IMPRIMATUR.  
Liber cui Titulus, A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England. H. Maurice Rmo in Christo P. D. Wilhelmo Arciepiscopo Cant. a Sacris.  
Jan. 24. 1687.   

A SECOND DEFENCE OF THE EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England, Against the New EXCEPTIONS Of Monsieur de MEAUX, AND HIS VINDICATOR. The Second Part.  
LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVIII.   


THE CONTENTS.  


THE ANSWER to the PREFACE.  
What little Cause those of the Church of Rome have to complain of the Evils of Heresy and Schism? num. 2, 3.  
Whether Papists or Protestants have sought the most advantageous Means for the redressing of them? n. 4.  
The Holy Scripture the only sure Foundation whereon to build our Faith, n. 6.  
How vain the Attempts of those of the Church of Rome have been in their Disputes against us? n. 9  
Of the several Methods that they have taken in them. n. 10.  
Their Complaints of our Misrepresenting their Doctrines and Practices, groundless, n. 18.  
Of the first CONVERSION of the English by AUSTIN the Monk, n. 22. 47.  
That neither did Austin teach, nor the British Churches believe or practise as the Church of Rome does now. n. 24.  
That for a long time after Austin, both their Belief and Practice was different from that of the Church of Rome at this day, n. 28.  
Of King HENRY VIIIth, EDWARD VIth, Q. MARY, Q. ELIZABETH, and the State of Religion in their days, n. 35.  
That the Papists have been underhand the Causes of our Divisions, n. 42.  
Of the State of Religion under K. CHARLES Is, n. 45.  
How far we allow that Salvation is to be had in the Church of Rome? n. 48.  
Of the Original of our CIVIL WARS in K. CHARLES Ist's time, n. 51.  
Of the State of Religion under K. CHARLES IId, and K. JAMES IId, and what was the occasion, of our present Controversies and how they have been carried on? n. 52.  
What use our READERS ought to make of these Discourses, n. 60. And the Method of my present DEFENCE, n. 64.  
The Vindicators Apology for their NEW FRIENDS, n. 67. And his Presumption why they cannot be supposed to palliate their Doctrine, considered, and refuted, n. 68  
The OATH to be taken by a NEW CONVERT, at his admission into the Church of Rome, n. 77.    


Introduction.  
THat our Adversaries advance nothing New against us, but repeat the same things over and over, without taking the least notice of the Answers that have been given to them.    


The ANSWER TO THE First ARTICLE.  
THe VINDICATOR an Instance of this. His first Article entirely stolen out of T. G. and confuted by Dr. Stillingfleet above 11 Years since; pag. 45. num. 1.  
That the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England, have constantly charged those of the Church of Rome with IDOLATRY, n. 3.  
In particular those whom he quotes to the contrary, viz. Dr. Jackson, n. 5. Dr. Field. A. B. Laud. Dr. Heylin, Mr. Thorndyke, n. 7, 8. and Dr. Hammond, n. 9  
His other little Cavils as to this Point considered, n. 12. And the Authority of the Book of HOMILIES asserted, n. 13.  
His particular Exceptions against my DEFENCE as to this Article answered: And his shuffling exposed, n. 19, etc.    


The ANSWER TO THE Second ARTICLE.  
COncerning the Object of Religious Worship. p. 55.  
That the VINDICATOR has in vain new modelled the B. of Meauxes Position, n. 2.  
The Scheme which he has laid down to justify the Doctrine and Practice of the Ch. of Rome in giving Religious Worship to others besides God considered, in some short Reflections upon the several Parts of it.    


The ANSWER TO THE Fourth ARTICLE.  
OF the INVOCATION of SAINTS.  
Of the State of the Question between us, and the VINDICATOR's three Positions for the clearing of it, pag. 65. n. 1, 2.  
The Sum of this Article reduced to II. General Points.  


I. POINT. Whether it be lawful to pray to the Saints to PRAY FOR US?  
Our Adversaries confess it not to be necessary, n. 4.  
That it is unlawful upon the VINDICATOR 's own Principle so to do, viz. That we may not give any religious Service strictly and properly so called, to any other than God ONLY, n. 5, 6.  
That the Act of invoking the Saints is strictly and properly a Religious Act: shown,  


1st, From the very Nature of the Act itself, n. 7.  


It is not an Act of the same kind with that of desiring of our living Brethren to pray for us, n. 8. But attributes to the Creature the Perfections proper to God. ib.  
The Bp of Meaux 's shuffling upon this occasion more particularly laid open, n. 11.    
2dly, From the Circumstances of it, n. 15.  


Of the Time, Place, and Manner in which the Romanists invoke their Saints, n. 16.  
Of their offering up the Mass to their HONOUR; and desiring its Acceptance through their MERITS, n. 17, etc.  
Of their making VOWS to the Saints, n. 19, etc.        


II. POINT. What the true Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, as to the Point of INVOCATION of SAINTS.  
The Sum of this Part reduced to IV Considerations.  


SECT. I. Whether all the Prayers that are made to the Saints by those of the Church of Rome, can fairly be reduced to this One Sense, PRAY FOR US?  
That they cannot, shown;  


1st, From the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, and of its Catechism, n. 25.  
2dly, From the Opinion which those of the Church of Rome have, of the State and Power of the Saints departed, n. 30.  
3dly, From the neglect of the Council of Trent, and of the Governors of the Church of Rome, either to establish any such Interpretation, or to Censure those that have taught otherwise. n. 33.  
4thly, From the words of the Prayers themselves, which utterly refuse such an Exposition. n. 35.  
And from the other Service which the Church of Rome allows to the Saints, and which cannot be reconciled with these Pretences. n. 39  
5thly. From the Opinions and Practice of some of the greatest Saints in the Roman Calendar; and of other Persons of especial Note amongst them. n. 40.  
Examples of all this. n. 41, etc.    
That the Holy Scripture is in vain alleged to countenance this Superstition. n. 46.    


SECT. II. After what manner it is that the Church of Rome prays to God through the Merits of her SAINTS.  
The VINDICATOR's Pretences. n. 49.  


That the Church of Rome does truly pray to God for Mercies, through the Merits of her Saints, n. 51.  
The VINDICATOR's Excuses for this, considered and exploded. n. 53.  
That the Holy Scripture does by no means countenance any such Practice. n. 54.      


SECT. III. In which the VINDICATOR's Arguments for the Establishing of this Worship are particularly considered, and their Weakness laid open. pag. 102.  
That the practice of Invocation of Saints, is not to be proved by Holy Scripture. n. 55.  
Nor has it the Antiquity that is pretended: shown in two periods.  


Is't PERIOD.  
That the Custom of Praying to Saints, had no being in the Church for the first 300 Years. n. 57  
The VINDICATOR's Proofs particularly examined, and shown to be either False, or Ridiculous n. 59  
That the Fathers of the first three Centuries prayed to God ONLY. n. 66.  
My presumption heretofore alleged for this; viz. That those Fathers did not believe that the souls of the Just went immediately to Heaven; justified: and the VINDCATOR's Answer shown to be insufficient. n. 73.  
Sixtus Senensis in vain Misrepresented by Him. n. 76.  
That this practice did not pass quietly in the following Ages. n. 82.  
His pretence that the Fourth General Council prayed to Flavian both false and impertinent. n. 80.  
His little exception of the few Writings that remain of the Primitive Fathers, neither true, nor to the purpose. n. 78, 85.  
How this Practice by degrees crept into the Church? n. 89.    


IId. PERIOD. What Grounds this Superstition had in the Fourth Century?  
That most of the Addresses of this Age were rather Rhetorical Flights, than formal Invocations. n. 92.  
Eight differences, proposed between what the Fathers of the Fourth Age did, and what those of the Church of Rome do now, as to this Matter. n. 96.  
That the Invocation of Saints was never solemnly established in the Church before the latter End of the 8th Century. n. 97. etc.      


SECT. IU. What our Reasons are against this Service.  
The true state of the difference betwixt us as to this matter. n. 105.  
That the Church of Rome does exact a compliance in this Practice, & ANATHEMATISE those who Oppose it. n. 106.  
That this is, 

1st, Repugnant to God's Holy Word. n. 111.  
2dly, Contrary to Antiquity. n. 119.  
3dly, Unreasonable in the Constitution. n. 126.  


Because,  


They are neither certain that the Saints hear their Prayers. n. 127.  
Nor that those whom they Pray to are indeed Saints. n. 128.  
And Pray to many as such, that never lived in the World. n. 130.    
Such were, 

S. George. n. 130.  
S. Lazarus.  
S. Longinus.  
S. Christopher.  
S. Ursula, etc.    
A brief Account of whose Acts is offered, and their falseness observed.  
A pleasant Relation of a Bishop and Martyr, made out of two words of an ancient Inscription; and the great Miracles that were wrought at his Monument. n. 134.  
That the wiser Papists complain of this Extravagance.    
4thly. That it is unprofitable and Impious in the Practice. n. 139.  


That it is Unprofitable. n. 139.  
That it is Impious. n. 143.    
Several remarkable Instances of Impiety in this practice. n. 147, etc.        
The whole conluded with an account of the PROCESSION of the JESUITS of LUXEMBOURG, May 20. 1685. n. 157, etc.    


The ANSWER TO THE Fourth ARTICLE. Of IMAGES and RELICS.  
THE Sum of this Chapter reduced to three General Considerations.  


SECT. I. Of the Benefit of Pictures and Images. n. 4.  
Concerning which it is observed:  


1st, That the VINDICATOR ought not at this time to confound PICTURES and IMAGES together. n. 6.  
2dly, Nor single Figures, and Historical Representations. Ibid. §. 2.  
3dly, That it is impertinent to this Point to discourse of the BENEFIT, where the Dispute is concerning the WORSHIP of Images. Ibid. §. 3.    
For that,  


4thly, No Benefit, were it ever so great, would be able to excuse this. Ibid. §. 4.  
5thly, That Images are not useful to the Ignorant, as is pretended. Ibid. §. 5.  
6thly, But on the contrary, very pernicious and injurious. Ibid. §. 9    
An Account of Horrible Abuses in many of their Images and Pictures; Viz.  


Of GOD the FATHER. n. 7, 8.  
Of the HOLY TRINITY. n. 9  
Of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. n. 10.  
And of the B. VIRGIN. Ibid. etc.    
The Pretence, that there is now no danger of IDOLATRY in all this, proposed; and the way opened to the refuting of it. n. 15, 16.    


SECT. II. The Charge of Image-Worship made Good; and the Evasions answered, by which the VINDICATOR endeavours to excuse his Church from the Gild of it. n. 17.  
This is done in three Particulars.  


Is't, The Voice of the Ch. of Rome proposed, in Her Definitions as to this Matter. n. 18, 19  
IIdly, This Voice interpreted by Card. CAPISUCCHI, who approved Monsieur de MEAVX's Exposition; and to whose Book Mr. de MEAUX himself appeals. n. 20.  


After rejecting several Opinions, which in the Cardinal's Judgement did not allow sufficient Honour to Images. n. 21, etc.  
He concludes it to be the CHURCH'S SENSE, that the SAME Worship is to be given to the IMAGES, as is given to the THINGS represented by them. n. 26.  
That Aquinas allowed Supreme Divine Worship to the CROSS; contrary to the VINDICATOR's Pretences. n. 27.  
Some Reflections upon what this Cardinal has said, with reference to the Point before us. n. 28, etc.  
An Account of one of the Roman Church lately put into the INQVISITION, for denying the Worship of Images, recommended to the VINDICATOR's Consideration. n. 32, 33.    
IIIdly, This farther shown to be the Sense of the Church of Rome, from those Authorized Practices I alleged in my DEFENCE.  


1. The Instance from the Order of Receiving an Emperor, justified. n. 35.  
2dly, The Argument from the Office of CONSECRATING A NEW CROSS made Good; and the VINDICATOR's Evasions shown to be inconsistent with the Design of it. n. 36.  


Of their AGNUS DEI's; and the Superstition that is committed in the Design and Consecration of them. n. 44, 45.  
Of HOLY WATER; and the Superstition committed in the Design and Use of it. n. 47.  
Of INCENSE. n. 51.  


That the Primitive Church used Incense. n. 51. But that this is no Plea for what the Church of Rome does now.  
The Consecrating and Burning of Incense in that Church;  


Superstitious. n. 52.  
Idolatrous. n. 54.        
3dly, The Instance of the GOOD-FRIDAY Service farther vindicated: And the Exceptions made against it shown to be frivolous. n. 56.  


That those of the Church of Rome do suppose this to be a good Proof of their paying Divine Worship to the CROSS. n. 60.  
Two extravagant Proofs to excuse this Worship from being Idolatrous, proposed and answered. n. 61, 62, 63, etc.    
4thly, The Argument taken from the HYMNS of the Church of Rome justified. n. 65.  


And the VINDICATOR's Interpretation of them, shown to be absurd. n. 69.          


SECT. III. That the Church of Rome thus worshipping of Images, is truly and properly guilty of IDOLATRY.  
This made good in two Points, n. 76.  


I. POINT. Of the true Nature of IDOLATRY.  
The late Notion of IDOLATRY proposed; and that in this sense we do not charge the Church of Rome with it, n. 77.  
What IDOLATRY, according, to the Scripture is; shown in two Particulars:  


Is't, Q. Whether according to the Scripture-Notion of IDOLATRY, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both know and worship the One True GOD? n. 78.  


That they may, made manifest from the Instances;  


1st, Of the Golden Calf; n. 80.  
2dly, Of the Calves of Dan and Bethel, n. 86.    
Other Arguments to make good the Affirmative of this Question: n. 93.  
That this was the Notion of the Primitive Fathers, n. 94.  
And is confessed by the principal Authors of the Church of Rome itself, n. 97.    
IIdly, Q. How this may be done by them?  


Two ways proposed from what has before been said, viz.  


1st, By worshipping the true God after an Idolatrous manner, n. 101.  
2dly, By giving Divine Worship to any other besides Him, n. 103.          


II. POINT. That the Church of Rome in the Worship of Images is truly and properly guilty of IDOLATRY.  
This shown according to the VINDICATOR's desire in two different respects:  


Is't, With reference to those who hold that Images are to be worshipped with the same Worship as the things which they represent, n. 108.  
IIdly, As it concerns their Opinions, who denying this, yet allow an inferior Honour to them, n. 113.          


Of RELICS.  
Two things proposed to be proved in answer to the VINDICATOR's Exceptions:  


Is't, That those of the Church of Rome do truly and properly worship the RELICS of their Saints.  


For their Expressions it is undeniable, n. 121.  
That their Practice is agreeable to their Words; shown,  


1st, In the instance of that Worship which they give to the Wood of the true Cross, n. 122.  
2dly, To all the other RELICS that have ever touched our Saviour Christ, n. 124.  
3dly, From their allowed practice of swearing by them, n. 125.  


A famous Story of S. GURIA for the illustrating of this matter, n. 126.    
4thly, From their other Practices; especially their carrying of them in Procession, an instance whereof is given from the Roman Pontifical, n. 127, etc.        


IIdly, That they do seek to them for Help and Assistance.  


My Interpretation of the Council of Trent in reference to this Point made good, against the new Pretences of the VINDICATOR, n. 129.  
The thing itself justified from the Public Prayers of that Church, n. 130.  
And from a memorable Instance of a Prince of the Family of the Dukes of Radzevil; with which the whole is concluded.          

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. of the Contents, for Fourth Article, read Third Article. P. 6. num. 9 line 4. r. our Schism. P. 8. n. 14. l. 5. r. Err. P. 11. n. 21. l. 3. uncertain, r. unsincere. P. 18. n. 35. l. 17. r. Their Usurpations. P. 25. l. 9 r. were now. P. 32. n. 57 l. 7. del. after all P. 48. n. 9 l. 6. Images, r. Angels. P. 87. l. 1. r. recising. P. 114. Marg. Expos. r. Def. of the Expos. P. 120. Marg. r. lib. Carol. P. 127. Marg. r. Reg. Moral. 80. P. 133. l. 27. For and I, del. and. P. 137. n. 154. l. 5. r. Moliri. Pervicaciâ. P. 138. l. 4. r. Curarum. P. 167. l. ult. for V r. VIth Cent. P. 187. n. 119. l. 3. r. upon a verbal. P. 190. n. 124. l. 15. Cloth with which. P. 194. l. 25. and only, del. and. P. 196. n. 132. l. 1. r. Radzevil.  
The Pages are interrupted in two places, pag. 60. and p. 160.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.  
THE Design of your Preface seems reducible to these two Points, viz.  

I. Of the State of the Controversy between the Papists and Protestants in general. And,  
II. Of the Disputes that have heretofore been, and are at this day managed against you, by Us of this Church in particular.   2. Ad pag. 1.] The former of these you introduce with a short harangue of the Mischief which Heresy and Schism bring along with them, not only to the individual Persons that are guilty of them, but also to the Nations in which they are propagated. You represent to us the miserable Broils, and other worse Consequences that have attended these Controversies of Religion in this and the last Age: And from thence you conclude, how much they are to be commended who labour to establish Truth and Unity, and those to be condemned, who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other. 
3. Answ.] To all which I have only this to reply; that we need no Arguments to convince us of these things. There are none more sensible of the Mischiefs of Schism and Heresy than we are; or that do more truly lament the Divisions that are in the Church, or would more hearty contribute, what in us lies, to the closing of them. But then as we have good cause to believe both from the Authority of Holy Scripture, and from the Nature of Mankind, that whilst there is a Devil in Hell, and Men of Interest and Designs upon Earth, there shall also be Heresies, 
1 Cor. xi. 19  that they who are approved may be made manifest: So we cannot but complain that those should be the most forward to charge us both with the Gild and Mischief of them, at whose doors the Crime, and therefore the Evil Consequences of it, will one day be found to lie. The former of these, it will be the business of the following Discourse to make good: And for the latter, whosoever shall impartially consider the Origen of those Broils with which the World has, you say, been agitated in this and the last Age upon the account of Religion; not to mention those other Mischiefs of Treasons, Plots, Massacres, Persecutions, and the like, will soon be convinced who they are that have cause to complain of these Evils. For what you add, 4. Ibid.] That they who will but impartially consider matters, will find that Catholics have upon all occasions sought the most Advantageous Means to procure this Christian Peace; though to their grief they have still been hindered from effecting this Good Work.  
Answ.] I do not well know what you design by it. If by the most Advantageous Means, you understand those Means of Knowledge which God has given us whereby to come to discern the Truth of Religion; such as, 1. A diligent reading of the Holy Scriptures, the using of all imaginable Assistances for the understanding the sense of them, by studying the Original Languages in which they were written, searching of Antiquity, collating parallel places, and the like. 2. The divesting of ourselves of our Prejudices, and forming in our Minds an impartial desire to find out the Truth, with an honest readiness to embrace it, on what side soever it lies. And lastly, to all this add our earnest Prayer to God for his Grace to bless and prosper our Endeavours; these I confess are the best Means to discover Christian Truth; and to exhort all others to the use of them, the most advantageous way to promote it. But then I cannot imagine why you should seem to appropriate these Means to your selves, as if you only sought Truth and Peace by them; seeing it cannot be denied but that We have employed all these with as great diligence as you can pretend to have done it. But now some other Means indeed there are, which you have pursued, and which it may be you understand by this Expression: and then We neither deny your Assertion, nor envy you the Glory of being singular in your Endeavours of procuring Peace by them. Such are, 1. The Means of Force and Violence; your Holy Leagues, and private Treacheries, your Inquisitions, Plots, Persecutions, and such like. 2. The Means of Fraud and Deceit, your false Expositions and Misrepresentations of your Doctrine to deceive the ignorant and unwary, till you get them into your Nets. 3. The Means of Confidence and uncharitableness, your bold anathemas and vain thunderings of Damnation against all that differ from you, your assuming the Name and Privileges of the Church Catholic to your single Communion, and excluding all others out of it, as Schismatics and Heretics. And lastly, to mention no more, the Means of gross Ignorance, and blind Obedience; by depriving Men of their liberty of reading the Holy Scripture by keeping your Service in an unknown Tongue, by teaching Men to depend entirely upon your Churches Dictates, and not to departed from them, though Sense, Reason, Scripture, all be contrary to them. These are, I confess, some of those peculiar Means whereby you have sought to procure Christian Peace; and Experience tells you, that they are indeed the most advantageous of any to the Cause you have to defend. And if these be the Means which you say we have opposed, I hope we shall always continue so to do, and rather bear all the Evils of these Divisions, than either buy Peace upon such Terms, or pursue it by such Means as these.  
5. Ad p. 2, 3.] To what I observed from the late Methods that had been taken up in our Neighbour Country to avoid the entering upon particular Disputes, which I said you were sensible had been the least favourable of any to your Cause, you reply," That you have never declined fight with us at any Weapon: which how true it is, the account before given of your managing the present Controversy with us sufficiently declares. And indeed you seem in some sort to have been sensible of it; and therefore recur to your Ancient Authors for proof of your Assertion. The Sum of what you say is this: 6. Reply.] That there have been three sorts of Protestants since the Reformation; 1. Some who appealed to Scripture only, neither would they admit of Primitive Fathers nor Councils. 2. Others who perceived that they could not maintain several Tenets and Practices of their own by the bare words of Scripture, and despairing of Fathers and Councils of latter Ages, pretended at least to admit of the first four General Councils, and of the Fathers of the first three or four hundred Years. 3. Others finally who ventured to name Tradition as a useful Means to arrive at the true Faith. And all these you say you have convinced of their Errors.  
7. Answ.] It has always been your way to multiply Sects and Divisions among Protestants as much as ever you were able, and then to complain against us upon the account of them; and here you have given us a notable Instance of it. The three Opinions you have drawn out as so many different Parties amongst us, do all resolve into the very same Principle: That the Holy Scripture is the only, perfect, and sufficient Rule of Faith: So that all other Authorities, whether of Fathers, or Councils, or unwritten Tradition, are to be examined by it, and no farther to be admitted by us than they agree with it. This is in effect the common belief of all Protestants whatsoever, as appears from their several Confessions, and might easily be shown out of the Writings of our first Reformers, and the most eminent of those who have lived since, and built their Faith upon the same Foundation. It is true indeed, there have been some who, the better to maintain their Separation from the Church of England, have from this sound Principle, That nothing is to be received by us as a Matter of Faith, but what is either plainly expressed in the Holy Scripture, or can evidently be proved by it, drawn a very ill Consequence, viz. That nothing might lawfully be done or used in the Worship of God, unless there were some Command or Example for it in Scripture; and have by this means run themselves into great Inconveniences. But the Rule of Faith, which an uninterrupted Tradition, by the common consent of all Parties of Christians, however otherwise disagreeing in other Points, has brought down to us, and delivered into our hands as the Word of God, this has among all Protestants been ever the same, viz. The Holy Scripture. And if for the farther proof of the Truth of our Doctrine, we have at any time put the issue of our Cause to the decision of the Church of the first three or four hundred Years, it is not because we suppose that those Fathers who then lived, have any more right to judge us, or determine our Faith, than those that followed after; but because upon examination we find them to have yet continued (at least as to the common Belief received and established amongst them) in their Purity; and that what was generally established and practised by them, was indeed conformable both to their and our Rule, the Word of God.  
8. This then is our Common Principle, and this you cannot deny to be most reasonable. For whatsoever Authority you would have us give to those Holy Fathers, yet it cannot be doubted, but that,  
1st, Being 
* Durandus. l. 4. Sent. d. 7. q. 4. de S. Gregorio; Nescio cur non possit dici quòd Gregorius cum fuerit Homo, non Deus, potuerit Errare.  Men subject to the same Infirmities with ourselves, they were by consequence obnoxious to Errors as well as we; and therefore may not without all examination be securely followed by us.  
Especially if we consider, 2dly, That we are expressly forbid in Holy Scripture, to rely on any Persons whatsoever without enquiry, whether what they teach be true or not: Dear Beloved, (says St. John) believe not every Spirit, 
1 John 4.1.  but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. The same is St. Paul's Doctrine, To prove all things, and then hold fast that which is good: 
1 Thess. 5.21.  St. Peter exhorts all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the Hope that is in them: 
1 Pet. 3.15.  And our Blessed Saviour himself once gave the same encouragement, of examining even his own Doctrine; And why (says he) of yourselves do you not judge that which is right? 
Luke 12 57   
Nay but, 3dly, these Holy Fathers were not only capable of Erring, but in many things they actually did Err, and are forsaken by you upon that account. The Millenary Opinion was generally received in the first Ages of the Church. They derived it from St. John to Papias, from him to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melito, Tertullian, etc. Yet is this Opinion now rejected by you. The Doctrine of the necessity of Communicating Infants, was the Common Doctrine of the Fathers in S. Austin's Time; and is confessed by your most Learned Men, Cardinal Perron and Others to have been generally practised in the Church for the first six hundred Years: 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 4.  Yet have you Anathematised those who shall now assert, with those Fathers, that there is any necessity at all of communicating Children before they come to Years of discretion. I need not say what Heats arose between One of your own Popes and St. Cyprian about rebaptising of Heretics; and both of them in the wrong. The Ancient Fathers generally believed, that the Souls of the Blessed do not yet enjoy the Vision of God: But from the time of Pope John the XXII. the contrary is become the Catholic Doctrine among you. 
De Consecr. Dist. 2. Sess. 13.  The necessity of communicating in both kinds, was believed in the Time of Pope Gelasius, and the Council of Constance, in that very Canon in which it took away the Cup from the Laity, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1.  yet confessed that Christ had established it in both kinds, and the Church constantly administered and received in both kinds, in obedience to his Institution: but 'tis now no less than damnation to say, that one kind alone is not sufficient. In the primitive Church it was generally received, that the Souls of the Faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the Flesh, are in Joy and Felicity. Now you teach that they go first to Purgatory, a place of Pain and Sorrow, inferior in nothing but the duration, to Hell itself.  
Other Instances I might add to show, that you yourselves do no otherwise follow the Fathers, than as you esteem them to have followed the Truth, and therefore have thought fit to forsake them in the several Points I before mentioned: And therefore certainly you ought not to condemn us, if we pay no other deference to them: nor appeal to them but only as Witnesses of the Doctrine of the Church in those Times, not as Judges and Masters of our Faith.  9 Ad Pag. IU.] Reply. And in all these several ways you say you have shown us to be Mistaken, insomuch that there has not been any thing like an Argument produced against your Faith, or to justify your Schism, but what has been abundantly Answered and Refuted. 
10. Answ.] This, Sir, is a Boast which I believe the World will think you might very well have spared at this time. I need not send you back, as you have done us, to our Ancient Authors; and desire you once more to consider what has been offered, both from Scripture and Antiquity, by Monsieur de Mornay, Aubertine, Chamiere, blondel, Daillé, Larrogue, and Others abroad; by Bishop Jewel, Bishop Morton, A. B. Usher, Dr. J. Forbes, Dr. White, Dr. Barrow, and many more of our own Country: and whose Names among the wisest even of your own Church are much more valued, than for a Coccius or a Brerely to be able to obscure them. I appeal only to the present Times to witness against you; and would entreat you, before you tell us any more of your Performances, to give some good Reply to that Catalogue I have sent you of above forty Treatises lately published in all these kinds of Arguments that you speak of; and your declining of which does not very well suit with such vain Pretences.  11. Ibid.] You add; That you have so far complied with the Infirmities of your Adversaries, that you have left no Stone unturned to reduce them to the Unity of the Faith, and that by meekness as well as powerful Reasoning. 
12. Answ.] It must be confessed indeed that you have not been wanting in your Endeavours to convert us. Your Zeal has even equalled that which our Saviour Christ once remarked, or rather reproved in your Predecessors the Scribes and Pharisees: and I would to God it had not too often produced the same Effect also. As for the Means that you have made use of for the carrying on of this Work, I have already in part recounted them to you. And shall only now add, that if your Meekness has been no greater, than your Arguments have been powerful, we shall have as little cause to applaud the One, as we have hitherto had to be convinced by the Other. And indeed whosoever shall consider your behaviour towards those you call Heretics; will find that some Other word would better have suited your Character than that of Meekness. If there be any, who deluded by your present pretences of Moderation doubt this, let them look only upon the Actions of a neighbour Kingdom, and whose Clergy has ever been esteemed the most moderate of your Church. For if such a deportment as theirs towards our Brethren, be the Meekness you boast of; I shall only beg leave to say with Solomon, 
Prov. 12.10.  that then the tender Mercies of some Men are Cruel. But you go on to show us wherein you have made a testimony of this Meekness: You say, 13. Ibid.] You have not only condescended to satisfy the curiousity of them that have more leisure by writing large Volumes upon every particular Controversy— but you have gone a shorter way to work; and to some have manifested the unerrable Authority of the Church of Christ, against which he had promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail. Others you have showed it from the nature of Truth and Error, and the Impossibility that a Universal Tradition could fail, especially when God had promised that the Words He would put into their Mouths, should not departed out of their mouths, nor out of the Mouths of their Seed, nor out of the Mouth of their Seeds seed, from hence forth and for Ever. To others you have proved the Innocence and Antiquity of your Doctrine from the testimony of learned Protestants themselves.  
14. Answ.] This indeed was a great Condescension; that being so well satisfied on all these accounts that you had the Truth yourselves, you should so far vouchsafe, as for our sakes, to prove that you had so. But truly, unless you can produce some better proof that your Church cannot Error than this, that our Saviour once said of his Church, That the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, you will never satisfy any reasonable Man of it. How often, Sir, have you been told, that here is something indeed to establish the Perpetuity of the Church, but nothing of its Infallibility. Unless you will suppose (what you know we utterly deny) that the Church cannot subsist except it be infallible in every Point. The Church may fall into many Errors, and yet continue a Church still. A Man is never the less a Man, because he has an Ague, or some other Distemper upon Him. And whilst the Church thus subsists, Christ's Promise is made good, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it. Though now, 2dly, Were the Infallibility of the Church in this Text clear to a Demonstration, yet still the main Thing would be wanting, how to prove your Church to be the Catholic Church, and to have alone the right to this Promise, which for aught appears from this Passage any Other may pretend to upon as good grounds as She.  
15. Again; As to the Point of Tradition, With what confidence can you say it is impossible that should fail, seeing the Instances I have before given of your departure from the Tradition of the Primitive Fathers in so many particulars, plainly show that it has failed? For your argument which you allege from Isa. 59.20. It has the same Faults with the foregoing, and one more. For that passage; 1st, If it speaks any thing at All of these Matters, it is for the Perpetuity, not Infallibility of the Church. 2dly, That there is not One word in it of any privilege, either in the One or the Other kind bestowed upon your Church in particular; and the Greek, or any other Church may as reasonably argue from it as yourselves. Nay, 3dly, 'Tis plain from the Context that it does not belong to any of us, the Covenant here spoken of being made with Zion, and those that turn from Transgression in Jacob; that is (as St. Paul himself applies it, Rom. 11.) to the Convert Jews, when they shall come in and embrace the Gospel of Christ.  
16. And for your last Method, the Concessions of Protestants themselves, this will but little avail you: seeing if it could be proved that any of our particular Writers had said some things in favour of your Doctrine, this would be of no force against any but themselves, any farther than their Arguments shall upon Examination be found to warrant their Assertions. We have often told you, that our Faith depends not on any Humane Authority. Such Concessions may show the weakness or Error of him that made them, but they are nothing available to prescribe against the Truth of the Gospel. And this, I say, supposing that you could produce the Opinions of Protestants (as you pretend) in favour of your Doctrines! But now let me tell you, the Collection to which you refer us, has been found so very insincere by those who have had occasion to examine it, that should we allow these kind of Authorities to be as conclusive against us as you can desire, you would not yet be able either to advantage yourselves, or to convince any others by them.  
17. Ad Pag. 5.] You see, Sir, what little reason we have to expect very much from these Methods, which in your great Humility you have condescended to make use of in order to our Conversion. And we cannot but congratulate our good Fortune, that you seem to tell us you have yet some better Arguments in reserve; those which you say MIGHT have been brought to prove the Authority of your Church. And though you think us so fond of flying off to particular Disputes, that no Arguments can keep us from them; yet I do hereby promise you, that  you shall have clearly made out this Proposition, That the Church of Rome is Infallible, and whatsoever she proposes to be received by us is the truly Catholic Faith, without which there is no Salvation; and then show me, How I shall infallibly know, amidst so many different Proposals of her Doctrine, what that Faith is which this Church teaches as necessary to that End; I will from thenceforth become as blindly obedient a Disciple, as the most implicit Believer whose Credulity you have ever yet imposed upon with these Pretences.  
18. Ibid.] For your next Allegation, That you could never get us to take your Doctrine aright, if what I have heretofore said be not sufficient; I will once more put you in mind that you must first resolve to answer from Point to Point, the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented, before you can expect to be credited by us. And if from what we have truly said concerning you, you are indeed grown to be looked upon (in your own words) to be as bad as Devils, and your Doctrines as the Dictates of Hell itself; though I believe in this excess you do something misrepresent both yourselves and us; you may attribute it if you please to our Calumnies against you, but I believe all indifferent Persons will be able to find out some better Reasons for it.  
19 Ad Pag. 6.] As for your Expositions which you from hence thought fit to publish to the World, as your last reserve for our Conversion; the World is sufficiently satisfied with what sincerity you have proceeded in them. And for what you add, in the close of this first Point, concerning the Character of the Times that we are fallen into, such as you say S. Paul foretold, in which Men will not endure sound Doctrine; it is indeed too true, but withal it is such a Complaint as is equally made on all hands, whilst every one thinks his own way the best. But I will, in return, send you to another Character of the same Apostle concerning these Days, which is all your own, 2 Thess. 2. vers. 3, to the 13th; and I think it is so plain, that you may without an infallible Interpreter understand the meaning of it.  
20. And thus far you pursue the former Consideration, of the state of the Controversy between the Papists and Protestants in general. Your next work is to give some accounts of your Disputes with us of this Church in particular.  
21. You begin with the History of the first Conversion of the English by Augustine the Monk, sent hither by Pope Gregory the Great. But your account of it is so very uncertain, that I would willingly hope, however you quote Bede for it, yet that you never read one word of him, but took it upon the Credit of one of your New Converts, 
Reason and Authority.  whose Errors in this Point you have as blindly embraced, as his Book testifies him to have most implicitly taken up your Prevarications.  22. Ad Pag. 7.] Reply. You tell us, That notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with Rome, and the Members of that Communion, occasioned by great Oppressions and Persecutions during the reign of Pagan Kings, yet had there not many Errors crept into this Christian part of the Nation. For S. Augustine found only two Customs amongst them which he could not tolerate, the One their keeping Easter at a wrong time, and the Other some Errors in the Ceremonies in Administering Baptism. These two he earnestly solicited them to Amend, but they were Obstinate, and would not suffer any Reformation in those two Points, TILL God was pleased to testify his Mission, and the Authority he came with, by the Authentic Seal of Miracles. 
22. Answ.] In which Relation you are many ways mistaken. For, 1st, As to the intercourse that you say was a long time lost between Rome and the British Churches, by reason of the Persecutions of Pagan Kings; this is not easy to be credited: It being the middle of the 5th Century  the Romans left this Island, and the Saxons were called into it. It was near the middle of the 6th before the Britain's were dispossessed of the rest of their Country, and forced to retrench themselves within the Mountains of Wales. During all this time their intercourse with Rome, if they had any, might well have continued; and it was not fifty Years after, that Austin the Monk came into England. 2dly, you say, that Austin found only two Customs among the Christians here that he could not tolerate. 'Tis true indeed, upon the second meeting that he had with the British Bishops, 
Bede Lib. 2. c. 2.  he told them, That though in many things they were contrary to the custom of his Church, yet if in those two mentioned they would obey him, and join with him in preaching the Gospel to the Saxons, he would bear with them in the rest: But did they therefore acknowledge his Authority in complying with his Desires? so you would make us believe. They were Obstinate, say you, TILL God was pleased to testify his Mission, and the Authority he came with by the Authentic Seal of Miracles. As for his Miracles, we have no great Opinion of their Authority, since we read in the passage to which I just now referred you, that Antichrist himself shall come with this Attestation. 
Gal. 1.9.  It is the Doctrine that must give credit to the Miracles, not these to the Doctrine. Should an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel than that which we have received, St. Paul has commanded us, for all the Wonder, to bid him be Anathema. But I return to the History, in which you so notoriously prevaricate, that I cannot imagine how one that pretends in this inquisitive Age to deliver the Antiquities of his own Country, durst betray himself so notoriously ignorant of it. See, Sir, 
Bede. Loc. cit.  the words of your own Author Bede, expressly contrary to your Allegation. But they answered, that they would do nothing of all this, nor receive him for an Archbishop. Insomuch that Austin came to high words with them, threatening them with that Destruction which they afterwards, to their cost, met with from his new Saxon Converts. And your illustrious Annalist Card. 
Baron. Annal. Tom. 8. An. 604.  Baronius, cannot forbear making some severe Reflections upon the State of our Island at that Time, as if God had therefore given it into the hands of the Barbarians, because of the refractory and schismatical Minds of these Bishops.  23. Ibid.] Reply. Your Adversaries (you say) acknowledge, that when St. Austin came into England, he taught most, if not all the same Doctrines the Roman Catholic Church now teaches, etc. 
24. Answ.] If S. Austin (as you call him) taught the same Doctrine which Pope Gregory the Great taught, who sent him hither, and whose Disciple we are told he was, I must then put you in Mind that a very Learned Man has lately showed you (and I may reasonably presume you could not but know it) that he did not teach most, much less all the Doctrines which you now teach. No, Sir, the Mystery of Iniquity was not yet come to Perfection; and though your Church had even then in many things declined from its first Faith, yet was it much more pure than now it is. 
Protestant's Apology, p. 57, etc. 2d Edit.  Had you when you took this Pretence from your Friend Mr. Brerely, looked into the Answer that was at large made to it; I am persuaded you would have been ashamed to have again advanced so false and trifling an Objection. Look, Sir, I beseech you into the Protestants Appeal, 
Prot. Appeal, lib. 1. cap. 2.  or if that be too much for one of your Employments, look into the Treatise to which I refer you: There you will find, 1. 
Vind. of the Answ. of some late Papers, p. 72, etc.  That the Scripture was yet received as a perfect Rule of Faith. 2. The Books of the Maccabees, which you now put into your Canon, rejected then as Apocryphal. 3. That Good Works were not yet esteemed meritorious: Nor, 4. Auricular Confession a Sacrament. That, 5. Solitary Masses were disallowed by him: And, 6. Transubstantiation yet unborn. That 7. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was hitherto administered in both kinds: And, 8. Purgatory itself not brought either to certainty or to perfection. That by consequence, 9 Masses for the Dead were not intended to deliver Souls from those Torments: Nor, 10. Images allowed for any other purpose than for Ornament and Instruction. 11. That the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was yet unformed; and even 12. The Pope's Supremacy so far from being then established as it now is, that Pope Gregory thought it to be the forerunning of Antichrist, for one Bishop to set himself above all the rest. These are the Instances in which you have been shown the vast difference there is between Pope Gregory's Doctrine, and that of the Council of Trent; and which may serve for a Specimen to satisfy the World with what Truth you pretend, that we acknowledge that S. Austin when he came into England, taught most, if not all the same Doctrines that you now teach. And this may also suffice for your next Argument founded upon it, viz.  25. Add pag. 7, 8.] Reply: That these Doctrines and Practices were either then taught and exercised by the British Christians also, or they were not. If they were not taught by them, certainly, we should not have found them so easily submitting to them. If they were taught by the British Bishops also, than they were of a longer standing than S. Austin's time: and we must either grant they were introduced by the first Preachers of the Gospel here, or evidently show some other time before St. Austin when this Church embraced them. 
26. Answ.] A Dilemma is a terrible thing with Sense and Truth, but without them 'tis a ridiculous one; as I take this to be. For,  
1. It is evident from what I have before said, that Austin did not teach the same Doctrines, nor establish the same Practices that you do now teach and establish; but did indeed in most of your Corruptions differ from you. So that like the unwise Builder, you have erected a stately Fabric, and founded it upon the Sand.  
2. Had he been as very a Romish Missionary as yourself, yet is your Argument still inconclusive. For whereas you suppose the British Bishops submitted to him, they were on the contrary so far from either obeying his Authority, or following his Prescriptions, that, as I have shown you, they utterly rejected both: and I will presently add, that for above a hundred Years after his Death, they utterly refused so much as to communicate with his Proselytes, nor esteemed them any more than Pagans. So that I may now turn your own Argument upon you, that seeing they had such an Abhorrence for Austin and his Followers, that they looked upon them no better than Heathens, it very probably was, because they neither approved what he taught, nor saw any cause to submit to that Authority to which he pretended. You see, Sir, what an admirable Argument you here flourish with; and how little cause we have to expect any great Sincerity from you in other matters, when in the very History of your own Country you so wretchedly prevaricate, and against the express Authority of that very Person whom you quote for your Relation.  
27. Having thus given us a proof either of your Skill or your Integrity in the account of the first Conversion of our Island under Pope Gregory the Great; you next make a very large step as to the progress of your Religion, and such as still confirms me more and more, how very unfit you are to turn Historian.  28. Add pag. 8.] Reply. This Faith and these Exercises (say you) taught and practised by St. Austin were propagated down even till King Henry the VIIIth's time. 
Answ.] In which account, whether we are to complain of your Ignorance or your unsincerity, be it your part to determine; this I am sure, they cannot both be excused.  
29. I have already shown you that that Faith which was found in the Church of England in King Henry the VIIIth's time could not have been propagated down from the time of Austin's coming hither, seeing that Monk neither taught nor practised the greatest part of those Corruptions which were afterwards by degrees brought into ours, as well as into the other Churches of the Roman Communion. But however not to insist upon this Fundamental Mistake: Can you, Sir, with any Conscience affirm, that the Doctrine which you now teach was till King Henry the VIIIth's time without interruption received and practised in this Country?  
30. First; For the British Bishops whom you before bring in as submitting themselves to Austin; your own Author Bede expressly declares that in his time (which was an hundred Years after the Death of Austin) they entertained no Communion with them. 
Lib. 2. cap. 20.  Seeing (says he) to this very day it is the Custom of the Britain's to have no value for the Faith and Religion of the English, nor to communicate with them any more than with Pagans. Which Henry of Huntingdon thus confirms: 
Lib. 3. Hist.  That neither the Britain's nor Scots, (i. e. Irish) would communicate with the English, or with Austin their Bishop any more than with Pagans. So that for one Age, at least, the British Bishops then neither owned the Authority of your Church, nor had any manner of Communion with the Members of it. But,  
31. Secondly; Have you never heard of some other Kings of England, who, with their Parliaments, have most stiffly opposed the Pretences of the Pope, and refused all Messages from Him, and made it no less than High-Treason for any one to bring his Orders or Interdicts into the Kingdom? What think you of another Henry, no less brave than his Successor, whom you so revile, in his Defence of himself against his Rebellious Subject, but your Saint, Thomas a Becket? I could add many Acts of Parliament made long before King Henry the VIIIth's time to show you, that though he indeed proved the most successful in his Attempts to shake off the Pope's Authority, yet that several other of our Princes had shown him the way, and that the Usurpations of that See were neither quietly owned, nor patiently submitted to by his Royal Predecessors. And then,  
32. Thirdly; For the matter of your Doctrine, it must certainly be a great piece of Confidence in you to pretend that this came down such as you now believe and practise, from the time of Austin the Monk, to King Henry the VIIIth's days. I speak not now of the great Opposition that was made to it by Wickleffe, though supported by the Duke of Lancaster, the Lord Martial of England, and divers others of chiefest note in this Kingdom, in the time of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second. I need not say in how many Points he stood up against the Doctrine of your Church; what a mighty Interest he had to support him against the Authority of the Pope, and the Rage of the Bishop of London and his other Enemies on that account; so as both freely to preach against your Errors, and yet die in Peace in a good old Age. The number of his Followers was almost infinite, and though severe Laws were afterwards made against them, yet could they hardly ever be utterly rooted out. But yet, lest you should say that Wickleffe was only a Schismatic from your Church, which constantly held against him; I will rather show you in a few Instances, that even the Church of England itself, which you suppose to have been so conformable to your present Tenets, was in truth utterly opposite to your Sentiments in many Particulars. And because I may not run out into too great a length, I will insist only upon two, but those very considerable Points.  
33. The first is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: which as it came but late into the Roman Church, so did it by Consequence into ours too. Certain it is, that in the 10th Century the contrary Faith was publicly taught among us. Now, not to insist upon the Authority of Bede, who in several parts of his Works, plainly shows how little he believed your Doctrine of Transubstantiation; this is undeniably evident from the Saxon Homily translated by Aelfrick, and appointed in the Saxons time to be read to the People at Easter before they received the Holy Communion; and which is from one end to the other directly opposite to the Doctrine of the Real Presence as established by your Council of Trent. And the same Aelfrick in his Letters to Wulfine Bishop of Scyrburne, and to Wulfstane Archbishop of York, shows his own Notions to have been exactly correspondent to what that Homily taught. The Housell (says he) is Christ's Body not bodily, but ghostly. Not the Body which he suffered in, but the Body of which he spoke when he blessed Bread and Wine to Housell a night before his suffering, and said by the blessed Bread, This is my Body, and again by the holy Wine, This is my Blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of Sins. Understand now that the Lord who could turn that Bread before his suffering to his Body, and that Wine to his Blood ghostly, that the selfsame Lord blesseth daily through the Priest's hands Bread and Wine to his ghostly Body and to his ghostly Blood. All which he more fully explains in his other Letter. 
H. de Knyghton de Event. Anglice l. 5. p. 2647, 2648.  Nay it appears by a Recantation of Wickleffe mentioned by Knyghton, that even in the latter time of that Man's Life there was no such Doctrine then in England as Transubstantiation publicly imposed as an Article of Faith. By all which it is evident that your great Doctrine of the Real Presence with all its necessary Appendages, was not, as you pretend, propagated down from Austin's to King Henry the Eight's time, but brought in to the Church some hundreds of Years after that Monk died.  
34. The other Instance I shall offer to overthrow your Pretences is no less considerable, viz. the Worship of Images. It is well known what Opposition was made not only by the Emperor Charles the Great, and the Fathers of the Synod of Franckfort, but by the French Clergy in their Synod at Paris, and by almost all the rest of the Bishops of the Western Church against your pretended General Council of Nice, wherein this Doctrine was first established. The Definitions of this Council being sent to the Emperor out of the East, he transmitted a Copy of them into England. Hereupon Alcuinus, who had formerly been his Schoolmaster, wrote an Answer to him in the Name of the Clergy of England, to declare their dislike of this Doctrine: and the account of which our ancient Histories give us in these words. In the Year from the Incarnation of our Lord 792 Charles King of France sent to Britain a Synod Book which was directed unto him from Constantinople: 
Hoveden. Annal. ad Ann. 792. Simeon Dunelm. Hist. p. 111. Mat. West. ad An. 793. Spelm. Conc. Tom. 1. p. 306.  in the which Book alas! many things unconvenient and contrary to the true Faith were found: in especial, that it was established with a whole consent almost of all the Learned of the East, no less than of three hundredth Bishops or more, that Men ought to worship Images, the which the Church of God DOTH UTTERLY ABHOR. Against the which Alcuine wrote an Epistle wondrously proved by the Authority of Holy Scripture, and brought that Epistle with the same Book, and Names of our Bishops and Princes to the King of France. And thus neither was this Doctrine nor Practice propagated down from Austin to King Henry the Eighth; but on the contrary unknown to Austin, and rejected as you see by the Church of England, almost 200 Years after his first Conversion of it.  
35. Ibid.] And this may suffice to show both your Skill in Church-History, and the little pretence you have for that vain and most false Assertion, that your Religion was taught and practised by S. Austin, and propagated down even to King Henry the Eighth 's time; whereas indeed it is made up of such Corruptions as crept into it long after his Decease. Your next business is to rail at King Henry the Eighth, which you do very hearty, 
See Thuanus.  though let me tell you that better Men than you are, even of your own Commuion, and who were much more acquainted with the Affairs of those Times, speak better things of him. And had he been as bad as you are able to represent him, yet I could send you to some of the Heads of your Church, who have as far excelled him in Wickedness as ever any of your Canonists have pretended they did in Authority. But the Merits of Princes, as well as ordinary Persons, are measured by some Men, not according to their real worth, but as they have served their Interests, or opposed the Usurpations. And though King Henry the Eighth be now such a Monster, yet had he not thrown off the Pope's Supremacy, you would have made no difficulty to have forgiven him all his other Sins whilst he lived, and would have found out somewhat to justify his Memory now he is dead. We know how one of the best Popes of this last thousand Years called Heaven and Earth to celebrate the Praises of a Traitor that had murdered his Master, and possessed himself of his Empire. And Cromwell himself, though a Usurper, and Heretic, yet wanted not his Panegyrists among those pretenders to Loyalty, who now cannot afford a good word to the Honour of a Prince, from whose Royal Line their present Sovereign at this day derives his Right to the Crown he wears.  
36. But however, were the Vices of that Prince otherwise never so detestable; yet I shall leave it to the World to judge who proceeded with the most Care and Sincerity in the Point you insist upon of his Divorce with Q. Catherine: the King who consulted almost all the Learned Men, as well as the most famous Universities of Europe, and then acted according to their Determination: Or the Pope who by his notorious juggling with him in the whole process of that Affair, showed that he resolved to decide it not by any Laws of God or the Church, but merely as his greater Interests with the Emperor or the King should move him to do.  
37. Ibid.] The next step you make is from King Henry, to his Son King Edward the Sixth. And here you tell us,  Reply, p. 8.] That as Schism is commonly followed with Heresy, so now the Protector, who was tainted with Zuinglianism, a Reform from Luther, endeavoured to set it up here in England. 
In which you again discover your Zeal against us, but not according to Understanding. There is hardly any one that knows any thing of the beginning of this Reformation, but will be able to tell you that the chief Instrument of it was one whom you have not once mentioned, Archbishop Cranmer. I will not deny but that the Protector concurred with him in his design, but whether he was Zuinglian, or what else, neither you nor I can tell. Dr. Heylin, 
See your Hist. Coll. p. 103.  who on this occasion is usually your Oracle, seems rather to think he was a Lutheran, though easy to be moulded into any form. But this I know, that had you been so well versed in these things, 
Hosp. Hist. Sacram. par. 2. p. 33. Lampadius par. 3. p. 439. Scultetus Annal. ad An. 1616.  as one who pretends to write Historical Remarks ought to be, you would have spared that idle Reflection of Zuinglius' being a Reform from Luther, it being evident to those who understand his History, that neither himself, nor the Cantons in which he preached were ever Lutherans. But on the contrary, whereas Luther appeared but in the Year 1517, Zuinglius began to preach against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome some Years before, when the very Name of Luther was not yet heard of: And had several Conferences with Cardinal Matthews then in Switzerland to this purpose, before ever the other appeared in public against them. So unfortunate a thing is it for Men to pretend to be witty upon others, without considering their own blind side. But you go on;  38. Ad pag. 9] Reply. And from that time the Catholic Doctrine which had been taught by our first Apostles, and propagated till then, began to be rejected and accused as Erroneons, Superstitious, and Idolatrous, and they who professed it, persecuted. 
Answ.] This is still of the same kind, as false, as it is malicious. How false it is that the Doctrine you now profess was either planted here by our first Apostles, or propagated till this time in the Church of England, I have already shown. And for the Persecution you speak of, methinks you should have been ashamed to mention that word, being to name Q. Mary's Reign in the very next Line. But what at last did this Persecution amount to? Were any Roman Catholics banished, or put to death for their Religion? Were the Laws turned against them; or any Dragoons sent to convert them? No; Bonner and Fisher, and two others, Heath Bishop of Worcester, and Day Bishop of Chichester were deprived of their Bishoprics, and the three first imprisoned. A very few of the inferior Clergy suffered in the same manner, and all after much provocation. This was the very utmost of what you call Persecution: and soon after we meet other kind of Trials: For this King dying,  39 Ibid.] Reply. You tell us The Catholic Religion began again to bud forth under Q. Mary. 
Answ.] And then as if you were afraid of burning your Fingers in those Fires which Her 
* See Dr. Burnet's Cont. of his Refl. on Varillas p. 4, 5.  Persecution kindled against us; you immediately pass to Her Sister's Succession: And to whose Reign I will so far comply with you, as to pass without one word of reflection, which you know I might here have occasion enough to make.  40. Ibid.] Reply. But that Bud being early nipped by her Death, Queen Elizabeth, by the Advice of the new Council which she chose, and to secure herself in the Throne, resolved to destroy the Catholic Interest, and set up a Prelatic Protestancy, which might have the Face of a Church. But other pretended Reformers opposed her Prelates, and called their Orders Anti-christian, and would needs have the Rags and Remnants of Popery, as they called them, taken away: Telling them, that if the Word of God was to be the sole Rule of Reformation, such things as were not to be found in that Rule were certainly to be rejected. 
Answ.] The Method by which Queen Elizabeth proceeded in her Reformation, was such as will sufficiently justify both her Piety and Prudence in the choice of it. Never was more care taken that nothing should be done out of Interest or Passion; but all things be established upon the best and surest Foundations. And had not some misguided Zealots, out of a too great Affection to those Models they had seen abroad, run into unreasonable Oppositions at Home, the Church of England had at this day been the most flourishing, as it is the most Primitive Church in the World.  
41. But though this than be a Matter justly to be lamented by Us, yet certainly you have no cause to complain of that great Queen's proceed towards you. It is well known how many Years passed before any severe Laws were made against Recusants; and how the Attempts of the Pope, and the King of Spain from Abroad, and of your Brethren in compliance with them at Home, forced her to that Severity, which was afterwards, but with great Moderation, used against you. Bonner, though infamous for his Cruelties in Queen Mary's days, was yet suffered to go in safety now. Heath lived not only in great security, but even in favour with the Queen herself. Tonstal and Thirleby, found a Retreat with the Archbishop at Lambeth: The rest of the Bishops continued in quiet amongst us; only three chose to retire beyond Sea. When the High Commission was established for visiting the Churches of England, they were expressly ordered by her Majesty's Injunctions to reserve Pensions for those that refused to continue in their Benefices: And the Reformation itself appeared so reasonable to them, that of nine thousand four hundred beneficed Men in England, there were but fourteen Bishops, six Abbots, twelve Deans, twelve Arch-Deacons, fifteen Heads of Colleges, fifteen Prebendaries, and eighty Rectors of Parishes that left their Benefices upon the account of Religion. Consider, Sir, this procedure, and then compare it with that of the Queen her Sister; or if these things be too far out of your reach, look upon the Methods that have been used in our Neighbour Country, and that not in the severe Accounts of any particular Persons, but in the public Edicts, in the Report which one of your own Party, Monsieur le Feure has published with the King's Permission; and then say freely, which has most in it of the true Spirit of Christianity, the meekness whereby this Princess established the Truth in her Kingdoms, or that furious Zeal which has been employed to root it out of this Other.  42. Ad Pag. 9] Reply. From that time (you say) the Nation has been variously agitated with Disputes. 
Answ.] And give me leave to tell you we are in great measure to thank you for it. They were your Brethren, that creeping into Chambers and Conventicles, under pretence of a purer Reformation, endeavoured to divide us among ourselves, and especially to draw as many as they could from the Established Religion, which you have ever the most hated. Such was Faithful Commin in the 9th Year 
* See Foxes & Firebrands, Part 1, & 2. : Father Heath in the 10th of that Queen's Reign: and both discovered to be Priests in Masquerade. And it was in this very Year 
† See Camden's Eliz. ad Annum 1568.  1568 that the Puritans chief began to appear: And the Heads of them which our Historians mention, Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson, are named in a Letter that dropped out of Father Heath's Pocket, 
Foxes and Firebrands, Part 1. p. 37. Ed. 80. See A.B. Bramhall's Letter to A. B. Usher. p. 611.  to have been some of your Emissaries. How far the same Policies have kept open our Divisions since it is now no longer a Mystery. We know how Provision has been made to tutor up Scholars, not only in Learning, but in Handicraft Trades too, in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain: How they have been taught twice a Week regularly to dispute pro and con, concerning Presbytery, Independency, Anabaptism, Atheism; every one to take his part among us, according as his Fancy or Genius leads him. 
Foxes and Firebrands, Part 1. p. 7.  Who was it but a St. Omer's Jesuit that confessed (as we are credibly informed) that they were twenty Years in hammering out the Sect of the Quakers? And indeed the Principle they go upon to refuse all Oaths, is a neat Contrivance for Priests and Jesuits to avoid the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, without a possibility of being discovered. But this may suffice to show how unreasonable you are to complain of those Divisions which yourselves have in great measure been the Authors of amongst us: and shall, I hope, make us hereafter better understand one another, than to give you any longer the opportunity of keeping up these Differences amongst us, and then I am sure we need not much fear whatever you can do in your own Shapes to ruin us.  43. Ibid.] During this Time, you say, all things were carried to an Extremity against you: so furious was our rage against the Truth. 
Answ. But certainly you here again make History, and do not report things as they truly passed in those Days. I am sure if we may conclude any thing, either from the Writings or Actions of those Times, nothing can be more moderate than we shall find them both to have been. It was then our XXXIX Articles were drawn up, and in which I am confident you will not have the face to say, that things were carried to any undue excess against you. And if the Homilies in some Particulars may seem somewhat severe, yet I believe there are but few Expressions in them that you have not very well deserved. But this first Dream gives you occasion in the next Paragraph to run into a contrary Extravagance, and that as groundless as the foregoing: For you add, 44. Ad pag. 9, 10.] Reply. That things growing calmer in King James and King Charles the first Time, such Calumnies and Accusations (as had before been used) were looked upon by the more Learned Party as the Effects of Passion; and Moderation taught them to acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Mother-Church, and that Salvation was to be had in Herald That many of those Accusations which were brought against Her, were but the Dreams of distracted Brains; and the more moderate Persons begun to look upon Her with a more favourable Eye.  
45. Answ.] I wish you had here given us some Proofs of what you say, that so we might have known who these Learned Men were, and what those Charges that they begun to leave off against you. It is well known how earnestly King James wrote against your Church; King Charles the first was your avowed Enemy even to his Death: The most Learned Men of those Times have left such Volumes against you as you never were, nor ever will be able to Answer: and I shall hereafter show you, that even those whom you allege as excusing you from Idolatry (which is I believe in your own Estimation, our severest charge against you) are for all your Pretences, far from thinking that there is either Falsehood or Calumny in such an Accusation.  
46. It is therefore great Confidence in you, without the least shadow of Authority for what you do, to represent such Eminent Persons as Favourers of your Doctrine. But this has been ever your way, and we ought not to wonder at it, seeing we can remember the time that we ourselves were reported to be Popishly affected: and it is but a few Months since that some of you put out a book to show an Agreement at this day between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome; though I suppose he may by this time begin to repent of an undertaking, which has brought nothing but infamy to the Author of so false and scandalous an Attempt.  
47. What you mean by our acknowledging your Church to be a Mother-Church, I do not very well comprehend. We confess indeed it was a Roman Missionary that especially contributed to the Conversion of the Saxons: and this I believe no Man ever denied; but let me tell you, that if your own Historian Bede be to be Judge, our Country was much more beholden to the Labours and Prudence of the Scots & French, 
Answer to Reason & Authority pag. 83, etc.  than to the Romans. Look into the Account that has lately been given by a Learned Person of our Church in His Answer to One of your New Converts. There you will find that they were Columba, Aidan, Ced, Ceadda, Finan, Colman, Trumhere, Agilbertus, and Felix, that restored Christianity and propagated it among the Saxons; when the planting of it by Austin was almost lost. Insomuch that at the Death of Deus-dedit Archbishop of Canterbury, there was in all Britain but one Bishop of Roman Ordination, remaining; viz. Wini, who called in two British Bishops to his Assistance for the Ordaining of Ceadda to be Archbishop of York. And to show what great Obligations we have to own the Church of Rome as a Mother-Church; when things are now in peace, and the Paschal Controversy laid aside, and great Hopes that all things would come to a right understanding, Wilfrid returning from Rome, revived again the Old Quarrels, and forced Colman and his followers to retire into Ireland, St. Chad to leave his bishopric of York; and so deprived our Country of the benefit of so many excellent Pastors, as Bede himself, no Friend to them, could not choose but give an extraordinary Character of them. 
See Maso● de Minist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 4. Bede. l. 3. c. 6.  But that you may see what little reason we have to acknowledge your Church above all Others to be our Mother-Church, I will lay this whole Affair in short before you. Our whole Island heretofore was divided into four Languages; of Britain's, 
Ibid. l. 2. c. 2.  Scots, Picts, and English. As for the Britain's, they were so far from being Converted by Austin, that at his coming he found an Established Church amongst them, and that utterly refused to have any thing to do with Him. For the Scots, 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 13.  they were established Christians before Austin's Time, under Palladius their Bishop; 
Baron. ad Ann. 429.  and your own Annalist carries their Conversion yet higher. The Picts embraced our Faith at the preaching of Columbanus, who came hither out of Ireland, 32 Years before Austin's arrival. And lastly, for the English, 
Bede. l. 3. c. 4.  though we are far from detracting any thing from the Labours of S. Austin, yet neither may we forget that the Glory even of their Conversion is not his alone; but must be ascribed to those other Holy Men who were His Fellow-workers in the Gospel, Felix, Aidan, Ceadda, Lethardus, etc. and some of which had begun before Him, and prepared the way for that success which afterwards attended his Preaching.  
48. As to what you add, that they began to confess then too, that Salvation was to be had amongst you; it is what we do not any more deny at this day. We do hope that some Men amongst you may be saved, because we hope there may be some in your Church who live in a more excusable Ignorance of the Truth, and that these holding still the Foundation, and being ready to submit to any Conviction that should be offered, may by God's Grace, and a general Repentance, even for their very Errors among the rest of their unknown Sins, be saved through Faith in Christ Jesus. But yet that you may not mistake our Charity, give me leave to tell you,  
(1.) That we think it much more difficult for any one to be saved in your Church now, than it was before the Reformation; because that then your Errors were neither so well known, nor so fully refuted as they have been since: and therefore Ignorance was in those Days much more invincible, and by consequence more fit to excuse than it is now.  
(2.) That for those who live, as you do, in a Country where you might, would you sincerely apply yourselves to it, find sufficient means of Instruction, it is yet more dangerous than in those Parts where these Helps are wanting.  
But especially (3.) will this hold good against you whom God has called to be the Pastors of his Church, and whose Character engages them to be in an especial manner, sedulous and inquisitive; Earnest in their Prayers, and unprejudiced in their Desires to know the Truth, more than against the Lay-members of your Church. So that however we will not judge you, yet neither can we with any comfort say that God will acquit you.  
And (4.) for those whom by this Argument you endeavour to draw away from us; That we confess that Men in your Church may be saved, but that you utterly deny that they can be in Ours, and therefore it is best for them to be on Yours, that is, the safer Side. If they do indeed use all possible means to be satisfied in the Points in debate betwixt us; if they indifferently apply themselves to the examination of them; and after a diligent trial, remain at last convinced in their Consciences that yours is the best and purest Church; we shall then be encouraged to hope well of them, as we do of others of your Communion, notwithstanding such a change. But now, should Interest, or Prejudice, or any Humane Motives chance to have interposed to bias their Judgements; if they choose your Religion, without this diligent, and impartial Examination, and suffer themselves without Reason to be seduced by you: We must freely profess our Charity in this Assertion is not meant for them; nor do we think your Church in this Case any way of Salvation at all to such Converts, much less a safer than that of the Church of England. In short, the Sum of this Matter is; We hope honest Men may be saved in your Communion; but we are sure they shall be in Ours. Whether God will condemn you for professing Errors that you do not know to be such, we cannot tell, we believe he will not; Sure we are he would damn us, should we who are convinced of your Corruptions, be seduced by any base Motives to go over to you. And this is enough for us to know; The Other is your Concern, and do you look to it. But you go on, and tell us;  49. Ibid.] Reply. That the Aversion which the People had imbibed from so long continued Slanders, could not be removed; and the arising Factions in the State blew up the Coals afresh, and pretended this Moderation was nothing but an inclination to Popery, which so frighted the Mobile, that they were ready to join with any Party that pretended to suppress such a Monster as they thought it to be: From hence came Rebellions, and the horrid Murder of King Charles the First. 
50. Answ.] That the People had an Aversion to Popery then, I can easily believe, from what I have the satisfaction to find in them at this day. But that this Aversion sprung from any Slanders that had been laid upon you heretofore, I no more believe, than I do that it proceeds from our Misrepresenting your Doctrine now. No, Sir, believe me, there is enough in Popery to make an honest Man hate it, without raising any Calumnies against it to render it the more odious: and I do not find since your Endeavours to vindicate yourselves against us, that it gins to be at all more liked than it was before.  
51. For what you mention of the Original of the Civil Wars in King Charles the First's Reign, I readily grant that the fears of Popery contributed much to blow up the People into Rebellion. But I am persuaded we must look somewhat farther, if we mean to rise up to the true Authors of them. Shall I tell you freely what I think? I do believe there was more at the bottom of those Civil Wars, than either the People did then believe, or it may be the wisest Men are at this day able sufficiently to dive into. But yet thus much we do all know,  
1st, That the King himself in the very first breaking out of them, observed, that the fanatics proceeded upon Popish Principles against him. 
See the King's large Declar. about the Scotch Troubles, p. 3, 4.  Their Maxims (says he) are the same with the Jesuits; their Preachers Sermons have been delivered in the very Phrase and Style of Becanus, Scioppius, and Eudaemon Johannes. Their poor Arguments which they have delivered in their Seditious Pamphlets printed or written, are taken almost verbatim out of Bellarmine and Suarez; and the means which they have used to induce a Credit of their Conclusions with their Proselytes, 
See his Majesty's Declarat. after the Battle at Edg-Hill. King's Works, part 2. pag. 213.  are purely and merely Jesuitical Fables, false Reports, false Prophecies, pretended Inspirations and Divinations of the weaker Sex; As if now Herod and Pilate were once again reconciled for the ruin of Christ and of his true Religion and Worship.  
2. That in the Year 1640, there was discovered to the Archbishop of Canterbury a Design, in which the Pope, Cardinal Richlieu, many of the English Papists, but especially the Jesuits, were concerned in stirring up those Divisions that had just before broke out in Scotland, for the Ruin of the King and of the Arch Bishop. This may be seen at large in the Histories of those Times, 
Vol. 3. p. 13 10, etc.  and the very Papers themselves may be found in Mr. Rushworth's Collections.  
3. That Sir William Boswell, his Majesty's Resident at that Time at the Hague, and to whom this Discovery was first made; 
See in the Life of A. B. Usher, Append. p. 27. Letter 17.  did find out that the Romish Clergy gulled the misled party of our English Nation under a Puritanical Dress. That they had received Indulgences from the See of Rome and Council of Cardinals, to educate their Scholars in Principles and Tenets contrary to the Episcopacy of the Church of England. That within the compass of two Years, above sixty of the Romish Clergy were gone out of France, to preach up the Scotch Covenant, and to pull down the English Episcopacy, as being the chief support of the Imperial Crown of our Nation.  
4. That Archbishop Bramhal being in France, some time after the King's Death, did there learn how all these things were managed: 
See Ep Usher's Life, 293. Letter, p. 611.  That in the Year 1646, above an hundred Romish Clergy were sent over into England; who were most of them Soldiers in the Parliament Army; and were daily to correspond with the Romanists in the King's Army: That in the Year 1647. they had a Consult with one another, wherein they discoursed about the Death of the King, and England's being a Commonwealth; that hereupon the Romish Orders wrote to their several Convents, but especially to the Sorbonists, to know whether it might be lawful to make away the King and the Prince? In short, that the Sorbonists returned, That it was lawful for Roman Catholics to work Changes in Governments for the Mother-Churches Advancement, and chief in an Heretical Kingdom, and so lawfully make away the King.  
5. 
* Salmonet Hist. des troubles d'Angleterre, liv. 3. p. 165.  That after the Engagement at Edge-Hill, several Romish Priests were found among the slain of the Parliament Army. This Father Salmonet declares in his History of those Civil Wars, printed in France, with the allowance of the King: and adds, that the Parliament had two Companies of Walloons, besides others of that Religion in their Army.  
6. When the Rebellion broke out in Ireland, it was we know blessed with his Holinesses Letters, and assisted by his Nuntio, whom he sent on purpose thither for that Service.  

