequentibus, loquitur, de priscâ ' Britannorum ex Essedis pugnandi ratione, quam Caesar l. IU. de Bello Gallico describit, atque miratur ob Aurigatum peritiam, & militum agilitatem, cum in declivi, ac praecipiti loco incitatos equos sustinere & brevi moderari ac flectere, & per temonem percurrere, & in jugo insistere, & inde se in currus citissimè recipere-consueve rint. Solebant autem primò per omnes partes perequitare, & tela conjicere, terrore equorum, & rosarum strepitu, ordines perturbare, inter equitum turmas se insinuare, tum ex Essedis desilire & pedibus praeliari: ita mobilitatem equitum, peditum stabilitatem in praeliis praestare. Haec de illis Caesar loco laudato. Sed unde modum illum arceslas, non invenis videris autem in dubium vocare velle, an uspiam extra Britanniam curruum in praeliis usus obtinuerit. et primò historicos omnes (exceptis sacris) Olympiade primâ vetustiores à testimonio dicendo submoves auctoritati Varronis tempora illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive Fabulosa vocantis. Homero & Virgilio fidem elevas, quod Poetae fuerint, quibus (sicut & Pictoribus) quidlibet audendi fuerit permissa semper potestas. Hos currus sinxisse, Homerum quidem quia grandius, & heroicis viris dignius ei videbatur, ex curru pugnare sedentes, velut in solio, quam si equo solitario veluti Gregorii milites insiderent. Virgilium autem illum imitari, dato suorum Heroatem cuique curru. Graecos nunquam curribus in bello usos colligis ex silentio Graecorum Historicorum. Idem de Britannis dicturum, nisi Caesaris obstaret auctoritas.  
In rem non Theologicam dilapsus est Sermo è quâ propterea paucis me expedio. Curruum multum olim fuisse in praeliis usum non solùm Historici prophani, Xenophon, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, aliique sed etiam Sacrae litterae testantur. Exodi XIV. Tulit Pharaoh, persecuturus Israelitas ex Aegypto discedentes sexcentos currus electos, & quidquid curruum fuit, & Duces totius exercitus. Judic. 1, 19 Judas dicitur Montana sui juris fecisse, Vallium verô incolas debere non potuisse, quod falcatis curribus abundarent. Et Judic. IV, 3, dicitur Jabin nongentos falcatos currus habuisse. Et 1. Reg. XIII, 5. Philisthini Congregati ad praeliandum 30000. curruum, & 6000 equitum & reliquum vulgus sicut arena, quae est in littore maris. Ex quo patet.  
Tres fuisse antiquitùs militum ordines; 1. Eorum, qui è curru pugnabant. 2. Equitum. 3. Peditum.  
Colligitur ulterius, non Heroas tantum; sed etiam multos alios curribus impositos in hostes pugnasse: cum vix credi possit ex Regiis familiis, aut heroicis viris tot inveniri potuisse, qui 30000 curruum, aut etiam nongentorū implerent. Sicut ergo in nostrâ militiâ quique pugnacissimi, & manu promptissimi transcribuntur ad equos, ita tum ad currus. Nec somnium tuum probo, quod Poetae Heroas suos dignitatis ergo curribus imposuerint, quòd grandius quid sit sedendo velut in solio pugnare. Nec enim verò in ipso pugnandi ardore sedisse arbitror, qui currus conscenderunt. Statio magis opportunus corporis situs est, sive in omnes partes intendenda cura, quod Imperatorum est, sive librandae hastae, jacienda pila, vibrandus gladius, quod militum. Ut ut ratio sedentium vigeat, languent tamen vires, remittuntur nervi; stantium excitantur, & ipsâ nervorum contentione totus homo incalescit, & permissâ Aurigae equorum moderatione qui curru vehitur oculis, voce, utraque manu hostem ferit, & toto corpore pugnat.  
Duo tamen reddebant currus aut minus utiles, aur planè inutiles. 1. Montibus aspera regio, per quam discurrere non poterant. Hinc Tribus juda Montana possedisse legitur: non tamen in Valles descendisse metu curruum falcatorum. Hinc etiam Barae, quo currus Pabin Regis Chanaan vitaret, in monte Thabor castra metatus est.  
2. Arma militum vel offensiva, vel defensiva. In Macedonicam Phalangem nihil poterant quae currus praelongis hastis arcebat. Nec in Legiones Romanos, adeo ferro muniebantur. Hinc Esseda Britannica, licet novitate pugna, ut Caesar, ait, Romanum militem turbarint, hic tamen loricis, & amplis scutis tectus, ea facile submovit, quibus resistere vix potuissent hostes aut inermes, aut semiermes, quales ut plurimum olim Asiatici, & Caesaris tempore Britanni.  
Accedit & alia ratio: quod in longinquis expeditionibus, quoties occurrebant montes aspert, magna erant impedimenta.  
Hinc colligitur, quare rarior, nec diuturnus eorum usus in Italiâ, & Graeciâ. Frequentes enim, & asperi montes in iis regionibus eos reddebant inutiles, sicut & gravis militum armatura. Hinc Galli eos seposuerunt. Sicut & Britannum ubi viderunt eos adversus Romanos Legionarios esse minus efficaces. Sed de his satis. Ad Theologicâ revertamur. De Purgatorio, & suffragiis pro Defunctis.   

SECTIO V. Distinguendam esse orationem pro Defunctis, ab Invocatione Sanctorum.  
D. Morlaeus p. 13. Distinguere oportet illa duo: Invocationem intelligo Sanctorum, & Orationem pro Defunctis. Nam non est idem, nec ejusdem considerationis Defunctos orare, & orare pro Defunctis.  
Resp. Rectissimè ista duo distinguis, quae non solùm Recentiores Theologi; sed etiam antiqui Patres, & antiquissimae Liturgiae distinguunt. Divina Missa S. Jacobi fratris Domini pro Defunctis orat.  Patres Fratresque nostri qui jam obierunt, in pace requiescant, Dominum oremus. Paulò post sanctos Orat. Commemorationem agamus Sanctissimae .... Dominae nostrae matris Dei: ac omnium Sanctorum, & justorum, ut precibus, atqui intercessionibus eorum omnes misericordiam consequamur.  
Liturgia B. Marci Orat. pro Defunctis: Animabus Patrum ac Fratrum nostrorum, qui antea in fide Christi dormierunt, dona requiem Domine Deus noster. Orat. Sanctos: Memor majorum nostrorum, qui à saeculo sunt Patrum, Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum Martyrum, Confessorum, Episcoporum, justorum, omnis spiritus in fide Christi Defunctorum, nec non eorum quorum bodierno die memoriam agimus, & S.P.N. Marci Apostoli, & Euangelistae, qui demonstravit nobis viam salutis.  
Liturgiam S. Petri omitto, quia planè cum hodierna Romana convenit: haec quippe aliquibus additis ex illa formata est.  
Liturgia S. Basilii orat. Sanctos: Inveniamus misericordiam, & Gratiam, in caetu omnium Sanctorum, qui à seculo tibi placuerunt. Praecipuè sanctae Dei Genitricis, & semper Virginis Mariae, sancti Ioannis Praecursoris & Baptistae, Sancti N. cujus memoriam facimus, & omnium Sanctorum tuorum, quorum postulationibus visita nos Deus. Pro Defunctis: & memento omnium dormientium in spe resurrectionis, & aeternae, & refrigera eos, ubi visitat Lux vultus tui.  
Ejusdem Anaphora, pro Defunctis orat. Offerimus Sacrificium hoc ... pro tranquillâ requie eorum, qui ante hac occubuerunt, cum spem haberent in unigenito filio tuo, etc. Sanctos invocat: Dignare nos eorum etiam meminisse qui inde à saeculo placuerunt tibi, Patrum, Patriarcharum, cumque misericordiam tuam laudabilissimam, & amorem tuum erga genus humanum imitantes, assiduas preces, atque obsecrationes pro nobis tibi offerunt eoque memoriam illorum celebremus, ut quando nobis ipsis parum fidimus, memoriâ & legatione eorum protecti, per eos audeamus ad te accedere, atque tremendo hoc & sacro munere defungi.  
Liturgia B. Chrysostomi. Pro Defunctis orat. & omnium, qui in spe Resurrectionis, & vitae aeternae dormierunt, Orthodoxorum Patrum, & Fratrum nostrorum, benigne & clemens Domine dimitte: & infra: Memento omnium, qui dormierunt in spe Resurrectionis, & vitae aeternae. Pro requie, & remissione animae servi tui N. in loco luminoso, à quo aufugit dolor, & gemitus, fac eam quiescere Deui noster. Sanctam Virginem, aliosque Sanctos invocat: Sanctissimae impollutae supra omnem modum benedictum, gloriosae nostrae Deiparae, & semper Virginis Mariae memoriam agentes, nos ipsos, & nos inter nos invicem, & omnem vitam nostram Christo Deo commendemus. Hoc saepè repetitur: tum additur. S. joannis Prophetae, praecursoris, & Baptistae sanctorum Apostolorum, sancti N. cujus etiam memoriam peragimus, & omnium Sonctorum tuorum, quorum supplicationibus adjuva nos Deus.  
Missa, sive Canon universalis Aethiopum: ad Deiparam: Laetare gloria nostrorum Parentum, quia peperisti nois Emanuelem. O verè mediatrix ante Dominum nostrum jesum Christum te supplices exoramus, ut memor sis nostri. Ora pro nobis, ut dele antur iniquitates nostrae. Pro Defunctis: Miserere Domine animarum servorum tuorum, & ancillarum tuarum, qui manducaverunt carnem tuam, & biberunt tuum sanguinem: & in fide tuâ quieverunt.  
Liturgia Arabica: Fac requisecere Domine in luce viventium, & habitaetione laetantium parentes meos, ac majores, & fratres, tuos bonâ ment famulos.  
Missa S. Gregorii: cum memoriam fecisset omnium Sanctorum, qui Deo placuerunt ab initio: pro Defunctis orat. Memento Patrum nostrorum ac Fratrum qui dorminerunt in fide Orthodoxâ: concede ut omnes requiescant cum Sanctis tuis, & cum his quorum (nem pe Sanctorum) nomina commemoravimus.  
Missa S. Cyrilli: Sanctos Commemorat: Memento Domine Patrum nostrorum, Sanctorum .... qui ministraverunt in verbo veritatis, in rectitudine, da nobis partem & sortem cum iis ... Deinde pro Defunctis: Pro quibus intendimus orare, & pro aliis, qui dormierunt, & requieverunt in fide per Christum. Dignare Domine efficere, ut requiescant animae eorum omnium, in sinu Patrum nostrorum sanctorum Abraham, Isaac, & jacob. Effice ut habitent in loco viriditatis, super aquam refectionis, in Paradiso voluptatis, unde fugerit dolor cordis, & maeror, & suspirium.  
‛ Missa Christianorum apud Indos. Orat. sanctos: Commemoremus Beatissimam Dominam, Matrem Dei vivi ... Memoriam etiam veneremur Prophetarum .... Commemoremus quoque Patres nostros .... omnesque Doctores, & Presbyteros veritatis Doctores. Oremus ut ipsorum orationibus veritas pura, & sincera doctrina, quam illi docuerunt, & professi sunt, in omni Ecclesiâ sanctâ custodiatur, usque ad saeculi consummationem. Pro Defunctis: Recordemus etiam & Patrum & Fratrum nostrorum fidelium, qui ex hoc saeculo in Orthodoxâ fide transierunt. Oremus inquam, Dominum, ut illos absolvat, corumque peccata & Praevaricationes dimittat, & efficiat eos dignos, ut cum justis & rectis, qui divinae voluntati obtemperaverunt, laetentur in saecula.  
Missale Romanum: Orat. Sanctos: Communicantes & memoriam venerantes imprimis Gloriosae semper Virginis, Genetricis Dei Mariae .... Beatorum etiam Apostolorum, ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri etc. quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Pro Defunctis: Memento etiam Domine famulorum, famularumque tuarum, qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, & dormiunt in somno pacis ... Ipsis Domine, & omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii, lucis, & pacis, ut indulgeas deprecamur, per Christum Dominum nostrum.  
Idem sensus ex variis Patribus ostendi potest, & verò datâ à te occasione ostendetur infra: licet vix opus sit eos producere, cum nihil aliud dicere possint Ecclesiae Patres, quam quod ab Ecclesiâ didicerunt: Ecclesias verò diversas, loco sejunctas, tempore dissitas, & in rebus levioribus non satis concordes, solâ fide per Apostolos aceptà, & charitate per Spiritum sanctum in eorum cordibus diffusâ copulatos audivimus una voce clamantes, & Deum enixè orantes, ut aliarum animarum (Deo nempe fruentium) preces exaudiat prose: suas pro aliis, necdum refrigerio donatis, sibi per aliarum intercessionem bene sit; aliis per suam, quidni dicemus id ex Apostolicâ Traditione fluxisse, juxta regulam, quam Tertullianus adhibendam docet ad Traditiones Apostolicas ab aliis dignoscendas. Et sanè tantus ille apud Graecos, Latinos, Aegyptios, Aethiops, Indos Arabes, non in re tantum, sed ferè in ipsis verbis, & loquendi modo consensus non potuit non ab uno cunctis communi fonte manasse. Quod si recte pronuntiat Augustinus epist. CXVIII. Insolentissimae insaniae esse disputare, quin faciendum sit, quod tota per orbem facit Ecclesia: Quid de vobis dicendum qui morem per totam Ecclesiam usurpatum impugnare, & condemnare audetis? Quod si vestra liturgia nihil aliud haberet mali, in se, hoc ipsum satis mali esset, evasisse tam antiquitus, tam generalitèr praeceptam formulam, cujus nullum indicium in Vestra coenâ, vel Communione, ut ineptè loqui amatis, apparet.  
D. Morlaeus p. 18 & 19 Ritus Anglicanus cum antiquis liturgiis optimè convenire: quia in officio sepulturae orat. ut Deus expleat numerum Electorum, & gloriam regni sui maturet. gratias agit Deo, qua defunctum de praesentis vitae aerumnis liberavit, monet etiam superstites de praesentis vitae brevitate, & miseriis, & futurae immortalitate, & faelicitate.  
Resp. Nullo modo convenit cum illis, imo toto caelo differt: nec enim ulla funditur pro Defuncto Oratio. Et apparet de industriâ mutatam orandi formam ab Ecclesia usurpatam, ne fierent ullae pro defunctis Preces. Quidquid enim hic à se refertur ad qualescumque eorum, qui funus prosecuti sunt & de amici, vel necessario morte afflicti sunt, solatium destinantur. Sed & illus notatu dignum, quod in Communione vestrâ nullam de defunctis mentionem faciatis, quam antiqui ubique semper in ipsâ liturgiâ adhibuerunt.  
Quam obrem imprudentèr, & in causam tuam perniciosè duas istas orationes distinguendas admonuisti, Doctissime Morlaee. Ipsa enim inter eas distinctio, ipsa diversitas, quae datur inter eas (& aliquam dari necesse est fateate) causae tuae jugulum petit, eamque praefocat. Tertium en imvero statum Beatas animas inter, & damnatos evidentèr demonstrat. Nec enim pro damnatis preces aut obtulit unquam prisca Fidelium Pietas, aut offert hodierna, quia fidelibus omnibus semper certum fuit, est, & erit, ex Inferno nullam esse Redemptionem & contrarium Origenis in hoc Platonizantis dogma Ecclesia semper velut pessimam haeresim detestata est. Adeoque nullae pro illic existentibus offerri possunt preces. Quare nec illas miseras animas oramus, nec pro illis. Alias igitur animas respiciunt Ecclesiae preces, ex quarum diversitate nascitur certa persuasio, quod ipsae sint in duplici statu, quarum aliae ope nostrà indigeant, nos aliarum; nos istae sublevent, illas operâ nostrâ sublevemus. Veritas tibi hanc agnitionem invito extorsit. Verùm conscius tibi te causam tuam afflixisse, ei remedium paras, serum licet, & nihil profuturum, dum ais:  
D. Morlaeus p. 13. fine. Oratione pro Defunctis non talem intelligo, qualis nunc est in usu apud Pontificios, nec tali innixam fundamento, ingenioso scilicet, & quaestuoso Purgatorii commento. Nam ex veteris Ecclesiae consuetudine, orandi pro Defunctis, probari non potest, quamvis id falsò supponant, & gratis assumant Pontificii, veteres illos credidisse mortuos pro quibus orabant, in tali qualem illi somniant loco cruciatos esse, aut ex illo loco, aut cruciatu vivorum suffragiis liberariposse.  
Resp. Nihil supponimus, quod non antiqui poserint, nihil assumimus, quod non illi largiti sunt. Nihil enim hac in re dicit Concilium ipsum Tridentinum, aut Pii IV, jussu edita fidei professio, quod non ferant, illae preces. Quid enim dicit ista fidei professio? Purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis juvari. At illae preces dicunt aliquas animas requietis indigere, easque suffragiis suis sublevant. Hoc ingeniosum, & quaestuosum commentum appellas: quae verba censuram continent inverecundam tuâ eruditione, & moderatione indignam: imo & falsissimam, & iniquissimam; cum nos nihil hic commenti fuerimus; sed traditam per maus doctrinam ab Apostolis ad nos usque derivatam amplectamur. Nec enim quidquam velut de fide tradit seculo decimo septimo Ecclesia, quod non crediderit decimo, quod non quinto, quod non primo.  
Ex hoc laqueo elabi speras, recurrendo ad locum, qualem somniamus, ais: quibus tamen nihil somnii, imò nec somni obrepit. Sed ipse verè somnias, dum putas ea via effugere. Nobis hàctenus non declaravit Ecclesia, animas aliquo determinato loco purgari: nec B. Gregorium damnavit, l. IU. Dialog. c. XL. Animam Paschasii Diaconi in Thermis purgari referentem. Temerè vero addis veteres non credidisse animas ullas illis suffragiis liberari: quod nulla ratione probabis. Imò falsò id dici patet, cum aliud sonent ipsae preces solemnes, mentium, & sensuum locupletissimae.   

SECTIO IV. Orationes pro Defunctis probantur ex SS. Patribus. Vbi de locis animarum se paratarum à corpore.  
D. Morlaeus p. 14. Primus veterum apud quem consuetudo Oblationum, & Orationum pro mortuis incurritur, est Tertullianus: sed is de tertio aliquo loco, sive receptaculo animarum à corpore separatarum nunquam cogitavit. Nam. l. IV. contra Marcionem duo tantum loca excipiendis animabus corpore excutis constituit, ubi quasi sequestrentur in diem judicii Inferos pro reprobis, pro animabus vero justorum sinum Abrahae.  
Resp. Non primus est Tertullianus, qui oblationum pro mortuis meminit. Constat enim ex libris Machabaeorum pro mortuis etiam ante Christi in carne adventum oblata sacrificia: Quos, libros, licet negetis esse Canonicos, contra fidem Ecclesiae, negare tamen non potestis veram continere historiam. Hoc in praesenti nobis sufficit, quia probat Judaeos consuevisse, ubi quis in aliquo peccato mortuus esset, pro illo sacrificium offerre. Nulla facta est mentio de sacrificiis pro mortuis in Lege Mosaicâ, quia rara (si tamen ulla) futurae vitae mentio expressa: ea enim sub umbrâ temporalium promissionum latebat, suo tempore evolvenda. At verò instante legis Euangelicae tempore, Deus per Prophetas, & Sapientes venturo soli praeviam quandam praemittere voluit Auroram. Itàque reperta in exilio Babylonico, & post illud nomina Regni caelestis, Paradisi, Gehennae: dicti Deo vivere qui nobis essent piè mortui; & subinde praescripta in lege pro viventibus sacrificia expiatoria, pro illis usurpata qui apud Deum viverent. Fuerunt fateor inter illos aliqui errores; quos Christus ipse reprehendit. Non tamen istum reprehendit: nec verò ab illo de errore quopiam ullo notatus fuit vir ille fortissimus judas. Hoc sufficit ne nos illum de errore accusemus: maximè cum quod ille fecit, ecclesia imitata sit. Ad Tertullianum accedo.  
Hunc tria loco post mortem agnovisse mihi certum est. Libro de Spectaculis C.XXXIV. Cum non putes, inquit, animas & puniri, & foveri in inferis interim sub expectatione utriusque judicii, in quâdam usurpatione, & candida ejus. Et infrà: Cum carcerem illum, quod Euangelium demonstrat, inferos intelligimus, & novissimum quadrantem modicum quodque morâ Resurrectionis illic luendum interpretamur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos saluâ Resurrectionis plenitudine. Duo istic loca agnoscit, praeter illum post Resurrectionem debitum. Clarius adhuc l. IU. contra Marcionem: Aliud Inferi, ut puto, aliud Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum ait intercedere regiones istas profundum, & transitum utrimque prohibere .... unde apparet sapienti cuique .... esse localem determinationem, quae sinsu dicta sit Abrahae ... eam autem regionem sinum dico Abrahae et si non caelestem sublimtorem tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum Resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat: tunc appariturâ caelesti promissione .... Quod si aeternus locus repromittitur, & ascensus in caelum aedificatur à creatore ... cur non capiat sinum Abrahae dici temporale aliquod animarum fideltum receptaculum?  
Triplicem hic locum agnoscit: quorum primus Infernus, seu Inferi, nempe damnatorum: Alter Abrahae sinus. Tertius locus aeternus in diem judicii repromissus. Secundus ad tempus durabit, unde à Tertulliano dictus est Temporale Tabernaculum. Alii duo aeterni sunt.  
Neque dicas nonnisi post judicium patere locum tertium: jam enim ex Tertulliani ment Martyribus patet; qui lib, de Resurrectione carnis ait: Nemo peregrinatus à corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex Martyrii praerogatiuâ, Paradiso scilicet non inferis diversurus. Et l. de Anima C.XXXI 1. joanni in spiritu Paradisi regio revelata, quae subjicitur altari nullas alias animas apud se, praeter Martyrum ostendit .. Et infra: Tota Paradisi clavis, tuus sanguis est. Martyribus ergo jam in Paradiso locum assignat, per quam vocem Beatorum sortem, quae caelum jam dicitur, intelligit. Et plerique Patres eum imitati magnam faciunt differentiam Martyres inter, & alias, qui piè imò pientissimè moriuntur Unde minime mirum est aliquam in Beatitatis aeternae adeptione praerogativam ab illis Martyrio dari. Martyribus Ecclesiae existimatio addidit eos fideles, quos Martyribus aequavit divina gratia ob vitam piissimam, & sincerum Martyrii votum. Justinus in dialogo cum Triphone, ait Haereticos idem dicere de animabus omnium Fidelium.  
Obitèr aliquid addam de multiplici loco ex antiquorum opinione excipiendis animabus destinato, quo magis appareat quam falsi sint Moderni Haeretici duplicem tantum agnoseentes. Distinguebant plerique Christiani antiqui post Hebraeos Paradisum inter, tertium caelum, aut caelum caelorum, sive Regnum. Ita Tertul. lib. de Praescript. Chrysostomus de Ligno scientiae boni, & mali, & hom. XV, in Matth. Theodoretus, Caesarius, Theophilactus, Ambrose ad Michaeam.  per Paradisum ad regnum perveniatur; non per regnum ad Paradisum. In Cyrilli Liturgia primò petitur quies in Paradiso voluptatis. Deinde ut resuscitatis corporibus digni sint regno caelorum. Attendenda Methodii verba apud Epiphanium: Apostolus Paradisum in tertio caelo non collocat inquit, si quis novit ad subtilia ejus verba animum attendere: scio hominem hujusmodi raptum usque ad tertium caelum, & scio hujusmodi hominem, sive in corpore suo, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit, quoniam raptus est in Paradisum. Vbi duas magnas sibi revelationes obtigisse dicit, bisque in sublime se raptum, semel ad caelum tertium, semelin paradisum. Denique Augustinus epist. LVII, Paradisus non in caelo existimandus est: neque enim eo ipso die in caelo futurus erat homo Christus jesus; sed in inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro secundum carnem.  
Ex quibus colligi videtur secundum antiquos Paradisum locum fuisse Gaudii: tertium vero caelum gloriae. Cui expositioni conformis est visiocuidam facta apud Bedam lib. V. hist. C.XIII. de quâ etiam Bellarminus lib. 11. de Purgatotio C.VII. Rem ego in medio relinquo. Redeo ad orationes pro defunctis.  
D. Mors. p. 14. Ex usu priscae Ecclesiae per oblationem pro defunctis non intelligebantur oblationes propitiatoriae, seu expiatoriae: sed eleemosynariae. Nam propitiatoriae à solis Sacerdotibus offerebantur: aliae verò offerebantur à viro pro conjuge à viduâ pro marito: quod habet apud Tertul. lib. de Monagamiâ, & lib. de Exhortatione castitatis. Concilium etiam Carthaginense IV. C.LXXXV. Excommunicat eos, qui oblationes defunctorum aut negant Ecclesiis, aut difficulter reddunt.  
Resp. ex ignorantiâ nata est ista objectio, quod credas unius tantum rationis dari in Ecclesiâ suffragia pro defunctis: cum si vel hodiernam Ecclesiae praxim, vel antiquas tabulas consuluisses, diversa esse comperisses. Eleemosynae dantur etiam hodie; de quibus agunt illa quae profers testimonia, etiam ex concilio Carthag. IV. quod sub poenâ excommunicationis retineri vetat Eleemosynas vel ex testamento, vel justo titulo Ecclesiae debitas. Praeter quae Laicorum dona fuisse alia suffragia propitiatoria, & expiatoria à solis sacerdotibus oblata probant tum ex variis Liturgiis petita testimonia, tum clarissimè Augustinus Enchiridii C. CX. Neque negandum est, inquit, Defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium mediatoris offertur, vel Eleemosynae in Ecclesiâ fiunt: sed iis haec prosunt, qui cum viverent, ut haec sibi prodesse possent, meruerunt. Est enim quidam vivendi modus, nec tam bonus ut non requirat ista post mortem, nec tam malus, ut ei non prosint ista post mortem. Est verò talis in bono, ut ista non requirat: & est rursus talis in malo, ut nec his valeat, cum ex hac vitâ transierit adjuvari. Ubi triplicem animarum à corpore solutarum statum clarè distinguit: illae quae suffragiis non indigent sunt Beatae: quae suffragiis juvari non possunt sunt damnatae: quae illis juvantur, iisque indigent, sunt in Purgatorio. Distinguit etiam sacrificia quae fiunt à sacerdotibus, ab Eleemosynis, quae offeruntur à laicis. Deinde Augustus lib. XXI. de Civit. Dei C.XXIV. ait: Ecclesia orat pro Defunctis, qui licet in Christo renati, non adeo malè vixerunt in corpore, ut tali misericordiâ habeantur indigni: nec iidem sic benè, ut inveniantur tali misericordiâ non indigere. Et idem repetit lib. de curâ pro mortuis.  
Vides nihil tibi prodesse distinctiunculas tuas ex malè intellectis testimoniorum quorumdam verbulis extractas. Non negabis, opinor, antiquorum judicium visum sacrificium mediatoris non tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dicat ergo centies Tertullianus maritum pro conjuge, hanc pro illo offerre debere: hoc tamen optimè convenit cum Ecclesiae sensu, & olim, & etiamnum sacrofanctum Missae sacrificium pro illis offerentis. Adeoque effugium tuum praecludit illud unum Augustini testimonium ex Enchiridio. Cui similia verba habet Chrysostomus hom XLI. in 1. ad Cor. infra citandus: qui etiam sacrificia ab eleemosynis pro mortuis offerendis accurate distinguit. Idem facit Isidorus Hispal. l. 1. de Offic. C.XVIII. Adde alia.  
Tertullianus ipse l. de coronâ militis c. III. inter varias Christianorum consuetudines, & hanc recenset: Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus. Et C.IU Harum & aliarum disciplinarum, si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies: Traditio tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix.  
Dionysius l. de Eccles. Hierarch. c. VII. Accedens venerandus Antistes precem sacram super mortuum peragit, precatur divinam clementiam, ut cuncta dimittat per infirmitatem humanam admissa peccata defuncto, eumque in luce statuat, & regione vivorum. Negas quidem Areopagitae esse illa scripta: negare tamen non potes esse pii, & antiqui scriptoris, qui priscae Ecclesiae sacros ritus & optimé calluerit, & accuratè retulerit: quod mihi sat est, ne ad alienam ab instituto materiam identidem digrediendum sit.  
Cyp Epist. LXVI. Episcopi salubriter providentes censuerunt ne quis frater excedens ad tutelam, vel curam Clericum nominaret: ac si quis boc fecisset, non offerre tur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro ejus dormitione celebraretur. Nec enim meretur apud Altare Dei nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari Sacerdotes, & ministros voluit auccare. Et subinde vetat pro Victore defuncto Sacrificium offerri, quod is Geminium Faustinum presbyterum Tutorem nominasset.  
Arnobius l. IV. adversus Gentes: In conventiculis nostris summus oratur Deus: Pax cunctis, & Venia postulatur, magistratibus, exercitibus, Regibus Familiaribus, inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, & resolutis corporum vinctione.  
Cyrillus Hierosol. Car. Mystag. V. Pro defunctis SS. Patribus, & Episcopis, denique pro omnibus oramus, qui inter nos vitâ functi sunt, maximum esse credentes animarum juvamen, pro quibus offertur precatio sancti illius, atque tremendi, quod in altari positum est sacrificii. Quod exemplo vobis demonstrare volumus scio enim multos dicere, quid juvat animam sive cum peccatis sive absque peccatis ex hoc mundo decedentem, etiamsi in hoc sacrificio illius mentio fiat? An enim si Rex aliquis eos, à quibus offensus est, in exilium pepulerit, postea vero illorum propinqui coronam aliquam conficientes, pro his, qui sunt in supplicio exulibus eidem offerant, nonne condonationem supplicii ipsis dederit? Ad eundem modum & nos pro Defunctis precationes adhibentes, quamvis sint peccatores, non quidem coronas plectimus; sed Christum pro peccatis nostris mactatum offerrimus, ut & nobis & illis, eum qui est benignissimus propitium reddamus.  
D. Morlaeus p. 45. Cyrilli catecheses mystagogicae sunt Apocryphae, quia Velserus ait illos in Bibliothecâ Ausburgensi cum hac inscriptione esse Mystagogicae Catecheses quinque Ioannis Episcopi Hisrosolymitani.  
Resp. Quid si demus in illo MS. ita haberi? sexcenta alia MM. SS. per totum orbem sparsa Cyrillo catecheses illas adscribunt. Hieronymus l. de script. Ecclesiasticis Cyrillum Catecheses scripsisse refert, quod quare non-etiam de hoc opere intelligi debeat, tu dices, ubi fuerit otium. Eidem tribuunt hoc opus omnes illius editiones. Num unius obscurrissimi M. S. Inscriptio fidem toti orbi litterario detrahet? Iniquissimé id petis. Sed si demus tibi, quod inique petis illi uni M.S. fidem habendam; aliis omnibus & MSS. & editionibus negandam. Quid tum postea? Est inquies, joannis Hierosolymitani. Sit ita, quandoquidem id velis. Vixit is Hieronymi tempore, ut ex contentionibus inter eos acribus constat: licet iste varia in isto Ioanne reprehendat, nihil tamen quod à Catechesibus istis sumatur. Unde sequitur, si Ioannis sit illud opus, hoc quarto saeculo fuisse scriptum. Deinde illud esse omni exceptione majus. Hinc inconcussa manet harum Catecheseon auctoritas.  
Epiphanius haeresi LXXV. (quae est Aëtianorum) istis contrarium errorem adscribit. (quod etiam facit Augustinus l. de Haeres. haeresi LIII.) & in expositione Catholicae fidei, num. XXIII. ait: jam vero quod ad mortuos spectat, nominatim de illis fit mentio, & preces ac Sacrificia, mysteriaque frequentantur.  
Chrysost. hom. XLI. in 1. ad Cor. si peccator excessit, propterea etiam laetari oportet, quod intercissa sint peccata, & vitio non adjecit, & quoad fieri potest ei succurrere non lachrimis; sed precibus & supplicationibus, & eleemosynis, & oblationibus. Non sunt enim ista frusta excogitata, neque frustra eorum qui excesserunt meminimus in divinis mysteriis, & pro ipsis accedimus rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit; sed ut iis inde aliqua sit consolatio. Neque inaniter is qui adstat altari, quo tempore veneranda mysteria peraguntur, clamat pro omnibus in Christo mortuis, & pro iis qui eorum memorias celebrant. Nisi enim commemorationes ipsis essent utiles, non talia dicerentur. Non enim ludus sunt res nostrae. Absit ex Spiritus ordinatione ista fiunt. De inde l. VI de Sacerd. ait Sacerdotem precari, ut Deus propitius sit peccatis non modo viventium; sed & eorum, qui decesserunt. Alibi asserit id ab Apostolis institutum. hom. III. in Epist. ad Philip. Non frustra haec ab Apostolis sunt legihus constituta, ut in venerandis, atque honorificis mysteriis memoria fiat eorum, qui decesserunt. Noverant hinc multum ad illos lucri accedere, multum utilitatis. Et hom. XXI. in Acta: non frustra oblationes pro Defunctis fuere, non frustra preces, non frustra eleemosynae. Haec omnia SPIRITVS disposuit, volens, ut nos mutuo juvemus. etc.  
Theodoretus lib. V. hist. c. XXXVI. refert Theodosium juniorem coram B. Chrysostomi sepulchro Parentibus Arcadio & Eudoxiae defunctis veniam petiisse.  
Ambrose in orat. funeb. de obitu Satyti fratris: Tibi nunc omnipo ten Deus innoxiam commendo animam, inquit, tibi hostiam meam offero. Cape propitius, ac serenus fraternum munus, sacrificium Sacerdotale. Et orat. de obitu Valentiniani: Piam animam nostris orationibus prosequamur. Et epist. LXI. ad Faustinum: Itaque non tam deplorandam, quam prosequendam Orationibus reor: nec maestificandam lachrimis tuis; sed magis oblationibus animam Deo commendandam arbitror.  
Ex Augustino aliqua protuli superius. Addo quae sequuntur, ex lib. de curâ pro mort. c. 1. Adjungis etiam vacare non posse, quod universa pro defunctis Ecclesia orare consuevit. Haec refert ex S. Paulino, Episcopo Nolano, ut constat ex lib. ad VIII. Dulcitii quaest. q. II. De suo addit. In Machabaeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium. Sed etsi nusquam inscripturis veteribus legeretur, non parva tamen est universae Ecclesiae, quae in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas: ubi in precibus Sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum. Et c. IU. ejusdem operis: Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum: quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christianâ & Catholicâ Societate defunctis, etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia.  
Hinc confirmantur, quae ex Liturgiis produxi superius, & inde intuli, nullam prorsus esse, aut fuisse, quae non decernat pro defunctis orandum. Quod suo testimonio confirmant duo magna illius eruditissimi saeculi lumina, Augustinus, & Paulinus.  
Ex posterioribus Patribus unum tantum adducam, is est Isidorus Hispalensis l. I. de officiis Eccles. c. XVIII. Sacrificium pro defunctorum fidelium requie offerri, vel pro iis orari, quia per totum orbem custoditur, credimus quod ab Apostolis traditum sit. Hoc enim ubique Catholica tenet Ecclesia, quae nisi crederet Fidelibus defunctus dimitti peccata, non pro eorum spiritibus, vel eleemosynam faceret, vel Deo sacrificium offerret.  
Ex quibus omnibus Constat 1. Sacrificium pro defunctis antiquitùs oblatum fuisse.  
Constat 11. Sacrificium illud non fuisse solam eleemosynam, ut D. Morlaeus dixit.  
Constat III. id factum per totam Ecclesiam.  
Constat IV. Sanctis illis persuasum fuisse, quòd preces illae ab Apostolicâ Traditione manarint.  
Addo Nysseni verba Orat. De mortuis, licet non tam orationem pro mortuis, quam Purgatorium adstruant directè. Qui vel in praesenti vitâ Sapientiae studio, & precibus purgati, vel postobitum per expurgantis ignis fornacem expiati, ad sempiternam felicitatem perveniunt. Ad Morlaeum revertor.  
D. Morlaeus p. 15. Non nego in officio mortuorum precationes etiam factas pro iis, quibus aliquid optari videtur. Nam Tertullianus illis optat refrigerium, licet in eo aut jam essent, quia in sinu erant Abrahae, aut nunquam futuri essent, quales qui in Inferno. Tertullianus autem tertium locum non agnoscit. Restat ergo dicamus veteres illos sensisse posse aliquid à Deo peti, quod jam concessum à Deo crederent.  
Resp. hic expressam habemus viri cum manifestâ veritate luctantis imaginem. Supra negasti preces pro Defunctis. Jam preces admittis, sed tales, quae nihil petant, quam quod jam habetur, hoc est quae non sint preces. Nec dicis, neque dicere potes, quem in finem fundantur istae preces? Tertullianum triplicem locum agnovisse jam ostendimus: Infernum nimirum, Abrahae sinum, & locum aeternum a Martyribus insessum, aliis Sanctis praeparatum.  
D. Morlaeus p. 16. Augustinum pro matre suâ Monicâ oravit quam salvam esse credidit: petiit, ut dimittantur ei debita, quae dimissa credebat. Quia ait: Credo quod jam feceris, quod te rogo; sed voluntaria oris mei approba.  
Resp. Ecclesia nunquam oravit aut pro iis, quos certò credidit in caelo esse, quales 1. Martyres. 2. recens à Baptismo mortui: aut pro iis quos certò scit ex caelo in aeternum exclusos, quales non baptizati, & qui sunt in statu peccati mortalis defuncti. Pro iis verò de quibus nihil certò constat, orat. quantacumque sit pro alterutrâ parte probabilitas, ob incertitudinem divinorum judiciorum, & obscuritatem in quâ versamur. Multi enim videntur Sancti, qui meri sunt Hypopritae: aliarum pia vita in Christo abscondita est. Itaque non ante tempus judicamus, quod admonet Apostolus; donec adveniat Dominus, abscondita tenebrarum illuminans, & cordium consilia revelans. Ad illud usque tempus pro aliis timemus, de aliis benè speramus: de neutris judicium ferimus, ob erroris periculum. Talis erat Augustini de Matris suae statu spes metu mixta, quod indicant haec ejus verba: Quamquam illa in Christo vivificata sic vixerit, ut laudetur nomen tuum in fide, moribusque ejus; non tamen audeo dicere, ex quo eam per Baptismum regenerasti, nullum verbum exiisse de ore ejus contra praeceptum tuum: & dictum est à veritate filio tuo: qui dixerit fratri suo, Fatue, reus erit gehennae ignis. Haec Augustinus l. IX. Conf. c. XIII. Quare benè sperabat Augustinus de illius statu, timebat tamen ne quid illicitum humana fragilitate perpetrasset, pro quo non plene satisfecisset in vitâ. Hinc ut si quid esset ejusmodi Deus id misericorditer condonaret, & ipse oravit, & ut alii orarent enixè petiit. Et hic est fidelium sensus in hunc usque diem: quantacumque enim sint pro felici statu cujuspiam argumenta, sacrificia, aliaque suffragia pro eo fiunt, donec per aliquam Ecclesiae declarationem (quam Canonizationem vocamus) constet eum beatitudine jam donatum esse: tunc enim cessant pro illo preces, & in illius invocationem convertuntur.  
D. Morlaeus p. 17. Commemoratio defunctorum potissimùm fiebat, ut inde pateret. Tam vivos, quam mortuos ad idem Ecclesiae corpus pertinere, & neminem unquam tam Sanctum fuisse, qui non hujus beneficio sacrificii indigeret.  
Resp. neque nihil dicis, neque totum.  ut enim non negem illos quoque fines intendi; at quominus illa tantùm intendi dicamus, faciunt expressa cum Liturgiarum, tum Patrum verba aliud significantia, & ipsa precum varietas, quae pro defunctis, & ad Beatos diriguntur. Opem animabus purgantibus ipsi ferimus; Beatos, ut nobis opem fetant, oramus. Sicque officiis certando, nos aliis, alios nobis prodesse docemus. Et haec est Sanctorum communio, quam Catholici profitemur, ut proinvicem solicita sint membra, & ubi unum patitur, alia condolent. Vbi unum gloriâ afficitur, alia congaudent. In hac verò vitâ datur alterius meritorum communicatio. Non est talis communio Protestantica: quae sterilis est in hac vitâ, cum merita nulla agnoscat: & inutilis in aliâ, ad id solum instituta, ut videamur unius corporis mystici partes esse.  
D. Morl. p. 18. Pontificii orant pro iis, quos credunt esse in cruciatu. Veteres pro iis orabant, quos credebant esse in refrigerio.  
Resp. neque veteres orarunt, neque nos oramus pro iis, quos certò constat visione Dei frui: alioquin orassent antiqui pro Martyribus; quod cum horum injuriâ conjunctum esse asseverat Augustinus. Idem de aliis Beatis eandem ob causam.  
D. Morl. p. 19 Augustinus de tertio inter Beatorum, & damnatorum sedes loco, timidè, haesitabundè, & problematicè disputat. In uno loco, dicit Animas Defunctorum pietate viventium liberari ex Purgatorio. Alibi, sit ne Purgatorium non audet statuere. Nam lib. XXI. de Civ. Dei c. XXVI. ait: Forsitan verum est. Et in Enchir. c. LXIX. Tale aliquid post hanc vitam esse, non est incredibile, & utrum ita sit quaeri potest. Ad Dulcitium denique: eadem repetit, & addit: Haec descripsimus, ut tamen in iis nulla velut canonica constituatur auctoritas .... Hoc certum, est, quod Augustinus nihil de Purgatorio definivit, multò minus pro dogmate fidei habuit, aut ab aliis haberi voluit.  
Resp. Augustinus neque timidè, neque problematicè de Purgatorio locutus est; sed assertiuè, & dogmaticè. Hoc patet ex iis, quae ex illo protuli. Nec in toto Augustino quidquam invenitur, quod probet ipsum de Purgatorio ipso unquam dubitasse. Quae verò citas de Purgatorio ipso non loquuntur. Augustinus enim Enchiridii c. LXVIII, loquitur de dolore, quem sentiunt homines ob amissionem rerum temporalium quas inordinatè quidem in hac Vitâ diligunt: non ita tamen ut Christum deserere velint, ne eas amittant. Hunc urit, inquit, rerum dolor, quas dilexerat amissarum; sed non subvertit, neque consumit fundamenti stabilitate munitum. Deinde c. LXIX. ait: Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inveniri, aut latere, nonnullos fideles per ignem Purgatorium quantò magis minusve dilexerunt bona pereuntia tantò tardius, citiusve salvari. Et lib. de fide & Operibus c. XVII. Sive in hac vitâ tantum homines ista patiuntur, sive etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam judicia subsequuntur, non abhorret à veritate quantum arbitror, iste intellectus hujus sententiae. Quae ferè totidem verbis, certè non multùm mutatis iterum refert l. de octo Dulcitii quaestion. q. 1. Haec Augustinus.  
Ex quibus patet, locis citatis non esse sermonem de ipso Purgatorio; sed de tristitiâ quam animae vel corpori vinctae, vel eodem solutae sentiunt ex rerum, quas inordinatè diligunt amissione. Hanc aliquas animas in corpore sentire, notum est quotidianâ experientiâ. An extra corpus eandem sentiant, dubitat Augustinus, dubitamus & nos: nec ullâ vel Ecclesiae definitione, vel Scripturae sacrae auctoritate, vel Patrum testimonio, vel efficaci ratione, alterutra pars ita stabilitur, ut non vacillet assensus ei praestitus. Si ex hac nostrâ declaratione inferre velis, nos de ipso Purgatorio dubitare (qui similem ob causam id de Augustino dixisti) more hymnistarum tuarum argumentaberis, hoc est ineptè. Atqui talis est illatio tua de sensu dubio Augustini circa Purgatorium.  
Augustinus igitur absolutè affirmat esse Purgatorium: hoc asserunt alii Patres, hoc clamant Liturgiae, hoc tradit Fides, hoc fidelium praxis demonstrat; hoc tota Ecclesia Catholica docet. Soli vero Aëtius, Vigilantius, Calvinus, & ejus generis hominum ob haereses damnatorum quisquiliae negant. Vide, mi Morlaee, num difficilis sit optio, quibuscum in aliâ vitâ accenseri malis, cum Catholicis, an cum Haereticis, cum Sanctis, an cum Damnatis: & exinde statue quorum nam sententiae sis in praesenti adhaesurus.    

DE SANCTORUM INVOCATIONE.  

SECTIO VII. Duplex Sanctos invocandi modus.  
D Morlaeus p. 20. Quicquid de Oratione pro mortuis senserit Augustinus vel Ambrose, non tamen inde sequetur aut ipsum, aut ullum alium ex reliquis, Invocationi Sanctorum patrocinatum esse. Nam invocatio Sanctorum cum oratione pro mortuis nihil habet commune. Et praeterea haec est aliquo modo licita; illa toto genere illicita: haec inutilis, & superstitiosa; illa idolatrica, & in Deum, & Christum contumeliosa.  
Resp. Si solis censuris pugnandum esset, & vicisse credendi forent, qui acerbiores proferrent, etsi omni ratione destitutas, rixosis mulierculis, petulantibus Adolescentibus, atque morosis senibus, tutius committeretur disputatio Theologica, quam viris in eâ Artium, scientiarumque Reginâ peritis: Xantippe socrati praestaret, Zoilus Homero, Semei Davidi, & pueri Bethelitae, Elizaeo. Sed absit tam abjectè de hominum genere, de Christianis sentiamus, ut censeamus eos adversus immoderatas istiusmodi exaestuantis bilis redundantias armandos esse; quibus nunquam froena laxantur donec ratio praevalet, quâ deficiente recurritur ad ea dicteria, ut claudus deficientibus tibiis ad equum. Mitto proinde quae dicis gratis, Sanctorum invocationem illicitam esse, idololatriam, & in Deum, ac Christum contumeliosam. Tibi magis probrosum est ista dicere, quam nobis audire: quia qui contumeliam profert, insipiens est. Prov. x. 18. Quam iniquae porrò sintistae censurae, postea patebit. Illud tantum hic observo, minus consideratè à te dici, nihil commune esse Sanctorum invocationi, & orationi pro mortuis, Contrarium asserueras supra, ubi dixisti fideles iis modis suam communionem cum Animabus tum Beatis in caelo, tum in abditis receptaculis suam beatitudinem expectantibus testari. Communio igitur illa utrique communis est. Caeterum qui cum veritate pugnant, eos sibimetipsis manus inferre solemne est.  
D. Morlaeus p. 20. Invocatio juxta Pontificios est vel summa, directa, absoluta, & terminativa, vel subalterna, indirecta, relativa, & transitiva, Prior est Latria, soli Deo debitus cultus: de quâ intelligi volunt, quidquid è sacris Scripturis, Conciliis. Patribus ve producimus. Posteriorem putant Sanctis deberi, quos transitiuè, & relatiuè invocandos esse docent, ita ut preces Sanctis oblatae in Deum transeant, in eo terminentur. Et hanc innoxiam esse docent: & utilem, laudabilem, Deo Sanctisque gratam.  
Resp. Agnoscimus distinctionem nostra est, & ad explicandum invocationis Sanctorum sensum apprimè conducens. Non enim ita Sanctos invocamus, ut in iis nostra haereat intentio, aut orationes nostrae in iis subsistant, quasi à Sanctis praestari speratemus, quae nobis usui sunt; sed ut suas ipsi nostris preces adjungant, quo multiplicatis intercessoribus illa certius à Deo impetremus, quae petimus. Hinc orationes ipsis oblatae sunt transitivae, & relativae, quia Deum ultimò respiciunt, ad Deum feruntur, & in eo solo quiescunt.  
D. Morlaeus. p. 21. Nullum hujus invocationis relativae vel praeceptum, vel exemplum in sacris Scripturis, nec in praxi purioris Ecclesiae, nec in ipsis Patribus reperitur; sed est purum: putum commentum ad excusandam hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (cultum Angilorum, & Sanctorum) excogitatum.  
Resp. Mitte verba contumeliasque quae, qui profert insipientem esse, pronuntiavit Regum sapientissimus. Rem ipsam vide invocationem inquam Sanctorum. Lege Sodes quas supra returli sec. v. ex variis Liturgiis Sanctorum Invocationes: Ex iis constat nunquam in sacris omissam fuisse istam Sanctorum invocationem, quam tu solitâ tibi, tuisque symmistis modestiâ. Commentum purum putumque appellas. Simili temetitate negas ullum aut praeceptum, aut exemplum ejus in S. Scripturis, aut Patribus, aut etiam in praxi veteris Ecclesiae haberi. De Praxi veteris Ecclesiae nos dubitare non sinunt illae liturgiae superius allatae. De aliis modo dicendum.   

SECTIO VIII. Ex S Scripturâ probatur Invocatio Sanctorum,  
PRobatur 1, ex Geneseos XLVIII. Angelus qui eruit me de cunctis malis, ait Jacobus, benedicat pueris istis; & invocetur super eos nomen meum, nomina quoque Patrum meorum Abraham, & Isaac. Apertam hic habemus Angeli invocationem, nostrae similem id est relativam, & transitivam. Petere enim, ut Angelus eye benediceret, idem est ac si petiisset, ut pro iis oraret. Nam creaturae cujuslibet benedicere, & bene precari: ac Dei Benedicere, est benefacere. Natalis Alexander O.P. vir eruditissimus testatur Temellium, Junium, atque Arnesium agnoscere, quod ea verba Angeli invocationem contineant sequentia verò continere Sanctorum invocationem, quia monet suum Patrumque suorum nomen ab aliis invocandum.  
Prob. 2. Moyses ipse Sanctos Invocavit: Exodi XXXII. 13. Recordare Domine Abrahaam, & Isaac, & Israel, servorum tuorum. Quibus verbis eos velut mediatores, aut intercessores adhibuit. Et frequentissimae fuerunt istorum trium invocationes ex eo tempore, qui videntur quasi populi Israelitici tutelares, sive Patroni. Factâ vero decem tribuum à Judâ secessione, tribus ista Davidem invocavit simili modo, propter cujus merita diu stetit & regia civitas, & ipsum Regnum, quod alioquin fuisset ob gravia populi Regumque illius peccata delendum.  
Prob. 3. Sancti post hanc vitam orant pro nobis. Petrus in posteriori sua Epist. 1.15. Dabo operam & frequenter habere vos post obitum meum, ut borum memoriam faciatis. Quod idem est, ac polliceri se pro eorum pia vitâ post mortem oraturum. Praeterea 11. Mach. XV. 14. Hieremias dicitur multum orare pro populo Israel. Ibidem de Oniâ idem dicitur. Hieremiam gladium judae Iudaeorum Duci dedisse refertur, quo populi sui hostes debellaret. Respondent 1. libros illos Canonicos non esse: Verum hoc non satisfacit 1. Quia Ecclesia pro Canonicis jam Augustini tempore agnovit. 2. Quia saltem continent veram historiam quod ad praesens institutum sufficit. Respondent. 2. somnium fuisse. Fateor; sed somnium à Deo immissum & veram rerum futurarum revelationem in eo factam subsecuta victoria demonstravit.  
Prob. 4. Hieremiae XV. 1. negat Deus se Moysen, & Samuelem exauditurum, si pro populo intercederent & Ezech. XIV. 20. Simile quid de No, Daniele, & jobo dicitur: eo quod planè constituisset contumacem illam gentem poenis domare, ad quam converten dam frustra fuissent admonitiones minaeque adhibitae. Nec ullorum precibus se ab instituto dimoveri permissurus esset. Quorsum ista, nisi Deus Sanctorum intercessione subinde placaretur, & id populo illi tum temporis esset persuasum? Hoc etiam notatu dignum, quod cùm Christum in cruce pendentem Eliam invocasse dixissent ex adstantibus aliqui, (Matth. XXVII.) nemo ex Pharisaeis, (qui in omnes ei calumnias struendi occasiones imminebant) eum propterea accusavit, quod haud omisissent, si quod Calvini grex sentit, sine Idololatriâ Sancti non invocantur.  
Prob. 5. Sancti in hac vitâ & licitè & utiliter invocantur. Ergo & post hanc vitam. 1. Reg. VII. 8. ad Samuelem ait populus Israeliticus: ne cesses pro nobis clamare ad Dominum Deum nostrum, ut salvet nos de manu Philistinorum. job. XLII. 8. Ite ad servum meum job, job autem servus meus orabit pro vobis, faciem ejus suscipiam, ut non vobis imputetur stultitia. q. d. Intercessorem adhibete jobum, ipsius pro vobis preces exaudiam, & quam meriti estis poenam remittam. Et in novo instrumento: Rom. XV. 30. Obsecro vos fratres per D. N. I. C. & per charitatem Sancti Spiritus, ut adjuvetis me in orationibus vestris pro me ad Deum, ut liberer ab infidelibus, qui sunt in judaeâ. Similis Sanctorum vivorum invocatio habetur Ephes. VI 18.19. & Colos. IV. 3. & 1. Thessaly. V. 25. & 1.25, & 11. Thessal. 111.1. & Philip. 24. & Heb. XIII. 18. & jac, v. 18. Orate pro inimicem, ut salvemini. Quare saluà fide de Antecedenti dubitari non potest. Consequentia manifesta est: quia Sancti mortui non minus nos amant, quam vivi, ut pro nobis intercedere velint, nec minus Deo grati sunt, ut possint, quae nobis usui sunt impetrare. Cur ergo non licebit eos invocare, aequè ac illos? Hoe argumento usi sunt ad idem probandum Hieronymus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, aliique infra citandi. Dixit aliquis Sanctos in hac vitâ invocari posse, quia sunt Christi membra, eorumque preces hujus meritis innituntur: quasi haec in Sanctos etiam mortuos non competant, aut desinerent esse Christi membra, cum ipsi arctissimo, & indissolubili vinculo nectuntur, aut hujus meritis minus niterentur, quando sunt ei arctius conjuncti, & majora eorum virtute praemia sunt consecuti.  
Quatuor modis huic argumento respondere conaris pag. 43. Negas itaque consequentiam 1. quia praecepit Deus ut vivi pro vivis orarent, & promisit se tales orationes exauditurum: nihil simile de Sanctis mortuis. Caeterum nunquam vetuit Sanctos mortuos invocare: & gratis ex illo silentio solo infers istos invocandos non esse. Perinde quippe est, ac si ex eo, quod in Scriptura exempla nulla habeamus Invocationis Sanctorum aut Hispanorum, aut Gallorum, Britannorumve vivorum, inferres Graecos, & Romanos vivos invocari posse; alios non posse. Quae restrictio cum gratis fiat, nullius est momenti: idem de restrictione tua ad Sanctos vivos, quae gratis ficta est.  
Negas Conseq. 2. quia in Scripturis sunt exempla Sanctorum vivorum pro invicem orantium, precesque petentium; at nullum de Defunctis invocatis. Nec hoc satisfecit: quia à Sanctis vivis invocatis ad Sanctos mortuos legitima est consequentia, & inevitabilis. 2. Quia & Sanctos mortuos orare pro vivis constat ex Scripturis, ut vidimus, & etiam eos fuisse Invocatos.  
Negas 3. quia Sanctos vivos oramus, ut illum, qui solus invocandus est pro nobis, & nobiscum invocent: & ut una nobiscum per communem intercessorem Jesum Christum, Deum Patrem adeant. Caeterùm quid hoc ad rem, cum constet simili ratione ex Ecclesiae ment invocari Sanctos mortuos, ut pro nobis, & nobiscum orent, Deum Patrem Per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.   

SECTIO IX. An, & quá ratione Sancti mortui norunt, quae hic aguntur.  
POstrema, & maximè communis Asseclarum Calvini responsio à te his verbis exprimitur p. 43. Certò scimus Sanctos in hac vitâ sentire, & intelligere, quid sit quod ab illis praestari velimus; sed an Sancti mortui in caelo videant, quae hic agimus, aut audiant, quae loquimur certè scire non possumus, absque speciali revelatione.  
Ceterùm si demus tibi, quod gratis assumis & probate non potes, Sanctos Deo fruentes nostras preces non audire, quid inde mali, nisi quod opera in illis invocandis posita perierit? Idem evenire posse, dum Sanctos vivos, ut pro nobis orent. oramus, nec tu puto negabis, cum fieri possit, ut litterae ad loco remotos destinatae intercidant. Non tamen ideo damnabis ut Idololatram, aut ut impium, qui litteris ad Amicum in Indiâ degentem datis rogat, sui me minerit in precibus ad Deum: aut si hunc damnare audeas, vide quà ratione B. Apostolum ab eâ sententiâ, eximas, nisi fingas, quoties epistolam aliquam ejusmodi preces continentem scriberet, peculiari revelatione certum factum esse, quod ad manus earum quibus destinabatur, esset perventura. Neque dicas, nos Beatis omniscientiam tribuere, quia dicimus quaecunque ubilibet aguntur cognoscere: & omnipotentiam, qui possunt nobis ubilibet constitutis opem ferre: quae sunt duo Dei Attributa creaturis incommunicabilia. Respondebo enim, nos neutram illis tribuere; sed gratiam tantum apud Omnipotentem, & omniscientem, & eorum cognitionem, quae illos scire Ecclesiae est utile, cujus participes ex Divinâ bonitate fiunt, ad Ecclesiae militantis bonum precibus suis procurandum.  
Haec dicta sunto, admissâ, non concessâ illâ Beatorū de rebus, quae hic aguntur, ignorantiâ. Nunc absolutè dico, id falsum, esse, quòd two, qui hinc translati sunt quae geruntur inter nos scire non possint. Enimverò. Reg. XXVIII, constat Samuelem periculum Sauli immineus cognovisse, & futuram cladem etiam. Elias hinc raptus, quae impius Joram Rex Juda contra Dei legem moliebatur, optimè novit eumque per epistolas comminatorias conatus est ad meliorem frugem reducere. 11. Paralip. XXI 12. De quo vide Cornelium à Lapide ad illum locum, & Salianum, qui putat IX circiter annis ab Eliae raptu missas fuisse illas Epistolas. Deinde ex laudato 11. Mach. XV. 12. & seq. discimus Hieremiam & Oniam nosse periculum Judaeis imminens: pro eo avertendo multum orasse, priorem Machabaeo Gladium dedisse Sanctum munus à Deo, quo Gentis suae hostes dejiceret. Id est, virtutem bellicam ad eos debellandos. Et inexpectata victoria subsecuta probavit non merum fuisse somnium; sed revelationem in somno factam, cujusmodi frequentes factae fuerunt antiquitus, uti ex S. Litteris patet.  
Ex novo Testamento clarius apparet id, quod cum Ecclesiâ assero. Luc. XIV. Dives epulo sepultus in Inferno, sciebat superstites esse ipsius quinque fratres, eosque tam perditè vivere, ut in summo essent damnationis periculo. Hoc sciebat & Abraham, & insuper eos habere Moysen, & Prophetas, hoc est eorum libros, quibus ad curandam salutem aeternam, quantum sat esset, admonebantur. Ex quibus constat Animas corpore solutas, sive quae in refrigerio erant in Abrahae sinu, sive quae torquebantur in Inferno, quae hic agebantur cognovisse. Quo jure Beatas in caelo animas eâ cognitione privas, quam Christus Dominus animabus tum in limbo Patrum degentibus tum damnatis adscribit? Deinde idem Christus Dominus Luc. XV. 10 dicit: Gaudium esse in caelo super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente. Sciunt ergo Beati quod Peccator aliquis Poenitentiam agit, nec enim de repenitus ignotâ gaudere possunt: de ignoto enim objecto nec gaudium esse potest, si bonum est, neque tristitia, si malum.  
Accedit & ratio: nam ad ipsorum Beatitatem spectare videtur, quod omne honestum ipsorum desiderium impleatur. Honestè autem desiderare possunt ea scire quae vel agunt, vel patiuntur primò ipsorum Parentes, filii, consanguinei, 2. illi, quarum curam in terrâ habuerunt, 3. alij noti, & vicini, 4. res spirituales majoris momenti, haereses, schismata; item Laetiora, nempe morum reformationes, Fidei propagationem, etc. 5. res etiam temporales, regnorum mutationes, Imperiorum translationes, bellorum eventus, & id genus alia. Hinc Abraham, Isaac & Jacob avere possunt, scire, quae populo Israelitico eveniunt: David, Ludovicus, Henricus, Odoardus, quae ipsorum regnis, Petrus, Paulusque quae toti Ecclesiae, Antonius, Benedictus, Franciscus, Ignatius, quae cujusque Instituti Professoribus: Felix, quae Nolae. Gervasius & Protasius, quae Mediolani. Genoveva quae Parisiis, quod ipsorum corpora illic sepulta sint. Denique quisque Sanctus avere potest eos nosse, qui in necessitate aliquâ constituti, eorum preces implorant.  
A sanctis Patribus longè amplior Beatis animabus cognitio tribuitur. Augustinus enim Tract. CI. in Joan. sub finem ait: Modicum & videbimus eum, ubi jam nihil rogemus, nihil interrogemus: quia nihil desiderandum remanebit, nihil quaerendum latebit. Et Gregorius l. IV, Dialog. C. XXXIII. Quid est quod nesciant, qui scientem omnia sciunt?  
Quod ad modum, five medium spectat, in quo, vel per quod ista intelligunt, quandoquidem illud Deus nec in verbo scripto, nec in non scriptis Traditionibus declarare dignatus sit, nec Ecclesia quidquam definivit, ego libenter ignorantiam meam agnosco. Possunt ista cognoscere per eos, qui hinc morrendo pergunt: possunt etiam per Angelos ea nuntiari. Possunt etiam Deo revelante scire: qui tres modi ab Augustino proponuntur 1. de cura pro mortuis C XV. Postremus modus placere videtur Gregorio supra laudato: & clare Asseritur à Concilio Senonensi Decreto XIII, quod cum retulisset aliquos negare, Sanctos preces nostras audire, ait: Hoc quam sit non modo veritati; sed Scripturis quoque dissonum facilè intelligit, qui Bratis pervium esse non ignorat omniforme illud Divinitatis Speculum, in quo quidquid eorum intersit, innotescat. Et B. Augustinus hac ratione res creatas intelligi ab Angelis insinuat, dum eorum cognitionem Matutinam eam esse dicit, quâ res in verbo cognoscunt. Portò dici potest haud ineptè Divina Essentia ob eam virtutem res repraesentandi Speculum Voluntarium; Speculum, quia res repraesentat: voluntarium, quia solum ea repraesentat, quae Beatorum interest cognoscere, sive quae ad eorum statum pertinent, & quae Deus ab iis cognosci vult.  
Denique illa scire possunt per vim innatam intellectui ipsorum. Hic quidem in corpore ratione sensuum à quibus in operando dependet: ad certam activitatis sphaeram restringitur: at ubi corpore solutus est, & à sensuum cooperatione liber, non alios limites novit, quam qui res omnes existentes complectatur. Sicut ergo nos per Epistolas res in altero hemispherio gestas, & per historias res ante multa saecula praeteritas, cognoscimus nihil obstante aut loci, aut temporis distantiâ; ita intellectus Beatus vi suâ innatâ. Hoc, supposito, animas tantum à nobis distare, quantum à supremo caelo terra: licet incomperta nobis sit illarum à nobis distantia. (De quo vide Hieronymum l. contra Vigil. c. II.) Enim verò certum est, illas videre Deum: certum etiam est ubicunque sunt, eum videre, qui ubique est, & eum videndo beatas esse, etiamsi cum Christo Domino ad Inferos descendissent; quia earum Beatitudo non pèndet à loco; sed in solâ Visione Dei consistit, quae in omni loco eadem est. Simili ratione constat animas damnatas ubicunque sint, suam secum miseriam circumferre, suum infernum, etiamsi in Campis Elysiis, aut Insulis Fortunatis existant. Cum ergo ex earum Beatitudine, quae fide certa est, de Distantiâ nihil nisi problematicè inferni possit, Distantia ipsarum à nobis incerta est: adeoque inde colligi non potest, eas, quae hic aguntur ignorare. Qui verò stolidè cavillatur Animas non tam longas aures habere, ut quae hic aguntur, audiant longis auribus ornari meretur, & tintinnabulis, quod tam stupidum tam stolidum acumen ab eo solo proficisci potest, qui animam nihil sine corpore sentire, sive percipere posse autumet, adeoque eam sentiat esse merè corpus.  
Dices: si quisque Beatus sciat, quae ad ejus statum pertinent, sequeretur, ut subinde qui minus esset Beatus, ob minora merita, plura sciret, & per consequens magis erit Beatus. Quod multi aegrè sunt admissuri.  
Resp, Concedo sequelam, tametsi enim in visione Beatificâ tota inaequalitas de facto à meritorum inaequalitate proficiscatur, & proinde qui majora habent merita, Deum perfectius vident: non ita tamen in visione rerum creatarum, quarum cognitio visioni Dei comparata non considerabile gaudium adfert. Audiamus August. lib. V. Confess. c. IV. Infelix homo, inquit, qui scit illa omnia (creata) te autem nescit. Beatus autem qui te scit, etiamsi illa nesciat: qui verò te & illa novit, non propter illa Beatior est; sed propter te solum Beatus. Et Christus ipse id vitam aeternam esse testatur, cognoscant solum Deum, & quem misit jesum Christum. joan. XVII. 3. aliorum cognitione, quantumvis amplâ insuper habitâ.  
Quantumvis ergo non eam inficias difficile esse definitè scire, quâ ratione Beati videant, quae hic aguntur, negari non debet eos ista videre. Similiter cum August. dicto l. de curâ pro mort. c. XVI. Ista quaestio vires intelligentia meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis. quos per eos certum est adjuvari. etc. Certi sumus proinde Martyres scire preces iis oblatas. 2. Eos nobis opem ferre. Quo verò modo utrumque fiat nihil admodum scire refert. Sed quocunque modo fiat pium, utileque est ad eos in necessitate recurrere eosque invocare.   

SECTIO X. Sanctorum invocatio probatur ex Patribus.  
1. CYprianus epist. LVII. ad Cornelium: si quis istinc nostrum prior divinae dignationis celeritate praecesserit, inquit, perseveret apud Deum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus nostris apud misericordiam Patris non cesset oratio. Vide Pamelii ad illum locum annotationes. Deinde lib. de Disciplinâ & habitu virginum: Durate fortiter, spiritualiter pergite, pervenite feliciter: tantum mementote tunc nostri, cum incipiet in vobis virginitas honorari. Haec clare probant ex illius ment Sanctos pro nobis orare, & nos illorum orationes implorare posse. Neque refert, quod Sanctos adhuc viventes alloquatur, (quod observat D. Morlaeus pag. 38.) cum respiciat orationes post mortem fundendas: & ea dicat, quae eos post mortem incitet ad orandum pro viventibus: adeoque Sanctorum in caelo regnantium invocationi aequivalent ea verba.  
2. Potamiena Virgo, & Martyr Basilidi, qui eam ab impurorum ludibrio defenderat Martyrii coronam obtinuit, ut habet Eusebius l. u I. historiae Eccles. c. v. Qui etiam l. XIII. Praepar. Evang c. XI. refert Christianos hominum Deo Charissimorum sepulchra celebrare, preces ibi, votaque nuncupare & beatas illorum animas venerari consuevisse. Idque, ait, à nobis merito fieri statuimus.  
3. Basilius Orat. ad XL. Martyres: qui aliquâ premitur angusti ᵃ, inquit, ad hos confugit: qui rursus laetatur, ad hos recurrit: ille ut à malis liberetur, hic ut duret in rebus laetis. Hic mulier orans pro filiis auditur: peregrinanti reditum incolumem, aegrotanti verò salutem implorat. O communes generis humani custodes! Optimi curarusocii, precum adjutores, Legati apud Deum potentissimi.  
4. Nyssenus, orat. de S. Theodoro M. Intercede, ac deprecare pro Patriâ apud communem Regem, ac Dominum ... Pete pacem, ut hi publici conventus non desinant. Nos enim, quod incolumes servati sumus, tibi acceptum referimus. Petimus autem etiam futuri temporis praesidium & securitatem. Quod si maiori etiam opus fuerit advocatione, & intercessione, fratrum tuorum Martyrum coge chorum, & cum omnibus una deprecare. Admone Petrum, excita Paulum, nec non joannem Theologum, ac dilectum discipulum, utpro Ecclesiis, quas constituerunt soliciti sint.  
D. Morlaeus p. 48. Basilium, Nyssenum, Nazianzenum, Paulinum, atque Prudentium, pios; eruditos, & in suo genere admirabiles sentio, temen illorum sequacibus gravissimum errorem errandi dederunt occasionem, dum Rhetorico & Poëtico suo genio nimis indulgent, adeoque incautius loquuntur.  
Resp. accipimus, quod à te veritas manifesta extorsit, nimirum, Hos Patres (quanta nomina) Sanctorum invocationem docuisse: nosque hac in re illos Sanctos viros imitari. Dum tamen addis gravissimum errorem errandi datā nobis ab illis occasionem, aut falleris, aut quod gravius est Lectores fallis. 1. Quia non error; sed Ecclesiae doctrina. 2. Quia non docuerunt ipsi Ecclesiam illud dogma; sed ab Ecclesia didicerunt: nec unquam Ecclesia eorum Panegyres audisset patienter, aut legisset poemata, si (quod dicitis) credidisset Sanctorum invocationem, erroneam doctrinam esse aut impiam, atque superstitiosam. imò idolatricam. Caeterum ex elaris istorum Patrum) sententiis si quae sint apud alios Patres obscuriores, aut dubiae, exponi debent.  
S. Hieronymus Epist. XXVII. quae ait Epitaphium Paulae: Vale ô Paula, inquit, & cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva. Fides, & opera tua te Christo sociant: praesens quod postulas, facilius impetrabis.  
D. Morlaeus pag. 49. Hieronymus Poëtarum more scribit ... Et aut ineptus fuit Paulam non audientem seriò alloquendo, aut ineptior non audientem seriò invocando.  
Resp. alii longe diversam de Hieronymi sensu sententiam habent: & ex ejus verbis citius credent Beatas animas, quae dicimus audire: quam ob tam fuitilem rationem Sanctum Doctorum ineptire.  
S. Ambrose lib. de Viduis: Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, inquit, qui nobis ad praefidium dati sunt: Martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quodam corporis pignore Patrocinium vindicare. Bossunt pro peccatis nostris rogare, qui proprio Sanguine etiamsi quae habuerunt peccata ' laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae, actuumque nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, qui & ipsi infirmit atem corporis, etiam cum viverent cognoscebant.  
D. Morlaeus p. 47. bariolatur, dum audacter pronuntiar Ambrosium, si scripsisset Retractationes suorum operum, hanc sententiam nigro carbone notaturum fuisse. Sed unde id colligit? Hujusmodi assertiones, qui sine probatione protrudit, non ment: sed fronte solâ loquitur. Addit p 48. Ambrosium vix Christianum in libro de Viduis vix Christiane scripsisse. Quominus inverecundam istam immodestiam metitâ verborum acerbitate castigemus, facit ipsius immodestiae magnitudo, quam nulla verborum acerbitas aequabit. Adeo scilicet apertè adversantur tibi ista verba, ut, cum fidiculis etiam admotis ea detorquere non potueris, bilem, inde commotam, & in ea verba, & in eorum Authorem haeretico furore percitus, evomere volueris.  
7. Idem Ambrose Epist. LIII. refert inventum cum corporibus Sanctorum Gervasii, & Protasii scriptum cujusdam Philippi, qui illa corpora furtim sustulerat, atque ea in domo suâ sepelierat, Credens eorum orationibus se consequi misericordiam Domini nostri jesnm Christi. Prout in eo scripto habetur. Unde colligo vel primo, vel certè secundò saeculo Sanctorum invocationem obtinuisse; & martyrum Reliquias religiosè cultas fuisse; quia aut sub Nerone aut certè sub Marco Aurelio Martyrium consummarunt isti, quorum corpora piè recondidit dictus Philippus, iis contemporaneus.  
8. Ad Hieronymum revertor. Is l. contra Vigilantium: Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum vivimus, mutuo pro nobis orare possumus, postquam autem mortui fuerimus nulius sit pro alio exaudienda Oratio. Si Apostoli & Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro caeteris, quando pro se adhuc debent esse soliciti, quantò magis post coronas, victorias, triumphos? Vnus homo Moyses sexcentis millibus armatorum impetrat à Domino veniam, & Stephanus imitator Dominisui, & primus Martyr in Christo pro persecutoribus veniam deprecatur & postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt?  
D. Morlaeus p. 50. Vigilantius tria tuetur: 1. Martyres seu Sanctos non esse adorandos. 2. Mortuos pro vivis non intercedere. 3. Martyrum animas non adesse suis tumulis. De duobus posterioribus Hieronymus acriter disputat, de primo litem illi nullam movet.  
Resp. In mald causâ non potes aliter, ait Aug. sed quis coëgit te malam causam habere? Adeamus ipsum librum. & videamus an non fide Calvinianâ, & Protestanticâ hoc tam asseveranter dicas. Haec sunt Hieronymi verba ad Riparium, Epist. LIII. Honoramus Reliquias Martyrum, ut eum cujus sunt Martyres adoremus. Honoramus servos. ut honor servorum redundet ad Dominum, qui ait, qui vos suscipit, me suscipit. Et l. 1. adversus Vigilantium. Dolet Martyrum Reliquias precioso operiri velamine, & non vel pannis, vel cilicio colligari, vel projici in sterquilinio ut solus Vigilantius ebrius, & dormiens adoretur. Ergo sacrilegi sumus, quando Apostolorum Basilicas ingredimur? sacrilegus fuit Constantinus Imperator, qui Sanctas Reliquias, Andreae, Lucae, & Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim, apud quas Daemones rugiunt, & inhabitatores Vigilantii illorum se sentire praesentiam confitentur? Sacrilegus dicendus est Arcadius, qui ossa Beati Samuelis .. de judaeâ transtulit in Thraciam? Omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi; sed etiam fatui judicandi, qui rem vilissimam ut cineres in serico, & vase aureo portaverunt? stulti omnium Ecclesiarum populi, qui occurrerunt sacris Reliquiis, & tantâ laetitiâ quasi viventes Prophetam cernerent, susceperunt, ut de Palestinâ usque Chalcedonem jungerentur populorum examina, & in Christi laudem unâ voce resonarent? Videlicet adorabant Samuelem; & non Christum, cujus Samuel & Levita, & Prophetes fuit. Nunc, & quâ soles fiduciâ dicito, S. Hieronymum de Martyrum honore nullam Vigilantio litem movisse, in quem tantâ verborum acrimoniâ, tantâ rationum vi pugnat.  
August. l. de curâ pro mortuis x. IU. Cum recolit animus ubi sepultum est charissimi corpus, & occurrit locus nomine Martyris venerabilis, eidem Martyri animam dilectam commendat, recordantis, & precantis affectus. Quibus verbis simul conjungit & orationem pro mortuis, & Sanctorum invocationem.  
D. Morlaeus p. 56. citatis ex eodem capite ejusdem libri verbis aliquibus ex Bellarmino, haec addit: Haecsunt à Bellarmino itata, quae ut verum apud te non dissimulem primâ facie aliquantulum me moverunt. Quare cum fidem jesuiticam non ignorarem Augustinum ipsum statim consului, totumque contextum imo integrum librum legi, & relegi. Et primum animadverto disjuncta esse in Augustino, quae in Bellarmino conjuncta sunt. etc. Haec porro sunt Bellarmino citata verba: non video quod sit adjumentum mortuorum provisus sepeliendis corporibus apud memorias Sanctorum locus, nisi ad hos ut dum ubi sunt reposita eorum, quos diligunt corpora, iisdem Sanctis illos tanquam Patronis susceptos, apud Dominum adjuvandos orando commendent.  
Respondeo: fidem jesuiticam, quam hic vellicas, longè facillimum est praestare, cum (ut legenti locum citatum potest, ea verba omnia, licet aliquantulum mutato ordine, in illo capite extent. Et ne quis suspicetur loci sensum immutatum esse, illum eundem exhibent verba, quae ex illo loco produxi: quae paucis interjectis, verba quae Bellarminus protulit sequuntur: adeoque demonstrant sensum à Bellarmino intentum Augustini esse: nec per consequens satis cohaerere cum Augustini ment, quem illi affingis: qui sensus tibi obvius occurrisset, si potius eum quaerere, quam ab eo declinare, & aberrare, conatus fuisses. Quid tantum insano licuit indulgere labori, ut totum librum iterum iterumque legeres, (cum verba ab Eminentissimo velis nolis Authore prolata in oculos incurrant) non alium in finem, quam ut sensum extonderes ipsi Augustino contrarium, quem ipse sequenti suae mentis expositione dispunxit?  
Boni consulis, si datà per imprudentiam tuam, hac occasione lubricae, fallacis, fraudulentaeque fidei vestrae verè Protestanticae mentionem injiciam quando tibi visus est jesuiticam Bellarminus fidem objicere. Quâ ratione quâ fiduciâ fidem jesuitrum suggillatis, qui tot errores etc. Qui tot errores in fide, tot mendacia in communi hominum convictu, tot perjuria publica non impunè modo grassari passi estis (quod ipsum sat magnum crimen esset) sed amphssimis praemiis favistis, & totis ingenii viribus propugnastis; nec aut verecundia hominum, aut conscientiae remurmurantis sensu, aut justitiae amore, sed metu solo malorum, Regno, Regiae familiae, ordinique Ministellorum à fanaticis hominibus, ea omnia in Regniperniciem, summo studio promoventibus ut per Catholicorum praesertim verò Jesuitarum exeidium, ad Regni, ad publici Regiminis eversionem pervenirent, imminentium, (quae non tam praevidebatis; quam sentiebatis) resipuistis. Haec non in obscuris Angulis facta; sed palam, sed in conspectu solis, sed in oculis omnium gesta sunt. Dicito ubi aliquid simile non dico à Jesuitis actum; sed vel à Barbaris gentibus designatum est. Et tu fidem jesuiticam nominasti! Quaerito ignotas gentes, Anglicae verè Protestanticae fidei ignaras, rerum quae à quinquennio gestae suntinscias, apud quam fidem vestram jactetis, Jesuitarum verò convellatis. Trabem islam ex oculo vestro ejicite: tum videre poteritis an ulla sit in lesuitarum oculo palea.  
Aliqua dicam obiter de hoc Augustini libro quem de curâ pro mortuis inscripsit. Ex eo varia fidei Catholicae cum Haereticis controversa capita confirmantur. Primò, Temple in honorem Martyrum constructa. 2. Corpora fideliu illic sepulta fuisse. 3. Ideque ex opinione, quod illis prodesset illic sepeliri. 4. Orationes prodefunctis. 5. Solis illis Animabus istas prodesse, quae & refrigerio carebant, & illius capaces erant, 6. Martyrum pro iis implorata suffragia. 7. martyrum intercessione multa à Deo donari. 8. Martyres apparere. Sic Felix Nolae apparuit.  
Haec omnia testatur Augustinus Catholicos communiter credidisse: & Paulinus eidem contestis est. Nec his in rebus magis clarum de ment priscae Ecclesiae testimonium optarem, quam quod iste liber exhibet.  
Nec hujus testimonii vigori quidquam detrahit Augustini dubitatio, de verâ ratione, quâ nitebatur ista praxis, aut utilitate inde manante. Fusè probat Christianos solicitos esse non debere de sepulchro, ob Christi verba: Nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, & post hoc non habent amplius quod faciant: ut eos consolaretur, quorum amici, assines, & consanguinei in clade Romanâ occisi fuerant, eorumque corpora insepulta Avibus caeli, & bestiis terrae laceranda relicta sunt. Cumque totam ejus mentem ocuparet (dum librum istum scriberet) consolationis illis impertiendae desiderium, vix tenui rimâ claram lucem admisit ex Ecclesiae praxi derivatam, quam & averè distribuit, ne afflictos affligeret, de sepulchri alieni jacturâ maestos, de suo solicitos. Ind credo factum, quod non adeo commendaverit illud Fidelium studium, de quaerendo apud Martyrum memorias sepulchro; sed potius diminuere, quantum poterat, salva veritate, videatur.  
Quod ergo Augustinus praxim illam fidelium referat, cum Paulino, eamque verbis & à Bellarmino, & à me prolatis approbat, id manifeslae rei veritati tribuendum: quod verò in dandâ hujus praxeos ratione, fructuque explicando, quem inde adipiscerentur fideles, minus sirmus videatur, neque totis ingenii sui viribus praxim illam commendat, id dandum puto fidelium dolori, à Romanâ clade, & insepultis cadaveribus orto. Eundem tamen fidelium illius temporis, & Ecclesiae hodiernae sensum esse, per eandem praxim, ex Augustino manifestè patet. Unde constat non nova esse dogmata, quae Catholici contra modernos haereticos asserimus; sed communia priscis: quae Augustinus & novit, & agnovit, & laudavit, sed hoc ultimum parce admodum. Hinc apud aequos quosque Judices constabit Bellarmino sides, & tua, mi Morlaee, in illum iniquitas, illum de malâ fide sine justâ causâ, & accusas, & condemnas falsus Testis, corruptus Judex.   

SECTIO XI. Rationibus Theologicis probatur Sanctorum Invocatio.  
PRima ducitur ex Liturgiis, quarum nulla est, quae non aliquam Sanctorum Invocationem, potissimùm B. Mariae Deiparae Virginis. Eruditissimus P. Natalis Alexande dubitat an aliquae Liturgiae corum sint, quorum nomina praeferunt, eo quod voces aliquas contineant, quas posteriora saecula invexerunt. At argumentum inefficax est: quia Liturgiae cum sint publici juris, & non tam ab aliquo homine, ut talis est, quam ab eo, ut Episcopus, est, proficiscantur, sintque potius partes Auctoritatis, quam ingenii. Ind fit, ut datâ occasione jure suo usi fint, primi Auctoris successores ad eas augendas, & locupletandas: non tamen novarum accessione partium; sed priorum partium incremento: ad eum modum, quo corpus humanum augetur: in quo ab ipsis initiis caput, manus pedes, item cor, cerebrum, illa, eadem, quae novae materiae accessione, & proportionata adjectione crescit in mensuram virilem.  
Partes verò Liturgiarum essentiales & primigeniae sunt 1. quae ad Symbolorum Consecrationem in Dei honorem & Passionis Dominicae memoriam spectant. 2. Oratio vel Invocatio Sanctorum. 3. Oratio pro defunctis in his enim omnes omnino Liturgiae conveniunt.  
Probatur 2. ex eo quod nunquam altare constitutum fuerit, sine Martyrum Reliquiis. Et Ecclesiae ipsae Memoriae Martyrum dictae sunt. Hinc constat magnum honorem illis exhibitum: quem etiam exhibet hodieque Ecclesia Romana, Graeca, aliae; sola Protestantica ut ab Ecclesiis hujus temporis, ita ab omnibus Antiquis differret, ab omnium aequè pietate, & Sanctitate, ac à moribus, & praxi defecit.  
Prob. 3. Quia Pagani, cum à Christianis impugnarentur ob honores divinos hom inibus mortuis exhibitos, responderunt ipsosmet Christianos similem cultum mortuis exhibere, Martyres honorando.  
Prob. 4. quia Christiani Ethnicis respondentes agnoscunt se Martyres colere, eorumque sepulchra venerari eos invocare; sed non ut Deos; sed ut Dei famulos, Deo gratos, apud eum potentes, quorum preibus se juvari apud eundem Deum sperabant. Hujus rei testimonia infra producentur.  
Prob. 5. Patres, qui de Invocatione Sanctorum locuti sunt, non ut de re nova; sed ut de antiquitùs usurpata loquuntur. Nec ullum è sanctis Patribus invenire est, qui eam novam dixcrit esse, prioribus ignotam, suo, aut ullo alio Apostolis posteriori tempore inventam. Quod evidenter probat, Euangelio coaevam esse Martyres invocandi consuetudinem.  
Prob. denique 6. quia qui Martyres invocandos negarunt, Vigilantius, & alii, velut Haeretici condemnati sunt ab Ecclesiâ. Quod patet ex Epiphanio, Augustino, atque Hieronymo. Ergo non solum sensit unus, aut alterè Patribus, sed etiam ipsa Ecclesia, Martyres invocandos esse: eotumque Invocationem ad fidem spectare Catholicam. Alioqui non censeret à fide extorres fieri, quotquot aliter sentirent.  
Plura alia ex Patribus adduci possunt Argumenta, ex Irenaeo, Athanasio, Ephrem Syro, aliisque sed ista sufficiunt. Unum addam ex August. serm. 11. de Annuntiatione. Sancta Maria, succurre miseris, juva pusillanimes, refove flebiles, ora pro populo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro devoto faemineo sexu. Sentiant omnes tuum juvamen etc.  
Claudo ingens testimoniorum agmen unico Chrysostomi testimonio, quod non solum invocandos esse Sanctos docet; sed etiam quid à nobis praestari debeat, ut nobis illae fructuosae sint invocationes. Ait ipse hom. 1. in priorem ad Thessalon. Haec cum ita sint, nos nec Sanctorum pro nobis negligere debemus orationes, nec omnem fiduciam in illis collocare: quia aliud res ingenti subsidio privaret, aliud desides redderet. Debemus ergo & ipsos orare, ut pro nobis orent, & ipsi piè vivere, ut illam assequi mereamur beatitudinem, quae promittitur diligentibus Deum, per gratiam Domini nostri jesu Christi.  
Quare & utriusque Testamenti tabulae, & antiqua purioris (ut loqui amatis) Ecclesiae praxis, & antiquorum Patrum indubitata testimonia invice probant Martyres. Angelos, sanctosque invocandos esse. Adeoque cultum illum improbari non posse saluâ fide, à quâ naufragaverunt quicumque illum impugnarunt. Quemque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 odiosis vocabulis appellare mavis, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nihil opus est dicas. Ignorare non potes, nos juxta vobiscum sentire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum esse soli Deo debitum. Adeoque non minus aversamur ipsi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quam tuae sectae homines. Idem de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed insidias incauto Lectori in verbo struxisti: quas tibi inutiles reddit haec observatio.   