† Answer to Philanax Anglicus. pag. 61.  last; that Monsieur du Moulin has confirmed this with several plain Instances, which he declared himself ready to make a legal Proof of before his Judges, and after 17 Years attendance, in a new Edition of his Book desired once more that he might be called to account for it, and yet died without being ever attempted to be disproved.  
These things, I say, we know of this Matter, and therefore though I do confess that the Fears of Popery was the pretence to blow up the People, yet whether there might not be some other Persons and Designs at the bottom, I shall leave it to the Reader to consider what Credit he will think fit to give these Relations, and then judge as he sees Cause.  52. Ad pag. 10.] Reply. During this War, there was (you say) a good understanding between the Papists and the Prelatic Party, which was the cause of a no less pleasing Union after the Restauration of King Charles the Second till Shaftsbury and his Adherents invented a malicious Calumny, laying a pretended Plot to their Charge— The Truth of which being detected by a subsequent real One, the more moderate of the Church of England again began to favour them: Only still the Laws enacted against them being in force, there were Persons enough ready to put them in Execution. 
Answ.] To all which I have nothing more to say, but that being come now to the Affairs of our own Times, I suppose every Man is already satisfied what to believe as to these things: Or, if he be not, I am sure there is nothing here to direct him. The accounts of these Transactions have been published by Authority; and those who desire more nearly to consider them, may recur to the History of the latter of the Plots mentioned; and to the several Trials and Narratives, especially to Mr. Coleman's Letters, for his Information in the former.  53. Ad pag. 11.] Reply. In this posture were Affairs, when it pleased God to take to himself his late Majesty: No sooner was his present Majesty ascended upon the Throne, but he declared Himself a Catholic: yet was pleased to declare that he looked upon the Church of England as proceeding upon Loyal Principles, and that he would protect Herald This gained the Hearts of that Party, and had so much Power over the Parliament, that notwithstanding the Conclusion of a Sermon preached before them, in which it was declared, that an English Man might be Loyal, but not a Papist, that Parliament testified its Loyalty to such a degree as shall never be forgotten. 
And thus after a long Story nothing to the purpose, and that too fraught (as we have seen) with many Falsifications, we are at last come to the Point to be considered, of the Controversies that are now depending betwixt the two Churches, and the Original whereof you here recount to us.  54. Ad pag. 11, 12.] Reply. This was the occasion of our following Controversies, and the first thing that appeared in Print against the Roman Catholics, though the Author of the Present State of the Controversies would not take notice of it. And the more considering Men of your Party (you say) looked upon it as the throwing out of the Gauntlet, and bidding defiance to all the Catholics of England. This produced a Remonstrance from you, and that an Answer from the Doctor, and there (as almost all our Controversies have done since) it ended, though a Reply was prepared and approved of. But it was thought fit by those (who were to be obeyed) to let the Controversy die, rather than stir up a Religious Litigation upon a Point which not only the Protestations of Catholics, but their Practices had justified them in. 
55. Answ.] What you thought of that Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Sermon I cannot tell; but others think that by your Clamours against it you have given the Doctor occasion to satisfy the World that what he had said was but too true. And since you tell us that there is an Answer ready prepared and approved, and that the Controversial Spirit is now let lose, so that our Quarrels will not be much increased by such an Accession, I dare say the Doctor will be very glad to see that Answer, and whether it has force enough to convince him of his Mistake. As for your pretence why you declined engaging any farther in this Dispute, viz. That it was a Point, which not only your Protestations, but your Practices had justified you in; though I readily acknowledge that the Englishman has in many of your Communion been too strong for the Papist, (and far be it from us to detract from their worth) Yet as to your Assertion in the general, that both your Protestations and Practices have sufficiently justified you in this Point, give me leave to tell you that we are not very forward to credit the One, because we have known too much of the Other. We cannot so soon forget the Names of Mariana, Suarez, Bellarmine, of Parsons, Stapleton, and many others of your Communion, as not to remember what sort of Loyalty has sometimes been taught in your Schools. Who were they that Sainted Thomas à Becket, and have applauded even the Assassins of some Princes since, but the venerable Heads of your Church? And in what esteem Campian and Garnet are at this day among you, we are not ignorant. When that wicked Wretch J. Castell assaulted Henry the Fourth of France, he found an Apologist among you; and the Arrest of the Parliament of Paris against him, stands at this day among the prohibited Books in the last Index set forth at Rome. They were these things that moved our King James the First, to set out his Admonition to all Christian Princes against you; and even that your Card. Bellarmine was not ashamed to answer, in defence of his Doctrine of the Pope's Authority over Kings: In short, he that would know what Credit is to be given to you in your Assertion as to this matter, need only recur to Mr. Foulis Collection, and I am confident he will then confess that the distinction the Doctor made in behalf of his Countrymen of your Religion, is the best Apology that can be offered, and the most to the Honour of our Nation, though it may be not so much for the Credit of your Church, viz. that your Principles considered, the English Man may be, I will add, and has often been found Loyal, but then he has laid aside the Papist to be so.  56. Ad p. 12.] Reply. You tell us, That this Imputation of the Doctor's, joined with the Mistakes that most Men had conceived of your Doctrine, gave occasion to the Representer to show your Doctrines truly as they are in themselves, without the mixture of the particular Opinions of the Schoolmen, or the Practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received. 
Answ.] And this Book, though it produced not any manner of Authority for its Representations, and was contrary in most Points to the Opinions of the chiefest Writers of your Church, soon received an Answer in every particular. There your Doctrine was truly stated from your own Authors, his false Colours detected, and to your shame never replied to. For I suppose no one will be so far mistaken, as to think that Trifle that came out against it deserves the Name of an Answer.  
57 Ad pag. 13.] And whilst this Book yet subsists in its full force, and that we have so effectually shown you the Opinions of the most Eminent Divines of your Church, the Practice of the Generality amongst you, and the very words of your Councils and Liturgies, to be utterly inconsistent with your new Representations, that you are not able to make any reasonable Defence of the one, and are forced utterly to reject after all the other; What a Forehead must that Man have that can tell the World as you do," That we CANNOT DENY (what yet you complain of Me in this very Book for denying) that all Catholics do believe according to that Doctrine which the Representer expresses, and which you in vain endeavour (as I shall hereafter show you) to defend.  58. Ad pag. 14.] Reply. During this Dispute two Books (you say) were published, with the same Intention: The first, The Acts of the Clergy of France in their General Assembly, 1685. in which was shown in one Column the Doctrine of your Church from the words of the Council of Trent, in the other the Calumnies of Protestants against you, from the very words of their Authors. And this you think to have been so clear a Proof of what the Representer had said, that you suppose his Adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample Testimonies. 
Answ.] And here you think you have found out somewhat to boast of: A Wonder indeed not every day to be seen; a Book never yet answered by us. 'Tis true, I do not know of any one here at home, that has taken the pains to examine the Clergy's Quotations, as the Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery has done, for the Instances there offered by their Humble Imitator the Representer. But then the discovery that was made by that worthy Author of the whole Cheat, by distinguishing Matters of Dispute, from Matters of Representation, has abundantly confuted all their Pretences. We charge you (for Instance) with Idolatry, for worshipping of Images, Praying to Saints, and for adoring the Host. If you do not worship Images, nor pray to Saints, nor adore the Host, than indeed we Misrepresent you. But now for the other Point, that therefore you commit Idolatry, this is our Consequence which we draw from those Practices, and must be put to the Trial betwixt us. If our Reasons be good, our Conclusion will be so too: If they are not, we are then mistaken in our Opinion, and you may say we are in an Error, but we do not therefore misrepresent you. We never yet pretended that you thought Idolatry to be lawful; or that you confessed that you committed it: We accuse you of it only as a thing which upon the Premises before mentioned, we conclude you to be guilty of; and in that certainly, if we misrepresent any Body, it must be ourselves, not you. Now this one thing being observed, the Book you mention is utterly overthrown, and both the Artifice and the Evidence fall together.  
59 Ibid.] The other Book you tell us you published was the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, and what has been done on this occasion is very well known, and I shall not need to give any account of it.  
60. Ad pag. 17.] And thus have we done with the two Points to which I reduced the Sum of your Preface: What farther remains is your Advice to the Readers of our Books, what they are to take notice of, and what to pass over in them. You tell them that you will lay down the true State of the difference betwixt us, and that whatever they find written by us that does not immediately oppose some of those Tenets, they should pass it over, though never so plausible or pleasing.  
61. Now how Politic such an Advice as this may be to hinder the good effect of our Writing, I will not dispute; but sure I am it is highly unreasonable. For what if the very Subject of the Controversy should be (as indeed at this time it is) whether those things which you here lay down be your Church's Doctrine, or only your private Exposition of it? Ought not the judicious Reader in this case to consider our Allegations, and see whether we have not reason to say that you do endeavour to delude them, by pretending that to be your Belief, which in truth is not received by the Generality of your Church as such? As for instance: You positively deny that the Holy Cross is upon ANY ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be worshipped with DIVINE WORSHIP. Now this we deny too, and therefore as to this Point there can be no Dispute betwixt us. But now what if I should undertake to show, that you here impose upon your Reader, and that whatsoever you pretend, yet your Church does teach, that the Holy Cross IS TO BE WORSHIPPED with DIVINE WORSHIP, and Practices accordingly? Is not this think you fit to be considered by him? Or is the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition become so far the Guide in Controversy in France and England, that all other Expositions are to be looked upon as superannuated, and this only to contain the true Interpretation of your pretended Catholic Faith.  
62. But indeed I do not wonder that you would persuade your Proselytes not to read our Books, since you easily guess that those things may well stagger them, which were not your Obstinacy or your Prejudices too strong for your Reason and Conscience to grapple with, must long  this have convinced, as they have sufficiently confuted, your own selves.  63. Ad pag. 27.] And because you are not willing to prolong Disputes, you do here declare, that if the Defender do meddle hereafter with such Points as those which are not of necessary Faith, you shall not think yourself obliged to answer him, though after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last Word. 
Answ.] That is to say, the great business of the Defender has been to discover your true Doctrine, and yours to dissemble it. Now if the Defender makes any Answer at all to your Reply, it must be to maintain those Doctrines to be yours which he had laid to your Charge, and which you deny; And this if he does, you here declare you will have done with him: Which I think is plainly to confess, that you have had enough of this Argument.  
64. But, Sir, the Defender has such a kindness for his Subject, and such a respect for You, that he is resolved not to part either with you or it. And therefore, for what concerns his Subject, he will still make good in the several Points in which he advanced it, his distinction of Old and New Popery against you, and which in your last Defence you have been shown yourself to allow of: He will prove that you do palliate the ancient Doctrine of your Church; and that greater Men than any either the Bishop of Meaux or yourself, have and do interpret your Church's Sense in a much other manner than you represent it. And to this you may return or not, as you think sit. For yourself, he is resolved to be so far your Humble Servant as to join issue with you upon your own terms, and show you how you have abused the World to no purpose at all; for that even taking your Doctrine as you misrepresent it, yet still we are not able nevertheless to embrace it. But then for your other proposal, of throwing aside all the rest of our Points, only for the sake of those two which you mention, here he desires to be excused: It being much more for the Edification of his Friends the Populace (and whose Applause you know he courts) to give them a full prospect of your Doctrine, and your Misrepresentations of it, than to run the Circle with you in the single Point of the Church's Authority, in which they may more easily be amused and deluded by you. But you say,  65. Ad pag. 24.] Reply. That you may be bold to foretell without pretending to be a Prophet, that nothing of this will be done by Me, but that I shall either still fly to the Tenets and Practices of Particulars, or misrepresent your Doctrine, or fob off your Arguments with such an Answer as I think sufficient to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpetuité, which I said wanted only Diogenes' Demonstration to confute it. 
Answ.] I am very glad, Sir, you profess yourself to be no Prophet, (and I have long been convinced that you are no Conjurer) for if your Arguments be no better than your Guesses, I shall have a very easy Task of it. I have already told you what Method I resolve to proceed in, and I hope you will comply so far with me as to excuse one part of it, seeing I go utterly besides my measures to gratify your Desires in the other. As for your fear that I should fob off your Arguments, by which I suppose you mean that I shall endeavour to elude them with some imperfect Answer, I do promise you it is groundless; I will very carefully sift your Reply to the bottom, and not let any thing, that is not very impertinent, pass my Examination. But shall I beg leave now that I have satisfied yours, to confess my own Fears; and that is, that as far as I can yet judge by what I have hitherto read of your Reply, I shall find but few Arguments in it either to fob off, or to answer. For having already considered your Calumnies, I much doubt by that time I have rectified your Mistakes too, I shall have little more remaining to encounter.  
66. As to Monsieur Arnaud's Perpetuité, I do still say that Diogenes' Demonstration is the best Confutation of it. The Case in short is this; Monsieur Aubertine has shown in the first Ages of the Church, that the Doctrine which we now embrace of the Holy Eucharist contrary to Transubstantiation, was the ancient Catholic Doctrine of the Church. This he confirms by a multitude of clear Testimonies drawn out of the Writings of those Fathers who lived in those Times. Now for Monsieur Arnaud after this to think to confute this Evidence by a Logical Argument, that had not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation been the Doctrine of the Church at the beginning, it could never have become so afterwards; and that such a little shift is sufficient to overthrow all those Testimonies, this must certainly be a mere Reveree, (you will I hope excuse me that Expression, now you know the meaning of it) and needs no other Confutation, than to show him that the Matter of Fact is evidently opposite to his Pretences.  67. Ad Pag. 25.] Reply. But such things as these (you say) are now adays put upon the World without a blush: and they who are this day Ingenuous, Learned, Honest Men, shall be to morrow Time-servers, Blockheads, and Knaves, if they chance to cast but a favourable Eye towards Popery. 
Answ.] O Tempora! O Mores! To what a sad State are we arrived, that Men should be able to do such ill things, and yet not blush at them! But what now is the Matter? Why, Men who were yesterday esteemed very honest Men, are the next found out to be Knaves and Time-servers. Good Sir, be not too hasty; 'tis possible this may be done, and yet no cause of blushing neither, unless for those Persons who are so found out. For, 1. What if we mistook those Men for Honest Men, who at the bottom were not so? And when we saw our Error, altered our Opinion? And as every thing that is done, must be done some day or other; What if we took them for honest Men to day, and to morrow find that they were not so honest? Is it any Crime for one upon good grounds to change his Mind in this Case? Again, 2. There is a certain Season when the worst Man first gins to be so. Now, what if one that had hitherto done nothing to forfeit his Reputation, should begin to do such notorious ill things as to deserve our Censure? Here we had both reason to believe him an honest Man whilst he was so, and as much reason to believe him otherwise, since his Actions have declared his Change. So that then, for aught I can find, we must come at last to the grounds of these Charges, before we can judge of them. And for that, whenever you will please to give us your Instances of the Persons who have been thus censured by us; that have been heretofore esteemed honest, ingenuous Men, and are now found out to be Knaves and Blockheads; though I shall have no occasion to justify any such censure, till you can prove that I have been concerned in passing of it; yet I doubt not but those who have done this, will be able to give you abundant satisfaction for it.  68 Ibid.] Reply. You conclude all with an Insinuation, the most likely to catch those that are not well acquainted with you, of any thing in your whole Book: That it is not likely you should palliate your Doctrine to gain Proselytes, seeing that Proselyte the first time he should see you practise contrary to your Doctrine, would be sure to return and expose your Villainy. 
Answ.] But yet to this I Answer; 1st, That 'tis possible you may palliate your Doctrine, and your Proselyte never discover it. It is no such strange thing for Men to profess one thing and do another; and yet by subtle distinctions j stify themselves to those who are prepared to deny Sense and Reason, rather than not believe them. You tell us for instance, that the Holy Cross is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped; And yet certainly your Good-friday Service directly leads you to it. But then if your new Proselyte gins to inquire what this means; presently you tell him a Story of Absolute and Relative Worship; and he who knows nothing more of the Matter than you are pleased to let him, humbly submits himself to yours and the Church's Judgement.  
69. If we urge your Expressions against you, and he fortunes to get something of this by the end; Either you confidently deny that you have any such words, (a Case which has happened to myself in this very Allegation) or if you are baffled there; then 'tis not (for instance) Come, let us Adore the Cross; but, Come, let us adore Christ who suffered on it: concerning which we must discourse a little by and by.  
70. If this too fails, and we show you plainly that you say, We adore thy Cross, O Lord: So that our Saviour is himself distinguished from his Cross which you worship; then the Cross there is put to signify Christ's Passion; though I am afraid the Adoring of Christ's Passion is something like that which you call Jargon, and we in plain English, Nonsense.  
71. If even this be beaten off, and other Hymns produced in which that Cross is plainly specified which bore Christ's Sacred Members; the Tree upon whose Arms the Price of the World hung: than you have your Figures ready, 'tis a Metonymy in one line, a Prosopopaeia in the next; in the third a conjunction of both together: And with these Quirks the poor Implicit Proselyte's Head is turned round. He believes there is something meant by all these hard words, though he knows nothing of the Matter; and his Opinion of your Integrity, joined with the good assurance with which you pronounce your Oracles, and thunder out your anathemas against us as Heretics and Schismatics; Calumniators, Falsifiers, Misrepresenters, and what not? makes him that he no longer questions your Pretences.  
72. As for your Authors he knows nothing of them; or if he did, yet those who have so many tricks to elude such clear Expressions of their public Rituals, could not want distinctions enough to expound them. Or however a general outcry against them as private Men, and for whose Opinions the Church is not to Answer, will at once silence all such Allegations that they shall not make any the least impression upon them. By all which it appears that you may (as we affirm you do) palliate your Doctrine, and yet your Proselyte be never the wiser for it.  
73. But now, 2dly, if he should discover something of this kind, yet is it not necessary, that he should therefore presently return and expose your Villainy. I will suppose that those few Proselytes you have made, may all be reduced to these two kinds; Men of Conscience, or Men of Interest and Design. For the latter of these, whilst they serve their Interests by the Change, there is no great fear of their making any such dangerous Discoveries. Religion is not their Concern; and whether it be New Popery or Old that they embrace, they neither know, nor care: it is to them indifferent; and they understand, as well as value, both alike. As to the Conscientious Converts, (allowing for their Capacities, and that they are able to overcome all the  Difficulties, and to discover the Cheat, which I fear is what the much greatest part of these are not able to do): It is indeed hard to say what a terrible Conflict this will be apt to make in them. But yet the Point of Reputation, the Opinion of the World, shame of Return, and the dangers those commonly run who venture to reveal such Sacred Mysteries; these Considerations have sometimes kept good Men a longer time in suspense, than any of your Proselytes have yet had to resolve upon a return to us. And who can tell, what Time and Changes may one day bring forth?  
74. Again: We know there have been many in your Church, who though they have discovered these Prevarications, yet have thought, that as long as they did not themselves join in your Errors, they might hold their Tongues, and live quietly in an External Communion with you: and their Eyes have been so dazzled with the Splendour, Succession, Extent, etc. of your Church, that they have preferred it with all its Faults to Others who seem to them to want these Advantages. Such were the famous George Cassander, Father Barnes, and others that I might mention. Nay, it is no very long time, since a Person yet living, Monsieur Ferrand, has published a Book to show, that were the Church of Rome as corrupt as we pretend it to be, yet we ought not nevertheless to separate from it. And should any of your Converts be of this Persuasion, they may still continue to all appearance in your Church, though they see the Errors, and your falsifications of the true Doctrine of it.  
75. But, 3dly, though I do affirm that what you publish is not the Ancient Doctrine of your Church, yet I do not deny but it is that which you endeavour to make pass with your Converts as such. This you teach your Proselytes, the Bishop of Meaux his Diocese; and they rarely meet with any one that maintains the contrary. But this does not hinder, that because this is the Popery of a few English Missionaries, and French Expositors; that therefore it has been all along the Common Doctrine of your Church; or is conformable to the practice of other Countries at this day. And all Men have not the leisure to go into Italy or Spain; or the ability to read over your several Authors for satisfaction in it.  
76. But, 4thly, to quit all these Suppositions; yet since you make it no less than a Mortal Sin to have any Doubts of your Religion; you are sure, as soon as any such arise in their Minds to hear of it in Confession from them. Being thus acquainted with the first Motions of this kind, you presently take all the ways imaginable to stifle them, and hinder them from coming to an open defection from you. So that though your Proselyte should begin to stagger; yet unless he utterly abandon your Party without ever consulting you in it, (which Men of Conscience will never do) he is almost under an Impossibility of ever doing it at all.  
77. To all which I will add but this farther: Which well may, and I am persuaded does keep many from telling of Tales, and exposing (as you call it) your Villainy; and that is, that when you receive a new Convert into your Church, you require a terrible Oath from him, never by any Argument to leave or to forsake you, upon pain of Perjury and Damnation if he does. And to the end the Reader may know, what is the last step he is to make, if he has any thoughts that way; and to convince him what little force there is in your Suggestion, I will here transcribe it from your Pontifical, in its full length.  

The Oath that is ordered by the Church of Rome to be administered to a New Convert. (Pontif. Rom. Ord. ad reconc. Apost. Schism. vel Haeret.)  
I. N. having found out the Snare of Division with which I was held, after a long and diligent deliberation with myself, am, by the Grace of God, returned with a forward and ready Will, to unity of the Apostolic See: And lest I should be thought to have returned not with a pure Mind, but only in show, I do hereby promise, under the pain of falling from my Order, and under the Obligation of an Anathema to thee Bishop of such a Place; and by thee to Peter Prince of the Apostles, and to the most Holy Father in Christ our Lord N. Pope, and to his Successors, that I will never through the Persuasions of any Persons whatsoever, or BY ANY OTHER MEANS return to that Schism, from which by the Grace of our Redeemer freeing Me, I am delivered: But that I will always remain in all things in the Unity of the Catholic Church, and in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome; and therefore I do say upon my Oath, by GOD ALMIGHTY and these SACRED GOSPELS, that I will without wavering remain in the Unity and Communion aforesaid; And if (which God forbidden) I shall BY ANY OCCASION or ARGUMENT divide myself from this Unity, MAY I INCURRING THE GVILT OF PERJURY, BE FOUND CONDEMNED TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, AND HAVE MY PORTION WITH THE AUTHOR OF SCHISM IN THE WORLD TO COME.— So help me God, etc.  
Thus does your new Proselyte swear himself firm to your Party; at least I'm sure he is here required to do it. And now you may as well expect that a fellow Conspirator should discover the Treason he is to commit, as a Convert thus engaged to you, (though he should find it out) expose your Villainy.    

AN ANSWER TO THE REPLY, etc. Being a further Defence of the EXPOSITION of the DOCTRINE of the Church of England.  

INTRODUCTION.  
IT was the Opinion of a late Author concerning a very short Treatise that he had published upon most of the Points in Controversy between us and the Church of Rome; that though he had neither put himself to the expense of any new Arguments against us; nor produced the Authority of either Ancient Fathers, or even of Modern Writers to back his Assertions; he had nevertheless answered in that one Treatise, not only all those late Discourses that had just before been published by our Divines on those Subjects, but a great part of all the Books and Sermons that had ever been writ or preached against his Church. Tho I am not very fond of following any Copy which that Author can set me, and in this especially do think his Vanity so ridiculous, that he is rather to be pitied than imitated; yet being once more called upon for a farther Vindication of myself, to another review of the most considerable Articles wherein we differ from those of the other Communion, I cannot but observe, that not only my present Adversary has not advanced in this new Attempt one jot beyond what I had before confuted, but that in all their Books, their whole Business is merely to transcribe one another; so that from the 
† See the Reply, Pres. p. vi.  Bishop of Condom's Exposition, even to the 
* The Original whereof was first published in Spanish, Anno 1616.  Eye Catechism, there is nothing new; but the same Answer that is made to one, does really in effect overthrow them all.  
2. 'Tis this has put me upon the troublesome design, not only of resuming and collating the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, and the Vindication of it, with the Reply that is now before me on every Article; But to search all those other Treatises that have been published since the Representer first broke the Peace with us: To convince the World that Matters are now driven as far as they can go; so that in reading any one of their Books they may really find as much, as when they shall have taken the pains to consult them all. If this will not engage them to produce something more than they have yet done to answer our Arguments, it shall at least I hope excuse us, if we from henceforth dispense with ourselves the trouble of large Confutations; so that instead of transcribing again our own Books, as often as they shall please to furnish out a new Title to their old Objections, we shall need only to direct them to those Replies that have been already made; and in which their Pretensions have been confuted before they were published.  

St. Austin. de Civit. Dei. lib. 2. c. 1.  3. It was the Complaint of S. Austin against such kind of Antagonists as these in his Time; That whether out of too much blindness, by which even the clearest things are not seen; or out of an obstinate stubbornness, whereby even those things which are seen, are not endured, they would defend their own unreasonable Notions after a full Answer had been given to them, as if it were Reason and Truth itself that they maintained.— And therefore (says he) what End shall there be of Disputing, what measure of speaking, if we must always answer those that answer us? For they who either cannot understand what is said, or are so hardened with a Spirit of Opposition, that though they did understand, yet would they not submit; they answer, as it is written, and they speak Iniquity, and are indefatigably vain. Whose contrary say if we should as often refute, as they have resolved with an invincible Forehead not to care what they say, so they do but by any means contradict our Disputations; who does not see how infinite, and troublesome, and fruitless this would be?   

The ANSWER to the FIRST ARTICLE.  
YOU will excuse, Sir, this little Address to my Reader; I shall from henceforth keep close to your Reply, 
Reply p. 1.  and notwithstanding St. Austin's Insinuation to the contrary, attend you once more whithersoever you shall please to lead Me. And to show how exactly applicable what I have before said of your Books in general, is to your Reply above any in particular; the first Observation I have to make is, that for what concerns the common Cause of Religion in this first Article, you have entirely taken, or rather indeed stolen it (since I do not remember that you have once mentioned your Author) out of T. G's Discourse against Dr. Stillingfleet, and which that most Learned Man had fully answered some Years since. And yet you neither take notice of his Answers, nor offer any one thing to prevent the same Replies from being made by me to the same Objections.  
2. You begin your 
* Vindic. p. 22.  Vindication with a scandalous Charge of" Calumnies, Misrepresentations, etc. This you persist in in your 
† Reply p. 2.  Reply; and so does 
‖ T. G's first Answ. Pres. pag. 3.  T. G. against his Adversary. He tells him how in the prosecution of his Argument, he should be forced to lay open his frequent Contradictions, Calumnies, and Misrepresentations: By which the Reader may now see that you meant me no Harm in all these hard words against me; but you found them in your Author, and you transcribed the railing with as little Judgement as you have done the Reason of his Books. After this short and civil Preface, you tell Me, 3. Ad pag. 2.] Reply. 
Reply p. 2.  That there was a time in which the 
* T. G is first Answ. Pref. pag. 15.  Genuine Sons of the Church of England, excused the Roman Catholic Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry; and 
* T. G is first Answ. pref. pag. 15.  SOME of them (never 
† T. G 's second Answ. p. 15.  excommunicated nor censured by the Church of England for it) maintained, that We cannot defend the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, without denying that Church to be a true Church, and by Consequence without contradicting ourselves, and going against the intention of the Reformation, which was not to make a new Church, but to restore a sick Church to its Soundness, a corrupt Church to its Purity, etc. [See T. G. first Answer, Pref. p. 7.]  
Answ.] Had you but ingenuously owned from whence you had taken this Objection against our Church, the Reader would presently have known whither to have gone for the Confutation of it. But seeing you are resolved to make it your own, I shall answer two things; 

1st, That what you have said is false.  
2dly, That you either did, or aught to have known it to be so.    
4. First, It is false that those whom from T. G. you are pleased to style the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, have excused your Church of that odious Imputation of Idolatry, or by consequence did think that we could not defend it against you without contradicting ourselves, and going against the intention of the Reformation.  

Dr. Jackson, see his Works, 3 vol. Fol. Lond. An. 1673.  5. Your first Author is Dr. Jackson; and he so far from excusing you in this Point, as you most wretchedly assert, that in a set Discourse under this very Title, 
* Tom. 1.  Of the Identity or Aequivalency of Superstition in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, he spends above 17 Sheets on purpose to prove the Charge of Idolatry upon you: and answers all your Evasions, by which you endeavour in vain to clear yourselves of the Gild of it. The very Subject of his first Chapter is to show, That Rome Christian in latter Years, sought rather to allay than to abrogate the Idolatry of Rome Heathen; p. 933. In his 25th Chapter, having mentioned that Conclusion of your Church," 
* Pag. 946.  That Saints are to be worshipped with Religious Worship: He pronounces Sentence against you in these very words, 
* Pag. 946.  This we say is formal Idolatry. The Title of his 27th Chapter is positive, 
† Ibid. p. 954.  That the same Expression of our respect or observance towards Saints or Angels locally present, cannot without Superstition or Idolatry be made to them in their Absence. And in the 28th Chapter, speaking of your form of commending a departing Soul;  
[
‖ Ibid. p. 961.  Departed out of this World in the Name of God the Father Almighty who hath created thee, in the Name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who suffered for thee; 
Breviarium Roman. de Ord. Commendationis animae Deo.  in the Name of the Holy Ghost, who was poured forth upon thee; in the Name of Angels and Archangels; in the Name of Thrones and Dominions; in the Name of Principalities and Powers; in the Name of Cherubims and Seraphims; in the Name of Patriarches and Prophets; in the Name of Holy Apostles and Evangelists; in the Name of Holy Martyrs and Confessors; in the Name of Holy Monks and Hermit's; in the Name of Virgins, and of all God's Saints and Saintesses; This day let thy Soul be in Peace, and thy Habitation in Holy Zion.]  
If (says he) thus they pray with their Lips only, they mock God as well as the Saints. If thus they pray with internal Affection of Heart and Spirit, they really worship Saints with the selfsame Honour wherewith they honour God— They might with less Impiety admit a Christian Soul into the Church Militant, than translate it into the Church Triumphant in other Names besides the Trinity. They might better baptise them only in the Name of God the Father, and of S. Francis, S. Benedict, and S. Dominick, etc. without any mention of God the Son and Holy Ghost, rather than join these, as Commissioners with them in dismissing Souls out of their Bodies. To censure this part of their Liturgy as it deserves, it is no Prayer but a CHARM, conceived out of the Dregs and Relics of HEATHENISH IDOLATRY, which cannot be brought forth but in BLASPHEMY, nor be applied to any sick Soul without SORCERY 
* See more in express words, cap. 24. § 8. p. 943. cap. 27. § 2. p. 956. Tom. 1. .  
6. This is the first of our Churchmen that you say excused you from the odious imputation of Idolatry. And since I perceive his Authority is of some weight with you, as being one of the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, which T. G. would not allow his Adversary, nor it may be will you therefore esteem Me to be; I hope you will for his sake, who here charges your Offices with CHARMS and SORCERY, as well as with Superstition and Idolatry, be from henceforth a little more favourable to my Reflection on another occasion of your 
† Which he also in express words charges your Adoration of the Cross with, cap. 24. §. 4. p. 941. oper. Tom. 1.  MAGICAL INCANTATIONS.  
7. I have been detained a little longer than I designed in this first Author; but I will make amends for it, by referring you for the 
‖ Dr. FEILD. A. B. LAUD. Dr. HEYLIN.  three next to the like account which 
* See in the Preface to his first Book concerning the Idolatry of the C. R. and his general Pref. to the several late Treatises, etc. Lond. 1673.  Dr. St. gave to your Friend T. G. from their own words: As for 
† Mr. THORNDIKE.  Mr. Thorndyke, it is confessed he was once in the Opinion that you mention; but you knew very well that he changed his Mind before his Death. You may see by an Extract that has lately been 
‖ Mr. Pulton considered. Lond. 1687.  published out of his Will, what an ill Notion he had of your Church in general, and for the Point before us, T. G's Reverend and Learned Adversary eight Years ago published a Paper from 
* Dr. Stilling. Conferences against T. G. Lond. 1679. pag. 89.  Mr. Thorndyke's own hand, in which, among other Exceptions against you, he makes this his 12th: To pray to Saints departed for those things which only God can give (AS ALL PAPISTS DO) is by the proper Sense of their words DOWNRIGHT IDOLATRY. If they say their meaning is by a Figure, only to desire them to procure their Requests of God; how dare any Christian trust his Soul with that Church, which teaches that which must needs be IDOLATRY in all that understand not the Figure.  
8. Such was the last Judgement of this Learned and Pious Man in this matter. If after this it be necessary to say any thing to his former Opinion; I will only observe, that the ground of it was this Mistake, viz. 
† Just Weights and Measures, p. 6. Edit. Lond. 1662. cap. 1.  That a Christian Church without renouncing the Profession of the true God, cannot be guilty of IDOLATRY. Now this 
‖ De Imag. lib. 2. cap. 24. pag. 2153.  Card. Bellarmine himself, and others of your Church, do utterly deny: For (says he) it is Idolatry, not only when one adores an Idol leaving God, but also when an Idol is adored together with God.  
9 The last of your Divines whom you cite as excusing you from Idolatry, is the Reverend 
* Dr. HAMMOND Pract. Disc. Lond. 1674. § 44. p. 351. Sect. 50. p. 353, 354.  Dr. Hammond: but your falseness is as notorious in him as in all the rest. For in a particular Discourse of Idolatry, § 44. He approves and explains the design of our Homilies against the peril of Idolatry: §. 50. He says That your worshipping of Images in the most moderate way that can be, is for aught he knows a kind of Idolworship, but to be sure a prohibited Act: §. 54. That to put up those Petitions to the Blessed Virgin which are terminated in herself, 
Sect. 54. p. 354.  (as many Forms, if not her whole Office may appear to be) are Acts parallel to the Old Idolatry. 
Sect. 56. p. 355.  §. 56. That your worshipping of Images, notwithstanding all your distinctions of worshipping God mediante Imagine, 
Sect. 64. p. 357.  or relative, etc. is Idolatry. §. 64. That the Worship of the Bread in the Sacrament must certainly be Idolatry. That your Error about Transubstantiation, and your good design of worshipping Christ there may, he hopes, be some excuse for you; but that your Opinion will not hinder it from being at least material Idolatry, and the worshipping of something that is not God.  
10. So that now upon the whole it remains, that there is not so much as a shadow of Truth in your Assertion, that the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England have excused your Church of the odious Imputation of Idolatry. My next business is to show, that you did or ought to have known that there was not one word of Truth in what you said.  
11. Now this will depend upon the Answer which I shall leave any honest Man to give to these two plain Questions. 1. Whether when you stole all this out of T. G. you either did not, or ought not to have known, that Dr. St. had answered all these Cavils many Years since, and shown that there was no Truth nor Sincerity in them? 2. Whether a Man that quotes but six Authors for an Assertion derogatory to the Establishment of their Church, and contrary to the public Doctrine of the Homilies and Injunctions; and to the private Opinions of the Generality of the Divines of it, ought not to have been sure that those Authors at least did affirm that which he pretends they did? The latter of these will conclude against you, that you ought to have known that what you here say is false, because you ought to have examined these Authors, and then you would have known it to be so. And for the former (were not your Conscience unfit to be appealed to in a matter of Truth against yourself) I durst appeal to your own Soul, whether you did not know, that the Learned Man I have so often mentioned, had shown T. G. how false these Pretences were? But I go on with you to your next Paragraph: where you tell Me,  12. Ad pag. 2.] Reply. You would gladly know, wherefore at this time I charge you with the odious Imputation of adoring Men and Women, Crosses and Images, etc. 
Answ.] To satisfy you in which Demand, I reply, 1. That I charge you with this, because it is true, and I have both shown it already, and will yet farther show it to be so. 2. I do it at this time, because at this time you have the Confidence to deny it, nay to charge us with Calumny, and Misrepresentation for having ever accused you of it. So that your wise Question is in effect but this; We the Vindicators and Representers of New Popery have publicly exposed you to the World as a pack of Knaves, that have misrepresented our Doctrine, and wherefore do you go about to vindicate yourselves, and not suffer us to make silly People believe in quiet that what we say is true?  13. Ibid.] Reply. Where (say you) do I find any thing of this in the 39 Articles? and for the Book of Homilies, I must be little versed in our own Doctrine not to know, that several eminent Divines of our own Church, do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the dogmatical Doctrine of the Church of England [Thus T. G. speaks into your Mouth, and you, as his Engine, echo them to us. T. G's first Answer to Dr. St. Pref. p. 8, 9] 
Answ.] Now to this you should have known that Dr St. gave this Answer. 
Answer to several late Treatises; by Dr. Still. Lond. 1673. The general Preface.  That the Articles of our Church have confirmed those Homilies; That these Articles were not only allowed and approved by the Queen, but subscribed by the whole Clergy in Convocation, Anno. 1571. Now (says the Dean) I desire T. G. to resolve me whether Men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this Book of Homilies in this manner, if they had believed the main Doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious, as they must have done, if they had thought the Practice of the Roman Church to be free from Idolatry. I will put the Case that any of the Bishops than had thought that the Charge of Idolatry had been unjust, and that it had subverted the Foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority: that there could have been no Church or Right of Ordination, if the Roman Church had been guilty of Idolatry; would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out? And that the Homilies contained a wholesome and Godly Doctrine, which in their Consciences they believed to be false and pernicious? I might as well think that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvin's Institutions as containing a wholesome and Godly Doctrine, as that Men so persuaded would have allowed it the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry.  
14. For your Objection from 
* T. G is first Answer to Dr. Still. Pref. pag. 9, 10.  T. G. That several eminent Divines of our Church, do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the public dogmatical Doctrine of the Church of England; and three of whose Names (from 
* T. G is first Answer to Dr. Still. Pref. pag. 9, 10.  T.G. still) you adorn your Margin with. He answers, 
† Dr. Still. ibid.  Be it so: Surely there is a great deal of difference, between some particular Passages and Expressions in these Homilies, and that which is the main Design and Foundation of one of them. But in this case we are to observe, that they who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, do not only look on the Charge as false, but as of dangerous consequence, and therefore although Men may subscribe to a Book in general as containing wholesome and Godly Doctrine, though they be not so certain of the Truth of every Passage in it, yet they can never do it with a good Conscience, if they believe any great and considerable part of the Doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous.  
15. Thus did this Reverend Person confute your Oracle: If you had offered any thing to prevent the same Answer from being returned to you, I should have been far from complaining against you for advancing of an old Argument with new Strength: But when you saw how unable 
‖ See Dr. Still. Conferences against T. G. p. 22, etc.  T. G. was to defend these Cavils, nevertheless still to produce them; and though you could not but be conscious to yourself at the same time that they were not to be maintained; I shall only say, that it serves to convince me of the Truth of what an ancient Greek Poet once observed, and the meaning of whose words you may inquire among the Learned at your leisure; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
16. Ad pag. ●.] Reply. Your next Paragraph consists of a Story of Q. Elizabeth, 
T. G 's Dialogues against Dr. Still. p. 17.  and that too echoed form T. G's Inspiration: But to this I have already returned my Answer, and when you shall think sit to speak out what you mean by it, you shall not fail of a farther Consideration from me, if I be not prevented by your receiving it from a more proper hand.  
17. And thus have we done with what concerns the general Cause, in this Introduction; and the Sum of all is this; That of four Paragraphs of which it consists; the first is Calumny; the second false (and I am reasonably persuaded known by you to be so): the third impertinent, and long since answered (as was also the foregoing) by the Reverend Dr. St. the last seditious: I go on to the following part of this first Article, to examine what relates to myself in it.  
18. Where first you except against my quoting your particular Authors to find out your Church's meaning, and call it Calumny, though what Calumny it is to say that those Authors, whom you cannot deny but that I truly cite, have expounded your Church's Sense otherwise than you and some others do, I cannot imagine: But however you tell us; Ad p. 3, 4. Reply.] That you have nothing to do with the Doctrine of the Schools: That I must take your Doctrine from your Councils; the public, authentic, and universally received Definitions and Decisions of the Church.  
Answ.] And in this you still follow your old Guide 
* T. G. Dial. against Dr. Still. p. 56, 57  T. G. But I have 
† First Part Preface.  already shown you the weakness of this Pretence; and for your next supposal that even those Authors do not say what I affirm they do, if your Proofs are as convincing as your Assertion is confident, I have already promised you all you can desire, 
Repl. p. 4.  That I will not fail to confess that you deserve not so ill a Character as I thought.  Ad pag. 4.] Reply. Your next Paragraph charges me with unsincerity in stating the Question betwixt Catholics (as you call them) and Protestants, for that I represented you as allowing us to hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith. 
Answ.] And is it not the ancient and undoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith which we hold, and which has been delivered down to us in those very Creeds which yourselves profess, and into the Faith of which you still baptise your Children? Nay, do not you yourself confess this to be true in the very place where you cavil against me for this Assertion 
‖ Vindic. Art 1. p. 24.  Vindic. p. 24. where you grant, that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted Foundation, and only deny that it is entirely so? And again, in this very Reply in which you repeat your Accusation; 
* Reply, Art 1. pag. 4.  P. 4. I told him (say you) that we do not allow that Proposition, ESPECIALLY IF HE MEAN all Fundamentals. So that then the unsincerity lies not in my saying that what we hold is fundamental; for this you tell me (Vindicat. p. 24.) NO BODY EVER DENIED, but for pretending that you allowed that we held ALL which you esteemed to be fundamental. Now for this I must observe,  
1st, That you dare not say positively that I affirmed any such thing, 
† Reply; See before.  I told him (say you) that we do not allow that Proposition, IF he mean ALL Fundamentals. So that you positively charge me with unsincerity for pretending that you granted what you do not, upon supposition that I MEANT any such thing.  
2dly, That to make something of this charge, you are forced to go back from your own Concession: 
Vindic. p. 24.  For whereas in your Vindication you had said plainly, that though you do not allow us to hold all Fundamentals, yet no body ever denied that we held some of them; here you clap in an Insinuation even against this too: 
Reply p. 2.  I told him that we do not allow that they hold the ancient and undoubted Foundation; ESPECIALLY, if he meant ALL Fundamentals. So that though you do deny it ESPECIALLY if we mean ALL Fundamentals, yet you do not altogether allow even that what we hold is fundamental.  
But, 3dly, Where at last do you find that I ever said, that you granted that we held ALL which you esteem to be fundamental? In my Exposition, I tell you, in the very next words to those you cavil at, that this was the thing to be put upon the issue; 
Expos. C. E. p. ●.  Whether those Articles which you had added to this ancient and undoubted Foundation as Superstructures to it, were not so far from being NECESSARY Articles of Religion, as YOU PRETEND, that they indeed overthrow that Faith which is on both sides allowed to be Divine. And when in your Vindication you first made this little Exception; I again repeated it in these very words, which you take no notice of in your Reply: But the Vindicator, 
Defen. of the Expos. p. ●.  jealous for the Authority of his Church, and to have whatsoever she proposes pass for fundamental, confesses that we do indeed hold a PART, but not ALL those Articles that are fundamental. THIS therefore must be put upon the issue.— So that whereas you accuse me of perverting the Bishop of Meauxes Sense, it is indeed you that have (I fear wilfully) perverted mine. What I said, both of you acknowledge, viz. that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted Truth; and you cannot deny the State of the Question to be just as I have said, Whether what you farther advance, and what we-reject, be not so far from being Fundamental Truth, that it is indeed no Truth at all, but rather contrary to, and destructive of that Truth which is on both sides allowed to be Divine?  20. Ad p. 5.] Reply. But you go yet farther in this Point against me; and accuse me in the next place of perverting your own Sense too, by saying that you confess that those Articles which you hold, and we contradict, do by evident and undoubted Consequence destroy those Truths that are on both sides agreed to be fundamental. And you wonder with what Spectacles I read this. 
Answ.] The Spectacles I use are plain Honesty and plain Reason; if you have better, I envy you not. In stating the Question between us, I said 
* Expos. C. E. p. 5. Def. p. 5.  the thing to be put upon the issue was, Whether those Additions which the Church of Rome has made to the ancient and undoubted Faith, were not so far from being Fundamental Truths, that they do, even by your own Confession, overthrew those Truths that are on both sides allowed to be Fundamental? This you deny you ever said, and yet in the very next words you confess the contrary: 
† Reply p. 5. Vindicat. p. 23.  'Tis true (say you) I tell him, that were the Doctrines and Practices which HE alleges the plain and confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, he would have reason to say that they contradict our Principles: But I tell him also that we renounce these Doctrines and Practices. But this is not now the Question, whether you renounce these Doctrines and Practices or no: Did not you confess that those Doctrines which I charge you with do overthrow the Truths that are on both sides allowed to be Divine? This you cannot, nay you do not deny: And this was what I asserted, and for which you most injuriously accuse me of perverting your Sense. As to your denial of these things, that I have already shown to be a groundless Pretence, and shall yet farther prove you to be as guilty of prevaricating in your Evasion, as it is evident you have been in your accusing of me.  
21. Ibid.] For the Parallel you add between our charging you as guilty of Idolatry upon the account of your Worship, and the Fanaticks Clamours against us for our Ceremonies, and against the Justice of which you think we have little to say, it still more confirms me that the ancient Poet I before mentioned was a wise Man: For after so full a Confutation as has been given to this Parallel by 
* Answer to the Amicable Accommodation— The View of the whole Controversy, etc.  two several Hands, for you to presume still to say, that we have little to reply to it; this would certainly have made any other Creature in the World blush, but a Man that has taken his leave of Modesty.  
22. Ad pag. 6.] For your last little Reflection, which you have dubbed with the Title of Protestant Charity and Moderation; I shall only tell you, that to charge you with adoring Men and Women, Crosses, Images and Relics, is no more a breach of Charity, than it would be to charge a Man with Murder or Theft whom I actually saw killing his Neighbour, or stealing away his Goods. If you are indeed guilty of doing this, 'tis Charity to admonish those of their danger, whom you might otherwise ensnare by your confident denying of it. But the truth is, it is the Justice of this Reflection that so much troubles you: and you could be well enough content we should accuse you of doing this, if you could but find out any means to prevent our proving of it.   

The ANSWER to the SECOND ARTICLE.  
That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone.  1. AD p. 6.] Reply. In the beginning of this Article you seem a little concerned that I took no more notice of what you had said in your Vindication, concerning your Distinctions of Religious Worship: You pretend that I did not do it, because if I had, all my Quotations out of your Liturgies would have signified just nothing; neither could I have made so plausible an Excuse for my Calumnies and Falsifications: And you conjure me not to obstruct the Hopes of a Christian Unity by a future Misapplication of these Terms. 
2. Answ.] It is perhaps none of the least Instances of that Perplexity, into which Sin and Error commonly lead those who have been involved in them, to consider what a multiplicity of obscure and barbarous Terms the Iniquity of these latter Ages has invented to confound those things, which are otherwise in themselves of the greatest Clearness and Evidence. Whilst Men kept to that Primitive Rule of the Gospel, 
* Mat. iv. 10.  Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve; the Law was simple and easy, and there was no need of any Distinctions, either to excuse or to condemn the Worship of any other besides him. The Command was so plain, that the Devil himself had nothing to say to it: As for the Sophistry we are now to encounter, (and by which you would have been able to have taken that offer which our Saviour refused, and yet have salved your Conscience of any breach of the Precept too) he was either yet to learn it, or else it appeared to him so thin and contemptible, that however he has since inspired others with it, yet he was ashamed himself to insist upon it. But however, seeing men's words are their own, and let them express their Conceptions after what manner they please, it is enough for us that we understand their meaning; I shall content myself to draw up a short Summary of what you here offer, and which indeed is all that your Party has to insist upon on this occasion, and we shall hereafter see when you come to the Application of these Distinctions, whether there be any thing in them to excuse you of that Gild we here charge you with.  
3. But before I enter upon this Enquiry, I cannot but observe the Change you make in the Title of this Article. Hitherto we have had it in these words, 
† Monsieur de M. Expos. Art 3. Vindic. Art 2.  Religious Worship is terminated only in God: Now you add another Restriction, 
‖ Reply, Art 2.  That Religious Worship terminates ultimately in God alone: By which you would seem to imply, that Religious Worship may terminate upon the Objects to which you pay it, as Saints or Angels; (and wherein you certainly depart from your own and the Bishop of Meauxes former Principle) but that ultimately it must end in God alone. But the truth is, (
* Answer to Papists Protesting, p. 29, & Sect. III.  what you have been already told) all Worship does properly terminate in the Object to which it is given. You may honour a Saint for God's Sake, and it is an honour to God by accident so to do: but when all is done, still the proper Honour that is given to the Saint terminates in him, and does not pass to any other. And this you must confess, unless you will spoil all your own Distinctions. For whatever the Honour be that you give to the Saints, either it must finally terminate in them, and then your new Addition is useless; or if it pass on to God, you must either dishonour God if you give him such an inferior Honour as you do the Saints, and which is altogether unsuitable to his infinite Nature and Majesty; or if you give the Saints the same Honour you do God, than you raise them up into a state above the condition of mere Creatures, and so yet more dishonour God, by setting up Competitors with him in his Service. So that than your new modelling of this Position will stand you in no stead: and you must after all say, either that no Religious Honour must be given to any other but God, (as our Saviour has declared, and as we affirm) if you do truly believe that all Religious Honour ought to terminate in Him alone; or you must confess, that Religious Worship may be terminated, and that ultimately, upon the Creature; which indeed your Practice shows you do believe, and for which we justly accuse you of Idolatry.  
4. But we will examine your own Scheme, that so we may the better understand your Pretences. And, Ad Pag. 7, 8.] Reply. 1st, As to the words (you say) That Honour, and Worship, and Adoration, may admit of different Senses, and according to them be differently applied. There is a Divine Worship proper to God, and there is a Civil Worship that is paid to Men; and a Dulia, or inferior sort of Religious Worship, that you give to Saints, Angels, and Holy Things. 2dly, That as to the outward Actions of the Body, whether Bowing, Kneeling, etc. there may be a difference in these two; they being not so appropriated to God, but that they may be paid to the Creature also. That therefore, 3dly, both the Actions and Expressions are to be distinguished, according to the Excellency of the Object on which they are terminated. If the Excellency be natural, or naturally acquired; then the Honour that is paid is Civil or Humane. If it be Supernatural, than the Honour is Religious. And this Religious Honour is either a Sovereign Honour proper to God alone, called Latria; Or it is Inferior, and of which there are several degrees according to the several measures in which God bestows his supernatural Gifts upon his Servants; and is that you call Dulia. And this inferior religious Honour may be paid, not only to rational Natures, but sometimes also to inanimate Things.  
5. Answ.] This I think is the sum of what you desire me to take notice of; and I will now return you a few general Reflections upon it. And,  
1st, Though we are contented to take all these hard words in your own Sense, yet I must observe to prevent any misapplication of them to the Passages of either Holy Scripture, or Primitive Antiquity, before St. Austin's Time. That for what concerns the Hebrew Phrases of the Old Testament, by which this Worship is expressed, they are all of them promiscuous, and indifferently used with reference both to God and the Creatures. But now with the Greek Phrases in the New Testament it is otherwise. One of them indeed, viz. that from whence you derive your term Dulia, is ambiguous; but for the other two, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 
* Mat. 18.26.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the former is never at all, the latter never but once, and that too in a parabolical sentence, applied to any other Worship than that of God only; not to any Humane or Civil respect.  
2dly, As to the distinction you make between Civil and Religious Honour properly so called, we readily embrace it: and we do confess, that the difference must be taken from the diversity of excellency in the Objects on which they are terminated. 
Reply, p. 7.  From which we infer, that there must be therefore the same proportion between Civil and Religious Worship, as there is between God and Men. Seeing then there can be no Analogy between these two, neither can there be any between the Worship that is paid to the One, and to the Other. By consequence, that properly speaking, there can be no other Honour attributed to a Creature but what is Civil, and which must be diversified, according to the different Excellencies of those to whom it is given. And this you yourself allow in your Vindication, [p. 28, 29.] where you declare that this Honour is but an  Denomination from the Cause and Motive, not from the Nature of the Act; and that you do renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the Nature of the Act, and by consequence only due to God. And here again in your Reply you found the Appellation of Religious Honour with reference to the Saints, either upon the Motive of it, which is religious; or, 
Ibid. p. 8.  because it ultimately refers to God, for whose sake, and upon account of whose Gifts we honour them. Now taking this then to be not only your own private Opinion, but the Sense of your Church; and that you may see, I desire to close as far as possibly I can with your Notions, I add,  
3dly, That as to the first of these," The Religious Motive; We are content in this respect to allow the denomination of Religious Worship to others besides God. Such is the Honour we render to our Parents, to Civil Magistrates, etc. upon the account of God's Command so to do. And thus the two terms of Civil and Religious are not opposite, but , and consistent with one another. Secondly, For the other Grounds on which you call this Honour, Religious, namely upon the account of those Supernatural Gifts or Excellencies which God has bestowed upon his Creatures; We are ready to allow of this too. And thus we confess, that the Honour which we, as well as you, pay to the Saints, may be called Religious; when we bless God for their Excellencies, and pray to him for Grace to follow their Examples. We never denied but that godly and religious Men were to be reverenced, not only for their other Qualities, but yet more especially for their Sanctity and Devotion. But then,  
4thly, As for Religious Honour properly so called, and as it respects not merely the Religious Motive, or the Supernatural Gifts which God has bestowed upon his Servants, but the very Nature and Quality of the Act itself; such Acts by which we pay not only all that worship which may be due to the Excellencies of a pure Creature, but the proper Exercises of Religion, as Prayer, Confession, and such like; and these with all the Circumstances of a proper, religious Worship; in the House of God, in the midst of his Solemn Service; it may be in the same Breath and Form in which we address to the Creator; this is that religious Worship which we constantly affirm, and which you yourself confess may not without impiety be given to any but God only; and it is for this we charge you with that, which by your own acknowledgement none of your Distinctions reach to, nor will therefore excuse you of, viz. Idolatry.  
5thly, As for the outward Expressions of this Honour by bodily Actions, as Bowing, Kneeling, Prostrating, etc. these we confess are ambiguous, and must be determined by the other Circumstances. But then we deny that they are to be interpreted merely according to the intention of him that performs them. There is an External Adoration, which no Internal Act of the Understanding or Will can excuse, if it be applied to any besides God. Such as is performed with those Circumstances of a Religious Worship before mentioned, as to Time, Place, Words, and the like. In short, it is, we say, Idolatry by any External Act whatsoever, to show that we do attribute Religious Honour to any other but God alone.  
6thly, And for the rest, we do affirm, That there are some other kind of External Actions so peculiarly appropriate to God, that they cannot without Idolatry be attributed to any other. Such as, 1st, Sacrifice 
* Bp of Meaux 's Expos. Sect. III. p. 4. , by your own Confession: 
† See this prosecuted at large in Dr. Still. first Answer to T.G. p. 190, to 283.  to which I will, 2dly, add all those other things of the like kind which God appropriated to himself under the Law; as Religious Adoration, Erection of Temples and Altars, Burning of Incense in token of Divine Worship, Solemn Invocation, and Vows; in all which neither our Saviour nor his Apostles having made the least alteration, we ought certainly (as both the Jews and Primitive Christians most undoubtedly did) to esteem them still his own peculiar Prerogative.  
Having thus established in General our Notion of Religious Worship; let us see if any of these Distinctions will (as you pretend) excuse you of that imputation which has been laid upon you.   

ANSWER TO THE THIRD ARTICLE, OF THE INVOCATION of SAINTS.  
IN the beginning of this Article I cannot but acknowledge a commendable Endeavour in you to clear the true State of the Question betwixt us: 
Reply, p. 10.  And though I am not absolutely of your mind, nor do I see any Cause for your Supposal that Mr. 
† P. 11.  Thorndyke spoke the Sense of the Church of England in every one of those Particulars mentioned by you in Order thereunto, yet I will not enter into any Controversy with you about them.  
1. And first, Be it allowed that the Words Prayer, Invocation, Calling upon, Address, etc. are or may be Equivocal; i. e. (as that Learned Man phrases it) that we may make use of the same Expressions in signifying our Requests to God and to Man; though yet for the two first of these, viz. Prayer and Invocation, they are seldom Applied to any Other than a Religious Sense. This T. G. long since observed, and you have now borrowed it from Him; and you may make what use of this Remark you please in managing of this Controversy.  
2. We do not deny but that we ought to Honour the Saints departed, as well as Holy Men upon Earth; Only we desire that that Honour be such as becomes them to receive, and us to pay. We honour them when we praise, and much more when we follow their Faith and Patience. And because the Reason and End of this Honour is Religious, you may without being contradicted by me call the Honour itself Religious too; seeing you explain yourself to mean no more by it, than an an External Denomination from the Cause and Motive, 
Vind. p. 28, 29.  but not from the Nature of the Act its self.  
3. Nor will I dispute with you, lastly, Whether the Saints in Happiness do not in General pray for the Church Militant: For 'tis to as little purpose to deny what cannot be disproved, as to affirm what one cannot prove. I have as great an Honour as any Man for Mr. Thorndyke's Memory; but yet I cannot see the Proof even of this in those Scriptures which (as you say) He proves it by. 
Reply, P. 11.  Some Fathers I know have said so; but their saying it is not to Me a sufficient Proof of a Point of Doctrine. When all is done, the Congruity of the thing is the best that can be brought for it. And if upon this account you are resolved to call them Advocates or Intercessors between God and us, 
Ibid.  you will I hope excuse me if I do not comply with you in it. That they are full of Charity towards us who are Members of the same Body with them, I make not the least Question: But how they express it I do not certainly know, because many Particulars there are from whence such a Matter is to be concluded, which are all hidden from my Knowledge. One thing I know, That we have a Mediator at the Right Hand of God, who knows all our Wants, which I see no reason to believe the greatest Saint in Heaven does. I am likewise assured that his Right to intercede for us is founded upon the Sacrifice of his Death. And since the Gospel gives this Honour and Prerogative to Him ONLY, to appear in the Presence of God for us, I shall never whilst I live help forward an Ambiguity in those Titles, of a Mediator with God, or an Advocate with the Father, or an Intercessor in Heaven, by attributing of them to any Saint whatsoever. These Expressions so applied are dangerous, and scandalous; and 'tis but a frivolous Pretence for the doing of it, that possibly the Saints may do something for us in Heaven, upon the account of which the Titles of our Redeemer may in some sense be given to them.  

Reply, p. 11.  2. As for the State of the Question which you next propose, you should know by this time that we are by no Means agreed that the only thing in dispute betwixt us is, Whether it be lawful for us to Pray to the Saints that they would Pray for us? and, Whether such kind of Addresses as these are of such a Nature as to make Gods (for so you tell me I very disrespectfully call them; 
Ibid.  though I believe you will find 'tis your Misrepresenter's Phrase, and not Mine) of Men and Women. You do indeed with your Guides T. G. and the Bishop of Meaux tell us, that all the Prayers of your Church, be their Words never so repugnant, must yet be reduced to this sense, PRAY FOR US: But you have often been told, that this is utterly disallowed by us. However, to take off all occasion of Cavil, as far as is possible, I will offer you the State of the Question in such Terms as you shall have no just cause to except against it; viz.  Whether it be Lawful to pray to the Saints, after the manner that is at this day prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome? 
And I will so far comply with you, as to consider it in both respects: 1. According to your own Representation of it: 2. According to that which is indeed your Practice, and freely acknowledged by the greatest Men of your Church to be so.  

I. POINT. Whether it be Lawful to pray to the Saints, to PRAY FOR US?  
3. This is the least that can possibly be made of this Matter: And because I would bring the Point to the fairest Issue that may be, as I have proposed the Question according to your own desire, so I will dispute it with you upon your own Principles.  
4. And first; for what concerns the Terms of the Question, they are exactly taken from your own Wards: You tell us in your Vindication, that all you say is, 
Vindic. p. 30.  That it is LAWFUL to Pray to the Saints; and here in your Reply, That the Difference between us is Whether it be LAWFUL for us to Pray to them? 
Reply, p. 11  In which yet you seem to fall a little below even the Bishop of Meaux Himself, who tells us, That your Church teaches that it is PROFITABLE at least to Pray to them. 
Exposit. Sect. IU. p. 5.  But however such is our Security according to Both of you, that neither You nor He care to say it is our Duty so to do, or that we run any Danger in the neglect of it. Whatever therefore be the Issue of this Dispute, it is wholly your Concern to look to it; thus much we are Agreed in, That there is no Sin in our Omission. For where there is no Law, there is no Transgression.  
5. But I will now presume to go farther: And since you dare not say that such an Invocation is Necessary, I will undertake to affirm, that neither is it Profitable, nor indeed Lawful, but utterly forbidden. And for proof of this, I shall lay down no Other Foundation than what you have yourself established; viz. That Religious Honour or Worship may be taken in a double Sense: 
See Vidicat. p. 27.  First, Strictly, and so is due Only to God: Secondly, More largely, and so may be paid to Creatures. And what you mean by these Terms, you thus more fully express: 
Ibid. p. 28, 29.  That by Religious Honour in this latter sense, and as you apply it to the Saints, you understand only an Honour so called by an  Denomination from the CAUSE and MOTIVE, but not from the NATURE of the ACT itself. That is such an Honour as may be in itself Civil, and is only CALLED Religious because it is done for God's sake, and in Obedience to God's Commands. But for a strict and proper Religious Worship, such as is in its own Nature so, this you confess with us to be due to God ONLY. From whence I conclude, That to give such a Worship to any Creature, must be to pay that Service to the Creature which is due only to the Creator; and that is, in Our Sense, to Commit Idolatry.  
6. And now from this Principle which you have yourself laid down, 
Vindic. p. 28.  and which you think will be alone sufficient to Answer all Objections brought against your Doctrine; I take leave to infer, That if even such an Invocation as you confess you pay to the Saints, be strictly a Religious Honour, in the very Nature of the Act itself, and not barely by an Extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive of it; it will then remain that you are guilty in this Service of giving that Worship to the Saints which is due only to God, and are by Consequence therein guilty of Idolatry And this I shall show, 

I. From the very Nature of the Act itself.  
II. From the Circumstances of it.    

I. That the very Nature of the Act itself of Invocating the Saints, does show, that it is strictly and properly a Religious Worship.  
7. This is what I know Monsieur de Meaux denies: He tells us, That when you pray to the Saints, 
Expos. Artic. IU.  you do it in the same Spirit of Charity, and according to the same Order of Brotherly Society, which moves us to demand Assistance of our Brethren living upon Earth. Thus he smooths your Invocation of Saints departed, to make it lie even with our desires of one another's prayers. But did he in good earnest believe, that nothing but a Spirit of Charity, and the Order of Brotherly Society, is to be discerned in the Act of calling upon departed Saints to pray for us? We have indeed that Charity for them, as to believe, that they have Charity for us: and though they are highly advanced above us, we yet take them to be our Brethren. But is this all that is implied in the Act of calling upon them to pray for us? For my part, I cannot but believe, that Monsieur de Meaux himself was sensible of a vast difference in the Case, as appears by his endeavouring to blind it afterwards. And I shall now offer some Reasons, that may perhaps convince others, as they have fully satisfied myself about it.  
8. For 1. If the Nature of that Act of Invoking the Saints in Heaven, be the same with that of desiring my Christian Brother to pray for me upon Earth, then on the other hand this is also of the same Nature with that. And by consequence, I may as well fall down upon my Knees here in London, and desire my Christian Brother, who is now, it may be, in Japan, or somewhere in the East Indies, or perhaps on his return homewards, to pray for me, as do the like to S. Peter or S. Paul, who, for any thing I can tell, are at a vastly greater distance from me, than my Friend upon Earth is. But if there be something more than a Spirit of Charity, or an acknowledgement of Brotherhood, in calling upon my living friend, who is out of all natural distance of hearing, there is also something more than this in calling upon the dead, who it may be are a thousand times farther from me, than the living can be from one another. Would not such an Invocation of my Friend, think you, suppose him to be more than a Brother, or a Man? Would not the Nature of the Act ascribe to him not only the praise of Charity, but likewise the power of hearing and knowing all that is said upon Earth, at any distance whatsoever? I grant, that if this were indeed no more than according to the Order of Fraternal Society; neither would it be any more than so for you to call upon the Saints deceased to pray for you. But if the former would be more, when you have said all that you can, the latter must necessarily be so too: And you do thereby Elevate the Saints above the condition of Creatures. For whether you believe them to be Omnipresent or not, the very Act of invoking them indifferently in any place, and their being called upon in several places at the same time, does imply their Omnipresence, unless you could give us some other ground of certainty, that they hear you, besides this, that wherever they are when they are spoken to, and wherever you are when you speak to them, 'tis all one, they do as surely know what you say, as if they stood within the common distance of hearing. Now that Action, which in the very Nature of it ascribes an Immensity of presence to the Object, about which it is conversant, is religious in the very Nature of the Act. And then I leave it to you to determine whether it be Idolatrous or not, if it be paid to any thing that is not God. But,  
9 Secondly, If you are not yet satisfied, I would desire to know, whether prayer to God, which you will not deny to be in its own Nature a religious Act, be not so upon this account as well as others, that 'tis an Acknowledgement of his Immense Presence. But how is it such an acknowledgement, otherwise than as we do in all places, and at all times call upon him. Since therefore you do in all places, and at all times call upon the Saints as well as upon God, I pray tell us why this Invocation should not also be in its own Nature religious Worship. If you allow this, than you have already passed sentence upon yourself: If you do not, I should be glad you would find a little leisure to show us the difference. This is an Argument that has been often enough urged to be taken notice of; and if you shall still go on to say nothing to it, we shall conclude the reason to be, that indeed you have nothing to object against it.  
10. And what I have now said of this Invocation, upon the account of the distance of the Saints from us, that they are now out of the compass of all Civil Commerce; and therefore to pray to them must be properly a Religious Worship, will be yet further confirmed, Thirdly, by another of your practices; in that your Church allows not only Vocal, but even Mental Prayer to be made to them. Now this can be no Act of Civil Honour, seeing no creature, such as Man (the Object of all Civil Honour) is, can be capable of searching the Heart, so as to find out the secrets of it. For God, 
1 Kings VIII. 31.  even God only knows the secrets of all the Children of Men. And therefore to pray in our minds to the Saints, to offer up the secret aspirations of our Souls, in Honour to any Creature, this must be an Act of Religious Worship, and such therefore as by your own acknowledgement is due to God only.  
11. Now that you could not be ignorant of these things, and by consequence are the more inexcusable in this your Worship, appears from what Monsieur de Meaux has told us; viz. That by addressing Prayers to the Saints, 
Expos. Sect. IU.  and honouring them all the World over as present, you do not attribute to them a certain kind of Immensity, nor the Knowledge of the Secrets of the Heart, which God has reserved to Himself; seeing it is manifest, that to say a Creature may have the Knowledge of these things by a Light communicated to Him by God, is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition. Thus he gives that to the Saints in the Close, which He denied in the Beginning. They have not a kind of Immensity, nor do they know the Secrets of our Hearts; No, by no means, for that is necessary to be said to save yourselves from giving Divine Honour to the Saints: But for all that they have the Knowledge of these things by a Light communicated to them by God; and this is also necessary to be said, to save your Invocation of them from being a foolish and absurd Devotion. And for the same reason he supposed before, that some Grounds, which He would not examine, might be had to attribute to the Saints some certain Degree of Knowledge as to those things that are acted amongst us, as also of our secret Thoughts. Thus he doubles, and treads with fear, like a Man that has lost his Way in a dark Night, and is afraid of a Ditch every Step he takes. To say that the Saints know All our Wants and Desires, and the Secrets of our Hearts, is to give them a certain kind of Immensity which He dares not say they have; and therefore those Words are slipped in, that some Grounds may be had to attribute to them a certain Degree of Knowledge, as to these things. Now a certain Degree of Knowledge, seems not to be a certain kind of Immensity; and so you are for a while safe on that side. Well, but a certain Degree of Knowledge as to these things, will not serve to make all the Prayers of All Men, at any time, and in any place, to this or that Saint, wise and profitable Prayers. For a certain Degree is but a Degree; And to answer all that is, or that you would have to be done in this kind, nothing will serve but a certain kind of Immensity. And therefore on the Other hand, a Creature may have the Knowledge of these things, i. e. of ALL these things. So that now the Prayers are profitable again; but than what shall we do to keep off Immensity from being attributed to the Creature? He has a Trick for that, and it is this; viz. That this kind of Immensity or Knowledge of all Prayers that are or can be any where offered to them, is communicated to them by God, and as long as God has made them thus immense, we may do so too.  
12. And thus he represents the Saints as Dii facti, Made Gods, and that by the Almighty himself; which being done with respect to Omnipresence, may, whenever a wretched Cause requires it, be done as well with respect to Omnipotence, and all the other Divine Perfections; and in one word leads to such Consequences, as cannot but stir up the Indignation of all good Men. Nothing should be maintained in the Minds of Christian People with more care than the distinct Notion they ought to have of God and his Creatures. But your Doctrine and Practice in this kind does so confound these Apprehensions of the One and the Other, that they cannot tell what Prerogative, as to the matter of hearing Prayers, God has above his Saints; since they hear all, as well as Herald Prayer to God every where is that which principally supports in the Minds of Men the apprehension of his being every where present: And though much of it is due to the natural Impressions which God has left of himself in our Souls, yet the Reflections we make upon it, are chief owing to the frequent Addresses we make every where, publicly and privately, to the Invisible Being, the Lord of All, of whom we have some knowledge by Nature, and more by Christian Instruction. But when Prayer is made to other Invisible Being's as generally as to God, how can it be otherwise, but that the People should conceive them to be as Omnipresent as God himself is? Especially if it be considered, that when their Educated and Philosophical Men, come to vindicate their Practice and Doctrine from this imputation, they cannot so much as speak sense about it, but with all their Art, talk more meanly and confusedly than mere Nature would instruct an Honest man to do. The difference between the People and the blind guides on the one side, and between the Seers on the other, being only this, That the Worship, and the Notions of the former go together, and are of a piece; but the latter, with as bad a Worship, have better Notions; and give that Honour to the Saints by their Practice, which their Notions (as they would have us think at least) deny to them. But for that reason they are the more to blame; and though their Idolatry be not so gross as the People's, yet it is more inexcusable.  
13. And yet if we may judge of their thoughts by their words, some of the refined Controvertists do not come much behind the Common People in this stupidity. If they think otherwise than they say, they are to answer to God for that too Cardinal Bellarmine, and others, 
De Cultu ss. lib. iii. c. 9  who had none of these Expounding designs to carry on, speak out freely, and tell us, that the Saints are Dii per participationem, God's by participation; and upon that account he justifies the Practice of the Church of Rome, in swearing by them, and making Vows to them. 
Expos. §. iv p. 7.  Nor indeed do I see how that differs very much from Monsieur de Meauxes giving them the Knowledge which the hearing of all Prayers requires, as by a light communicated to them by God. For what is that but to say, that God has (in effect) made them partakers of his Immensity? Nay, the Representer (if we may conclude any thing from his arguing) seems plainly to yield, that the Saints have a Natural Knowledge of our Prayers: 
Part 1. §. two. p. 3.  For (says he) Abraham heard the Petition of Dives, who was yet at a greater distance from him (than the Saints are from us), even in Hell: and told him likewise the manner of his living whilst as yet on Earth. Nay, since 'tis generally allowed, that the very Devils hear those desperate Wretches who call on them, why should we doubt that the Saints want this privilege?  
14. No wonder therefore if Bellarmine makes a greater difference between the Prayers to the Saints, and our desires of good men's Prayers upon Earth, than Monsieur de Meaux seems willing to acknowledge; and looks upon it to be a Worship due to them, 
Conc. Trid. Seff. ult.  thus (in the words of your Synod of Trent) suppliantly to call upon them: For what can be more reasonable than to esteem that Prayer, the Invocation of Suppliants, and the Worship of Invocation, which is made with such deference of respect from the very Nature of the Act, as is due to God the only Omnipresent Being? And what more unreasonable and foolish, than to call our desires of each others Prayers by such Titles as these?  
And hitherto have I shown, that in the very Act of praying to the Saints, without any regard had to the form or substance of your Petitions, or the circumstances with which you call upon them, you give proper, religious Worship to them, which you acknowledge it is unlawful for you to do. I proceed, Secondly, to show this yet more plainly,   

II. From the Circumstances of it.  
15. And here to avoid, if it be possible, all your little Cavils so usual upon this occasion, as in speaking to the former part of this Argument, I have managed it so as not to concern myself with any of your distinctions of Supreme and Inferior Religious Worship; 
Reply, p. 7.  so here I will not insist on those Exterior Actions of the Body, which you tell me are Equivocal, and of which Monsieur de Meaux roundly affirms, 
Expos. p. 8.  That the Nature of that Exterior Honour which you render to the Saints, must be judged from the internal Sentiments of the Mind. The Circumstances I shall now insist upon are such, as are not liable to any of these Evasions; but will, if not silence a Contentious Spirit, yet I am confident, satisfy any unprejudiced Christian, that the Prayers which you make to the Saints are properly a Religious Act, and not only called so by an external denomination from the Cause and Motive of them.  
16. For 1. What else can be gathered from those outward Circumstances, of the Place, Time and Manner (to say nothing of the Gestures of the Body) with which you call upon them? Do not all these speak plainly to us what the Nature of this Worship is? You pray (for instance) to the Saints in the House of God, it may be, in a Temple which you have consecrated at once to the Service of God, and to the Honour of the Saint whom you invoke. You accompany these Prayers with Incense smoking before their Images; a Circumstance which was once reckoned as a peculiar instance of External Religions Adoration; and which was therefore thought so appropriate an Act of Divine Worship among the Primitive Christians, that they chose to die rather than to throw a little Incense into the fire upon the Heathen Altars. You call at the same instant upon the One and upon the other, and too often place them in an equal rank with one another. Thus, 
Missal. R. in ord. Miss.  if you confess your sins, you do it to God Almighty, to the B. Virgin, to St. Michael the Archangel, to S. John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and in short, to All the Saints: If you commend a departing Soul, 
Rituale R. Ord. Comm. An.  you bid him go out in the Name of God the Father Almighty, who created him; and of Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who suffered for him; and in the Name of the Holy Ghost, who was poured out upon him; in the Name of Angels and Archangels, of Apostles, Evangelists, etc. If you conjure a Tempest, 
Ritual. Fr. de Sales. p 77. in fin.  you call upon God and the Holy Angels; you adjure the Evil Spirit, you contradict him, by the Virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Offices of the Church, your Addresses to God, and the Blessed Virgin, are so inter-woven with each other, that there is no alteration but only in the manner of the Expression, and very often not in that neither: As when you pray (for instance)" That the Virgin Mary and Her Son would Bless you. 
Offic. B. V pag. 84.  In the Doxologies of your greatest Men at the End of their Works, nothing more frequent than to see" Glory and Praise returned to God and the Blessed Virgin; and in your ordinary Conversation no exclamation more frequent than that of Jesu-Maria. 
Pontific R. Ord. Excom. & Absolv. p. 196, 197.  Even your solemn Excommunications and Absolutions are made in the Name and Authority of the Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin, and all the Saints; and the Passion of Christ joined in equal rank with the Merits of the Virgin Mary for the remission of their sins. By all which it undoubtedly appears, that either your Invocation of God himself is not properly a Religious Act; or if that be strictly a Religious Worship, the other will be so also.  
17. Secondly, Another Circumstance which plainly shows your Invocation of Saints to be in the very Nature of the Act a Religious Service, is, that you offer not only your Prayers, but your very Sacrifice too to their Honour and Veneration: And this I am sure you will not deny to be truly a Religious Act. Thus in the Missal of Salisbury.  

In Ord. Missae. fol. 146.  Accept, O Holy Trinity, this Oblation, which I, unworthy sinner, offer in Honour of thee, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of All Saints.  
And in the Common Roman Missal,  

Ord. Miss. p. 311. Paris. 1616.  Accept, O Holy Trinity, this Oblation which we offer to thee in memory of the Passion. Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Honour of the ever Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Blessed John the Baptist; and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul  
And in the Postcommunio of the Mass of the B. Virgin.  

Rituale Fr. de Sales. par. post. p. 19 Lyon. 1632.  Having received, O Lord, the defence of our salvation, grant, we beseech thee, that we may every where be defended by the Patronage of the Blessed Virgin, for whose Veneration we have offered this to thy Majesty.  
Now, not to enter on an Enquiry, how far these Expressions will in some measure apply the very Sacrifice itself to those Saints; it being hardly intelligible otherwise what Honour can be done to the Saints, by a Sacrifice offered solely to God; it cannot be doubted, but that this being confessedly a proper Religious Act, whatever Honour is hereby done the Saints, must be strictly and properly a Religious Honour; not merely in denomination, but in the very Nature of the thing itself. And I desire Monsieur de Meaux to tell us, whether this too be done with the same Spirit of Charity, and in the same Order of Brotherly Society with which we entreat our Brethren upon Earth to pray for us. And what would be thought of him, that out of kindness or respect to his fellow Christian, should offer up the Son of God for his Honour, or (as the last Prayer has it) in his Veneration.  
I do not pretend that this is properly an Act of Prayer to Saints; and therefore I propose it only as a Circumstance from whence to conclude what the true Nature of your Invocation of them is. For if it appear, that the other parts of that Worship you pay to the Saints, are properly Religious Acts, it will not be doubted but that your praying to them is certainly so too. And though you have restrained the terms of our Question to this one particular Instance, of calling upon them, yet it suffices me in general to conclude against you, that you do give proper Religious Honour to others besides God, if it appear, that any part of that Worship you pay to the Saints is such.  
18. Nor is it by any means to be forgot here, that in almost every one of these Masses you desire to be accepted by the MERITS of that Saint in whose Honour or Veneration the Mass itself is offered. I will give you an instance or two of this.  
Regard, we most humbly beseech thee, O Lord, 
Missale in usum Sarum. Fest. Januarii. fol. x.  these things which we offer to thee: and by the MERITS of thy Blessed Bishop Julian, deliver us from all sin.  
Let the MERITS of S. Bathildis obtain, that these gifts may be accepted by thee.  
We load thy Table, O Lord, with mystical gifts, 
Ibid. fol. xiii.  in commemoration of S. Agatha thy Virgin and Martyr; humbly beseeching thy Majesty, that by the help of HER MERITS we may be freed from all Contagions.  
Thus (as I have heretofore observed) do you join the MERITS of Christ, whom you suppose to be the Offering, with the MERITS of your Saints; and make a Bathildis or a Julian, joint Intercessors with the Son of God for your forgiveness. What is this but truly to ascribe to the Creature the Honour of the Creator, and to worship them with a Religious Worship, in the utmost propriety of the Expression?  
19 I shall add but one Circumstance more, and that of another sort of Service with which you sometimes accompany your Prayers to the Saints, and which I think will undeniably convince you, that you do give them the most strict Acts of Religious Service; and that is, Your making of Vows to them. That this is a proper Act of Religion, 
Numb. XXX. Deutr. XXIII.  both the Holy Scripture evidently shows, and the reason of the thing itself declares; A Vow being in its own Nature nothing else than a Promise made to God; and such by which he is acknowledged to be the Searcher of the Heart, and the just Avenger of all perfidious Promisers, as he is the bountiful Rewarder of those who are faithful in his Service. 
Aquinas 22ae. Qu. 88 A. 5.  And your own Authors unanimously acknowledge it to be an Act, not only of Proper, but of Supreme Religious Worship.  
20. And yet even this too is paid by you to the Saints: and I desire you to consider what you then did, when at the entry into your Order (if you herein, as I suppose, agree with the manner of your Brethren the Dominicans), 
Vid. Annot. Cajet. in D. Th' Qu. 88 Ar. 5. p. 313. Lugd. 1562.  you solemnly vowed to God, to the B. Virgin, to S. Benedict, and to All the Saints, that you would be obedient to your Superiors. Now this I the rather remark, because the Answer that is made by your Writers, to justify this Practice, plainly condemns you (not only in this Point, but in that of your Prayers too) upon your own Principle, as Idolaters. They acknowledge the Act to be PROPERLY RELIGIOUS; That these Vows are made after the very SAME MANNER to God and the Saints. 
Ibid.  And Card. Cajetane anticipating this Objection, That to Vow is an Act of Supreme Religious Worship; and how then may it be given to the Saints? Answers, That it is an Act of the same kind to VOW and to PRAY; but (says he) We pray to the Saints in Order to God, and therefore in the same manner we Vow to them too. And the main Excuse which He makes for both, is the utter ruin of yours and Monsieur de Meauxes Pretences, viz. That the Saints are GOD'S BY PARTICIPATION. 
Bellarm. de Cult. SS. Lib. iii. c. 9 p. 2235. D.  A Remark which Card. Bellarmine thought so considerable, that He from thence distinguishes between the Promises that are made to Men on Earth, and to the Saints in Heaven; so that the former are Only Promises, the latter are Vows; Because a Vow does not agree Otherwise to the Saints, than as they are GOD'S BY PARTICIPATION.  
21. The Consequence of all is this plain Conclusion, That if a Vow be strictly and properly an Act of Religious Worship, and not only called so by an  Denomination from the Cause and Motive of it; and Prayer (as Card. Cajetane says) be an Act of the same kind with it; then are they both Acts, by your own Acknowledgement, due only to God: And therefore it must be a Sin to give them to any Other; and being a Sin in a matter of Religious Worship, whereby that Honour is given to the Creature which is due only to God, it remains, according to our Notion, that it must be Idolatry.  
22. And thus have I hitherto argued against that Worship you pay to the Saints, upon your own Principle, and according to your own Proposal: I shall only add, to close this First Point, That whether these Arguments shall be thought of force sufficient to convict you of what I am persuaded you are guilty in this Service, it is your Concern alone to weigh. If they are, I need not say any thing to exaggerate your Offence which you commit in this Matter: If they are not, yet whilst we are neither defective in our Veneration towards those Blessed Souls, but pay them all that Honour (as I have before shown) of which they are now Capable; whilst we transgress no Command of God in our Omission of these Superstitions; nor fail continually to Address ourselves to the Throne of Grace, through our Great and Only Mediator Jesus Christ; We are not only sure of his Intercession, who we know is able both to Hear and Help us; but also in a most likely way of obtaining the Charitable Assistances of those Holy Souls too, who, if they have any Knowledge of us, or Concern for what passes Here below, will doubtless need no Solicitation to be kind to us; but without our Entreaty offer up their Prayers to God, for all those who thus serve him in Sincerity and Truth.  
23. But I must now go much farther, and bring my Charge more closely against you, by showing, secondly,    

II. POINT. What the True Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, as to the Point of INVOCATION of SAINTS?  
Now the Sum of this Point may I think best be reduced to these Four Considerations, by which you endeavour in your Reply to justify yourselves in this Particular.  
For, I. As to the Prayers themselves, you cannot deny but that in the natural Sense of them they do imply a proper and formal Invocation of the Saints to whom you Address: But than you tell us, That the Church's Sense is much otherwise; and therefore that whatever their Words may seem to imply, yet the Intention of them all is One and the Same, viz. PRAY FOR US.  
II. That as to what We object concerning the MERITS of the Saints, your concluding of All your Prayers in this Form, Through Jesus Christ our Lord, plainly shows, that you mean no more by it than this, 
Reply, Art iii. §. 18. p. 23.  That God would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious Actions and Sufferings of his Saints, performed in and by His Grace, and upon those Accounts accept your Sacrifices, or hear your Prayers.  
III. That for those Addresses you have the Warrant both of Scripture and Antiquity. Whereas,  
IU. We have neither against them: Those Pretensions I offered in my Defence being either false or deceitful; or at least not conclusive enough to engage you to lay aside a Practice which has been so many hundred Years in the Church, and that by our own Confession.  
This is the Sum of what is said on this Occasion, not only by your self, but by the generality of your Party: And to this I shall answer with all the Plainness and Candour that I am able.  