SECTIO XII. Apud Christianos Sanctorum invocantio, non convenit cum cultu Daemonum apud Ethnicos.  
D Morlaeus. p. 21. Quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gum gentilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eadem res est aliis nominibus fucata, & ex Gentilium Philosophia in Christianam Ecclesiam paulatim introducta, non obstante Apostoli Pauli diligentissimâ per totum caput secundum ad Colossenses praemonitione, ut ab istâ Gentilium Philosophiâ sibi caveant Christiani.  
Resp. Ex Gentilium Philosophiâ nasci non potuit Sanctorum Invocatio, cum ista totâ Philosophiâ Ethnicâ antiquior fuerit. Vidimus enim Jacob Patriarcham Angelum invocasse: Hic autem diu ante Philosophiam Paganam vixit. Imo Moses, qui quadringentis post Jacob annis floruit, cunctis ipsis Gentilium Diis antiquior est, ut ostendam infra sect. XVI, & expressè tradit Eusebius Praefatione in Chronicon. Falsissima proinde est illa tua assertio, quae in re tanti momenti, sine probatione adduci non debuit.  
Neque te decet sine ratione asserere toto capite secundo epistolae ad Colossenses Apostolum fideles admonuisse, caverent sibi ab istâ Gentilium Philosophiâ: sed Sodales tuos in hoc imitaris, qui, cùm deficiunt rationes solidae, & testimonia clara, ad obscurissimas Prophetias, & abstrusiores sententias, quas ad exercitium, & humiliationem intellectus humani Spiritus Sanctus per SS. Scripturas ubique dispersit, recurrunt, Talia malam causam vel moras faciendo sustentant, ait in simili Augustinus.  
Falsum etiam esse, quod dicis, manifestè patet: nam quae versu 16. dicuntnr. Nemo vos judicet in cibo, aut in potu aut in paerte diei festi, aut neomeniae, aut sabbathorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum. Haec inquam clariùs legales ceremonias, id est Judaicos ritus, improbant, quam ut id probari opus sit. Item illa versus 20.21. Si ergo mortuiestis cum Christo ab elementis hujus mundi, quid adhuc tanquam viventes in mundo decernitis? Ne tetigeritis, neque gestaveritis, neque contrectaveritis .. Cu ergo manifestè pateat, aliquam illius orationis partem de solis judaicis ritibus intelligi posse, quidni dicere possumus alia, quae obscura sunt, de iisdem intelligi debere? Nec enim verba clara per obscura implicari debent; sed è contra obscura per clara explicari. Hoc saltem negari non potest, tuam assertionem falsissimam esse, quae dicit toto capite moneri Christianos, caverent sibi à Gentilium Philosophiâ.  
Sed si demus tibi Gentium Philosophiam eo loci intelligi ab Apostolo, cur non de Epicureis speciatim, & stoicis id accipi poterit, quos cum Apostolo disseruisse, sive disputasse, testis est Lucas Actor. XVII. 18. Et verò de his speciatim locutum Apostolum, testis est Tertullianus lib. de Praescript. Fuerat Athenis, inquit, & istam sapientiam humanam, adsectatricem, & interpolatricem veritatis de congressibus noverat, & lib. de Animâ cap. 1. Athenis expertus: scilicet Apostolus, Linguatam Civitatem, cum omnes illic sapientiae, facundiae caupones degustasset, inde concepit praemonitorium illud dictum Haec Tertullianus. Si ex eo congressu cum Stoicis & Epicureis concepit illud decretum, non potuit adversus Gentilium superstitiosum Deorum suorum cultum dirigi, cum illae duae Philosophorum sectae prae aliis omnibus nedum à superstitioso, verum etiam à Religioso suorum Deorum cultu ita abhorruerint, ut Atheismo eam ob causam prae aliis fuerint infamati.  
D. Morlaeus pag. 34. Laodicena cap. XXXV. Cultum Angelorum occultam Idolalatriam vocat, eumque sub Anathemate prohibet. Et Theodoretus in cap. II. Epist. ad Colos. v. 18. Qui legi patrocinabantur, ait, Colossenses ad cultum Angelorum induxerant: quae prava affectio permansit apud multos in Phrygiâ, & Pisidiâ. Quamobrem vetuit Synodus Laodicena, nequis Angelis supplicaret.  
Resp. Constat neminem magis commendasse Religiosum Sanctorum, Angelorumque cultum, eorumque invocationem, quam Theodoretum quod probabitur Sect. XVIII. Hanc ergo non potuit Theodoretus aut damnare ipse, aut credere ab illâ Synodo fuisse damnatam. Alium ergo cultum intelligit, qui quis sit modo quaerendum. 1. Credo fuisse cultum magicum, quo non solum Daemones, sed etiam Angeli boni, invocabantur. De quo Tertullianus Apolog. c. XXIII. Anselmus, & Turrianus. Magicum autem, atque superstitiosum etiam bonorum Angelorum cultum damnat etiamnum Ecclesia.  
Resp. 2. Simonem, Menandrum, Saturninum, Cerinthum, Basilidem, aliosque semi-ludaeos existimasse per Angelos tanquam per minores Deos conditum hunc mundum, ab iisque eum administrari, per Prophetas eos docere nos, etc. Quos refutat Apostolus Ephes. 1. & Heb. 1. Christum Dominum Angelis majorem asserens. Ex quo consequens erat, majorem ab iis haereticis honorem Angelis delatum, quam purae creaturae deberetur, cujusmodi ipsi Angeli sunt. Hunc autem honoris excessum Synodus meritò damnare potuit. Videatur Cornelius à Lapide in l. 1. Epistolae ad Colossenses.  
Resp. 3. Ubi populus in rebus aut licitis, aut etiam bonis, nimiam fiduciam collocat, neglectis aliis melioribus, fieri potest, ut justè prohibeatur illarum rerum, tametsi de se bonae sint, usus. Sic haud ita pridem audio in Hiberniâ contigisse, ut ad tempus usus aquae benedictae interdictus fuerit, quod in gente illâ non pauci tanti facerent eam aquam, ut ipsum Poenitentiae Sacramentum susque deque habere viderentur. Aliquid ejusmodi intervenisse credibilius est, quam aut Synodum Laodicenam, aut Theodoretum Sanctorum Invocationem, qualis est modo, & fuit tunc temporis in usu, improbasse.  
Resp. 4. Cum illa Synodus cap. XXXIV. non omnes; sed tantùm malos, falsosque Haereticorum Martyres coli vetuerit, (unde sequitur bonorum, & qui in Orthodoxae fidei Professione Martyrium absolverunt, cultum non prohiberi) videtur Canone sequenti non omnium Angelorum; sed malorum tantum, cultum prohibere. Et similis in utroque Canone loquendi modus huic interpretationi favet. Nam Canone XXXIV. vetat nos deserere Martyrem Christi, & ire ad Pseudo-Martyres, quos constat suisse Haereticos. Et Canone XXXV. vetat deserere Ecclesiam Dei, & Angelos nominare, & congregationes facere. Vbi vetat segregare plebem ab Ecclesiâ Catholicà, inusitatis in eâ Angelorum nominibus adhibitis, & Conventicula facere. Hoc est, schismata facientes, & inconsutilem Christi tunicam lacerantes, anathemate ferit.  
D. Morlaeus p. 34. Non dubium est, quin eadem Synodus eodem Anathematis fulmine percussisset Sanctorum Invocatores, si qui tales extitissent.  
Resp. Tales extitisse, qui Sanctos invocabant, liquet 1. Ex Ethnicorum objectionibus. 2. Ex Patrum, nominatim Theodoreti scriptis. Nec tamen fuerunt condemnati. Vnde colligitur non ob solum Angelorum cultum pium, qualis est, semperque fuit in Ecclesiâ, editum illud Decretum; sed alias ob causas, ut vidimus.   

SECTIO XIII. Quid Gentiles de uno Deo, ejusque Prudentiá & cultu senserint?  
D Morlaeus p. 21. Gentilium Philofophi, non minus quam Christiani, nnum summum Deum, cuisummus, & supremus cultus debebatur, & quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellabant agnoscebant.  
Resp. Non Philosophos solos; sed omnes omnino homines, insitam eorum ●●entibus, infixamque naturaliter habere Dei notionem aliquam indubitatum est. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus sui Dominus: & tam expressis lineamentis, tam altè sculptis figuris impressum, ut nec barbarorum ferarum ritu viventium ignorantia, nec grata sensibus, moribus perniciosa Poëtarum figmenta, nec pomposa Idolorum magno ceremoniarum apparatu cultorum adoratio, eam debere unquam potuerit. Hanc naturalem Dei Idaeam primus observavit Epicurus, si fides Ciceroni lib. I. de naturâ Deorum: quae vim suam adeo in omnibus gentibus exeruit, ut nulla natio, nullum hominum genus. Sine omni Dei notitiâ vixerit unquam. Consentiunt Patres. Clemens Alexand. Paraen. ad Gentes: Omnibus, ut semel dicam hominibus instillatus est quidam Divinus influxus, quâ de causâ vel inviti fatentur, unum esse Deum, ab interitu alienum, & ingenitum. Cyprianus lib. de Idolo. Vanitate: Deum ignorare non potes. Basilius in Psalm. XLVIII. Hominibus vis in est, quâ Creatorem suum & opificem agnoscere possit, & intelligere. Insufflavit enim in faciem, hoc est partem aliquam gratiae apposuit homini, ut per hanc sibi impressam similitudinem, eum cui similis est agnosceret. Hieronymus in cap. I. Epist. ad Galatas, ad verba: Cum autem placuit ei, etc. ait: Ex quo perspicuum est, naturâ omnibus Dei inesse notitiam. Prosper l. de Provide.  
Seu nostros annos, seu tempora prisca revolvas,  
Esse omnes sensêre Deum.  
Damascenus lib. I. de fide cap. I. haudquaquam nos deseruit Deus omnimodâ sui circumfusos ignorantiâ; quin imò cunctis cognitio, quod Deus est, ab ipso naturaliter insita est, atque ingenita. Vide Nazianzenum Orat. XXIV, & alios.  
Tertullianus 1. de Resurrectione carnis post principium: Quaedam naturâ nota sunt, inquit, ut immortalitas animae penes plures: & Deus noster penes omnes. Et libro de Testimonio Animae: Novum Testimonium advoco, inquit, imò omni litteratura notius omni doctrinâ agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto homine majus, id est, totum quod est hominis. Consiste in medio Anima, sive divina & aeterna res es, secundum plures Philosophos, eo magis non mentiens: seu minimè divina, ut Epicuro soli videtur .... sed non eam advoce, quae scholis formata, bibliothecis exercita, Academicis, & Porticibus parta sapientia ructas. Te simplicem, & rudem, & impolitam, & idioticam compello qualem te habent, qui te solam habent, illam ipsam de compito, de trivio, detextrino totam. Imperitiâ tuâ mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulae tuae peritiae nemo credit. Ea expostulo, quae tecum in hominem infers; quae aut ex temetipsâ, aut ex quocumque Auctore tuo sentire didicisti. Non, quod sciam, Christiani: fierienim, non nasci solet Christiana. Tamen nunc à te testimonium flagitant Christiani, ab extraneâ ad versus tuos, ut vel tibi erubescant, qui nos ob ea oderint, & irrideant, quae te nunc consciam detinent. Non placemus Dominum praedicantes, hoc nomine unico unicum, à quo omnia, & sub quo universa. Dic testimonium, si itascis. Nam te palam, & totâ libertate quâ non licet nobis, domi ac foris audimus ita pronuntiare: quod Deus dederit, & si Deus voluerit: eâ voce & aliquem esse significas, & omnem illi confiteris potestatem, ad cujus spectat voluntatem, simul, & caeteros negas Deos esse, dum suis vocabulis nuncupas, Saturnum, jovem: Nam solum Deum confirmas, quem tantum Deum nominas, ut & cum illos Deos interdum appellas, & alieno, & quasi pro mutuo usu videaris.  
Et Apologetici c. XVII. Quod colimus, inquit, Deus unus est. Et in fra: Deum vis magnitudinis & natum hominibus objecit, & ignotum: & haec est summa delicti, nolentium recognoscere, quem ignorare non possunt. Vultis ex operibus ipsius ... vultis ex animae ipsius testimonio comprobemus? quae licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta licet libidinibus & concupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exancillata, cum tamen respicit, ut excrapulâ, ut ex somno, ut ex aliquâ valetudine, & sanitatem suam patitur, & Deum nominat solum, quia proprie hic unus Deus, bonus, & magnus. Et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. judicem quoque contestatur, illum: Deus videt, & Deo commendo, & Deus mihi reddet. O Testimonium Animae naturaliter Christianae! Denique pronuncians haec, non ad Capitolium; sed ad caelum respicit. Novit enim sedem Dei vivi.  
Cyprianus l. de Idolorum vanitate, eodem Tertulliani telo pugnat: Vulgus in multis Deum naturaliter confitetur, cum mens, & anima sui Auctoris, & Principis admonetur. Dici frequenter audimus, ô Deus, & Deus videt, & Deo commendo, & Deus mihi reddat, & quod vult Deus. & si Deus dederit. Atque haec est summa delicti, nolle agnoscere, quod ignorare non possis. Haec ibi. Exprobrat autem uterque Ethnicis, quod peccarent nolendo Deum agnoscere, quem ignorare non poterant.  
Minutius felix: Audio vulgus, cum ad caelum manus cendunt, nihil aliud, quam Deum dicunt, & Deus magnus est. Vulgi iste naturalis Sermo est, an Christianis confitentis Oratio?  
Lactantius: Cum jurant, & cum optant, & cum gratias agunt, non Deos multos; sed Deum nominant: adeo ipsa veritas cogente naturâ, etiam ab invitis pectoribus erumpit. Iterum: Ad Deum confugiunt, à Deo petitur auxilium, Deus, ut subveniat, oratur. Etsi quis ad extremam mendicandi necessitatem redactus, victum precibus exposcit, Deum solum obtestatur, & per ejus divinum & unicum Numen hominum sibi misericordiam quaerit. Simile quid habet Proclus in Timaeum Platonis.  
Denique Eusebius lib. II. de Praepar. Euang. c. IX. initio: Nos autem dicere non dubitamus, inquit, naturâ, imo verò Divinitus esse hominibus insitum, non solum utile quid, atque conducibile Dei nomine significari; verum etiam omnium rerum creatorem sic appellari. Et verbo quidem omnes ita naturâ duce conveniunt, re autem creaturas pro creatore coluerunt. Haec Eusebius caeterum postmodum de cultu Deo debito loquemur. Nunc videndum amplius qualem esse crediderunt, quem omnes necessitate manifestae veritatis adducti non agnoscere, aut certè non cognoscere non potuerunt.  
Quam difficile veram de Deo Idaeam formamus, qui nihil, ferè, nisi ad modum corporum concipimus, docet nos Augustinus lib. VII. Confes. cap. I. Nec te cogitabam, Deus meus, in figurâ corporis humani, inquit, ex quo audire aliquid de Sapientiâ coepi, semper hoc fugi, sed quod te aliud cogitatem, non occurrebat .... clamabat violenter cor meum adversus omnia phanthasmata mea, & hoc uno ictu conabar abigere circumvolantem turbam immunditiae ab acie mentis meae. Et vix dimota in ictu oculi ecce conglobata rursus aderat & irruebat in aspectum meum, & obnubilabat eum: ut quamvis non formam humani corporis, corporeum tamen aliquid cogitare cogeret per spacia locorum ... diffusum .... quoniam quidquid privabam spaciis talibus nihil mihi esse videbatur.  
Longâ tandem experientia doctus, modum optimum Deum cognoscendi tradit l. VIII. de Trin. c. II. haerere scilicet in prima cogitatione Divini cujuspiam Attributi, nec inquirere quale illud sit: Ecce vide si potes, inquit, O anima praegravata corpore quod corrumpitur, & onusta terrenis cogitationibus multis & variis: Ecce vide si potes. Deus veritas est ... Noli quaerere quid sit veritas, statim enim se opponent caligines imaginum corporalium, & nubila phantasmatum, & perturbabunt serenitatem, quae primo ictu illuxit tibi cum dicerem veritas. Ecce in ipso primo, quo velut coruscatione perstrinxit, cum dicitur, Veritas, mane si potes: Sed non potes: relaberis in ista solit●, & terrena. Quo tandem pondere quaeso relaberis, nisi sordium contractarum cupiditatis visce, & peregrinationis erroribus. Deinde cap. III. Ecce iterum, vide si potes, non amas certè, nisi bonum: & infra. Bonum hoc & bonum illud, tolle hoc, & illud, & vide ipsum bonum, si potes: ita Deum videbis, non alio bono bonum; sed bonum omnis boni. Haec S. Doctor.  
Hujus Sancti modestiam reverentialem si fuissent imirati Philosophi Pagani, nunquam tam portentosas de Deo procudissent opiniones, nec evanuissent in cogitationibus suis, nec dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti facti fuissent. Adeo ut jure merito dixerit Chrysostomus, Christianos opifices, & rusticos plura, & solidiora, & Deo digniora sentire, quam sentiant ipsi Philosophi Pagani. Infinitum esset singulorum proferre sententias. Quare de praecipuis tantum pauca referam.  
Epicurus, qui quod omnium primus naturalem Dei in mentibus nostris Idaeam observavit, laudem est meritus, vituperio dignus est, quod Deum sine humanâ figurâ non agnôrit, teste Cicerone l. I. de Nat. Deor. Qui ulterius l. V. Tuscul. qq. ait, Eum jocandi causâ Deos induxisse perlucidos, atque perflatiles. Stoici rotundam Deo formam dederunt. Seneca epist XCIV. Hi etiam, dum apud eundem Senecam epist. XLIX. ajunt: Philosophia mihi promittit, ut me parem Deo faciat. Et hominem probro afficiunt, & Deum, dum de illo tam superbè, de hoc tam abjecte sentiunt, Idem Seneca l. I. natur. qq. Quid est Deus? inquit, quod vides totum, & quod non vides. Sentiebant enim mundum hunc visibilem Deum esse, ut ait Origenes adversus Celsum (consensit aliquatenus Augustinus, qui l. I. de Consensu Euang. c. XXIII. disertè Stoicos Deum corporeum statuisse affirmat) Platonici licet aliis melius de Deo & senfetint, & scripserint, mundum etiam Deum esse dixerunt, sed Deum secundi ordinis, & inferioris subsellii. Tertullianus absolutè dicit Platonicos Deum corporeum agnovisse, Apologetici c. XLVII. & Theophilus Antioch. lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. CXX. in fine idem air. Sed & Cicero l. I. de natura Deor. ait: Plato in Timaeo & in Legibus, dicit mundum Deum esse, & caelum, & Aram, & Terram, & animos, & eos, quos majorum instituto accepimus. Putat Vossius l. I. de Idololatriâ c. II. falsum fuisse Ciceronem, & Platonem non ex propria sententiâ locutum; sed ex alienâ verbis citatis: ne scilicet Platonem agnosceret sibi fuisse contrarium, qui clarè dicit Deum esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Verum sine causâ sufficienti fidem Ciceroni detrahit. Facilior solutio videtur, quod Plato aliud de primo Deo dixerit, aliud de secundo. Aristoteles Philosophorum omnium accuratissimus Deum summo caelo trabalibus clavis affixit. l. VIII. Physicorum, c. X, tex. LXXXIV. Pythagoras idem sensit, ut habet ejus vita apud Photium in Bibliothecâ, Cod. CCLIX. sive CCXLIX. Aliis omnibus hoc saltem in re prudentior, imo & sapientior Simonides, Hieroni quid Deus esset interroganti, respondit, se quo magis id quaereret, eo minus invenire.  
De divina Providentia, ejusque in mundum beneficentia adhuc pejus senserunt, Plerique crediderunt, ut habetur in libro Job. c. XXII. 14 Deum circa cardines caeli per ambulare neque nostra considerare. Ita Stoici apud Theophylum Antiochenum 1. II. ad Autolicum p. LXXXII. Aristoteles ait Deum quidem movere primum mobile, eumque motum ad orbem usque Lunae propagari: at sublunaria ejus potestati exemit: Imo & cognitioni: nam lib. II. magnorum Moralium c. XV. ait: Quoniam bona cuncta obtinet Deus, quid faciet? neque enim dormiet. Contemplabitur inquiunt aliquid: id namque pulcherrimum, & maximè peculiare. Quid igitur contemplabitur? nam si quidquam aliud inspiciet, illud erit melius. Hoc vero absurdum, ut se quidquam melius habeat Deus. Ipse igitur se contemplabitur. At hoc delirum. Nam hominem, qui sese contempletur, utpote sensu carentem increpamus. Epicurus alia ratione aequè miserâ idem ostendere conatur, apud Ciceronem l. I. de Nat. Deorum. Habemus, ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet, ut Deos Beatos, & immortales putemus. Qui enim nobis natura informationem Deorum ipsorum dedit, eadem insculpsit in mentibus, ut eos Aeternos, & Beatos haberemus. Porrò quod aeternum, beatumque est, id nec habere ipsum negotii quidquam, nec exhibere alteri. Itaque neque Irâ, neque Gratiâ teneri, quod quae talia essent, imbecilla essent omnia. Haec ibi ne nimius sim, mitto aliorum somnia: nam nihil aliud quam somnia, & quidem aegri & deliri videntur, quae de Deo, ejusque Providentia dixerunt magna illa ingenia. Unde discere possumus, quam necessarium nobis sit fidei lumen. Qui tamen plura videre volet, adeat Origenem l. III. contra Celsum, Cyrillum Alex. l. II. contra Julianum, Theodoretum lib. 5, de Curandis Graec. Affect. aliosque. Solus Epictetus, quantum ego scio, sapere videtur, ad sobrietatem & de Dei Providentiâ minus quam alii malè loqui.  
Quid de Poetarum Gentilium (quos vates appellare solebant) fabulis dicam. De his Cicero: Hi irâ inflammatos, & libidine furentes Deos induxerunt, fecoruntque ut eorum bella, pugnas, praelia, vulnera videremus: odia praeterea dissidia, discordias, ortus, interitus, querelas, lamentationes, effusas in omni intemperantiâ libidines, adulteria, vincula, cum humano concubitus, mortalesqne ex immortali procreatos. Cum Poëtarum autem errore conjungere licet portenta Magorum, Aegyptiorumque in eodem genere dementiam: tum etiam vulgi opiniones, quae in magnâ inconstantiâ Veritatis ignoratione versantur. Hactenus Cicero. Quid deportentosis & ridiculis fabulis de Diis Gentilium, quas merito Cicero non Philosophorum judicia; sed delirantium somnia vocavit. Quid demonstruosis Deorum suorum formis, qui si viverent, & suis cultoribus occurrerent eos percellerent, ut ajunt Patres. Adde ex Porphyrio lib. IV, de Abstinentiâ, §. IX. Belluae; Elementa, mixta pro Diis habita.  
Hinc Poëtae Satyrici Ironia: Sat. XV.  
O Sanctas gentes, quibus haec nascuntur in hortis  
Numina—  
Dicent Philosophi, haec nihil ad se pertinere. Sed frustra dicent 1. quia varii Poëtae fuerunt Philosophi, & quidem ex optimis. 2. quia Philosophi Poëtarum figmenta defenderunt, & in bonum aliquem sensum reducere conati sunt. Hinc Augustinus lib. X. de Civ. Dei c. III. ait: Vel populorum Erroribus Auctores fuisse, vel illis resistere non ausos esse, verissimum est. Nec enim periculo vacabat aliter sentire. Aristoteles relictis Athenis Chalcedonem aufugit, ut invidiam declinaret ob assertum Deum unum ortam: Socrates candem ob causam ad bibendam cicutam ab Areopagitis damnatus est. Plato (ut habet Eusebius l. XI, de Praepar. Euang. c. IX) licet ad amicos & familiares scribens, Deum in singulari nominaret; communiter tamen Deos in plurali invocabat.  
Quod si vera sit tua, mi Morlaee, Assertio, Philosophos Gentiles unum Deum agnovisse, & coluisse: Cur antiqui Patres adversus illos adeo operosè Dei unitatem asserere conati sunt? Quinam Paganorum deliria defendebant? Philosophi. Quos impugnarunt Christianae Fidei Assertores? Philosophos. Quid probare sategerunt Patres adversus istos? unum solum esse Deum. Vide Justinum M. vide Athenagoram, vide Theophilum Antiochenum, Tertullianum, Cyprianum, Minutium felicem, Cyrillum, Arnobium, alios, invenies magnam operum adversus Gentiles Scriptorum partem in asserendâ eitatis unitate consumi. Cur hoc, si in eo dogmate concordes erant partes? cur pugnabant Patres, ubi nemo repugnabat, & tempus & operam perdebant, id probando, quod nemo negabat. Cur Animam Christianam esse asseveravit Tertullianus, quae Deum unum fatebatur, si Philosophi Gentiles idem dicerent? Certè aut stulti Patres, qui quid esset Controversum ignorabant (quod nemo sanus dicet) aut falsus tu, quod mihi plusquam certum est.  
Audiamus ulterius Patres: Origenes l. I. contra Celsum totam legum à Paganis contra Christianos latarum summam duo respicere docet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idola, & Politheismum. Addit Prophetas Judaeis datos, ne illa gens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gentilium Politheismnm incideret. Et lib. III, ait ipsos etiam Philosophos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad Atheisticum Politheismum defecisse. Josephus Judaeus l. IU. Antiq. c. IU. dicit Israelitas à Medianitis mulieribus ab uno ad plures Deos colendos fuisse traductos. Deinde Achior Ammonitarum Dux, Judith v. 8. de Judaeis ait: Deserentes ceremonias Patrum suorum, quae in multitudine Deorum erant, unum Deum caeli coluerunt. Inter Patres autem eorum erant praestantissimi Philosophi, à quibus Abram suam in Physicis scientiam hausit, quam Aegyptiis communicavit, & quae per hos ad Graecos transiit.  
Augustinus l. I. de cons. Euang. c. XXIII. & seq. ait, cum Philosophos potissimùm vero Platonicos, Politheismi puderet, eos dicere caepisse, se unum Deum colere, quem alii Jovem saturnum alii, aliis alii nominibus appellabant. Orosius. l. VI hist. c. I. ait Paganos jam unum Deum agnoscere: quasi antea non agnovissent Eusebius 1. II. de Praepar. Euang. c. IX. ait Gentiles omnes cognoscere quidem unum Deum; sed multos colere, praeter unum, haud admodum paucos. Consultum etiam Apollinis oraculum, quae gens esset sapientissima? respondit: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Judaeam gentem & Chaldaeam vocans, à Patriâ unde orti, & Hebraeam ab Heber. stirpis Auctore, ait Eusebius l. III. de Demonst. Euang. c. III. eamque caeteris praefert quod unum Deum colerent per se existentem. Hoc oraculum videri potest apud Cyrillum l. V. contra Julianum Justinum in Theodoret. l. I. de cur. Graec. Affect. & in Prolegomeno XII. Bibliis Poliglossis praefixo.  
Vides, opinor, temerè à te dictum, quod Philosophi Gentiles unum Deum summo, supremoque cultu venerati fuerint, aut colendum censuerint. Commentum istud aut tuum, aut tuorum Symmistarum toti Antiquitari adversatur. Accedit Apostoli testimonium. Rom. 1, 20. qui absolutè pronuntiat Philosophos inexcusabiles, quòdcum Deum cognovissent, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, neque gratias egerint; sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis & obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, & volucrum, & quadrupedum, & serpentium ... Commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, & coluerunt & servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in seeula. Amen. Quae Apostoli verba causae tuae jugulum hauriunt. Continent enim 1. Philosophos ex operibus mundi opificem cognovisse, 2. non tamen glorificasse, sive coluisse, neque Gratias egisse. 3. ex stultitiâ gloriam Dei in statuas mutasse, hoe est statuas pro Deo coluisse. 4. creaturam magis quam creatorem adorasse. Vide Chrysost. Hom. III. ad illium locum.  
Superest ultima periodi tuae pars. Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellabant scilicet. Eam vocem ab iis usurpatam agnosco: rem voce significatam agnoscam, ubi ostenderis ex omnium Philosophorum sententiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sive materiam ipsam, atomosque à Deo productas esse. Hoc autem nunquam probabis, quamdiu extabunt Antiquorum & Philosophorum, & Historicorum opera, quae alia omnia testantur Eusebius l. 1. de Praepar. Euang. c. IV, ex Diodoro seculo viro apud Graecos clarissimo, haec adfert ex Philosophis, & historicis: Alii cum mundum ingenerabilem, & incorruptibilem putavissent, ganus quoque hominum sempiternum esse asseruerunt: ita nunquam initium ipsorum fuisse arbitrati sunt. Alii generabilem & corruptibilem (nempe mundum) putarunt: homines quoque certis temporibus incapisse affirmarunt. Theophilus Anticohenus p. LXXXII. ait Platonem credidisse materiam ingenitam. Et pag. CXXXVI. ait Pythagoram idem de toto mundo dixisse. In re minimè dubiâ supervacaneae diligentiae esset plura testimonia congerere. Hinc & meo labori, & Lectoris tudio parco. Nunc & praedica doctis nihil utique credituris cunctos omnino Paganos Philosophos, mundum ab uno Deo conditum asseruisse: hunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab iis appellatum nos ut cum Prophetâ agnoscimus à Deo impressam animae nostrae ipsius imaginem indelebilem, unde illum necessariò noverunt omnes; illam tamen adeo errorum nebulis obscuratam, & Phantasmatum ruderibus opertam, ut cum eodem Prophetâ dicere cogimur, notus in Indaeâ Deus: quasi alibi altâ caligine, & fere in tenebris densis deliterscens ignotus esset. Hinc Hieronymus: Antequam illuminaret Crux, & antequam videretur Dominus in terrâ, scilicet in solâ judaeâ notus Deus. Quando autem venit Salvator, in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum quasi diceret. Per totam terram dispersu fidei lumen, Politheismi tenebras abegislet. Gratias Deo super inenarrabili Dono ejus. 11. Cor. X. 15.   

SECTIO XIV. Varia Spirituum genera secundum Philosophos.  
D Morlaeus p. 21. Pagani inter illum unicum summum Deum, & homines, alios medios quosdam Divos, aut Deos minorum gentium esse credebant, quos communi nomine Daimonas specialius verò Penates, Lares & Deos particularium vel gentium, vel urbium, vel hominum Tutelares indigetabant. Horum autem Daemonum alios dicebant nunquam corpori alligatos, (& hoc est illud genus genus, quod nos appellamus Angelos) Alios verè Heroum, hoc est praestantissimorum, & humano genere, dum viverent, optimè meritorum virorum animas à corpore separatas, quales apud nos sancti, & in Ecclesiâ Romanâ non sancti modo; sed etiam Gentilisuo nomine Divi nuncupantur.  
Respondeo: condono tibi errorem vegrandem, quod putarint universim Pagani Philosophi Daemones aliquos nunquam habuisse corpora: cum conster è contra plerosque sensisse nullos Daemonas unquam esse sine corpore. Quem errorum (si talis sit) video etiam non paucis Patribus arrisisse qui cum Platone docuerunt omnes habere corpora. Enim verò, qui Deum ipsum summum corporeum asseverant, quae fuit mens multorum Philosophorum, quomodo. And famulus melior Domino? Creatura creatore perfectior? studium insanum affingendi Ecclesiae Catholicae Paganorum errores, in multos te, tuique similes, errores adduxit. Mitto etiam odiosam de nomine Divus annotationem; unde confirmas Ecclesiam Romanam planè Paganisare. Cum tamen Ecclesia nunqua in Missali, nec in Breviario, quantum memini, Divos nominet; sed aut Sanctos, aut Beatos, & Bellarminus in operum suorum recognitione mutari jusserit, si uspiam vocasset Sanctos Divos. Nec Ecclesia aut ipsi Jesuitae intercesserunt executioni hujus mandati. Et tametsi non desint, qui Divos appellent, nec ob id condemnentur ab Ecclesia, hoc tamen potius est Conniventia, quam approbatto, multò minus ordinatio. Multos ipse novi qui nunquam voce Divus, aut Divi utuntur: pacificè tamen cum aliis eâ utentibus vivunt, quòd in bonum sensum accipi possit, & ab eâ utentibus ita sumatur. Vnde nec damnantur ab Ecclesiâ ob eam vocem. Quod si licuit Augustino Platonem Divinum nominare, quare non licebit aliquem verè Sanctum Divum appellare? Haec de voce: Rem ipsam videamus.  
Augustinus lib. IU. de Civit. Dei cap. XXXVII. refert scaevolam Pontificem Romanorum longè doctissimum tria Deorum genera distinxisse: primum à Poëtis traditum. secundum à Philosophis, tertium à Principibus Civitatis. Primum genus nugatorium esse dicit, quod de Diis multa Peëtae iis indigna finxorint. Secundum, non congruere civitatibus, quod habeat aliqua superflua, aliqua etiam quae populis obsit nosse: qualia sunt, non esse Deos, Castorem, Pollucem, Herculem, Aesculpaum, etc. item verum Deum sexus non habere. etc. Fuit ergo triplex Religio, Poëtica, Philosophica, & Civilis, Addit Augustinus tantum duplicem fuisse Religionem, quia Poëtica & Civilis una tantum erat. Mihi, similem ob causam, videtur tantum unicam fuisse: quia in Deorum templis, & eorum solemni cultu, Philosophica Civili (quae eadem cum Poëtica erat) fasces submittebat, ut videbimus. Vnde sequitur non multum referre, quid de substantiis illis à corpore separatis disputarinr in scholis Philosophi, aut in libris tradiderint Eruditi, tametsi id certò sciri posset; & idem omnes sensissent: quod verum non est. Nam.  
julianus ille cognomento Apostata apud S. Cyrillum Alex. lib. v. adversus illum, Spiritus illos Docuit esse veros Deos, Deo tamen summo inferiores, eique subditos, quibus Deus varias mundi partes regendas commisit. judaeorum Deum unum ex illis esse, caeteris deteriorem ob Zelorypiam, Invidiam, Iram, Vindictae cupiditatem, & crudelitatem. Ob quas in verum Deum blasphemias, etsi nihil fuisset aliud proborsum illud cognomentum illi adhaerere debuisset. Basilides apud Tertullianum l. de Praescript. c. XLVI. non multum abludit, ait enim summum Deum vocari Abraxan, qui mentem creavit: à ment prodiisse verbum. A Verbo Providentiam, virtutem, & sapientiam. Ind Principatus, Potestates, & Angelos factos. Inter ultimos vero Angelos collocat judaeorum Deum: quem verè Angelum fuisse asseverat, eique sortitò obtigisse semen Abrahae.  
Communior Philosophorum sententia tria spirituum genera distinguit: supremos Deos, infimos animas humanas, & medios Daimonas, Vide Augustinum l. VIII. de civit. Dei, ca XIV. & l, IX. ejusdem operis c. VIII. Hanc spirituum in tres classes distributionem & Porphyrius lib. altero de Abstinentiâ §. XXXVII. & Augustinus Academiae tribuunt, quasi à Platonis scholâ profecta esset: scilicet quod quod illam Platonici, prae aliis Philosophorum sectis, scriptis suis & celebrarint, & ilustrarint, non quod illam primi excogitaverint. Nam Thales Platone longe antiquior apud Athenagoram Legat. pro Christianis tres eorum classes enumerat, Deum in earum primâ collocat, Daemones in secundâ, Heroes in tertiâ! Quos Heroes ait animas esse corpore solutas; esseqùe bonas, si vitam bonam vixerint; sin verò malos. Hesiodus apud Theodoretum l. VIII. de Cur. Graec. Affect. consentit, sed ait bonas aureorum hominum (id est, eorum, qui benè vixissent) nanimas in Daimonas converti & rerum humanarum curam suscipere. jamblichus lib. de mysteriis Aegyptiorum ait Daemones, & Heroes, Deos inter & hominum animas intercedere, atque de utroque extremo participare, in aequaliter tamen: Nam Daemones ait propius ad Deos accedere: Heroes verò animabus humanis magis esse affines.  
Apuleius lib. de Deo sacratis (de quo libro multa S. Augustinus l. VIII. de Civit. Dei. c. XIV.) Daemones ipsos in quatuor classes distinguit, nimirum in Lemures, Lar, Larvas, & Mannas. Haec sunt ejus verba: Secundo signatu species Daemonum, animus humanus exutus corpore, & liber, stipendiis vitae corpore abjuratis, Hunc vetere latinâ lingnâ reperio Lemurem dictitatum. Ex hisce Lemuribus, qui posteriorum suorum curam sortitus, pacato, & quieto numine domum possidet Lar dicitur familiaris. Qui vero propter adversa vitae merita, nullis bonis sedibus, in certâ vagatione, ceu quodam exilio punitur, inant terriculamentum bonis hominibus, caetetum noxium malis, id genus plerique Larvas perhibent. Cum verò incertum est, quae cuique eorum sortitio evenerit, utrum Lar sit: an Larva, nomine Manem Deum nuncupant & honoris gratiâ Dei additum est voeabulum. Haec Apuleius. Augustinus lib. IX. de Civitate Dei. c. XI. easdem Spirituum species, enumerat, cum eâ tamen differentiâ, quod Lemures & Larvas eosdem esse putet, scilicet Spiritus qui sciuntur esse mali. Cujus sententia mihi magis placet, quam Apuleii, dicentis Lemures latiùs patere, & esse quasi nomen genericum. Lar Thusca vox est, quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive Praesidem sonat. Unde Tuscis Lar, populi Praeses dicitur, ut habetur apud Livium, & Ausonium. Vnde transfertur ad Spiritum significandum, qui domui cuipiam praeficitur. Manes de se non male sonat; sed potius bonum aliquid significat, apud Servium l. III. Aeneidos Virgilii. Hinc Mane optima diei pars: & privarivum Immane, contrarium sensum retinet.   