SECT. I. Whether all the Prayers that are made to the Saints by those of the Church of Rome, are fairly to be reduced to this One Sense, PRAY FOR US?  
24. For thus it is that you Expound yourselves.  That in what Terms soever those Prayers which you address to the Saints are Couched, 
Reply, Art iii. sect. 16. p. 22.  the Intention of your Church reduces them always to this Form, PRAY FOR US. You charge me with VOLUNTARY fixing the Words of your Addresses, which are Equivocal, to a Univocal Sense; and that Had I either as became a Christian or a Scholar taken notice of this Direction laid down by the Bishop of Condom, both in his Book, and in his Advertisement, I should have saved myself the labour of Amassing such an Appendix as I have made to this Article, and the Reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose. Since though your Church does indeed make her Addresses to the Saints for Protection and Power against your Enemies; for Help and Assistance, and the like; yet it does Appear manifestly to any one Who is not WILFUL in his MISTAKES, that all these are reduced to an Ora pro nobis; it being a kind of Aid, Succour, and Protection, to recommend the Miserable to Him who alone can secure them. 
25. Answer.] Such than are your Pretences. To your Reflections I have spoken Already; I come now to examine your Reasons: And to convince Others, if not You, that I was not WILFUL in my MISTAKES as to the meaning of your Prayers, but that you are a sort of Miserable Shufflers, in your pretended Expositions of them. For tell me now, I beseech you, by what Authority is it that your New Guides 
* Answer to Dr. St. p. 399, 406, 407.  T. G. and the Bishop of Meaux undertake thus to detort the plain Expressions of your Addresses to a Signification utterly repugnant to the natural Meaning of them? Have any of your General approved Councils positively defined this to be all your Design in them? 
Full Answer, p. 6.  And if they have not, are you not, according to your own Language, 
Ibid. p. 7.  in your accusing of me on this Occasion, a Falsifier, a Calumniator, and a Misrepresenter TOO? Does the Council of Trent, where it decrees this Service is to be paid to them, say that this shall be the Universal, Ecclesiastical Sense of these Devotions? Nay, does but so much as One single Rubric in all your Offices give us the least Intimation of it?  

Catechism. Conc. Trid. Part. IU. p. 345. Tit. Quis Orandus sit?  26. It is, I know, pretended by Monsieur de Meaux, That your Catechism authorises this Exposition of them; where it teaches the Difference there is between your Praying to God and to the Saints. For that you pray to God either that He would give you Good things, or that He would deliver you from Evil; but to the Saints, that they would undertake your Patronage, and obtain for you those things you stand in need of. That from Hence arises two different Forms of Prayer; for that to God you say properly Have mercy upon us, or Hear our Prayers; but to the Saints, Pray for us.  
27. Such are that Bishop's Pretences, and it must be confessed they have something that is plausible in them; though what will soon vanish when it comes to be examined to the Bottom. For be it allowed, as He desires, that there are here proposed two different Forms of Prayer; for indeed we do not deny but that in General you may pray with other Sentiments to God, than to the Saints; though too often in your Prayers themselves we find no great care taken to distinguish them: To God, as to the First and Supreme Dispenser of All Good; to the Saints only as His Ministers, and inferior Distributers of it. But does this therefore reduce all the Prayers you make to the Saints, in whatever Terms they are conceived, to this One Form, PRAY FOR US? Judge, I beseech you, by those Words which immediately follow in the Catechism, but were not for the turn of an Expounder, and therefore His Lordship thought good to omit them: 
Catechism. ibid.  Although it be Lawful, IN ANOTHER MANNER, to ask of the Saints themselves that THEY WOULD HAVE MERCY UPON US, for they are very Merciful.  
28. If this be ANOTHER MANNER from the foregoing then I am sure all the Prayers of your Church are not to be reduced to that One Form, Pray for us. But what is this Other Manner? 
Ibid.  We may pray (says the Catechism) that being moved at the Misery of our Condition, they would Help us with their FAVOUR and DEPRECATION with God. So that Here then is somewhat more, at least in the opinion of your own Catechism, than a mere praying for us; Here is Encouragement to ask not only their Prayers, but also their Favour and Interest too. But indeed the Catechism goes yet farther: For giving a Reason why Angels are to be invocated, They are (says the Catechism) to be prayed to, 
Pars three de Cultu & Invocatione SS. n. 19, 20. p. 255.  because they both continually look upon God, and most willingly undertake the Patronage of our Salvation which IS COMMITTED to them: And from thence in the next Section it infers the like Necessity of Honouring the Saints.  
29. This is plain dealing, and gives us an Authentic Exposition of that Passage in the Council of Trent, whose Sense you no less pervert than that of your Liturgies; 
Concil. Trid. Sess. xxv. de Invocat. etc. p. 292.  viz. That for Obtaining the Benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ, you should betake yourselves to their (the Saints) Prayers, Aid, and Assistance: And to this End, that you should not barely invoke them, but invoke them in a suppliant manner; as those who reign now with Christ. A Circumstance this which was not put in by Chance, but was thought so considerable as to be mentioned in Pope Pius' Profession of Faith, where nothing superfluous was to be admitted; and where you declare, That you firmly believe that the Saints who REIGN together with Christ, are to be Venerated and Invoked. Insomuch that (as I have before observed) your great Cardinals, Cajetane and Bellarmine, doubt not to call them Gods by Participation; and to deliver it as the Catholic Doctrine (and we know how conformable the Catholic Practice is to it amongst you) That the Saints are set over us, 
Bellarm. de SS. beat. L. I. c. 18, 20.  and take care of us, and that the Faithful here on Earth are RULED and GOVERNED by them. By all which it appears with what Sincerity you pretend that all your Church teaches is only to pray to to the Saints in the same Spirit of Charity, 
Bishop of Meauxes Expos. Sect. IU.  and according to the same Order of Fraternal Society, with which you demand the Assistance of your Brethren living upon Earth. And how false it is, that you are taught to reduce all the Forms of your Addresses to this One Meaning, Pray for us; seeing you both direct the Faithful to recur to them for their Prayers, Aid, and Assistance; and suppose them capable as Reigning together with Christ, and Gods by Participation, but especially as having the Care of the Faithful committed to them, to Rule and Govern them, to lend you Other Help and Assistance besides that of their Prayers, and (as I shall presently show) pray to them accordingly so to do.  
30. But Secondly, We will examine this Point a little further; for indeed the whole Mystery of this Service in the Church of Rome depends upon a right understanding of what Notion they have of the Saints above. And because I will do this without any suspicion of Falsity, I will deliver nothing but from Card. Bellarmine's own Words. In his Book of the Eternal Felicity of the Saints, 
De aeternâ felicitate SS. lib. 1. cap. 4.  among Other Reasons that he gives why the Place and State of the Blessed should be called the Kingdom of Heaven, He has this for one, Because all the Blessed in Heaven are Kings, and all the Qualities of Kings do most properly agree to them. The Just (says He) in the Kingdom of their Father, shall be themselves Kings of the Kingdom of Heaven; for they shall be Partakers of his Kingly Dignity, and of the Power, and Riches, and other Goods that are in the Kingdom of Heaven. Which is, I suppose, a plain Paraphrase of what he elsewhere says, That they are Gods by Participation, 
See before.  or Partakers of the Dignity and Power of God.  
31. Having thus established His Foundation, He now goes on to the practical Demonstration of it. 
Lib. I. cap. 5. p. 20. Colon. 1626.  The Goods (says He) of an Earthly Kingdom are usually reckoned to be these Four, Power, Honour, Riches, and Pleasure. An Earthly King has Power to command His Subjects; If they do not obey Him, He can punish them with Bonds, Imprisonment, Exile, Scourging, Death. Again; Kings will be Honoured with an Honour almost above the Nature of Men; for they will be adored upon the Knee; nor will they vouchsafe oftentimes to hear those that speak to them, unless in this bended posture, and with their Face down to the Ground. But yet (as He afterwards shows) this Power is mixed with Infirmity; this Honour oftentimes changed into Disgrace. But with the Saints above it is much otherwise: For their Power is exceeding great, 
Ibid. pag. 26.  and without any mixture of Infirmity. This He illustrates with a Story, which at once shows what their Power is with reference to us, and How they are prayed to in the Church of Rome upon presumption of it.  
St. Gregory (says he) relates in his Book of Dialogues, 
Lib. iii. cap. 36.  That a certain Holy Man, being just ready to be slain by the Hangman, whose Arm was stretched out, and Sword drawn for that purpose, cried out in that Instant," Saint John hold him; and immediately his Hand withered, that he could neither put it down again, nor so much as move it. S. John therefore (continues the Cardinal) from the highest Heaven heard the Voice of his Client, and struck his Executioner with this Infirmity so suddenly, as to hinder the Stroke already begun. This is the Power of those Heavenly Kings, that neither the almost infinite distance of Place, nor the Solitariness of a poor and u●●●m'd Righteous Man, nor the multitude of Armed Enemies, could prevent S. John from delivering his SUPPLIANT from the Danger of Death.  
32. I shall not need to transcribe what He in the next place adds concerning the Worship that upon this and other accounts is paid to the Saints, beyond that of any Earthly Monarch. But from what has been said, I conclude, That it is the Opinion of those in the Church of Rome, that (as the Council of Trent expresses it) The Saints reign together with Christ; and, are Gods by Participation; that is, are made Partakers of the Dignity and Power of God. 2. That therefore whatever Intercourse the Faithful upon Earth may have with them, it must be vastly different from what they have with their Brethren here below, who are neither admitted to such a Dignity, nor Partakers of this Power. 3. That since the Saints are thus Kings in Heaven, when those of the Roman Church address to them in a SUPPLIANT manner, as their CLIENTS, for Help and Assistance, they do not do this in the same Spirit of Charity, 
Expos. Mr. de Meaux, sect. iv  nor after the same Order of Fraternal Society with which they would desire the Prayers of their Fellow-Christians yet living. And, 4. That seeing the Blessed in Heaven have Power together with God of taking Care of us, and bestowing Blessings upon us; there is neither Truth nor Reason in that vain Pretence, 
Reply, p. 22.  That all the Prayers that are made to them, must be reduced to this One form, PRAY FOR US; but that we ought indeed to understand them to desire of the Saints, what both their Principles allow them to do, and their Words declare that they do desire; viz. THEIR HELP and ASSISTANCE, as reigning TOGETHER WITH Christ.  
33. But, Thirdly, I have yet more to say in Answer to this Evasion. It is well known how much those Prayers you make to the Saints, scandalised many of the most Eminent Men of your Church. 
In Elencho Abusuum.  Wicelius doubted not to say of one of your Hymns, that it was full of downright Blasphemy, and horrible Superstition; of others, that they were wholly inexcusable. Ludovicus Vives professed, 
Lud. Vives Comm. in S. August. de Civ. dei. lib. viij. cap. 27.  that he found little difference in the People's Opinion of their Saints, in many things, from what the Heathens had of their Gods: and that numbers in your Church worshipped them no otherwise than God. Now this the Council of Trent could not but know, and it then lay before them to redress it. If therefore those Fathers had thought, that there was no other form of Invocation allowable to the Saints, than (as you now pretend) to Pray to them to Pray for us, is it to be imagined, that at such a juncture as this they would have taken no care about a thing so justly scandalous, not only to the Protestants, whom they desired to reduce, but even to many of their own Communion? How easy had it been for them to say, That to satisfy the complaints of these Learned Men, and of their Enemies; and to prevent any mistakes of the like kind for the future, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to declare, that in what terms soever the Prayers of their Church were conceived, yet that the Ecclesiastical sense of them was in all one and the same, viz. Pray for us. But now instead of such a declaration, and which such wise men in this case would never have omitted, they regard no Complaints that were made against this Service; but roundly decree an Invocation to be due to them, and establish it upon the Old Foundation beforementioned, and which had given rise to all these excesses, viz. that the Saints REIGN TOGETHER WITH CHRIST; and were therefore in A SUPPLIANT MANNER to be called upon; and that for the obtaining benefits of God, they were to fly, not only to their Prayers, but also to their Help and Assistance: And when according to their Order for reciting the Missals and Breviaries, they were again set out, the one Four, the other Six years after the Council was ended: the Hymns and Prayers were left still as we see, and not so much as the least Note in a Rubric, for a right Exposition of them.  
34. Nay, I will go yet farther: There was not only no Care taken then, but at this day men are suffered to run, without Censure, into the same Excesses. We know to what Extravagance Card. Bona, Father Crasset, and but the other day Doctor J. C. our own Countryman, have gone; and no One of your Church censures them for it. Cassander immediately after the Council, no less complained of these things than Vives and Wicelius before; and that too was disregarded. On the contrary, whilst the Extravagances of these Votaries are encouraged, the moderation of the others is censured by the highest Authority of your Church. The Psalter of S. Bonaventure goes abroad with permission, but the Comments of Lud. Vives are put in the Expurgatory Index, and George Cassander's Works absolutely prohibited. 
Crasset devotion veritable, pref. p. 2.  If Advices are given from the Blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers, All the Servants of the B. Virgin run to Arms to encounter him: The Learned of All Nations writ against him, the Holy See condemns him, Spain banishes him out of all its Dominions, and forbids to Read or Print his Book, as impious and Erroneous. But if a Crasset in his Zeal for the Mother of God, runs into such blasphemous Excesses as no pious Ears can hear, without indignation; If he rake together all that the Folly and Superstition of former Ages has said or done the most excessively on this Subject, to make up a Volumn scandalous to that Church and Society that endures him; not only the Divines of his Order approve it, but his Provincial licenses it to be Printed; the King's Permission is obtained for it; and the Expounders themselves are so very good natured, that they cannot see any harm in it. And then let the World judge what your true Doctrine, as to the Invocation of Saints, must be. For,  
35. Fourthly, Had the Council of Trent been of the same Opinion with Monsieur de Meaux, I shall leave it to any reasonable man, that will but be at the pains to examine your Offices, to say, whether there was not great need of some such Advertisement as I before said. As for example: In the Office of the Blessed Virgin you thus address to Her:  

Officium B. Virg. p. 84. Antw. 1631.  We fly to your protection, O Holy Mother of God; despise not our Prayers which we make to you in our Necessities; but deliver us from all dangers, O Glorious and ever Blessed Virgin.— And again,  

Ibid. p. 103.  Vouchsafe that I may be worthy to praise thee, O Sacred Virgin: Give me strength and power against thine Enemies.  
Now that these Prayers are conceived in as formal terms as any can be to God himself, is not to be denied: I desire you therefore to tell me by what Rules of Interpretation, by what Public and Authentic Decree of your Church, we are to expound a Prayer made to the Blessed Virgin, that She would give strength and power, into a desire that she would pray to God that He would do this?  
36. But however, let us for one moment suppose this to be reasonable, and try whither such a method of interpreting will carry us. For instance, thus you 
* Ibid. p. 497.  Pray to the Apostles.  
O ye just Judges and true Lights of the World, we pray unto you with the Requests of our Hearts, that ye would hear the Prayers of your Suppliants.  
That is to say," We do desire you in a friendly way, and only after the Order of Brotherly Society, though in compliment we call ourselves indeed your Suppliants, and entreat you to hear our Prayers, that you would Pray for us.  
Ye that by your Word shut and open Heaven, deliver us, we beseech you by your COMMAND from all our sins.  
That is, you who by your Prayers to God are able to incline him either to shut or open Haven, we entreat you, that by YOUR COMMAND, meaning only your Prayers, you would deliver us; that is to say, would Pray to God, that He would deliver us—, from all our sins.  
You to whose COMMAND the Health and Sickness of all men are submitted, Heal us who are sick in our Manners, and restore us to virtue.  
That is to say, O ye Holy Apostles, to whose command, as far as Prayers may be so called, the Health and Sickness of all is subjected; forasmuch as your Requests can prevail with God to submit it to you: Heal us, i e. Pray to God that He would Heal us, who are sick in our manners; and Restore us; that is to say, entreat God, that He would restore us to Virtue.  
37. Such, according to your Principles, is the Paraphrase of this Prayer. If this be a natural way of Expounding, then be also your Pretences allowed of: But if to pray in such words as these, meaning no more than what I have expressed, be a downright mocking both of God and his Saints, then let the World judge what we are to think of your Interpretations.  
38. But however, for once let us allow even this too: What shall we do with those Prayers where God and the Saints are both joined together in the same Request. As for instance,  Let Mary and Her Son bless us. 
Officium B. Virg. pag. 105.  
Here, I doubt, it will be something difficult to reduce them to what you call the Church's Sense, PRAY FOR US, unless you pray to God too as well as to the Saints, to pray (to whom I cannot imagine) for you.  
39 I shall add but one Consideration more, from your Service of the Saints, to overthrow your new Expositions; but that such as I shall be very glad to receive an Honest Answer to. For be it that in defiance of all Sense and Reason, your Prayers to the Saints, in what terms soever they be conceived, must all be interpreted, as you pretend. Yet what shall we do in those Cases where the very Nature of the Service utterly refuses such kind of Colours? As,  
I. When in your Vows, you vowed (as I before observed),  
To God, and the Blessed Virgin, and to St. Benedict, and to all the Saints, that you would be obedient to your Superiors.  
II. When in your Doxologies, you give  
Glory to God, and the B. Virgin Mary, and last of all to Jesus Christ. So Greg. de Valencia.  
Praise be to God, and the Virgin Mother Mary, also to God Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, be Praise and Glory. So Card. Bellarmine closes this very Dispute of the Worship of Saints.  
Honour and Glory be to God, and to the most Holy Virgin Mary, and to all the Saints. So your Collector of the Lives of the Saints.  

Contemplate. pag. 23. " Verse. Open my lips, O Mother of JESUS.  
" Resp. And my soul shall speak forth thy Praise.  
" Verse. Divine Lady, be intent to my aid.  
" Resp. Graciously make haste to help me.  
" Verse. Glory be to JESUS and MARY.  
" Resp. As it WAS, IS, and ever SHALL be.  
So Dr. J. C. Now what you will think of all this I cannot tell, 
See below.  but sure I am S. Athanasius pronounces it to be downright Idolatry, and what no good Christian would ever be guilty of.  
III. When in your Commendation of a departing Soul, you bid him,  

Rit. Rom. Ord. Comm. Anim.  Depart out of the World, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; of Angels and Archangels, of Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and of all Saints, as I have before at large recited it.  
iv When in the Confession of your sins, you confess,  
To God Almighty, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
Missale R. in Ord. Miss.  to S. Michael, the Archangel, to S. John Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints.  
V When in absolving your Penitents from them, you join,  
The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
Rituale Rom. de Sacr. Poenit.  and the Merits of the Blessed Virgin, and of all the Saints; together, for the remission of all his sins.  
VI When in your Conjure against storms,  
You contradict the Evil Spirit by the Virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin. 
Rituale Fr. de Sales. p. 77.   
VII. When in your Excommunications, you shut men out of the Church,  
In the Authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, 
Pontific. Rom. Ord. Excom. & Absol.  and Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and of all the Saints.  
VIII. When in Absolving them from this Sentence, you  
Remit this bond, in the same Authority of God Almighty, 
Ibid.  and of the Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul  
Lastly, When in consecrating of a Church or Altar, you  
Bid this stone be Sancti ✚ fied, and Conse ✚ crated, 
Ibid. de Consecrat. Ecclesiae. p. 124.  in the Name of the Fa ✚ theridamas, and of the S ✚ on, and of the Holy ✚ Ghost; and of the Glorious Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints. And again,  
Let this Church be Sanc ✚ tified, and Con ✚ secrated, 
Ibid. p. 127.  in the Name of Fa ✚ theridamas, and of the S ✚ on, and of the Holy ✚ Ghost; to the Honour of God, and of the Glorious Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints.  
Now in all these several instances, there is no room for any such interpretation as you pretend in the Case of your Prayers; but here either your hearts join in what your lips utter, and then it is plain you give as Proper Divine Worship to the Saints as you do to God, which you confess to be unlawful: Or if they do not, what is this but to speak words of Vanity in your most Solemn Service, and in which you ought especially to take heed not to offend?  
40. Thus do the very Words of your Liturgies utterly refuse such an Exposition as you pretend to be your only meaning in all your Prayers to the Saints. I will add yet one Consideration more, to show the insincerity of it, Fifthly, from the concurrent Practice of the most eminent Persons of your Church, and whose Authority you cannot with any justice except against.  
41. Now of this the famous Psalter of S. Bonaventure, may alone serve for a sufficient Evidence; which as it has been publicly set forth, and authorized amongst you, so I need not tell you, that the design of it was to apply all the Addresses that are made to God in the Psalms and Hymns of the Church; nay, and even the very Creeds to the Blessed Virgin.  

Psalterium S. Bonavent. Psalm 2.  Come unto Mary all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and she shall refresh your Souls. Come unto Her in your temptations, and the Serenity of Her Countenance shall establish you.  

Psal. iv.  When I called upon thee thou heardest me, O Lady, and from thy high Throne didst vouchsafe to remember me. Blessed art thou, O Lady, for ever, and let thy Majesty be exalted for evermore.  

Psal. seven.— cvii  O Lady, in thee do I put my trust, deliver my Soul from mine Enemies. O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good: O give thanks unto His Mother, for her Mercy endureth for ever.  
42. I might pass at this rare through all the other Psalms, and to these add the Te Deum, 
Speculum B. Virgins, etc.  Benedicite, Athanasian Creed, etc. all burlesqued to Her Honour: But there has been so many large Collections of these already published, that I shall subjoin only one Prayer at the close of all.  
O my Holy Lady Mary! I commend to thy blessed Trust and especial Custody, and into the Bosom of thy Mercy, this day and every day, and in the hour of my Death, both my Soul and Body: I commit all my Hope and Consolation, all my Troubles and my Miseries, my Life and the End of my Life, to thee; that by thy most Holy Intercession and Merits all my Works may be directed and disposed, according to THINE and THY SONS Will. Amen.  
43. I will not now insist upon this, that this Book has been often Printed among you with Licence and Commendation, and particularly my Editions of it; the one Italian and Latin, Printed at Genoa, 1606. with the Licence of the Superiors, and submitted by the Translator Giovan Battista Pinello to the Censure of the Church; the other at Liege in the same Year, by le Sage: But this last had the Honour of being particularly commended by the Vicar of that Church, 
Permiss. Jo. Chapeaville. Leodii 17. Nou. 1606.  and Censor of Books, as a Piece that was profitable to be Printed, and very piously and commendably to be recited by all Men in their private Prayers, to the Honour of the B. Virgin. The Author of it is at this time a Canonised Saint in your Church, and is now in his turn Worshipped by you. If therefore you approve these Addresses (as I presume you must) be pleased to try, ('twill be a pretty expounding Task) how you can reduce all these Hymns and Prayers to this One Sense of your Church," PRAY FOR US. But if you disallow these Addresses, as (what in truth they are) Scandalous and Idolatrous, what then shall we say if you pray to those as in Heaven now, who whilst they lived were guilty of such desperate Superstitions?  
44. And now I am instancing in your Saints, I cannot forbear presenting you with a Strain or two of your Pious, but very Superstitious and Indiscreet St. Bernard: and this too to try your Faculty of Expounding.  
To thee, O Holy Virgin Mary, as to the Ark of God, 
Vid. in Psal. S. Bonav. Leodii, 1606. p. 238.  as to the Cause of Things, as to the Business of Ages, do all look that are both in Heaven and Hell; both they that have gone before us, and we who now live, and they who shall hereafter be born.— All Generations shall call thee Blessed, O Mother of God— In thee the Angels have found Joy, the Righteous Grace, and Sinners Pardon for Ever. Worthily do the Eyes of the whole Creation look upon thee, because in thee, and by thee, and of thee the kind Hand of the Almighty hath re-created whatever he had created. We embrace thy Footsteps, O Marry, and with most devout Supplication we fall down before thy blessed Feet. We will hold thee, and not let thee go till thou shalt bless us. For thou art able, etc.  

Defence, Append. 2. Def. part 1. p. 89.  45. But I insist too long upon these Matters; and therefore in stead of multiplying new Instances, shall refer you to those I have already offered: And from your Saints descend to the Heads of your Church; 
Greg. VII. Baron. Ann. add an. 1080. T. xi. p. 532. See Platina in his Life.  One of which thus piously called upon S. Peter and S. Paul at the Head of a Synod, in Excommunicating the Emperor Henry IU. Anno 1080. in these Words.  
Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and thou O Blessed Paul, Doctor of the Gentiles; Vouchsafe, I beseech you, mercifully to incline your Ears unto me, and hear me. And then, after some Particulars too large to be transcribed, He thus goes on: Go to now I beseech you, O Fathers and Holy Princes, that all the World may know and understand, that as you have in Heaven the Power of Binding and Losing, you have also on Earth Power over Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, etc. For you have often taken away Patriarchates, etc. from the Wicked and Unworthy, and have given them to Religious Men. Let the Kings and all the Princes of the World now learn how great you are, and how much you can do, and fear to undervalue the Command of your Church: And execute Judgement on the aforesaid Henry so suddenly, that all Men may know that he shall fall, not by Chance, but by your Power.  
This is a blessed Prayer for a Pope to make; and I doubt will be found to signify somewhat more than to pray to those Saints to pray for Him. If you think otherwise, let us see your Paraphrase, and then we shall be able the better to judge of it. To conclude, Let any Man but read over the late Books of Father Crasset, and Dr. J. C. and then I will leave Him to believe if He can, that all you mean in your Invocation of Saints, is only to desire them to pray for you.  
46. And this may suffice to your first Pretence, of the Interpretation you would put upon these Addresses. As for the Authority you would be thought to have from Holy Scripture, for them, it is so very trifling, as not to deserve a Consideration. For who would not laugh at that Man that should seriously argue after this manner?  
1. When the Children of Israel were under Oppression, 
Judges three 9  God raised up a Deliverer or Saviour for them, who delivered them: Therefore it is lawful to pray to Saints as our Saviour's in Heaven. Again,  
2. 
Acts seven 35. Galat. iii. 19  St. Stephen calls Moses a Ruler and a Deliverer of the Children of Israel; and St. Paul a Mediator, because at the delivery of the Law God sent it by his Hands to them: Therefore we may now give the Titles of Mediators and Redeemers to the Saints departed, with reference to our Spiritual and Eternal Concerns, though they neither are, nor have been, either Redeemers or Mediators to us.  
3. St. Paul tells Timothy, 
1 Tim. iv. 16.  That if he discharged the part of a faithful Pastor, as He exhorted him to do, He should be a blessed Instrument of Salvation both to Himself and Others: Therefore we may now pray to Timothy as our Saviour in Heaven.  
47. Are not these, Sir, weighty Arguments? And were you not resolved utterly to confound us, when you alleged such Proof out of Holy Scripture as this? But you have one Passage at least that will do our Work.  
Grace and Peace are the proper Gifts of God: 
Revel. 1.4.  But this St. John wishes to the Seven Churches of Asia, not only from God, but also from the Seven Spirits which are before the Throne: Therefore We may warrantably pray to the Blessed Virgin, Let the Virgin Mary and Her Son bless us.  
A notable Proof this, and almost as terrible as that which follows: The Holy Scripture says of Princes, That they are Gods; therefore we may pray to the Saints as Gods too. But we will consider every part of it. Grace and Peace are the proper Gifts of God. This is confessed: What will you infer from thence? But these St. John wishes not only from God, but also from the Seven Spirits. I answer, 1. If your own Gloss be good, 
Gloss. Ord. in loc. Rhemists' Test. p. 700.  those Seven Spirits are set to signify the Seven fold Gifts of the Holy Ghost; and your own Rhemists in their Annotations (from whence I am apt to believe you borrowed this Argument) confess it may be well understood so. But, 2. Not to deal too strictly with you; Let us allow these Seven Spirits to signify Created Angels; What will be the Consequence? St. John wisheth all Grace and Peace to the Churches of Asia from God, by the ministration of his Holy Angels, whose Ministry He employs in dispensing His Graces and Blessings for the Preservation of His Church: Therefore we may wish to the Church now, Grace and Peace from Christ and the Blessed Virgin, who is neither Angel nor Ministering Spirit, nor that we know of any way employed by God for the Service of it. Nay, but this will not do yet: We must carry it yet further. St. John wishes all Peace and Happiness from God and his Holy Angels to the Church: Therefore We may not only Wish the like from God by their Ministration, but may solemnly pray to Saints and Angels themselves, together with God, for Grace and Peace. And if this be your way of Arguing from Holy Scripture, 'tis well you have Infallibility of your Side, for I am confident otherwise you would never persuade any Man, by way of reasoning, to submit to your Conclusions.  
48. But the Representer has yet a Passage to justify the utmost Extravagance of former Times, and prove even that Prayer, which Bellarmine was fain to deny they ever used, Of the Virgins commanding our Saviour by the Right which as a Mother she had over Him, to be most agreeable to Holy Writ. For does not the Scripture say of Joshua, c. x. 14. That He spoke to the Sun, and it stood still, the Lord OBEYING the Voice of a Man? This is an Argument that must be carefully looked to, or, like Wit that depends upon a turn of Expression, 'twill be utterly lost. And therefore in the Vulgar Latin and Douai Bibles, this is a good Proof; but in our own, 'tis none at all. For as we render it, it would be a most wild Inference thus to conclude; Joshua prayed unto God that the Sun might stand still; and God harkened unto his voice, and answered his Request: Therefore we may pray to the Blessed Virgin by the Right of a Mother to command her Son.  
But be it as he desires; God obeyed the voice of Joshua; i. e. as the Chaldee Paraphrast has it, He accepted his Prayer; as the Douai Bible itself expounds it, 
Douai Bible in loc. p. 488.  He condescended to work so great a Miracle at the Instance of his Servant: How will it even thence follow, that we may desire the Blessed Virgin to command our Saviour by the Right of a Mother over him? But such Twigs as these must be laid hold on, when Men are resolved to keep to their Conclusion, though at the same time they have not so much as the shadow of a Proof to support it.   

SECT. II. After what manner it is that the Church of Rome prays to God through the Merits of Her Saints? 
Reply, sect. xviii. p. 23, 24.   
This is the next Point to be considered by us; and thus you establish it.  49. Reply, p. 23.] You tell us, that the Word Merit is Equivocal, and misapplied by Me: That the Truth of your Doctrine is, I. To reduce all your Prayers to this Form, That God would be pleased not to regard your Unworthiness, but (the Merits of our Redeemer ever supposed) respect the Merits of his Saints also, and for their sakes hear your Prayers, and accept your Sacrifices. II. That this is plainly shown in your solemn concluding of All your Addresses in this manner, Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Whereby it appears, that you mean no more, than to beg of God Almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious Actions and Sufferings of his Saints, performed in and by his Grace, and upon these Accounts accept you. III. And finally, That for this you have the Authority of the Holy Scripture itself. 
50. Answ.] For Answer to which Discourse, I must first desire you to come a little out of the Clouds, and not play with us in ambiguous Terms, whilst you charge Me with it. The word Merit, you say, is Equivocal; and the two Senses you give it are, First, To signify that We do by our own Natural force alone deserve the Reward of Grace and Glory. And in which Sense if you pretend that we charge you with pleading your own Merits, you do certainly most falsely accuse us. The other Sense you give the word is, That our Good Works may be said to Merit, because they apply the Merits of Jesus Christ to us, and are the Means by which we attain Eternal Life, in virtue of the Promises of God, and Merits of our Blessed Redeemer. In which were you sincere (for all the impropriety of the Speech) yet we should not be far from agreeing with you. But now what is all this, to your praying to God to hear you by the Merits of the Saints? This may do well in its proper Article; but here it serves only to amuse the Reader with that which is nothing to the purpose, that so he may be disposed to forget what you were to prove. Jam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis.  
51. You tell us then, in the next Paragraph, That you pray, that God would not respect your own Unworthiness, 
Reply, p. 24.  but regard the Merits of his Saints, and for their Sakes, i. e. for their Merits, Hear your Prayers, or accept your Sacrifices. But where then is the Misrepresentation? For this is the very thing we charge you with, viz. That not content to Address yourselves to God, in the Name and through the Merits of our ONLY Mediator Jesus Christ, you have sought out to yourselves other Intercessors, in whose Name, and through whose Merits to offer up both your Prayers and Sacrifices to God. And whether we do not in this very justly accuse you, let your Addresses themselves satisfy the World.  
O Blessed John the Baptist, reach out thy Hand to us, and be to us continually a Holy Intercessor, to the Clemency of the most High Judge, that through THY MERITS we may DESERVE to be freed from all Tribulation.  
O God by whose Grace we celebrate the Memories of thy Saints Saturninus and Sisinnius, Grant that by THEIR MERIT we may be helped, through our Lord.  
Mercifully accept, O God, our Offerings which we have made unto thee, for the SAKE of the Passion of thy Blessed Martyrs Saturninus and Sisinnius; that by their Intercession they may be made acceptable to thy Majesty.  
And in the Breviary of Salisbury, we find this to be a part of the Constant Service:  
Be propitious we beseech thee, O Lord, unto us thy Servants, 
Breviarium in usum Sarum in Servit. B. Virg. par. 2.  through the glorious Merits of thy Saints whose Relics are contained in this Church; that by their pious Intercession we may be protected in all Adversities.  
Grant we beseech thee, Almighty God, that the Merits of thy Saints whose Relics are contained in this Church may protect us, etc.  
It were infinite to recount all the other Prayers which run in the same strain throughout all your Offices, insomuch that the very 
* Missal. Rom. p. 367.  Canon of the Mass is infected with it. I will mention only one Instance more, which is indeed a singular one; not so much because of the Expression of it, wherein the General word of Merit is restrained to the particular Merit of his Death, as because it was made to one who died in Actual Rebellion against his Prince; and concerning whom therefore it was for some time debated amongst you, Whether he were damned or saved?  
BY the BLOOD of Thomas (a Becket) which he SHED for THEE, make us to ascend to Heaven whither He is gone. 
Mornay de la Messe, p. 826. Saumur, 1604.   
52. It remains then, that you do recur to the Saints not merely for their Prayers, but that by their Merits and Intercession they would obtain Grace and Pardon of God for you. This is the Doctrine of your Catechism: 
Catech Trid. par. iij. p. 256. de Invoc SS. n. 24. tit. Sancti suis Meritis nos adjuvant.  That the Saints help us by their own Merits, and are therefore the rather to be worshipped and invoked, because they both pray continually for the Salvation of Men, and that God bestows many Benefits upon us by their Merit and Favour. 'Tis from hence that the Master of the Sentences interprets your praying for their Intercession, to be the same thing as to pray that by their Merits they would help you. And Aquinas, 
Aquin. 22dae. q. 83. art. 4.  We pray to the Saints (says he) not to inform God of our Petitions by them, but that by their PRAYERS and MERITS our Prayers may become effectual. 
Bellarm. de Beat. SS. l. 1. c. 17.  We may say to the Saints (says Card. Bellarmine) Save me, or Give me This or That; provided we understand, Give it me by thy Prayers or Merits. So that in all this we say no more of you, than what both your Doctrine and Practice warrant us to do.  
53. Let us see therefore how you excuse yourselves in this Matter. You say, That your Concluding of all your Prayers Through Jesus Christ our Lord, shows that you desire all at last by his Merits. But indeed this is but a poor Shift; and as a very Learned Man has long since told you, 
Dr. Jackson, Tom. 1. p. 941.  that Close comes in in your Addresses, much after the same manner that the mention of a certain Sum of Money does in Deeds of Trust, only pro formâ: And you are never the less guilty, for this Conclusion, of what we charge you with, viz. That you join the Merits and Intercession of the Saints, with the Merits and Intercession of Christ for Pardon and Acceptance. And to the end that you may see what senseless Petitions you hereby make to God in these Addresses, I will only take one of your Prayers in the literal meaning of it, 
Idem. ib.  and apply it in a plain Paraphrase to your Pretensions, by way of Petition to some Earthly Prince. Thus than you pray upon the Third of May.  
Grant we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we who Adore the Nativity of thy Saints, Alexander, etc. may by their Intercession be delivered from all Evils that hang over us, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  
Now changing only the Names, this, according to your Exposition, will be the Paraphrase of it.  
I beseech your Sacred Majesty that you would vouchsafe to pardon my Offences against you, and deliver me from those Evils that hang over me for them, at the Intercession of your Lord Chancellor, etc. and in Honour of this his Birthday; and that for the Sake of the Prince your Son, our Royal Lord and Master.  
In this extravagant Petition, the very Transcript of the foregoing Prayer, he must be blind who sees not that the Conclusion of it, for the Prince's sake, etc. is very impertinent, and does not at all hinder but that the Request is formally made by the Interest of my Lord Chancellor, and in Honour of his Birthday: And therefore that notwithstanding this Conclusion (which is really the Remains of your Old Forms, before ever any New Intercessors were put into them) you remain justly chargeable with what I accused you of, That you make the Saints joint Intercessors with Christ to God; and desire not only through his Merits, but by theirs also, to obtain your Requests.  
54. As for your last Pretence of Holy Scripture for this Practice, it is every jot as little to the purpose in this, as I have shown it to be in the foregoing Point.  
1. God tells Isaac (say you) that he would bless him, 
Reply, p. 25.  for his Father Abraham's sake. Moses, praying for the People, desires God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, i. e.  
Because God, in pursuance of his Covenant made with Abraham, blessed his Son, and Moses put him in mind of that Covenant, to appease his Anger, that he should not destroy the Israelites; Therefore it is lawful now to pray to God not only by the Merits of Christ (the only Mediator of God's Covenant with us) but also of the Saints too, for Pardon and Salvation.  
2. God, in remembrance of his Promise made to David, 
Reply, ib.  showed Mercy unto Solomon for his Sake: Therefore Solomon might have urged to God the Merits of David for Pardon of his Sins; and therefore we (who have another, and better, and only Advocate) may address to God by the Merits and Intercession of the Saints for Forgiveness.  
I wonder you did not put in the City Jerusalem's Merits too, to prove that we may not only pray through the Merits of the Saints, but of their Cities also: For the Text seems as express in this, as in the other: 1 Kings xi. 32. But he shall have one Tribe for my Servant David's sake, and for Jerusulems' sake, the City which I have chosen out of all the Tribes of Israel.  
3. What you mean by your last Passage, 
Reply, ib.  I must confess I cannot divine; unless you think that because Elijah, who was sent by God's express Command to make a Proof of his Divinity before all the People of Israel, who were gone after Baal, began his Prayer with that usual Character of his being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it was therefore through their Merits that the Fire came down from Heaven, and burnt up his Sacrifice.   

SECT. III. In which the Arguments offered by the Vindicator for the Establishing of this Worship are particularly Considered, and their Weakness laid open.  
55. Hitherto we have been clearing the matter of Fact, what your Practice in this Invocation of Saints is; I come now in the next place to examine your Arguments, and see what grounds you have to support so great a Superstition.  
And First, for what concerns the Holy Scripture, I find you do not much care to be tried by that: You plead Possession for your Warrant, and are resolved that shall be sufficient, till we by some better right can throw you out of it. Now in this I cannot but commend your discretion; for indeed those who go about to found this Article upon the Authority of Holy Writ, do in the Opinion of many of your own Church but lose their Labour, 
See Defence of the Expos. p. 8. in annot.  since (as they tell us) for the Old Testament, the Holy Patriarches and Prophets that lived before Christ's Incarnation were not yet admitted into Heaven, and therefore were not Capable of being prayed to; and for the New, it was not expressed there for fear of Scandalising the Jews, and lest the Gentiles should have been thereby moved to think, that the Worship of new Gods had been proposed to them.  
56. Wherefore passing by the Holy Scripture, which you look upon as unfit to be appealed to in this Case, let us come to the Possession you so much boast of; And see how you defend it against those Arguments I offered to prove That this Custom of Calling upon the Saints had no footing in the Church before the latter End of the iv 
Defence. ibid.  Century; and was then but beginning to creep into it. And to reduce your Confusion to the clearest Method I can, I will distinctly consider your Allegations in these two Periods.  
First, Of the first 300 Years, wherein I affirm that there was no such practice in the Church.  
Secondly, Of the Fourth Century; towards the latter End of which I confess it began to appear; though still with very great difference from what you now Practise.  

I. PERIOD. That the Custom of Praying to Saints had no being in the Church for the First 300 Years.  
57 Now for this I showed you in my Defence, 
Defence of the Expos. Art 3. p. 6.  That the Fathers of the iv Century did certainly herein departed from the Practice and Tradition of the Ages before them; because * That you were not able to produce so much as One Instance out of the first three Centuries of any such Invocation: * But rather were forced to Confess, that nothing of that kind was to be found amongst them. * That this was in effect what your greatest Authors, Card. du Perron, Card. Bellarmine, and even the Bishop of Meaux himself had done: * And that indeed your own Principles oblige you to this Acknowledgement; seeing you both allow that without believing that the Saints departed go forthwith to Heaven, they could not have prayed to them; and yet cannot but say that this, the Holy Fathers of the first three Ages did utterly deny. These were my Arguments; let us see how you clear your Possession from the force of them.  
58. First, 
Reply. p. 17. §. 13.  You clap a Marginal Note upon my Assertion (in earnest of your future Civility) Primitive Fathers CALUMNIATED by the Defender: And to wipe off this Calumny you undertake to show that they did Pray to the Saints within the First 300 Years. This is I confess to the purpose, and if you can do it, let the Note of Calumny stick upon Me; but indeed I rather think that this Undertaking will fix another, and a much more proper Note upon You. But let us hear your Proofs.  Ibid.] And first you say, My Brethren the Centurists of Magdeburg acknowledge that Origen prayed to Job, and admitted the Invocation of Angels. 
59 Answer] If this be true, then, Sir, I tell you in one word, that my Brethren the Centurists were mistaken; and that, (considering the time they wrote in) is no great Wonder. But now did you never hear in your Life, that your Brethren, Erasmus, Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmine, Baronius, Labbé, Du Pin, etc. have all confessed, that neither the Tracts, nor Comments upon Job were Origen's? Has not one ever told you, Secondly, 
Replique au roy de la Grande Bretagne liv. v. c. 13. p. 982.  that another of your Brethren Card. du Perron, has utterly rejected the Authority of Origen, as an incompetent Witness in matter of fact, and that especially in the very Point before us? Were you indeed so ignorant, Thirdly, as not to know how opposite this Father is to you (as I shall presently show) in his undoubtedly genuine Works as to this matter? As for the other Passages you quote, Fourthly, out of his Comments upon Ezekiel; besides that He there supposes the Angel present with Him: Can you look upon this place and not see that another of your Brethren, your own Editor, calls it an Apostrophe to His Guardian Angel; and I desire you to try if you can make any more of it. And Lastly, for what you finally allege out of his Lamentations; did you in good earnest not know that it was a Book marked, not by your Brethren only, but by your Holy Father Pope Gelasius as Apchryphal; and rejected as such by all the Learned Men of your own Communion? So unfortunate, or rather unfaithful have you been in your first Entry upon Antiquity. It may be you will go on a little better.  
Reply p. 17. n. 14.  Reply.] You tell us in the next place a story of one Justina, how being in danger of making Shipwreck of her Chastity by the Magical Art of St. Cyprian, she had recourse to the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, begging of Her to assist Her whose Virginity was in danger. 
60. Answer.] If by this Story you design to prove the Invocation of Saints to have been the Practice of the Church within the first 300 Years, (and indeed it is for this you do produce it,) I must then again complain of your Unsincerity; seeing it is both acknowledged by your own Authors, 
Reply p. 17.  and indeed confessed by your own self, that Gregory Nazianzen was mistaken in the relation, and attributed that to the great St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, which could not belong to Him. 
See Baron Mart. ad 26. Sept. p. 376. Edit. Paris 1613. Et annal. ad ann. 250. n. 5.  As for the other Cyprian to whom Card. du Perron, Baronius, etc. apply it, He is not pretended to have lived within that Period, and so your Proof is without the Compass of what you undertook to show.  
61. But Secondly, Had there been any truth in this Story, even with reference to this other Cyprian, how comes it to pass that none of the ancient Martyrologies, no not your own Breviary, since the Reformation of it, makes the least mention of any such thing: Would all these have omitted so Considerable a Passage had there been any grounds of certainty in it.  
62. To Reply therefore to this Instance, I say, It is more than probable that St. Gregory took up this Story either from some flying report, or out of some Counterfeit Acts: For one part of it, at least that which relates to St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, you confess your 
† Baronius calls it Explodenda fabula. ad ann. 250. n. 5. Billius Caecutiisse hic Gregorium in Orat. annot. Vid in Martyr. ubi supr.  selves that in this he was certainly mistaken. And if any other Cyprian we hear nothing either in Eusebius, or any other Historian or Writer of that Age. The first Cardinal Baronius has produced being Beda and Adelhelmus, who lived not till the Eighth, and Metaphrastes in the latter end of the Ninth Century. But however let us see even what they say of this matter. They tell us that the Cyprian here meant was Bishop of Antioch, and suffered Martyrdom at Nicomedia with St. Justina: And thus it stood in your own Breviary too till the Reformation of it by the Order of the Council of Trent. 
Vid in Brev. Eccles. Sariso. ad 25. Sept.  But now it is beyond dispute evident that this is utterly false; for that in those times there was no such Bishop of Antioch, both the accounts of the Succession of that Sea given us both by ancient and modern Historians plainly show; and Card. Baronius himself confesses it: Who is therefore forced for the credit of the business contrary both to his own Authors, and to your Ancient Brevaries, 
Ibid.  to degrade him from a Bishop to a Deacon. And for this He has no Authority. So evident does it remain, that this whole matter is what the Card. calls, one part of it at least, a Fable to be exploded by all Wise Men. And this is another Proof either of your integrity or ability in Church History. But we will hope the next may be better.  63. Reply.] And thus you go on with your Undertaking, You tell Me you will not cite Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Reply ibid. pag. 19  because it may be I will not allow Him to be the Author of the Book under his Name: Nor Justin Martyr, because I shall be apt to say he does not speak plain enough: Nor Iren●us, tho' He says plainly that the Virgin Mary was made an Advocate for the Virgin Eve (I presume you mean that Eve prayed to the Virgin Mary 4000 years before she was born, 
Crasset par. 2. Trait. 4. qu. 3. p. 99  as Father Crasset says they built Temples to Her ere she came into the World) because it may be I shall find out an Evasion for that too. 

Horace de Art poet.  64. Answ.] Quid dignum tanto feret. hic promissor Hiatu?  
You will not insist upon Dionysius, nor upon Justin Martyr, nor upon Irenaeus: But what then will you insist upon? for you have said nothing at all to the purpose yet.  
After all this Gaping, we have two Testimonies only offered to us for the practice of 300 years: One a passage of Origen already rejected as Spurious: And the other out of a Tract of Methodius, if not certainly Spurious, yet justly suspected by your own Critics, being neither quoted by any of the Ancients, nor mentioned by Photius; and of a Style more Luxuriant than that Fathers other Writings are; and that speaks so clearly of the Mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Divinity of the Word, whom He calls, in a Phrase not well known in his time, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father; of the Trisagion never heard of for above 100 years after His death; 
Bibliotheque. T. 1. pag. 530.  of the Virginity of Mary after Her Conception; and of Orginal Sin; that your late Critic Monsieur du Pin had certainly reason to place it among his Spurious Works, however it be now cited with such assurance by you.  
65. But to quit this Exception against the Book: The very Passage itself is so manifest a piece of Oratory, that had you ever consulted it, in the Greek set out by Combefis, you could not have doubted of it. He had begun his Apostrophe two or three Pages before what you produce; and he ushered it in with this express Introduction, 
Methodius Gl. Edit. Combefis. Paris cum S. Amphilochio. 1644.  to prepare us for it, That he would conclude his Speech with an Address to the City of the great King, and to all his Brethren and Fathers there, as if they were now present with him; and accordingly he Apostrophe's the City Jerusalem, p. 426. The whole Catholic Church, p. 428. A. All the People of God, ibid. B. The Blessed Virgin, ibid. C. Holy Simeon, p. 429. B. And so concludes all, joining with that Blessed Man in his Address to our Saviour Christ. And though his Expressions may be very high, (as the whole Sermon is) yet we cannot but think it very unreasonable to conclude the dogmatical Sense of the Church from the Rhetorical flights of a single Man, were the Piece otherwise never so Genuine: But indeed it is worthily rejected (for the reasons before mentioned) by the Learned Critics both of your and our Communion.  
66. This then is the sum of your Arguments to Establish this Practice in the first three Centuries. Were it necessary, after what has been done by so many better hands, to recount the Opinions of those Holy Fathers as to this Point, I should certainly be able to make some better Proof of the Antiquity of our praying to God only, than you have been able to do of your Addressing to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints.  
67. In the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the death of Polycarp, Anno 167. we find that the Jews had persuaded the Heathens, that if they suffered the Christians to have the body of that Holy Martyr, they would leave Christ, to Worship Polycarp: 
Apud Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. c. 15. p. 109. B. Ed. 2. Vales. Paris. 1678.  Not knowing (says that Letter) that it is not possible for us to leave Christ, who hath suffered for the Salvation of all those that are saved in the World; nor to serve or religiously Adore any other. For as for Jesus Christ, We Adore Him as being the Son of God. But as for the Martyrs we love them as the Disciples and Imitators of the Lord. And that very justly considering their insuperable Zeal which they bore to their King and Master, and God grant that we may be both the Disciples of their Piety, and partakers of their Glory.  
68 This is indeed the true Spirit of Christianity, and the exact account of the Honour we now pay to the Saints. We Adore only our Saviour Christ, as the Son of God, 
Edit. Usser.  and therefore (as the Ancient Latin Translation of this Letter reads it) we pray to no other. But for the Saints, we Love and Honour them; we recite and magnify their noble Acts: We encourage ourselves by their Examples to the like performances, as those who earnestly desire to be partakers of their Glory. This is all the Honour they are now capable of receiving; and this was all that the Primitive Church in those best Ages, was ever known to have given to them. 
Irenaeus lib. two. c. 57 p. 218. Ed. Paris. 1675.   
69. The Church of Christ (says Irenaeus) does nothing by the Invocation of Angels, nor by any other perverse Curiosity; but by addressing her Prayers purely, and only, and openly to the Lord who has made all things.  
70. 
* In Rom. l. viij. c. 10. Tertull. de Orat. cap. 1. Cypr. de Orat. Dom.  Origen tell us, that to Invocate the Lord, and to Adore God, are the same thing. So do Tertullian and Cyprian, using the words to Pray and to Adore promiscuously in the same signification. In a word, this was the constant Doctrine of those first Ages; and I will choose to deliver it in the words of that Father whom you have especially alleged to the contrary: We Worship (says 
† Orig. contr. Cells. lib. viij. pag. 386. Ed. Cantabr anno. 1658.  Origen) the one only God, and his one only Son, and Word, and Similitude, with our utmost Supplications and Honours; bringing our Prayers to the God of all things, through his only begotten Son;— 
* Ibid. 395.  We must pray to God only, who is over all, and to his only begotten Son the first born of every Creature, and beseech Him as our Highpriest to carry our Prayers which we make to Him, to his God and our God, to his Father, and the Father of all those that live according to the Word of God.— 
(a) Ibid. pag. 400.  This is our Profession of Faith, which we constantly maintain as long as we live, by the blessing of God, and of his only Son Jesus Christ, who was manifested amongst us. As for the favour of others, (if that be to be looked after) We know that thousands of thousands stand before him, and ten thousand times ten thousand minister unto Him. These as our Brethren and Friends when they see us imitating their Piety towards God, work together to the Salvation of those that CALL UPON GOD, and PRAY as they OUGHT to do.  
71. I will add but one Testimony more in a matter both so plain in its self, 
Novatian de Trinitate. c. xiii. p. 17. A. Ibid. C. D. ad fin. Tertull. Paris 1675.  and so often insisted upon by others, and it is of Novatian proving the Divinity of Christ, from the Churches praying to him, For none but God (says he) knows the Secrets of the Heart as our Saviour did— If Christ be only a Man, how is He every where present to those that Call upon him? Seeing this is not the Nature of a Man, but of God, to be able to be present in every place. If Christ be only Man, why is a Man called upon as a Mediator in Prayers, seeing the calling upon a Man is judged of no value to give Salvation? If Christ be only Man, why is any Hope put in Him, seeing that Hope is represented as Accursed that is placed in Man?  
72. Such was the Opinion of the Church in the first three Centuries: As for that extraordinary discovery you are pleased next to make, 
Reply p. 19 §. 14.  That all you do in your Liturgies is, to beg of God to hear the Prayers of his Saints, and that for this you are able to furnish Me with many Examples out of the ancient Liturgies and Fathers within the first 100 Years; it is so false an Assertion, and so vain an Undertaking, that either you must be ignorant even to astonishment both in the Doctrine of your own Church, and in the Acts of Primitive Antiquity, or else most certainly you never believed, either what you say or what you promise.  
73. But though you are not then able to answer my Challenge of producing any Warrant from the Fathers of the first 300 years for this Doctrine and Practice; it may be you are able at least to answer my Presumption from those times against it: viz. That those Fathers did not believe that the Souls of the Just went straight to Heaven, and therefore by your own Principles could not have believed that they ought to be prayed to as there.  74. Reply] To this you say, 
Reply p. 15. §. 12.  That you are not bound to defend every Argument that Bellarmine and Suarez bring, especially when Others of your Writers think them unconclusive. In short, you cannot deny the matter of Fact, though you would be thought to suppose rather than allow it to be true; And all you have to say is, That whatever they believed besides, sure you are they did pray to the Saints. 
75. Answ.] That the Fathers about the latter end of the iv Century began to Invocate the Saints we do not deny; tho' it were rather in the way of a Rhetorical Compellation, than of a formal Address. And if herein they contradicted any other of their Principles, we know they were but Men, and as such might possibly in their Religious heats do some things not entirely consonant to themselves in their Cooler hours. Now then taking it for granted that those Fathers I heretofore mentioned did teach, that the Saints departed do not yet enjoy the Beatific Vision, I say with those great Men of your Church, whom you here forsake, that they could not reasonably pray to them. Since it is upon this Vision, especially, that you found your Opinion of that particular knowledge you suppose they Ordinarily and Constantly have of those things that are done here below, and without which it would be Vain and Absurd to call upon them. And therefore though you have no regard to Bellarmine's or Suarez's Authority, yet for the sake of Sense and Reason answer their Arguments; and tell us a little (upon your own Principles) how those Fathers could think the Saints were fit to be prayed to, if by denying them to be yet in Heaven, they by consequence must have denied them to have any ordinary and certain knowledge of what is done here upon Earth?  
Reply, p. 16.  76. Reply.] But Sixtus Senensis (you say) after all concludes, That those Fathers do not intent to exclude the Saints departed from the Beatific Vision, but only from that Perfect Happiness which we shall enjoy after the Resurrection. And it would have been much more Christianlike in Me, to have imitated his Example, than to argue as I do against their Praying to Saints from this Principle. 
77. Answ.] Had I been cramped, as he was, with a Defininimus of my Church, I might possibly have been tempted to make Excuses for those Fathers, as he did. But a Man need only look upon their Words, as they are cited by him, to see how little such shuffling will avail, to reduce their Doctrine to your Pretences. And the truth is, this Sixtus Senensis was so Honest as to confess, though you were not so Honest as to take notice of it. For having offered that Exposition of their Words which you mention, he immediately subjoins, Thus (says he) have I interpreted the Expressions of S. Ambrose, Austin, and chrysostom. But if there be some Say of the Holy Authors which CANNOT suffer such an Interpretation, yet we should at least remember that this ERROR ought not to prejudice the Learning and Piety of such Illustrious Fathers, seeing the Church in their time had not yet determined any thing Certain to be believed in this Matter. Thus Sixtus Senensis; ingenuously confessing how the Case stood. And this you cannot be presumed not to have seen in him, seeing they are in the very same place with what you transcribed from him. And what then must I think of such a One, as values not how he reports things, so he may but by any means seem to say somewhat; though he knows at the same time, that he cannot expect long to triumph in his Unsincerity.  
78. And now there is but one thing more remaining, to get over this unlucky Period of the First 300 Years.  
Reply, p. 18. sect. 14.  Reply.] For what if the few Writings of the Ancients of the First 300 Years which remain, be silent in this Particular, does it follow that they approved not the Practice? 
Answ.] No, Sir, this in not the Case: We do not pretend to a bare Silence of those Holy Fathers, but we produce their express Authorities against you: And that I hope is a good Argument that our Possession is at least 300 Years better than yours; and that you, not we, have been Innovators in this Particular.  79. Reply. 
Ibid. ] Haddit this Custom of Praying to Saints been only introduced in the Fourth Age, and been so dangerous as Moderns would persuade the World that it is, certainly the succeeding General Councils would have taken notice of it, or some One of the Fathers would have written against it. But, on the contrary, we find the Fourth General Council allowing this Invocation in the Third Person, Let Flavian the Martyr Pray for us. 
80. Answ.] To your Instance from the Fourth General Council, I reply, That besides that you yourself confess that it is nothing to the purpose, there being a mighty difference between wishing that the Saints would pray for us, and praying to the Saints for their Aid and Succour, you should have known that this Council was held in the middle of the F●●th Age, and so is without the compass of what I am here to consider.  
81. But I will go yet farther with you as to this Instance; and to that end I must tell you, that your Authors have very much deceived you in their Accounts of it. For first, It was not the Synod, but only a Party in that Synod, that cried out, Let Flavian the Martyr pray for us. And secondly, Even they that did cry out thus, were as far from designing to pray to Flavian at all, as you were from understanding the meaning of their Exclamation. 
Labbé Conc. Tom. iv. Act. xi. p. 697. B.  The Occasion of those Words in short was this: In the Eleventh and Twelfth Actions of that Council there arose a difficult Debate concerning Bassianus and Stephanus, whether of the two was lawful Bishop of Ephesus. Bassian had this Plea, That he had held it quietly Four years; that Proclus and his Successors, Bishops of Constantinople, had communicated with him as lawful Bishop of that See; among whom was Flavianus but lately deceased. Upon this the Fathers that were of Bassianus Party urged to the Synod, that Flavian by communicating with him, had acknowledged him to be lawful Bishop of Ephesus: And thereupon press the Holy Bishops to have this respect to Flavian a Catholic and Martyr, as to acknowledge Bassianus to be the true Bishop, seeing he had Communicated with him as such. And here comes in among other Expressions, this that is the Subject of our present Debate. The Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople cry out, in Honour of their late Martyr, This is the truth; this we all say: Let the Memory of Flavian be eternal; let the Memory of the Orthodox Flavian be eternal: Flavian lives after his Death; Let the Martyr pray (or entreat) for us; Flavian judges with us. This was the Occasion of those words; and it plainly shows, that all they meant by them was, That the Judgement of Flavian, a Holy Bishop and Martyr, should prevail with the Synod to judge of Bassianus side, with whom He had Communicated.  
82. As for your Argument, That had this Custom of Praying to Saints been introduced in the Fourth Age, it would certainly have been condemned in the following: I reply, First, That this is at most but a mere Presumption, against plain and undoubted Matter of Fact, and such as not only this, but too many other Corruptions which have crept into the Church, without any notable Opposition for some time made to them, abundantly overthrows. But, Secondly, Tho your Argument therefore (if we should allow it) would be good for little; yet it has another Misfortune too, which most of your Proofs labour under, that it is as false as it is unconclusive. For, Good Sir, did you never, in your Enquiry into these Matters, hear of such a Canon as the Thirty fifth of the Council of Laodicea, Anno 364. expressly condemning the Worship of Angels? Did you never meet with such an Order as that of the Third Council of Carthage in S. Austin's time, 
Can. 23.  commanding all the Prayers that were made at the Altar to be directed to the Father? At least I am confident you cannot be ignorant what Vigilantius did in opposition to this Superstition; and whose Piety S. Hierome himself (though his hot Antagonist) could not but acknowledge. Nor was he alone in this Quarrel: S. Jerome speaks of several Bishops that were of his Party, and joined with him in his Endeavours against this growing Evil. Even S. Austin himself, as appears from many Places of his Works, spoke not a little contrary to it, 
Vid. Epist. ad Januar. Ep. 119.  and plainly insinuates he would have done more, had not this Practice already so possessed men's Minds, that it was not safe so to do.  
83. But to quit all these, The public Declaration which Epiphanius made against the Collyridians' (a sort of Women in those days Superstitious in their Honour of the Blessed Virgin) is alone enough to show that this practice did not pass without Opposition in those times. 'Tis true (says he) the body of Mary was holy, 
Epiphan. Haeres 79. pag. 1061. C.D.  but She was not therefore God. She was a Virgin, and highly honoured but She was not set forth to us to be worshipped; but She herself worshipped him who was born of her flesh. And therefore the holy Gospel has herein armed us before hand; 
Joh. 2.  our Lord himself saying, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Wherefore does he say this? But only lest some should think of the Blessed Virgin more highly than they ought; He called her Woman, as it were foretelling those Schisms and Heresies that should arise upon Her account.— But neither is Elias to be adored, though he be yet alive: Nor is St. John to be adored; nor Tecla; 
Ib. 1062. C.  nor any of the Saints— If God will not permit us to worship Angels how much less the daughter of Anna?— Let Mary be held in Honour, 
Ib. 1064. D.  but let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be worshipped. 
Ib. 1065. B.  Let not one worship Mary. For though She were most fair, and Holy, and Honourable; yet She is not therefore to be adored. In a word; 
Ib. 1066. D.  Let Mary be held in Honour, but let God be Adored.  
84 To conclude this Point you tell us; Reply] That it seems most extravagant to you that Protestants should demand of you to show them some testimonies of the Fathers of the first Three Hundred years, 
Reply, pag. 18.  who lived under persecution, few of whose Writings remain, the greatest part being lost and destroyed, and yet reject the Fathers of the IVth. Age who wrote when the Church began first to be in a flourishing Condition. Can any one imagine that the Church when in Grots and Caverns taught one thing, and when She came into the light practised another?  
85. Answ. What mere Harangue is this? But we must be contented where better is not to be had. And therefore I reply, 1st. As to your insinuation, which since Cardinal Perron first invented it, has been the constant common place of the little crowd of Controvertists that have followed after, viz. That the Fathers of the first Three Hundred years lived under persecution, and therefore wrote but little, and of that little the greatest part was lost too; though I can easily excuse this in you as a Sin of Ignorance, yet I must needs say of the Cardinal and Others, that they have herein greatly injured those Holy Men; who were neither so lazy nor fearful as they have represented them to have been.  
86. For not to say any thing of the foundation of all our Religion, the Holy Scriptures, which were written within this period; how large a Catalogue has Eusebius alone preserved of the works of those Holy Fathers: And yet how many of the Latin Church has he omitted: Look into his History, and there you will find those great names, Clemens Romanus, Papias, Quadratus, Aristides, Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Pinytus, Apollinarius, Melito, Modestus, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tatian, Bardesanes, Clemens Alexandrinus, Rhodo, Miltiades, Apollonius, Serapion, Heraclitus, Moscarinus, Candidus, Sextus, and Arabien; all to have been Writers of the Second Century: Tertullian, Judas, Beryllus, Hippolytus, Caius, Africanus, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Nepos, Cyprian, Origen; in the Third. And the Writings of which last Author only were said to have amounted to Six Thousand Volumes; and which tho St. Jerome retrenched to a third part, yet still he left Two Thousand to him.  
87. In what sort of Writings were these Holy Men defective? Some published Apologies for our Religion; Others disputed against the Heathens, the Jews, the Heretic's of those times. Some wrote of the Discipline of the Church; Others moral Discourses, for the direction of men's Lives and Manners. Their Histories, their Accounts of the Holy Men, who suffered for the Faith; their Comments on the holy Scripture, their Sermons are yet upon Record: And when such was their diligence, why should it be insinuated as if living under persecution they wrote but little; and therefore that it is unreasonable to appeal to them?  
88 Nor is your next pretence any better: that their Writings are lost and destroyed: For though it be indeed in great measure true, that in respect of what they wrote there is but a small part brought down to us (and we have some reason to believe that the Opposition they made to your Corruptions has been in some measure the Cause of it; 
See Def. of the Expos. p. 127. etc. ) yet have we still enough to show us what the Faith of those times was, and how vastly you have declined from it. And when both the Writings of Holy Scripture, and of those Fathers that do remain speak so plainly against you, we have no great reason to believe that those which are lost were at all more favourable to you.  
89. But can any one Imagine, 
Reply. p. 18.  that the Church when in Grots and Caverns should teach one thing, and when it came into the light practise another? I answer, yes; this is very easy to be imagined. Affliction keeps men close to their duty, whereas Prosperity too often corrupts the best manners. When it pleased God to convert the Empire to Christianity, there were but too many instances of Heathen Customs, accommodated to the principles of the Gospel; and this was one. Whether it were that they could not so soon forget their ancient Rites; or that they thought it a religious policy to extend the pale of the Church by suiting Christianity as much to the Heathen Ceremonies as it was possible, and to dispose men thereby the more readily to embrace it; Or whether finally, that simplicity of the Gospel which suited well enough with a State of persecution, was now thought too mean for an Established Church, the Religion of the Emperor, and they were therefore willing to render it more pompous, and set it off with greater lustre in the Eyes of Men, though in so doing they a little departed from the purity of their lower and better State.  
90. Let us add to this, the Opinion which then began to prevail among those Holy Fathers, of the particular intercession of the Saints for us; and which both the prayers that were made in those days at the memories of the Martyrs, and the Miracles God was sometimes pleased to work there; not to say any thing of the Visions and Apparitions that were sometimes thought to be seen there, very much confirmed them in. Now this naturally prepared the way for the Invocation which followed upon it. For now the Poets began instead of their Muses, to call (more Christianly) upon the Saints and Martyrs to assist them. The Orators, following the Genius of the Age, indulged themselves all the liberty of their Eloquence, in Apostrophe's to the Saints at their Memories. And as things seldom stop in their first beginnings, by degrees through the Ignorance of some, and superstition of more; they fell into a formal Invocation, about the beginning of the Vth. Century.  
91. But here another accident fell out for the carrying on of this Service. For about this time Nestorius began to teach that men ought not to call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God. Now this made some think his design was secretly to revive the Heresy of Arrius or Sabellius under a new Cover; and their Zeal for the Divinity of Christ made them in the Council of Ephesus, Anno 431 condemn his Opinion as Heretical; and in Opposition to Him they fell into the contrary extreme, of an immoderate magnifying of Her; tho' (as I shall presently show) they still continued within much better bounds than you do now: It being almost Three Hundred years after this, before ever the Invocation of Her or the Saints, was publicly Established in the Church. And this brings me to my next Proposal; which was Secondly;   

II. PERIOD. To consider what Grounds this Superstition had in the IVth. Century.  
92. And here, first, to what I said concerning the first beginnings of this Invocation, viz. That the most part of your Allegations from this Age were rather Rhetorical flights than formal prayers; you return very pleasantly.  Reply.] That the Rhetoric lies wholly at my door, who fly to so poor a shift. That these passages are some of the duriores loci more difficult places which some only nibbled at; Others could not digest; and I shift off under the notion of Rhetorical Flights or Novelties. 
93. Answ. One would think by this Droll you had been lately reading the judgement of your University of Douai concerning Bertram. Although (say they) we do not much value that Book, yet since he has been often Printed and is read by many, and that in other ancient Catholicks we tolerate many Errors, and extenuate, or excuse them; often times find out some contrivance or other to deny them, or to set a convenient Gloss upon them when they are Opposed to us in disputes, or in engaging with our Adversaries; we do not see why we should not allow the same Equity to Bertram.  
94. But what now is this shifting? Why I said that, which all the learned Men in the World must allow to be true, viz. That the Fathers of the IVth. Age were many of them great Orators, and made use of Rhetorical Addresses to the Saints. And that from those conditions they sometimes expressly put into their Writings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. If thou hast any sense, If thou hast any concern for what is done here below, and the like; we may reasonably conclude, that this was all they meant, even where they do not express any such thing.  
95. But did not those Fathers do somewhat more than this? Can all their Expressions be fairly reduced to such Apostrophe's? To this I have already said, that We do acknowledge that about the latter end of this Century, S. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, amongst the Greeks, and their great Imitator S. Ambrose among the Latins, did begin to Invocate the Saints. And had you thought fit to consult that Excellent Treatise to which I referred you, 
Discourse of Worship of Saints in Answer to Mr. de Meauxes Appeal to the iv Age.  or rather to take notice of what was said there, (for I am apt to believe you did Consult it) I should not have been troubled with these impertinences here. And therefore though it were not difficult to find some considerable faults with those few passages you have alleged from those Holy Men; (as when you say that S. Basil exhorts those who are in Tribulatian to fly to the Saints, those who are in joy to have recourse to them, whereas He only Historically relates what they did do, He (says he) who is afflicted flies to them, He who is in joy runs to them) yet I shall quit all to you, and without either shifting or nibbling leave you to make the most you can of them.  
96. But then that you may not put any more such Crude notes upon your Reader as you have done here, where you say, That Protestants grant Praying to Saints to have been established in the IVth. Age: I will very briefly transcribe from two Learned Men of our Church some considerable differences between what the Fathers of this Century did, and what you do now; and of which if you will not yet be persuaded to take any notice, I hope at least all indifferent persons will see by them how impertinently you allege their Authority for your Excuse.  
First, That in your Church, 
Ushers answer to a challenge. P. 409.  Prayer to Saints is looked upon as a part of Worship that is due to them; insomuch that (as I have shown) Cardinal Bellarmine places it among one of those Advantages that accrues to them upon their Canonization: But this those Holy Fathers never believed; on the contrary they absolutely define prayer, as a service proper to God only, and argued against the Arrians upon this very Topick, that Christ must needs be God, because the Church prayed to him.  
If you pretend that there are two sorts of Prayers, one proper to God, another that is not: I reply, 1. That this is false, because (as we have seen) all Prayer is a Religious Worship, and therefore proper to God only. Secondly, It concludes nothing; because you offer the most proper sort of Prayer for Help and Assistance to the Saints, that you can do to God himself.  

P. 401.  Secondly, In your Church you allow mental Prayer as well as Vocal to be made to the Saints: But in the Primitive, this was reserved as peculiar to Him who searcheth the Heart, and alone knoweth the Secrets of all the Children of Men.  

P. Ibid. etc.  Thirdly, In your Church it is resolved that the Saints are capable of hearing and knowing your requests: In the Primitive this was never determined, and the contrary seems to have been the most generally received.  

P. 405.  Fourthly, In your Church formal Prayers are made to the Saints; But the Addresses of these Holy Fathers were either wishes only, or requests of the same nature with those which are in this kind usually made to the living; where they who are requested, be evermore accounted in the Number of those that pray for us, but none of those that are prayed unto by us.  

P. 408.  Fifthly, In your Church the Saints are made not only joint Petitioners with us, but Advocates too; and that to plead not only Christ's Merits, but their own likewise. But against this these Fathers openly protested as an open derogation to the high prerogative of our Saviors meritorious Intercession, and a manifest encroachment upon his Great Office of Mediation.  

P. 410.416.  Sixthly, In your Church it is thought a more proper way of access, and a surer means of obtaining your requests to address by some Saint to God, than to go immediately to the Throne of Grace, through our Saviour Christ. But this those Fathers earnestly opposed, exhorting all men to go directly to God by his Son Jesus Christ.  
Seventhly, In your Church the Saints are indifferently called upon all the World over; 
Discourse in Answer to Mr. de Meauxes Appeal to the IVth. Age. p. 82. etc.  which does in effect attribute a Divine perfection, viz. That of Omnipresence to them: But in the Primitive Church, those who sought the Intercession of the Saints, limited their presence to some determinate places, as particularly to their Memories, where they thought them within Hearing; and did not call upon them indifferently every where.  
Eightly, This in your Church is an established practice; they who oppose it are declared to do wickedly, and an Anathema is pronounced against them on that account. But in the Primitive there was no Rule, or Order for it; it was the effect of a private and voluntary Zeal, encouraged it may be by the Guides of the Church, but no part of the established Service of it.  
97. And this may suffice to show how vain your pretences to the Antiquity even of this Age are to warrant your Superstition; and upon what slender grounds you affirm, after your Master the Bishop of Meaux, that this Invocation of Saints was Established, nay that we grant it was Established in the Fourth Age. But to convince you yet more with what little reason you either boast of this, or tax us with receding from our old principle of being tried by the Fathers of the First Four General Councils; upon this account I will now make you a more Liberal offer; and that is to prove if you can any Authentic Establishment of this Service in the Church. I do not say now in the Sixth Century; but in the Seventh: Nay or even before the latter end of the Eighth: In short, I do affirm that the first solemn Establishment of it was in the Second Council of Nice 787. and indeed that Synod which decreed the Worship of Images in opposition to the Second Commandment, was the most proper to define the Religious Invocation of Saints contrary to the First: And because there is something almost as bad in the manner of the Establishment, as in the thing itself, I will close all with a brief account of it.  
98. About the end of the Sixth Century both the Worship of Images, and the Invocation of Saints, having taken deep root in the minds of many Superstitious persons; Controversies began to arise about them; and generally the same persons were found to be either Friends or Enemies to both.  
In the year 754 Constantine Copronymus called a Synod of 338 Bishops, to Examine into these matters, 
Baron ad Ann. 754. N. 38. Spondane. Ibid. N. 6.  and both the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images utterly condemned by them.  
99 
Binnius in Syn. Const p. 1663. T. VI Concil. Labbe.  Thirty years after this Council the Abettors of there Superstitions prevailing, another Antisynod Was convened by the Authority of the Empress Irene at Nice. In 
† Action. VI  this the Acts of the former Council of Constantinople were recited, and instead of the Canons which they made in condemnation of this Worship; 
‖ Defin. XV. XVII.  two others were read in their Names, Establishing of it. How this came to pass it is not known; but this the 
† Annot. Epiphan. in def. XVII.  Nicene Fathers themselves acknowledge that the other Synod had established the quite contrary: Nay they were such Enemies to this Invocation, that Binius tells us, they exacted a solemn 
‖ Binnius Annot. in Concil. Const. T. VI p. 1663. Baron. l. c.  Oath of all their party, That they would never invocate the Saints, Apostles, Martyrs, or the Blessed Virgin. And yet have these good Fathers transmitted down to Posterity those two spurious Canons of the Council of Constantinople, as approving that very Worship, which the Council in the true definitions of it had utterly disclaimed.  
100 As for the Synod of Nice its self; if the definitions there made were of any force; that of Frankford, seven years after, has utterly taken it away; 
Act. Concil. Franc. in lib. Cant. praef. in l. 1.  in which it was so wholly abrogated, and annulled, as not to be placed in the number of Synods, or be any otherwise esteemed of than that of Ariminum. And I should be glad you would find me any other (but pretended) establishment of it, before your Synod of Trent in the very last Age.  
I have only now remaining in the last place to show;    

SECT. IU. What our Reasons are against this Service?  
101. You had asked me in your Vindication, What Authority have you to oppose us? You say that [to invocate Saints] is repugnant to God's Word: 
Vindic. p. 30.  Show that word, if you cannot we are in possession, and the Antiquity and Un-interruptedness of our Doctrine, besides the reasonableness and innocency of it, confirms us in our belief.  
102. To this I answered; That every text of Scripture that appropriated Divine Worship to God alone was a demonstration against you: 
Def. pag. 9  And that that one passage of St. Paul, Rom. X. 14. How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? were not men willing to be contentious, might End the Controversy. And for the Authority you speak of, that it was ridiculous to pretend prescription for that, which has not the least foundation neither in Holy Writ nor in Primitive Christianity; of which not one instance appears for the first Three Hundred years after Christ, and much to the contrary.  
103. 
Reply p. 21. §. 16.  To this you now reply in your Margin with great Assurance; Protestant's destitute of Scripture Proofs against the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints: But all you have to say in the Book is, That you do not give Divine Worship to the Saints, nor call upon them in that strict sense in which they are Duties only to be paid to God. That is to say, you play with Words, and make use of such distinctions as if they were allowed, a man might evacuate any other of God's Commands, without a possibility of being confuted. And I desire you to tell me what answer you would make an Impudent Woman that should give her Husband's Bed to another, and being charged by you for breaking the Seventh Commandment, should tell you that you were not to be so uncharitable as to judge of what she did by the External Act, that the Law forbade only lying with another man, as with her Husband; and that in this strict sense she was still Innocent, by reserving that highest Degree of Conjugal affection to him only, the giving whereof to another would make her guilty.  
104. But since you are so desirous to know what our Reasons against this Invocation are, I will now very freely lay them before you, if you will first give me leave only to prepare the way for them, by stating truly the difference between us in this matter, which you are wonderfully apt either to mistake or to palliate.  
105. You tell us in your Vindication, 
Vind. p. 30. Repl. p. 11. Expos. Sect. IU. p. 5. Papist Rept. N. 2. p. 2.  That All you say, is that it is lawful to pray to the Saints; and so again in your Reply. The difference (you say) between us is, Whether it be lawful for us to beseech or entreat them to pray for us? Monsieur de Meaux in the same moderate way tells us, that the Church teaches that it is profitable to pray to the Saints: And the Representer (from the Council of Trent) says of a true Papist, That his Church teaches him (and he believes) that it is Good and profitable, to desire the intercession of the Saints, reigning with Christ in Heaven. In your Discourses with those of our Communion, there is nothing more Ordinary with you, than to make them believe, that you value not praying to the Saints, nor Condemn any for not doing it. That if this be all they scruple in your Religion, they shall be received freely by you, and never pray to a Saint as long as they live. Nay I have heard of some who have gone so far in this matter, as to venture their Religion upon it, that you do not necessarily require the practice or profession of this service at all; nor pronounce any Anathema against us for opposing of it.  
106. But this is not ingenuous; nor as becomes the Disciples of Christ. For tell me now I beseech you: If we unite ourselves to your Church, will you not oblige us to go to Mass with you? Or can you dare for our sakes to alter your Service, and leave out all those things that relate to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints in it? Shall we be excused from having any thing to do with your Litanies and Processions, your Vespers or your Salves? Or will you purge all these too in Order to our Conversion? When we lie in our last Agonies, will you be content to Anoint us in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and leave the Angels, Arch-Angels, Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and all the Saints out of the Commission? And when our Souls are now expiring, shall we be sure you will not then at least trouble us with that long Bead-roll which your Office prescribes to be called upon in that Ceremony? If you have indeed the Liberty to do this, why do ye not use it, and remove so great a stumbling block as this out of our way? But if you cannot dispense with these things for our common Conversion, how shall we believe that you can do it to satisfy a private Proselyte?  
107. The truth is Invocation of Saints in your Church is not esteemed so indifferent a matter as you would have it thought to be. It is a Worship you suppose due to them: And to which they acquire a right by their Canonization. So Cardinal Bellarmine informs us: And therefore in your Profession of Faith set forth by the order of Pope Pius IVth. you are obliged with a firm Faith to believe and profess, that the Saints, who reign together with Christ, are to be Venerated and Invoked. And though the Alarm which the Council of Trent was in upon the News of the Pope's sickness, and the haste which thereupon they made to conclude that Synod permitted them not to frame any Canons in this last, as they had done in the other Sessions; yet the materials put together in the Chapter shows us what anathemas would have been thundered against us. 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 25.  For to take it only as it lies in that Session. There we find the Bishops and Pastors of the Church commanded to teach (what therefore I hope is undoubtedly the Church's sense in this point) That the Saints who Reign together with Christ offer up their Prayers to God for Men: That it is Good and Profitable in a suppliant manner to call upon them: And that for the obtaining benefits of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Saviour and Redeemer, we should fly to their Prayers, Aid and Assistance. They declare that those who deny (which you know we all do) that the Saints who enjoy Eternal Happiness in Heaven are not to be invoked, or say that this Invocation is Idolatry (as we generally believe it to be) or that it is contrary to the Word of God; or derogatory to the Honour of the One Mediator between God and Man Christ Jesus; or that it is foolish to supplicate those who Reign in Heaven in word or in mind; do think WICKEDLY.  
108. These are the words of your Council. If therefore you permit your Prosolytes to profess what they do not believe; if you receive those as good Catholics into your Church, whom nevertheless you know to remain still infected with wicked Opinions, contrary to the Doctrine and Practice established amongst you; If you allow them to assist at your prayers, without any intention to join in them, nay in an Opinion that they could not pray with you, without committing a grievous sin; Then go on to make folks believe, as you do, that you oblige no body to pray to the Saints, and that they may be of your Church, and yet still believe or do what they please in this matter. But if otherwise this be all gross Hypocrisy, if there be nothing but cheat and design in these pretences; then may I humbly desire all sincere Members of our Communion to beware of such Guides, as value not how they charge ours, or palliate their own Religion, so they may but by any means draw unwary men into their Net.  
109. But the Council of Trent goes yet further: It does not only Establish this Doctrine, but in express terms Anathematises those who oppose it: 
Concil. Trid. Ibid.  For in the close of that Chapter I but now mentioned, thus it decrees: If any one shall teach or THINK contrary to these Decrees: let him be ANATHEMA. All which your Epitomator Caranza thus delivers in short, 
Caranza Summ. Sess. XXV. Conc. Trid. p. 482. Lovanii 1681. ' The Synod commands (all those who have the care of Souls) that they should teach the Invocation of Saints; the Honour of Relics; and the Use of Images; and that those who teach otherwise do think WICKEDLY. And if any one shall teach or think contrary to these Decrees, Let him be ANATHEMA.  
110. It remains therefore that your Church does teach and require of all its Members both the profession and practice of such an Invocation, as I have before explained: And of which I now undertake to show: 

1. That it is repugnant to God's Holy word.  
2. Contrary to Antiquity.  
3. That is unreasonable in the constitution; and  
4. Unprofitable and unlawful in the Practice.    

I. It is repugnant to God's Holy Word.  
111. And here, First I will not doubt once more to tell you that to pray to Saints after the manner that it is now done in the Church of Rome, is contrary to all those passages of Holy Scripture which attribute Religious Worship to God only; such as Deut. VI 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve Him, and swear by his Name; and again Chap. X. 12, 20. XIII. 4. etc. All which our Saviour Christ has taught us to interpret with such a restrictive term, as excludes all others from a share in our Service. Mat. IU. 10. It is Written, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and Him ONLY shalt thou serve. I have already shown that all Prayer made to a person that is absent, with a Confidence that he is able both to know our wants, and to hear our Prayers, and to answer our desires, is in its own nature a Religious Worship. Now then from these places of Holy Scripture, I thus argue: It is repugnant to God's Word to give any proper Acts of Religious Worship to any but God only; but all such prayer as is made in your Church to the Saints departed, are proper Acts of Religious Worship; and therefore it must be contrary to God's Word to pray to any but God only.  
112. Nor am I here at all concerned in your distinctions of a Supreme and an Inferior Religious Honour; seeing both you and I are agreed that all Honour properly Religious (such as Prayer) is comprised under these prohibitions. If I were, I would then tell you that the Devil here did not require of Christ such a Supreme Worship, but on the contrary acknowledged himself to have a Superior, from whom He derived his Power of disposing of all the Kingdoms of the Earth, and the Glories of them. All he desired was to have some Religious Honour paid to Him. And our Saviour by alleging this Sentence of the Law against it, Evidently shows that it is not only such a supreme Religious worship as some of you pretend, but that all such Honour in general, is the peculiar service of God alone. But this (if you stand to your own principles) you cannot object, and for others, what I have now said may suffice to obviate their pretences.  
113. Secondly, What I have now concluded from this general Principle of Holy Scripture, I will in the next place more particularly enforce from these other passages, where the worship of Creatures is expressly prohibited. In the Xth. of the Acts, when Cornelius fell down at St. Peter's feet, and would have worshipped him,' he took him up saying, I myself also am a man. 
Acts X. 25.  It is a poor shift here to say, that Cornelius would have worshipped St. Peter with a supreme divine worship; he was not certainly so ignorant as to think, that when the Angel bid him send to Joppa for Simon Peter, who lodged with Simon a Tanner, he meant he should send for the great God that had made Heaven and Earth. Nor is it of any more moment which others amongst you suggest, viz. That Cornelius did well to adore him, but that St. Peter out of modesty refused it. And the answer he gave,' I myself also am a man, utterly overthrows all such insinuations; being as much as if he had said, that no Man whatsoever was to be worshipped.  
114. But this will more evidently appear in another instance, viz. that of St. John, Revel. XIX. 10. 
Rev. XIX. 10. XXII. 8.  who when in his Ecstacy he fell down and would have worshipped the Angel that discoursed with him, the blessed Spirit utterly forbade him; See (says he) thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant: WORSHIP GOD. In which words are plainly established these two Conclusions against this service; 1st. That Angels (and so likewise the Saints) being our fellow Servants are not to be worshipped: 2dly, That God only is to be adored.  
115. But St. Paul is yet more plain: He exhorts the Colossians in general, and in them us: Colos. II. 18. 
Colos. II. 18.  Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels. It is answered by some among you, that this was said in Opposition to the Heresy of Simon Magus who would have Sacrifice offered to the Angels: Or at least of some Others, who thought that tho' Christ had abolished the Law, yet was it still to be observed out of respect to the Angels by whom it had been delivered. But besides that I do not find any such thing charged by any of the Ancients upon Simon Magus, as is pretended; had S. Paul designed only to forbid one particular Act of Religious Worship being paid to them, would he in General have said that they were not to be Worshipped? Or had he intended to signify the abolishing of the Law, would he not have said so here, as well as in his other Epistles; and not have given such an obscure insinuation of it, as when he meant to forewarn them against observing the Law, to bid them have a care of worshipping Angels. But the truth is the meaning of the Text is too plain to be thus eluded. And I shall give it to you in the words of an ancient Father who lived in those very times in which you yet pretend such a service was established: 
Theodoret in loc.  Those who maintained an Observance of the Law together with the Gospel, taught also that Angels were to be worshipped; saying that the Law was given by them. This Custom remained a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Upon which account the Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia, forbade them by a Law to PRAY TO ANGELS. But.  
116. Thirdly, And to come more immediately to the Worship of Invocation. 
Rom. X. 14.  The same Apostle in that Question, Rom. X. 14. How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? furnishes us with another maxim of Holy Scripture against all such Prayers; viz. That no one is to be invoked in our religious addresses, but He only in whom we believe. But now Reason, Scripture, the Common Creeds of all Christians show that we are to believe ONLY in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and therefore upon Him ONLY must we Call. As for your distinction that this indeed in one sense is very true, but then in another and secondary sense Others besides God may be both believed in, 
Reply. p. 21.  and called upon; if you mean in a civil respect, it is indeed very true, but nothing to your purpose, seeing in this sense we can no more believe in than we can call upon such persons as are absent from us, and know nothing at all of us, which is the Case of the Saints departed. But for believing in a religious sense, as it is properly an Act of Divine Faith, and the foundation of that Assurance with which we call upon God by our Saviour Jesus Christ; this admits of no distinction, nor may it by any means, or in any measure be applied, without Sin, to any other than God alone.  
117. I will add but one principle more of Holy Scripture against this Service, and so close this first Point. Rom. XIV. 23. 
Rom. XIV. 23.  That whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin. But now those Prayers which have no foundation in Holy Scripture cannot be of Faith; for (says the same Apostle Rom. X. 17.) Faith cometh by Hearing, and Hearing by the word of God; And therefore such Prayers must be Sin. If God has any where revealed it to you, that you may lawfully give such a religious Worship to the Saints, show this, and our dispute is ended. But if you cannot do this, nor by consequence cannot pray to them with any well grounded persuasion of Conscience, that this is what God allows, and what the Saints are capable of receiving, I do not see how it can be avoided but that to you it must be sin so to do. 
S. Basil. Reg. Miral. 78. cap. 22.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As an ancient Father argues from this very principle in the like manner.  
118. For the Other part of this Service, the intercession of the Saints for us; I might to this Oppose all those passages of the New Testament, where Christ is set forth to us as our only Mediator. But I shall content myself with one single text, 1 Tim. II. 5, 6. There is one God, 
1 Tim. II. 5.6.  and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a Ransom for all. Now if there be but one Mediator, than Saints and Angels are not Mediators as you pretend. If the foundation of Christ's Mediatorship be this, That he gave himself a Ransom for all; then seeing the Saints have not done this, it must follow that neither can they be our Mediators. And this cuts off your new distinction of a Mediator of Intercession, and a Mediator of Redemption; which besides that it is the issue of your own Brains, and was invented only to support a tottering Cause, is here utterly destroyed; seeing the Foundation of Christ's Mediating now in Heaven, and appearing in the presence of God for us, is by virtue of His being our Mediator of Redemption upon Earth; and he therefore is become our intercessor there, because He shed his blood for our Expiation here. This is that great Argument upon which the Author to the Hebrews so much insists, Chap. IX. X. And the Analogy of the High Priest under the Law, making first the Expiatory Sacrifice for the people, and then Entering into the Holiest to appear before God for them, most evidently confirms it to us. And this may suffice for the 1st. Point, That this Service is contrary to the principles of Holy Scripture.   

II. It is Contrary to Antiquity.  
119. And here I am fallen into a vast Ocean; and should never have ended, should I go about particularly to show how vain your pretences are to possession for this superstition. It shall suffice me at present only to point out to you a few of those Remarks which others have more largely pursued; and which do abundantly declare how little conformable the best and highest Antiquity has been to what you now practise.  
120. I have already given some short account of the first three Centuries: And how little able you are to lay any claim to the Authority of them. You have there seen what the Opinion was of those Holy Fathers, touching the State of the Saints departed: How they thought that they do not yet enjoy the Beatific Vision, and by consequence were not in a condition to be called upon by the Church on Earth. I have shown you the Father's arguing against the Arrians for the Divinity of Christ from the Churches praying to Him; and which evidently proves that they thought none but God was capable of such a service. I have offered you the definition which those Holy Men gave of Prayer; viz. That it was an Address to God, a Conversing with God, and the like; and in all which they still restrained it to Him as His own peculiar prerogative. There we find no mention of any calling upon the Blessed Virgin or the Saints. No distinction of supreme and inferior religious Worship; of Mediators of Redemption and Intercession: in short none of those Evasions with which all your discourses on this Point are now filled; and without which indeed, according to your principles, it is impossible to explain it.  
121. But I will now add yet more. It was a general custom in the third and following Ages (concerning which we are particularly to inquire) to pray for the Saints departed, for Martyrs and Confessors, 
Discourse of Purgatory and Prayers for the dead.  nay for the Blessed Virgin herself, as has been elsewhere fully proved, and I suppose you will not have the confidence to deny it. Now let me appeal to any reasonable man to say; could the Church in those times have prayed in a suppliant manner to the Saints, as Reigning with God, nay and Gods themselves by participation, to aid, and assist them, when on the contrary they thought them in such a State as to need prayers to God for them? Is it to be believed, that they Addressed to those as Mediators and Intercessors with God, for whom they themselves interceded to God? It is a memorable remark that has been made to confirm the force of this Argument, that since the prevalency of this praying to Saints in the Church of Rome, your public rituals have had a notable change. Those very Saints which in your ancient Missals you prayed for, being now a la Mode prayed to. Thus upon IV. Kalends of July in the Sacramentary of Pope Gregory I. 
Sacrament. Greg. p. 112.  above 600 years after Christ we find this Prayer made in behalf of S. Leo, one of your Popes.  
Grant O Lord that this Oblation may be profitable to the Soul of thy Servant Leo.  
But in the present Roman Missal, the Collect is changed, 
Missale Rom. pag. 6 12.  and the Address made by the Intercession of the Saint now, that was formerly made by way of Intercession for Him.  
Grant to us, O Lord, that by the Intercession of Blessed Leo, this Offering may be profitable to US.  
And of this change, 
Decret lib. 3. tit. 41. p. 1373, 1373.  Pope Innocent the 3d. gives this honest account: Viz. That the Authority of Holy Scripture says, that he' injures a Martyr, that prays for a Martyr; (wherein yet his Infallibility misled him, it being S. Austin and not the Scripture that said so)' and they do not want our Prayers, but we theirs. Which the Gloss thus more fully expresses; It was changed (viz. this prayer for Pope Leo) because anciently they prayed FOR Him, but now TO Him. And from whence therefore we may warrantably infer, that in those first Ages praying TO Saints was not established, seeing it was then the general Custom to pray FOR them.  
112. The truth is, the whole face of the Ancient Church seems clearly opposite to the present practice: Some doubted whether the holy Saints departed, do at all concern themselves for us, or conduce any thing to our Salvation. So Origen. And these to be sure never prayed to them. Others made open opposition to such service. So the Council of Laodicea; S. Epiphanius, Vigilantius, and others before mentioned. Now you Canonize Saints, and esteem it necessary so to do, to prevent men's praying to those in Heaven, who are it may be at this time tormenting in Hell. But in those first Ages we find none of these apotheosis; 
De beatit. SS. lib. 1. C. 8.  and Bellarmine himself could not find out any instance of any Saint that was Canonised before the VIIIth. Century. If we go into your Churches, we find them filled with Altars and Chapels, Images and Relics of the Saints: Candles are lighted up before them; Incense is burned to their Honour: But in those Primitive Ages, not the least shadow is to be met with of any such Superstitions. Your Books of Devotion are now filled with little else than advises how to pray to the Blessed Virgin; to list yourselves into her service; to vow yourselves to her Worship; her Psalter, and Rosary, and Salutation is in every part of your performances. Even the Catechism of the Council of Trent itself, the most Cautious Book that has been set forth for some Ages in your Church, having taught you first how to pray to God, fails not to instruct you that you must in the next place have recourse to the Saints, and make Prayers to them.  
How comes it to pass, if this were the primitive practice too, that none of those Holy Fathers, in any of their practical discourses have ever treated of these things? Nay on the contrary, they every where thunder in our Ears, that Protestant, Heretical Maxim, that we must pray to GOD ONLY, and that we ought not to address ourselves to any other.  
123. In all your Sermons, you call upon the Blessed Virgin for assistance. In the Ends of your Books, her Name seldom fails of standing in the same return of praise in which God and our Saviour are Glorified. Your public service, and private prayers, are all overrun with this superstition. But is there any thing of this in the Primitive Rituals? Look I beseech you into the account that has been given us of the public service of the Ancient Church by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, nay by the Clementine Constitutions themselves: Consult the Relation which Pliny made to the Emperor Trajan of their Manners. Try those famous Liturgies of the Church within the first 100 years, 
Reply. p. 19  which no body has the happiness to be acquainted with but yourself; see if you can pick us up but one instance, but some shadow of an instance to flourish with on this occasion.  
124. What are the Lives of your Saints, but continued Histories of their Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and the favours which upon that account they received from them? But in the ancient Compilers of such kind of Discourses, we find only dry accounts of their Piety towards God; of their Zeal and Constancy in the Faith; of their patience in suffering any thing, rather than submit to such superstitious practices as these, which the Heathens indeed would have drawn them to, but which the Church utterly abhorred. But for their knight errantry in Honour of the Blessed Virgin; for watching whole Nights before her Images, or in her Chapels; for turning Vagabonds in order to the visiting her Chamber at Loretto; or fetching a Feather from Compostella; of this New Method of Piety there are not the least traces.  
125. I might run out these remarks into almost infinite Examples, were they not things as well known, as your contrary superstition is notorious. But I shall reserve these, and some other Observations of the like kind, till you think fit to call me to account for them. In the mean time I conclude from this short specimen I have here given, that certainly the face of the Church must be very much changed as to these things; Or otherwise that so great a difference could not possibly be found in the Lives, the Writings, the Actions, the Customs, the Opinions, the Expressions, Prayers, Practices, of those holy Fathers, from what we see and lament in your Church at this day. I go on thirdly to show;   

III. The Unreasonableness of this Service.  
126. And for that I shall offer only this one plain Argument; If the Saints cannot ordinarily hear your prayers, nor are able to attend distinctly to those Addresses that are made to them: If those whom you Canonize are not indeed such as you suppose, but many at this day tormented in Hell, upon whom you call for assistance in Heaven: If some of those to whom you pray never had any being, but either in the Herald's Office, or in the fruitful Womb of a Legendaries Brain: Then it cannot be doubted but that to pray to the Saints must be the most unreasonable Devotion in the World; you speak to the Wind, and call upon them to as little purpose as if you should here in England make an Address to a Man in China or Tartary; and you might as well have continued the Deities, as you do the practice of the ancient Heathens in this service: It being altogether as wise a Devotion to pray to a Jupiter or an Apollo that never lived in the World, as to a St. George or a St. Christopher that never had any more being in it than they. And yet were we now to inquire into these Circumstances, without a full knowledge of which this Invocation can never be a reasonable service, what uncertain accounts should we receive from you. For,  

In his suppressed Edition. Expos. of Mr. de Meaux. Sect. IU. p. 7.  127. First. As to the main foundation of all Whether the Saints hear your prayers? In what doubt is your Bishop of Meaux still in his Exposition, and you know he was once in a great deal more? All he has to say is that you teach That your prayers to the Saints are very profitable, Whether it be that they know them by the Ministry and Communication of the Angels; or whether it be that God himself makes known to them our desires by a particular Revelation; or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his Divine Essence in which all truth is Comprised. If we inquire of your more Ancient Authors, we shall find all full of Uncertainty. 
Lombard sent. lib. IU. dist. 45. Scotus ibid. Qu. 4. Gabr. Biel. in Can. Miss. l. 31.  Lombard thought it was not incredible to suppose that the Saints might know the prayers that were addressed to them. Scotus went a little farther, and judged it to be probable that God revealed these things to them: And so did Gabriel Biel. Those who pretend to more certainty yet are able to give but very little reason why; 
* Bellarm. de Eccles. Triumph. l. 1. cap. 20.  unless you will take this for a reason, that their Church generally believes so, and that otherwise it would be vain and absurd to pray to them. In short, how the Saints hear your prayers you do not pretend to know; and I desire you to give Me but one rational Argument to convince me that (by whatever means it is) they do ordinarily, and constantly, and certainly, and particularly, understand the Addresses that you make to them. For to deal freely with you, I never yet met with any thing that but inclined me to believe this, but much to the contrary.  
128. Secondly, Concerning the Canonization of your Saints, may I beg leave to ask you: Are you sure that all those whom your Church has placed in Heaven are truly there? if you are not, I am sure you do very unreasonably to pray to them. Now this I the rather desire to be satisfied in because here again I find your Authors very much unresolved what to say.  