SECTIO XV. Quae spirituum mediantium in homines officia?  
ALiqua fuisse secundum Philosophos qui eos mediare docebant, dubitari non potest: sed & fide cettum est; Cum Apostolus Hebr. 2.14. pronunciet omnis esse administratorios Spiritus in ministerium Missos propter eos, qui haereditatem capient salutis. Vnde Dei in homines benevolentia patet, qui non satis habuit spectabilem hunc mundum hominis causâ creasse, ejusque pedibus substravisse & usui mancipasse; sed insuper ipsos Angelos, eo multò superiores naturâ, magis adhuc Gratiâ, & Gloriâ, ipsi ministrate jussisse. Quae verò nobis ex eorum ministerio bona proveniant, hic investigamus. In istis rei abstrusissimae obscuritate plus lucis adferent Platonicorum, quam omnium aliorum scripta: quod hi quam alii omnes Philosophi & plura, & meliora scripserint, addo & veriora, & sacris litteris magis conformia quae Plato vidit, & ex iis non pauca desumpta in sua opera transtulit.  
Primum angelorum in homines officium est, iis commissos custodire. Censorinus: Genius est Dous, cujus in tutelâ, ut quisque natus est, vivit. Singulos singulis hominibus apponi docebant: hos credebant in dubiis monitores, in rectis hortatores in pravis reprehensores, omnium dictorum factorumque, & cogitatorum Conscios, & in ultimo judicio testes. Audiamus Apuleium: ex hac sublimiori Daemonum copiâ, Plato autumat, inquit, singulis hominibus in vitâ agendâ testes & custodes singulis additos, qui nemini conspicui semper adsint, omnium non modo actorum testes, verum etiam cogitatorum. Ac ubi vitâ editâ remeandum est, eundem illum, qui praedictus fuit, raptare illicò & trahere veluti custodiam tuam ad judicium, atque illic in causâ dicendâ assistere. Si qua commentiatur, redarguere, si qua vera dicat, asseverare: prorsus illius testimonio ferri sententiam. Addit monitum salutare: Proinde vos omnes, qui hanc Platonis divinam sententiam me interprete auscultatis, ita animos vestros ad quaecunque vel agenda, vel meditanda formate, ut sciatis nihil omnino prae istis custodibus, neque intra animam, neque foris esse secreti: quando ille omnia curiosè participet, omnia visat, omnia intelligat, & in ipsis penitissimis mentibus vice conscientiae diversetur. Ponit ex inde ob oculos Socratis exemplum: Hic custos, singularis Praefectus, Domesticus speculator, individuus arbiter, inseparabilis testis, malorum improbator, bonorum probator. si ritè anima dvertatur, sedulò cognoscatur, religiosè colatur. ita ut à socrate justetiâ & Inno contiâ eultus est, in rebus incertis prospectator, dubiis praemonitor, periculosis vitator egenis opitulator: qui tibi queat tum somniis, tum signis, tum etiam coram, cum usus postulat, mala averruncare, bona prosperare. Et paulò pòst: socrates vir apprimè perfectus hunc Deum suum cognovit, & coluit. Haec Apuleius.  
Similia Deus revelavit. Psal. XC. 10. Non accedet ad te malum, & flagollum non appropinquabit tabernaculo tuo: quoniam Angelis suis mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis. In manibus portabunt te, ne fortè offendas ad lapidem pedem suum. Super Aspidem, & Basiliscum ambulabis, & conculcabis leonem, & draconem. Quoniam in me speravit, liberaboeum .. Quibus verbis Deus asseverat hominem nihil mali passurum, ob Angeli curam, cujus sub tutelâ vixit, Deo ita disponente: hunc Angelum, quasi esset Deus Averraneus, (si paganorum verbis uti liceat) mala avertere. Quo protegente, nec à Lapidibus in viâ, nec à bestiolarum latente veneno, nec ab apertâ belluarum violentiâ quicquam detrimenti capiamus. Hujus patrocinium experta Judith ait (libri sui c. XIII. 20.) Vivit Dominus, quoniam custodivit me Angelus ejus & hinc euntem, & ibi commorantem, & inde huc revertentem: & non permisit me Dominus ancillam suam coinquinari. Elias III. Regum XIX. 5. Sub junipero dormiens Angelum habuit & excitatorem, & obsonatorem. Pusillos habere Angelos Beatos, qui in caelo faciem Patris vident, testis est ipse Christus Dominus Matt. XVIII. 10. Et primi Christiani, dum puella nunciaret Petrum prae foribus stare, quem audierant illi in arctissiimâ custodiâ detineri, nec sciebant ab Angelo fuisse liberatum: adeoque ne suspicari quidem poterant ipsummet esse, qui pulsaret fores, & admitti postularet dixerunt Angelum Petri esse. Actor. XII. 15. Vnde collige persuasum suisse Christianis illius purissimi temporis quod quisque peculiarem sibi Angelum haberet, qui eorum dum viverent curam gereret. Neque vero morientes deserunt suos pupillos, nisi peccata eorum impediant; sed ad Refrigerii locum deducunt, & Beatorum fedes. Hinc Lazarum per Angelos ad Abrahae sinum delatum restis est ipse Christus.  
Patres huic veritati adstipulantur Origenes lib. VIII. Contra celsum: A Dei benignitate, & Angelorum tutelâ servamur, no quid à Daemonibus patiamur. Et in sequentibus plura habet visu digna eodem respicientia. Basilius in Psal. XXXIII. Omni in Christum credenti Angelus assistit, nisi illum à nobis per actiones improbas profligaverimus. Et in Psal. XLVIII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cuilibet fidelium est Angelus assistens, qui dignus est videre Patrem, qui in caelis est. Hieronymus l. III. in Mat. c. XVIII. 10. Magna dignitas animarum, ut unaquaeque habeat ab arte nativitatis in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum. Hilarius in Psal. CXXXIV. Sunt Angeli parvulorum quotidie Deum videntes. Hi igitur spiritus ad salutem humani generis emissi sunt: neque enim infirmitas, nostra, nisi datis ad custodiam Angelis tot tantisque spiritualium caelestium nequitis resisteret. Vide Chrysost. Hom. III in epist. ad Hebraeos & Bernardus in Psal. Qui habitat. Angelis suis mandavit de te, inquit, Mira dignatio, & verè magna dilectio Charitatis. Quis enim? quibus? de quo? quid mandavit? Et post multa: Quoties ergo gravissima cernitur urgere tentatio, & tribulatio vehemens imminere, iuvoca custodem tuum, ductorem tuum adjutorem tuum in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione: inclama eum, & dic: Domine salva nos, perimus.  
Nec singularis cujuspiam tantum curam suscipiunt Angeli ad plures enim curandos quisque sufficit, ob excellentem cujusque virtutem: maxime qui sunt ex superioribus ordinibus. Josue, v. 14. Brinceps exercitus Domini, qui Josue stricto gladio apparuit, Angelus videtur, toti populo Israëlitico praefectus: & ille ipse videtur, qui Dan. XII. 1. dicitur Michael Princeps Magnus, qui stat pro filiis populi Danielis. Ejusdem Prophetiae c. X. 20. mentio fit Principis Persarum, item Principis Graecorum: qui videntur Gentium illarum Angeli. Deinde illa vox apud Josephum 1. VII. de Bello Judaico ex Templi aditis audita, Migremus hinc, ab Angelis emissa videtur, quibus à Deo demandata fuerat Templi custodia, qui migrandum sibi esse nuntiabant, ob populi scelera Dei vindictam celerem provocantia. Idem sensisse priscam Ecclesiam testis est Athenagoras, legat. Pro Christianis, pag. XI. & XXVII, & notatu dignum est, quod priori loco laudato professionem hujus Angelorum Tutelae, sive Praefecturae, professioni SS. Trinitaris subnectat, quasi crederent aut illius temporis Christiani, aut certè Athenagoras veritatem istam ad fidem spectare.  
Nec illud omittendum, quod ex iisdem fontibus habemus, partibus dumtaxat mundi praefectos Angelos; non vero toti mundo. Athenagoras loco laudato asserit nulli uni angelo totius mundi regimen commissum. Hoc fortè desumpsit ex Job, XXXIV. 13. Quem constituit alium super orbem, quaem fabricatus est? q. d. nullum. Et Apostolus Heb. 11.5. Non enim Angelis subjecit Deus orbem terrae futurum, & ejusdem epistolae capite 1. probat Christum Dominum eo etiam nomine Angelis praeferendum, quod totius mundi praefecturam acceperat, cum aliis restricta esset Jurisdictio, ad angustos terminos, si illorum virtutem quodammodo infinitam certè quâvis corporeâ majorem, aestimemus.  
In hujus officii participium venisse juxta Platonicos antiquos, Animas separatas, mihi exploratum est. Tales enim erant Lares. Nobis ut id crodamus satis est sacrarum Litterarum, auctoritas, & Ecclesiae praxis. Tales erant sub veteri Lege toti Populo Israelitico Abraham, Isaac, & jacob, aliique viri in generationibus suis magni. Post Jeroboami schisma, in decem Tribubus Elias, & Eliseus: In Judâ & Benjamin, Samuel, Hieremias, Daniel, & prae caeteris omnibus, vir secundum cor Dei David: ob cujus merita, & intercessionem, diu dilata fuit clades & fanctae Civitati, & toti Regno imminens ut videre est saepe in IV. Regum, & altero Paralipomenon libris. In nouâ verò lege tales sunt Apostoli, primùm, deinde Martyres, tum alii Sancti, qui in quâque regione vixerunt, & mortui sunt, aut in quâ eorum corpora quiescunt, vel denique qui alicubi peculiari devotione coluntur.  
Alterum daemonum officium erat juxta Platonicos preces nostras Deo offerre: & impetrata nobis necessaria dona referre. Apuleius l. de Deo Socratis: Sunt quaedam divinae media potestates, inquit, inter summum Aethera, & infimas terras, in isto intersitae aeris spatio: per quas & desideria nostra & merita ad Deos commeant. Hos Grato nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuncupant, inter mortales Caelicolasque vectoros, hinc precum, inde denorum. Quae desumpta videntur ex Genes. c. XXVIII. 12. Vidit Iacob in somnis Scalam stantem super terram, & cacumen illius tangens caelum: Angelos quoque Dei ascendentes, & descendentes per eam. Nec enim frustra fruit, aut exercitii tantum causa institutus ille Angelorum motus ad Deum ascendentium, descendentium ad homines. Deinde preces hominum Deo per Angelos deferri, patet ex Apocal. v. 8. Habebant viginti quatuor seniores Philaas aureas, plenas adoramentorum, quae sunt orationes Sanctorum. Et Tobiae XII, 12. Quando orabas, ego obtuli orationes tuas Domino.  
Originem audiamus l. V. contra Celsum: Fatemur, inquit, Angelos esse ministratorios quosdam spiritus, crebrò mittente Deo commeantes ad eos homines, quos manet salutis haereditas: hosque modo ascendere ad purissima loca caelestia, & puriora adhuc super caelestia, oblaturos precos hominum: modo rursum descendere ad homines, reportando illinc aliud in usum singulorum, ut quisque dignus est beneficio. Et Auctor lib. Meditationum apud Augustinum c. III. Dicuntur Angeli, inquit, orationes, & vota nostra offerre Deo, non quia Deum doceant, qui omnia antequam fiant, sicut ac posteaquam facta sunt, novit; sed quia ejus voluntatem super his consulunt, & quod Deo jubente completum esse cognoverint, hoc nobis vel evidentèr vel latentur reportant under hominibus ait, cum oratis, orationes vestras obtuli Deo. Similiter & nos cum oramus, non Deum docemus, quasi nesciat, quid velimus, & quo indigoamus; sed necesse habet rationalis creatura temporales causas ad aeternam veritatem referre, sive petendo, quid erga se fiat, sive consulendo, quod fiat. Ne porrò quis in certi Auctoris librum nihili faciat, sciant omnes similia prorsus in indubitatâ Augustini Epistolâ c. XX, ad Honoratum c. XXIX haberi. Hoc non est sic accipiendum, inquit, tanquam nescienti aliquid annunitetur, ut sciat; sed sicut annuntiant Angeli non solum nobis beneficia Dei; verum etiam illi preces nostras. Nam scriptum est ubi Angelus hominibus dieit: Ego obtuli memoriam orationis vestrae, non ut Deus tunc noverit, quid velimus, vel quo indigeamus; novit enim Pater vester quid vobis necessarium sit priusquam petatis aliquid ab eo; sed quia necesse habet rationalis creatura obetemperans Deo, temperales causas ad aeternam veritatem referre, sive petendo quid erg se fit, sive consulendo quid faciat. Qui pius mentis affectus est, ut ipsa construatur; non ut Dous instruatur.  
Bernardus idem Sentit. atque sumptâ inde occasione monet honorandos parvulos quosque: quia Periculosè contemnitur ille, in quit, cujus preces ambitioso, Angelorum famulatu Deo exhibentur.  
Hoc etiam munus Animabus Beatis convenire sentit Ecclesia, dum cas invocat, oratque ut nostras preces suis adjunctis Deo gratiores reddant. Enim verò universim Christus pronuntiat eas pares Angelis futuras. Mat. XXII. 30. Unde dicendum quae Angelis, eadem Beatis Animabus convenire.  
Tertium Angelorum officium est, hominibus, ubi Deo placet hujus voluntatem notam facere: res ignotas, cum existentes, tum futuras indicare. Judic. VI Gedeoni significavit Angelus eum populum suum liberaturum. Deum iratum alter eidem populo dixit Jud. II. Samsonem nasciturum Jud. XIII. Alibi Elisco declaratum legimus quidquid Syriae Rex in consilio suo contra Regem Israel moliretur, aut proponeret, Deo scilicet per Angelum revelante. Danieli praedicta generis humani redemptio post septuaginta annorum hebdomadas. Deinde in novo Testamento praenuntiata fuit Joannis Praecursoris nativitas ab Angelo Zachariae, & Christi Domini Adventus Deiparae. Lucae I. Periculum huic nato imminens Mat. II. Incolumitas eorum, qui cum Paulo erant, Act. XXVII. Futurus Ecclesiae status, in totâ Apocalypsi ab Angelo dilecto Christi discipulo revelatus est.  
Hujus etiam officii participes sunt animae ut patet ex II. Mach. XV. 12. & quatuor sequentibus. Videant alii, an id ex II. Paralip. XXI. 12. colligatur, ubi Elias dicitur litteris ad Joram Regem scriptis eum officii admonuisse. Vide quae ex Eusebio l. VI hist. c. V. retuli supra de S. Potamiaenâ Basilidi puritatis ejus vindici Martyrium futurum revelante.  
Daemones hoc officium usurparunt, ex institutis variis in locis Oraculis. Quale in sacris Litteris (IV Reg. I.) Beelzebub in Accaron. Inter Gentiles nominatissima Apollinis Pythii, inter Graecos, Jovis Ammonii apud Aegyptios, Dodonaeum, cui praeerant columbae, Dodonides, ut ait Pausanias in Arcadicis, hoc est, faeminae vaticinatrices: Trophonii, & alia.  
Quartum denique officium est insolita, & mira facere: ubi Deus aut permittit, aut imperat. Danielis III. 49.50. Angelus ignis violentiam ita discussit, ut media fornax esset quasi ventus roris slans. Ab Angelo occisa unâ nocte de exercitu Sennacherib centum octoginta quinque millia refert Isaias c. XXXVII. 36. Hoc aliquando visibiles operantur, ut Danielis III. saepe in observati. Sic cùm Augustinus circumcessionum insidias sui Ducis errore vitavit, ut tradit Possidius in ejus vita c. XII, & ejusdem operis c. XV. refertur alius error, cum S. Augustinus Sermonem faciens in Ecclesià praeter ejus intentionem dilapsa est ejus oratio: Ea enim non casu contigisse; sed Dei providentiâ, & Angelorum ministerio, crediderunt & qui interfuerunt, & ego. Similiter quod Templi Hierosolymitani aeneae valuae, quas multi homines unitis viribus aegrè amoliri consueverant, suâ sponte paterent, sine ope humanâ, ut habet Josephus, Angelo cuipiam adscribo.  
Simili virtute facta legimus aliqua inter Gentiles opera, quae miracula videbantur. v.c. delatam in cribro à Tibri, ad Capitolium aquam, triremem adverso flumine eodem à virgine Vestali ductam: statuas locutas, exta sine capite inventa, iisdemque restitutam sanitatem, & id genus alia passim apud Lucium obvia.  
Duo haec officia simul junxit, & paucis exposuit saepè nominatus Apuleius: Per hos eosdem (daemones) ut Plato in Symposio autumat, cuncta denuntiata, & Magorum varia miracula, omnesque praesagiorum species reguntur.  
Difficultas hic occurrit, quorum Angelorum ministerio Deus utitur, ad istiusmodi effectus producendos? Cum enim & malorum, aequè ac bonorum Dominus sit, & pleno in utrosque Dominio fruatur, tam malis (licet fortè invitis) quam bonis ubique volentibus, & ad nutum promptissimis uti potest. Malum fuisse liquer, qui Jobi patientiam exercuit: quia Job I. vocatur Satan. Item qui Aegyptum sub Pharaone populati sunt: quia Psal LXXVII. 49. mala Aegyptiis inflicta dicuntur Immissiones p●● Angelos malos. Incertum mihi, qualis fuerit, qui evaginato Gladio Davidi apparuit I. Paral. XXI. 16. & Pestilentiam sparserar. Videtur bonus fuisse, qui per Gad prophetam Regi indicavit, qua ratione Deo placato per Sacrificium malo finem im poni posset.  
Mihi probabile videtur (quod sensit Origenes l. 16. VIII, contra Celsum) per solos bonos Angelos bona praestari: mala verò per malos, qui ad ea procuranda toto malignae naturae suae impetu feruntur: nec Dei ad id imperio opus, sola permissio sufficit (utex initio libti Job pater) quae si adesset, & daemonibus malis pro libitu in homines grassari liceret, nec illi veluti rabidi canes catenâ vincirentur, nec nos & Dei Protectione, & Angelorum bonorum praesidio muniti essemus, totum mundi spectabilis ordinem inverterent, & humanum genus funditus delerent.  
Hactenus quae dixisti, Doctissime Morlaee, pro virili tueri, atque probare conatus fui, paratus in aliis idem facere; quando saluâ veritate licet. Hinc aestimare te velim, quam aequo in te, tuaque scripta sim animo, qui velim si liccat ea asserere: aequiori feres, quae deinceps adversus te dicturus sum (quae stante veritate stare non possunt) quandoquidem illa non tibi contradicendi studio, non tibi repugnandi desiderio; sed solae veritatis amore dicenour.  
Ea porro jubet ne dissimulem non benè a te Gentilibus universim adscribi cam daemonum in tres classes distributionem: quae non omnium erat. A Platonis scholâ profectam esse tradit Porphyrius l. II. de Abstinentià §. XXXVII. A Pythagoraeorum, Epicureorum, & Peripateticorum scholis exulasse constat: & in Civili Theologiâ locum null um habuisse & evidens est, & infra ostendetur.  
Petii: cur Deo visum Angelorum operam adhibere ad hominum salutem procurandam, aut rerum sive sublunarium, sive superlunarium administrationem, ad quae solus sufficit? Respondeo inverecundam esse quaestionem, cui sufficienter respondetur dicendo, Deum id voluisse. Potest Deus ut omnia creavit, uno verbo (Dixit & facta sunt) ita cuncta solo nutu regere: ad hoc tamen hominum opc utitur. Rom. XIII; 1. Saulum ipsc ad fidem perduxit, Act. IX. potest & alios ita convertere, Angelo tamen usus est ad Centurionem vocandum. Act. X. Apostolis ad alios Rom. X. Potest vocatos per se regenerare: aquam tamen adhiberi juber. Et sicut solus omnia primo die fecit, ita & ultimo facere potest: tamen utetur ad citandos ad Judicium homines Archangelo ut praecone I. Thessaly. IV. 16. Angelis ut Lictoribus ad cogendos ad Tribunal undique electos, Mat. XXIV. 31. & Segregandos ex horum consortio malos, hosque in caminum ignis mittendos, Mat. XIII. 49, 50, ubi lata est sententia irrevocabilis.  
Haec (quae de spiritibus mediantibus diximus) si dixeris nos ab Ethnicis hausisse, falsi tibi dicam impingam: nec nos ab Ethnicis; sed & illi, & nos à sacris Litteris, & à Spiritu sancto accepimus. Quod si quae vera Gentiles habuerunt, non ideo illud nos abjicere debemus. Sicut unius Dei cultum non abjicimus, quia Turcae juxta nobiscum unum agnoscunt.   

SECTIO XVI. Deos Paganorum fuisse homines.  
D. Morlaeus: p. 21. Hos ex utroque genere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicebant Ethnici esse, ut naturâ medios, ita officio mediatores inter summum Deum, & homines, quibus scilicet mediantibus & procurantibus homines Deum iratum placabant, & à Deo placato omnia quae ipsis ad felicitatem necessaria erant, impepetrabant. Et eo nomine hos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non quidem ut summum Deum; sed tanquam humani generis apud summum Deum procuratores, patronos, & advocatos ab hominibus colendos esse censebant.  
Respond. pergis Ethnicis universis tribuere, quae uni sectae peculiaria erant. Et quod deterius est, Philosophicam, Theologiam cum civili malè confundis, quae Varro & Scaevola rectè, distinxerunt: & Philosophicam in Templis obtinuisse contendis (quibus penitus exulabat, solâ Poëticâ illic omnia disponente) ut obtineas cultum ab Ethnicis supremum Deum, veluti bonorum omnium largitorem munisicentissimum: Daemones verò tantum ut illius amicos, pro nobis intercessores, nostros apud illum Procuratores, Advocatos, & Patronos. Ut sic Paralelum, quod instituis Paganismum inter, & Papismum, melius constaret. Addere parijure, hoc est, nullo, potuisses Paganos cultu Latreiae unum Deum verum adorasse; reliquos vero Douleiae; quo magis lectoribus minus peritis imponeres. Enimverò, qui dogmata finxisti priscis ignota, cur ab imponendis vocibus abstines? ubi semel verecundiae & veritatis limites transieris, oportet gnaviter .. pergere. Quae hic dicis, nimis magnum continent postulatum: quale nec te decet gratis petere, nec nobis aut libet, aut licet gratis largiri, obstantibus Antiquorum cum gentilium, tum Christianorum, quaecumque extant monumentis.  
Haec enim evidenter probant, non Romulum tantum aut Caesarem, Antinoum, aut Aesculapium, Herculem, aut Castorem atque Pollucem; sed etiam ipsum Jovem Optimum Maximum, ut Romani loquebantur (qui à Poëta dictus est Deum Pater atque hominum Rex. Et alibi: jovis omnia plena) & etiam Jovis Patrem  
(Qui primus ab Aetherio venit Saturnus Olympo  
Arma jovis fugiens, & regnis exul ademptis.  
Qui genus indocile, ac dispersum Montibus albis  
Composuit legesque, dedit, Latiumque vocari  
Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris.)  
Et eum qui hunc exulem hospitio excepit Janus Italiae Rex (quem Satyricus Poëta Satyrâ VI V. 393. Diuûm Antiquissimum appellat) hos inquam omnes, qui Majorum Gentium Dii fuerunt, homines fuisse. Adeoque tota Paganica Religio quanta erat, circa animas à corpore solutas, occupata fuit, vel circa malos daemones, qui hominum nomen assumpserant.  
Hoc prob. I. ex Patribus id diseriè asscrentibus. Augustinus l. VIII de Civ. Dei c. XXVI. hoc lemma proponit: Quod omnis Religio Paganorum circa homines mortuos fuerit impleta. Hicronymus l. I. comment. in Oseae c. II. Omnia Idola ex mortuorum errore cr●verunt. Et l. III. Com. in Matth. ad verba: Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, ait: Deum vivum appellat, ad distinctionem corum Deorum, qui putantur Dii, sed sunt mortus. Chrysostomus Hom. I. ad Pop. Antioch. Tota multitudo Deorum Gentilium, ex ejusmodi bominibus conflata est. Minutius Felix: Majores nostri dum Reges suos colunt religiosè, dum defunctos illos in imaginibus videre volunt, dum gestiunt eorum memorias in statuis detincre, saera facta sunt, quae fuerant assumpta solatia. Lege stoicorum scriptae, vel scripta sapientum, eadem mecum recognosces, ob merita virtutis, aut muneris Deos habitos. Et infra: Manifestum est, homines illos fuisse, quos & natos legimus, & mortuos scimus. Et Cyprianus. l. de Idolorum vanitate: Deos, non esse, quos colit vulgus, hinc notum est. inquit, Reges enim fuerunt, qui ob regalem memoriam, coli apud suos etiam in morte caeperunt. Plura Patrum testimonia dabimus infra.  
Prob. 2. cx Tertulliano, qui quae Paganorum erant ignorare non potuit, quia cum iis vixit, & fortè initio fuerat exipsis. Is Apolog. c. X. ait: Deos vestros colere desinimus, ex quo illos non esse cognovimus. Sed nobis, inquitis, Dii sunt. Appellamus & provocamus à vobis ad conscientiam vestram, illa nos judicet illa nos damnet, si poterit negare omnes istos Deos vestros homines fuisse. Sed & ipsa, si inficias ierit, de suis Antiquitatum monumentis revincetur, de quibus eos didicit testimonium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, & civitatibus in quibus nati sunt, & regionibus, in quibus aliquid operati vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam sepulti demonstrantur. Nec ego per singulos decurram, proprios, communes, masculos, faeminas, rusticos, urbanos, nauticos, militares (otiosum est etiam tit los persequi) ut colligam in compendium, & hoc non quo cognoscatis; sed recognoscatis, certè enim oblitos agitis. Ante Saturnum Deus penes vos nemo est: ab illo census totius vel potioris, vel notioris Divinitatis. Itaque quod de Origine constiterit, id de posteritate conveniet. Saturnum itaque quantum litterae docent, neque Diodorus Graecus, aut Thallus, neque Cassius, Severus, aut Cornelius Nepos, neque ullus Commentator ejusmodi Antiquitatum, aliud quam hominem fuisse tradunt. Si quaeras rerum argumenta, nusquam invenio fideliora, quam ipsam Italiam, in quâ Saturnus post multas expeditiones, post Attica hospitia consedit, exceptus à jano. Mons, quem incoluerat, Saturnius dictus: civitas quam depopulaverat Saturnia usque nunc est. Et l. I. contra Marcionem, c. XI. Error orbis Deos praesumpsit, quos homines interdum confitetur: quoniam ab unoquoque prospectum vidotur, utilitatibus, & commodis vitae.  
Arnobius & ipse quondam Paganus: l. II. Contra Gentiles: Vos hominem nullum colitis? non unum, aut alium? non innumeros alios? quinimo non omnes, quos in templis habetis vestris, mortalium sustulistis ex numero, & caelo, sideribusque donaestis? si enim fortè vos fugit sortis eos fuisse humanae & communis conditionis, repticate Antiquissimas litteras, & corum seripta percurrite, qui vetustati vicini, sine ullis Attostationibus cuncld veritare in liqradâ prodiderunt. jam profecto discetis quibus finguli Patribus, quibus Matribus fuerint procreati, quâ in nati regione, quâ gente, quae fecerint, egerint, pertulerint.  
Prob. 3. ex Aetate quâ vixerunt. Tertullianus Apolo. c. IV. Posteriores illos Deos clade diluvii, conlestantur ipsae urbes, in quibus nati, & mortus sunt. Et lib. de Animâ c. XXIV. Multo antiquior Moyses otiam Saturno, nongentïs circiter annis. Idem affirmat etiam Theophilus Antiochenus l. III. ad Autolycum. Eusebius praefatione in Chronicon licet non tantum tempus effluxisse sentiat Moysen inter, & Saturnum, hunc tamen illo longe posteriorem tempore affirmat. Moses iis, quos Graeci antiquissimos putant, senior deprehenditur, Trojano bello, ac multo superior Hercule, Musaeo, Lino & ceteris Diis gentium, sacrisque vel Vatibus. Ipsius quoque jovis gestis, quem Graeciâ in arce Divinitatis collocavit. Hos inquam omnes, quos commemoravimus, etiam post Cecropem Diphyem, quem primum Atticae Regem esse convincimus. Cecropem autem praesens historia Mosi coaetaneum ostendit. Et infra 〈◊〉 Sine ullâ ambiguitate Moses, & Cecrops, qui primus Atheniensium Rex fuit, iisdem fuêro, temporibus.  
Occurrit hic difficultas non contemnenda: narrat Eusebius ibidem Cecropis aetate natam in arce olivam, refert, & Minervae, jovis filiae, nomen Civitati Regia impositam: & Cecropem invocasse jovem hoc est adorasse, aut coluisse. Quae vix inrelligi possunt, si nec: Minerva nec ejus Parens Iupiter Cecropis aetate natus erat. Dicendum videtur non de eodem Jove locutum Eusebium; sed de diversis, quarum unus Cecrope Antiquior sub nomine Ammon in Aegypto, Cecropis patriâ, colebatur, eratque Cham, secundus Noë filius. Alter jupiter Saturni & opis filius Cretae Rex, quem Graecia in arce Divinitatis collocavit. Cecropem autem credo patriâ superstitione coluisse priorem, non verò alterum, qui necdum natus fuit, quando denatus fuit Cecrops. Hic enim, ut idem habet Eusebius CCCIXXV. annis Trojanum bellum praecessit. A Jano verò Italiae Rege, sub quo Saturnus regno pulsus illuc confugit, ad Aeneae adventum, numerat, idem CL annos: quos si demas CCCLXXV illis; supersunt, CCXXV anni, inter Cecropem Athenarum Regem primum, & Jovem Cretae Tyrannum, qui fugato Patre Regnum invasit: qui fuit magnus ille jupiter, Optimus Maximus, Deum Patex, atque Hominum Rox. Quem Graecia primùm, deinde cuncti Idololatrae divinis honoribus coluerunt.  
Neque novum cuiquam videri debet, quod multos asseram fuisse Joves: id enim nemini novum erit, nisi cui omnia antiqua sunt nova. Arnobius varios fuisse asserit; Theophilus Antiochenus, multos. Vossius sex refert. Varro apud Tertullianum Apolog. c. XIV. usque ad trecentos numerasse dicitur. Nec multum à vero abludit: quia fabulosa vetustas, ait Vossius, eo nomine dignata est Reges, ac Principes, qui sui Ordinis caeteros potentiâ antistarent. Itaque videas nullo prope saeculo defuisse suum jovem (mallem Joves dixisset: Joves enim singulis saeculis multi fuerunt, & multae Junones) usque ad tempora belli Trojani. Tot Heroum, qui Ioves dici meruerunt, ex Nationum saltem opinione, bona, mala, vera, ficta, uni jovi Cretensi tribuerunt Poëtae, etiam furta venerea, & raptus. Haec Vossius. Hic porro Cretensis Cecrope posterior à Graecis in Divinitatis arce colloeatus est, ut ait Eusebius constant ergo, quae in Eusebio adversâ fronte pugnare videntur.  
Obiter observo non defuisse, qui Noachum Saturni nomine cultum arbitrati sunt. Et conveniunt tres filii Sem, Cham, & japhet. japhet à cujus posteris divisae sunt Insulae gentium, in regionibus suis, ait sacer historicus Gen. X. 5. Neptunum appellare, & ei in mare dederunt imperium. Sem Pluto dictus divitiarum Deus, quia rerum in Asiâ ditissimâ regione potitus est. Cham verò ipse est Aegyptiorum Ammun, & jupiter Ammon dictus est. Quem Aegyptii duobus ejus fratribus praetulerunt, in honorem gentis suae ab ipso descendentis, licet naturâ esset Semo, & inferior aetate, & donis minor, & ex Patris maledictione, etiam infra japhet. Chanaan Chami maledicti silius, Mercurius est: hic ex avi maledictione servus aliorum futurus dicitur; & Mercurium Poëtae in servilibus plerumque ministeriis occupatum referunt. Litteris praeesse dicitur, quia à Phaenicibus cjus posteris litteras didicere Graeci. Mercatorum Deus dictus, quia regio, quam ejus posteri occuparunt commercio florebat: & quia iidem subinde Piraticam exercebant, dictus est Mercurius furari, & furum praeses. Denique alata talaria tribuerunt, quia Phaenicum naves velis velut alis erant admotum instructae celerrimum. Redeo ad rem, si haec sint extra illam.  
Prob. 4. ex diversitate sexuum. Hanc urget Arnobius l. III. contra Gentiles, ferè toto, inde probat veros fuisse homines, quos Pagani colebant; non vero spiritus, multò minus perfectissimos spiritus. Qualis Deus est. Adduci, inquit, primum hoc ut credamus, non possumus, immortalem praestantissimamque naturam divisam esse per sexus. Doluit Scaevola supra citatus, mentionem factam de sexibus Dcorum. Cicero vero adeo sibi displicuisse testatus est Deos per sexus distingui, ut eam ob rem Pagani ejus opera Senatus consulto comburi voluerint, quod iis Christiana religio comprobaretur, Vetustatis verò opprimeretur auctoritas. Quasi Paganismus quem Vetustatem appellant, sine istâ sexuum diversitate stare non posset.  
Hinc sequitur 5. Probatio: Dcos Paganorum verè genitos fuisse: ad quid enim alioqui destinaretur illa in Diis sexuum diversitas? Ovid sine ambagibus id agnovit, de venere, de quâ haec canit:  
Illa Deos omnes, longum est numerare creavit. Athenagoras leg. pro Christi p. XVII. Dii non fuerunt ab aeterno; sed ita eorum quisque natus est, ut nos etiam nascimur. Theophilus Antiochenus l. II. ad Autolycum: Hoc quidem vobis, quod necessarium est accedit, inquit, qui Historias, & Genealogias eorum legitis, qui Dii dicuntur. Dum genealogias eorum contexitis in hominum numerum eos ponitis. Hos postmodum Deos appellatis: & tanta vestra Socordia est, ut neque cogitare, neque intelligere velitis, eos tales esse, quales natos, sive genitos legitis, videlicet homines. Deinde quaerit, quare jam generare desierint Dii? An prae senectute corum effaeta sint corpora, ut amplius gignere non possint? quomodo ergo constabit illis aeternitas? Confirmatur hoc argumentum ex eorum patria, sive locis in quibus nati sunt: Jupiter in Insulâ Cretâ, Mars in Thraciâ, Juno in Samo, vel Argo etc.  
Prob. 6. ex eo quod mortui sint, eorumque sepulchra olim extarent. S. Cyprianus l. de Idolorum Vanit. Antrum jovis in Cretâ visitur, & sepulchrum ejus ostenditur, & ab eo Saturnum fugatum manifestum est. Lactantius Firmianus l. I, Diu. Instit. c. XI. ait hoc Epitaphium Jovis sepulchro insculptum: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jupiter Saturni, nempe filius. Porphyrius l. de vitâ Pythagorae, ait, hunc Jovis tumulo addidisse:  Zanthia jacet hoc tumulo, qui vulgò jupiter audit. 
Refert etiam eundem Pythagoram Elegias conscripsisse, Apollinis sepulchro adjiciendas, quae cujus esset filius indicabant. Cum tamen Gentiles aegrè agnoscerent Jovem illum, qui Deum Pater atque hominum Rex vocabatur, mortuum esse, negarentque uspiam extare ejus sepulchrum, Cyrillus lib. X. contra Jul. pag. CCCXLII. Cretenses affirmat ejus sepulchrum ostendere, Pythagoram illud invisisse, idque negari non posse.  
Prob. 7. ex solemnibus ceremoniis, & ritibus, quibus illi Dii colebantur: quo eorum vitam, & mortem repraesentabant. Varro apud Augustinum l. I. de Cons. Euangel. c. XXIII ait: Deorum sacra ex cujusque corum vitâ, vil morte, quâ inter homines vixerunt vel obierunt fuisse composita. In us varia summae maestitiae signa edebant eorum Sacerdotes, teste Baruch c. VI 30.31. In domibus corum (nempe Deorum, hoc est in Templis) Sacerdotes sedent, habentet tunicas scissas, & barbam rasam, quorum capita nuda sunt. Rugiunt autem clamantes contra Deos suos, sicut in caenâ mortui. Hinc fortè factum, ut existis aliqua Sacerdotibus Israeliticis inhiberentur, aliqua toti populo illi. Vide Lex. X. 6. & Deut. XIV. 1. De istis ritibus Athenagoras Leg. pro Christ. p. XIV. Aegyptiorum ceremoniaes, quis non ridiculas dixerit? inquit, Plangunt illi per festos, solemnesque conventus & pectora feriunt, tamquam propter defunctos, & rursus Sacrificant tamquam diis. Pupugit praeposterum hunc dolorem Xenophanes Colophonius, dum ait: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Si Deos creditis, nolite eos lugere: si lugendi fint, nolite eos adorare. ex tali in sacris planctu colligit Poëta Osyrin hominem fuisse:  Et quem tu plangens hominem testaris Osyrin. 
Simili ratione probamus cum Angustino, minutio Felice, aliisque cunctos Gentilium Deos homines fuisse.  
Haec de solemnibus, & honestioribus eorum sacris. Alia erant mysteria, quae cum solis iniriatis communicabantur, nee possunt salvo pudore referri. Ideoque de iis ego nihil. De quibus agunt Euseb. l. altero de praepar. Euang. cap. V. Arnobius l. V. contra Gentiles, & alii. Haec autem non tantum homines eos fuisse demonstrant, sed etiam pessimos & turpissimos homines.  
Prob. 8. ducitur à testimoniis & Confessionibus ipsorum Gentilium. Cicero eorum omnium elarissimus, & notissimus, l. II. de Nat. Deorum: Videtisne, inquit, ut à physicis rebus benè & utiliter inventis, ratis sit tracta, ad commentitios, & fictos Deos. Clarius adhuc Tusculanarum qq. I. Si scrutari vetera, inquit, & ex iis, quae scriptores Graeciae tradiderunt eruere conor, ipsi illi majorum Gentium Dii, qui habentur, hinc à nobis profecti in caelum reperientur. Quaere quorum demonstrentur sepulchra in Gracia: reminiscere, quoniam es initiatus, quae tradantur mysteriis: tum denique quam latè hoc pateat intelleges. Et de Romulo: Qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum, ad Deos immortales benevolentiâ famae sustulimus. Haec citat Augustinus l. I de cons. Euang. c. XXIII. Huic addam Gentium scriptorum facile antiquissimum, Sanconiathon. Ex quo Beatus Cyrillus l. VI cont. Jul. p. CCV. haec verba citat: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vetustissimi Graecorum, sed maximè Phaenices & Aegyptii, à quibus reliqui quasi per manus acceperunt, Deos Maximos arbitrati sunt, qui res vitae utiles invenissent, aut benè de gentibus aliquo modo meriti fuissent. Notentur illa verba: Maximos Deos. Nec enim Heroes, aut Daemones five Dii minorum Gentium aut inter summum Deum & homines, mediatores, tantum habiti fuerunt, qui de Gentibus benè meriti fuissent (quod ait D. Morlaeus) sed maximi Dii, Dii majorum gentium, Dii ipsi primi, jupiter, apollo, etc.  
Aristophanes in Avibus, ait & has, & animalia Diis omnibus antiquiora esse.  
Diodorus siculus fuse probat Graecos omnes suos ab Aegyptiis Deos accepisse, eosque veros fuisse homines.  
Alexander Magnus peculiari libro ad matrem suam misso refert, se ab Aegyptio quodam Sacerdote minis adhibitis didicisse, quod omnes Dii, quos eo tempore Pagani colebant, homines fuissent. Hujus libri ab Alexandro missi testes habemus Athenagoram leg. pro Christi. p. XXXI. Cypr. I. de Idol. vanitate & Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei c. XXVII. & l. I. de consensu Euangel. c. XXIII. qui addit Sacerdoti nomen fuisse Leonta.  
Tacitus l. XV. Annalium in fine: Deûm honor Principi non ante habetur, quam agere inter homines desierit. Unde constat Deum habitum ubi mortuus esset. Hoc forte Romae fuit observatum, ut non nisi post fata colerentur divinis honoribus: non tamen ubique id obtinuit, aut saltem non semper. Constat enim Nabuchodonosor superstitem, statuam suam & confici curasse, & erigi, & adorari. Dan. III. De quo sulpitius Severus l. II. historiae: Nabuchodonosor elatus rebus secundis, statuam sibi auream immensa magnitudinis posuit, adorarique eam, ut sacram effigiem pracepit. Tametsi enim hae defunctis solis ut plurimùm starnerentur, tamen Ambitione & pravorum Adulatione, corrupta hominum ingenia, ut idem vivis fieret effecerunt. Quod ait Isidorus Pelusiota l. II. Epist. CLXXVII. ad Theodotum Praesbyterum. Et quid est quod non cadat in hominis Animum superbiâ tumidum Adulantium laudibus corruptum, cum ut ait Juvenalis Satyrâ IV.  
Nihil est, quod credere de se  
Non possit, cum laudatur, Diis aequa potestas,  
De omnibus indiscriminatim Gentilibus hactenus locuti fuimus: eosque ostendimus homines, pro Diis coluisse. Superest aliquid dicamus de Philosophis, de quibus peculiaris est difficultas, quòd ignorare non possent falsa esse, quae de hominibus in Deos translatis vulgabantur in plebe, cantabantur in Theatris, colebantur in Templis: Haec ipsi cum plausu ridebant in suis classibus. Verum non impune risissent in Templis, quod ex Socratis fato apparet. Fateor itaque eos Deum verum cognovisse, non tamen ut Deum coluisse, atque glorificasse, neque gratias egisse; sed evanuisse in suis cogitationibus, & stultos factos esse. Quod ex Apostolo didici. Constat Socratem licet ob unius Dei assertionem morti fuisset adjudicatus jam jam animam efflantem Gallum Aesculapio vovisse. Tantam apud illum vim habuit inolitus error, prauâ consuetudine diuturnâ confirmatus.  
Romani lege latâ Poëtarum quidlibet de Diis commentantium licentiam coërcere conati sunt. Sed frustrà: nam plus valuit, ad eam retinendam superstitio inveterata, ab ipsis, quos colebant Diis fota, quam ullae leges ad eam coercendam, obstantibus tum malorum hominum studiis, tum pessimorum daemonum artibus, maximam in iis fabulis ad corrumpendos mores (quod unicè optant) vim inesse probè scientium quia ut ait Augustinus l. II. de Civ. Dei c. VII. Omnes cultores talium Deorum magis incuentur, quid Iupiter fecerit, quam quid docuerit Plato, vel consuerit Cato. Cujus rei luculentum habemus exemplum in Eunucho Terentii.  
Ut tandem rei versatis in Gentilium, aut Antiquorum Patrum scriptis evidentissimae illustrandae finem faciam. Capitolium appello, summi inter Gentiles numinis, domicilium, Jovis O.M. Sedem, Arcemque. Quid illa Jovis domus de habitatore suo nobis narrat, nisi hominem fuisse? Illic religiose servabatur Jovis Scutum, quod Aegida vocabant, caprae, quae Jovem parvulum lactaverat pelle tectum. Capra etiam illa locum ibi habuit, Amalthea dicta. Quid de Iove senserunt, qui ejus nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Ait Augustinus l. VI de Civ. Dei c. VII. Erant ibi ulteriùs juno, & Minerva, Conjux, Soroque. & filia jovis. Numquid & Capitolia Romanorum, opera sunt Poëtarum? Aio cum Augustino, lib. I. de Cons. Euang. c. XXIII. Quid sibi vult ista non Poëtica, sed planè inimica vartetas, Deos secundum Philosophos in libris quaerere, secundum Poëtas in Templis adorare? Haec Augustinus. Haec confirmant quae supra dixi, nullam fuisse Religionem Philosophicam, quia in Templis sola Poëtica, quae etiam civilis erat, dominabatur.  
Frustra proinde jactabant Philosophi se unum Deum colere sub jovis nomine, illum Optimum & Maximum esse, cui Augustas Sedes, & Capitolia constituerunt immania. Dissimilia quippe copulare atque in unam speciem inductâ confusione cogere conabantur, ait Arnobius lib. I. Nam Deus omnipotens ment unâ omnium, & communi mortalitatis (mortalium hominum) assensu, noque genitus scitur. neque novam in lucem aliquando esse prolatus nec ex aliquo tempore caepisse esse, vel seculo. Ipse est enim fons rerum, sator saculorum, ac temporum. Non enim ipsa porse sunt; sed ex ejus perpetuitate perpetuâ, & infinitâ semper continuatione procedunt. At vero jupiter (ut vos fertis) & Patrem habuit, & Matrem, avos, avias, fratres: nunc nuper in utero matris suae formatus, absolutus mensibus, & consummatus docem, ignotam sibi in lucem sensu irruisse vitali. Ergo si hac ita sunt, jupitor esse Deus, qui potest? Cum illum, Deum, esse perpetuum constet: & perhibeatur à vobis alter & dies habuisse natales, & pavefactus re nouâ lamentabilem edidisse vagitum?  
Aequè apparet illa contradictio in Virgilio limati judicii viro, & alioqui Decori observantissimo: qui lib. IX. Georgicorum de Apibus ait:  
— Naturas Apibus, quas Iupiter ipse  
Addidit, expediam, pro quâ mercede canoros  
Curetum sonitus crepitantiaque ara secutae  
Dictaeo caeli Regem pauêre sub Antro.  
Ecce clarè dicit caeli Regem in Dictaei montis antro delituisse, quo scilicet, Saturni Patris faedam ingluviem devitaret: illic ab Apibus nutritum, earum labore, & argumentosâ industriâ. Quibus in praemium obsequii in tantis angustiis arque periculis constituto impensi, hanc ipsam idolem indidierit. Quid hic aliud dicere possumus, videndo homines alioqui sapientes adeo desipuisse, quàm Deo gratias habere, qui per filium suum nos verae sapientiae semitas edocere dignatus est, & fidei lumine inter caecos errorum ambages gressus nostros dirigere.  
Denique, nisi dicamus omnes Gentilium Deos homines fuisse, & quidem pessimos, quâ ratione Patres omnes omnesque primi, & trium sequentium saeculorum Christiànos, ab horribili blasphemiâ vindicabimus, qui Deos Paganorum, de Furto, Adulterio, Homicidio, Parricidio, Incestu, aliisque criminibus accusarunt? Caduntne ista in Deum verum? Possuntne ei sine execrandâ blasphemiâ exprobrari? Exprobrarunt tamen omnes Christiani Diis Gentilium, ipsi nominatim Jovi, quem tu, mi Morlaec, ais esse Deum verum. Nec patet ex iis Christianis ullum inventum fuisse qui tam detestandam calumniam, flammis ultricibus expiandam retractârit unquam, aut de eâ Poenitentiam egerit; sed quam voce, & calamo viventes instituerunt accusationem, eam morientes sanguine suo obsignarunt. Vae Cypriano, vae Cyrillo, vae Augustino, Justino Martyri, Arhobio Athenagorae, Theophilo Antiocheno, aliisque, qui Gentilium impugnarunt Deos, & Catholica adversus eos dogmata desenderunt, siquidem gravissimae calumniae rei in impoenitentiâ finali infelices animas exhalarunt aeternis flammis cruciandas. Sed absit quidquam mali de Beatis illis animabus Deo fruentibus suspicemur, quorum Sanctitatem orbis Suffragiis, Deus miraculis declaravit, confirmavitque. Falsissima proinde sunt, Doctissime Morlaee, pace tuâ dictum sit, & à veritate, alienissima, quae de Summo supremoque Gentilium Deo tradis. Paganotum Religio circa mortuorum cultum versabatur: Verus Deus ab eorum Templis, perinde ac à Ritibus, à Sacris libris, à Poëtarum fabulis, ab impudicis ludis, exulabat.   

SECTIO XVII. Gentiles Daemonibus divinum cultum exhibuerunt.  
IN Theatris, in Sacris. in ipsis Templorum adytis eam erat invenire impietatem, quae non solum à Deo, aut Angelis, sive Beatis hominum animabus, aut etiam hominibus probis, & honestis; sed ne quidem à damnatis hominibus, quantumvis in malo obduratis, proficisci posse videatur, qua ratione colligunt Patres fuisse malos daemones, qui adorabantur. Si enim verum sit, quod refert Christus Domini (& quis sine impietate negabit verum esse) Divitem Epulonem in inferno sepultum, ab aliquo ab inferis reverso, fratres suos superstites de periculoso in quo erant statu, tam ferventer optasse admoneri, ne ipsi in locum illum tormentorum venirent; ob aliquem residuum in eo erga fratres naturalem affectum non penitus in morte extinctum: quidni dicere licebit restare in animabus damnatis non nihil naturalis affectus in homines superstites, qui tametsi non efficiat, ut illis salutem plenam aut etiam piam vitam optent; segniores tamen efficit & tardiores, ad pravos mores fovendos. Quae verò facta fuerunt à Gentilium Diis, talia sunt, quae non videantur fieri posse, nisi ab eo, qui cùm Deo summe bono similis esse ambiret, nec assequi posset, primus in malis, mali omnis fons & origo factus est, & quam Deus habet in Bonitate, ipse in malo infinitatem affectat habere. Nec solus ita censeo: si quidem & alii Patres idem dixerunt? Athenagoras leg. pro Christianis p. XXIX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dii illi, qui vulgo hominum placent, & sua statuis nomina communicant, ut ex ipsorum historiis constat, homines fuerunt. Qui verè hominum illorum sibi nomen assumunt, daemones sunt, ut ex eorum Actionibus apparet. Actiones ergo illae quarum Auctores fautoresque erant Gentilium Dii, tales erant, ut nequidem à malis damnatorum spiritibus prodire possent, ex ment Athenagorae, qui in hoc non est solus.  
Tertullianus daemones, male scilicet, asserit à Paganis adoratos fuisse, idque ex eorummet confessione probat. Datur hic aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, inquit, Apologetici c. XXIII. Quem à daemone agi constet, jussus à quolibet Christiano loqui spiritus ille tam se Daemonem confitebitur, de vero, quam alibi Deum de falso. Aequè producatur aliquis ex iis, qui de Deo pati existimantur nisi se daemones confessi fuerint, Christiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius procacissimi Christiani sanguinem fundite. Quid isto opere manifestius? quid hac probatione fidelius? simplicitas veritatis in medio est, virtus illi sua assistit .... si alterâ parte verè Dii sunt, cur sese daemonia mentiuntur? an ut nobis obsequantur? jam ergo subjecta Christianis Divinitas vestra, nec Divinitas deputanda est, quae subdita est homini, & si quid ad Decus facit, aemulis suis. Si alterâ parte daemones sunt (nempe boni) vel Angeli, cur se alibi pro Diis agere respondent? .... Cum ergo utraque pars concurrit in confessionem, Deos esse negans, agnoscite unum genus esse, id est daemones, nimirum malos.  
Origenes l. VIII, contra Celsum, post principium: Id dicimus ubique, gentium Deos esse daemones.  
Minutius Felix: Haec omnia sciunt plerique pars vestrum, ipsos daemones de semetipsis confiteri, quoties à nobis tormentis verborum, & orationis incendiis de obsessis corporibus exiguntur. ipse Saturnus, & Serapis, & JUPITER, & quidquid daemonum colitis, victi dolore, quod sunt eloquuntur. Nec utique in turpitudinem sui. nonnullis praesertim vestrum assistentibus mentiuntur. Ipsis testibus esse eos daemones de se verum confitentibus credite: adjurati enim per Deum verum, & solum, invisi, miseri, etc.  
Julius Firmicus: Ecce daemon est: quem colis, cum Dei, & Christi ejus nomen audierit contremiscit.  
Cyrillus Alex. l. VI contra Julianum, pag. CCII Licet hodieque videre Sanctos, ac venerabiles viros in virtute Christi por Spiritum sanctum impuros daemones incropare, & quos illi, Pagani Deos, ac servatores esse credunt, orationis virtute conterere, & manus contactu cruciare.  
Gregorius Thaumaturgus teste altero Gregorio Nysseno nullis exorcismis solo verbodaemones, sive Deos Gentilium abigebat. Unde secuta unius sacrificuli conversio sanè notabilis, ut apud eundem Nyssenum videre est.  
Eusebius l. III. de Demonst. Euang. c. VIII. Quis ignorat, inquit, nostrae consuetudinis esse, ipso jesu nomins, & purissimis precibus omnem daemonum vexationem abigere? sic ipsius jesu verbum, ejusdemque doctrina isto potestatis invisibilis genere, ut omnes nos longè potentiores essemus effecit: Daemonum itaque hostes, & inimicos; non autem familiares, & amicos nos reddens. Haec Eusebius calumniam diluens ab Ethnicis in Christianos confictam, quasi demonum ope mirabilia facerent, & diabolicâ magiâ grassarentur. Confutat autem illud Gentilium mendacium, ostendendo Christianos ea facere, non orando, daemonibusve supplicando, quod magorum est; sed imperando virtute divinitus acceptâ.  
Adde Prudentium in Apotheosi.  
— Torquetur Apollo  
Nomine percussus Christi, nec fulmina verbi  
Ferre potest, agitant miserum tot verbera linguae  
Quot laudata Dei resonant miracula Christi.  
Intonat Antistes Domini: fuge callide serpens,  
Exue te membris, & spiras solve latentes.  
Mancipium Christi fur corruptissime vexas?  
Desino, Christus adest humani Corporis ultor.  
Non licet ut spatium rapias, cui Christus inhaesit.  
Pulsus abi ventose liquor, Christus jubet, exi.  
Has inter voces medias Cyllenius ardens  
Ejulat, & notos suspirat Iupiter ignes.  
Cyprianus omitti non debet cujus haec sunt verba, l. ad Demetrianum. Osi audire eos velles, & videre, quando à nobis adjurantur, & torquentur spiritualibus flagris, & verborum tormentis de obsessis corporibus ejiciuntur, quando ejulantes & gementes voce humanâ, & potestate divinâ flagella & verbera sentientes, venturum judicium confitentur. Veni, & cognosce, vera esse, quae dicimus. Et quia sic Deos colere te dicis, crede; aut si volueris & tibi credore, de teipso loquetur, audiente te, qui nunc pectus tuum obsedit, qui nunc mentem tuam ignorantiae nocte cacavit. Videbis sub manu nostrâ stare vinctos, & tremere captivos, quos tu suspicis, ac veneraris, ut Dominos. Certè vel sic confundi in istis erroribus tuis poteris, quando conspexeris & audieris Deos tuos, quid sint, interrogatione nostrâ statim prodere, & praesentibus licet vobis, praestigias illas, & fallacias suas non posse celare. Haec Cyprianus.  
Non igitur Heroes erant, id est animae praestantiorum hominum, aut eorum, qui supra communem hominum sortem seliciori geniturâ eminuerant in hac vitâ, quos Pagani colebant ut Deos, quique vel in statuis oracula edebant, vel Energumenorum corpora torquebant, sed veri Caco-Daemones, veri Diaboli, veri nequam Spiritus. Etiam ipse jupiter ille Deûm Pater, atque hominum Rex; quem disertè nominant Minutius, & Prudentius: alii subintelligunt, & in generali propositione exprimunt.  
Obiter observari velim singulare donum, potestatem humanâ majorem à Deo concessam fidelibus omnibus & singulis in impurissimos illos Ethnicorum Deos quae jam unisacrorum ministrorum ordini solemni inauguratione confertur. Exorcistas intelligo. De hoc fortè aliqua dicern us in Appendice.  
Quod in hac Sectione contendimus, Augustinus triplici argumento probat, scilicet, malos Daemones fuisse quos Ethnici coluerunt ut Deos. Primum habetur lib. I. de consensu Evang. ca XXV. Gentilium Deus non prohibebat ullum alium Deum coli, praeter verum Deum; & verus Deus eos omnes adorari vetuit. jupiter ait Augustin. non prohibet Saturnum coli, quem regno exuerat, nec Saturnus jovem. Saltem Vulcanus prohiberet coli Martem uxoris suae adulterum: Hercules junonem persecutricem suam, (quod tamen non faciunt) Quae ista inter eos est tam faeda confensio, ut nec Diana virgo casta coli prohibeat, non dicam Vencrem; sed Priapum? .... dicant, quod placet, interpretentur quod sapiunt, dum tamen omnia eorum argumenta perturbat Deus Israel. Qui cum illos omnes coli vetuerit, ... eorumque simulachris, & sacris, eversionem praeceperit, praedixerit, & secerit, satis ostendit illos falsos atque fallaces, & se esse verum, ac ver acem Deum.  
Secundum ejusdem argumentum habetur l. II. de Civ. Dei c. IU. ubi cum retulisset obscaena Carmina quae in honorem Matris Deorum cantari solebant, qualia nemo mentis compos coram Matre suâ proferret: addit: Quae sunt sacrilegia, si ista sunt saecra? aut quae inquinatio, si illa lavatio? & hac fercula appellabantur, quasi celebraretur convivium, quo velut suis epulis immunda daemonia pascerentur. Quis enim non sentiat, cujusmodi spiritus talibus obscaenitatibus delectentur: nisi vel nesciens utrum omnino sint ulli immundi spiritus, Deorum nomine decipientes, vel talem agens vitam, in quâ istos potius quam Deum verum, & optet propitios, & formidet iratos? Deinde c. V. sacrorum eidem Deûm Matri factorum faedam obscaenitatem refert, etc. VIII Scenicorum Ludorum turpitudinem. Denique c. XIII, probat Deos esse non posse, qui tam turpia in suis sacris imperabant.  
Denique l. X. operis mox laudati, cap. XVI, probat eos nullo modo bonos spiritus esse posse, qui divinos honores sibi exhiberi curabant, & à veri Dei cultu, imò & cognitione homines, quantum fieri poterat, abducebant. Hoc autem fecerunt illi nequam spiritus. Quo argumento usus est etiam est Cyrillus l. IU. cont. Jul. p. CXXXI. Homines abduxerunt, inquit, ne omnino cognoscerent, quis naturâ, ac verè universorum opifex sit, ac Dominus: sibi autem honores arripiunt ab Omnibus, sacrificia, festos dies, hominibusque persuaserunt, ut ipsorum cultui tantum incumberent. Effectus apparuit in Israëlitis qui Judic. III. 7. dicuntur obliti Dei sui, colentes Baalim, & Astaroth.  
Ex sacris Litteris confirmabimus ea, quae hactenus ex Patribus, & rationibus Theologicis asseruimus. Ps. XC. v. 5. Omnes Dii Gentium daemonia. Deinde Psal. cv. 37. Immolaverunt filios suos, & filias daemoniis. Et Deut. XXXII. 17. Immolaverunt daemoniis, & non Deo, Diis, quos ignorabant: novi recentesque venerunt (scilicet Dii) quos non coluerunt Patres eorum. Et v. 21. Ipsi me provocaverunt in eo, qui non erat Deus. Illum scilicet Deo vero praeferentes & v. 37. Vbi sunt Diieorum, in quibus habebant fiduciam? De quorum victimis comedebant adipes, & bibebant vinum libaminum. Surgant, & opitulentur vobis, & in necessitate vos protegant. Videte, quod ego sim solus, & non sit alius Deus praeter me. Baruch. IV, 7. Exacerbatis eum, qui fecit vos Deum aeternum, immolantes daemoniis, & non Deo. Haec ex veteri Testamento. Ex novo aequè clara habentur. Rom. 1. dicitur quod Philosophi non coluerint Deum. 1. Cor. X. 20. Quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immolant, & non Deo. Et Galat. IU. 8. Tunc quidem ignorantes Deum, iis, qui naturâ non sunt Dii serviebatis. Haec Spiritus sancti verba quomodo cum tuo paradoxo conciliabis, clarissime Morlaee? Pronunciat Spiritus sanctus omnes Deos Gentium esse daemonia: Tu asseveras praecipuum eorum Deum non fuisse daemonem. Spiritus sanctus ait Gentiles immolavisse daemoniis, & non Deo; tu dicis Deo immolavisse. Ille dicit: Idololatras novos Deos recentesque coluisse, quos non coluerunt Patres eorum. Tu dicis eos Antiquum, & aeternum Deum coluisse, quem ab initio coluerant eorum Patres. Ille denique affirmat Gentiles eos coluisse, qui naturâ non sunt Dii; tu dicis eos illum qui naturâ Deus est, adorasse. Haec, si Sophistarum in Logicâ regulae subsistant, cum contradictoria sint, vera simul esse non possunt: quare aliae propositiones sunt necessariò falsae, aliae verae, Tuum erit videre, an malis agnoscere te errasse, & veritati à Spiritu sancto revelatae subscribere, ejuratâ temerariâ tuâ assertione; an verò eâ retentâ falsi crimen in Spiritum sanctum rejicere.  
Vides, Amplissime Morlaee, quam difficilem in te Provinciam ultrò susceperis, Probandi Paganos, Deum verum, ut omnium bonorum largitorem adorasse: daemones ab iis cultos ut Mediatores, Intercessores, & Patronos. Ethnicos id tantum petiisse, ab istis, ut suas Deo vero preces offerrent, quod fit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ, in cultu Angelorum, & Sanctorum. Ostende si potes ex ullo rituali Paganico, orationes Haeroibus hoc modo conceptos: Hercules ora pro nobis: Romule, sive Quirine intercede pro nobis apud jovem, ut tuis precibus placatus, victoriam ipse nobis largiatur. Profer tabulas, exhibe testimonia, lege nobis vel has, vel his similes, aut similem sensum exhibentes preces, & rem feceris tuâ eruditione, & nostrâ consideratione dignissimam. Sed frust à haec à te expectamus, quae dari non possunt, quia neque sunt neque unquam fuerunt in rerum naturâ.  
Jam tempus est, prolixae disputationi finem imponam; quam idcireò prolixiorem esse permisi, quia de rebus agit à communi, tritâ que Scholarum viâ remotis. Semel fundamenta jacere debui, quibus reliqua securè nitantur. Jam expeditiores ad alia transimus.   

SECTIO XVIII. Sanctorum Invocatio in Ecclesiá Romanâ differt à daemonum cultu inter Ethnicos.  
D. Morlaeus p. 22. Cultus daemonibus exhibitus, erat illorum Invocatio, in Imaginibus veneratio, Templorum, & Altarium dedicatio, vocorum in morbis, & perioulis nuncupatio, Tabularum votivarum & donariorum post defunct a pericula in delubris eorum suspensio, denique ad loca, quae illis sacra & maximè chara esse existimabantur, Peregrinatio.  
Et vide quaeso an non haec omnia eodem nomine, in honorem Sanctorum, & Angelorum; sed rovera in contumeliam Dei & Christi, à Christianis nunc fiant?  
Resp. Ita pridem omnia benè perpendimus: vidimus quidquid in honorem Sanctorum, aut vivorum, aut etiam mortuorum, & Angelorum fit, nihilque illic observavimus, in Dei, aut Christi ejus contumeliam à nobis fieri, è contra cuncta in Dei gloriam cedere certi sumus: urpote, qui Deum in Sanctis colimus, illius dona in illis veneramur, cum illorum precibus nostras unà Deo exhiberi post ulamus, atque ut exaudiantur, oramus, per Christum Dominum nostrum: & si quid fuerit impetratum, Deo id acceptum ferimus, illique per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum Gratias habemus. Haec dicis esse in Deum contumeliosa? Quare sic? ex vestris nullus hactenus inventus est tam durae frontis, ut dicat Paulum contumeliâ Christum affecisse, dum Romanos, dum Hebraeos, Thessalonicenses, Philemonem, alios, ut pro se orarent, oravit, locis supra laudatis. Quod si sejungi possint, & de facto separentur à Dei, Christique contumeliâ preces sanctis in hac vitâ mortali degentibus oblatae, cur necessariò conjunctam habebunt utriusque contumeliam, illae quae Sanctis cum Deo regnantibus offeruntur? siquidem utrique (aut ut melius dicam iidem in diverso statu) considerantur, ut à peccatis puri, ut Sancti, ut Dei servi, ut Deo grati, ut ejus amici, apud eum potenies, ei familiares, &c: quos libenter audit, quorum orationes amanter excipit, in quorum gratiam multa largitur, alioqui neganda. Et has Sanctorum prae aliis praerogativas à Solâ Dei misericordiâ profectas agnoscimus, absque qua forent, non magis ipsi, quam quilibet è Peccatorum grege. Deo grati, neque suis nos precibus possent sublevare. Quae in his omnibus Dei, quae Christi contumelia vel singi potest, cum omnia à Dei Gratiâ per Christi merita proficiscantur, & ad Dei, & Christi ejus laudem & honorem tendant, & in eo conquiescant, Deus sit A. & Ω. Principium & finis omnium?  
Sed Manichaeos in hac accusatione imitaris, optime Morlaee, qui, teste Augustino l. XX. contra Faustum cap. XX. & duobus sequentibus, nihilà Christianis fieri volebant, quod fuisset à Paganis factum. Unde sequeretur, ait optimè sanctus Doctor, nec virginitatem servari oportere, quam Vestales observarunt, nec tectis, vestibus, lavacris, conjugio, terrae fructibus, cibo, potuve, utendum esse, quoniam his omnibus Pagani sunt usi. Quae sequela adeo absurda est, ut id expofuisse sufficiat. Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. Sic fecêre Manichaei. Hoc vero adeo est contra mentem S. Augustini, ut nequidem ipsa Gentilium sacrificia damnet, nisi propter adjunctam circumstantiam objecti, quod respiciebant: & insuper eam fuisse Pauli mentem asseverat. Haec ejus sunt verba cap. XVIII, libri supra laudati. Dicit Apostolus: Quae immolant Gentes, daemoniis immolant, & non Deo: Non quod offerebatur culpans; sed quia illis offerebatur. Unde deducit, non ideo repudianda sacrificia, Deo offerenda quia Gentiles suos falsos Deos, Judaei Deum verum illis coluissent: res bonas non illico malas evadere, quia pravum in sinem ab aliquibus adhibentur, indeque malus siat illarum usus; sed ille fine seposito licitum esse illarum usum. Consonat Hieronymus lib. contra Vigilant. cap. III. ubi huic, argumentum tuum, urgenti, respondet: Illud fiebat Idolis, & idcircò detestandum; Hoc fit Martyribus, & idcircò recipiendum.  
Talia sunt, quae à te recensentur, iis coloribus praeteritos Gentilium mores astutè repraesentante, ut praxeos hodiernae Catholicorum imaginem velle facere videaris, malignè suppresso mali fonte, unde quidquid à Paganis fiebat, inficiebatur, quod scilicet omnia illa daemoniis facerent; & non Deo, & quidem sistendo in eyes, quasi veri Dii essent, vera numina. Hoc patet ex Sec. XVIII. Ceterum quo majus verbis meis pondus accedat, ea Patrum testimoniis confirmabo. Vnde patebit ulterius non aliam esse primitivae Ecclesiae, aliam hodiernae praxim; sed unam eandemque.  
Augustinus lib. XX, contra Faustum cap. XXI. Nobis calumniatur Faustus, Morlaeus, quod Martyrum memorias honoremus, in hos dicens nos Idola convertisse. Haec est objectio tua. En solutio. Populus Christianus memorias Martyrum religiosâ celebritate concelebrat, & ad excitandam imitationem, & ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus adjuvetur, ita tamen, ut nulli Martyrum; sed ipsi Deo Martyrum sacrificemus, quamvis in memorias Martyrum constituamus altaria. Quis enim Antistitum in locis Sanctorum Corporum assistens Altari aliquando dixit: offerimus tibi Petre, aut Paul, aut Cypriane; sed quod offertur, offertur Deo, qui Martyres coronavit, ut ex ipsorum locorum admonitione, major affectus exurgat, ad acuendam charitatem, & in illos, quos imitari possumus, & in illum, quo adjuvante possumus.  
Et lib. VIII, de Civit. Dei cap. XXVII, ait: Epulas, quae deferuntur ad memorias Martyrum, non esse sacrificia, novit, qui novit unum, quod illic Deo offertur sacrifictum Christianorum. Nos itaque Martyres nostros nec divinis honoribus, nec humanis criminibus colimus, sicut colunt illi (Pagani) Deos suos: nec sacrificia illis offerimus, nec eorum probra, in eorum sacra convertimus. Haec ex Augustino.  
Eo senior Hieronymus Epist. lib. III. ad Riparium acerrimè invehitur in Vigilantium, qui Catholicos vocabat Cinerarios, & Idololatras (quod tu facis) quia Martyrum ossa venerarentur. Nos, inquit, non dico Martyrum Reliquias; sed ne solem quidem, non Lunam, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubim, non Seraphim, & omne nomen, quod nominatur & in praesenti saeculo & in futuro, eolimus, & adoramus (videlicet cultu Latriae) ne serviamus creaturae, potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Honoramus autem Reliquias Martyrum, ut eum, cujus sunt Martyres, adoremus; honoramus Servos ut Servorum honor redundet in Dominum, qui ait: qui vos suscipit, me suscipit.  
Et lib. adversus Vigilantium; cap. III. Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum vivimus, mutuò pro nobis orare possumus, post quam autem mortui fuerimus, nullius sit pro alio exaudienda oratio, praesertim cum Martyres ultionem sui sanguinis obsecrantes, impetrare non quiverint. Si Apostoli, & Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro caeteris, quando pro se debent esse soliciti, quantò magis post coronas, victorias, triumphos? Non opus erit attentum Lectorem admonere, non solùm summam esse conformitatem, Vigilantii doctrinam inter, & modernorum haereticorum; sed etiam eodem prorsus telo instructos in arenam adversus Ecclesiam descendisse: unde patet similiter summam esse conformitatem, imo & identitatem inter Catholicorum hujus saeculi, doctrinam, & eam quae Hieronymi aetate trade batur in Ecclesiâ.  
Quod vero non sit Martyribus subtrahendus ille cultus, quia Idolis aliquid ejusmodi fiebat, docet his verbis: Idololatras appellas ejusmodi bomines. Non diffiteor omnes nos, qui in Christo credimus, de Idololatriae errore venisse, non enim nascimur; sed renascimur Christiani. Et quia quondam colebamus Idola, nunc Deum colere non debemus, ne simili eum honore videamur cum Idolis venerari. Illud fiebat Idolis, & idcircò detestandum: hoc fit Martyribus, & idcirco recipiendum est.  
Eusebius lib. IU. hist. c. XV. habet Epistolam Ecclesiae Smyrnensis, in qua cum Judaei ob honorem B. Polycarpo delarum, suspicarentur Christianos Christum deserturos, & Polycarpo adhaesuros, ostendunt fideles aliter se Christum Martyrum caput, ac Dominum, aliter Martyres Christi servos venerari.  
Deinde cum Julianus Apostata Christianis exprobrasser, quod relictis Diis gentium homines miseros & infelices colerent) de Christo Domino & Martyribus ita loquitur, quia aerumnosam vitam probrosa secundum mundum morte consummarunt) B. Cyrillus l. VI cont. Julia. p. CCIII respondit, nos absolutè Christum adorare, quod sit verus Dei filius, verusque Deus. Et addit: Sanctos Martyres neque Deos esse dicimus, neque divino cultu illos adorare solemus; sed affectus & honoris: quin potius summis honoribus illos ornamus, quod pro veritate strenuè certaverint, sinceritatemque fidei eo usque servarint ut animam ipsam contempserint, repudiatisque mortis terroribus periculum omne vicerint, & virtutis adeo mirabilis seipsos veluti quasdam imagines, vitae hominum proposuerint. Quare nihil est absurdi, imo verò necesse erat, eos qui tam claris facinorihus excelluerunt, ornari perpetuis honoribus.  
Theodoretus saepe de cultu Martyribus exhibito loquitur, semper piè, & Catholicè. Ad propositum faciunt quae habet lib. VIII. de cur. Graec. Affect. Victorum Martyrum templa clara, & conspicua cernuntur, inquit, magnitudine praestantia, & omni ornatus genere illustria. Neque ad haec nos semel, bisve, aut quinquies quotannis accedimus; fed frequentes conventus celebramus: saepe etiam diebus singulis horum Domino laudes decantamus, & qui integrâ sunt valetudine, hanc sibi conservari, qui autem morbo quopiam conflictantur, hunc depelli petunt. Petunt & liberos, qui his carent, & quae steriles sunt, rogant, ut matres fiant: qui donum adepti sunt, salvam id sibi servari postulant. Qui peregrinationem auspicantur aliquam ab his petunt, ut viae sibi comites sint, ducesque itineris: qui sospites redierunt, gratias referunt. Non illos adeuntes ut Deos; sed canquam Divinos homines eos orantes, intercessoresque sibi ut esse velint, postulantes. Quod verò votorum Compotes fiant, qui sideliter petunt, palam testantur illorum donaria, curationem indicantia. Alii enim oculorum, alii pedum, alii manuum simulachra suspendunt, ex Argento aurove confecta.  
Vides doctissime Morlaee quae nunc fiunt in honorem Martyrum, etiam olim facta fuisse: hodiernam Ecclesiam priscae vestigia premere, nec latum ab iis unguem discedere; nec auctum tanti temporis decursu cultum Martyribus exhibitum; sed in eodem gradu haerere: adeo religiosè servat Ecclesia mores antiquos, & Patrum Traditiones. Quod constat ex illis Theodoreti verbis. Quid enim in nostro cultu reprehendis, quod illa non exhibeant? Martyrum Invocationem? Invocarunt & illi fideles. Votorum in morbis & periculis nuncupationem? Nuncuparunt, & illi, & votorum compotes fiebant. Templorum & Altarium dedicationem? Dedicarunt & illi, & quidam clara, conspicua, ingentia, ornatissima. Donariorum suspensionem? Suspenderunt & illi, & quidem Pretiosa, ex auro argentove confecta. Peregrinationem ad eorum templa? Olim illuc quotannis saepè redibant Christiani. Ab his denique non tanquam à Diis; sed tanquam ab hominibus Deo gratis, petebant infirmi sanitatem, orbi Liberos, Peregrini tutamen, qui his potiebantur, ea sibi servari postulabant. Quid amplius, quid aliud, facimus nos? Illa communis erat Ecclesiae Praxis, ab omnibus bonis approbata, quam Deus miraculis editis sibi gratam esse testatus est, Ecclesia probavit; nemo verò integrae famae damnavit. Tales enim non sunt, aut Vigilantius, aut Faustus Manichaeus, saeculorum suorum probra: Ex quibus nihil quod ad contrariae sententiae ornandam novitatem, fucandam impietatem faciat, adduci potest.  
D. Morlaeus p. 45. Historia Religiosa, sive Patrum, non est Theodoreti quia narrat mortem Simeonis, ante quem Theodoretus obiit, teste Baronio. Sed nec liber de curandis Graecorum Affectionibus, quia Nicephorus illius non meminit, in operum Theodoreti catalogo.  
Resp. Agnosco hie genuinam Calvini prolem, Calvini spiritu turgidam: cujus est, ubi vi illatâ scripta aliqua in proprium sensum torqueri possunt, suis ea permittere Auctoribus, calamo correcta, id est perversa. Ubi corrigi nolunt Scalpello ex operibus illius Auctoris abscindere, & opera ipsa illis abjudicare. Historiae Patrum Theodoreti esse testatur Nicephorus à te laudatus, l. XI. c. XLI, & lib. XIV, c. LIX, sed & ipse Theodoretus eam, veluti suum opus citat in historiâ Eccles. l. I. c. VII, & l. TWO, c. XXX, & lib. III, c. XXIV, & lib. IV, c. XXV, etc. XXVII, ejusdem etiam meminit idem Theodoretus in Epist. ad Eusebium Ancyranum. At narrat Simeonis mortem inquis, quem teste Baron. Superstitem reliquit, moriens. Respondeo, si id verum est, & non hoc etiam Calvini spiritu dicatur, malim dicere de alio Simeone loqui, aut non satis rem istam examinasse Baronium, quàm falsum Theodoretum, opus pro suo agnoscentem, quod ipsius non erat. Maximè cum idem incommodum sequatur, si alteri tribuatur. Quia Theodoreti tempore extitisse eum, qui scripsit istam historiam, nemo negabit, qui scierit ab ipso citatam. Hinc achronismus idem est, sive Theodoretus, sive alius illius Auctor asseratur.  
Liber de Cur. Graecorum Affect. Theodoreti est, 1, quia idem prorsus est illius, & aliorum ejus operum stylus. 2, quia eodem Scriptus est tempore, quo Theodoretus floruit: quia ait se cognovisse eos, qui Julianum Apostatam vidissent: & meminit persecutionis ante XXX. annos in Perside excitatae: & l. V, Eccles. hist. c. XXXVIII, idem tempus illi Persecutioni designat. 3. quia in quo vixit Auctor hujus libri Theodoreto convenit: quia libro, sive Sermone v. Nomades Israëlitas, aut Arabes, vicinos suos vocat: Cyrus autem, cujus ipse Episcopus fuit in Persidis finibus, non procul ab Arabibus sita erat. 4. ipse Theodoretus librum hunc suum esse testatur & epistolâ CXIII, ad S. Leonem: & quaestione I. in Leviticum.  
At hujus libri non meminit Nicephorus, inquis. Sed meminit ipse Theodoretus & Anastasius Nicenus, Nicephoro multò antiquior, & Theodoreto vicinior (vixit enim saeculo septimo, alter vero saeculo tandem duodecimo) qui integram ferè paginam exeo ex scripsit. Putat Peronius Nicephorum alio titulo nominasse opus istud: quod non improbabile est. Caeterùm quo jure Nicephori silentio nos premis, qui ejus positivo testimonio nihil defers? Theodoreto Nicephorus adscribit unum opus, & nihil curas: silet de altero, & fidem inde fieri vis. Est apud te pondus, & pondus, mensura & mensura: utrumque abominabile apud Deum. Prov. XX, 10.  
D. Morlaeus: Diabolus sub specie majoris Reverentiae erga Deum Philosophis suggessit, temerarium esse Deum immediatè adire: ideoque per mediatores daemones ad eum appropinquandum, quibus acceptum ferre deberent, quidquid boni nanciscerentur. Vnde nedum à cultu summi Dei; verùm etiam à cognitione ejus, ad cultum sui. sub daemoniorum nomine, traduxit.  
Resp. hic paucis verbis multa dicis à veritate prorsus aliena, & apertè contraria: ob quae, si dicacem nactus esses adversarium, eruditorum, imo omnium te ludibrio exponeret. Primum est: Daemonum cultum specie majoris Reverentiae erga Deum introductum. Alium hujus mali fontem norunt docti quique, & nos in operis hujus calce monstrabimus Deo dante: (Vide sapientiae caput XIII.) Imojam ostendimus, quando diximus Deos Paganorum fuisse homines, quorum nomina daemones sibi imposuerunt. Porro nihil magis hunc cultum daemonum, & Dei neglectum promovit, quam opinio negans illi Rerum humanarum Providentiam, imo & cognitionem; non verò alia opinio de Reverentiâ illi debitâ, cui impares forent homines.  
2. Ait Daemonem id Philosophis suggessisse. Quasi per Philosophos id obtinuisset daemon. Contra 1. quia daemonum cultus totum orbem, exceptâ Abrahae familia occupaverat, antequam notum esset Philosophorum nomen, aut nata natio. Contra 2. Religio à Philosophis nec ortum habuit, nec incrementum. Dolor parentis ob ereptum sibi filium, & honor Regibus absentibus exhibendus, initium Idololatriae dedit: quae statuariorum Arti, & Poëtarum gratis carminibus incrementum suum deber. Philosophi his assurgere coacti fuerunt: & tametsi liceret his nugaces, stultasque Poëtarum de Diis fabulas & impugnare in scholis, & ridere in Theatris, non tamen semper id impunè fuit, quod & Socratis, & Aristotelis exempla docent.  
3. Initio daemones cultos ut mediatores tantùm. Constat initio adoratos, ut veros Deos. Doctrinam illam de mediatione daemonum à Platonicis ortam supra diximus: hi verò multis saeculis sunt Ethnicâ superstitione juniores. Apuleio eam adscribit Augustinus lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei c. XVIII, non Platoni ipsi, non antiquioribus Platonicis. Fortè vel ex conversatione cum Judaeis vel ex conflictu cum Christianis orta est illa sententia, quod viderent eorum argumentis responderi non posse, Polytheismo retento. Unde Platonici Juniores novam sibi viam aperuerunt, ut per Deos majorum Gentium, Dei summi Attributa intelligerent, per Deos minorum Gentium, daemones inter summum illum Deum, & homines, mediantes.  
D. Morlaeus p. 22. & 23. Postquam oriente justitiae sole hae daemoniorum umbrae evanescerent (pro evanuerunt) & Deus summus Sanctius coli caepisset, unico illum inter, nosque mediatore patefacto, daemon leonem induit, & suos cultores ad farro flaemmâque persequendos Dei servos concitavit. Verum cum inde augeri fidelium numerum cerneret, quia sanguis Christianorum Ecclesiae semen esset, ad artes veteratorias conversus, inde sementem sibi facere cogitavit, simplicibus hominibus persuadendo, quod Deo gratiores essent orationes ad memorias Martyrum factae. Quam opinionem promoverunt miracula illic facta. Vnde paulatim effectum ut Martyres & deinde Confessores, velut mediatores Deum inter, hominesque admitterentur.  
Respond. non miror à te Calvini discipulo dici promotam miraculis à Deo opinionem à daemone satam, in hominum mentibus, cum sciam à Magistro tuo Deum Peccari Auctorem dici. Spero tamen apud aequos quosque retum Arbitros, plus posse ad confirmandam opinionem illam Dei miraculis illam soventis auctoritatem, quam tua possit Assertio illam à daemone satam asseverantis, ad illam evellendam. Sed unde tibi tam perspecta daemonis consilia? num cum illo modium salis comedisti, quod se fecisse gloriatus est Patriarcha Reformationis hodiernae? Quo Auctore ea à te dicuntur? nullo! Quo teste? nemine praeter te. Magnam te inter illumque familiaritatem intercessisse ostendas oportet, ut persuadeas nobis ejus cordis secreta tibi tam explorata esse: absque quo fidem vix invenies. Nec satis erit, doceas eum ea tibi dixisse, nisi insuper fidem illius ipse praestes, qui mendax est, & Pater ejus.   

SECTIO XIX. Argumenta contra Sanctorum Invocationem.  
D. Morlaeus p. 24. Magis sumus inexcusabiles, quam Ethnici, quia cum Christum habeamus nos inter & Deum mediatorem, stultum esset alium substituere, quia nemo apud Deum efficatior, nemo apud homines benevolentior.  
Resp. sciens & Prudens alienam à nobis mentem nobis exprobras. Nec enim Christum mediationis officio amovemus, ut alium illi substituamus; sed ut efficacius illum ad intercedendum excitemus. aliorum petimus orationes, qui unà nobiscum idem à Deo petant per Christum Dominum nostrum. Hoc tu Stultum dicis; aliter sentit Apostolus, qui Sanctos viventes ut orarent, oravit: Aliter Concilium Chalcedonense, quod B. Flaviani petiit orationes: Aliter Ecclesia, quae similiter Sanctos & vivos & mortuos invocat. Aliter ipse Christus, qui exauditum iri docuit preces à multis oblatas. Cyprianus lib. de Orat. Dom. ait: jussit unitatis Magister, quisque preces pro toto populo Christo offerat; non pro se solo. Sive ergo soli oramus, quod minus efficax sive multi simul, iique sive vivi, sive vitâ functi, suum Christo constat mediatoris officium, quia utroque modo Deum oramus per Christum Dominum nostrum.  
D. Morlaeus p. 24. Quod dicunt, unicum esse mediatorem Redemptionis, plures vero Intercessionis, falsum est. Nam intercedere, vox est forensis, quae significat non simpliciter orare, aut postulare; sed suo jure atque potestate apud alium agere, & quo minus aliquid fiat, se, suaemque auctoritatem interponere: quod hîc Soli Christo competit.  
Respond. Si daremus tibi vocem illam nunquam ab Antiquis aliter acceptam fuisse, quid hoc contra nos, qui aliter illam accipimus? nobis enim non aliud significat, quam orare, aut humillimè postulare. Cur usus ille non sufficiet ad mutandam vocis significationem, cum penes usum sit arbitrium, & jus, & norma loquendi, teste Poëtâ? nec verum est, unum tantum sensum eâ voce designatum apud probatos Auctores. Tribunos plebis non ut jus dicerent; sed ut intercederent, si quae senatus Consulta plebis libertati contraria prodirent, ait Gellius Tertullianus l. TWO, contra Marcionum. Consequens erat, inquit, uti Deus secederet à libertate semel concessâ homini, id est, contineret imperio & praescientiam, & praepotentiam suam, per quos intercessisse potuisset, quo minus homo malè libertate suâ frui aggressus, in periculum laberetur. S. Cypr. saepe de iis loquitur, qui paenitentiam agentium lachrymis gemitibusque intercedebant. Quibus locis aliquam auctoritatem potestatemque significare videtur. Aliquando tamen de illo dicitur, quod inter duo extrema simpliciter interjacet: Caesar lib. I. de bello Gallico. Non se hostem vereri; sed angustias itineri, & magnitudinem sylvarum, quae inter eos, & Ariovistum intercederent. Et Gen. XLIII. 10. Si non intercessisset dilatio, jam vice alterâ venissemus. At verò aliquando significat pro aliquo preces interpositas. Gen. XXIII. 8. Intercedite pro me apud Ephron, filium seor, ut det mihi speluncam duplicem. Et B. Aug. ad Deiparam Virginem: Ora pro populo, interveni pro clero intercede pro devoto faemineo sexu. Et hoc ultimo sensu à nobis accipitur, quando Beatis dicimus: Intercedite pro nobis. Contra quem sensum nihil dicis.  
D. Morlaeus pag. 25. Neminem ex Angelis vel Sanctis invecare possunt cum fide, quin illum cordis scrutatorem agnoscant: & praeterea in illum, tanquam in Deum, credant: nam Apostolus ait: quomodo invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt?  
Resp. jam diximus Sanctos ista cognoscere, & varios modos indicavimus, quorum aliquo fieri possit, ut ista cognoscant, licet omni scientiae participes non sint: satis enim ad id est omni-scientis, & cordium scrutatoris Dei Amicitia. Alia, quam adhibes ratio aequè frivola est. Si enim invocare possumus cum Apostolis Sanctos vivos, licet eos pro Diis non habeamus, nec in eos, strictè loquendo, Credamus (qui in Deum solum credimus) cur non & Sanctos mortuos? Sic Isaiae XXXIV 12. Regem potius invocabunt. Et Oseae VII, 1. Aegyptum Invocabant. Nec tamen aut hi in Aegyptum, & in Regem illi tanquam in Deum credebant. Nec Moyses Caelum & Terram Deum arbittatus est, cum ait, Deut. XXX. 19 Testem invoco caelum & terram, quod proposuerim etc. Aliter aceipitur ab Apostolo illa vox: Invocatio, proillâ solâ, quae ad omnium Dominum, salutis aeternae largitorem dirigitur. En totus locus: Idem Dominus omnium, Dives in omnes, qui invocant illum. Omnis enim quicumque invocaverit nomen Domini, salvus erit. Quomodo ergo invocabuat (scilicet, ut omnium Dominum, divitem in omnes eum invocantes, qui iis aeternam vitam largiater in quem non crediderunt. Hac ratione Sanctos non invocamus; sed ut illius Domini Servos, apud eum, ex ejus misericordiâ, & Gratiâ, Potentes.  
D. Molraeus p. 27, & 28. Orant Papistae Sanctos, non solum ut impetrent nobis aliquid à Deo; sed etiam ut ipsi ea praestent, quod patet legenti Breviarium Romanum, Horarium, Psalterium, & Litanias omnium Sanctorum. Dicit una precatiuncula;  
O Maria gratiosa,  
Dulcis, mitis, & formosa,  
Applica nobis gratiam.  
Quod requiro, quod respiro  
Mea sana vulnera:  
Et da menti te poscenti,  
Gratiarum munera.  
Et in fronte aedium publicarum Bruxellis, habetur haec inscriptio:  A Bello, Peste, & Fame libera nos Maria. 
Resp. 1. Tametsi daremus tibi aliquem privatum hominem in modo Sanctos invocandi modum ab Ecclesiâ praescriptum, & usitatum excessisse, quid hoc ad Ecclesiam, quae singulorum dicta vel facta praestare nullâ lege tenetur? Quae verò nobis hic exprobras, ex privatâ devotione manarunt: nec enim in Missali, aut Breviario Romano habentur.  
Resp. 2. ejusmodi verba commodè explicantur, quòd optent iis utentes, B. Virginem ea facere, Deum orando, ut ea faciat. Sic & vos explicatis illa Apocalyseos 1.4, verba: Gratia vobis & Pax ab eo qui est, & qui erat, & qui venturus est, & à septem spiritibus, qui in conspectu Throni ejus sunt. Quasi spiritus illi, perinde ac Deus ipse, Gratiam & Pacem largirentur. Cum ramen longè diverso modo ab illis proficiscantur, à Deo quippe donantur, spirituum illorum precibus exorato. Si simile quid à quopiam Catholico dictum fuisset, quas non tragaedias excitarent tui similes, verborum aucupes, litium & satores, & quaesitores?  
D. Morlaeus p. 28. Quae cum sit communis apud illos Beatam Virginem, aliosque Sanctos invocandi formula, certè aut nulla unquam fuit, aut haec est Idoolatria, cum sit invocatio directa, & absoluta; non verò relativa.  
Respondeo: Falsissimum est, illam esse communem Sanctos invocandi formulam. Ex pio quidem affectu, tamentsi forte minus cauto (quem certè nemo unquam erroris jure damnabit) usurpata est à Bruxellensibus. At in Breviario, ac Missali, quae precum formulas solemnes ab Ecclesiâ approbatas, continent, duplici tantum ratione Sancti invocantur. Prior in collectis, ad Deum ut Sanctorum preces pro nobis exaudire dignetur. Posterior ad Sanctos ipsos: ut orent pro nobis. tertia, quae tibi displicet, tametis errore vacet, & à non malignis rectè explicari possit, & commodè explicetur, rarò tamen adhibetur ab Ecclesiâ.  
D. Morlaeus p. 29. Athanasius aliique Orthodoxi contra Arianos Christum Deum esse ex eo probarunt, quod invocaretur. Quod argumentum fuisset inefficax, si Sanctos Invocare licuisset.  
Resp. rectè probarunt illi Patres Christum Deum esse, quem invocabat ex Apostolicâ Traditione Ecclesia Invocatione directâ, & absolutâ, quali ad nullum Sanctum utimur. Obiter tamen observo, difficilem in se Provinciam suscipiet, qui probare volet demonstrativas esse omnes Patrum rationes adversus Arianos, illam nominatim ex Psal. XLIV. Eructavit cormeum verbum bonum: quam apud aliquos invenimus.  
D. Morlaeus p. 29. In illis dogmaticis, & Didacticis veterum scriptis quae Tertnllianus, Cyprianu, Mysenus, Augustinus, aliique de Invocatione eo fine scripserunt, ut alios docerent, quomodo orandum esset, nulla est de Invocatione Sanctorum mentio. Ex ejusmodi tamen scriptis, quae sit eorum sententia certò scitur.  
Resp. Ex iis quae dicunt in ejusmodi scriptis, certò scitur quid senserint eorum Auctores, non verò ex iis, quae reticent: quia argumenta ab auctoritate negativa, infirma esse, notissimum est. Posses aequè benè inferre, nec Ecclesiam Romanam Sanctos orare quae dum Orationem Dominicam explicat, de Sanctorum Invocatione nihil dicit. S. Ignatius etiam in suis Exercitiis spiritualibus totus est in tradendo modum orandi Deum. Dicesne propterea illum non existimasse Sanctos invocandos?  
D. Morlaeus, p. 29. Si relativam Sanctorum Invocationem agnovissent Patres, cùm iis objicerent Ethnici, Martyres coli à Christianis, quomodo ipsi suos Heroas colerent, hoc non negassent Patres; sed ostendissent aliam esse rationem Martyrum, aliam Heroum, His enim summum cultum soli Deo debitum non deberunt Ethnici.  
Resp. Goliae instar gladium adfers, non quo hostem ferias; sed quo ipse feriaris. Nam constat 1. ex cultu, & Invocatione Martyrum natam illam Gentilium objectionem: adeoque priscos illos Christianos verè coluisse, atque invocasse Martyres. Constat. 2. non negasse universim Patres à Christianis coli, & invocari Martyres; sed solùm illis offerri sacrificia, quae soli Deo debentur. Templa in eorum honorem extructa, liquet ex Theodoreto, aliisque: Sacrificia illis oblata negat Augustinus, Quis Antistitum, inquit, unquam dixit, offero tibi Petre, Paul, aut Cypriane? non negat precibus nostris eos invocari debere. Similia alii Patres. Quorum unanimi, concordique sententiae, dum nudam tuam Pythagoricam assertionem opponis, & à nobis praeferri speras, nrmis altè de te, nimis abjectè de tuis Lectoribus sentis. Falsum etiam est, quod ais, Ethnicos non dedisse Heroibus suis summum honorem soli Deo debitum. Singulos enim Heroes caelo donatos, sacrificiis, quae soli vero Deo debentur, coluerunt, ut ostendimus Sect. XVI.  
Dr. Morl. p. 31. negari non potest, quin talis sit in Ecclesiâ Romanâ nunc Angelorum, & Sanctorum, qualis olim apud Gentiles Heroum, & daemonnm cultus fuit.  
Rosp. & negari potest illa cultus similitudo, & de facto negatur. Et licet nostra negatio vestrae affirmationi praeferri debeat, quia à vobis accusamur, & Rei partem sustinemus: adeoque nisi demonstratiuè probetis, quae dicitis, Vindiciae ecundum nos dari debent; tamen ex abundanti negationem nostram iis auctoritatibus probavimus, ut ad iis respondendum & te ipsum, cujus tamen eruditionem plurimi facio, & totam insuper nationem Calvinisticam in Angliâ audacter provocem. Differentiam inter utrumque cultum assignamus eandem, quam Patres Augustinus, Theodoretus, Cyrillus: Ethnicos scilicet Heroes suos veros Deos credidisse; nos Sanctos nostros Dei solùm amicos aestimare: Ethnioos Herobius sacrificia, obtulisse; quae nos uni Deo offerimus; non item Sanctis: illos suos Her●as invocasse invocatione absolutâ, & in ipsis terminatâ; nos verò solâ relatiuâ, & transitiuâ Martyres invocare. Adeoque potiori jure nobis dicere lice bit, asseri non posse inter nos talem esse cultum Beatorum, qualis inter Ethnicos fuit cultus Heroum.  
D. Morlaeus: p. 31. Constat ex temporum serie, à josepho meado observatâ, haec tria, Sanctorum invocationem, caelibatus Sacerdotalis institutionem, & ciborum quorundam prohibitionem, ab iisdem Auctoribus, Monachis ad Episcopatum evectis, & eodem fere tempore ante finem quarti saeculi, in Ecclesiam publicè introduci caepisse.  
Resp. nihil moror, quid observet meadus ille; sed quid probet. Si tamen dicat, illa tria eodem tempore caepisse, ab iisdem Auctoribus fuisse commendata, negare non poterit Apostolos illorum trium dogmatum Auctores esse: siquidem ciborum delectus ab Apostolis injunctus fuit Act. XV, 20, & 29, quod à primis Christianis religiosè observatum, tradit Tertullianus Apolog. c. IX. Caelibatus item Sacerdotum non aliud invenire est initium, quam Euangelii, sanctis Altarium ministris Orthodoxis ab ejus initio semper & ubique se ad exemplum summi Sacerdotis, Pastorum Principis, conformantibus, qui est Christus Jesus, Deus Benedictus in secula. Haec obiter dicta sufficient in praesenti: eadem tibi fusius probata dabimus, si detur à te occasio.  
D. Morl. p. 31. Chemnitius ait circa annum Domini, CCCLXXX, per Basilium, Nyssenum, & Nazianzenum, Panegyricarum orationum occasione invectam in publicos caetus Invocationem Sanctorum: quamvis alii dicant ab iis non invectam; sed ministratam tantum aliis occasionem illam invehendi.  
Resp. Quid iterum Chemnitii nobis mentem opponis, qui non irrefragabilis est apud suos, qui non omnia ejus dicta probant? si ullus publici pudor, si ulla Lectorum reverentia, tam negligentèr scriberes, aut sperares Chemnitii objecto nomine, velut ostentato medusae capite silentium nobis impositum iri, nedum contra veritatem; sed etiam contra omnem verisimilitudinem? Quanto enim probabilius est cultum illum Sanctorum (cujus magna pars erat eorum Invocatio) occasionem dedisse Panegyricis illis orationibus; non è contra: has Panegyres filias esse Invocationis Sanctorum; non matres, effectus non causas? Maximè cum constet longè ante tempus illarum Panegyrum, in publicis Ecclesiae Liturgiis Sanctos invocatos fuisse, & hanc ipsam invocationem à Gentilibus fuisse Christianis exprobratam, nec ab his negatam; sed discrimen ab istis assignatum, inter modum, quo à Christianis Sancti, & quo ab Ethnicis Dii colebantur. Proinde tibi tuum remittimus Chemnitium: in quo si nihil aliud displiceret, quam quod hic ex illo profers, satis est, ilum susque deque habeamus.  
D. Morl. p. 32. Nazianzenus (idem de aliis) dum de Sanctorum Invocatione loquitur, quasdam correctiones adhibet, ne ab Auditoribus suis secus quam oporteret intelligeretur, qualia sunt: ut puto, ut persuasum habeo, & qui sic loquuntur incerti sunt de re, quam ita leniunt.  
Resp. voces illiusmodi non semper ex dubitatione nasci. An dubius de sancti Spiritus assistentiâ Paulus, dum ait: 1. Cor. VII, 40. Puto, quod & ego spiritum Dei babeam? si dicam: Persuasum habeo te execrari confratris tui Archicpiscopi Ebroacensis facinus, qui depositio pedo Pastorali, gladium sumpsit adversus Regem. Item aliud Protestantium verorum anglorum, qui Regem occiderunt, regnum everterunt, & in omnes ordines ferro, flammâ grassati sunt. Item detestari eorumdem Protestantium studia, qui sub praetextu fabulosae conspirationis à Catholicis initae, veram formaverunt in regni perniciem. Si ista loquar, convenio illis vocibus conscientiam tuam, eam appello ab eâ testimonium postulo de re cunctis apertâ, etiam Calvinistis quam ipsa nec ignorare potest, nec negare. Cur non sic intelligi poterunt, quae à Patribus simili modo dicuntur.  
D. Morlaeus p. 32. Haec est famosa illa Apostasia, de quâ Apostolus 11. Thessaly. 11. & 1. Timot. IV. quae non continet plenam à Deo defectionem; sed aliarum rerum cum Deo cultum, dum Deus & Sancti coluntur. Est spiritualis fornicatio propter quam Meretrix Babylonica Maecha dicitur, quia Christum maritum babet, & Sanctis se prostituit. Nam Maecha non est, nisi sit uxor & meretrix, & talis uxor, quae virum habeat.  
Resp. mitte obscuras Prophetias, ad quas nemo recurrit, nisi defectu solidarum rationum. Totus iste discursus hoc fundamento nititur: Maecha non est nisi quae virum habet, & alteri so prostituit. Puto tamen saluâ side, dici posse, Maechum fuisse sartoris uxorem, quae ut fertur, relicto marito. Bezam, Genovam secuto est; nec peccaturum in Spiritum fanctum qui cum Christo (Mat. XIX. 9 Mar. X, 11. & Luc. XVI, 18) dieit eum Maechari, qui dimissâ prioti conjuge non fornicariâ aliam ducit: itemque illum, qui Repudiatam ducit. Tu vide, quî subsistet tuus discurlus, isto fundamento subducto.  
D. Morlaeus p. 33. Nullius momenti est, quod à quibusdam responderi solet: Gentes aliis quam Deo sacrificasse; se verò Sanctos & Angelos invocare quidem; at sacrificium cultum esse soli Deo debitum. Nam 1. est Petitio principii, quod Invocatio Sanctorum non sit cultus Deo debitus. 2. Gentes eos Invocabant, quibus sacrificabant. 3. omnia sacrificia in sacrificio Crucis consummata, & abolita fuerunt. Vnde nulla in novo faedere sunt sacrificia, nisi spiritualia, preces nimirum, & supplicationes: quae vituli labiorum, & Thimiamata vocantur cum ergo Invocatio sit sacrificium spirituale, illa soli Deo fieri debet.  
Resp. erego nullius momenti tibi sunt, quae à Patribus dicuntur, ab Augustino enim, Cyrillo, & Theodoreto desumuntur, quae contemptim rejicis, velut consideratione non digna: licet nomina celes, ne censura nimium inverecunda videretur. Rationes porrò tuae verè nullius sunt monenti. Enimverò quod Invocatio indirecta, non sit cultus Deo debitus, tam evidens est, ut à mentis compote negari non possit. Quis enim à Mahometis veneno intactus, Deum orabit, ut pro nobis oret? Quem orabit Deus? & ad quid? Constat ergo Invocationem transitivam ad Deum dirigi non posse, adeoque non esse cultum Deo debitum. Quod à paritate Invocationis Sanctorum vivorum ostenditur, quem si cultum Deo debitum asseras esse, ab Apostolis Idololatriae crimen non amovebis. Vides in quas anguistias Catholicos impugnandi studium te conjiciat? Quâ arte hine exibis? Gentiles eos orabant, & quidem absolutè, quibus sacrificabant: idem facimus & nos: quia Deum invocamus, cui sacrificamus. Alios insuper invocamus, quibus sacrificium nullum offerimus, Sanctos nimirum, & vivos, & defunctos. Sacrificia Mosaica morte Christi consummata fuisse, verum est: tamen manere in novo faedere mundam & indefectibilem oblationem (sive sacrificium) & Malachiae Prophetis, & Ecclesiae Traditio testantur.  
D. Morlaeus p. 35. Fundamentum cui (quo) nititur Sanctorum Invocatio, Est illorum in caelis Dei intuitio. Vnde cum multi Patres (Irenaeus, Justinus M. Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, & alii) negent Sanctos videre Deum, invoeândi non sunt. Ete si quis contrarium asserere videtur, necesse est, ut vel liber sit supposititius, vel locus corruptus, vel Auctorem sibi contradicere. Nec Invocatio Sanctorum eo tempore era introducta in praxim Ecclesiae.  
Respondeo: Ampla haec illationum seges, unto ictu succiditur: quia ex principio falso deducuntur omnes. Non enim visio Dei motivum est unicum istius Invocationis: alioquin Sanctos vivos non invocaremus, quos novimus Deum non videre. Generale ergò motivum, cur Sanctos invocamus, est quod credamus eos esse Deo gratos, quos proinde exauditurus est. Augetur quidem spes de petitae rei concessione, ex eo quod Deum intueantur: sed non in ea fundatur, ipsa invocatio.  
D. Morlaeus p. 35. Pontificii tamen, quâ sunt modestiâ, & ex horum scriptis, & ex aliquibus veteris Testamenti locis, Sanctorum Invocationem adstruunt, licet Sanctorum veteris Testamenti animas in limbo detentas fuisse asserant. Quâ in Deum fide, in bomines verecundiâ, aut secum ipsis Constantiâ ea testimonia proferre possint, ipsi viderint.  
Resp. Habeat iam Roma pudorem.  Tertius è caelo cecidit Cato— 
Eum amicè moneo, Censorem, modestiùs agat. Nos contradictionem facilè amolimur; imò jam amoliti sumus, dum ostendimus, non in Dei visione fundari Sanctorum Invocationem. Adeoque tam invocari poruisse Sanctos in limbo subterraneo detentos, ac Sanctos in carnis ergastulo clausos. Sic nostra in Deum fides, in homines verecundia constabit donec constiterint Apostolorum dicta, & facta.  
Quae deinde habes ad paginam usque 54. inclusiuè, de productis ab aliis Sanctorum testimoniis, pro Beatorum Invocatione, eorumque ignorantiâ rerum, quae hic aguntur, cum aut contra ea, quae dixi non sint, aut superiùs expensa fuerint, ideo de iis nihil opus est agere.   

SECTIO XX. Argumenta contra Orationes pro defunctis.  
D. Morlaeus p. 55. Augustinus tr. LXXXIV. in Joan. Non sic ad ipsam mensam Martyres commemoramus, quemadmodum alios, qui in Pace requiescunt, ut etiam pro iis oremus; sed magis, ut ipsi orent pro nobis. Vbi advertendum, quod Defuncti, pro quibus Ecclesia tunc temporis orabat, requiescebant in Pace. Et proinde Oratio pro defunctis in veteri Ecclesiâ non ponebas, aut supponebat Purgatorium.  
Resp. Pari jure dicere posses nec Ecclesiae hodiernae preces pro Defunctis supponere Purgatorium: quia tantum pro illis orat, qui nos praecesserunt cum signo Fidei, & dermiunt in SOMNO PACIS. Ut habetur in Missali Romano.  
Unde duo colligo non levis momenti. Primum est, Ecclesiam Romanam etiamnum veteris vestigiis insistere, cujus etiam verba immutata retinet.  
Aliud est quâ fide tu, tuique similes Novatores in Antiquorum exponendis scriptis versemini: non enim ovum ovo similius, quam priscorum fidelium, hodiernorum que non modo mens, sed & ipsa verba. Unde tam facile esset praesentium Sermonem in alienum sensum detorquere ac antiquorum, Pugnatis tamen antiquos aliter sensisse: nec manifestae veritaticedere vultis.  
D. Morl. p. 55. Ex illo loco colligi tantum potest Sanctorum intercessio; non verò eorum Invocatio: Nam aliud est Commemoramus, aut nominamus, aliud invocamus. Ait autem ibi Commemoramus: quod nominationem importat.  
Resp. Commemorare, ut ipsi pro nobis orent, est Invocare. Idem tantum non iisdem verbis ait Ecclesia hodierna: Communicantes, & memoriam venerantes imprimis etc. Quae verba Sanctorum Invocationem continere, negari non potest. Eandem ergo significant invocationem etiam Augustini verba. Duas quippe tommemorationes Defunctorum exhibent hibent omnes Liturgiae: prima de iis, qui certò Sancti sive Beati sunt. Secunda de iis, qui non valdè mali erant, at de quorum statu dubitabatur, an scilicet essent in caelo. Prima destinatur ad opem nobis Sanctorum Intercessione impetrandam. Altera ad animarum levamen. Et utramque Augustinus accurarè distinguit loco laudato: dum ait: Commemoramus alios, ut pro iis oremus, alios, ut pro nobis orent.  
D. Morl. p. 56. Quando Augustinus ait: Injuria est pro Martyre orare, cujus nos debemus, orationibus commendari: non loquitur de nostrâ Martyrum Invocatione, sed de eorum pro nobis intercessione tantum.  
Resp. Ex verbis prolatis constat loqui de eâ Martyrum commemoratione, quae eos excitet ad orandum pro nobis. Ut vidimus paulò superius.  
D Morlaeus p. 57 Augustinus non ex propriâ sententiâ locutus est; sed ex aliorum. Credidit enim absolutè mortuos nec curam neque cognitionem rerum hujus vita habere. Sed quia Hieronymum, & alios magnos viros (dicere debuisses omnes omnino fideles) noverat aliter sentire aliqua ex aliorum sententiâ subdit, non per modum affirmantis; sed dubitantis, & quod in aliorum gratiam concederet: nam qui dicit se non videre quid inde emolumenti assequerentur, nisi hoc, non affirmat etiam hoc; sed affirmat tantum, nisi sit uttle ad hoc, esse prorfusinutile.  
Resp. Acciplo quod das, Hieronymum, aliosque magni nominie viros eadem nobiscum sensisse. Et verò praxis illa Italorum teste Paulino, Afrorum teste Augustino (nisi dicere malimus utroque teste omnium fidelium communem fuisse, sive ut Paulinus loquitur, universae Ecclesiae) opinione nititur tertii status animarum, quem jam communissime Purgatorium appellumus. Martyres item invocandos eorumque intercessionem & vivis prodesse, & iis defunctis, qui ut ea sibi post mortem prodessent, meruissent. Haec non minus Augustinus, quam Hieronymus, aut Paulinus sentit. Sed de quibusdam aliis dubitat de modo soilicet, quo Martyres sciunt, quae hic aguntur: an soliciti & anxii de rebus nostris; quae sepulturae in tall loco utilitas: etc. quae tamen ex ejusdem Ecclesiae praxi constabant, utpater apud eundem.  
D. Morlaeus p. 58. Alia responsio est: sepulti ad memorias Martyrum adjuvantur apud Deum, non quia ibisepeliuntur; sed quod illis Deum orando commendantur. Martyribus, inquam, commendantur, orando Deum; non Martyres. Non enim illos Martyres orando; sed Deum orando se eorum patrocinio commendabant. Sicut nos orare Deum solemus, ut viventium pro nobis preces exaudiat. Vnde Sanctorum Invocatio hinc non evincitur. Et si quid impetretur, id non Martyribus; sed Martyrum Domino acceptum ferri debet.  
Resp. Vis videri aliquid dicere, ait Augustinus l. de Unitate Ecclesiae c. XVIII. Dum tacere erubescis, & inania loqui non erubescis. Commendantur Martyribus orando, hoc fateris: negas orari Martyres. At quomodo Commendantur Martyribus orando, si non orentur Martyres? nec rem expedit, quod addis: Oramus Deum, ut viventium pro nobis preces exaudiat. Nec enim hoc est per se orare viventes, nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: siquidem commendare aliquem alterius precibus, est eum orare, ut pro eo oret. Dixi porse: nam ex adjunctis fieri potest, ut sit aequivalenter Orare viventes si videlicetalios oravimus ut pro nobis orent, & deinde Deum oremus, eorum preces exaudiat. Sic Collecta de sancto Antonio v.c. in Missali: Intercessio nos quaesumus Domine B. Antonii Abbatis commendet, ut quod nostris meritis non valemus, ejus patrocinio assequamur. Per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum. Haec inquam collecta invocationem B. Antonii continet ex ment Ecclesiae, quae in Litaniis suis ait: Sancte Antoni ora pro nobis.   

SECTIO XXI. Vindicantur Augustinus, aliisque Patres, & Peronius à calumniis D. Morlaei.  
D. Morlaeus p. 59 Haec sufficiunt ad vindicandum non tantum Augustinum, sed etiam reliquos omnes Patres quarti saeculi (exceptis tribus aut quaetuor) ab illd infamiae notâ, quam illis inurere conantur Pontificii, dum illos pro hodiernâ Ecclesia Romanae Idololatrid, testimonium, velint, nolint, coguns dicere. Et profectò si non omnem exuissent frontem omnem Augustini praecipuè mentionem hac in causâ omisissent, quem probè norunt Invocationem Sanctorum adeò non probasse. ut non modo rem ipsam disertis verbis neget; sed ipsa hujus tam pravae superstitionis fundamenta convellat. Nam non negabunt Pontificii fundamentum Invocationis Sanctorum, esse persuasionem, quod Sancti defuncti rebus humanis intersint, preces corum exaudiant, & ea, quae petuntur intelligaue. At Augustinus contraria omnia sensit.  
Resp. Ad contumeliosa verba, Infamiae notam, Idololatriam, frontem exutam, pravam superstitionem, & id genus orationis tuae ornamenta non recurreres, nisi deficiente ratione ad sidem faciendam idoneâ, populo imponere sperasses, hac agresti ferociâ. Quae probra jacis, honestiùs à nobis audiuntur, quam à te dicuntur. Utinam tui Symmistae frontem retinuissent sinceram, teneram, probitatis indicem, & testem: nec tot schismatibus Ecclesiam divisissent, nec tot erroribus faedassent, nec tot haeresibus animas Christi sanguine redemptas infecissent, lugentibus bonis, ridentibus malis, jubilantibus daemoniis, viam per eos ad Libertinismum, & Atheismum aperiri & sterni gaudentibus. Quando ostenderis ubi illa diserta Augustini verba reperiantur, quid respondendum sit videbimus: nam velle ut decem, imò duodecim vegrandia volumina percurramus, ad invenienda verba, quae fortè nusquam extant, & Calvinianâ fide citantur, nimis inhumanum imperium est. Interea assevero Augustinum sententiae Catholicae fundamenta nunquam evertisse: scire Sanctos ea, quae hic aguntur, asserit, licet de medio illius cognitionis nihil certi definiat. Fieri posse docet per Mortuos, per Angelos, per Dei revelationem, qui Prophetis multa & loco dissita, & tempore futura revelavit. Nos nostris rebus interesse posse, sicut Samuel vivo Sauli adfuit, eique futuram cladem praedixit: & Paulus vivus Beatorum agmina vidit. Vide libri de Curâ pro Mort. c.xv. Vide, an non frontem tuam requirere debeamus (si flosculum aliquem exhorto tuo decerpere nobis liceat & orationi nostrae inserere) qui tam asseveranter ais Augustinum negasse Beatis rerum, quae hic aguntur, cognitionem.  
D. Morlaeus p. 62. Augustinus l. II. contra Parmenianum cap. VIII, eitatis ex I. joan. II. verbis: Si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud Patrem, Jesum Christum justum, ait: Si diceret mediatorem me habetis, apud Patrom, & ego exoro pro peccatis vestris, quis cum ferret bonorum, & fidelium Christianorum? Quis sicut Apostolum Christi; & non sicut Antichristum intueraturi Homines enim omnes Christiani inwicem se commendant oraetionibus suis pro quo autons nullus interpallat; sed ipse pro omnibus, hic unus, verusque Mediator est, & addis: Hicsermo est, de Mediatore non Redemptionis; sed Intercessionis. Et probat unum solumque esse ejusmodi Mediatorem ex Ioanne, etc.  
Resp. S. Augustinus satis co loco explicat, de quali Mediatore loquatur de co scilicet, qui pro omnibus omnino interpellat, & pro ipso nemo. Quo sensu fateor solum Christum dici posse Mediatorem. At vero cum hoc stat, & quod alii pro invicem orare possint (dicit enim expressè omnes Christianos invicem se commendare orationibus suis.) Et quod alios ad illud Charitatis officium invitare possint, etiam mortuos. An verò alius seu vivus, sive mortuus Deum pro nobis interpellans Mediator dici possit, necaer Quaestio est de voce ob quam Ecclesiae membra impiè divellentur. Agnosce Sanctos pro nobis orare: & nos illorum preces utiliter petere: & hic pax erit, tametsi illâ voce abstineas.  
D. Morl. p. 63. Cardinalis Peronius Casau-bono dixit, se nunquam in omni vitâ suâ (praeterquam cùm in publicis processionibus succlamatret cumcateris: Ora pro nobis) aliquem Sanctorum in vocasse. Quod de Peronio Casau-bonus vir fide dignus refert, & ex ipso Andreas vir fide dignissimus. Quâ conscientiâ rem, quam putabat utilissimam neglexit? aut quâ fide rem, quam putabat inutilem, iam acriter defendit, & aliis, tanquam rem utilissimam praedicat, & commendat?  
Resp. Haec asseris ex aliis, illis side dignior, ut ad faciendam fidem in tribus testibus, tres habeamus gradus comparitionis, si tamen tres dici possint, cum duorum assectio Cafau-boni testimonio nitatur, adeoque tres isti unus tantum testis sint ut exutroque Jure constar. Sed quia ita vis, sint tres. Res est facti, & quae pender à restimonio trium & Peronii, & Ecclesiae inimicorum. Quis verò trium à fide divinâ alienorum fidem humanam praestabit? Qui Patrum scripta & ipsa Dei verba, quae manent, & fraudem vestram redarguunt, & vim sibi illatam ostendunt, torquetis, ut quae vultis deponant: majori sinceritate dicta transeuntia modernorum, ubi falsitas nullâ ratione detegi potest, tractabitis? Credat Judaeus Apella. Certè hoc malam fidem Casauboni demonstrat, quod Peronius & sacra more Catholico fecerit, & Ecclesiasticum recitarit officium: in utroque enim Sancti invocantur. Adeoque Sanctos invocavit Peronius extra supplicationes publicas.  
Verum, ut videas, quam aequi tibi sumus, damus ultrò quod assumis: admittimus Peronium non orasse Sanctos. Petis: quâ conscientiâ rem utilem omisit? Aut quâ fide rem inutilem commendavit? Respondeo: multa utilia, imo utilissima omitti posse sine peccato, si nullâ lege divinâ, aut humanâ imperentur. Consilia Euangelica utilissima sunt; nemo tamen illius utilitatis causâ ad illa tenetur; sed illa aut servat, aut non servat pro libitu nisi ex voto ultronee, aut Ecclesiae praecepto, aut aliunde nascatur obligatio. Ecclesia porrò singulis non imperat, ut Sanctos invocent: potest quisque suas preces rectâ ad Deum deferre per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum licet cuique Laico, omissâ salutatione Angelicâ, Litaniisque majoribus & Minoribus, Orationem Dominicam, Symbolum Apostolorum, etc. totâ vitâ suaâ recitare. Exigit tantum Ecclesia credat quisque Sanctos cum Deo regnantes honorandos, & invacandos esse; nusquam cuique imperat, ut eos invocet: vetat, ne quis eos invocandi morem tam pium, tam antiquum damnet. Damnant autem Calvini gregales, & quidem gravissimi criminis, nimirum Idololatriae. Vides, si demus quod petis, Cardinalem Peronium nonnisi in publicis Ecclesiae precibus Sanctos invocasse, eum & saluâ conscientiâ omittere potuisse rem utilissimam, & saluâ side candem commendare. Sed tamen historia conficta est, ut vidimus, à Casau-bono.  
Pag. 64. & 65. recoctam Cramben. adfers Ais: Sanctorum pro nobis Intercessionem creditam ad annum CCL. Eorum Invocation em circa annum CCCLXX. Prioris sententiae Auctorem fuisse Origenem: Posterioris verò Rhetores. His seize opposuisse clarissimos viros, Epiphanjum, Augustinum, Ambrosium, Hieronymum, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum. Hinc non-ante sextum saeculum obtinuisse, infers, Sanctorum Invocationem, quando S. Gregorius Magnus Litanias instituit.  
Resp. Mera Vigilantis, miraque somnia! Quis ista probavit? quis non probanti credet? Quâ in Deum fide, in homines verecundiâ, aut tecum ipso, constantiâ, hoc dicis? ut verba tua tibi remittam, in quem optimè conveniunt. Inverecundo commento, splendido mendacio, unum deest, scilicet, ut asseras Vigilantium & Faustum Manichaeum Sanctorum & venerationem, & Invocationem probasse & docuisse: & eam ob rem fuisse unum â B. Hieronymo, alterum ab Augustino impugnatos. Ex operibus ejusmodi quis cor tuum obsideat, satis apparet: nec enimverò nisi Calvini spiritu animaretis, haec commentus unquam fuisses.   

SECTIO XXII. Vendicatur Ecclesiae praxis à calumniis D. Morlaei.  
D. Morlaeus p. 65. Quantumvis inter disputandum dicant Pontificii se Sanctos invocando, nihil aliud intelligere, quam ut Sancti pro illis Deum orarent (pto orent) tamin ex usu commani, & precum formulis & picturis, & Imaginibus, palam est, quod aliam in sinn fovent opinionem, quod Sancti invocentur non ut intercessores tantum; sed ut Largitores bonorum omnium. Et profers aliqua verba ex Gabriele Biel, & B. Bernardino.  
Resp. Inverecunda accusatio est tam faedam hyprocisim Ecclesiae Catholicae objicere, vestrum nempe crimen, & eorum qui cum veritate luctantur, eamque ejurant. Apologias hac in re non modo seribimus, sed & vivimus. Nec enim solum Ecclesiae in Concilio, collectae decreta; verum etiam ejusdem per totum orbem diffusae communis usus, & solemnes precum formulae cum in Missali, tum in Breviario, mendacem Accusationem puram putamque Sycophantiam demonmonstrant. Ad alias preces, si quae alibi fortassis occurrunt, & ex his non sint extractae; sed solâ cujuspiam privarae personae solitariâ Devotione formatae, nemo nisi litium amans recurret: quia non magis tenetur Ecclesia privatorum quorumque preces, quam facta praestare. Iniquissimum verò erit exillis, de Ecclesiae ment ferre judicium, ubi illae minus cum Ecclesiae decretis conveniunt. Tametsi nihil in privatis illis libellis inveniri, credam, quod non commodè explicetur, si benignum interpretem; & non malignum calumniatorem, aut malevolum reprehensorem inveniat. Certè cum neminem obligent illae preces, quales quales sint, nemini justam aut ipsam Ecclesiam calumniandi, aut ab ejus communione secedendi occasionem facere possunt. Idem dictum puta de iis, quae ex Bernardino, & Gabriele citasti: quae bonum sensum admittere, mox patebit.  
D. Morlaeus p. 66. Vidi in monasterio Franciscanorum Antverpiae, & Brugis tabellam in quâ Christus pingitur iratus, fulmen vibrans, quo de miseris mortalibus paenas sumeret, nisi Mater Virgol, Dominici, & Francisci precibus exorata, furoris impetum in ipso impetu sisteret. Quâ admonentur homines, Mariam, potius quam Christum invocandam esse, utpote quae peccatoribus indulgentior, & ad miseris succurrendum promptior sit, quam ipse Christus.  
Resp, saluâ sacrarum Litterarum auctoritate negari non potest, Deum hominum aliquorum sibi gratorum intercessione placatum, iram posuisse ob mortalium peccata justissimè conceptam, & vindictam, quam de iis jam jam sumpturus erat aut remisisse planè, aut certè distulisse. Inter praecipua Dei Attributa Misericordia recensetur, recensetur & Justitia, utraque, sicut & ipse Deus, Infinita: ita tamen ut Misericordia superemineat, quia super exaltat Misericordia judicium, Jacobi 11, 13. Et Miserationes ejus super omnia oper a ejus. CXLIV. 9 Subinde tamen multiplicatis sine fine hominum peccatis vindictam celerem exigentibus, Justitia ad sumendam paenam armata, piorum hominum interventu exarmatur, Et hoc ipsum Misericordiae Divinae est, hominum bonorum pro aliis intercessionem admittere, imò & quaerere, & ubi non inveniuntur, qui intercedant, veluti dolere, & conqueri. Ezechielis XIII, 3. Non ascendistis ex adverso, nec opposuistis murum pro domo Israël, ut staretis in praelio in die Domini. Hec doctrina Catholica est, quâ stante, nihil est in picturâ Brugensi repraehensione dignum. Sed ei similem exhibet sacra historia nam.  
Exodi XXXII, 10. ait Deus ipse Moysi: Dimitte me, ut irascatur furor meus contra eos, Israëlitas, & deleam eos. Sed Moyses Deum oravit, adhibitis etiam Intercessoribus Abrabam, Isaac, & jacob, ut populo suo parceret; & exauditus est: additur enim Versu 14. Placatusque est Dominus ne faceret malum, quod locutus fuerat adversus populum suum. Haec sacra Scriptura. Quid est in imagine illâ vel Brugensi, vel Antverpianâ, quod sacer textus hic non exhibeat? Deus utrobique videtur iratus, homines peceatores delere paratus. Utrobique interveniunt Beatae animae, illic Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, hic verò Beata Dei Genitrix. Utrobique ad illud Charitatis officium viventium piorum precibus excitantur, illic Moyseos, hic Dominici, & Francisci. Vtrobique par exitus, illic Deus placatus dicitur, ne faceret malum; hic deposito fulmine Dei manum exarmatam fuisse pingitur. Deest utrobique Admonitio, quam tu de tuo tabellae addendam finxisti: quamque pari jure historiae addere potuisses. Haec ad imagines illas à tuis calumniis vindicandas abundè sufficiunt. Amplius adhuc aliquid ex sacris Litteris didicimus, non solùm Deum, cum irasceretur, piorum precibus placatum fuisse ne malum infligeret; sed etiam dum actu saevit & paenas sumebat, eorumdem interventu quievisse. Numer. XVI. 46. & 47. Egressa est ira Domini, & plaga desaevit. Cum Aaron cucurrisset ad mediam multitudinem, quam jam vastabat incendium, obtulit Thymiama, & stans inter mortuos, & viventes, pro populo deprecatus est, & plaga cessavit. Haec S. Scriptura: cui nihil par habet Imago Brugensis, aut Antuerpiana, quae tanto tibi scandalo fuerunt, homini nimirum scrupuloso, & de Dei honore solicito!  
Dixi Misericordiae esse, quod Deus hominum piorum pro impiis intercessionem admittere dignatur. Vnde consummatae, & (sit venia verbo) implacabilis irae indicium fuit, quod dixerit Hieremiae VII. 16. Ne assumas pro eis orationem, & laudem, & non resistas mihi, quia non exaudiam te: Quibus verbis satis indicat, aliàs fuisse & exauditum, & exaudiendum. Vide Hieremiae XV. 1. & Ezech. XIV, 20.  
D. Morlaeus p. 66, Dolendum est, quod his impiis fraudibus cor Christianorum à Deo, & Christo, alienatur, & omnis ferè Devotio à Deo ad Sanctos, à Christo ad Mariam transfertur. Adeo ut quemadmodum Athanasius olim dixit, mirari orbem Christianum se factum Arrianum, sic orbis Romanus mirari possit, se factum Marianum. Sunt enim hi, qui se dicunt Catholicos, revera Mariani, potias quam Christiani.  
Respondeo: utrum Athanasii sint illa verba, ut tu pro tuà in rebus Theologicis peritiâ dicis, an Hieronymi, quod res est (hic enim dialogo contra Luciferianos ait: Ingemuit totus orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est.) Non magni momenti quaestionem arbitror. Minùs Mariani nomen horreo, quam aut Calvinistae, aut Zuingliani, aut etiam Ariani, sive Manichaei. Mariae cum Christo, matri cum filio, Dei Genitrici cum Deo incarnato optimè convenit: Vnde Mariae, veluti personae super omnes puras creaturas summè dilectae, adhaerendo, nunquam à Christo discedemus, cui illa inseparabiliter adhaerer. Vide an pari certitudine, id de Vigilantio, Aërio, Calvinove dicere possis. Frustra proinde Patrinjum agis, & nobis invitis, & reclamantibus, nihilque simile meritis nomen imponis, ab omnibus eruditis exsibilandum. Nomina sectae cujuspiam novae iis tantum imponuntur, qui à toto se corpore reliquo segregant, schisma conflant, altare contra altare erigunt, haeretica dogmata aut cudunt ipsi nova, aut ab aliis cusa cum pertinaciâ tuentur. Haec, aut his similia, ubi nos facere videris, Ducis, quem sequemur nomen nobis imponito; quemadmodum nos jure merito Galvini nomen vobis imponimus, qui ipso Duce haec omnia fecistis, nisi quod Altare contra altare non erexistis; sed quantum in vobis fuit omnia evertistis altaria: in quo ipsum Circumcellionum immanissimorum furores superastis. Nos hactenus Deo laus nihil ejusmodi vel ment designavimus: Christi corpori mystico indivulsìm adhaeremus, dogmata non cudimus nova, Totum non scidimus, Partem non conflavimus, nec ullum altare contra veterem, & semper probatum in Ecclesiâ morem ereximus: Fidei Depositum inviolatum custodimus, & immutatum posteris tradimus, quòd à Patribus veluti manu traditum accepimus, quod hi ab Apostolis, Apostolià Christo, Christus à Deo. Vnde & Christiani nobis nomen optimè convenit, qui Christo indivisim adhaeremus: & Catholici, quòd unam sanctam Catholicam, & Apostolicam fidem tueamur, quàm Christi promissione, arque Petraesoliditate corroborati, tucbimur in saecula.    

APPENDIX DE IDOLOLATRIA.  

PRAEFATIO.  
DUo erant, Origene supra laudato teste, capita praecipuè controversa, Christianos inter & Paganos: de Polytheismo unum, aliud de Idolis. De priori jam diximus, quantum sufficere visum est, ad avertendum ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ cum Ethnicis in re tanti momenti concordiae crimen, & eluendam maculam illi inhaesuram, ex illâ concordiâ, si daretur. Ostendimus enim nostrum Sanctorum cultum, cum Gentilium Polytheismo nihil habere commune. Superest altera pars de Idolis, corumque eultu: de quâ Doctissimus D. Morlaeus nullam nobis litem movet; eam tamen omittere nolui tum quia dicunt aliqui ejus symmystae Idolorum cultum non alium fuisse, quam quem Catholici suis Imaginibus exhibent, tum quia plena de Paganorum Religione notitia, sine Idolorum cognitione haberi non potest. Ex hac verò patebit Imagines nostras immeritò vocari ab antiquis & modernis Iconoclastis Idola: earumque cultum nonnisi maligne velut Idololatricum infamari.  
De Idolis frequens in Sacris litteris mentio; non ita frequens de Hominibus in Deorum album translatis: Vnde constat illa primum in Ethnicorum Theologiâ locum habuisse. Quod confirmatur ex nomine falsorum Deorum cultoribus imposito; Paganorum enim nomen recentiùs est, Ethnicis nimirum impositum, vel quòd urbibus exclusi, in Pagis sacra sua facere coacti fuissent, vel quòd vacatio illis fuisset data à militiâ, & muneribus publicis Ethnicorum, sive Gentilium nomen illis inditum est, ad distinctionem eorum ab Abrahae posteris, & illâ Gente, quam Deus inter alias omnes selegit, cui sua judicia, suam voluntatem revelare dignatus est, cui notus fuisse Deus dicitur a Prophetâ. At verò Idololatria nomen est Religionis, quam professi sunt Ethnici, à cultu supremo Idolorum, qui Latria dicitur, impositum. Hinc Augustinus ●. XX. contra Faustum C. XX. Ad hunc cultum pertinet oblatio sacrificii. Vnde Idololatria dicitur eorum qui hoc (Saerificium) etiam Idolis offerunt. Enimverò si vel Polytheismus, vel hominum mortuorum cultus primarium fuisset Catechismi Paganici caput, Ethnici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potius quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dici debuissent, & ipsa Religio non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuisset appellata.   

SECTIO XXIII. Qui primi Idololatrae?  
CAlvinus l. I. Instit. C. XI. S. VIII, asseverat omnibus ferè à mundo condito saeculis Idololatriam extitisse. Vnde sequitur eam fere fuisse mundo coaevam. Caeterùm nec ullâ ratione confirmat hanc suam assertionem, nec ullum Auctorem laudat, unde ea desumatur. Hinc nihil mirum si fidem ei denegemus.  
Rabbi Maimonides ait incepisse ab Enos, Sethi filio, Adami nepote: cujus tempore ait homines errasse, & inter errantes fuisse Enos. Quod probare conatur ex Gen. C. IU. 26. Caeterùm Enos ab eo crimine immunem arbitror: quia loco laudato vulgata dicit: Iste capit invacare nomen Domini. Et reliquae versiones omnes in Enosi laudem, potiùs quàm vituperium illa verba sumunt. Solum Targum Onkelos peccatum aliquod insinuat: quod tamen potius in Enosi posteris, quam in ipso resedisse indicat. Vnde R. Maimonidi nullo modo subscribo: cujus fententia dura, & injusta est, & vix à calumniâ differt, cum ex verbis aut evidenter bonis, aut, quod proximum est, indifferentibus, tantum crimen elicere voluerit. Quae verba septuaginta Interpretes sic reddunt: Speravit invotare nomen Domini Dei nostri. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quae verba si ad personam ejus referas, sensum reddunt a Bellarmino traditum, Enos nempe caeteris religiosiùs coluisse Deum, & quasi Religiosam vitam observasse. Si verò referas ad homines eo tempore viventes, significant eos vel statis diebus solitos fetiari, ut uni Deo vacarent: aut etiam certis cujustibet diei horis, circa Auroram, meridiem, aut vespertina crepuscula, aut etiam quando praecipua opera aggrediebantur, v.c. cibum sumebant, dormitum ibant, è strato surgebant, etc. Perpetuus enim omnium hominum bonorum mos est, semperque fuit, illiusmodi opera à Dei invocatione auspicari. Aliqui ergo per verba illa intelligunt publicas hominum Enosi tempore viventium preces: Bellarminus privatam illius pietatem. Utrique probabilitèr; Nicolaus Liranus, Bellarmino suffragatur, cùm ait: Enos instructum à Patre suo justo, tantum profecisse in cultu divino, ut adinvenerit verba quaedam devota, ad deprecandum Deum. Haec ille: quae tamen cautè legenda, & cum grano salis explicanda sunt: quatenus vim quamdam aliquibus verbis inesse innuit ad placandum Deum. Quod Magicum quid sonat.  
Nobiscum Patres sentiunt, quia docent ante diluvium nusquam fuisse Idololatras. Tertul. l. de Idololatriâ, ait Enoch (quem Judas in suâ Canonicâ septimum ab Adamo vocat, & diu post Enos vixit) praedixisse, & praedamnasse Idololatriam longè post extituram. Quare sentit necdum notam fuisse Enochi tempore. Idem sentit Cyrillus l. I. cont. Julianum: Idque colligit, ex eo quod Idololatriam ante Diluvium nullus idoneus Auctor asserit extitisse. Nec etiam ante Turris famosae aedisicationem, eamdem ob causam. At verò pauloò post ea semina jacta sunt, quae copiosam malorum messem protulerunt. Initium mali à Saruch, qui fuit Abrahae Proavus, si fides Suidae, qui tradit eum, Polytheismum, & Idololatriam in mundum invexisse: cui subscribere malim, quam Constantino Manassi hoc non ipsi Sanuch; sed ejus posteris attribuenti. Enimverò Judith v. 8. refert Achior, Abrahamum deseruisse ceremonias Patrum suorum, quae in multitudine Deorum erant, & unum Deum colere caepisse. Plures ergo majores Abrahae, & non eorum aliquis unus fuerunt Idololatrae, tres scilicet aut ad minimum duo. Cum ergo Saruch inter, & Abraham, duo tantum intercesserint, Nachor, & Thare, hic Abrahae Pater, alter Sarugi filius (ut colligitur ex Luc. III. 34.35.) sequitur Sarug illâ voce plurali fuisse comprehensum. Confirmatur, quia Aug. l. XVI. de Civ. Dei C. XII. docet Thare fuisse pium, & unius Dei veri cultorem. De quo vide Salianum ad annum Mundi bis millesimum.  
Cum verò duplicem errorem erratint Idololatrae, Idola colendo, & etiam multos Deos, quaeri potest, uter error fuerit antiquior? Respondeo: antiquior videtur Polytheismus: atque primùm omnium stellas & admirationi fuisse propter pulchritudinem, & venerationi, propter utilitatem. Hinc Sap. XIII. primò refertur, & refutatur Astrorum Adoratio: deinde Idolorum. Idem sentit R. Maimonides, & Diodorus Siculus l. I. Bibliothecae. Germanos non alios Deos agnovisse, quam Solem, Lunam, & Vulcanum, testis est Caesar.  
Lucianus lib. de Deâ Syriâ ait Aegyptios omnium Gentium primos fortassè Deorum habuisse notitiam, iis templa statuisse, lucos consecrasse, & solemnes indixisse conventus. Quae si vera sint, falsi fuerunt; qui vel Sarug, vel Ninum primum Idololatram, Belum verò primam personam Deificatam asseruerunt. Caeterùm tota difficultas solvitur, dicendo, Graecum fuisse Lucianum: ac proindè totam suam doctrinam ab Aegyptiis accepisse: à quibus, teste Diodoro Siculo, suos Graeci Deos acceperunt. Vnde nihil mirum ipsos de antiquioribus Diis non cogitasse, quorum nulla in Aegyptiorum Menologio mentio. Sed de his satis.   

SECTIO XXIV. Quae fuerint occasiones Idola faciendi?  
TRes fuisse Idola faciendi occasiones, antiquorum testimonia probant, quae sunt. 1. Luctus ob aliquem Charum ereptum. 2. Honor absenti deferendus. 3. Gratus in benè meritum animus. Singula probemus.  
Prima causa traditur Sap. XIV. 15. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò sibi rapti silii (vel Patris, addit Salianus) fecit imaginem & illum, qui tunc quasi homo mortuus fuerat, nunc tanquam Deum colere caepit: & constituit inter servos suos sacra, & sacrificia. Infra S. XXIX. dicemus quomodo hoc maesti Patris qualequale solatium innocens, in omnium criminum maximum degenerarit.  
Dicit quidem Patrem superstitem erepti sibi filii imaginem fecisse: non negat autem filios Patribus suis similem honorem procurasse. Sic Belum coli cura vit Ninus ejus silius, & ditionum haeres. Idem de Sarug dicendum, eum Patri suo statuam erexisse, si vera sit Rabbinorum sententia, dicentium, Aran omnium primum ante Patrem suum obiisse: quod colligunt ex illis sacrae Scripturae verbis Gen. XI. 28. Mortuusque est Aran ante Thare Patrem suum: Quod frustra fuisset annotatum, si quod modo passim sit, etiam tunc fieret, ut Patres frequenter filiorum funera ducerent. (Quod intelligi debet, de filiis ante Patres suos morte naturali defunctis: nam si sermo sit de iis etiam qui violentâ morte sublari sunt anre Patres suos, constat Aran non fuisse primum; sed Abel (qui ab homicidâ Cain occisus est) unde sequitur Sarug Patri suo Idolum statuisse, quia nullum filium amisit ipse: nam Aran Abrahae frater post mortem Sarug vivere desiisse videtur: quia dicit Scriptura ipsum ante Thare Patrem suum mortuum esse; non verò ante Proavum Sarug. Idem fecit Ninus Patri suo Bel, & sine dubio varii alii fecerunt. Videatur Epiphanius Epist. ad Acatium, & Paulum, qui disertè dicit filios Parentibus suis Idola statuisse.  
Cur ergo Patris in filium impiam illam pietatem nominat hic sapiens, potiusquam Filii in Patrem? Respondeo, quia amor descendit, & teneriot est Patris in filium & Magistri in Discipulum affectus, quàm ècontra. Vnde Patres filiorum suorum mortem veris lacrymis ferè semper lugent; non item filii Patrum: cum exempla non desint eorum, qui ante diem Patrios inquisierint in annos, ut eorum adirent haereditatem.  
Sic ergo Parentes filiis, filii Parentibus primùm sepulchra curarunt, eorum statuis ornata: his deinde superaedificarunt Templa: denique sacra & sacrificia constituerunt. Quae fuit prima & maximè communis Idolorum constituendorum causa, adeò ut à Patribus subinde sola nominetur, quasi unica esset. Minutius Felix: Sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant assumpta solatia. Et Hieronymus l. 1. Comment. in c. 41. Oseae: Omnia Idola ex mortuorum errore creverunt.  
Altera causa fuit Reverentia Regibus debita, & obedientiae futurae stipulatio, quam posteriora saecula barbarâ voce, Homagium appellant. Sap. XIV. 16. Interveniente tempore, convalescente iniquâ consuetudine, hic error tanquam Lex custoditus est, & Tyrannorum imperio colebantur figmenta. Et hos, quos in palam homines honorare non poterant, propter hoc, quod longè essent, è longinquo figura eorum allata, evidenter Imaginem Regis, quem honorare volebant, fecerunt; ut illum, qui aberat, tanquam praesentem colerent suâ solicitudine. Horum Regum statuis initio solus civilis cultus exhibitus est; qui postmodum in sacrum transiit: & licet ex primâ intentione ad supplendum tantummodo praesentiam institutus fuerit, tamen etiam praesentibus erectae subinde statuae. Quod Nabuchodonosori factum. Visum etiam id Regibus magis honorificum, dum non ipsi solum; verum etiam Imagines, statuae, sigilla, vestes, denique quid-quid ad eos spectaret peculiari modo, honoraretur. Hinc Imperatorum Romanorum erecta signa, statuae insuper, venerationi militum expositae, quoties eis dona distribuebantur.  
Civilem illum Imaginum cultum ab alio sacro & separabilem esse, & defacto separatum, liquet, quia Christiani Milites, Apostarae Juliani statuas honorare non detrectarunt: & hac eorum voluntate simplici abusus est astutus Apostata, dum cum suis, Deorum Imagines conjunxit, atque in eâdem tabellâ pingi curavit, ut dum suas colerent, Deos falsos unà coluisse viderentur. Prudentiores fraude observatâ cingulum solvere maluerunt, quam civilem cultum Imperatori persolvere, cum Idololatrico conjunctum. Alii simpliciores nihil mali suspicati, & Imperatoris imagines venerati sunt, & eis, ut mos erat, thus adoleverunt. De quo vide Theodoretum l. III. hist. C. XVI. Sozomenum & Nazianzenum Invect. I. in Julianum, pag LXXXV. & sequentibus, ubi refert, quam nobili Fidei suae confessione, cum perfidiae Impiissimi Apostatae detestatione maculam sibi inustam eluerint, Christiani milites.  
Ubi nota, quod quando solus cultus civilis exhibebatur, eum unà cum Rege, cui debebatur, interiisse: sic conjux a lege Viri teste Apostolo, subditi ab obedientiâ Regi suo debitâ, cujusque morte liberantur. Secus, ubi in sacrum, atque Religiosum transivit, quia ipsorum Sacerdotes, aliique Ministri adeò non extingui permittebant, ut etiam augere conarentur, quasi aucta foret ipsâ ex hoc mundotranslatione Numinis Potestas, cum humanis exemptum, caelo sideribusque donatum esset, & major esset è longinquo Majestas. Hinc factum credo, ut praeter communes cunctis Idololatris Graecorum Deos, Jovem, dico, Neptunum, Plutonem, variae gentes suos nactae sint. Sic in Oriente Bel, in Syriâ Adad, & Azael, ut ait Josephus l. IX. Antiq. Jud. C. II. In Aegypto Osiris, Isis, Serapis, Apis. Saturnus, Janus, Romulus, sive Quirinus, & Flora, Romae, Trojae, Hector, Delphis Apollo, in Chio Aristaeus, in Samo Lisander, in Siciliâ Niobe Narriae Viridianus, Ascoli Ancaria, Volsinii Nertia, Sutrini Nutria, alii alibi. Enimverò tametsi de singulis dicere non possimus, quo modo eorum cultus aut primùm introductus, aut postea propagatus ad posteros fuerit, is tamen quem diximus maximè verosimilis visus est.  
Tertia causa statuas erigendi fuit gratus in benè de se, deque humano genere, sive de Patriâ meritos animus. Videtur quasi omnibus à naturâ insita quaedam inclinatio erectâ in honorem Benefactoris, & Beneficii memoriam statuâ, Beneficium acceptum aut compensare, aut saltem agnoscere. Luculentiora optari non possunt testimonia, quam ex foris Romanis, & Atheniensibus, in quibus tot erectae, tum pedestres, tum equestres statuae. Similem ob causam Syrophaenissa Christo Domino statuam aeneam posuit, ut ait Sozomenus lib. v. hist. C. XX. Metaphrastes, & Nicephorus: quam Julianus confringi curavit, & suam ipsius in alterius locum substitui. Verum Juliani statua de caelo tacta circa pectus dissecta, & disjecta, fuit.   

SECTIO XXV. Pagani Idola sua Deos esse crediderunt, quia eos Deos vocârunt.  
PRima ratio, quâ veritatem hanc probamus, in quâ totius controversiae cardo veritur, est, quia vocantur disertè Dii. Quod ex sacris Litteris, Paganorum confessione, sanctisque Patribus, qui cum Paganis vixerunt, & Fidei Christianae veritatem, eversâ Paganorum impiâ superstitione, & linguâ, & calamo propugnarunt, & confirmarunt & stabilierunt. Nulli videntur assignabilia certiora veritatis in re antiquâ. & pridem antiquatâ inveniendâ principia: ad quae recurremus in sequentibus, & ex iis, quae dicturi sumus hauriemus.  
Ex sacris quidem litteris constat Idola Deos vocata esse. I. cum Jacob è Soceri sui Laban domo aufugeret, ut ad patrem rediret Rachel ipso inscio Patris sui Idola clam abstulit. Quod facinus Laban Jacobo exprobrans, Geu. XXXI. 30. ait: Quare furatus es Deos meos? Et ver. 32. respondet Jacob: Apud quemcumque inveneris Deos tuos, necetur coram fratribus nostris. Haec dicens, ignorabat quod Rachel furata esset Idola. Haec ibi: ubi & Idololatra Laban Socer Idola sua Deos appellat: & Fidelis Jacob Gener Deorum audito nomine Idola intellexit.  
2 Gen. XXXV. 2. Abiicite Deos alienos, qui in medio vestrisunt. Et versu 4. Dederunt ergo ei omnes Deos alienos, quos habebant. At ille, Jacob, infodit ea subter terebinthum, quae est post urbem Sichem. Quidnam Jacobi familiares atque Domestici potuerunt illi dare, aut hic infodere subter terebinthum, praeter Idola? Dicitur ramen & illos ei dedisse Dus, & hunc Deos infodisse. Idola proinde & vocabantur, & censebantur Dii.  
3. Exodi XXXII. 4. Israelitae dixerunt: Hi sunt Dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti; cum de Vitulo recens ab Aarone conflato loquerentur: cui, Vitulo, Aaron idem altare sacravit, solemni cultu sacrificium obtulit, & festum diem ei colendo indixit.  
4. Judicum XVII. 5. Michas aediculam in domo suâ, Deo separavit, & fecit Ephod. & Theraphim, & Idola. Deo separasse, id est, consecrasse dicitur aediculam, qui Idolo, à se facto sacellum aliquod ad ejus venerationem destinavit. Deinde ejusdem libri C. XVIII. 24. cum Michae à Danitis ablatum fuisset Idolum, jacturam illam Idoli, his verbis deplorat: Deos meos, quos feci mihi, tulistis.  
5. Sap. XIV. 21. Aut affectui, aut Regibus deservientes homines, incommunicabile nomen lapidibus, & lignis imposuerunt. Scilicet, quia Dei nomen statuis lapideis, ligneisque imposuerant homines; quod nomen incommunicabile dicitur, ob singularitatem naturae Divinae per illud significatae. Et cap. XV. 15. ejusdem operis dicitur: Omnia Idola Nationum Deos aestimaverunt.  
6. Dan. XIV. 5. v. 6. Rex Babylonis Danieli, Deum ipsius mortuum esse exprobranti, ait: Non videtur tibi Bel esse vivens Deus. Annon vides quanta comedat, & bibat quotidie? Et ait Daniel arridens: Ne erres, Rex, iste enim (nempe Bel) intrinsecùs luteus est, & forinsecùs aeneus: neque comedit aliquando. Ex quibus verbis patet de ipsâ statuâ sermonem fuisse, cui singulis diebus cibi apponebantur, quos Rex ab ipsâ statuâ consumi solere, indeque eam vivere deducebat. Cujus errorem redarguit Daniel: qui refertur etiam in consequentibus Sacerdotum Idololatrarum fraudem detexisse, qui cibos illos consumebant, Idolo oblatos.  
Secundum Testium agmen ex Paganis idem attestantibus constat. Lucianus in Dialogo, cui titulus jupiter Tragaedus, cum retulisset Mercurium Jovis nomine Deos omnes in Concilium convocasse, haec velut à Jove dicta refert: jam plenis viis conveniunt, nempe Dii Quapropter, O Mercuri, assumens illos in sedes colloca, pro suâ quemque dignitate. Priores quidem sedes occupent Aurei post hos locentur Argentei: Deinceps verò subsequantur quot quot sunt Elephantini: his postremò succedant Aenei, atque Lapidei. Verum in his etiam ipsis Phidiae, aut Alcamenis, aut Mironis, aut Euphranoris, aut talium Artificum gratia praehonoretur. Caeterum vulgares illi nullâ arte nobiles, longè alicubi conclusi in angulum locentur cum silentio; complentes tantùm concionem. Dubitat exinde Merourius, quâ ratione de Deotum meritis judicare possit, cum inter Aureos aliqui essent valdè ponderosi, leviores alii. Aliud etiam incommodum ex eâ Sedium distributione consecuturum ait, quod Dii Barbari praesiderent, Graecis postpositis, cum hi ut plurimùm tantum essent Lapidei, aliorum verò multi Aurei: cum tamen Graecis Diis ob Artis excellentiam praestantior locus deberetur. Alia difficultas subinde nata, de Colosso Rhodio, qui licet Aeneus tantum esset, ob magnitudinem tamen, & Aeris copiam, majoris esset precii, quam ipsi Dii Aurei: Cum tamen iste prae magnitudine in Scamnis aliis praeparatis sedere non posset, jussus est in medio consistere. Haec & id genus alia non pauca, explieari quî possunt, nisi Idola Dii censerentur?  
Deinde Jamblichus apud Photium in Bibliothecâ Cod. CCXV. docet Idola divina esse, sive caelo delapsa sint, sive hominum manu arteque fabricentur: omniaque naturam excedere. Quem eam ob causam Philoponus impugnavit: ut ibidem traditur.  
Plato ab Eusebio l. XIII. de Praepar. Euangel. C. VIII. dicitur simulachris, quae manibus hominum fiunt, & ad corum similitudinem formata sunt, Dei appellationem turpiter attribuisse. His plura addemus è Paganorum operibus desumpta testimonia, obiter inferiùs.  
Huic etiam Veritati Patres attestantur. 1. sit Justinus M. Epist. ad Diognetum. Vide non solum oculis; sed etiam Prudentiâ, inquit, cujus sunt subsistentin, aut eujus forma two, quos vocatis, & existimatis Deos. Nonne eorum alius est Lapis, ei, qui calcatur, similis? alius autem est aes, nihilo melius, quam quae in usum nostrum fabricata sunt vasa? alius lignum, & quidem etiam putridum? alius argentum, cui opus est homine custodituro, ne furto auferatur? alius ferrum rubigine corruptum: alius testa, nihilo speciosior eâ, quae ad abjectissimum ministerium facta est? Nonne ex materiâ corruptioni obnoxiâ sunt haec omnia? nonne ferri, & ignis ope fabricata? nonne eorum aliud sculptor Lapidum, aliud Faber aerarius, aliud faber argentarius, aliud figulus finxit? Minimeque in talem formam unumquodque mutatum erat, priusquam arte alicujus horum haec impressa ei fuisset? Nonne quae nunc eâdem è materia sunt vasa, similia his reddi possunt, si eosdem artifices naneiscantur? Nonne haec quae à vobis adorantur, ab hominibus vasa reliquis similia fieri rursum possint? Nonne surda sunt omnia? Nonne caeca? Nonne inanima? Nonne sensus omnis expertia? Nonne immobilia? Nonne omnia putrescunt? Nonne omnia corrumpuntur? HAEC DEOS VOCATIS, his servitis, haec adoratis, & omnino similes istis reddimini. Idcirco sunt vobis odio Christiani, quoniam hos esse Deos non arbierantur. Haec Justinus M.  
Consonat Tertullianus Apolog. C. XII. De simulachris ipsis, in quit, nihil aliud deprehendo, quam materias sorores esse vasculorum communium, vel ex ipsis vasculis: quasi fatum consecratione mutantes, licentiâ artis transfigurante, in ipso opere sacrilegè:  revera nobis maximè, qui propter Deos ipsos plectimur, solatium paenarum esse possit, quod eadem & ipsi patiantur, ut fiant. Crucibus, & stipitibus imponitis Christianos: quod simulachrum non prius argilla deformat Cruci, & stipiti superstructa? In patibulo primum corpus Dei vestri dedolatur. Vngulis deraditis latera Christianorum: at in Deos vestros validiùs incumbunt asciae, & runcinae, & scobinae. Cervices ponimus ante plumbum, & glutinum, & gomphos: Sine capite sunt Dii vestri. Ad bestias impellimur, certè quas Libero, & Cibele, & Cereri applicatis. Ignibus urimur, hoc & illi à primâ quidem massâ. In metalla damnamur: inde censentur Dii vestri. In Insulis relegaemur: Solet & in Insulis aliquis Deus vester aut nasci, aut mori. Si per haec constat Divinitas aliqua, ergo qui puniuntur, consecrantur, & numina erunt dicenda supplicia. Sed planè non sentiunt has injurias, & contumelias suae fabricationis Dii vestri sicut nec obsequia, etc.  
Item ejusdem operis C. XXV. Nifallor, inquit, omne regnum, vel imperium bellis quaeritur, & Victoriis propagatur. Porrò bella, & Victoriae, captis & eversis plurimùm urbibus constant: id negotium sine Deorum injuriâ non est: Caedes, & strages maenium, & templorum, pares caedes Civium. & Sacerdotum, nec dissimiles rapinae sacrarum divitiarum, & prophanarum. Tot igitur Sacrilegia Romanorum, quot Trophaea: tot de Diis, quot de gentibus triumphi: tot manubiae, quot manent adhuc simulachra captivorum Deorum. Et ab hostibus ergo suis sustinent adorari, & illis imperium sine fine decernunt, quorum magis injurias, quam Adulationes, remunerasse debuerunt. Sed qui nihil sentiunt, tam impunè laeduntur, quam frustra coluntur.  
Deinde ibidem cap. XL. Si quid adversi accidit, Vrbibus, caedem clades Templorum, quae & murorum fuerunt: ut jam hoc revincam, non à Diis evemre, quia & ipsis euênit.  
Denique lib. de Resur. Carnis C. VI Phydiaemanus jovem Olympium ex Ebore molitur, & Adoratur: nec jam bestiae, & quidem insulsissimae dens est; sed summum saeculi numen: non quia Elephas; sed quia Phidias tantus.  honestiùs homo Deum; quam Deus hominem finxerit.  
Cyprianus l. de exhortat. Martyrii c. I. ex professo probat: Quod Idola Dii non sint.  
Hier. l. altero Comment. in Mat. XV. Idololatras ait: Ignorasse Deum, & adorasse Lapidem.  
Legantur quae habet B. Ambrose l. II. de Virginibus, non procul à sine: veritatem hîc traditam evidenter confirmant.  
Augustinus l. I. de consensu Euang. C. XXVII. Quaerunt Pagani, ubi Deos suos intrudant, ne à Christianis inveniantur, & confringantur.  
Quod B. Augustinus paucis verbis complexus est, pluribus exponit Theodoretus lib. X. de Curandis Graecorum affect. pag. DCXXXIV. Si fateri ipsi non vultis, inquit, at omnibus conflat, qui Deos terrâ obrutos saepenumero suis oculis viderunt, indeque ab iis, qui Pietatem didicerant, erutos, & in lucem prolatos. Alii enim daemonum cultui mancipati defoderunt, Diis opem ferre se arbitrantes: alii talia quaerentibus, ubi laterent indioarunt. Hi verò inventos, erutosque publicè spectandos proposuerunt, ut mulierculis, adolescentulisque ludibrio essent, qui Dii vocabantur. Erant enim partim reptilium, partim quadrupedum simulachra, etiam vespertilionum, & inurium imagines adorabant. Cumque animalia ipsa; serpentes, inquam, & scorpiones, & mures vespertillionesque interficerent, eorum tamen simulachra ut Deos colebant. Haec Theodoretus.  
Arnobius lib. VI contra Gentes. Simulachra ista, quae vos terrent, inquit, quaeque Templis in omnibus prostrati, atque humiles adoratis, ossa, lapides, aera sunt; argentum, aurum, testa, lignum sumptum ex arbore, aut commixium glutinum gypso: ex ornatibus fortassè meretriciis, aut ex muliebri mundo. Iste non error est, non, ut propriè dicatur, amentia, Deum credere, quem tute ipse formaris: supplicare trembundum fabricatae abs te rei: & cum scias, & certus sis, tui operis & digitorum artem, pronum in faciem ruere, opem rogare supplicitèr, adversisque in rebus, atque in temporibus asperis, propitii numinis favorem succurrere, etc. Haec Arnobius.  
Eusebius lib. IX. hist. Eccles. C. VI orationem refert Luciani Presbyteri, Fidei suae & Conversionis â Paganismo rationem reddentis, in quâ haec habet: Fateor, erravimus etiam nos aliquando; & simulachra, quae ipsi finximus, Deos Coeli, & Terrae putabamus Auctores. Sed arguebat eos fragilis substantiae suae à nobis praestita Consecratio etc.  
Denique Ruffinus lib. II. Hist. (qui ab aliquibus liber XI. Eusebii dicitur) pugnam refert inter Ignem Chaldaeorum Deum, & aliarum Gentium Deos, ex metallo, lignove factos: illumque alios omnes vicisse, ligneos comburendo, metallinos verò liquefaciendo atque conflando. Eum tamen victum à Canopo Aegyptiorum Deo, cujus Caput Vase ex Argillâ magno aquâ pleno, foraminibus cerâ clausis imposuerunt ejus Sacerdotes. Cum enim liquefactâ cerâ, aqua difflueret, ignem à Chaldaeis adoratum extinxit. Unde colligitur Chaldaeos quidem Ignem adorasse, reliquas verò in circuitu Gentes coluisse simulachra.  
Hinc patet meritò dictum Sap. XV. 17. Meliorem esse hominem opificem iis, quos colit: cum ille vixerit aliquando; isti verò nunquam.   

SECTIO XXVI. Pagani Deos coluerunt ab hominibus factos.  
HAec secunda est ratio, quâ primariam propositionem probamus: Nec enim verum esse potuit, Paganos opera manuum suarum coluisse, scilicet supremo cultu, soli Deo debito; nisi Idola Deos existimassent. Coluisse porrò Deos hominum manu factos, frequentissimè fuit illis exprobratum, tum in sacris Litteris, tum à sanctis Patribus: nec minus frequenter ab ipsismet Paganis agnitum. Nam.  
1. Exodi XXXII. 1. Israëlitae dixerunt Aaroni. Fac nobis Deos, qui nos praecedant. Cumque factus illâ occasione fuisset vitulus, dixerunt iidem. Hi sunt Dii tui Israël, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti.  
2. Lib. III. Reg. XIV. 9 Operatus est mala super omnes qui fuerunt ante te, & fecisti tibi Deos alienos, & conflatiles, ut me ad iracundiam provocares: me autem projecisti post corpus tuum.  
3. Lib. IU. Reg. XVII. 29. Vnaquaeque Gens fabricata est Deum suum; posueruntaue eos in fanis excelsis, quae fecerant Samaritae, Gens & Gens in urbibus suis, in quibus habitabat,  
4. Isaias 11.8. Repleta est terra ejus Idolis, opus manuum suarum adoraverunt, quod fecerunt digiti eorum. Et incurvavit se homo, etc. Et C. XXXVII. 19 cum gloriati fuissent Regis Assyriorum Legati, illum variarum Gentium Deos destruxisse, quatenus Idola comminuerat, id agnoscit Ezechias verum esse. Dederunt, inquit, nimirum Assyrii, Deos eorum igni: non enim erant Dii; sed opera manuum hominum, lignum, & lapis, & comminuerunt eos.  
5. Sapientiae XIII. 10. Infaelices sunt, & inter mortuos spes illorum est, qui appellaverunt Deos opera manuum hominum, aurum, & argentum, artis inventionem, & similitudines animalium, aut lapidem inutilem, opus manus antiquae.  
6. Oscae XIV. 4. Israëlitae ad Dominum conversi, de praeteritis peccatis dolentes, suum benè vivendi propositum his verbis exprimunt: non dicemus ultrà: Dii nostri. opera manuum nostrarum.  
7. Apocal. IX. 20. Caeteri homines, qui non sunt occisi in his plagis, neque paenitentiam egerunt de operibus manuum suarum, ut non adorarent daemonia, & simulachra aurea, & argentea, & aerea, & lapidea, & lignea. etc.  
8. Prohibentur Dii manu facti. Exod, XX. 23. Non facietis Deos argenteos, nec Deos aureos facietis vobis.  
9 Paena indicitur non servantibus Dei mandata, quod essent Diis manusactis servituri. Deut. IU. 28. Servietis Diis, qui hominum manu fabricati sunt, ligno, & lapidi, qui non vident, nec audiunt, nec comedunt, nec odorantur.  
10. Denique cum Act. XIX. 26. Demetrius Argentarius seditionem adversus B. Apostolum excitaret, quod Religionem publicam violasset, id unum allegavit, eum ubique docere: Quod non sunt Dii, qui manibus fiunt. Credebant ergo illi Deos esse, qui manu fiunt.  
11. Audiamus iterum Isaiam c. XLIV. à v. 13. ubi errorem istum stupidissimum refert, eumque solito sibi vigore confutat. Artifex lignarius extendit normam, inquit, formavit illud in runcinâ, fecit illud in angularibus, & in circino tornavit illud, & fecit imaginem viri, quasi speciosum hominem habitantem in domo. Succidit cedros, tulit ilicem, & quercum, quaesteterat inter ligna saltus: plantavit pinum, quam pluvia nutrivit: & facta est hominibus in focum, sumpsit ex eis, & calefactus est; & succendit, & coxit panes: de reliquo autem operatus est Deum, & adoravit, & curvatus est ante illud. Medium ejus combussit igni, & de medio eius carnes comedit: coxit pulmentum & saturatus est, & ealefactus est, & dixit: Vah! calefactus sum, vidi focum. Reliquum autem ejus Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi; curvatus est ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Haec de simulachris ligneis, sive sculptilibus.  
De Metallinis vero, sive conflatilibus, addir C. XLVI. 5.6. & 7. Cui assimilastis me & adaequastis, & comparastis, me, & fecistis similem? Qui confertis aurum de sacculo, & argentum staterâ ponderatis, conducentes aurificem, ut faciat Deum: & procidunt, & adorant. Portant illud in humeris gestantes, & ponentes in loco suo: & stabit, & de loco suo non movebitur.  
12. Idem habet Hieremias, licet obscuriùs, X. 3. Lignum de saltu praecidit opus manus artificis, inquit. in asciâ, Argento, & auro decoravit illud, clavis, & malleis compegit, ut non dissolvatur. In similitudinem palmae fabricata sunt, & non loquentur, portata tollentur, quiaincedero non valent. Nolite ergo timere ea; quia nec malè possunt facere, nec benè. Et v. 15. Vana sunt, & opus risu dignum. Et cap. XVI. 20. Numquid faciet sibi homo Deos, & ipsi non sunt Dii?  
Clarius Auctor libri Sap. XIII à VII. Si quis artifex faber de syluâ lignum rectum secuerit, & hujus doctè evadat omnem corticem, & arte suâ usus, diligenter fabricet vas utile ad conversationem vitae, reliquiis autem ejus operis ad praeparationem escae abutatur: & reliquum horum, quod ad nullos usus facit, lignum eurvum, & vorticibus plenum, sculpat diligenter per vacuitatem suam, & per scientiam suae artis figuret illud, & assimilet illud imagini hominis, aut alicus ex animalibus illud comparet, perliniens rubricâ, & rubicundum faciens colorem illius, & omnem maculam, quae in illo est, perliniens. Et faciat ei dignam habitationem, & in pariete ponens illud & confirmans ferro, ne fortè cadat, prospiciens illi, sciens quia non potest adjuvare se. etc. Haec è sacrâ Scripturâ.  
Secunda probatio ducitur ex Paganorum ipsorum confessione. Horatius lib. IU. Carm. Ode VIII. ait  
— Neque tu pessima munerum  
Ferres, divite me scilicet artium,  
Quas aut Parrhasius protulit, aut Scopas,  
Hic saxo, liquidis ille coloribus,  
Solers nunc hominem ponere, nunc Deum:  
Sed non haec mthi vis.  
Q●●d. in statuariâ, aut Picturâ se non adeo excellere, ut Deos formare posset, quod fecerunt nobiles illi sculptores, atque Pictores. Clariùs adhuc l. I. Sat. Satyrâ VIII. ubi haec habet:  
Olim truncus eram ficulnus inutile lignum  
Cum faber incertus, scamnum faceretne Priapum,  
Maluit esse Deum. Deus inde ego, furum aviumque  
Maxima formido.  
2. Concinit huic Poëtarum Latinorum omnium judicio Princeps, Virgilius Bucolic. VII. eundem faedissimum Deum alloquens:  
Nunc te marmoreum pro tempore fecimus: at tu  
Si faetura gregem suppleverit, aureus esto.  
3. Lucianus in Dialogo, cui titulus, jupiter Tragaedus, non solùm idem docet; sed etiam Artifices nominat clarissimos, à quibus Dii celeberrimi facti sunt, v. c. Phidiam, Alcamenem, Euphranorem, aliosque Deum Auctores, quasi diceremus Creatorum Creatores: verba dedimus supra.  
4 Mercurius Trismegistus, ut testatur Augustinus lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei, C. XXIII. & XXIV. aliquos Deos ab hominibus factos agnoscit, eos scilicet qui in Templis colebantur. Cumque nulli essent, qui non in Templis colerentur, nulli erant praeter Idola, & ipsa daemonia velut unum quid cum Idolis adorabantur.  
Tertia probatio desumitur ex Patribus: 1. Origenes lib. I. contra Cels. pag. VI Christiani Deos manufactos, inquit, pro Numinibus non haebent, cum rationi non sit consentaneum, communia nequam artificum, & plerumque scelestorum opera inter Deos censere.  
2. Justinus M. Apol. II. p. LVIII. O stuperem è fulmine attonitum! Homines impuros, Deos, qui adorentur, fingere, & transformare, profitemini.  
Tametsi Tertullianum supra dedimus, non pigebit ejus verba iterum exscribere, ex l. de Resur. Carnis, C. VI Phidiae manus jovem Olympium ex Ebore, melitur, & adoratur: nec jam Bestiae, & quidem insulsissimae dens est; sed summum saeculi NUMEN: Non quia Elephas; sed quia Phidias tantus.  
Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei C. XXIII. fusè idipsum probat ex Hermete Trismegisto. Quod paulò superiùs ostendimus.   

SECTIO XXVII. Pagani suis Idolis supplicabant & in iis spem habebant.  
Haec tertia est ratio, quâ nostra Assertio praecipua confirmatur: cum enimverò suis Idolis supplicaverint, ab iis petierint, quae desiderabant, spem in iis repositam habuerint, ea sibi eorum virtute praestitum iri, consequens est, credidisse verè Deos esse. Haec autem assumpta vera esse, patet, nam  
Sap. XIII. 17. dicitur, de eo, qui Idolum erexerat: De substantiâ suâ, & de filiis suis, & de nuptiis votum faciens, inquirit. Non erubescit loqui cum eo, qui sine animâ est: Et pro sanitate quidam infirmum deprecatur, & pro vitâ mortuum rogat, & in adjutorium inutilem invocat: & pro itinere petit ab eo, qui ambulare non potest: & de acquirendo, & de operando, & de omnium rerum eventu petit ab eo, qui in ommbus est inutilis. Et cap. XIV. Iterum alius navigare cogitàns, & per feros fluctus iter facere incipiens, ligno portante se, fragilius lignum invocat.  
Similia sunt, quae scribit Hieremias in Epist. suâ ad Contribules suos in babylon captivos (habetur Baruch VI 40.41.) Chaldaei, inquir, cum audierint mutum non posse loqui, offerunt ilum ad Bel. postulantes ab eo loqui: quasi possint sentire, qui non habent motum: & ipsi cum intellexorint, relinquent ea. Sensum enim non habent ipsi Dii illorum.  
Scio quidem utrumque hoc opus inter Apocrypha recenseri ab iis, quorum causâ haec scribimus. Adeoque causaturos non satis ea auctoritatis habere, ad faciendam fidem divinam. Caeterùm in materiâ facti (qualis est, quam tractamus) cur iis fides humana saltem denegetur scire percupio. Scripta sunt ea opera cum totum orbem occuparet Idololatria: atque eum in finem scripta, (saltem Epistola dicta) ut Captivos Judaeos adversus dominatricem illam superstitionem armaret, & muniret. At verò incredibile est, argumenta ab Epistolae scriptore adhibita, quorum falsitas ipsis oculis deprehendi posset: id enim contrarium prorsus effectum habuisset ei, quem intendebat, & potiùs ad Idololatriam amplectendam induxisset, quàm ab eâ quemquam revocasset.  
Caeterùm non solum fide Humanâ; verum etiam Divinâ constat ista veritas, cum ex locis laudatis, quae verè sacra sunt (quidquid in contrarium dicant sive antiqui, sive moderni Haeretici) quia libri, unde desumuntur, sunt in Canonem Scripturae ab Ecclesiâ recepti: tum etiam quia idem re ipsâ dicit Isaias (de cujus auctoritate Canonicâ nemo dubitat) C. XLIV. 17. Reliquum ejus, ligni, Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi, curvatur ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Nescierunt, neque intellexerunt; obliti enim sunt, ne videant oculi eorum, & no intelligant corde suo, non recogitant in ment suâ, neque cognoseunt, neque sentiunt, ut dicant: medietatem ejus combussi igni, & coxi super carbones ejus panes: coxi carnes, & comedi, & de reliquo ejus Idola faciam? Ante truncum ligni procidam? Pars ejus cinis est, & cor insipiens adoravit illud. Quid habent illa testimonia priora, quod in istodesideretur? stat itaque illorum auctoritas etiam divina, quae convelli non potest, nisi iste liber convellatur. Unde dubitari non potest saluâ fide Paganos suis Idolis supplicasse. Quod probandum erat.  
Patres huic veritati adstipulantur. Pro aliis loquatur Origenes l. III. contra Cels. pag. CLVII. Nos certò eos omnes pro ebriis habemus, inquit, quotquot statuas sensu carentes, ut numen invocant. Idem lib. VI ejusdem operis pag. CCLXXXIV. Nos eos dicimus ineruditissimos, inquit, quos non pudet alloqui res inanimas, & sanitatem petere ab infirmis, vitam à mortuis, opem ab inopibus. Haec Origenes.  
Nec solum petebant ab Idolis opem; verùm etiam spem in illis collocabant. Hinc Regius vates Psalmo CXIII. 8. Similes illis (nempe Idolis (fiant qui faciunt ea, & omnes qui confidunt in eis. Erant ergo aliqui Idolorum cultores, qui in iis spem, fiduciamque reponebant, qui opem flagitantes, iis supplicabant, quantumvis os haberent, nec loquerentur, oculos haberent, nec viderent, aures, nec audirent, nares, nec odorarentur, etc. quod eleganti inductione exponit Psalmista. Quae omnia sequens Sectio confirmabit.   

SECTIO XXVIII. Pagani quidquid boni contingebat, suis Idolis acceptum ferebant.  
PRaecedenti affinis est ista rario, quâ probamus Paganos sua Idola veluti vera numina, veros Deos coluisse, quia cuncta bona ab illis proficisci credebant. Hoc ostendimus 1. ex sacris Litteris. Exodi XXXII. 4. Viso vitulo, quem Aaron recens suderat, Populus exclamat: Hi sunt Dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terrâ Aegypti. Quae verba de ipso vitulo, de illâ ipsâ Bovis imagine sive statuâ intelligi, quam erexerat Aaron, & ipse textus clamat, & testatur B. Cyrillus lib. VI cont. Jul. p. CCCVIII. Mira caecitas, mera stultitia fuit, fateor, ita sentire, quandoquidem priusquam Aaroni suas detulissent inaures aureas, ex quibus in ignem conjectis conflatus est iste vitulus; jam ex Aegypto fuerant educti: adeoque suam inde liberationem vitulo adscribere, idem fuit, ac effectum facere causâ suâ priorem etiam tempore: causam verò realiter causare priusquam existat.  
2. Par● fatuitate Hier. 11.27. à Judaeis Idololatris dictum, Ligno Pater meus es tu: & Lapidi: tu me gennisti. Quem errorem confutat. C. X. 5. Portata, nimirum idola; tollentur. quia incedere non valent. Nolite ergo timere eos, Deos, quia nec malè possunt facere. nec benè. Quo argumento planè demonstrative usus est etiam Isaias C. XLVI. 7. & Baruch C. VI Et Ambrosius infra creandus.  
3. Daniel C. V. 4. ait: Bibebant nempè Baltassar cum Aulicis suis, Vinum & laudabant Does suos aureos, & argenteos, aereos, ferreos, ligneosque, & lapideos, scilicer ob Victorias, quas de Judaeis, aliisque gentibus retulerant, quas Idolis suis adscribebant. Deinde versu 23. ejusdem capitis Regi stultissimam illam persuasionem expro brat Propheta: Deos argenteos, inquit, & aureos, & aereos, ferreos, ligneosque, & lapideos, qui non vident, neque audiunt, neque sentiunt laudasti: porrò Deum, qui habet flatum tuum in manu suâ, & omnes vias tuas, non gloificasti. Haec Propheta. Utinam aut nulli, aut pauci essent inter Christianos ipsos, qui suae Industriae, suae solertiae, labori suo, cuncta quae nacti sunt bona adscribant, pari errore: tametsi sciant certissimè nihil profuturum neque laborem Domum aedificantium, nisi Dominus unà aedificet, neque vigilantiam custodum, nisi Dominus civitatem custodierit. Psal. CXXVI. Id est, tametsi certò credant perinde inutilem esse operam suam, quantumlibet magnam, ac sensibus ipsis percipere poterant Ethnici inutilia esse sua Idola.  
Probatur 2. ex Paganorum confessione Virgilius Bucolicâ seven.  
Nunc te marmoreum pro tempore fecimus: at iu,  
Bi fatura gregem suppleverit, aureus esto.  
Priapum marmoreum, sive marmoream ejus statuam, alloquitur, ab eo petit gregem novo foetu augeri, proposito praemio aureae statuae illi erigendae, in grati animi testimonium, casu quo grex augeatur: quasi ipsa statua illa marmorea Gregi faetus largirtur, eosque servaret.  
Deinde obsessi ab Alexandro Tyrii rimentes ne ab Hercule, Tyriorum tutelari numine desererentur, eum, sive ejus statuam catenis vinxerunt. An id, sine fiduciâ in ipsam statuam? Quid sensêre de suo Palladio Trojani? Quid de eodem Graeci? nonne utraque gens credidit Trojam, nisi Palladii praesidio destitutam nullâ vi capi posse? Quid de Anciliis suis Romani? Longum esset per cunctas Gentes Latinas, Graecas, Barbaras, discurrere: Nulla extitit Idololatriae dedita, quae non singulari cultu Idolum aliquod prosecuta sit, velut in rebus obscuris lumen, in adverfis solatium, in asperis lenimen, in prosperis firmamentum, in omnibus Deum malorum Averruncum. Quae una observatio tantam adducit in medium Testium molem, ut iis fidem negari nullo modo posse videatur:  
Probatur 3. ex Patribus, qui cum Idololatris vixerunt: Cyprian. 1. ad Demetrianum: Pudeat te eos colere, inquit, quos ipse defendis: pudeat tutelam de iis sperare quos tu ipse tueris.  
Arnobius l. VI contra Gent. Iste non error est, non, ut propriè dicatur, amentia? Deum credere, quem tute ipse formaris, supplicare tremebundum fabricatae abs te rei: ut cum scias, & certus sis tui operis, & digitorum artem. pronum in faciem ruere. opem rogare suppliciter, adversisque in rebus, atque in temporibus asperis, propitii numinis favorem succurrere, etc.  
Ambrose l. II. de Virginibus ante sinem, Dionysii Tyranni, pallium aureum Jovi, Barbam Aesculapio, alia aliis Diis sacrilegè simul & impunè rapientis exemplo, docet nihil nec boni sperari, nec mali timeri posse rationabiliter ab Idolis, quae Gentium Dii erant.  
Augustinus toto ferè eruditissimo opere de Civitate Dei supponit Paganorum errorem, quem referimus, cumque confutat. Data fuit illi occasio opus illud componendi ex clade Romanâ à Gothis illatâ, quam Ethnici Christianis adscribebant, quòd isti Diis Romae tutelaribus spretis, eorum praesidio spoliassent urbem, quae eorum ope diu invicta steterat, & floruerat, quamque ipsi porrò à Barbarorum insultibus texissent, nisi à Christianis ibi degentibus offensi, eidem sese subduxissent. Vide illius operis lib. I. C. III. in quo eos redarguit, qui à victis Trojae Penatibus Urbem defensum iri, semperque victricem fore, stultâ persuasione credebant.  
Accedat Rabbi Maimonides, ut à Dionysio Vossio redditur p. VIII. Congregati, nimirum Idololatrae, adorabant ea, Idola, Vniversis indicantes, ab his simulachris bona, & mala omnia provenire: & proinde summo jure coli, ac metui.  
Denique Athenagoras Legatione pro Christianis p. XXV. tradit Idololatras asseruisse multa miracula ab Idolis fieri consuevisse: quos confutat, docendo nihil aut boni, aut mali fieri ob Idolis, quae verò illis tribuuntur, ab Assistente spiritu malo fieri. Quorsum ista, si Pagani non illum errorem errarunt, quem illis adscribimus, nempe Idola ipsa, bonorum malorumque causas esse?  
Ex iis, quae hactenus dicta sunt, constat, Paganos Idolis suis adscripsisse quidquid vel boni tecipiebant, vel mali patiebantur. Eos illa invocasse: adeoque credidisse veros Deos esse, vera numina. Haec illis exprobrant Patres, haec Ethnjoy ipsi agnoscunt; haec denique de illis tradunt ipsae Divinae Scripturae, Quae susiùs à me pertractata sunt, variisque auctoritatibus cum sacris, tum Prophanis confirmata, quòd tam insulsus sit error, quem errarunt, ut fidem vix essem inventurus, nisi tam evidentes tamque solidas rationes adferrem ad id probandum, quàm evidenter patet cum sano sensu, & nativo rationis lumine (quod in illis summum fuisse ultrò fatemur) pugnare dictum errorem. Tanta quippe erat ex unâ parte superstitionis insulsitas, ut nullus mentis compos eam amplecti posse videatur. Tanta vero ex aliâ parte in plerisque Ethnicis, Philosophis potissimùm, ingenii subtilitas, tanta judicii soliditas, ut à quovis errore saltem Crassiori tuti videri possent. Hinc ex quo ad Controversiam istam explicandam animum applicui, suspectae mihi saepe fuerunt rationcinationes meae, & dubitare subinde coactus fui ne fortè minus eorum mentem esse assecurus, aut nimis abjectè de illis entirem: nec plenum illis rationibus meis, assensum antea praestiti, quàm quae hinc inde dicta fuissent expendissem: quid scilicet Ethnicis Patres exprobrassent; quid verò his rospondissent illi: & potissimùm quid de his in saciâ Scripturâ Divinus Spiritus revelasset. Cumque tandem vidissem â Patribus unâ voce firmiter, & asseveranter Idolorum, & Hominum mortuorum, daemonumque cultum supremum, quem Latriam appellamus, Ethnicis objici; neutrum verò ab istis rotundo ore, simpliciter, & absolutè negari; sed aut agnosci planè, aut recurrendo ad Allegorias excusari, atque veluti incrustati, tum enimverò omnis dubitatio evanuit, maximè cum viderem quidquid à Patribus dictum fuisset, ex Divinis litteris confirmari. Superest, tam faedi, tam pudendi erroris fontem investigemus.   

SECTIO XXIX. Causae tam probrosi Erroris ex Apostolo.  
DE hoc agit Apostolus cum Rom. 1. à Versu 18. tum Ephes. IV. 17. In priori loco haec habet: Revelatur Ira Dei de caelo, super omnem impietatem, & injustitiam hominum illorum, qui veritatem Dei in injustitiâ detinent: quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est illis, Deus enim illis manifestavit. Invisibilia enim ipsius, à creaturâ mundi, per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque ejus Virtus, & Divinitas: ita ut sint inexcusabiles, quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut GRATIAS EGERUNT; sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, & OBSCURATUM EST INSIPIENS COR eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes, STULTI FACTI sunt: & mutaverunt Gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem Imaginis corruptibilis hominis, & volucrum, & quadrupedum, & serpentium. Haec Apostolus ibi. In posteriori verò loco. Gentilibus exprobrat similem in ment caecitatem: Dico, & testificor in Domino, inquit, ut jam non ambuletis, sicut & Gentes ambulant, in vanitate sensus sui, tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum, alienati à vitâ Dei, per ignorantiam, quae & in illis, propter caecitatem cordis ipsorum, etc. In utroque loco Gentilium Stultitiam, Insipientiam, Ignorantiam, cordis caecitatem, exponit. In priori verò illarum causas breviter complexus est. Quarum  
Prima est, Justum Dei judicium, eos homines, qui ejus veritati resistebant, mentis Insipientiâ, cordisque caecitate punientis. Eo nimirum modo, quo Pharaonem indurasse dicitur, talem illi non dando Gratiam, quâ emollitetur; non verò quod nullam prorsus illi dederit, multò minus, quod eum positiuè, inspiratâ mali voluntate induruerit. De quo alii. Revelatur, inquit, Ira Dei de caelo, super impietatem eorum hominum, qui veritatem Dei in Injustitiâ detinent. Id est, ejus (veritatis) progressum, hominumque ad eam conversionem, injustè impediunt.  
Secunda causa est Ingrati animi vitium. Non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut Gratias egerunt. Ingratitudo porrò est velut ventus urens, exsiccans fontem Misericordiae, & fluenta Gratiae, ait S. Bernardus.  
Tertia est ipsorum superbia, nimiùm de suorum Ingeniorum Praestantiâ praesumentium: Evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, inquit, Dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt:  
Audiamus Origenem haec eadem paraphrastic●s enarrantem: l. VI contra Celsum pag. CCLXXVII. Absolutis Disputationibus egregiis, inquit, De Animâ, ejusque post exactam rectè vitam faelicitate, missa faciunt Philosophi illa praeclara, quae Deus illis aperuit, humilia parvaque sapiunt, Gallum vovent Aesculapio (Socratem sugillat) & invisibilia Dei, atque Idaeas contemplati, ex creatione hujus mundi, rebusque sensibilibus, à quibus ascendentes ad intelligibiles, aeternam ejus potentiam, & Divinitatem non obscurè viderunt, nihilominus stulti facti sunt in suis ratiocinationibus, & cor eorum, quasi nihil intelligeret, volutatur in tenebris, atque ignorantiâ verae Religionis. Licetque videre valde sibi placentes, Sapientiae atque adeo Theologiae nomine, adorare simulachrum hominis corruptibilis, velleque videri id facere in honorem Numinis. Quin & ad Aegyptorium superstitionem se dejicere, & ad cultum volucrum, quadrupedum, atque Reptilium. Haec Origenes: ubi supra.   

SECTIO XXX. Ejusdem Criminis aliae causae ex Libro Sapientiae.  
HAbentur istae Sap. XIV. à v. 15. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò sibi rapti filii fecit imaginem, & illum, qui tunc quasi homo mortuus fuerat, nunc tamquam Deum colere caepit, & constituit inter Servos suos sacra & sacrificia. Deinde interveniente tempore convalescente iniquâ consuetudine, hinc error tanquam lex custoditus est, & Tyrannorum imperio, colebantur figmenta. Et hos, quos in palam honorare non poterant, propter hoc quod longè essent, è longinquo figura eorum allata, evidentem imaginem Regis, quem honorare volebant, fecerunt: ut illum, qui aberat, tanquam praesentem colerent, suâ solicitudine, Provexit autem ad horum culturam, & hos, qui ignorabant, Artificis eximia diligentia. Ille enim volens placere, illi, qui se assumpserat, elaboravit arte suâ, ut similitudinem in melius figuraret. Multitudo autem hominum aebductae per speciem operis, eum, qui ante tempus tanquam homo honoratus fuerat, nunc Deum aestimaverunt. Et haec fuit vitae humanae deceptio: quoniam aut Affectui, aut Regibus servientes homines, incommunicabile nomen lapidibus, & lignis imposuerunt. Haec ibi. Quae causas varias continent ab iis quas praecedenti Sectione retulimus planè diversas.  
Prima est affect us in consanguineos. Acerbo luctu dolens Pater, citò sibi rapti filii fecit imaginem, eumque tanquam Deum colere caepit, & constituit inter Servos suos sacra, & sacrificia. De quo Minutius: Sic sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant inventa solatia. Ex Saliano observavi supra, non solos Patres filiis suis; sed etiam filios Patribus statuas constituisse, eorumque cultum sacrum propagasse tametsi solùm Patrum hic fiat mentio, ob rationem alibi datam.  
Similis affectus causa fuit, quod Antinous puer Bithinicus ob singularem formae elegantiam Adriano Caesari gratissimus, ab ipso, templo Mantinaeae constructo cultus fuerit, & caelo, syderibusque insertus. Hunc ultimum fuisse ferunt, quem Ethnici tali modo consecrarunt. Galilaeus equidem Jovis satellites, stellas Medicaeas vocavit; & Recensiores Astrologi clarorum virorum nomina Lunae disco inscripserunt. Nemo tamen ita desipiet, ut credat aut hos, aut illum quidquam cum Paganâ superstitione, aut Hominum inter eos Apotheosi commune habere.  
Huic affinis est alter affectus Gratitudinis in benè de se, deuè humano genere meritos, ob inventam artem aliquam hominibus utilem aut aliquod insigne beneficium. Hinc Minerva ob repertum Lanificium, Ceres ob panis, Dionysus, sive Bacchus, ob vini usum, Vulcanus ob fabrilem autem; Romulus, quod aeternam Urbem condidisset: Flora, quod eandem suis opibus ditasset, Larentia, quod Romulum, & Remum expositos nutrisset, Stercutius, sive Sterquilinus, quod agros stercorare docuisset, mutinus item sive Matunus, aliam ob causam (vide Tertul. Apolog. C. XXIV.) Alii ob alias Artes, five Beneficia, Dii facti sunt.  
Regali imperio non modò Regni pomaeria prolata; sed & Religiosum alicujus Numinis cultum propagatum, dubitari non potest. Ex Danielis C. III. liquet injunctam statuae à Nabuchodonosore erectae venerationem, propositâ non adoranti acerbissimae mortis paenâ. Alter Nabuchodonosor Holoferni militiae suae Principi praecepit, ut omnes Deos terrae exterminaret, ut ipse solus haberetur Deus ab iis Natio nibus, quas sibi subjugaret. Judith 111.13. Unde duplici jugo civili, & Religioso Victorum colla premi volebat.  
Solitum Romanum Senatum Caesares deificare, notius est, quàm ut à me referri onorteat. Initium à Cajo Julio Caesarum primo factum; qui mos ad Constantini Magni tempora duravit. Quibus id fieret ceremoniis, dicunt passim alii. In Jure Civili Justinianeo Imperatores defuncti Divorum titulo insigniuntur, sive id factum ex more à Paganis ad Christianos transmisso, sive (quod magis arridet) ex privato Tribonianis Pagani studio, cujus operà praecipuè Justinianus in eo Jure concinnando usus esse dicitur.  
Haec quidem omnia concurrisse nullus dubito. Certum non minus est statuarum speciem, homini similem, haud parum ad fascinandos homines, & ad colenda figmenta illa traducendos plurimum attulisse momenti: Dicitur enim loco supra laudato, Provexit ad horum culturam Artificis eximia diligentia. Ille enim volens placere illi, qui se assumpsit, elaboravit arte suâ ut similitudinem in melius figuraret; multitudo autem hominum abducta perspeciem operis, eum, qui ante tempus tanquam homo honoratus fuerat, nunc Deum aestimaverunt.  
Audiamus Minutium Felicem: Quis dubitat, inquit, horum imagines consecratas vulgus orare, & publicè colere, dum Opinio, & metus Imperitorum Artis concinnitate decipitur.  
Augustinus idem confirmat in Psal. CXIII. Conc. II. Homines talibus superstitionibus obligati, inquit, plerumque ad ipsum solem dorsum ponentes, preces fundunt statuae, quam Solem vocant: & cum sonitu maris à tergo feriantur, Neptuni statuam, quam pro ipso mari colunt, quasi sentientem gemitibus feriunt. Hoc enim faecit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figura membrorum, ut animus vivens in sensibus corporis, magis arbitretur sentire corpus, quod suo simillimum videt, quam rotundum solem, undasque diffusas, & quidquid non iisdem lineamentis formatum conspicit, quibus illa formata sunt, quae viventia videre consuevit. Eteum dixisset, apud nos, Christianos, in honore esse vasa Sacra, per quae Deo supplicamus, non tamen à nobis adorari, addit: Illa causa est maxima IMPIETATIS INSANAE, quod plus valet in affectibus miserorum similis viventi forma, quae sibi efficit supplicari, quam quod eam manifestum est non esse viventem, ut debeat à vivente contemni. Plus enim valent simulachra ad curvandam infaelicem animam, quod os habent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigendam, quod non loquentur, non videbunt, non audient, non odorabunt, non contrectabunt, non ambulabunt. Haec Augustinus.  
Hinc factum arbitror, ut tametsi in Mosaici Tabernaculi, & Templi Hierosolymitani Sacris statuae Seraphinorum, & aliorum etiam animalium similitudines sculptae collocatae fuerint, extra tamen ejusmodi septa Sacra aliquid ejusmodi nosquam extiterit, imò severissimè prohibitum fuerit aliquid illiusmodi fieri. Sacerdotibus enim solis, atque Levitis patebat illa Templi pars, in quâ statuae, oratus causâ, collocatae erant: quibus, nempe Levitis, non magnum erat ab Idololatriâ periculum. In atriis verò cum Judaeorum, tum Gentium nihil ejusmodi occurrebat, ne esset imperitis Judaeis ad Idololatriam propensis lapis offensionis, & petra scandali.  
Male tamen hinc inferes, etiamnum in Ecclesiâ permitti non debere ejusmodi statuas eandem ob causam, periculum scilicet Idololatriae. Non enim eadem est ratio; tum quia plebs non adeo jam propendet in faedam illam superstitionem; ad Irreligionem, & Atheismum magis inclinatur: tum quia diligentia, quam ex Tridentini Concilii praescripto adhibent Concionatores, & Parochi ad explicandum verum statuarum usum, tutas ab eo periculo praestat eorum oves.   

SECTIO XXXI. Vltima nefandi criminis causa, diaboli Praesentia in Idolis.  
ubi De statuarum Consecrationem & Oraculis.  
NUlla quantum memini in sacris Litteris occurrit mentio diaboli fese intra staruas insinuantis, indeque praestigias suas explicantis, quibus homines Deo ingrati, externâ artis specie capti, vel amore vel metu commoti, planè corrumperentur, & à sanâ ment alienarentur; non dubium tamen mihi est ita evenisse: & daemonem statuae Consecratione ad eandem alligari. Lucianus Presbyter apud Eusebium l. IX. hist. c. VI ad Consecrationem revocat Deificationem statuae. Tertull. Apolog. c. XII. ait: Statuas Soreres esse vasculorum communium, aut ex ipsis vasculis; quasi fatum consecratione mutassent. Et l. de spectaculis C. X. In mortuorum Idolis daemonia delitescunt. Et l. de coronâ militis: Ipsum opus (statua) mortuum quantum in Idolis; vivum planè quantum in daemoniis, ad quae pertinet superstitio. Et minutius Felix: Isti impuri spiritus sub statuis, & Imaginibus delitescunt. Idem habet Cyprianus lib. Ad Demetrianum.  
Arnobius lib. VII. adversus Gentes: Isti impuri spiritus, inquit, ut ostensum est à Magis, à Philosophis, & à Platone, sub statuis, & Imaginibus consecratis delitescunt, & afflatu suo auctoritatem quasi praesentis numinis onsequuntur: dum inspirantur interim vatibus, dum sacris immorantur, dum nonnunquam extorum fibras animant, avium volatus gubernant, sortes regunt, oracula efficiunt, falsis pluribus involuta: nam & falluntur, & fallunt, ut & nescientes sinceram veritatem, & quam sciunt, in perditionem sui non confitentes. Haec Arnobius.  
Et Augustinus l. VIII. de Civ. Dei cap. XXIII. Haec ex Hermete Trismegisto refert. Ille alios Deos dicit àsummo Deo factos, alios ab hominibus: hoc qui audit, sicut à me positum est, putat dici de simulachris quae opera sunt manuum hominum. At ille visibilia simulachra Deorum esse asserit. Inesse autem his quosdam spiritus invitatos, qui valeant aliquid sive ad nocendum, sive ad desideria eorum nonnulla complenda, à quibus iis divini honores, & cultûs obsequia deferuntur. Hos ergo spiritus invisibiles per artem quandam visibilibus rebus corporalis materiae copulare, ut sint quasi animata corpora illis spiritibus dicata, & subdita simulachra: hoc esse dicit Deos facere: eamque magnam & mirabilem Deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem. Et subinde refert illius Aegyptii verba Latio donata.  
Ceremoniis aliquibus, solemnibusque ritibus fieri consuevisse dictam Idoli consecrationem, mihi indubitatum est, praescribentibus eas daemonibus, quo potentiùs infatuarent homines. Potentes eas fuisse, & ut plurimùm sortitas effectum, aequè certum videtur. Tertullianus l. de Idololatriâ: Vtique scimus, inquit, licet nomina inania, atque conficta sint, cum tamen in superstitionem deducuntur, rapere ad se daemonia, & omnem spiritum immundum, per consecrationis obligamentum. Unde sequi videtur, ex Peregrinis, Barbaris, nihilque significantibus vocibus consecrationis Idoli formam, fas sit ita loqui, compositam fuisse. Quod in Magicis ut plurimum usu venit.  
Quod ad materiam hujus consecrationis spectat, videtur oleum adhibitum, & fortè coronas, sive serta, insuper addita. Id colligo ex Luciano in dialogo, cui titulu●: Deorum concilium. Lapis omnis, inquit, emnisque ara vaticinatur, quae sit oleo perfusa, & coronas habeat, cuique vir praestigiator suppetat, quales multi sunt. Et eo facilius sentio oleum à daemone (qui Dei Simia est) requisitum fuisse, quòd Jacob simili modo lapidem oleo delibutum, in titulum erexisse dicitur, Gen. XXVIII. 18. Et altaria holocausti, thymiamatis, & totam Tabernaculi Mosaici sacram supellectilem olei (licet non simplicis; sed variis aromatibus mixti) unctione consecrata fuisse, habetur Exod. XXX. 26. & 27.  
Licet verò credam adhibitam saepe fuisse solemnem ejusmodi consecrationem, non tamen semper. Nihil quippe opus magno ceremoniarum apparatu, ad accersendos daemones, quò suâ sponte properabant ad dementandos homines miseros. Martialis alicubi dicitur insinuare, Deûm invocatione exercitè consecrari statuam. Sed firmiorem habemus Propheticum sermonem cui attendimus, apud Isaiam C.XLIV. à versu 14. ubi Ligni progressum describit à primâ ejus in saltu plantatione, donec in Deum mirabili metamorphosi transeat, & adoretur, & nullam de ejus consecratione facit mentionem: eam non omissurus utique, si semper adhibita fuisset, cum longè minutiora recenseat. Reliquum ejus Ligni, inquit, Deum fecit, & sculptile sibi, curvatur ante illud, & adorat illud, & obsecrat, dicens: Libera me, quia Deus meus es tu. Solâ proinde veneratione statua initiabatur; quia ea daemonem illum, qui nomen Viri per statuam illam repraesentati assumebat, invitabat ad testandum sibi grata fore obsequia illa, preces exauditas esse, & se in posterum propitium fore, statuam illam, seu Idolum, quod Deus exinde credebatur, adorantibus, & invocantibus.  
Aliquando clarâ, & cunctis intelligibili voce loquebatur Idoli incola, daemon, ut cum militi statuam Junonis jocose interroganti, an Romam ire vellet? Respondit: Volo. Plerumque tamen per alios responsa reddebant. Apollo nimirùm per Pythiam, alibi per columbas Dodonides, de quibus supra obiter, sed communissimè apud Romanos per Avium volatum, pullorum cibatum, communissimè per extorum formam in Sacrificiis.  
Quod ad res ipsas, quas nunciabant, attinet: eae vel actu existebant, licet in locis dissitis, vel erant futurae. De Prioribus certam poterant habere notitiam, easque verè nuntiare, velob intellectus sui praestantiam, ad loca remotissima pertingentis: vel ob summam Agilitatem, illuc transire poterant, ubi & res quaeque gerebatur, & inde veluri momento redire, vel denique per spiritus sibi similes illinc advenientes. Unde fieri poterat, ut in iis enunciandis nec fallerentur ipsi, nec alios fallerent. Aliquando tamen etiam in his falla nunciabant, ut habetur in Actis B. Bartholomaei, quando dixerunt bellum imminens fore anceps, & valde cruentum: cum tamen tantum non prae foribus Regiae adessent Legati ab aemulo Rege missi, Pacem quibuscumque conditionibus petentes.  
De futuris rebus cum solùm conjecturalem earum cognitionem haberent, qualem habent saepenumero Viri Prudentes, in iis enunciandis, frequenter aberrabant à vero: ne tamen error facilè deprehenderetur, oracula iis verbis concipiebant, quae in alterutram partem accipi possent (quod faciunt etiamnum nostri Astrologi) unde quîdquid contingebat, sua apud stupidos. & superstitione dementatos homines Oraculo constabat auctoritas. Quod observat Cicero l. altero de Divinatione, & B. Hieronymus. Tale fuit Oraculum à Pythiâ Craeso redditum, si fluvium Halim transiret, eum maxima regna perditurum. Quod tum de suo, rum de Cyri imperio intelligi poterat. Item aliud Pyrrho datum, cum Romanis bellum inferre vellet: Dico te, Aeacida Romanos vincore posse. Hinc Prudentiores quique Pagani Oraculorum fraudes subodorati illa susque deque tandem habuêre. Lucianus in dial. Jupiter Tragaedus, cum Apollo vaticinatus esset, subdit tamquam à Momo dictum: Perspicuè dicit Oraculum, Apollinem esse praestigiatorem: nos verò clitellarios Asinos, & Mulos, qui credimus ipsi non tantum habentes Prudentiae, quantum locustae Solius quippe Dei est futura certò cognoscere, qui vocat ea, quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt Unde Isaias C.XLI. 23. Annuntiate, quae ventura sunt in futurum, & sciemus, quia Dii estis vos. Hinc Tertullianus Apologetici C.XX Testimonium Divinitatis est veritas Divinationis.   

SECTIO XXXII. Vsus Imaginum & statuarum licitus est in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ.  
DE statuis & Imaginibus quia eadem est ratio, de utrisque indiscriminatim agemus: & quae de alterutris dicentur; de aliis intelligenda sunt.  
Primus usus, sive prima utilitas sacrarum Imaginum, est, ut Idiotas, & rusticos. qui legere non possunt, instruant. Gregorius M. lib. IX. Reg. Epist. IX. Quod legentibus Scriptura, inquit, hoc Idiotis praestat Pictura: quia in ipsâ vident, quid sequi debeant, in ipsâ legunt, qui litter as nesciunt, sic qui vident Christi infantis in praesepio jacentis imaginem, filium Dei carnem factum, nobis in vili tugurio natum discunt. Qui eundem intuetur, Cruci affixum, discit quanta pro nobis passus sit. Qui Stephanum in medio lapidum imbre, Laurentium in craticulâ, Petrum in Cruce, Paulum Gladio cervices porrigentem intuetur novit, quanta Sancti passi sint tormenta, ut ad Martyrii palmam pervenirent.  
Secunda utilitas est, ut iis, quorum sunt Repraesentationes, debitus honor deferatur. Viris Illustribus, de Patriâ, de clientibus de consanguineis bene meritis erectas olim statuas fuisse, adeo notum est, ut, id probare velle, esset & meo labore, & Lectoris ocio vehementer abuti; maximè cum aliquid eâ de rejam dixerim. Constat de statuâ â muliere Christi D. virtute à sanguinis profluvio sanatâ, quam Julianus cognomento Apostata amoveri jussit, & suam eidem basi imponi, ut alibi diximus.  
Tertia; magna sunt Ecclesiarum ornamenta, quae tantum inde splendorem accipiunt, ut caelestis Hierusalem speciem quandam exhibere videantur.  
Quarta: mentem intuentium fugacem & versabilem, detinent ab evagationibus distractionibusque, & ad objectum aliquod bonum alligant. Etenim:  
Segnius irritant animos dimissa per aurem,  
Quàm quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus—  
ait Poëta Lyricus. Si Christum in Cruce pependisse audiam, id longè minus diu afficit, quàm si ejus effigiem affabrè factam conspiciam. Eam ob causam praeceptum credo in veteri Lege Phylacteria extimis vestibus assui, quorum conspectu de mandatorum observatione identidem admonerentur Israëlitae. Huic affinis est  
Quinta: potentissimè ad Christi Sanctorumque imitationem excitant conspectae eorum imagines. B. Chrysostomus prae oculis habere solebat S. Pauli effigiem, quâ conspectâ ad ejus imitationem exardescebat. B. Teresia secum circumferre solebat imaginem Samaritanae, cujus verba identidem repetebat: Domine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut non sitiam in aeternum. Ipsa alibi describit, quam commota ad Dei super omnia amorem, peccatique detestationem fuerit, ubi inexpectatò in Christi columnae alligati, flagellisque crudelissimè caesi oculos conjecit.  
Quae omnia paucis complexa est Sacro-sancta Tridentina Synodus, Sess. XXV. Illud verò diligenter doceant Episcopi, per historias mysteriorum nostrae Redemptionis, picturis, vel aliis similiiu dinibus expressas, erudiri, & confirmari populum in articulis fidei commemorandis, & assiduè recolendis: tum verò ex omnibus sacris Imaginibus, magnum fructum percipi; non solùm quia admonetur populus beneficiorum, & munerum, quae à Christo sibi collata sunt; sed etiam quia Dei per Sanctos miracula, & salutaria exempla oculis fidelium subjiciuntur, ut pro iis Deo gratias agant, ad Sanctorumque imitationem vitam, moresque suos componant; excitentur ad adorandum, & diligendum Deum, & ad pietatem colendam. Haec sacra Tridentina Synodus.  
Objiciunt Haeretici: prohibitas cujuscumque creaturae similitudines lege Naturae, si quidem Exo. XX. 4. Dicitur● Non facias tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudenem, quae est in caelo desuper, & quae in terrâ deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terrâ. Non adorabis ea, neque coles. Ubi duo prohibentur: primum, facere sculptile, sive quamcunque similitudinem, stellarum, animalium, plantarumve, atque piscium: Alterum, ejusmodi similitudinem sive apud eam Deum adorare, sive colere. Ergo quantaeçunque sint Imaginum, statuarumque utilitates, illicitae tamen sunt.  
Respondeo 1. non toti generi humano data omnia illa praecepta, quae ad versum usque 17. illius Capitis inclusiuè continentur. Hoc constat 1. ex praefatione iis praefixâ. Ego Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terrâ Aegypti, de domo servitutis. Quod solis Israëlitis dici potuit. Constat 2. ex versu 8. Memento, ut diem Sabbati sanctifices. Illius enim diei observationem non omnes homines obligare, etiam post Christi Dom. adventum, liquet, quia a Christianis nunquam fuit observata, nisi ad tempus, ut Synagoga honorificè deduceretur ad sepulchrum, ut ait in simili Hieronymus. Fuerunt itaque praecepta illa directè solis Israëlitis imposita, licet aliqua ad cunctos se extenderint homines, quia aliàs data fuerant Adamo, atque Noë, & exinde eorum posteros obligârint.  
Resp. 2. hoc speciatim praeceptum de non faciendis rerum creatarum similitudinibus, non fuit de Lege naturae. Probatur: nam dubitant Theologi, an in eâ lege à Deo dispensari possit, & plerique censent non posse, saltem in praeceptis primae tabulae, quale est hoc, quo de agimus. Magis adhuc concordes sunt in negando Deum de facto dispensasse, aut aliquid unquam imperasse contra praecepta Legis naturae. At imperavit aliquid contra hoc praeceptum, si ita intelligatur, ut volunt haeretici: quia jussit fieri Seraphim, serpentem aeneum etc. Et scientiâ infusâ instruxit Ooliab, & Beseleel, Exod. XXXI. ad ea formanda. Non ergo est de Lege naturae istud Praeceptum.  
Verus itaque dicti praecepti sensus est, non licuisse Israëliticae Plebi facere rerum quarumcumque similitudines. Idque primò propter periculum Idololatriae. Secundò, quò magis ab aliarum gentium more secederent. Constat enim varia Israëlitis injuncta fuisse, ut quàm longissimè ab aliarum Gentium moribus separarentur. Quod non solus Maimonides; sed etiam Epistola, quae Eleazaro adscribitur, & citatur ab Eusebio in Praepar. Euang. testantur.  
Unde constat non obstante illo praecepto licuisse Christianis, & etiamnum licere facere similitudines illiusmodi: Saltem ex illo praecepto non sufficienter evincitur illud esse, prohibitum. Quod confirmat antiqua Ecclesiae Praxis. Tert. l. de Pudic. C.VII, & X. testatur ipsius tempore in ipsis sacris calicibus descriptam fuisse Christi ovem humeris suis gestantis imaginem. Aug. l. I. de cons. Euang. cap. X. testatur eundem Christum Dom. in Templi Parietibus depingi consuevisse cum BB. Apostolis hinc inde ab utroque latere pendentibus. B. Gregorius Nazianzenus oratione in Laudem Defuncti Patris, refert Templum ab ipso constructum variis picturis sacris exornatum. Denique B. Paulinus Epist. XII. loquitur de Imaginibus SS. Trinitatis, & mysteriorum vitae Christi, in Ecclesiae apside pingi solitis: cujus consuetudinis vestigia etiamnum Romae cernere est, in antiquioribus Basilicis.   

SECTIO XXXIII. Sacrarum Imaginum, & statuarum Adoratio, sive cultus.  
SUppono 1. Honorem, Adorationem, Cultum diversas esse voces, quae tamen eandem propemodum rem important, demissionem nimirum Animae coram alio ob Perfectionem aliquam in excellenti gradu, sive nostrâ majorem, vel reipsâ, vel in hominum existimatione, eorum saltem, qui illam venerantur, & adorant, in altero repertam.  
Suppono 2. duo in quâque statuâ, vel imagine considerari posse; rem absolutam, lignum, nimirum, lapidem ex quo conflatur (idem est, proportione servatâ de Imagine) & relativam, ipsam formam, humanam verbi causâ, sive speciem secundum quam similis est objecto, quod repraesentat. Ex quibus patet hujus Difficultatis explicatio. Quia  
Si statua consideretur, ut est res quaedam absoluta, & talis materia, ebur scilicet, aes, lignum, aut aliquid ejusmodi, nullus honorilli debetur; quia sic sumpta nullam habet excellentiam honore dignam. Imò homo quilibet eâ sic spectatâ melior, & honore dignior est.  
Si verò sumatur, ut res relativa, alteri rei honore dignae similis, similis, illam repraesentans, illi cultus, honor, adoratio debetur, quemadmodum & prototypo: cum istâ tamen differentiâ, quod Prototypo debeatur ille cultus propter se, & excellentiam illi intrinsecam: statuas verò tantum propter connexionem, & velut unitatem, ne dicam identitatem moralem cum illo, cui proinde excellentia extrinseca est. Unde objectum colitur primariè, per se, & propter se; statua verò secundariò, propter aliud, & per accidens.  
Hoc didici ex Concilio VII. Act. III. In quâ lectae fuerunt, & approbatae Orientalium Episcoporum litterae, haec verba continentes: Sanctas Imagines reveremur, etc. non in materiâ, aut in coloribus honorem conslituentes; sed per hoc officium nostrum, quod ipsis debemus, quorum typum Imagines gestant, impertientes. Et Concilium Tridentinum Sess. XXV. in Decreto de Vener. Imag. Imaginibus venerationem debitam impertiendam esse, etc. quoniam honos, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad Prorotypa, quae illae repraesentant: ita ut per Imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & Sanctos veneremur, quorum illae similitudinem gerunt.  
Sancti Patres Imaginum cultum & venerationem laudibus prosecuti sunt. B. Athanasius in quaest. ad Antioch. q. XXXIX. eos ait esse dementes, & fastu quodam arreptitio, quia crucem, effigiesque Sanctorum adorare recusant. B. Basilius Epist. ad Julianum Apostatam, possquam de cultu Christo Domino, Deiparae Virgini, aliisque Sanctis debito, & à se exhibito locutus est, subjungit: Vnde & Characteres Imaginum ipsorum honoro, & adoro: praecipuè cum hoc à SANCTIS APOSTOLIS TRADITUM SIT. B. Hieronymus in Epitaphio S. Paulae c. III. dicit, illam prostratam ante crucem, quasi pendentem in eâ Dominum cerneret, adorasse. Plures alii Patres in hujus veritatis confirmationem citantur in Synodo VII. generali, Act. IU. Ubi videri possunt etiam varia miracula à Deo per intercessionem Sanctorum facta. Vnde hujus veritatis confirmationem certissimam colligo: nec enim Deus superstitiosum, illicitumve cultum, multò minus Idololatricum, unquam consirmavit, ne tanti Peccati Auctor censeretur.   

SECTIO XXXIV. Cultus Imaginum, & Statuarum sacrarum non est Idololatria.  
QUidquid Ecclesia à nobis exigit, quidquid Concilium Tridentinum definivit, quidquid Concionatores Ecclesiâ approbante docent, his paucis verbis Professionis Fidei, Pii PP. IV. jussu editae continetur: Firmissimè assero, Imagines Christi, ac Deiparae semper Virginis, nec non aliorum Sanctorum habendas ac retinendas esse: atque eis debitum honorem ac venerationem impertiendam. Haec ibi. Illis porrò debitus honor est relativus; non absolutus: non sistit in Imagine; sed transit ad Prototypon: nec enim Imago quidquam habet laude, honore, aestimatione dignum, ut jam diximus.  
Haec cum ita sint non mirari non possumus, quâ fiduciâ, quâ fronte cultus iste dicatur cum Paganorum Idololatriâ convenire: inter quae tantum Chaos firmatum est, ut aequè facilè duos caeli polos conjungere possimus, ac duplicem illum cultum, in unum conflare. Ad quod demonstrandum abundè sussiciunt, quae diximus: adeo ut nihil jam agendum supersit, quàm ea ad praesentem materiam applicare; unde clarissima discrimina ultrò sese offerunt. Nam  
1. Pagani crediderunt Idola sua veros esse Deos, vera numina; Veramque virtutem Divinam in iis residere, nos nec Imagines, statuasve Christi Domini Christum esse dicimus, neque Sanctorum repraesentationes Sanctos ipsos appellamus, nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel expressè addito, vel tacitè subintellecto, Syncategoremate diminuente, aut alienante, quo modo Imago equi dicitur Equus pictus, & hominis Imago, homo pictus: quod nihil aliud signisicat, quam Pictura hominis, aut equi: nec ullam virtutem supernaturalem, multò minùs divinam his inhaerere sentimus. Hinc Synodus Tridentina Sess. XXV. saepe laudatâ, cum sacras Imagines colendas esse decrevisset, subdit, id non fieri, quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae, veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus.  
2. Pagani sua colebant Idola, ut veros Deos, Sacrificiis, libaminibus, suffitibus, qui actus ex communi Gentium consensu & usu temporum illorum, in honore divino usurpabantur; Ecclesia nec Sanctorum Imaginibus, nec ipsis Sanctis, Sacrificium unquam obtulit (imò iis sacrificantes anathemate percutit) nec ullum sacris Imaginibus cultum supremum, sive Larriae, exhibuit.  
3. Spem illi fiduciamque in suis Idolis collocabant, ab his fatum urbium, Monarchiarum incolumitatem, Gentium faelicitatem pendere credebant. Sic Trojam capi non posse, nisi ablato inde Palladio stulto errore sibi, persuaserant & Graeci, & Trojani: parem in victis Trojae Penatibus, suisque Anciliis fiduciam habuêre Romani; in Herculis statuâ Tytii, in aliis alii. Nos in nostris statuis, Imaginibusve, nullam fiduciam reponimus. Hoc etiam discrimen ex Tridentino desumitur: Non quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda, inquit, quod fiebat olim à Gentibus. Ex hoc discrimine sequitur  
4. Suis Idolis illi supplicabant, ab iis petebant, quae illis usui essent; nos nostras Imagines nunquam invocamus. Scimus nos ab iis non audiri, multò minus exaudiri. Has oculos habere agnoscimus, & nihil videre; aures, nec quidquam audire; os, non tamen loqui; pedes, nec eos movere posse, Denique veros truncos esse, veros stipites, quovis homine, Bruto, plantâ, si naturam spectemus, deteriores, & inutiliores, sensu, motuque privatos. Vnde nonsolum frustra, sed etiam stolidè invocarentur. Hinc sequitur discrimen.  
5. Nos ex iis, quae vel boni nanciscimur, vel mali toleramus, nihil ab Imaginibus nostris proficisci putamus: his nec habemus, nec agimus Gratias, pro beneficiis: è contra suis Ethnici Idolis cuncta accepta ferebant: si quid mali patiebantur, Idola sua placabant; si quid boni obtinebant, Idolis habebant Gratias, & Laudabant Deos suos aureos, & argenteos, etc. Dan. v. 4. pro Victoriis de aliis Gentibus reportatis.  
Superest sextum, & ultimum discrimen: Imago est Rei verae repraesentatio; Idolum verò rei falsae. De quo videantur Bellarminus, qui id ex sacris Litteris nervosè probat, aliique Theologi, & Controvertistae qui pedibus in ejus sententiam ierunt. Nobis satis esse videntur alia discrimina ad id, quod totâ istâ Appendice probare conati sumus, nimirum Imaginum cultum cum Idolorum Adoratione nihil habere commune: Ecclesiam à faedo, detestandoque Idololatriae crimine immunem esse: nec minori injuriâ scelus illud ei exprobrati, à Cervicosis Calvini Gregalibus, quàm iidem recenter innocentissimis Catholicis, Regique fidelissimis subditis in Angliâ execrandum Majestatis crimen exprobrarunt, sua nobis facinora objicientes; quae si successissent ex voto, ob eadem Catholicos trucidare constituerant, ut sceleris ab ipsis commissi paenas nos insontes, nihil eâ de re cogitantes lueremus, quae constant cum ex hominum side dignissimorum testimonio, tum ex ipsorum Reorum confessione, tum denique ex ipsorum chirographis. Haec Calviniana Fides!   
FINIS.