Bellarm. l. 1. de. Beat. SS. e. 8. 9 Vasquez. l 1. de Ador. disp. V c. 3.  First, It is but the common Opinion, (no matter of Faith) that the power of Canonising Saints belongs to the Pope; and therefore it cannot be without all doubt whether those whom he Canonizes' are infallibly Saints or no.  
Secondly, The Jesuit Vasquez tells us, there are Catholics (He means those of your Communion) who do not think it without doubt that all whom your Church has Canonised are indeed Saints: 
Cajetane. libr. de Indulg c. 8. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 5. c. 5. Gerson de 4. dom. cons. 2. etc. de Exam. doctr. cons. 1. See Bishop Tailors Polem. disc. pag. 333.  And he mentions no less a man than Cardinal Cajetane for one. And that Cardinal in the book to which Vasquez refers, alleges the great Doctor of your Schools S. Thomas for another. To these I will add Melchior Canus, Antoninus, and Gerson, who at most esteem it but piously credible, not absolutely certain. But Augustinus Triumphus goes farther; and doubts not freely to declare that all who are Canonised by the Pope cannot be in Heaven. And Prateolus tells us that Herman the Author of the Heresy of the Fratricelli was for twenty years together after his death honoured as a Saint, and then his body was taken up and burnt for a Heretic. And now if you are not yet sensible of the danger you run by this means, whilst you not only call upon a damned soul for aid and assistance, but (as in some of your prayers you do) pray unto God so to give you Grace on Earth as he has glorified them in Heaven; 
De SS. beat. l. 1. c. 9 Sect. secundo.  I shall leave it to your own Cardinal Bellarmine to inform you of it.  
Thirdly, It is confessed by those of your own Church that among your Canonised Saints, some there have been whose Lives were not to be commended: Others whose Opinions have been condemned as Heretical; and for my part, when I consider the Character of some to whom you pray, such as Thomas a Becket, Dominick, etc. I cannot but say, that if these be the men whom you place in Heaven, what the poor Indians did of the Spaniards, that then the other is certainly the more desirable portion. For, and I am persuaded that were but S. Martin again alive to summon their Souls before him, as he once did that of a supposed Saint in his time, 
Vid Bellar. de beat. SS. l. 1. cap. 7.  they would make the same Confession that wretched Spirit is reported to have done, and prove much more worthy your Compassion than your Adoration. Now that which the more increases this danger is  
Fourthly, The almost infinite Number of Saints that have been received amongst you, and whose Consecration depending wholly on matter of Fact, in which you do not pretend the Pope to be Infallible, it can hardly be supposed but that he must have very often proved mistaken. For to keep only to your own Order; a late Author of yours tells us, 
Calendarium Benedictinum ad 26. Dec.  that your Domestic Saints alone did long since by computation amount to forty four thousand. And I find another 
† Dr. Jackson T. 1. p. 937.  list increasing them to fifty thousand. Now to consider all the Arts and Intrigues that are used to procure these Canonisations; by what Popes many of them have been placed in Heaven; what Characters several among them have in your own Histories of their Lives; these and many other Reflections would I confess prompt me, were I otherwise as well satisfied of the Innocence of this Worship, as I am fully convinced of the unlawfulness of it, yet to pray to the greatest part of your Saints, as he once did to Saint Cuthbert; Si Sanctus sis, Ora pro me: IF THOU ART A SAINT, pray for me.  
129. It is I know, the last refuge of many, who consider this uncertainty, to say, That at least your good intention shall render these Prayers acceptable to God; 
Vossius Thes. Theol. p. 106.  for what (says the Learned Erasmus) if the Saints do not perceive our desires, yet Christ does know them, and will for them give us what we ask? But yet still this will not make it a reasonable Service; nor can you with a firm Faith call upon those in Heaven, of whom you have at most, but a Pious Credulity that they are there: And though some of your Authors do believe, that your own Piety shall excuse you, yet others utterly deny it, and doubt not to say, that you may as well excuse the Heathens themselves, 
Catherinus Annot. in Cajet. dogm. de Canoniz. pag. 135.  who in worshipping the parts of the World, supposed (according to Varro's Divinity) that they Worshipped the Divine Nature, that was diffused through it. But  
130. Thirdly, That which is the worst of all, is, that you have not only no certainty of the Happiness of those Saints whom you Canonize, but you pray to some who (for aught appears) never had any Being in the World.  
Now among these, I shall not doubt in the first place, to account our own Country Saint and Champion St. George, and of whom our English Legends still recount so many Miracles; tho' Cardinal Baronius himself has confessed that they are for the most part absolutely false. 
Baron in Martyr. R. Apr. 23.  In the Roman Breviary since the Reformation of it by Pope Pius V there is no account at all of his Life; and your own 
* Ribadeneira. ad 23. April.  Authors tells us the reason is, because there is no certain truth of any of those things that are extant concerning him. And indeed, if the Ancient Histories of this Saint were justly censured by Pope Gelasius, as Apocryphal, we have no great reason to believe, that the latter Legends deserve any better reception. As for the famous Story which still continues in those equally Books of the Ignorant, The English Lives of the Saints, and the Sign Posts; where we see this great Champion, like another Perseus, mounted to deliver the fair Andromeda from the Dragon's Mouth; Baronius charges Jacobus a Voragine with the pure Invention of it, and almost every Body now, but our English Compiler, is grown ashamed of it. In short, if there be any Foundation at all in Antiquity for this Story, it is but little for the satisfaction of those who Worship this Saint. Your own Authors confess, that this George lived about the time of Dioclesian, that he was by Birth a Cappadocian; that he had Encounters with Athanasius a Magician: Now all this seems to persuade us, that our S. George was no other, than George the Arrian Bishop, who was also a Cappadocian by Birth, who had Encounters with S. Athanasius, whom the Arrians called a Magician; and who was Deified by those Heretics, after his violent Death in the time of Julian. And in Memory of which perhaps it was, that they first mounted him upon a Camel, (being led through the Streets upon one) and then for greater decency changed it into a Horse; to which Jacobus a Voragine added the Dragon and the Lady; with the Warlike Equipage of Cask and Lance: And thus is our Tutelary Saint, brought under suspicion of being, if any thing at all, a wicked Heretic; that persecuted one of the greatest Bishops of his time, for asserting the Divinity of the Son of God; and yet is this Man still prayed to in your Church; and I have now by me an Ancient Ritual in which he is seen Armed at all points, his Spear in the Dragon's Mouth, the Lady by him on her Knees: and these Prayers addressed to him.  
Saint GEORGE, famous Martyr; Praise and Glory become thee: By whom the princely Lady being grieved by a wicked Dragon, was preserved.  
Almighty and Everlasting God, who mercifully hearest the prayers of those who call upon thee; we humbly beseech thy Majesty, that as for the honour of thy Blessed and Glorious Martyr S. George thou causedst the Dragon to be overcome by a Maid, so by his Intercession thou wouldst vouchsafe to defend us against all our Enemies visible and invisible, that they may not be able to hurt us, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  
Now what is this but to mock God in his solemn service? To pray to him through the Intercession of a man that either never lived in the World, or it may be was one of his most hated Enemies; and deified by a crew of wretched Heretics, for his fury in opposing the Eternal Generation of the Saviour of us all.  
131. And what I have thus chosen more particularly to insist upon in this Example, I might show in several others not a whit less fabulous. Our Saviour in S. Luke gives a parabolical account of the different States of men in the other World, under the names of Dives and Lazarus. As for the former there was no great danger of making him a Saint. But for Lazarus he is transubstantiated into a real man. Temples are built among you to his Honour: 
Baron. Ann. ad Ann. 3. §. 44.  Anniversary solemnites are Consecrated to his memory, and because he was represented in Scripture as full of sores, he is now made the Patron of the Lepers in Heaven. From the Greek word signifying a Spear, you have first found out a name for the Centurion that ran our Blessed Lord into the Side; and having metamorphosed the Spear into a Man, it was no hard matter to make the Man a Saint: 
Baron. Not. in Mart. XV. March.  And now upon the 15th. of March, who so much Honoured, as S. Longinus. Nay what is yet more pleasant, Baronius assures us that his Venerable Body is kept in the Church of St. Austin at Rome.  
132. S. Christopher is another of your Saints that never lived. He is pretended to have suffered under Dagnus' King of Lycia, who also never was in the World; and being of a Giantly stature to have dwelled by a River side where there was no Bridge, and there he made it his business in Charity to carry over all that passed that way: Which our Saviour so much approved as to suffer him once upon a time to carry himself over upon his shoulders. 
Not. ad Martyrol. Jul. 25.  Now all this Cardinal Baronius confesses to be a mere Legend; but our thorough paced English-Irish-Collector, though he confesses he never saw any approved Author that said it, yet for the Pictures sake which are so common amongst you, declares generously that he was resolved to believe it. And the ancient Ritual I before mentioned, prays to our Saviour that in consideration of his riding over the River upon S. Christopher's back, he would deliver you from all dangers.  
133. I should never have done should I insist on this manner upon all the other Imaginary Saints whom you Worship. Such were our own Countrywoman again, S. Ursula and her 11000 Virgins; who is pretended to have been Daughter to Dionet King of Cornwall, in the time of Marcian, when there was no such King in England; and to have been Martyred at Cologn, whither she went by Ship, being the first and last that ever sailed thither; and yet this Lady makes no mean Figure in your Church. She is Patroness under God and the Blessed Virgin, of a whole Religious Society; and with great Devotion prayed to, December 21. I might to this Visionary Saintess, add others of the same Sex; S. Catharine, S. Margaret, etc. But I shall content myself with one Memorable Instance, not so commonly known, which may suffice to show with what uncertainty you pray to many in these Devotions. The account is given by one of your own Communion, and who himself discovered the mistake.  
134. About eight Miles from Evora a City of Portugal, 
Ressendii Epist. ad Barthol. Kebedium. pag. 168.  there is a place which they call the Cave of the Martyrs; where they pretend were slain a great number of Christians with their Bishop and his two Sisters; to one of which, called Columba, there was a Chapel erected, and in the place where the other was slain, there issued out a Spring of sweet Water, called to this day, Holy-well, and very good for curing a weak sight. The Sepulchre of the Bishop himself is in a Church of the Blessed Virgins, empty, and open. Over it is a Table of Stone supported by four Pillars, so that a Man might go under it. Hither came all those that had Pains in their Loins, and imploring the aid of this Martyr, they went away certainly Cured. There was also the Picture of this Bishop: and upon this Stone Table they Sacrificed the Mass, in Honour to him, calling him by his proper Name VIARIUS.  
135. This was the ancient Tradition, and Worship. When Ressendius, who relates this Story, came hither, in order to the publishing the Life of this Saint, among others he was then Writing; he desired the Priest who had given him this account of their Martyr, to show him if there were any ancient Records, or Inscriptions, that confirmed it. Upon this he brought him to the Altar before mentioned, and there he found this Inscription.  
S. Q. JUL. CLARO. C. V FOUR VIRO VIARUM CURANDARUM ANN. XXI. Q. JV L. NEPOTIANO. C. I. III. VIRO. VIARUM CURANDARUM. ANN. XX. CALP. SABINA. FILIIS.  
The Priest pointing with his Finger to these Words VIARUM CURANDARUM, See (says he) the proper Name of the Martyr VIARIUS: And for CURANDARUM, it is as much as to say Cura Cutarum, i. e. a Bishop. As for the other Names (continued he) I suppose they may be the proper Names of the other Martyrs that suffered with him.  
136. Ressendius held his Countenance as well as ever he could, but went immediately away to Cardinal Alphonsus, who was at that time Bishop of Evora, and told him all that had passed, and how a couple of Heathens, Overseers of the Highways, had been Worshipped there for Christians, and Martyrs. The Cardinal commanded the Tomb to be stopped up, to the great discontent of the people, who had been wont to receive mighty relief by their Addresses to this Viarius; and cursed the Learning and Curiosity of Ressendius, that had deprived them of so great and useful a Saint.  

Cassander Consult. p. 971.  137. I shall make no other Application of this Story, than what I find in the complaint of another Learned man of your Church, as to this very matter. There is also (says he) another Error, not uncommon; that neglecting, in a manner, the ancient and known Saints, the common People Worship more ardently, and diligently, the new and unknown; of whose Holiness we have but little assurance, and some of which are known to us only by Revelation; insomuch that of several of them it is justly doubted, Whether EVER THERE WERE ANY SUCH PERSONS IN THE WORLD.  
138. From all these Considerations, I now conclude against the reasonableness of this Invocation. 1. No Man can reasonably pray in Faith to such Persons, as he can never be sure are able either to hear his Prayers, or to answer his desires: But you can never be sure that your Saints are able to do either of these; and therefore you cannot reasonably pray with any good assurance to them. 2. It is unreasonable to pray to those as Saints, who, it may be, are not in Heaven, nor ever shall be there: But this is very probably the Case of many of your Saints, and you cannot be sure it is otherwise, when you address to them; and therefore it is unreasonable in you to pray to them. 3. To pray to those who never were in the World, is the most unreasonable thing that can be imagined; but in your Prayers to many of your Saints, you address to those that never were in the World; and therefore upon this, and upon all the foregoing Accounts, I conclude it very unreasonable to pray to the Saints at all.  
There is yet one thing more remaining to finish this whole Subject of Invocation of Saints, viz.   

iv That it is Unprofitable, and Impious in the Practice.  
First, That it is Unprofitable.  
139. And if the former consideration stand good; this will necessarily follow from it. For if either those whom you pray to are mere figments of your own brain, that have neither Truth nor Existence; or if though they do Exist, yet they are not Saints as you suppose; or though they should be Saints too, yet have no means ordinarily and particularly to hear your prayers, nor can attend to those numberless addresses that are at the same time from all the parts of the World put up to them; it must then be a most unprofitable, as well as a most senseless practice to pray to them; and what our Saviour once objected to the Samaritans, will be found no less true of you, that ye worship ye know not what, nor why.  
140. But let us allow that you invoke none but what have lived, and are sanctified: Let us also grant that which yet the Holy Fathers so much doubted of, that the Saints do already enjoy the Beatific Vision; and therefore (according to your Divinity) are capable of understanding your prayers, by whatsoever way it be that they do so: I dare yet ask of you, what profit is there in this service? For tell me now, I beseech you, O ye Worshippers of deed men? 
1 John II. 1.  Have we not an Advocate in Heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the sole and full propitiation of our sins? 
Jo. XIV. 13. Ib. VI 6.  Has he not promised that whatsoever we ask the Father in HIS NAME, we shall receive it? Has he not told us that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? And that no one can come to the Father but by him? Is it not he that has set us an Example how we ought to pray; when ye pray say, Our Father which art in Heaven: Show us if you can any precept, or encouragement, or Example, for going to any other. Is it that our Saviour Christ has not compassion enough for us, that you go to others as more merciful? Thus some of you I know have said: But on the contrary the Scripture tells us ‛ That we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities, 
Heb. IU. 15, 16.  but was in all points tempted like as we are: And from thence presently infers ‛ Let us therefore come boldly unto the Throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find Grace to help in time of need. Or is it finally, that the interest of the Blessed Jesus is not great enough with his Father; unless you add a mad Francis, a bloody Dominick, a Rebellious Becket, an enthusiastic Ignatius, to be joint Advocates with him? If these indeed be your thoughts, let us plainly know the impiety of them? And upon what unchristian foundations the benefit of this practice is established by you? But if you dare not say that any Saint in Heaven can prevail, where Christ alone cannot; if you are ashamed to own, that you think any one can love us more dearly, than he who gave himself for us, and redeemed us with his own most precious Blood; or by consequence can be more ready to hear and intercede for us: Tell me then, what profit is it, that having this fountain of living water, you run to the broken Cisterns of the merits and intercession of your fellow Creatures, which can hold no Water.  
141. But I will go yet further, to show you the unprofitableness of this service. It was objected by a great Man of your own Church; 
Durand. in sent. IV. d. 45. q. 4.  If (says he) the Saints know our necessities, and those defects which we express in our Prayers: How comes it to pass that we do not oftener find ourselves relieved by them? To this he answers;' That although the Saints in Heaven have doubtless the greatest Charity imaginable for us, yet they have withal their Wills so entirely conformed to the Will of God, as not to lend any assistance to us, but according to what they see the Knowledge and Will of God disposed towards us. An excellent reflection certainly; and which no one can doubt to be most true. But than it will follow from it, that you do in vain solicit the Saints, who cannot lend you any assistance, till God is pleased to permit himself to be entreated for you. Whilst our Heavenly Father is our Enemy, all the Host of Heaven are so too. We must first be reconciled to him, before ever we can expect any favour or acceptance with them. In short, it was the Conclusion of an ancient Father, whom I before mentioned, That the only way to make the Angels and Saints our Friends, is to make God so first: And tho' we know little of what those blessed Spirits above do for us, yet we have all the reason in the World to believe that they Love and Hate according to the Divine Pleasure; and if they do pray for us, the most ready way to obtain their Prayers, is to be constant, and zealous, and persevering both in our Prayers and Piety towards God, through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.  
142. I shall conclude this with the words of S. Austin, 
De verâ Religione. p. 290. Lugd. 1664.  Let it not be any matter of Religion to us to Worship dead Men; because if they have lived well, they desire no such Honour, but rather that we should Worship him; by whose Illumination they rejoice, that we are Companions of their Piety. They are therefore to be Honoured for our Imitation, not to be Worshipped out of Religion— And the same let us think of Angels; that they above all things, desire that we should, together with them, Worship God only, in whose Vision they are happy— Tying our Souls to him alone, from which Religion derives its very Name, let us lay aside all Superstition. Behold I Worship one God, the One principle of all things— Whatsoever Angel loves this God, I am sure that he loves me too. Whosoever remains in him, and can understand the Prayers of Men, in him he hears me. Whosoever has God for his Good, does in him help me— Let the Adorers of the parts of the Universe tell me: What good person is there that he does not reconcile to himself, who Worships him only whom every good person loves, and in whose knowledge he rejoices, and by recurring to which principle, he becomes good. Let therefore Religion bind us to the One God Almighty, etc. But I insist too long on these Reflections: I add only,  
Secondly, To close all, That this Invocation of Saints departed, is as Impious, as it is Unprofitable.  
143. For First, To take this Practice in the most Moderate Sense that may be, yet to pray to any Creature after the manner that you do to the Saints departed, is to make them the Objects of a proper Religious Worship, and to pay that Service to the Creature, which is due only to the Creator; and this certainly cannot be done without a very great Impiety.  
144. Secondly, To pray to the Saints but only as Intercessors, even this does usurp upon the peculiar Prerogative of our Blessed Saviour, who is our only Mediator, and whose singular Privilege it is to appear in the presence of God for us. And to join others with Christ in his great Office and Employment, to make to ourselves new Mediators; what is this but tacitly (at least) to imply, that we dare not trust either his Mercy, or his Interest; in the concern of our Everlasting Salvation. But then  
145. Thirdly, To pray, as you evidently do, not only that the Saints would intercede for you, but that God would be merciful to you, not only through the Merits of Christ, but of the Saint whose Memory you celebrate; this is a downright undervaluing of our Saviour's Blood, and does despite unto the Covenant of Grace.  
146. Fourthly, To pray to the Saints, (as if we may be allowed to understand the meaning of plain words you do) as the Arbitrary Dispenser's of Benefits to you, that they would themselves grant you those things which you ask of them; this makes your Service yet more intolerable. And tho' you seek to evade the justice of this Censure by those unreasonable Expositions of your prayers, I have before refuted, yet I am sure it ought to be more than enough to make us avoid that practice which cannot be excused but by such forced Interpretations, as should men use the like on other Occasions, all Society must be overthrown, and men's Words be no longer relied upon as sufficient to declare the Sense of their Minds.  
147. Fifthly, As to what concerns the practice of the people in this point, it cannot be denied; nay, it is by some of your own Church openly complained of, how much their hope and confidence, their Love and Service are hereby lessened towards God; and what greater signs of Zeal appear in them towards the Blessed Virgin, than towards our Saviour Christ himself. And indeed, you who ought to have better informed them, are the very Persons that have especially helped to misled them. 'Tis from you they have learned, as a great practice of piety, to salute her ten times, for God's once. 'Tis you that have taught them to join Mary still with Jesus in their Mouths: Insomuch, as if it be possible, to let her Name be the last Expression of their dying Breath. 'Tis you that have told them, that to list themselves into her Fraternity, is one of the surest means in the World to ascertain their Salvation. From you they learn in all their prayers to call upon her: at the sound of a Bell thrice every day wherever they are, or whatever they are about, to fall down upon their Knees and salute her. Your Confessions, Absolutions, Excommunications, Vows, Thanksgivings, Visitations, Commendations, Conjurations, are all transacted in her Name, as well as in the Name of the Holy Trinity. Whilst our Saviour Christ is represented by you either as still in the state of Pupillage, an Infant in her Arms, or expiring upon his Cross, she has her Crown, and Glory about her Head; sometimes the Moon under her feet, and not seldom the whole Trinity joining to set forth her Honour. Her Titles in all your Offices are Excessive: The Queen of Heaven, the Mother of Divine Grace, the Mirror of Righteousness, the Seat of Wisdom, the Cause of our joy, the Tower of David, the Ark of the Covenant, the Gate of Heaven, the Refuge of Sinners, the Help of Christians, the Queen of Angels, Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, and all Saints: These are the common Names you give her, in your Hymns, your Litanies and Prayers to her. And what Impression all this must make upon untutored minds; how much greater value they will be hereby apt to set upon her than upon Christ himself, every man's reason will soon tell him, and a sad experience confirms it to us.  
148. But indeed Sixthly, 
Isaia XXIV. 2.  It is here (in the Words of the Prophet) As with the people so with the Priest: Your Superstition is not at all less, though much more inexcusable than theirs. Witness those great Names for whom you have appeared to be so much concerned; St. Bernard, St. , St. Anselme, St. Antonine, St. Bernardine, etc. And whose Blasphemous Devotion I have before exposed to the World. Let the Writings of Card. Bona, and Father Crasset, the Contemplations of the Blessed Virgin, and the late Apology for them in our own Language be considered. For I am very much mistaken, if it be possible for the most ignorant Zealot to be more unreasonably extravagant, than these Learned Men have approved themselves to be.  
149. Nor may you turn off these with your old distinction, that they are but private persons, and for whose Excesses therefore your Church is not to Answer. They were approved in what they did, and many of them are at this day Worshipped by you as Canonised Saints; and 'twas this Superstition that especially contributed to their Exaltation. Who was it that composed that exorbitant Hymn, yet used in your Church, Ave Maris Stella, but your devout St. Bernard? S. Herman, another of your own Order, made those others neither less extravagant, nor less authorized by you, Salve Regina, Alma Redemptoris Mater, and Ave Regina Caelorum. And the late Editor of his Life tells us, 
Calendar. Benedictin. To. 3. Jul. 19  That being Lame in Body, and Dull in Mind, he prayed earnestly to the Blessed Virgin in this Romantic manner: Help, O help, the doubly wretched Herman. His Prayer smote the tender hearted Virgin, and immediately she appeared to him, and offered him his choice, whether he would have firmness of Body, or Accuteness of Mind. He chose the latter, and expressed his Gratitude to his great Benefactress, by composing those famous Hymns beforementioned to her Honour.  
150. It was another of the same Order, and that had in your Opinion two the greatest Characters any Man can pretend to; 
Pope Urban 11. Ibid. Jul. 29.  a Pope in the Church Militant, and now a Saint in the Church Triumphant, who appointed the three Solemn Devotions I have spoken of, to be every day paid to the Blessed Virgin at the sound of a Bell, and composed the Course of the Virgin, that what was done before by the Monks only, might from thenceforth become the Public Service of the Church to her.  
151. What is the great Commendation that is given of S. Gerard, 
Ibid. Sept. 24:  and he too a Saint of your own Order. But that having caused an Image of the Blessed Virgin to be curiously wrought, he set it up in a Chapel built on purpose for it, and appointed Incense and sweet Odours to be every day for ever burnt to it. That he taught the Hungarians to call her their Lady, having persuaded their King Stephen to make his Kingdom Tributary to her. In short, that he never heard the Name of Mary pronounced, but he Worshipped it, bowing his Face towards the Ground.  
152. 
Cal. Ben. To. 4. Sept. 30.  'Twas this was the great thing for which yet another of your Order St. Joscio was Canonised. Whose Piety to the Virgin whilst he lived, was rewarded with a notable Miracle at his death. For no sooner was he dead, but there grew five Roses of an extraordinary sweetness out of his Head, two out of his Eyes, two out of his Ears, and one out of his Mouth; and upon every one of them a Letter of the Virgin Mary's name; so that the whole M.A.R.I.A. was composed by them.  
153. Thus has this devotion to the Saints, almost wholly overcome your piety towards God. Your Devotions, your Histories, your Lives, your Miracles, are all framed to promote it. And now I am mentioning those Evils which from these kind of Legends have been derived to corrupt both the Opinions and Practice of those who are acquainted with little else than these Fables: I will refer it to yourself to tell me, whether you can endure to see the Dignity of our Saviour, and the Majesty of God himself, so lessened as it is by many of your Communion, to increase the Veneration of the Saints.  
154. 
Ibid. ad IU. Maii, p. 320. To. 2.  When St. Gothardus was chosen by the Emperor Henry to succeed Bernard in the Bishopric of Hildersheim, and the Monk modestly declined that Honour; the Blessed Virgin the same night appears to him, and sharply reproves him in this Ranting Rhetoric, Scito Imperatorem MEO id JUSSV motiri. Peccasti penicaciâ tua in M E & filium. Know (says she) that the Emperor has done this at MY COMMAND; Thou hast sinned by thy obstinacy, against ME and MY SON. This indeed was as became the Queen of Heaven; and one would think by it, that she still maintained the RIGHT of a MOTHER over Her Son.  
155. But you have dealt yet worse with our Saviour than this; your Writers represent him at this day as a little Child in Heaven, as if he were ever to continue in the same impotent State, in which your Pictures and Images express him. Thus we read in the Life of St. Paula, 
Cal. Ben. To. 1. Jan. 5.  That the Blessed Virgin appeared to her with her LITTLE BOY, who kissed Paula, and squeezed some of his Mother's Milk into her Mouth. Nor was this any thing extraordinary; The Writer of her Life assures us, that she was often wont to take him into Her Arms and play with him. And the like happened to many other of your Saints; as for instance, 
Ibid. Mart 30.  Saint Aldegundis, St. Francisca, of whom we are told, that being committed to the care of an Archangel, she did oftentimes read the Office of the Blessed Virgin in the night, 
lb. Mart. 9  by the Light that proceeded from his Rays: And was for her diligence in it so acceptable to the Virgin, that she several times came down from Heaven to refresh her, and offered her Son to be kissed, and embraced by her.  

Tom. IU. p. 590. Dec. XI.  156. But the Favours of the Blessed Virgin to St. Ida were of all others the most considerable. For coming down into Her Cell with her INFANT JESUS; Behold (says she) O Ida! thy Love: Take Him into thy Lap, and satisfy thyself with the Kisses and Embraces of him whom thou lovest.— My Author goes on beyond all bounds even of common decency: But I must stop here, and not repeat those Blasphemies, which cannot be read without trembling. But, O Blessed Jesus! How long wilt thou suffer this dishonour? and permit an unbounded Superstition to run to these Excesses I appeal to all the Christians of the World, what mean, dishonourable Notions must they have of the God of Heaven and Earth, that in such a discerning Age can presume to publish such Romances? These Stories might indeed become a Homer, or a Virgil; But what is fancy in them, being applied to a Venus and a Cupid, is an unpardonable Blasphemy to be thus used of the Saviour of the World, who is God over all blessed for ever.  
157. These are the effects of this Superstition: I might add many other Examples no less Horrible, in which our Blessed Lord has been diminished to make up the Honour of his Servants. But I shall shut up all with an Impiety of another kind, though the effect of this Worship; and which ought the more to be taken notice of, both because it was done by a Society which would be thought at least the most zealous of any for their Faith; and was exposed publicly in the sight of the Sun, and before the Eyes of many to whom I now write. 
See the Account published by that Society: Lafoy S te Verge Patron Honoree & Bienfaisante dans la France & dans le Luxembourg.  The thing I mean is the late Procession of the Jesuits at Luxemburg, May 20. 1685. designed for the Glory of the Blessed Virgin the Honoured and Affectionate Patroness of France and Luxembourg.  
The Procession indeed was singularly extravagant; and it needed the skill of that Learned Society, to put Profaneness into so Scholastic a dress. Heathenism and Christianity walked together, as if the Fathers of the Society had equally reverenced the Ancient Deities of the One, as the Modern Deities of the Other.  
On the one side were carried the Image of the Blessed Virgin, and the Holy Sacrament. On the other, Mars, Vulcan, the Cyclops and Naiads, Ceres, Flora, Pomona, etc. And these too with all the Pomp, and even under the Names of GOD'S and DIVINITIES.  
At several Stations, where the Procession was to rest, Theatres were erected, to serve to inspire agreeably (say the Learned Fathers in the Account which they printed of this days Work) a Piety towards our Lady of Consolation. So the Blessed Virgin there is called.  
The second of these Theatres, was for the GOD MARS; who commands his Warriors to take heed not to commit any insult from henceforth upon the Chapel of our Lady of Consolation. This is Mars' care: And the Device for the GOD Mars, was  
Procul, o, procul ite profani.  Virg. 
In the third Theatre, Ceres, Flora, Pomona, etc. rejoice at the return of our Lady of Consolation. And their Motto, still under the Title of Divinities, was  
Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia Regna.  
It were too long to transcribe all the other Follies and Impieties of this days Solemnity, in which the Holy Scripture found no room; the Sacrament but very little: The whole Piety was designed to the Blessed Virgin; and because Christianity had not Gods enough in it, to set forth her Glory, all the Poetic Deities were revived, to inspire agreeably a Devotion into the People for Herald This was indeed a Masterpiece of Contrivance; and what Invention shall next be had, to excite a Devotion to her, we may expect to see the first time the Gentlemen of the Society shall have Occasion to make their complying Consciences do something extraordinary, for the Flattery of a Prince so much their Friend, and therefore so much their Favourite as he, for whose Honour this Solemn Procession was in great measure designed. In the mean time, I shall leave it to the Reader seriously to consider, what sad Effects such a Devotion as this has given birth to; and what just Cause we have to oppose a Superstition, contrary to the Holy Scripture, unknown to the best and most Primitive Antiquity; unreasonable in its self, and which is worst of all, not only very Unprofitable, but very Wicked too in its Practice.      

ANSWER TO THE FOURTH ARTICLE, OF IMAGES and RELICS.  
IN the beginning of this Article you tell me (but with very little reason) that you might have passed over this point without any further consideration; 
Reply, p. 23.  the best Argument you bring for it, being, if I mistake not, this, That you are not obliged to defend what I had advanced against you upon it. And indeed though the reason be but a poor one, yet I am persuaded you had done better both for the interest of your Cause, and for your own credit, to have contented yourself with it, and have passed over this Article altogether; rather than by giving such lose Answers to my Allegations, to have satisfied the World, that you have no just Exceptions to make against them.  
2. Were I minded in return to excuse myself the trouble of any farther Answer to you, I could, I believe, give you some more plausible pretences for it. I might tell you, (1st,) That your Distinctions are now so well known, and have been so often exploded by us, 
Reply, Ibid.  that there is no longer any danger that even my friends the Vulgar should be circumvented by them. I might add, (2dly,) And that with great truth, that this whole subject has been utterly exhausted by that Learned Man, I have so often mentioned, in his Defence of the Charge of Idolatry against T. G. and from whom you have here again borrowed your chiefest strength. I might mind you, (3ly,) How after two endeavours to reply to him, T. G. was forced to give over; and it is now above eight years since neither he nor any of your Church has thought fit to carry on the Dispute. I might desire you, (4thly,) To compare your performances upon this point with what the Representer ventured not above a year since to make a flourish with; and see if you could find out but any one thing in all you here repeat, that his learned and judicious Adversary had not utterly confuted. But he too has forsaken the Cause; and I am now called upon to give you the same Answers that have been made to both these, 
Reply, Pref.  and then without pretending to be a Prophet, I dare be bold to say for all your blustering, you will go off the Stage as tamely and quietly, as any of your Predecessors have done before you. There is a certain Circle of Shifts and Distinctions which you all run; and no sooner are those spent, but your bolt is shot; you drop the Question, and begin again upon a new score.  
3. These and many other reasons I might offer to decline any farther Examination of this Point; but I have promised you before, 
Reply, Pref.  that I would neither misrepresent your Doctrine, nor FOB OFF your Arguments. And I will here perform it with such exactness, that even your Incense and Holy Water shall not be forgotten. And if for our diversion you shall think fit the next time you writ to add to these all your other follies, of Holy Ashes, Consecrated Candles, Agnus Dei's, and in one word, whatever Superstitions of the like kind, your Pontifical, Ceremonial, Missal, Breviary, Office of the Blessed Virgin, with all the Rationals and Comments that have ever been written upon them can furnish you with, I do once more promise you, that no pretence of their Impertinence shall hinder me from sifting both them and you to the Bottom. As to the present subject, I shall observe this plain Method: 

I. I will make good the Charge of Image-Worship against you.  
II. I will show you, that in this service too, you are truly and properly guilty of Idolatry.    
4. But before I enter upon these Particulars, I must stop so long as to consider the new Introduction you endeavour to amuse your Reader with: viz.  

SECT. I. Of the Benefit of Pictures and Images. 
Reply, p. 26,   
AND which brings to my mind what Tully (reckoning up the several Opinions of the Philosophers concerning the Nature of the Soul) said once of Arist●●enus, 
Tusc. Qu. l. 1. Sect. 17.  who of a Fiddler became a Philosopher, and asserted the Soul to be a Harmony;" Hic ab artificio suo non recessit, & tamen aliquid dixit. You tell us then, 5. Reply, §. 19] That they are the Books of the Ignorant, 
Reply, p. 26, 27.  silent Orators, apt to increase in us the lo●● of God and his Saints, and (O Elegant!) BLOW UP the DYING COALS of our AFFECTIONS into a FLAME of DEVOTION, That the representations of Holy persons, and of their glorious actions, do by their powerful Eloquence inflame us towards an imitation of their Graces and Virtues, and renew in us afresh the memory of the persons whom they represent, with a reverence and respect for them.  
6. Answ.] In all which though you fight with your own shadow, and say nothing that either contradicts our Principles concerning Worship, or justifies your practices; yet have you been so unhappy as to offer just matter for our Animadversion: For,  
1st. It is no small mistake in you, thus to join Pictures and Images together, as if they were all one; when yet both your own Superstition, and the Opinion both of the Jews and Gentiles (as to the point of worshipping of them) have always made a very great difference between them. As for the ancient Heathens, they adored their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Statues, or Graven Images; because they conceived them most apt to be animated by their Gods, of which they were the resemblances. Whereas Pictures were not thought so capable of receiving that animation. The same was the distinction of the Jews too, 
‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maimon. See Dr. Hamm. of Idolatry, Sect. 40.  who upon this very account have always looked upon the former sort of † Sculptures to be the thing especially forbidden in the second Commandment; insomuch that they thought it unlawful to have them even for Ornament; but for 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Ibid.  Pictures painted or woven, those they did not esteem to have been absolutely forbidden to them. And at this day in your Church, your Images are set up with solemn Consecrations to receive your Adoration. But I do not know that any Pictures are dedicated for Altar-pieces, or other uses, with the like solemnity.  
2. Another Confusion of the like kind you make in what follows, in speaking of the Pictures not only of Holy Persons, but of their Actions too. For every body knows how much more use there may be, and how much less danger there certainly is in Historical Representations, than in single Figures, but especially Carved Images.  
3. Were the benefit of Images never so great, yet you know this is neither that which we dispute with you, nor for which they are set up in your Churches. Your Trent Synod expressly defines that due Veneration is to be paid to them. Your Catechism says that they are to be had not only for Instruction, but for Worship. And this is the Point in Controversy betwixt us. We retain Pictures, and sometimes even Images too in our Churches for Ornament, and (if there be such Uses to be made of them) for all the other Benefits you have now been mentioning. Only we deny that any service is to be paid to them; or any solemn Prayers to be made at their Consecration, for any Divine Virtues, or indeed for any Virtues at all, to proceed from them. This is our Business; the rest is all Impertinence in such Discourses as these, where men are to dispute, not harangue. And for Images set up in Churches, with these Ceremonies, and for this purpose, I add  
4. That were the benefits of them otherwise never so great, yet will not this be any manner of Excuse to you for the violating of God's Law, seeing, as you have been often told, and indeed do yourself confess, No Evil is to be done, for any Good whatsoever that may come of it. Tho now  
5. I am not altogether satisfied of the great usefulness of Images for the instruction of the Ignorant. They may indeed serve to call Good things and Persons to their remembrance, when they have before been instructed, and by consequence in that respect are no longer ignorant of what is represented by them. But let a man, that is properly Ignorant, 
Rev. XII. 1.  i. e. who never heard of the XIIth (for instance) of the Revelations, see the Virgin Mary ten thousand times painted with a Halfmoon under her feet, I do not believe he would become one jot the Wiser for it. Nay,  
6. In opposition to your Pretences, though all this is out of the way, yet I dare affirm, lastly, that for such Images and Pictures as are too often found both in your Churches and Houses, they are so far from serving to any of those Uses you pretend, that on the contrary, if Men are not very well instructed, they will be apt to beget in them most pernicious Notions, contrary to the Honour of God, to the Nature of our Saviour Christ, and to the Covenant of His Gospel.  
7. For tell me, I beseech you; Was not this the great reason wherefore God forbade any Resemblance to be made of Himself under the Law, 
Deut. IU. 15.  
Isa. XI. 18.  that it was a lessening and debasing of his Nature so to do? And does not St. Paul urge this very consideration against the Athenian Idolatry? Acts XVII. 29. 
Act. XVII. 29  And is not the Divine Nature as excellent now, and as much debased by yours, as ever it was by their Representations of it? I need not tell you of the frequent Pictures of God the Father in the shape of an Old Man, and commonly in a Pope's Dress; and the meaning of which (if one may conjecture the design of this by the Natural tendency of it) can be no other than this, viz. to persuade the Ignorant, that as you sometimes call the Pope a God on Earth, so God is no other than the Pope of Heaven.  
8. And this, were it only in some Sacred Places, would yet be too profane for any Pious Christian to endure. But alas! you have not been so reserved. Every Office carries this Abuse in it; Hardly a Psalter or Catechism without it: Nay, I will add, what I should hardly be credited in, had not thousands among us with indignation beheld it, that in the open Streets of your Cities, we may see That God who is over all blessed for ever, exposed to the scorn and meanness of a Signpost.  
9 How miserably have you by these Pictures, abused the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity; sometimes you make it a Monster; As where you paint one Body with three Heads; One Head with three Faces; sometimes one Body with two Heads, and a Pigeon in the midst; of which Card. Capisucchi makes mention. 
Capisucchi, pag. 613. Gerson.  The Sacred Trinity in the Belly of the Virgn, which Gerson says, He saw with his own Eyes in a Church of the Carmelites; the most ordinary Figures are, Either an Old Man holding a Crucifix in his Hands, and a Pigeon upon his Shoulder; Or, (as in your Eye-Catechism) on one side an Old Man with a Globe, on the other a Younger with a Cross upon his Shoulder, and a Dove betwixt them: And what is all this but to debase the glorious Godhead? In St. Paul's Phrase, 
Rom. I. 23, 25.  to change the truth of God into a lie, by representing the Incorruptible God by an Image made like unto a Corruptible Man? And where is there a Christian so insensible of that dishonour that is hereby done to the Majesty of that God, whom the wiser Heathens themselves never debased to the likeness of any created Being, as not with the same Apostle to have his Spirit stirred within him, 
Acts xvii.  at the sight of such Impiety?  
10. Nor are you at all less excusable in your Representations of our Blessed Saviour, and the Holy Virgin; not to descend to any other of the Saints. For besides that such Similitudes exhibit only one, and that his inferior Nature, viz. his Manhood; how do these Pictures insensibly breed a mean Opinion of him, in the minds of the Ignorant and Unwary? As 1st, Nothing is more ordinary in the most solemn Places of your Worship, than to see our Blessed Lord still set forth as a Child, in the Arms of his Mother. And what Notions this has bred in many of your Communion, I would to God the greater esteem they seem to have for the Virgin, than for Christ, did not too plainly show. But that which renders this more intolerable, is, that you thus represent him not only upon Earth, but at this time even in Heaven; and indeed, seeing in your Legends, you speak of him as a Child still, I do not wonder if in your Pictures, you represent him too as such.  
11. Thus in one of your Eye-Catechisms, set forth in Portugal, for the Instruction of the People; the latter part of the Ave-Maria, is set in this manner before them. All sorts of Men and Women upon Earth, are drawn in an open Scene, upon their Knees, and Hands lifted up to Heaven, and in the Clouds over them, the Blessed Virgin in Glory with our Saviour (as a Child) in Her Arms; and under it this Inscription, O Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us Sinners now, and in the hour of Death. Amen. Jesus.  
12. In the Calendar of the Saints of your Order, There is a Figure of St. Odilo, 
Tom. 1. Jan. 1.  devoting himself to the blessed Virgin in this manner. O most Holy Virgin, and Mother of the Saviour of all Ages, receive me from this day forward as your Servant, and in all my Causes, be my most merciful Advocate. For from this time, after God, I set nothing before thee, but voluntarily deliver myself for ever to be your Possession, as your proper Servant. Amen. Above Him sits the Blessed Virgin in Glory, with our Saviour in her Arms, holding her about the Neck, after the manner of a little Child. Many of the like kind are there in those Volumes; but I may not insist upon them; I will add only some of those Figures, in which the whole Trinity are made to concur to her Honour. Thus in the Office in the Virgin, printed at Antwerp. She is set forth in Glory in Heaven, with God the Father on the one side, and God the Son on the other, holding a Crown over her Head, the Holy Ghost above overshadowing Her, and all the People on the Earth below Adoring.  
13. I will not deny, but that these may be very good Instructions for Father Crasset's, or Doctor J. C's Disciples. But I cannot see how any of the Expounding and Representing Party, will be able to prove such Pictures as these, to be much for the Edification of the People. I shall finish these Remarks, (which have already run out into a greater length than I designed, though I might have added much more) with the account which the Learned Gerard Vossius gives us, of a Picture over an Altar in Flanders, in which that blasphemous Epigram is expressed of men's doubting whether they should run to the Blood of Christ, in which alone there is Redemption to be obtained; or to the Milk of the Virgin. This is certainly to contradict the very Foundation of the Gospel; and to lead the Ignorant into Error in that Point, in which it is of all others the most dangerous to be mistaken; viz. Whether they ought to place the Hopes of their Salvation in the Redemption of Christ, or in the Mercy and Interest of his Mother.  
14. You may at your leisure consider how to improve these things into Helps of Devotion, and useful Instructions for the illiterate Populace. I might have added, what has lately been elsewhere observed, of the Profaneness of many (in Italy especially) in this Point: Where the most celebrated Madonna's, are the Pictures of the Painter's Whores, set up in their Churches, as Objects of the People's Veneration. But this and other Excesses of the like kind I purposely forbear, lest I should be thought to please myself in your Impieties, which I hearty lament, and earnestly be-beseech God to reform in you. Nor should I have said thus much, but only to show how little Reason you had to enter on this new and most Impertinent Subject of the Benefit of Images; and that were our Cause to be tried by this alone, we might even so expect to carry it against you. And this to your first Pretence.  15. The next thing you offer in favour of your Images, is Reply § 20.] That there is no now danger of Idolatry in this Practice, seeing all Persons are taught that there is but one God, to whom Adoration is only due; and therefore, that they cannot be capable of erring so grossly, as to give Divine Honour to an Image, or to think any Virtue annexed to them for which they ought to be adored. In short, it is (you say) by the subtlety of the Devil (who hates any thing that excites Devotion) that these helps to Piety, are now branded with the horrid Note of Idolatry, and Catholics represented, as if they paid the Act of Adoration to the Images themselves. 
16. Answ.] That the Devil is an Enemy to Piety, and to all those things that may any way serve to promote it, I can easily believe; but that it is He, who upon this account stirs up us to oppose your Idolatry, I shall hardly Credit, though you should give me as good an assurance of it, as ever your Brother the old Monk did the second Council of Nice, when he told them that the Devil himself had confessed to him, how much he hated your Holy and Venerable Images. 
De Idololatria  I am sure Tertullian was so far from this, that he thought 'twas the Devil that instigated Men to bring them into the World, and not to help to cast them out. But to overthrow at once, both your Reflection and Argument together, I do here roundly affirm, That what you say is so far from being true, That there is now no danger of Idolatry in the Worship of Images, that on the contrary I will show, that in the Worship of them publicly authorized and practised amongst you, you do actually commit it. And then every Body will see what Spirit it is that Acts us in opposition to this Service; and who it is that blinds you so far, as to make you contend for that, which both the Holy Scripture condemns, and the Primitive Christians neither knew, nor would have endured. And this brings me to my first Proposal; wherein I am   

SECT. II. To make good the Charge of Image-Worship against you, and Answer those Evasions, by which you endavour to clear yourselves of it.  
17. NOW that you give Religious Worship to Images, has been so fully proved in that Learned Book I have before referred you to, in Answer to T. G. both from the Definitions of your Councils of Nice and Trent, and from the unanimous Voice of almost all the great Men of your Church, who have written any thing of this matter, that I shall need say but very little here in Confirmation of it. And therefore not to mustiply Quotations by transcribing what has been already collected as to this matter, I shall content myself with this plain, and I think unexceptionable manner of proceeding against you; 

1st, I will propose to you the Voice of your Church in her Definitions.  
2dly, I will give you the Interpretation of her Sense in these Definitions, from Card. Capisucchi only; and out of that Book to which Mons. de Meaux himself appeals.  
3dly, I will from both vindicate the Account I have given of the Practice of your Church, in Conformity to these Principles.    
18. 1st, For what concerns the first of these, the Voice of your Church, as to this Point; the Council of Trent declares, That the Images of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, are more especially to be had and retained in Temples, and that due Honour and Veneration is to be paid to them. Not that it should be believed that there is any Divinity or Virtue in them, for which they are to be Worshipped; or that any thing is to be Asked of them, or that any Trust is to be put in Images; but because the Honour which is given to them, is referred to the Prototypes which they Represent; so that by the Images which you Kiss, and before which you uncover your Heads, and fall down; you Adore Christ, and Worship the Saints which they Represent.  
19 Thus that wary Synod; Neither determining what Honour should be given to Images, nor yet setting any bounds to any. But then, as it expressly allows them the external Marks of Divine Worship, so by fixing the Grounds of this Honour to be the passing of it to the Proto-type, not only Soto, Turrian, and Naclantus, three great Divines concerned in that Synod, but also the Generality of those who have treated since of this matter, have concluded, that the same Adoration is to be paid to the Image, and the Proto-type; So that if Christ himself be worshipped with Divine Worship, then must the Crucifix also be worshipped with the very same. But this will better appear,  
19 2dly, From the Account I am to give of the Doctrine of your Church, as to this Worship, from Cardinal Capisucchi.  
And to whose Book since Mons. de Meaux has thought fit to Appeal, I am content to submit the Decision of this Controversy to his Sentence, and shall leave the World to judge whether I have M srepresented, or whether the Bishop and You have not departed from the Doctrine of the Council of Trent.  
20. Now that we may know precisely, what in his Opinion, that due Honour and Veneration is, which you pay to Images, and which the Council so cautiously declined the telling us; we will consider first of all, what was thought to be so by them, whose Opinions he rejects, as not fully delivering your Church's Sense. Such were  

Card. Capis. Controu. p. 624, 625.  21. First of all Durandus; Who thought that properly speaking, the Images are not to be Adored; but because they resemble things worthy Adoration, which by remembrance are Adored in Presence of the Images, therefore the Images themselves improperly are, and may be said to be Adored. Now this he Rejects, because (says he) in truth, 
Ibid. 625.  it takes away the Worship of Images; and concludes it with another of your great Men, Raphael de Tuire, to be Dangerous, Rash, and savouring of Haeresy; or as Ferdinandus Velosillus phrases it, False, Rash, and Erroneous; but especially, since the Definition of the Council of Trent.  

Card. Capis. Ibid. par. two. p. 625.  22. The next whose Opinion he Rejects, is Vasquez; Who taught that the Images themselves were not otherwise to be Adored, but because in the Presence of them, and about them, are exhibited the external Signs of Honour, such as Kneeling, Kissing, uncovering the Head, etc. But that for the inward Act of Adoration, this was by no means to be directed to the Image, but to the thing represented by the Image. And this too he Rejects upon the same Grounds that he did the foregoing, viz. Because that by Asserting, that the inward Act of the Adorer terminates only upon the thing represented by the Image; he does by consequence affirm, that the Images themselves are not TRULY and PROPERLY to be ADORED.  

Id. par. iv. p. 634, 635.  23. The next Opinion which he rejects, is that whereby an Inferior Honour is supposed due to Images, and not an Honour of the same kind with that which is paid to the Exemplar. And this has been proposed with some variety. Catherine and Peresius thought that no other Worship besides this inferior, honorary respect, was due to them.  distinguished, That the Images considered by themselves, and without any regard had to the Exemplars, deserved only an inferior Honour; but being considered conjunctly with the Exemplar, were to be worshipped with the very same Worship that the Exemplars themselves were. And this was also the opinion of Suarez, That Images considered only as Sacred Utensils, were to have no other Honour than was usually given to any other the like holy things; but that being considered as Images, they were to have the very same Worship with the Prototypes whom they represented. Lorca delivered his Opinion yet more subtly: 1. That the Image of Christ might by accident be adored with the same adoration as Christ himself; but that this was only improperly called the Adoration of the Image, it being Christ himself that alone was truly and properly adored. 2. That for that Adoration which terminates on the Image, it is an Adoration much inferior to that wherewith Christ himself is adored. 3. That though the Adoration wherewith the Image of Christ is adored, be in the kind of the Act different from that with which Christ himself is worshipped; yet that it proceeds from the same habit, the virtue of Religion, from which the Adoration of Christ himself proceeds, and upon that account may be called by the same name with it. And all these Opinions the Cardinal still rejects upon his old principle, That the Image is adored with the very same Act with which Christ himself is adored, and by consequence must be worshipped with the same Divine Worship.  
24. The next whose opinion he refutes, is Card. Bellarmine; 
Capis. Par. V pag. 636.  who supposed that, The Worship which is properly given to an Image, is not the same with that which (for instance) is given to Christ Himself; but a sort of imperfect Worship, which may by a certain analogy be reduced to the same kind of Worship that is paid to the Exemplar. But yet that the Image may by accident be worshipped with the same Worship as the Exemplar, when the Exemplar is considered as shining forth in its Image. This also he refutes, utterly denying that any inferior honour is to be given to an Image, which requires properly, and in its own nature the very same Worship that is paid to the Exemplar which it Represents.  
25. Lastly, Cardinal Lugoes Opinion was, 
Ibid. Par. VI pag. 637.  that the Image and the Exemplar were to be adored as two distinct Objects of Adoration; as when a man sees the Son of his friend, he at the same time loves both the Son and the Father, not together with the very same Act, yet both directly: The Son for the Father's sake, and the Father accidentally upon the occasion of the Son's bringing him to his remembrance. Thus in the present case, When a Christian beholds the Image of Christ, presently he calls his Blessed Saviour to mind, and directly worships both the Image for Christ's sake, and Christ for his own. And this also the Cardinal rejects, not so much for that it does not give sufficient Honour to the Image; for Lugo also held that the same Divine Honour was to be given both to Christ and his Image, as because it distinguished the Objects; whereas according to Card. Capisucchi, Christ and his Image are to be Adored not only with the same Act, but also as the same Object of Worship.  

Card. Capis. contr par. VII. p. 639.  26. Having thus rejected all those several Opinions, he finally concludes, That the true Opinion, and which ought to be held, is, that the worship of the Images and the Exemplars, is one and the same; so that the worship of the Images is not distinct from that of the Exemplars, but they are both worshipped together. This he proves to be the CHURCH'S SENSE by a Cloud of Witnesses, from St. Thomas to this day; and shows it to be what both the second Council of Nice, and the later Synod of Trent designed in their definitions. And then finally, closes all with the instance of Aegidius Magistralis, I heretofore mentioned, who having denied that Divine Worship was to be paid to Images, was forced by the Inquisition to recant and abjure it as Heretical; and exhorts all those to consider it who find fault with St. Thomas for saying that the CROSS and IMAGES of CHRIST were to be ADORED with SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP. 
Vid. p. 649.   
27. And this may suffice by the way to answer your Exception against the Authority of Aquinas; who as you see allowed a true and proper worship to be paid to the Cross as well as to Christ. 
Reply, p. 29, 30, 31.  And that you may not shift off this REPLY (as you have done my former Answer) only with scorn and derision, I must mind you, that 'tis not now a Doctor of the Populace whom you think uncapable of penetrating into the profound Mysteries of Scholastic Niceties, 
Reply, p. 31.  that says this; but Card. Capisucchi, a Schoolman and Disciple himself of St. Thomas, and whom perhaps you will allow to have as deep a reach as yourself in these matters. For Vasquez having brought the very same interpretation of Aquinas' Doctrine that you now insist upon against me, 
Capis. contr. p. 630.  the Cardinal thus roundly answers him, That according to St. Thomas the Image of Christ is absolutely and simply to be adored with the same Adoration with which Christ is adored:— And that therefore the same Adoration which is given to Christ, aught to be given to his Image also.  
27. And thus have I in short laid before you the sum of this Cardinal's Doctrine, who both approved M. the Meauxes Exposition, and to whom Monsieur de Meaux himself appeals for the Vindication of this very part of it. I have already sufficiently shown how inconsistent these two are with one another; I will now only apply what I have here further added to my former account of this matter, to the point before us. And,  
28. First, It may not be amiss to observe what great diversity of Opinions there has been in stating of that Worship which is paid by you to Images, and what difficulty you have found to defend your practice against that Charge of Idolatry we have so justly brought against you upon the account of it. How the Caution of some, and the distinctions of others amongst you, have been branded by the rest as Scandalous and Erroneous; and one forced to abjure as Heretical, what others have set up as the only true Exposition and Representation of the Church's sense. And this you will give me leave the rather to remark, because you are so often pleased to reflect upon our divisions, which yet are neither so frequent nor dangerous, as among you who pretend not only to Truth, but Infallibility in all you believe. And if the consequence you are wont from thence to draw against us, That because we differ in some things, therefore we have no certainty in any, be good, (as you say it is) you may now see that it will equally fall upon yourselves too; and by so much the more heavily, by how much your pretences in this matter are greater than ours. But,  
29. Secondly, Tho there be then such a diversity of Opinions amongst you as to this Worship; yet it is to be remarked that they who have allowed the least Honour to Images, 
Capisucchi, Ib. pag. 605.  have yet still confessed that some Honour was due to them. In this (says Capisucchi) all Catholics do agree that Images are to be worshipped, and are rightly worshipped by the faithful. Even Durandus himself, who disapproves the Images of the Holy Trinity, yet allowing both the use and Worship of other Holy Images. From whence therefore I conclude, That those, in this Cardinal's opinion, are no Catholics who tell us that, All the Honour they have for them, 
Reply, Pref. p. 17, 18.  is only such a respect as they pay to any other. Sacred Utensils. That if they seem to act in their presence some external signs of Veneration, this is meant ONLY to the persons whom they represent, but NOT to the Images themselves, which can claim NOTHING of that KIND from us. In short, as Monsieur de Meaux expounds it, That they do NOT WORSHIP the Images; No, GOD FORBIDDEN; but ONLY make use of them to call to mind the Originals. The Council of Trent teaches NO OTHER USE of them.  
30. Thirdly, It may from hence farther appear, that the Worship which this Cardinal thought due to Images, was not an improper, accidental, abusive Worship, but a true, proper, and real Adoration; the Image being to be adored in the very same act with which the Exemplar was. So that now according to this Exposition, the Cross of Christ is to be worshipped truly and properly with a Supreme Divine Adoration. And that not only as to the outward acts, but by the inward sense of the Soul too; all which are so to be paid to Christ, as to terminate at once both upon him, and upon the Crucifix by which he is to be adored. And this,  
31. Fourthly, We are to look upon, not as a private opinion, or a mere Scholastic Nicety, but as the true and proper sense of the Church, and to be held of all. So the Cardinal expressly declares, as being the Doctrine of the Councils both of Nice and Trent; and for denying of which, Aegidius Magistralis was by the Inquisition forced to recant, and renounce his Doctrine contrary thereunto, as Heretical.  
32. This is an Instance which with Card. Capisucchi I will take the liberty to recommend to your consideration. For certainly if what he says be true, you who deny that the Cross is upon any account whatsoever to be worshipped with Divine Worship, 
Reply. Pref.  can be no otherwise than a downright Heretic. And though you are at present secure in a happy Expounding Country, where you may safely make what representation of your Doctrine you please, or rather that the necessity of your present circumstances moves you to do, without any other danger than that of losing your credit with honest and inquisitive men, which you do not seem much to value; yet should time and other circumstances invite you hereafter into a hotter Climate, you might run some worse hazards among those who have not given themselves up to follow your Innovations. 
Relation del'. Inquisition de Goa, pag. 14, 15. cap. 2, 21. cap. 3.  It happened not many years since, that a French Gentleman being travelling in the East-Indies, fell into some company at Goa, and there discoursing about matters of Religion according to your Principles, maintained, That the Crucifix was not otherwise to be adored, than by reporting all the Honour to our Saviour Christ represented by that Image. And another time, he fortuned to say of an Ivory Crucifix which hung up at his Beds-head, that it was only a piece of Ivory. For this he was clapped into the Inquisition, and after some years' imprisonment for his Heretical Say, hardly escaped the fire, with this Sentence, that He was declared Excommunicate; 
Ibid. cap. 27. pag. 151, 152. Edit. Leyd. 1687.  that for reparation of his fault, all his Goods should he confiscated; Himself banished the Indies; and condemned to serve in the Galleys (or public Prisons) of Portugal five years; and further accomplish those Other Penances which should more particularly be enjoined Him by the Inquisitors. As for his Crime, it is thus set forth in the Preamble to his Sentence, That he had said that we ought NOT to ADORE IMAGES; and had BLASPHEMED against that of a certain Crucifix, by saying of a Crucifix of Ivory, that it was a piece of Ivory.  
33. This was plain dealing, and a sensible conviction that it is not merely a Scholastic Nicety with the Fathers of the Inquisition,' that the CROSS is to be worshipped with DIVINE WORSHIP. The truth is, the contrary Opinion of Durandus, Holcot, Mirandula, and some others, (and who allowed all the Acts of external Honour to be paid to them, only they denied them that inward Veneration which makes it properly a religious Worship) has been always esteemed as false and scandalous, and savouring of Heresy; and is expressly censured as such by those great Men, Suarez, Medina, Victoria, Catherine, Arriaga, Cabrera, Raphael de Turre, Vellosillus, and many others at large, collected by Cardinal Capisucchi on this occasion, as Abettors with himself, of a true Divine Adoration to be paid to the Holy Cross, and other Images of God, and the Blessed Trinity. I go on finally from these Principles,  
34. Thirdly, To vindicate the Account I have heretofore given of your Practices in consequence to this Doctrine.  
And first, I observed that in the solemn Procession made at the reception of the Emperor, the Legat's Cross is appointed by the Pontifical to take place of the Emperor's Sword, because LATRIA or DIVINE WORSHIP is due to it.  
35. This you cannot deny to be faithfully quoted out of your Pontifical: 
Reply, p. 31.  but you say there is some kind of impropriety in the Speech; and we must understand it so, not as if Divine Worship were due to the Cross, but to Christ crucified upon it. A strange liberty of interpreting this, which turns plain Affirmatives into downright Negatives; and this contrary to the sense, not only of your greatest Authors, (as I have shown) but in their opinion contrary to the sense of your Church too. These all say with the Rubric, that a Divine Worship is due to the Cross; you declare 'tis no such thing; No, God forbidden. Such Worship is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be given to the Cross, but only to Christ represented by the Cross. I will not desire you to consider what wise arguing you make of what your Pontifical here says; That the Cross must take place of the Emperor's Sword, because Christ is to be worshipped with Divine Worship: It shall suffice me to leave you to the Censures of your own Learned Writers and Inquisitors, who have already pronounced this Exposition to be false, scandalous, and savouring of Heresy. Only let me once more caution you to remember the hard fate of poor Monsieur Imbert, of Aegidius Magistralis, and the French Traveller I just now mentioned; For however it may be safe enough to dissemble with us here, yet will it behoove you to take great heed that you altar your tone, if ever you should chance to fall into those Parts, where the Old Popery Doctrine is still the measure of the Inquisitors Proceed.  
36. My next Instance was from your form of blessing a New Cross: To your Cavil about my omitting some words, I have said enough heretofore; but the dear Calumny must be continued, though not only those two words were added, but so many more set down, that you seem as much dissatisfied with my length here, as you pretended to be with my brevity before.  
37. You pray, That the Wood of the Cross which you bless, may be a wholesome remedy to mankind: a strengthner of Faith; an increaser of Good Works; the Redemption of Souls; a Comfort, Protection, and Defence against the Cruel Darts of the Enemy. You incense it; you sprinkle it with Holy Water; you sanctify it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and then both the Bishop and People devoutly ADORE it, and Kiss it.  
38. This is in short the sum of that Ceremony; In which you desire to know what is Amiss? I answer; That take this whole Office together, with the Ceremonies, Prayers, and other Circumstances of it, and it is Superstitious and Idolatrous; and I shall not doubt once more to repeat, what before so much offended you, That the Addresses you here make, look more like Magical Incantations, than Christian Prayers. For,  
39 First, If we inquire into the design of this Ceremony; it is to Consecrate a piece of Wood or Stone, that it may become a fit Object of Adoration: which being directy contrary to the Second Commandment, cannot be done without a very great Sin.  
40. 2dly. To this End, secondly, you pray that several benefits may proceed from this Wood of the Cross; and if those words signify any thing, whereby you beseech God, that it may be a wholesome remedy to Mankind, a strengthner of Faith, etc. We must then look upon it, that you do believe, that by this Consecration there is a Virtue, if not residing in it for all these purposes, yet at least proceeding from it; which your Council of Trent confesses was one of the things that made the Worship of Images among the Heathens to be Idolatrous. Nor will your little Evasion here stand you in any stead; 
Reply, p. 32.  that you pray only that the Cross may be a means for the obtaining all these Benefits; and that this is no more than a Preacher may desire for his Sermon, or the Author of a good Book for what he is about to publish: For, 1. A piece of Wood or Stone, carve it into what Figure or Shape you please, is not certainly so proper a means for the conveying of such Benefits to men, as a good Book or a good Sermon are: And therefore what may be very naturally desired for the One, cannot without great Superstition be applied to the Other. I may, and I hearty do pray, that what I am now writing may be a saving remedy to you, by correcting your Faith, and increasing your Charity; because I am persuaded here are Arguments proper to such an End, if it shall please God to dispose you impartially to consider them; but now, I believe, you would think me very Extravagant, should I pray to God to sanctify the Paper on which 'tis printed, or my Bookseller's Sign that sells it, as you pray to God to sanctify the WOOD of the Cross; that as often as you see the leaves of this Book, or look upon the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, these good effects may be wrought in you.  
41. Again, 2. As the thing itself is not a proper means of producing these Effects in us; so the manner by which you pray it may be done, renders it yet more Superstitious. To get instruction by hearing or reading; to have one's Faith confirmed, or Charity enlarged, or Zeal heightened, by pious Considerations, or powerful Motives, all this is very natural; and we may therefore lawfully pray to God for to bless them to us in order to these Ends. But to pray to God, that by bowing ourselves down before a Cross, we may find health of Soul and Body; to sanctify a piece of Wood, that by ITS MERITS it may free men from all the Sins they have committed, this must be more than a natural Effect, neither the thing nor action being proper to produce it; and whether such Requests be not more like Magical Incantations than Christian Prayers, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to consider.  
42. But 3dly, That this which you pretend, is not all that your Church designs by those Prayers, is evident, in that this Exposition cannot possibly be applied to several of those things which you ask of God in those Addresses. For instance, you pray, That the blessing of the Wood upon which our Saviour hung, may be in the Wood of the Cross which you consecrate; and that by the Holiness of that, he would Sanctify this; that as by that Cross, the World was delivered from Gild, so by the Merits of this, the devout Souls who offer it, may be free from all the Sins they have committed. Now tell me in Conscience, if you dare speak the truth; Is not all this somewhat more, than to pray that the Cross may accidentally become a means of working good Effects in you, 
Reply p. 32, 33.  by putting you in mind of the price of your Redemption? Do you not here see somewhat, which your Council of Trent calls the Idolatry of the Gentiles? viz. an encouragement to Worship the Cross, as if some Divine Virtue were in it, for which it ought to be Adored. For, so certainly he must do, who believes that by these Prayers, the blessing of that Cross, on which our Saviour hung, is in this which he Worships; and that bowing down before it, he shall find Health both of Soul and Body. Nay, but  
43. 4thly, I must once more ask you that Question, I before proposed on this Occasion; and which, though you hearty rail at, yet you shift it off without answering one wise word to it. If you design no real Virtue to proceed from the Cross which you thus consecrate, nor allow any Adoration to be paid to it, but intent it merely for a memorative Sign, and no more: To what purpose all these Prayers, and Sprinklings, and Smoking, and Blessings, and other Ceremonies for the Consecration of it? As to your Question, why we dedicate our Churches to God? I will then allow it to be a Parallel, when you can prove that we pray that God would Sanctify the Walls or Seats of them, That they may become a wholesome Remedy to Mankind, and by their Merits free us from all the Sins we have committed. In the mean time it shall suffice to tell you, that as all we design in those Ceremonies, is no more than a solemn setting of it apart for Prayer and Devotion to God only; so all we desire, is, that God would vouchsafe favourably to accept our Offering of that Place to his Service, and give a blessing to those Holy Offices that are from thenceforth to be performed in it.  
44. But 5thly; and to conclude this Point; He that would know what your Intention in these Prayers is, need only consider what Prayers you make in behalf of other things of the same Nature: And in which you so evidently desire a Divine Virtue may proceed from the very things themselves which you Sanctify, that there is no doubt to be made of it. I shall give but one Instance of this, viz. the Prayer you make at the Consecration of your Agnus Dei's; in which you thus Address yourselves to God.  Do thou vouchsafe to Bless ✚, Sanctify ✚, 
Sacrar. Cerem. Lib. I. c. de Consecr. Agn. Dei.  and Consecrate ✚ them, that being sanctified by thy liberal Benediction, they may receive the same Virtue against all diabolical Subtleties, and the deceits of the evil Spirit; that for those who carry them devoutly about them, no tempest may prevail against them, no Adversity may get the Dominion over them, no pestilent Breath, no Corruption of the Air, no Falling-sickness, no Storm at Sea, no Fire, nor any Iniquity may overcome them, or prevail against them. 
45. Such are the admirable Virtues which you desire may proceed from these little Images; and by the Prayers you make at the Consecrating of these, we may easilly understand how to interpret your Addresses for the same purpose in the other. But now to make your Practice exactly parallel with the old Heathen Superstition; I must observe, That it is not enough that you carry these Agnus Dei's devoutly about you, but they must be Worshipped too; For so your Prayer of Consecration says; Bless ✚, and Sanctify ✚ these blessed things, that through the VENERATION and HONOUR of them, the Crimes of us thy Servants may be blotted out.  
And now I shall leave it to you, to try once more your gift of Expounding, and see if you can bring all this to your new Sense: And for your Encouragement in it, I will promise you if you can, to give you something more of this matter, which will be more difficult, and which I forbear at present to insist upon.  
46. I should now go on to the next Instance; but I must entreat the Reader's excuse, if I stop one moment to follow your rambling Discourse in two Points, as little to your purpose, as the handling of them will appear to have been for your Reputation.  


Reply p. 33.  47. I. The first is concerning the Use of Holy Water.  
Reply] Which you tell us was established by Pope Alexander the I. An. 121. and is good for dispelling Incantations and Magic Frauds, rather than introducing them; and has been famed for sundry Miracles, which God has been pleased to work thereby in several Ages.  
48. Answ.] For the Antiquity of this Usage, I wonder you should stop at Pope Alexander I. when had you but looked into the Clementine Constitutions (a much more authentic Piece than your Decretal Epistle) you might have found St. Matthew to have been the Author of it. 
Lib. VIII. cap. 35.  And the one would have been as easily believed as the other.  
49. Nor have you been less defective in setting out the Benefits of it, than you were in your account of its Antiquity. And therefore to spare your Modesty, I will help to publish them for you. Holy Water then (if all be true that is in Print) is good, 
See Domenico Magri Nortizia de Vocaboli Ecclesiastici in aqua Benedicta. Marsilius Columna Hydragiolog. Sect. 3. c. 2.  not only to drive away Evil Spirits, but more over to cure Infirmities; to wipe out Venial Sins; to cleanse the Pollutions of defiled Consciences; to cure Distractions; to elevate the Mind, and dispose it for Devotion; to obtain Grace, and dispose Men for the Holy Sacrament. It cures Barrenness, preserves the Health, purges the Air from Pestilential Vapours; besides a great many other good things that are not so fit to be named. All the mischief is, that it is nor certain it does any of these things; because (as 
* De Cultu ss. l. 3. c. 7. p. 2226. B.  Bellarmine well observes) there is no Promise of God made to it; but yet being sanctified by the Prayers of the Church for these ends, you may as securely believe it, as many other things that have no better a Foundation.  
50. And are not these now rare Follies for a Man to force us to publish whether we will or no? Did ever any Mountebank set out his false Ware with greater Vanity, than those of the Church of Rome have here done theirs? And indeed was there ever less reason to believe his Remedies, than in this Case there is to Credit your Pretences? In short, seeing you sanctify Water in the Name of God, by Prayer for these Ends, either show us some Promise, some Warrant at least from the Holy Spirit of God so to do; or all reasonable Men will look upon this after all you have said for it, as none of the least both of your Follies, and of your Superstitions.   

II. The other thing you mention is your Incense.  
51. And this is indeed to our purpose; and I shall presently show you how little you considered your own interest in the mention of it. I pass by your pretended significations of it, as impertinent in a Discourse where Truth only is sought. For the Antiquity of it you refer us to Dionysius and St. Ambrose; in which you again show your skill in Church-History. The one of these being an Author that lived not till the latter end of the Fourth Century, and the other probably much later. But now the use of Incense, in the Greek Church especially, was of a much earlier date. The Apostolical Canons speak expressly of it: And if that Oration of Hippolytus about the End of the World, be truly his, as from St. Jerome's mentioning of it in his Catalogue it seems to be; we have then two considerable instances to assure us that it was in use in the Greek Church even in the Third Century. You see how far I am from detracting any thing from the force of your Argument: But yet now after all, without fear of censuring Primitive Antiquity in this matter, whose Innocence I as freely acknowledge, as I hearty honour its piety; I shall not doubt to say that the present usage of it in your Church is so far from being innocent, that it is in truth Superstitious and Idolatrous.  
52. First, it is Superstitious. For indeed what else can we make of your praying to God, 
Pontifical. Rom de Benedict. Nou. Cruc.  (as in this very Ceremony of Consecrating a Cross you do) that, He would Bless ✚, and Sanctify ✚ this Creature of Incense, that all weaknesses and infirmities, and all the snares of the Enemy perceiving its smell, may fly and be separated from his Creatures; that they may never be hurt by the biting of the Old Serpent, who have been redeemed with the precious blood of his Son.  
53. Now if you make this prayer in faith, that it is pleasing to God, and have a confidence that it shall be accepted by him, you must then show us some grounds, some security in the Word of God for it. But if you cannot do this, what is it but Superstition, that is, a vain and fond service, to entreat the favour of God in the usage of a thing to which he has neither annexed any promise, nor for the doing whereof has he any where given us the least encouragement. But,  
54. Secondly, The Use you make of this Incense, is yet worse than the Consecration of it. You offer it up to Creatures, nay to the very Images which you worship; and in doing of which I do not see how you will excuse yourselves of being guilty of Idolatry. That the burning of Incense was part of that Religious Worship under the Law, which God was pleased to appropriate to Himself only, is not to be denied. It was indeed a more peculiar act of Divine Worship, than that of bloody Sacrifices themselves. And therefore both the Altar on which it was offered was covered with Gold, and it stood in a more Holy place than that of the Burnt-offerings; and is in a more singular manner said to be' Most Holy unto the LORD, 
Exod. XX 8, 10. 2 King. XVIII. 4. Bellarm. de SS. Beatit. l. 1. p. 2026. c. 13. D. Vasquez. in 3. Vol. 1. q. 25. Disp. 104. Art 3. c. 5. p. 735.  Exod. XX. 8, 10. Hence it was that King Hezekiah immediately broke to pieces the Brazen Serpent, as soon as he considered that the children of Israel burnt Incense before it. And yet if we inquire into the use that is made of it in your Church, we shall find it offered not only to the Saints, but even to their very Images and Relics. Vasquez ingenuously confesses, that the Israelites gave no other Worship to the Brazen Serpent than what you give to your Images at this day; and that Hezekias therefore commanded it to be broken in pieces, not that he thought the people adored it as a God, but because he saw such a Divine Worship paid to it. It is one of the chief things remarked by your own Writers in the Life of a great Saint of your Order, St. Gerard Bishop of Chanade in Hungary, 
Vie des Sts. Calend. Ben. ad Sept. 24.  whom you Commemorate Septemb. 24. That he caused a Church to be built in Chanade, His Episcopal See; and in it dedicated a Chapel to the Honour of the Blessed Virgn; where having set up her Statue, He every day offered Incense to the Figure, and took care by an Ordinance which He made, that Her Altar should never be without fine Odours upon it, which should continually smoke to Her Honour.  
55. Now this being the undoubted Practice of your Church, and such as you cannot deny to be contrary to the express Command of God under the Law; 
Bellarm. de Imag. SS. l. 2. ●. 17. p. 2144.  insomuch, that Cardinal Bellarmine freely confesses it would have been Criminal in a Jew to have offered Incense to any besides God only; either you must evidently prove to us, That those Acts which were then appropriate Acts of Divine Worship, are not so now, but remain indifferent to be paid to the Creature, as well as the Creator; or you must give us leave to conclude, that you do in this, attribute that Honour to an Image, which God has reserved as peculiar to Himself; and are by so doing, guilty of Idolatry.  
56. And thus have I dispatched the two Things you called me, without any Provocation of mine, to examine; and which it may be you will now begin to think you might as well have let alone: I return to my Defence, in which I am next to consider, what you have to except against my third Argument, which I brought to show, that you do truly and properly Adore the Cross; and that was from your Good-Friday Service.  Reply.] To this you Answer, 
Reply p. 35.  That you had here also shown my UNSINCERE TRICKS, in adding and diminishing Words, to make your Church speak as I would have it. And you pronounce me once more a CALUMNIATOR, for saying, that this proves that your Church does Adore the Cross, in the utmost propriety of the Phrase. 
57 Answ.] These are hard Words; but I have always observed, that men are most uneasy when Truth touches them to the quick. If you are not yet sensible that it was indeed a pitiful Cavil to pretend I had false translated your Service, by what I have offered in my former part from Mons. Imbert's Case, and who for opposing that Interpretation of those Words which I delivered, was used after the manner that I have declared; I am confident you are the only Person even of your own Church, that needs to be convinced of it. In all the French Translations of your Missal, I have ever seen, it is rendered in the very words that I gave it, Behold the Wood of the Cross, come let us Adore I T: And particularly in that of Mons Voisin, approved by those of your Church, even to excess, you will find it in these express terms, Voila le Bois de la Croix, R. venez Adorons L E.  
58. In the Missal of Salisbury, the Determination of that Address to the Cross, is undeniably evident. The Priests uncover the Cross, and sing the whole Antiphone, Behold the Wood of the Cross, come let us Adore; to which the Choir kneeling down, answer; We adore thy CROSS, O Lord. And I cannot but observe, that when Jo. Aegidius Canon of Sevil (of whom I have so often spoken) was forced to retract, as Heretical, his denial of Supreme Divine Worship to the Cross; 
Lud. de Par. de Orig. S. Inquis. l. 2. tit. 3. c. 8. n. 19  Ludovicus de Paramo tells us, that the Fathers of the Inquisition convicted him of his Heresy, especially by this Argument, taken from your Good-Friday Service; viz. That the Church on that solemn day did truly and properly Adore the Cross, when it said, We Adore thy CROSS, O Lord.  

Reply p. 37, 38.  59 And this may by the way suffice, to show how falsely you expound even those Words, not to signify the Cross of Christ, but his Passion. Which besides, that it is foreign to the Ceremony of Worshipping the Cross, which you are then about; and not a little Nonsense into the bargin; is here interpreted, not only by me, but by the Fathers of the Inquisition, of the Cross properly so called; and whose Authority I presume you will not care to despise. 
Reply p. 38.  And now I shall leave it to any Jury that you please, to judge of my Translation; and what Character you deserve for your little Reflection upon me. And I do assure you withal, that I will never from henceforward so far distrust my Reader's Memory, as to say the same things again, though you should give me the same occasion.  
60. For the other Point; That this does plainly show, that your Church Adores the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase; If you will allow those great Men I before quoted, to understand the Sense of your Church in this Point, then 'tis plain, that my Assertion must stand good. You see they freely confess it; nay, what is more, they pronounce you a Heretic for denying it. As for your applying of this Worship to our Saviour Christ; if you mean thereby to signify that Christ only is worshipped in this Ceremony, exclusive to the Cross; it is evidently false, seeing the whole Action; as well as Words, show, that the Cross is at least worshipped together with him; or rather (to speak more precisely) Christ is worshipped together with the Cross. Nor will Cardinal Bellarmine, to whom you direct me, stand you in any stead. For even he allows the Cross to be improperly and accidentally Worshipped with the same kind of Worship that Christ himself is. And if you please to let me send you to another Cardinal, 
Card. Capis. ib. ub supr. & par. XVI. pag. 670.  and who being both a great Schoolman himself, and Master of the Sacred Palace, may be presumed to know somewhat of your Church's Sense, he will tell you that your Cardinal Bellarmin was too wary in his Distinctions: And that he ought without any of those softening Limitations, freely to have asserted, That the Cross was truly and properly to be worshipped with Divine Adoration. And that I think, is much the same with what I said, That you do Worship the Cross in the utmost propriety of the Phrase.  
61. But you have here two singular Arguments to excuse this Service from the charge of Idolatry, and which ought not to be forgot. For,  Reply.] First, 
Reply p. 38.  St. Paul (you say) looked upon it to be no Superstition, to fall on our Face in the assembly, and Worship GOD, 1 Cor. XIV. 25. 
Answ.] Ergo (o Lepidum Caput!) If St. Paul may be Judge, 'tis no Idolatry in you to fall on your Faces in the Assembly, and worship the CROSS. What would T. G. have given to have met with such a Consequence in his Learned Adversary? But indeed we needed not this Proof to convince us (in that Gentleman's Phrase) that you never looked over Aristotle's Threshold, however your ill Genius has prompted you to become a Controvertist.  
62. Well, but if St. Paul want do, yet at least you are sure the Primitive Christians were on your side. And you prove it by an Instance most fit to keep company with the foregoing Argument. The Case in short is this.  Reply.] St. Athanasius relates how some Jews in his time, 
Reply p. 38.  in the City of Berthus (Berytus) in Syria, used great Indignities to a Crucifix, which a Christian had accidentally left behind him, when he removed from his Lodgings. And you desire your Antagonist to answer you this Question: Whether I would have excused those Jews, because they did those Actions to an inanimate Being; or would not rather have interpreted their Intention, as passing from the Cross to our Blessed Saviour. 
63. Answ. This is indeed a most melting Argument, and which as I remember, set all the good Fathers of the second Council of Nice, a crying. But Sir, be not you too much affected with it, for I will venture to give you that Consolation, which one of your 
* De la conformitè des merveilles anciens avec les moderns, Par. 1. Ch. 25. P. 389.  Brethren once did his Congregation in France; when having preached in a most Tragical manner about the Passion, not of a Crucifix, but of our Blessed Saviour himself, insomuch, that the whole Assembly was in Tears at it; the good Father bid them not weep, for that, after all, it may be it was not true. For  
1st, As to the Book which you cite for this goodly Story, 'tis certain it was written above 420 years after Athanasius was in his Grave, and is of no manner of Credit among the Learned.  
2dly, As to the Story: It was invented in the time of Irene the Empress, when all the World was set upon making and finding out Fables and Miracles, for establishing the Worship of Images.  
3dly, All the Authority we have, that ever there was any such thing done, and that it was not a mere Invention (as were many others of the like kind at that time) is that of Sigebert, whose Chronicle besides, that it was written yet another 400 years after this supposed Insult upon the Crucifix, 
Bell. de Scrip. Eccles. p. 283.  was also an Author whom Bellarmin himself confesses, is not to be credited in every thing he says. And especially, when in all probability he had no other Warrant for it, than the Acts of the Council of Nice, and the pretended Treatise of St. Athanasius, which you quote for it. So unlucky a thing is it for you to meddle with Church-History.  
64. But whether the Relation be Truth or Fable; The Question is put, and must be Answered: Would I not have thought that these Jews hereby intended to affront our Saviour Christ? I answer, Yes; No doubt they did. And why then (say you) should I not in like manner interpret this Service of yours to terminate not upon the Crucifix, but to tend to him who suffered upon the Cross? I answer, 1. That had you put your Question as you ought, you should have asked, Why then we do not look upon your Intention to be to Honour, not the Cross, but Him that suffered upon it. Now there is a very great Difference between these two. And however your Friend T. G. supposes, That Actions must necessarily go whither they are intended; yet I think both he and you ought by this time, to be satisfied of the falseness of that Maxim? And therefore should we allow your Intention to be only to worship Christ, and not the Cross, yet it does not thence follow that all your worship must by the Interpretation of God's Law terminate upon him. But now, 2. I have shown, that for all your Pretences, it is not your Intention that your Worship should so terminate upon Christ, as not to terminate also upon the Cross together with him. 3. If it were, yet for all your intention you would nevertheless be far from Honouring Christ: seeing that to worship Christ by an Image is a prohibited Act; and God cannot be Honoured in the very same Act in which he is disobeyed. And though an intention to dishonour Christ, by abusing his Image, is sufficient to do it, (as in all other Cases, one ill Circumstance will make the whole Action to be Evil;) yet a good intention alone is not sufficient to make an Act good, nor by consequence for the glory of God, unless that Intention itself be also governed by the Rules of His Commandments. For otherwise a man might do the worst things with a Good intention, and that should be sufficient to sanctify all his Villainies. So far have you hitherto been from producing the least shadow of an Answer to overthrow the force of my Allegations. My Last Instance was:  
65. Fourthly; From the Hymns of your Church. 
Reply, p. 39  In which I shown that you address yourselves to the Cross, and beg spiritual Graces of it; and that you could not say the Cross was here put by a Figure to signify Christ crucified upon it; because the very words of the Hymns show, that 'tis the Material Cross as distinguished from Christ, of which they speak.  
66. And here you are in a great distress; you catch at every thing that comes near you; but for the most part without considering whether it be to any purpose or no. As for instance: You observe, First, That I am brisk and confident, and have a mind to' expose your Literature as well as your Idolatry. But, Sir, may I beg leave to ask you on this Occasion the very same Question that you do Me. Who is it you mean, when you say, 
Ib. p. 40.  I have a mind to expose YOUR Literature? If you understand that of your Party, I must tell you I am so far from exposing it, that I shall presently show you that they are the most Learned Men of your Church whom I follow in the Application of that Hymn I alleged. But if by YOUR Literature you meant your own, you have then made a most unlucky piece of Work of it, in joining your Literature and your Church's Idolatry together; and I doubt your Brethren will have but little cause to applaud the Comparison. For do but grant it to be as easy to Prove the One, as it is to Expose the Other, and I will never desire a fairer Advantage against both, than you have here offered to Me. For,  
67. Secondly, You say I must confess that your Church's Hymns were made by Poets, unless I will be so great a Hypocrite as to deny that Prudentius and Fortunatus were Poets. I suppose Prudentius and Fortunatus clubbed together to make the Hymn that I refer to: Only the mischief is, that the One lived in the End of the IVth, the other not till about the middle of the Vth Century. Nay, but what now if neither of these were Author of that Hymn? I am sure Gretser, a very inquisitive Man in these matters, speaks very doubtfully of it, 
Lib. 1. de Cruse, c. 35.  and leaves it in Question, whether Venantius Fortunatus, or Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans, was the Author of it; and He lived yet later, about the beginning of the IXth Century. But to let this pass; and consider,  
68 Thirdly, How you prove these Men to be Poets, for indeed it is very remarkable. You tell me, that if I will but look into the Corpus Poetarum, I shall find them to have had a place among the Poets. A most undoubted way this, to find out whether an Author were a Poet or a Schoolman; And I dare say you were beholden to no man's Literature but your own for this Remark.  
69. Well, but to grant that which I perceive you do not know very well how to go about to prove, that the Author of this Hymn, whoever he was, was a Poet; what will follow? Why then you say, Fourthly, I shall presently find the Figure he there uses; his Title being not Of the CROSS, but of the PASSION of our LORD. And then you take a great deal of pains to prove, what no man ever denied, that the Cross in Holy Scripture is oftentime put to signify, the Force, Effects, and Merits of Christ's Death and Passion. Now if this be any thing to the purpose, as all that drops from a Person of your Literature must be supposed to be; then I must conclude, that seeing the Title of that Hymn is' Of the Passion of our Lord, wherever I meet the word CROSS in it, I am to understand it not of the Material Cross, but of Christ's PASSION. This you must mean, or else all this ado is mere Reveree, and Impertinence. Now then let us see what mad work we shall according to this new Exposition make of that Hymn.  
The PASSION of our King comes forth; The mystery of the PASSION shines; upon which PASSION the Maker of our Flesh was hanged in the Flesh.  
Beautiful and bright PASSION! Adorned with the purple of a King. Chosen of a fit Stock to touch such sacred Members.  
Blessed PASSION! upon whose Arms the price of the World hung. Hail, O Passion! our only Hope; In this time of the PASSION, increase righteousness in the Godly, and give pardon to the Guilty.  
70. Now this I am confident a man of so much Literature as you are, will not allow to be a proper paraphrase of this Hymn: And if instead of the Passion, you put Christ for the Cross, this will yet more increase the Nonsense and Confusion. In short; If all the Corpus Poetarum were alive, and should lay their Heads together with you, they could not find out any of their Figures that would do the business; but must have some new Ecclesiastical Figure found out to make the Cross signify Christ and his Passion, at the same time, and in the same place in which it distinguishes both from the Cross. And such a Figure I do say would be as Great a Mystery, in Verse, as Transubstantiation is in Prose. And I desire you, if you can, to give me but one parallel Text of Scripture, in which the Cross is at once taken both literally for that Cross on which Christ suffered; and figuratively, for Christ and his Sufferings upon it.  
71. In the mean time it shall suffice me Once more to mind you of what I perceive you have nothing to say to; viz. That Aquinas and his Followers, who have been sometimes reckoned men of Literature in your Church, have understood this Hymn according to the plain and literal meaning of it: and that so confidently as to conclude from it, that your Church holds Divine Honour to be due to the Cross. We ought to worship the Images themselves (says Soto) for the Church doth not say, We worship THEE, O Christ; 
Soto de Just. & Jure. l. 2. q. 3. Art 2. Catarrh. de Cult & Ador. Imag. p. 133.  But, We adore thy CROSS, O Christ. And again, O CRUX AVE, etc. We direct our Words and signs of Adoration to the Images, (says Catherine) to which likewise we burn Incense: as when we say to the CROSS, O Crux Ave. And to the same purpose, Marsilius ab Ingen; Ludovicus de Paramo; Philippus Gamachaeus, etc. See Dr. St. Answer to T. G. Part 2.  
72. But if all this will not yet satisfy you, but you are still resolved to adhere to your new Figure, I will then give you another Instance, and which I believe may be Prose, for I do not remember I ever saw it in the Corpus Poetarum, though this I shall leave to your Literature to determine: And I pray be pleased to send us the Paraphrase of this Antiphone, according to your New Method of Expounding: O CROSS! brighter than all the Stars; famous in the World; 
Breviar. Rom. May 3. p. 797. Paris 1643.  exceeding amiable to Men; more holy than all things; which alone hast been thought worthy to bear the weight of the World. Sweet Wood! bearing the sweet Nails, and sweet burdens; SAVE the present Company gathered together this day to THY PRAISE.  
And this may serve for the Second Point; which was, To make good the Charge I had brought against you, of giving Divine Worship to Images. I proceed now finally to show;    

SECT. III. That the Church of Rome thus Worshipping of Images is truly and properly guilty of Idolatry.  
73. THERE is nothing in all our Disputes with those of the Church of Rome that seems so much to offend them, as this Charge. They think it not only unreasonable to suppose that men in the clear light of Christianity should be capable of falling into Idolatry, but even destructive of the very nature of a Church, and by consequence contrary to all those Promises of Christ in his Gospel,' That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it; And indeed were our Notion of Idolatry the same with what some of their late Advocates have set forth as the true and only Notion of it, 
Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 80, 81.  I should not at all wonder at their resentments; but rather confess that we had justly deserved all those Reproaches which their intemperate Pens have of late bestowed upon us.  
74. But whatever their opinion of the true and only Notion of Idolatry be, yet common equity should have taught them to confess, that we mean no more in our charge of it against them, than this, That those of the Church of Rome, in their worship of the Host, of Saints and Images, do give that Honour to the Creature, which ought to be given only to God. We do not pretend that you have either renounced the Worship of the Supreme Deity; or that you do adore either the Sun, Moon and Stars; or even Angels and Saints as such. And therefore howsoever you may dislike our Notion of Idolatry, yet you ought not to revile us for fixing a false Charge against you, but to show that we give an ill Name to a true Charge. And because I now desire not to be misunderstood, I do first of all declare, that by my present Conclusion I intent no more than this, That you do give the proper Acts of Divine Worship to Images, as I have already showed you do to Saints; and that this is truly and properly Idolatry.  
75. To discharge therefore this last part of my Undertaking as I ought to do; I will proceed distinctly upon these two things, 

Is. To fix our Notion of Idolatry, against those New Ideas that have of late been given of it.  
IIdly. To show, that according to the true Notion of it, the Church of Rome in her Worship of Images is guilty of Idolatry.    

I. POINT.  

I. Of the true Nature of Idolatry.  
76. This is what you desire me to reflect upon, 
Reply, p. 29.  and I hope it will not be thought amiss if I here with all imaginable tenderness communicate my Reflections to you.  Reply, p. 28.] Three things (you say) there are required to make that Honour which we do pay to any thing, become Idolatrous. 1st, The Understanding must acknowledge an Excellency in the Object truly Divine, and worthy of Adoration in the strictest sense, where really there is no such Excellency. 2dly, The Will must have a propension and inclination to it as such, and pay that Honour to it. And Lastly, the Body must pay the exterior Obeisance, of bowing, kneeling, prostrating, kissing, etc. in pursuance of this interior Love and Knowledge. 
77. Ans. That is to say, that no One is an Idolater, but what takes somewhat to be God that indeed is not so, and upon that account gives the Worship due to the Supreme God to a Created Being. And this explains what you had said before; 
Reply, p. 27.  that you wonder how it could enter into the Minds of Men of common sense to conceive it possible, that in the clear light of Christianity, where all Persons are taught there is but One God to whom Adoration is only due, they should yet fall down and Adore a Stock or a Stone, and pay divine Honour to it. That the Idolatry of the ancient Jews and Heathens consisted in believing a plurality of Gods, and adoring them as such: 
Ibid. p. 28.  So that in short, let men but keep to the Knowledge of the One true God, and not worship Saints, or Images, as such; and then there is no danger of Idolatry for any Other Worship that may be paid to them.  
78. 
Reasons for Abrogating the Test, p. 71, etc.  And now let Idolatry be as stabbing and cutthroat a word as it will; Be its punishment, if it were possible, greater than what a Reverend Author has lately told us is its least, Death and Damnation; If this be the only Idolatry, viz. to worship somewhat else besides God, as supposing it to be very God; I dare confidently affirm in behalf of all those Popular Divines that have ever used that scolding word, That the Church of Rome is not Idolatrous in the worship of Saints or Images, nor has it in this sense ever been charged by us as such. But to show the Vanity of this Pretence; and yet more clearly express what we mean by this Charge, I will now very plainly examine these two things: 

I. Whether, according to the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both Know and Worship the One true God?  
II. How such Persons may become Guilty of it?    
I. Whether, according to the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry, those may not be guilty of it, who yet both Know and Worship the One true God?  
79. And here it is not my design to enter on any large Discourse about the general Nature of Idolatry; but still remembering the particular Point before me, to prove it only in such Instances, as are more immediately applicable to it. And such are especially these two: 

1st, The Idolatry of the Golden Calf.  
2dly, Of the Calves of Dan and Bethel.    

Reasons for Abrog. the Test, p. 85.  80. As to the former of these, it has of late been suggested, That it was made by Aaron as the Symbol of the Egyptian Apis or Osiris; and to whose Idolatry the Israelites now returned in the Worship of it. But this is indeed a very weak Suggestion; and whosoever will but consider the Circumstances of what was done by that People on this occasion, will presently see, that they designed that Calf to be the Symbol not of any Egyptian Deity, but of the true God, whom accordingly they worshipped in presence of it. And this will appear;  
81. 1st, From the occasion of this Idolatry; which was not any Infidelity as to the true God, or that they had now any better Reasons given them for the Worship of others besides him; but because Moses delayed to come down from the Mount, 
Exod. XXXII.  therefore they urged Aaron to make them a God, that might go before them. They had now rested a long time in that place, and were impatient to go on towards the Land of Promise. But having now no Moses to inquire of God's Pleasure, they wanted an Oracle to consult upon these Occasions. And therefore they cried out unto Aaron, Up, make us Gods that shall go before us, for as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we wots not what is become of him.  
82. Now that this was all they intended by it, will appear, 2dly, From the Character which the People presently gave to the Calf, as soon as it was made: This is thy God; 
Ibid. ver. 4.  or as the Chaldee Paraphrast renders it, This is thy Fear, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. For sure the People were not so stupid as to think it was either that Image which had brought them up out of Egypt; or that the Gods of Egypt had plagued their own People for their sakes, and with a high hand delivered them out of their Power. No, doubtless they understood by it their God, 
Exod. XX.  who but just before at the delivery of the Law, had assumed this as his own peculiar Character, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, and out of the house of Bondage. And this naturally Suggests to me a third Evidence of this Truth.  
83. From the Title which Aaron himself gave to that God, of which this Calf was the Symbol. Ver. 5. And when Aaron saw it, 
Ibid 5.  he built an Altar before it; and Aaron made Proclamation and said, To morrow is a feast unto the LORD. This was the peculiar and incommunicable name of the God of Israel, which he assumed unto himself, Exod. VI 2. when he renewed his Covenant with them; and we do not find any one place in all the Holy Scripture, where it has ever been attributed to any other.  
84. 4thly, Had the People hereby designed this to be the Symbol of the Egyptian Deities; how comes it to pass, that (as we read in the next Verse) they offered Burnt-offerings, 
Ver. 6.  and Peace-offerings unto it. For this, both the Scripture tells us, 
Reasons for Abr. the Test, p. 114, etc.  was an Abomination to the Egyptians; and a late Advocate for you, freely confesses, that they esteemed Bullocks and Rams to be Sacred Animals, and therefore never offered any of them to their Gods.  
85. Lastly, The Scripture plainly distinguishes this Idolatry from that of the Egyptians, and makes the one to have been the Punishment of the other. It is confessed, or rather contended for by the Author I but now mentioned, that the Egyptian Idolatry consisted in worshipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the Supreme Deity: Now, this St. Stephen tells us, that God afterwards permitted them to fall into, and therefore it must have been some other Idolatry, which in this Case they were Guilty of; For speaking of their setting up the Golden Calf, Acts VII. 41. He thus goes on, ver. 42. THAN God turned, and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven.  
86. As for the other Instance I proposed to consider; The Calves of Dan and Bethel; the Occasion of their making, was this. When the ten Tribes had thrown off Rehoboam from being their King, and had chosen Jeroboam to Reign over them; This new Usurper, fearing lest if the People went up at the yearly Sacrifices to Jerusalem, where Rehoboam still Reigned over the other two Tribes, it might in time occasion their falling away from him, set up two Calves in Dan and Bethel, and made Altars before them, and persuaded the People, 
1 Kings XII. 28.  saying, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: Behold thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.  
87. Now that Jeroboam intended these Calves to be Symbols of the God of Israel, appears, 1st, From most of those Reflections I before made. He gives them the same Character by which they constantly understood the God of Israel; Behold (says he) thy God, that brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. He offered Sacrifies before them, and consecrated the Priests that Ministered unto them, with a young Bullock and seven Rams. 
2 Chron XIII. 9  All which is exactly agreeable to what God required of them, but was utterly inconsistent with the Idolatry of Egypt. But  
88 2dly, We have some more peculiar Proofs of this matter. I speak not now of the readiness of the People in complying with him, which it is not imaginable they would so easily have done, had he intended to lead them to the Worship of strange Gods. Nor will I insist upon the danger, which so sudden an Innovation might have brought to this new King, and who was not so little a Politician, as to attempt such an Alteration at a time when he was hardly yet well established in his new Usurpation. These are indeed great Probabilities, but such as this Cause needs not; seeing it has the Evidence of Holy Scripture fully confirming it; It being certain that the Idolatry of these Calves did not take them off from the Service of the true God. Let us examine all along the History of the Kings of Israel; we shall find them constantly worshipping the Jehovah, the God of Israel. Jehu was zealous for him; he destroyed the Idolatry of Baal out of his concern for the Lord; and had the Kingdom by Gods own immediate Promise settled upon his Posterity for his so doing. 
2 King. X. 29.  And yet it is expressly said of him, Howbeit from the Sins of Jeroboam, who made Israel to Sin, Jehu departed not from after them, viz. the Golden Calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan.  
89. Who was it but the true God for whom Elijah appeared so zealous? 1 King. XVIII. when he entered into that famous trial with the Prophets of Baal; If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, than follow him. And the Fire came down from Heaven, and burnt up the Sacrifice, and all the people confessed, saying, 
Ibid. 39 ' The Lord he is the God; The Lord he is the God.  
90. Hence it is, that when Ahab fell into that other kind of Idolatry which consists in worshipping of false Gods, he is represented as much more heinously offending God, than the other Kings of Israel, who worshipped the Calves of Dan and Bethel, 
1 King. XVI. 31.  1 Kings XVI. 31. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, that he went and served Baal, and worshipped him.  
91. By all which it undoubtedly appears, that in both these cases, they designed by those Calves to worship the true God; and then seeing it is confessed they did commit Idolatry in that service, it must remain that men may know, and serve the true God, and yet by worshipping him in this prohibited manner, may in the interpretation of the Divine Law commit Idolatry.  
92. I shall conclude this with that Confession which the Evidence of truth in this matter has extorted from Cardinal Bellarmin and and some others of your own Communion; where answering this objection, that when the Golden Calf was set up, Aaron proclaimed a Feast not to any other strange God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the LORD, to the Jehovah, 
Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag c. 13. p. 2 130, 2131.  It is (says he) the solution of Abulensis and others, that there were two sorts of Idols among the Hebrews. One without the name of any certain God, as that of Micha, Judges XVII. and perhaps the Golden Calf which Aaron made, Exod. XXXII. and Jeroboam renewed, 1 King. XII. for the Scripture does not call the Calf the God Moloch, or the God Baal, but always says,' These are thy GOD'S, O Israel. The other sort of Idols had a certain name; as Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth, Chamos, etc. as is plain, 1 King. XI. etc. They say therefore, and that not improbably, that it may be admitted of the former kind, That the Jews did think that in the Idol THEY WORSHIPPED THE TRUE GOD.  
93. And now though this might suffice to show how consistent the guilt of Idolatry is with the acknowledgement of one true God, yet will I add a reflection or two more, for the farther confirmation of it. For,  
First, Were such a Notion as this of Idolatry to be admitted, it would serve no less to excuse the Heathens than those of the Church of Rome of the guilt of it. For however they worshipped other inferior Deities, as these do Saints and Angels with a lower degree of Religion's Honour; yet even they too acknowledged one supreme God, who was over all, and to whom the highest Worship and Adoration alone was due. 
Defence of the Disc. of Idolatry, par. 1  This has been so largely proved by T. G's worthy and learned Antagonist, not to mention any others who have occasionally treated of this Argument, that I shall not need to enter on any particular induction in order to the asserting of it.  
94. Secondly, It cannot be questioned but that this new Notion of Idolatry, set up on purpose to excuse you from that Imputation, is utterly repugnant to the Principles of the Ancient Fathers, who certainly charged those with Idolatry, who yet believed and worshipped the very same God with themselves. Thus St. Athanasius charges the Arrians with Idolatry for adoring Christ, 
Athanas contr. Arrian. Orat. 1. p. 286.  whom they esteemed to be a Creature. He tells them, that no supposition of any Excellencies whatever in him, although derived from God, would excuse them. But that if they thought him a mere man, and yet adored him, they would be found worshippers of men for all that. 
Ib. 387.  Nay he doubts not to parallel them with the Gentiles, and to compare the service they paid to our Saviour upon this supposition, with that which the other gave to their inferior Deities. And the same was the opinion of all the rest of those great men, Gregory Nazianzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, etc. and whose words are so well known, that I shall not need to transcribe them.  
95. But now that I have mentioned Epiphanius, I may not forget another sort of Idolatry exploded by him, and yet more near our purpose than the foregoing. I mean that Worship which some Superstitious Women in his time paid to the Blessed Virgin by offering a Cake to her. Now this that Holy Father condemns as downright Idolatry, and the device of the Devil. And to show how consistent the charge of Idolatry is with the worship of one God, he gives us a similitude that would almost imply a necessity of acknowledging the one true God to complete the nature of it: Idolatry (says he) comes into the world through an Adulterous inclination of the mind, which cannot be contented with one God alone: Like an Adulterous Woman that is not satisfied with the chaste embraces of one Husband, but wanders in her lust after many lovers. So possible did those Ancient Fathers think it to be for Men in the clear light of Christianity, and retaining the acknowledgement of the true God, nevertheless to commit Idolatry.  
96. I might add here the Exhortations of the New Testament, where both S. Paul and S. John, among other Cautions to the Christians of their Times, place that of fleeing from Idolatry; and this in such a manner, as evidently supposes them very capable of continuing the Profession of Christianity, and the Knowledge and Worship of God, and yet of falling into it. But I shall content myself, lastly, to close up this with the Confessions of Learned Romanists themselves, who have acknowledged Idolatry to be consistent with the Worship of the true God.  
97. S. Thomas defines Idolatry to be a Sin, 
22dae q. 94. Ar. 3. resp. ad 2. Cajet. pag. 340  whereby the singularity of God's Dominion is taken from him: And Card Cajetane in his Notes upon this same Question, supposes that a Christian may commit Idolatry, and yet be so far from renouncing the true God, as not to violate any part of his Faith in him. Gregory de Valentia, says 'tis Idolatry; 
Lib. 1. de Idol.  Whensoever a Man intends to apply to a Creature, either by Words or by Actions, any estimation which is proper unto the Majesty of God, whether it be done directly or indirectly. 
Vasquez in 3. T. 1. p. 721.  Vasquez reckons those to be Idolaters, who give to an Image the Service due to God; and defines an Idol in general to be, Whatsoever is worshipped as God that is not truly so. Now all these either manifestly suppose the Knowledge of the True God, or at least do not exclude it.  
98. But what need I insist upon Generals, seeing if we may believe those of your own Communion, you are not only capable, for all your Christianity, of falling into Idolatry; but in this very Point of Image-Worship, are actually guilty of it. For,  
1st, 
Bellarm. de l. mag. Ss. l. 2. c. 24. p. 2153. C.  Cardinal Bellarmine disputing against that which I have shown by such a number of Witnesses to be the True Doctrine of your Church, viz. That the Image of Christ is to be worshipped with proper Divine Worship; doubts not to say this is Idolatry; And therefore argues in this manner against it: That this Worship is either given to the Image for itself, or for the sake of another. If for itself, it is plainly IDOLATRY; if for another, it is not proper Divine Worship, because the very Nature of that is to be given for itself. Again; Either the Divine Worship (says he) which is given to the Image relatively for another, is the same with that which is given to God, or it is an inferior Worship. If it be the same, than the Creature is equally worshipped with God, which CERTAINLY IS IDOLATRY. For Idolatry is not only when GOD IS FORSAKEN, and an Idol worshipped, but when an Idol is worshipped together with God. If it be an Inferior Worship, than it is not the proper Divine Worship.  
99 So that now then the Point is reduced to a fair issue. Either we must pay the same Adoration to the Image that we do to the Original, and then Card. Bellarmine pronounces us Idolaters; Or we must give it only an Inferior Honour, and then Card. Capisucchi, and the Inquisition, damn us as Heretics. Nay, but there is Idolatry committed go which way you will. For Vasquez, 
In 3. T. 1. p. 778.  another Learned Jesuit, and whose Works have been no less approved than Card. Bellarmine's, tells us; That if a Man give inferior Worship to an Image, distinct from that which is given to the Thing represented by it, he thereby incurs the guilt of IDOLATRY, because he expresses his submission to a mere inanimate Thing, that hath no kind of Excellency to deserve it from him. And now seeing there is so much danger of Idolatry, whatever the Honour be that is given to Images, I hope we may be the easier excused, if admonished by these Confessions, and directed by God's Commandments, we refuse to give them any Honour at all. And thus much be said to the first Point, That a Man may be capable of falling into Idolatry, though he continues both to know and worship the One true God. My next Business is,  
2dly, To show, How this may be done by him.  
100 I shall mention only two ways, and which I have already before insinuated; viz.  

1. By worshipping the True God after an Idolatrous manner.  
2. By giving Divine Worship to any other besides Him.   
1. By worshipping the True God after an Idolatrous manner.  
101. This was the Case of the Israelites, in the Examples I have before mentioned, of the Calves of Aaron and Jeroboam. They directed their Adoration to the JEHOVAH, the LORD their God that brought them up out of the Land of Egypt. To him they proclaimed the Feast, and offered Burnt- Offerings and Sacrifices upon their Altars. Yet because they set up a Symbol of him, contrary to his Command, and worshipped him after an Idolatrous manner, they are expressly charged as Idolaters in Holy Scripture; and the Worship that was intended by them to God, is represented as given to a Molten Image.  
102. And the same was the Case of that other Image which Card. Bellarmine joins with these, viz. the Teraphim of Micha, Judg. XVII. that these were designed for the Service of the True God, is plain, seeing both his Mother is said to have consecrated the Silver of which they were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the JEHOVA, Vers. 3. and Micha himself hired a Levite of the LORD's to be his Priest, Vers. 10, 11. And he comforted himself upon this consideration, Vers. 13. Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my Priest. And again, Chap. xviii. 5. The Priest asked Counsel of GOD; for some of the Danites that enquired of him, and GOD, or the JEHOVA, gave them a true Answer. It is supposed by some in favour of this Micha, that being a Religious Man, and the public Service of God being very much obstructed by the miserable Violence of those Times, he made himself a little Oratory, and placed in it all the Furniture of the Tabernacle, with these Teraphim to resemble the Cherubims of the Ark, whose Figure S. Hierome and others suppose them to have had. But whatever becomes of this Fancy, that which I have to observe now is, that what the Original Hebrew styles Teraphim, the old Vulgar Latin calls Idols; and in that famous Passage, 2 Sam. xv. 23. they are both joined in the same rank of Illness with one another; For Rebellion is as the Sin of Witchcraft; and to transgress an Idol and a Teraphim: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Symmachus renders it; and so both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place must undoubtedly be understood. 
Comm. Judas 17. Vers. 2.  And indeed Card. Cajetan himself confesses as to the very Point before us, that the whole Work (however Micah intended it) was in God's estimation without question Idolatry: And to whose Opinion we have already seen Card. Bellarmine to have agreed; not to mention Tostatus and others whom he refers to as acknowledging the same likewise.  
103. 2dly, As for the other way by which a Man may commit Idolatry, who yet both acknowledges and worships the True God, viz. by giving Divine Worship to any other together with him; I have already offered Instances of that in the Cases of the Arrians and Collyridians'; the one of which for worshipping Christ, whom they supposed to be but a Creature; the other for offering a Cake to the Virgin Mary, are charged by the Ancient Fathers as guilty of Idolatry. Nor is this without foundation from the Holy Scripture. For besides, that first of all we find there" all Religious Worship appropriated to God only; and therefore to give such Worship to any other, must be practically to set up another God. To say nothing, 2dly, that if any such Worship has at any time been offered any Holy Men or Angels, they have not only constantly refused it as a great Abomination, but have still given this Reason for it, that they were Creatures, and by consequence not to be adored: Stand up (says St. Peter to Cornelius) for I also am a Man. 
Acts 10.26.  Sirs, Why do ye these things? 
Acts 14.15.  (says St. Paul to the Men of Lystra, who would have offered Sacrifice to him) We are also Men of like Passions with you. 
Rev. 22.9.  See thou do it not, (says the Angel to St. John) for I am thy fellow Servant: worship God. All which sufficiently show, that to worship any other besides God, is to raise them above the state of Creatures, and in effect to make Idols of them. We may observe, 3dly, That to give even the least part of that Service which is due only to God to any Creature, is expressly called Idolatry. Thus because we ought to trust in God only: Covetous Men who (as St. Paul tells them) trust in uncertain Riches, 
Colos. 3.5. Ephes. 5.5.  are in the New Testament called Idolaters. And sure those do not less deserve this Character, who trust in the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, or by any other Act of proper religious Worship, such as Prayer, and in one word all those other Instances of religious Adoration I have heretofore mentioned, show that they divide the proper Service of God with them.  

Bellarm. L. C. §. 98. supr.  104. Let us add to this, 4thly, That Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesses that Idolatry is committed, not only when God is forsaken and an Idol worshipped, but when an Idol is worshipped together with him. And this he proves from Exod. xx. 23. Ye shall not make WITH ME Gods of Silver, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says your Learned Vatablus, 
Vatabl. in Loc.  to worship them together with Me: For I will that ye should worship ME ALONE, and not join any Companion WITH ME.  
105. I shall finish this with the Consideration of that Charge which S. Paul brings against the Gnostick Heretics, and in which he plainly argues against their Idolatry, Rom. 1.25." That they changed the Truth of God into a Lie, i. e. says Theodoret, they gave the name of God to an Idol: and worshipped or served the Creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides, but yet together with the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen. For whereas (says the same Father) they ought to have worshipped the true God, they gave Divine Worship to the Creature; To the same Accusation are they subject, who calling the only begotten Son of God of a Creature, do yet worship him as God. For they ought in their Divinity either not to rank him among the Creatures, but with God that begat Him, or if they will have Him to be a Creature, they ought not to give Worship to Him as a Deity.  
106. 
Tom. 1. p. 385. C.  Hence Athanasius calls this the folly of the Arrians and Greeks: to worship the Creature, besides or with the Creator. And again, The Apostle (says he) accuses the Greeks that they worshipped the Creatures, seeing that they served the Creature besides the Creator; seeing then the Arrians say that our Lord is a Creature, and serve him as such, wherein do they differ from the Greeks or Gentiles? And lastly, S. Jerome in answer to the charge of Vigilantius, who accused them of Idolatry for worshipping the Relics of the Martyrs, utterly renounces the Charge upon the same Foundation: 
Jeronim. Epist. ad Ripar. T. 3. Erasm. fol. 54.  But as for us (says he) so far are we from adoring the Relics of the Martyrs, that we do not worship the Sun or the Moon, not any Angels or Archangels, not the Cherubims nor Seraphim, nor any Name that is named either in this World or in that to come, lest we should serve the Creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  
107. And thus have I endeavoured in as short a compass as I could, to clear the general Notion of Idolatry, as far as concerned the Point before me, and in which I suppose you to have erred more for your Church's sake, than for any great difficulty there is in understanding the nature of this Sin. It will now be an easy task from these Principles to infer, (which is my next Point.)   

II. That your Church in the Worship of Images is truly and properly guilty of it.  
And this I shall show according to what you desire; 

1st, With reference to those who hold that Images are to be worshipped with the same Worship as the Things which they represent.  
2dly, As it concerns their Opinion, who denying this, yet allow an inferior Honour to them.    

First, That they are guilty of Idolatry, who worship Images with the same Honour as the Things which they represent.  
108. Where first I must observe, that this, however of late opposed by you and the rest of our new Representers, is yet not only the most general received Doctrine of the Roman Church, but so esteemed to be the sense of your two Councils of Nice and Trent, that Card. Capisucchi produces a long Catalogue of your greatest Writers who have looked upon it as savouring of Heresy to oppose it. And not only Monsieur Imbert in France, but also Aegidius Magistralis, and the French Gentleman, whose Case I before represented, will assure you, that in the Inquisitions of Italy, Spain, and Portugal, 'tis somewhat more than a Scholastic Nicety, or a probable Opinion, which may without danger be opposed by you. And therefore, though to make good my promise, I shall also dispute this Point with you too upon your own Principles; yet I must needs declare that 'tis here I esteem myself truly to oppose the Doctrine of your Church in this particular.  
109. Now that they who hold this sort of Image-worship are thereby guilty of Idolatry, is so evident that your own Card. Bellarmine could not forbear reproaching them with it: And whose words I will once more produce, not more for the Authority than the Weight of them; where maintaining this Conclusion, That Images of themselves and properly are not to be worshipped with the same Worship with which the Exemplar is worshipped, He thus argues against the contrary Opinion:" Either that Latria or Divine Worship which is given to the Image, for another is the same with that Worship which is paid to God, or it is some inferior Honour: If it be the same, than the Creature is equally worshipped with God himself, which is certainly Idolatry; For it is Idolatry, not only to forsake God and worship an Idol, but to worship an Idol together with God. As it is written, ye shall not make Gods of Gold or of Silver together with Me. Thus this great Writer. And though I ought not to expect such free Declarations from you, whose business it is to dissemble, and soften, and accommodate things all you can, yet have you plainly enough insinuated the very same. For when you lay down this Position, 
Reply, Pref. pag. 18.  That the Image of our Saviour Christ, or the Holy Cross, is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped with Divine Worship, that Worship being due only to God: All you have to say for the other Opinion is, that it MAY, nay that's not enough, it MAY POSSIBLY be defended, which is, I think, a tacit Confession, that, to say the truth, you doubted it could not. 'Tis true, you afterwards grow more confident, and improve your POSSIBLY into EASILY; I say these Expressions of the Schools MAY be EASILY defended; but than you add, that it must be done by interpreting them so as not to shock this first Principle, That God alone is to be worshipped; That is to say, by changing the Conclusion; and whereas they say, That the Cross is to be worshipped together with Christ with Divine Worship; you give it the new turn, That not the Cross, but Christ in presence of the Cross is to be worshipped with Divine Worship. For otherwise you had before told us, that the Holy Cross itself must upon no account whatsoever be worshipped with Divine Worship; and again here, this first Principle (say you) must not be shocked, That God alone is to be adored with Divine Adoration.  
110. It appears by this how uneasy you are in this Case, and it is not a little Confirmation to us of the Security of our Condition, to see that you whose concern it so much is to be very well assured of what you do, yet cannot agree among yourselves what Honour is to be given to Images. But one Party thinks that cannot be maintained without Idolatry, which the other declares may not be denied without Heresy. As for the Images of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, that those commit Idolatry who worship them with the same Religious Worship that they pay to the Exemplars, will follow from what I have before said of your worshipping the Blessed Virgin and Saints themselves. For if it be Idolatry to give Religious Worship to the Prototypes, it must then be much more so, to pay it to the Images.  
111. For your other Images, those of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Trinity, I shall need no other Argument than that of Card. Bellarmine beforementioned, to show the Worship of those too to be Idolatry. It being evident that to give Divine Adoration to any Creature, that is, to worship any Creature as God, is to make an Idol of it, and therefore the Service that is thereby paid to it must be Idolatry. Now that this is the Case of those who hold this Opinion, if what I have already cited from them be not sufficient to show, and especially where they declare (as we have seen) that not only Christ, but the Image itself too is to terminate the Divine Worship which is paid to Christ by it; I am sure the Reason which they bring to establish their Conclusion will be more than enough to do it: viz. That the same Indivisible Act is at once and indivisibly the Worship both of the Image, 
Card. Capis. de cult. Im. qu. two. par. 9 pag. 650.  and of Christ represented by the Image. And if the Image of Christ be adored with the same indivisible Adoration with which Christ is adored, that Adoration must be the supreme Divine Adoration, seeing with such only Christ is to be adored.  
112. But how then does the Cardinal excuse this from being Idolatry. 
Ibid. par. 18. p. 677.  He answers, That it is not Idolatry, because the Image as an Image is in that respect Christ himself. For in this respect (says he) the Image of Christ is not considered PRECISELY as it is a CREATURE, but as it is a Divine Thing, and Christ himself by Representation. And then he dogmatically concludes, That it it not at all inconvenient that a CREATURE as it is a Divine Thing, 
Ibid. 679.  and after a certain manner one with God, should be honoured with the very same Divine Honour, with which God himself is honoured. In short, he confesses that the Images of Christ, upon the account of their being so, may be adored with the very same Adoration that Christ himself is; and that in such a respect it is not at all inconvenient for the Creature to have Divine Worship paid to it. He looks upon Idolatry to be then only committed when the 〈◊〉 worshipped exclusively to God, but that it is none to worship God by an Image, or to worship an Image together with God. But yet since he confesses that Images considered as Images, in their Representative Natures, are still but Creatures, and to worship any Creature with the Worship due only to God (whatever the pretence be for the so doing) is in effect to set up another God, which must needs be Idolatry; It will remain that no pretence of Scholastic Niceties will be able to excuse this great Man from Card. Bellarmine's censure of Idolatry; Seeing (as he truly tells us) it is Idolatry not only to forsake God and worship an Idol, but to worship an Idol together with God. But all this will more evidently appear from the other Consideration, in which I am to show,   

Secondly, That even those who deny this Supreme Divine Honour to Images, are yet guilty of Idolatry in what they allow to them.  
113. The truth is, the case of these Men is, I think, rather more inexcusable than that of the other kind, because that (in S. Paul's words) Rom. 1.32. Knowing the Judgement of God that they which commit such things as these are worthy of Death, they not only do the same, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They assent to those who do them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Theophylact; they defend and patronise them: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As Theodoret very well observes upon this place.  
114. Now that this is indeed truly your Case appears, 1st, In that at the same time that you assert in express terms, that you do not worship Images, God forbidden: That the Cross is upon NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER to be worshipped with Divine Worship; you nevertheless comply with those others before mentioned in all the most forbidden Instances of Divine Adoration. You incense them, you carry them solemnly in Processions, you consecrate them for this very end that they may be worshipped, you prostrate yourselves before them in the Church of God, and in the time of Prayer, you desire several Graces to accrue to you by your serving of them, nay you address your very Prayers to them, which your own Aquinas makes use of to prove that a proper Divine Adoration is due to the Cross; for having laid down this Conclusion, that the Cross is to be adored with the same Adoration that Christ himself is; He immediately subjoins, 
Aqu. 3. p. qu. 25. ar. 4. in Corp.  And for this cause it is that we speak to the Cross, and pray to it as to Christ himself. Where you must observe (says Card. Cajetan in his Notes on that Passage) that S. Thomas brings our speaking to the Cross as an effect of the same Adoration with which Christ is adored. For because we speak to the Cross as Christ, 'tis a sign that we recur to the Cross as to Christ. By all which it appears that you are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or self-condemned: If you believe this Worship to be lawful and yet deny it, of Hypocrisy towards us; if you think it to be Idolatrous, and yet comply with it, of a great Sin towards God.  
115. And that which yet farther confirms me in this is, to consider what wretched Evasions you make use of to excuse yourselves in these Particulars. Can any thing be more pitiful than the Expositions you have here offered, of your Consecrating of Crosses, of your Good-friday-Service, and of the Hymns of your Church, which I had alleged as Instances of that Worship you give to Images? Do not these plainly show a desperate Cause: and that you are but too sensible that your old Practices are not to be reconciled with your new Pretences.  
116. If while I am endeavouring to convince you of Idolatry, I do by the way discover your Insincerity, 'tis what I cannot help. But all the use I shall make at present of these Remarks shall be to observe, that even those among you who pretend the most to deny a Divine Worship to Images, yet must allow such Acts of it as these I have here recounted. Now that even this will involve you in this Gild, is evident from the Scripture-Notion of Idolatry before established. For I desire you to tell me, if you can, what did those Israelites do when they worshipped the Golden Calf, that you do not at this day practise in the very same manner? Was it, 1. that they worshipped God by an Image? But if this be Idolatry, you cannot deny but that you do the very same. Or, was it, 2. that they did not refer their Worship finally to God, but terminated their Adoration upon the very Image itself? Nay, but Aaron in express terms proclaimed a Feast unto the Lord; and to whom can we suppose that they offered their Burnt-offerings and their Peace-offerings, but to the same LORD to whom the Feast itself was proclaimed?  
117. To conclude; There is nothing in that whole History to make us doubt but that they designed that Calf only as a Symbol of the God of Israel: And their Idolatry by Consequence was no other than what the most moderate Men of your Church must confess themselves to be guilty of, viz. That, contrary to God s express Command, you set up Graven Images as Representations of our Saviour Christ and the Holy Trinity; and worship the infinite and incomprehensible God, in a Figure made like unto a Mortal Man: Which God himself has warranted us by his holy Word to call Idolatry.  
118. It remains therefore upon the whole, that either you must show us to be mistaken in our Notion of Idolatry; or you will never be able to acquit yourselves of the Charge of it. And when you have done this, we shall then only tell you, that you commit a Sin in this Service, that you violate God's holy Law which forbids it; but for the denomination of it, we shall leave it to you, whose Sin it is, to give it what particular Name you yourselves think fit.      

Of RELICS.  
119. IN the Point of Relics you offer only two things in answer to all that I had said upon that Subject, 
Repl● p. 42. etc.  viz.  Reply] First, That the whole of my Discourse proceeded upon verbal Dispute, what we are to call that Honour which you give to them, and which you deny to be properly Worship. Secondly, You once more egregiously cavil about the Translation of that Part of the Council of Trent which concerns this Subject, and deny that you seek to the sacred Monuments or Relics of the Saints for the obtaining of THEIR Help and Assistance. 
120. Answ.] For answer to which Pretences, because I as little love to prolong Disputes at any time, 
Reply, ibid.  as you do when you have no more to say in order to the carrying of them on; I will lay aside words, and bring the Issue to the things themselves, and show how miserably you have prevaricated in this Point too, as wellas in the foregoing, by proving, 

I. That you do properly worship the Relics of your Saints.  
II. That you do seek to them for Help and Assistance.    
And when this is done, I shall not need say any thing to prove that you here also commit Idolatry; seeing you allow the Cases of Images and Relics to be the same; 
Reply, p. 44.  and the Council of Trent makes this to be the very difference between the Heathens and them, and that by which they hope to escape the Censure of Idolatry, viz. That they do not believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any trust to be put in them. Tho how truly they declare this, the account I have before given of your consecrating both of Crosses and Agnus Dei's will sufficiently show.  

I. That you do truly and properly worship the Relics of your Saints.  
121. This is a Point that in any other Age, or Country but ours, would have needed no Proof. And it is not the least Argument of an innovating Spirit in you, that no Words or Expressions are of any value with you, as often as you are minded to give us what you call the Church's Sense. Let your Writers use never so many Phrases to assure to us their Opinion that Relics are to be worshipped, all this signifies nothing, they meant no more by it than an Honour or Veneration due to the sacred Remains of those Saints who were once the Temples of the Living God; 
Reply, p. 42.  and not a Worship or Adoration taken in its strict Sense. There is hardly an Expression that can signify a proper Worship which your own Authors have not made use of to declare the Service they thought due to them. I ADORE, WORSHIP, embrace the Relics of the Saints, said one in the second Council of Nice, and the whole Assembly resolved, Act. IU. That their Bones, Ashes, Rags, Blood, and Sepulchers, should be ADORED, only Men should not offer Sacrifice unto them. Card. Baronius speaks of it as an Honour done Him by Pope Clement VIIIth, 
Annal. ad. Ann. 821. §. 14.  that though most unworthy of so great an undertaking, he was yet sent by him to examine and ADORE the venerable Body of S. Cecilia. And though the cautious Synod of Trent said only that Relics should be VENERATED, yet seeing it neither condemned the Opinions of those who taught they were to be worshipped, but rather allowed the Acts of proper Divine Service to be paid to them. What can we conclude, but that they made use of a lose Expression to satisfy the more moderate Party of your Communion, at the same time that they resolved by their practice to favour the Superstition of those who properly adored them?  
122. Now that this was truly the Case, will appear,  
First, From what I have before said, concerning the Holy CROSS; which is considered by you in a double Capacity, both as an Image and as a Relic; and is upon both accounts declared to be worthy of the very SAME ADORATION that Christ himself is; And I hope that is a proper Worship in the strictest sense. For thus St. Thomas argues; 
Aquin. 3. Par. Qu. 25. Art 4.  If we speak of the very Cross upon which Christ was crucified, it is to be worshipped with Divine Worship, both as it represents Christ, and as it touched the Members of Christ, and was sprinkled with his Blood. And for this Cause we both speak to the Cross and pray to it, as if it were Christ Crucified upon it. Where note, (says Cajetane) That our speaking to the Cross is here produced as an Effect of the same Adoration with which Christ is adored. This I think is plain enough, 
Cajet. in Th. Ibid.  and may serve to show both with what sincerity you deny that properly speaking you do worship Relics; or that 'tis not the Cross, but Christ Crucified upon it, to whom you speak in these Addresses; and which I have before vindicated against your Cavils.  
123. Now this is the more to be considered, in that here you cannot say, as you do in the Case of Images, that the Figure and the Proto-type are in a manner united together, and that therefore the Image in its representative Nature is in some sort very Christ: The reason of this Worship being only a former Relation to our Saviour; 
Aquin. loc. cit.  because (says Aquinas) it heretofore touched his Sacred Members, or was sprinkled with his Blood. Upon which single account Cardinal Capisucchi doubts not to affirm, 
Paragr. Appendix. p. 690.  That the Wood of the Cross is so sanctified and consecrated by Christ, that every the least Particle of the Cross divided from the whole, and from the other parts does remain Consecrated and Sanctified; and therefore that every the least piece of the Cross is to be adored with the very same supreme Divine Adoration that Christ himself is. So truly have you told us, that you do not allow Relics a Worship or Adoration taken in its strictest sense. 
Reply, p. 42.   
124. And what I have now said of the Cross, will in the next place no less hold for the Nails, Lance, and other Instruments of his Passion. 
Vid. Card. Capisuch. l. c.  Upon which account, as we have seen that you address to the Cross, so you also do to the Lance; Hail O triumphant Iron! Happy Spear! Wound us with the Love of him that was pierced by thee. It is possible you may find out this too in the Corpus Poëtarum; and by the same Figure that the Cross signifies at once both the Material Cross, and our Saviour that hung upon it, may make the Spear here signify at once both S. Longinus' Spear, and the Body of Christ that was wounded with it. And that you may see how much it will be worth the while to have such an Ecclesiastical Trope invented. I will add one Instance more of another Relic that has an Address made to it altogether as much wanting it as either of the foregoing. The Relic I mean is the Veronica, or Cloth which our Saviour Christ wiped his Face, and left the Impression of his Visage upon it. And to this you thus pray; Hail Holy Face of our Redeemer, printed upon a Cloth white as Snow; purge us from all Spot of Vice, and join us to the Company of the Blessed. Bring us to our Country, O happy Figure! there to see the pure Face of Christ. This is I suppose a plain Instance enough what kind of Honour you pay to Relics. And that this Cloth might never want Votaries to worship it, your Pope John XXII, has vouchsafed no less than Ten thousand Days Indulgence to every repetition of this Prayer. I might add other Instances of this kind of Superstition: But I go on,  
125. Thirdly, To another Instance of your giving religious Worship to Relics; and that is your allowed practice of swearing by them. Now that to swear by another, is to give that thing by which you swear the Worship due to God only; both the nature of an Oath, which implies a calling of God to witness, and therebly acknowledges him to be the Inspector of the Heart, and the just Avenger of the falsehood of it, and the Authority of Holy Scripture plainly declare; Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, says Moses, Deut. vi. 13. and shalt serve him only, and swear by his Name. How shall I be favourable unto thee? says God by the Prophet Jeremy, Chap. v. 9 Thy Children have forsaken me, and sworn by those that are no Gods. But now the Catechism of your late Synod of Trent allows you to swear by the Cross, and Relics of your Saints; 
In 2. praec. decal. p. 267.  and there is nothing more common among you than so to do. When the Emperor comes to Rome to take the Imperial Diadem at his Holiness' Hands, he thus swears: I King of the Romans SWEAR— By the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and by the Wood of the Cross, and by these Relics of the Saints, etc. In which we find the Holy Trinity joined in the same rank with the Wood of the Cross, and with the Relics of the Saints.  
126. Nor am I here concerned in those Pretences that are sometimes brought to excuse this, viz. that you hereby intent no more than to swear by God, seeing it is plain that you do it at once both by God and Them. And again; That you do not believe that thereby any strength is added to the Oath which it would not otherwise have; for allowing this, yet still you do swear by them; and if there be neither any reason for it, nor benefit in it, you are never the less culpable, but the more inexcusably so upon this account. But indeed you do expect a benefit by this swearing; and suppose that the Saints do hereby become Sureties with God to you to see the Oath fulfilled, and to punish the Perjury if it be not. And so you not only swear by the Relics as well as by God, but ascribe all the reason and design of an Oath to the Saints in common with God. I will illustrate this in one of your own Instances, which will clear this Matter to us. It happened that one of your Saintesses, S. Guria, was married to a Goth, a Soldier in the Roman Army, that was sent to deliver the City Edessa from the Hunns. The Siege being raised, and the Army recalled, the Soldier required his Wife to go home with him. Her Mother could not bear this; but being forced to comply, she brings the Soldier and her Daughter to an Altar, under which were buried the Bodies of three Saints. And being there, she thus spoke to him; I will not give thee my Daughter, unless laying thy hand upon this Tomb, in which are contained the Relics of the Holy Martyrs of Christ, thou shalt swear that thou wilt treat my Daughter well. This he readily did: But yet soon after, without any regard to his Oath, he used her very ill. It were too long to recount all the Circumstances of her Misfortunes, or her miraculous deliverance out of them, by the aid of these Holy Martyrs. I observe only as to my present purpose, that being reduced to the utmost degree of despair, the Saint now, as her last refuge, puts the Holy Martyrs in mind of her Husband's swearing by their Relics, and how they were thereby become SURETIES to her Mother for her good Entertainment, and ought not to suffer her to be thus abused. Immediately, the Martyrs spoke to her, and told her, that as FAITHFUL SURETIES they would deliver her: and straightway she was miraculously brought out of a Coffin under Ground (for her Husband had buried her alive) to the very place where their Bodies lay, and where her Husband had sworn to her. And then they once more spoke to her to this effect: We have now satisfied our SURETYSHIP, Go to thy Mother. It was not very long after this, that the War breaking out again, the same Soldier came back to Edessa, where he was surprised to find his Wife alive; and being prosecuted for the Injuries he had done her, and for the Perjury he had committed, was condemned to be hanged for it. But,  
127. Fourthly, And to conclude this Point. I will to these add those Superstitions which are your common practice; and of which every one that has lived any time among you, must needs have been Eye-Witnesses. Such are your running to visit the Shrines of your Saints upon their Solemn Festivals; which with what devotion you do it, all Paris on the 3d of January every Year is sufficiently sensible. Your carrying them in Procession is indeed very remarkable; and of which I shall leave those who have ever known a dry time in the City I last mentioned, to consider what they have then seen. But because I must not expect to be credited by some Men in any thing that can possibly be denied; I will leave these Matters of Fact to those who have been Spectators of them: and for the satisfaction of those who have not, will give a short extract of the form of Procession, with which you bring the Relics of your Saints into a New Church.  
128. 
Pontific. Roman de Benedictione Ecclesiae, p. 119, etc.  First the Bishop with his Clergy leads the Procession to the place where the RELICS were lodged the Night before; When they are come to it, they sing this Anthem, Move yourselves, O ye Saints of God from your Mansions, and hasten to the place which is prepared for you. Then the Bishop uncovering his Head before the RELICS prays thus. Grant unto us, O Lord, we beseech thee, that we may worthily touch the Members of thy Saints that are more especially dedicated unto thee.  
Then the Incense being prepared with the Cross, and lighted Candles leading the way, and followed by the Clergy, singing their Anthems, the Priests appointed take up the Carriage, and one going by them all the way incenses the Relics. The Bishop and Clergy singing, among others, this Anthem, Rise up ye Saints of God from your Habitations; SANCTIFY the PLACES; BLESS the PEOPLE, and KEEP us sinful Men in PEACE.— Walk O ye Saints of God; Enter into the City of the Lord, for a Church is built unto you, where the People may adore the Majesty of God.  
Being come to the Door of the Church, they make a stop whilst some other Ceremonies are performed. Then the Bishop crosses the Door with Holy Chrism, and bids it be Blessed, and Sanctified, and Consecrated, and Consigned, and Commended, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And so they carry in the Relics, the Bishop and Clergy singing as before.  
This is the Order of that Solemnity. What Name it deserves I shall leave it to others to say. But sure I am, that all this is somewhat more than such an Honour and Respect which you pretend is all that you give to them. Let us see,   

IIdly, Whether you do not seek to these Sacred Monuments for Help and Assistance?  
129. It is indeed a hard Case that we must be forced now to prove that which is a known practice of daily experience amongst you. The Council of Trent itself confesses, That by them many Benefits are bestowed by God upon Men; and then I am confident it will not be thought at all improbable, that it should encourage Men to recur to them for their help. But here you have a notable evasion. 
Full Answ. pag. 6.  You do not deny but that Men go to these Sacred Monuments and Relics to receive Benefit; but this you say will not justify my Translation unless when they come there they pray to the Relics, instead of desiring the Saints, whose they are to pray for them. And to make this look like a Rational Answer, you change the Terms of the Question; which was not (as you falsely insinuate) whether the Council of Trent directs you to 
* Full Answ. Ibid.  IMPLORE the Aid of the Monuments or Sacred Relics; But whether it does not condemn those who say that for the 
† See Expos. p. 17. Defence, pag. 25.  OBTAINING of THEIR Help the Memories of the Saints are in vain frequented. And though they do not PRAY to the Relics; yet if for the OBTAINING their Help your People do recur to them, which you cannot deny but that they do, the presumption offered in vindication of my rendering that Passage of your Council is still good; and you have shown nothing but your own falseness in this new Answer to it. If it were necessary to prove that you do pray to Relics, you may see by what I have already offered, that even so you would not have secured yourself from having made yourself a false Translation, where you charge me with One. But you have chosen your Jury, and I accept of it; and only for their better direction, I must desire them to look the words in the Council itself, and not in your Transcript of them; who have purposely omitted all the Antecedent to which the EORUM refers; that so they might be sure to see no more than what made for your Purpose. Should I have done this, I should have found all the variety of hard words mustered up against me, Mutilation, Falsification, False Imposition, wilful Prevarication, wilful Mistake, unsincere Trick, etc. that either your Margin could have contained, or your Malice have invented; And the Truth is, I should have deserved them. But I shall leave this also to your Jury to judge of: And for all your good assurance, I dare venture all my little Learning, against all your Little, that the Verdict is brought in against you; and that you are concluded in this Matter to have been either very blind, Aut illud quod dicere nolo.  
130. For what concerns the thing itself; Whether you do not seek to the Monuments of the Saints for the obtaining the Help of their Relics; this is what will need no proof to those who are but never so little acquainted with your Superstition: And have seen with what Zeal you touch your Beads and Psalters at the very Shrines in which they are contained, to sanctify them thereby. How upon all occasions they are brought forth by you: To cure your Sickness; to preserve you from Tempests at Land, and in Storms at Sea; but especially to drive away Evil Spirits, for which they are the most beneficial. The Messieurs du Port Royal, 
Reponse à un Ecrit publié sur les Miracles de la St. Espine. p. 15. Pag. 18, 22.  have given us a whole Volume of the Miracles wrought by the Holy Thorn. There you may see how Sister Margaret, one of the Nuns, being ill of the Palsy, was carried to ADORE the Holy Thorn. How another being sick, recurred to it for its help, and found it too; having no sooner ADORED the Holy Thorn, and kissed it, but she was well of her Infirmity. Infinite Examples of the like kind might be produced, but I shall content myself to show what Opinion you have of the Power of your Relics, 
Pontific. Rom. pag. 164, 165.  from the very Prayer that you make at the blessing of those little Vessels in which they are put.  
We most humbly beseech thee Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless these Vessels that are prepared for the Honour of thy Saints through the Intercession of the same Saints: That all those who shall venerate their Merits, and humbly embrace their Relics [may be defended] against the Devil and his Angels, against Thunder, Lightning and Tempest; against the Corruption of the Air, and the Plagues of Men and of Beasts; against Thiefs and Robbers, and Invasions of Men, against evil Beasts, and against all the several kinds of Serpents and creeping things, and against the wicked Devices of evil Men.  
Here I hope are benefits enough to invite a Man to seek to them, and if they can help in all these Cases, we need not doubt but they shall have Votaries enough to recur to them for it.  
131. But that which is most admirable is, that in all these Cases, false Relics are every jot as good as true ones; and which makes somewhat for the Opinion of Vasquez, that provided a Man does but think 'tis the Relic of a Saint, he may securely worship it, though it may be 'tis no such thing. We have before heard what mighty Cures were wrought at the Monument of the famous Bishop and Martyr VIARUM CURANDARUM: 
See above Art 3.  And whether the Council of Trent prescribed it or no, Ressendius assures us, all the Country round about did come to the Monument of this pretended Saint, for the obtaining Help and Assistance, and fancied at least that they found it too. Tho it afterwards appeared that 'twas an old Heathen Inscription, and those words far enough from signifying either the Name of a Man, or the Character of a Bishop. Many have been the Cheats of the like kind, and which ought very much to lessen the Credit of those Miracles that you pretend are wrought in your Church: But I shall finish all with one so much the more to be considered, in that it was the happy occasion of undeceiving a very great Person, and disposed him to receive that Truth he afterwards embraced: And may it please God, that the recital I shall here make of it, may move those who are yet in Captivity to these Superstitions to deliver themselves from the like Impositions.  
132. Prince Christopher, of the Family of the Dukes of Radzecil, a Prince much addicted to the Superstitions of your Church, 
Drelincourt Response à M. le Landgrave Ernest. p. 348. §. lx.  having been in great Piety at Rome to kiss his Holiness' Feet; the Pope at his departure presented him with a Box of Relics, which at his return soon became very famous in all that Country. Some Months had hardly passed when certain Monks came to him to acquaint him that there was a D. Man possessed of the Devil, upon whom they had in vain tried all their Conjurations, and therefore they humbly entreated his Highness that for his relief, he would be pleased to lend them his Relics which he had brought from Rome. The Prince readily complied with their desires, and the Box was with great Solemnity carried to the Church, and being applied to the Body of him that was possessed, the Devil presently went out with the Grimaces and Gestures usual on such occasions. All the beholders cried out, A Miracle! and the Prince himself lifted up his Hands and Eyes to Heaven, and blessed God who had favoured him with such a Holy and powerful Treasure.  
It happened not long after that the Prince relating what he had seen, and magnifying very much the Virtue of his Relics: One of his Gentlemen began to smile, and show by his Actions how little Credit he gave to it. At which the Prince being moved, his Servant (after many promises of Forgiveness) ingenuously told him, that in their return from Rome he had unhappily lost the Box of Relics, but for fear of being exposed to his Anger, had caused another to be made as like as might be to the true one, which he had filled with all the little Bones, and other Trinkets that he could meet with, and that this was the Box that his Monks made him believe did work such Miracles.  
The Prince the next Morning sent for the Fathers, and enquired of them if they knew of any Demoniaque that had need of his Relics: They soon found one to act his part in this Farce; and the Prince caused him to be exorcised in his presence. But when all they could do would not prevail, the Devil kept his Possession, he commanded the Monks to withdraw, and delivered over the Man to another kind of Exorcists, some Tartars that belonged to his Stable, to be well lashed till he should confess the Cheat. The Demoniaque thought to have carried it off by horrible Gestures and Grimaces, but the Tartars understood none of those Tricks, but by laying on their Blows in good earnest quickly moved the Devil, without the help of either Hard Names, Holy Water, or Relics, to confess the truth, and beg Pardon of the Prince.  
As soon as Morning was come, the Prince sent again for the Monks (who suspected nothing of what had passed) and brings their Man before them, who threw himself at the Prince's Feet, and confessed that he was not possessed with the Devil, nor ever had been in his Life. The Monks at first made light of it, and told the Prince it was an Artifice of the Devil who spoke through the Mouth of that Man. But the Prince calling for his Tartars to exorcise another Devil, the Father of LIES, out of them too, they began presently to relent, and confessed the Cheat, but told him they did it with a good Intention to stop the Course of Heresy in that Country.  
Upon this he dismissed them, but from that time began seriously to apply himself to read the Holy Scriptures, telling them that he would no longer trust his Salvation to Men who defended their Religion by such pious Frauds, so they called them, but which were indeed Diabolical Inventions. And in a short time after, both himself and his whole House made open Profession of the Reformed Religion. Anno 1564.  
And thus much be said in Answer to your IVth Article.     
FINIS.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell  
A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto.  
A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto.  
An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church]. Quarto.  
A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 4ᵒ.  
A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 8ᵒ.  
A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented: being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented]; and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, Quarto.  
The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto.  
The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries. 24ᵒ.  
An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.  
A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. 4ᵒ.  
Mr. Chillingworth's Book, called [The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation] made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England, with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's, never before Printed, viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church, Transubstantiation, Tradition, etc. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist, with his Confutation of the said Motives.  
An Historical Treatise written by an AUTHOR of the Communion of the CHURCH of ROME, touching Transubstantiation. Wherein is made appear, That according to the Principles of THAT CHURCH, This Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4ᵒ.  
The Protestant's Companion: Or an Impartial Survey, and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established, with the main Doctrines of Popery. Wherein is showed, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fathers and Councils; and that proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers for several hundred Years, and the Confession of the most Learned Papists themselves. 4ᵒ.  
A Sermon preached upon St. Peter's day: By a Divine of the Church of England. Printed with some Enlargements.  
The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treatise showing that the Roman Church falsely claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chap. 3. Vers. 15. 4ᵒ.  
The People's Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted. 4ᵒ.  
A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines, in Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Entitled, [Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs.] 4ᵒ.  
An Answer to a Late Pamphlet, Entitled, [The Judgement and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative, viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws.] 4ᵒ.  
A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence, and the Adoration of the Host; in Answer to the Two Discourses lately Printed at Oxford on this Subject: To which is perfixed a Large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument.  
Two Discourses; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.  
The Fifteen Notes of the Church, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin, examined and confuted. 4o. With a Table of the Contents.  
Preparation for Death: Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France, in a dangerous Distemper of which she died. By W. W. M. A. 12ᵒ.  
The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, in opposition to a late Book, Entitled, An Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome.  
A PRIVATE PRAYER to be used in Difficult Times.  
A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Sept. 29, 1687, between A. Pulton, Jesuit, and Tho. Tenison, D. D. as also of that which led to it, and followed after it. 4ᵒ.  
The Vindication of A. Cressener, Schoolmaster in Long-Acre, from the Aspersions of A. Pulton, Jesuit, Schoolmaster in the Savoy; together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith.  
A Discourse showing that Protestants are on the safer Side, notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgement of their Adversaries; and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven. 4ᵒ.  
Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist, wherein is showed, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religions.  
A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Unction; with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church. In Three Parts. With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom.  
The Pamphlet entitled, Speculum Ecclesiasticum, or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass, considered, in its False Reasonings and Quotations. There are added, by way of Preface, two further Answers, the First, to the Defender of the Speculum; the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six 〈◊〉.  
A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the new Exceptions of Mons. de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. The FIRST PART. In which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meauxes Exposition, is fully Vindicated; the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted; and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in Point of Image-worship, more particularly considered. 4ᵒ.  
The Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome. By the Author of the [Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist.] 4ᵒ.  
Mr. Pulton Considered in his Sincerity, Reasonings, Authorities: Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto Published in his True Account; his True and full Account of a Conference, etc. His Remarks; and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T's Rule of Faith. By Tho. Tenison, D. D.  
A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist, wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the belief of Transubstantiation. Being a sufficient Confutation of CONSENSUS VETERUM, NUBES TESTIUM, and other Late Collections of the Father's pretending to the Contrary. 4ᵒ.  
An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy; With a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Answer, showing that the Vindicator has utterly ruined the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery.