The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 7. What was the opinion of the Fathers of the three first ages, and till the midst of the fourth, about the invocation of Saints and Angels.

THis question among equitable and pious men is superfluous. For after the will of God is known, in vain should one inquire of the opioion of men. Besides, the Cardinal did acknowledge before, that even in Austin's time, that is 420. years after the Lord's birth, the Church had decided nothing yet about that point, whether the Saints behold the face of God before the resurrection; which by consequent draweth with it a doubt about the invocation of Saints.

Nevertheless, we owe to the Doctors of the first ages, a just defense against those that attribute unto them things contrary to the purity of the faith, and their own intention.

We must know then, that in the three first ages, and above the half of the fourth, the invocation of Saints was a thing unknown in the Christian Church, and God alone was invocated. All the testimonies that the Cardinal could gather from those ages, speak of the intercession of Saints, nothing of the invocation.

In the fourth Book of the History of Eusebius, chap. 15. we have the history of the Martyrdom of Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, a Disciple of Saint John, near the time of the Apostles: There it is related, that this holy Martyr being dead, some by the suggestion of the Jews, desired the Governor of Smyrna that the body of Polycarpus should not be given to the Christians for fear (said they) that they should come to worship him. But the Church of Smyrna which set down this history in writing said upon that. They know not that we can never leave Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all them that are saved in all the world, nor serve any other but him. For as for Jesus Christ who is the Son of God, we worship him. But as for the Martyrs, we love them deservedly, as the Disciples and followers of the Lord. This is an excellent testimony, and of the first Christian antiquity.

Ignatius who lived in the 140. year of the Lord, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians speaks thus, You Virgins have none but Jesus Christ alone before your eyes in your prayers, and the Father of Jesus Christ.

Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh book Stromaton, Therefore with reason there being but one only truly good, which is God, both we and the Angels pray to him alone, that of good things he would give us some, and that some may remain with us.

Irenaeus who writ about the year of the Lord 220. in the second book, The Church doth nothing neither by invocation of Angels, nor by enchantments, nor by any ill curiosity; but purely, simply and openly she addresseth her prayers unto God who made all things, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath made Virtues according to men's utility, not to seduce them.

Tertullian that lived in the same time, in chap. 30. of his Apologeticus, I cannot (saith he) ask these things of any but of him, of whom I know that I shall obtain them, because he is the only that performs them, and I am he for whom they must be obtained, even his servant that reverence him alone. The same in the thirty third chapter of the book of Prescriptions calls the service of Angels idolatry.

Novatianus, whose book of the Trinity is added to the works of Tertullian, chap. 14. proveth the Godhead of Christ by the invocation, which is deferred unto him. If Christ (saith he) is but a man, why is a man invocated as a Mediator, seeing that the invocation of a man is judged of no efficacy for salvation?

Origen that writ about the year 250. Tom. 8. against Celsus, We must pray to him alone, who is God above all things. To him also we must pray, who is the Word, the only Son of God, the first born of all creatures.

And in the fifth Tome disputing against the invocation of Angels. The knowledge [of Angels] representing unto us their nature, and the condition in which they are established, will not permit us to be so bold as to call upon any other but him who is God above all things, all-sufficient, by our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. And in the same book, We hold that they that pray, must not be prayed to: As also themselves like it better, that we address our prayers to him whom they pray to.

Neither doth he only impugn the invocation of Saints, but in some places he doubteth of their intercession, as in his second book and chap. 2. upon the Epistle to the Romans, If the Saints that have put off their bodies and are with Christ, do anything, and labor for us like the Angels that exercise the mysteries of their salvation, &c. Let that also be put among the secret mysteries of God, which must not be committed to paper. Note these words, If they labor for us; that M. du Perron may not say, that Origen doubts, whether the deceased Saints do yet meritorious works. For he speaks not of the labor of the Saints for themselves, but for us. What the Cardinal answereth Origen, will be seen in the following chapter.

Athanasius especially insisteth upon this point, and thereby fights against the Arians, who prayed to Christ, and yet said that he was a creature. And he maintaineth, that if he be created, he must not be invocated. In the third Oration against the Arians he speaks thus; That we may not fall into the folly of the Arians and Grecians who serve the creature instead of God the Creator of all things. There is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that yield dulia unto the creature, rejecting those expressly that yield the cult of dulia unto the creature, and condemning those who taking Christ for a creature, yet yielded dulia unto him.

In the same Oration, To God alone it belongeth to be worshipped: and the Angels themselves know so much. For although they excel in glory, some of them being above the others, yet they are all creatures, and are none of those that are worshipped, but of those that worship the Lord. And in the fourth Oration, It is manifest, that the Patriarch Jacob in his prayer joined none with God, but him only who is the Word, whom for this cause he called Angel, because it is he alone who manifesteth the Father unto us.

By that chiefly he proveth the Godhead of Christ, because he must be invocated and adored. Though the Arians (saith he) should burst Jesus Christ ought not to be worshipped, if in any respect he had been a creature. But now because he is not a creature, but is engendered of the very substance of the Father who is worshipped, and by nature is Son of God, therefore is he worshipped. the Arians had a broad gate open to escape by answering, We do not worship Christ with any sovereign adoration, nor with a cult of latria, but with an inferior kind of worship. But that distinction was not yet invented, because it was a constant opinion among all Christians, that none must be invocated but God.

Among the works of that Father by a notorious falsification a book was inserted of the Virgin Mother of God, where she is invocated and called our Lady and Queen. It is a book much of the style of Dionysius the Author of the celestial Hierarchy, from whom it borroweth the terms of Thearchia and Hierarchia, and the nine orders of Angels, and he makes ridiculous clinches between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Author falsely saith that Salathiel and his son Josedec have been High Priests since the captivity of Babylon. The same saith, that in God there are three hypostases, which is contrary to the opinion of Athanasius, who acknowledgeth but one hypostasis in God, because he holds that hypostasis signifieth essence, not person. That may be seen in the Epistle to the Antiochians, and in the Epistle to the Africans, where he saith, hypostasis is essence, and signifies nothing else. In effect, that book is full of absurdities, and hath nothing of Athanasius. Bellarmine himself in the book of Ecclesiastical writers, and Baronius, an. 48. acknowledgeth that falsification.

The Canon of Laodicea, Can. 35. Christians must not leave the Church of God, and go and call upon Angels, and make assemblies, which are forbidden things. And if any be found giving themselves to that secret idolatry, let him be accursed, because he hath forsaken the Lord Jesus Christ, and hath applied himself to idolatry. This Canon is manifestly made against some Christians (for Synods make no prohibitions to Pagans or Jews) who besides common Congregations had secret conventicles, in which they called upon the Angels: And this is that, which the Council calls leaving the Church of God, and leaving Christ. Of which Canon, and the interpretation which Theodoret gives to it, it was spoken in the precedent chapter.

Lactantius in the second book of divine institutions, chap. 17. Angels have nothing else to do but to obey. Therefore they will not have any honor bestowed upon them: For their honor is in God. Again, let us worship nothing, and let us serve nothing, but the only Godhead of our Maker and Father.

All these testimonies are taken from the Fathers, that lived in the three first Ages after Christ, and till half of the fourth. In all that time no trace is found of the invocation of Saints. In vain M. du Perron answereth that those Fathers speak of the absolute adoration due to God alone, not of the relative adoration which is deferred unto Saints and Angels: For he ought to bring some testimony out of their writings, that speak of that relative adoration or invocation; or of that religious service which our Adversaries call dulia. But of that not one word was spoken in so many Ages. That distinction was forged a long time after. We have shown already that all adoration is relative, and that the invocation and adoration which is deferred unto God, is relative unto God.

The Cardinal in the fourteenth chapter of the Treatise of the Invocation of Saints, promiseth to prove that even before the four first Councils, that is, in the three first ages, the invocation of Saints was in use. But he abuseth the Reader, for well nigh all the texts which he brings are from Authors that have written a long time after the first Council. Those by whom he begins, are Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, who wrote about the year of the Lord 375. both which lived in Cappadocia, where that superstition first sprung in all likelihood, and thence spread abroad. This is a notorious fraud, to promise in the title of the Chapter, to show the general practice of the invocation of Saints used in the Church before the four first Councils, but in that chapter to bring none but Authors that have written since the first Council. It is true, that among a multitude of testimonies of the posterior Ages he alledgeth some of the three first Ages. But those texts speak not of the invocation, but only of the intercession of Saints.

These testimonies then the Cardinal alledgeth of the three first Ages. He alledgeth Gregory Nazianzen, who in the Oration upon Cyprian saith, that St. Justina solicited to wantonness by the magical arts of Cyprian, before he was converted to the Christian faith, had recourse to the intercession of the Virgin Mary. But as that narrative is fabulous and injurious against Cyprian, so is Gr • gories belief, that in Cyprians time the Saints were invocated. He that in one point gives fables for histories, will not stick to do the like in another. Baronius in his Martyrology upon Sept. 26. speaks of another Cyprian that was of Antioch, and was martyrized at Nicomedia. But what he saith of him, he draws out of Legends, which have little authority. Besides, this doth not excuse Gregory Nazianzen, who relates this of Cyprian of Carthage.

The Cardinal alledgeth also Eusebius, who in the twelfth book of the Evangelical preparation, chap. 1. saith, that Plato had got among the Hebrews his opinion, that the souls of the deceased take care of human things, and that the Hebrews hold, that Jeremiah was seen praying for the people after his decease. But though we should receive Plato among the Prophets, and the things related of Jeremiah in the Maccabees as true, yet that place is unfit to prove, that the Saints must be prayed to. That example, like the other, may be used to prove that the Saints pray for us, not that we ought to pray to them. The same I say of the words of Origen upon the thirty second chapter of Numbers, Hom. 26. where he saith, Who doubts but that everyone of the Holy Fathers helps us by his prayers? The same also may be said of all the testimonies of Origen and Cyprian, which M. du Perron alledgeth after, pag. 1010. who all speak of the intercession of Saints, not of the invocation to be deferred unto them.

Wherefore in page 1009. being pressed by the truth, he pleads guilty, and saith, that in the Authors that lived nearer the Apostles times, no footsteps are found of that custom of calling upon the Saints. And in vain he alledgeth, that most of their writings are lost. For we have the works of Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Athanasius, Eusebius and others, who both in number and bulk are more then sufficient to show us the belief of the ancient Church.

Certainly if the writings of the Fathers were the sovereign rule of our faith, there would be no reason why we should receive a doctrine, not received in the three first ages, and which began to spring in the end of the fourth.

We cannot pass by the Cardinals notorious falsification in the same place, where he alledgeth Eusebius. He makes Eusebius to say, that Plato taught, that virtuous men must be honored, and that their monuments must be venerated or adored. That's false. Eusebius never attributed that doctrine to Plato, and the first chapter of the twelfth book of the Evangelical preparation which M. du Perron quoteth in the Margin, speaks not a word of that. Indeed Eusebius chap. 3. alledgeth the book of Maccabees, saying that Jeremiah after his death was seen praying for the people, as taking care of men that are on earth; but he speaks not of worshipping the monuments of virtuous men, as the Cardinal saith, who not understanding Greek, hath translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , human things. For our part we would not deny, that the Saints are praying for God's people in general: but the question is, Whether they pray for every particular man; and whether they understand their prayers.

The place that followeth, which he alledgeth out of Eusebius, speaks no more then the other of the invocation of Martyrs, but of prayers unto God by their sepulchers, and of the honor deferred unto their memory. In the same place he alledgeth Eusebius again, in the sixth Book of his History, chap. 5. where Saint Potamina speaks thus to one of the guards that led her to execution, and defended her against the fury of the people, That after her departure she would pray to her Lord, and that he would shortly pay him the recompense of that he had done for her. The Cardinal having but little Greek, thus translateth that place, That presently after her death, she would pray to God for him, and obtain for him grace and pardon from the Lord. He trusted (it seems) some other man's interpretation, whom he employed to understand Greek for him. That passage indeed may prove that Potamiana believed, that the Saints deceased, pray for the living whom they have known on earth, but proves not that the Saints must be invocated. And that guard, called Basilides, being turned Christian a little after, and a Martyr also, did not pray to Potamiana, though he believed that he had been assisted by her intercession.

Bellarmine in the 3. Book of the service of the Saints, chap. 9. allegeth Eusebius, Book 13. of Evangelical preparation, chap. 7. Honouring the Champions of true piety as God's friends, and drawing near to their monuments, we make vows unto them as to holy men, by whose intercession we profess that we get no little help towards God. But that place is altogether false. Eusebius saith only, That the custom was to stand by their tombs, and to pray by them, and to honor the blessed souls. Bellarmine adds these words of his own, We make vows unto them, and profess that we get no little help by their intercession.

CHAP. 8. A Vindication of Origen upon the point of the invocation of one only God, against the accusations of Cardinal du Perron.

THe Cardinal bearing himself for judge of antiquity, deals very unworthily with many ancient Doctors, because they are not favorable enough unto the Roman Church. It is usual with him to call Socrates and Sozomenus Novatians, to derogate from the authority of their history, even in things that concern not at all the doctrine of Novatus. He revileth Eusebius, and calls him an Arian, although Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoret clear him of that accusation, as we have proved. The reason of that hatred, is, because that excellent Author being the only Historian of the three first ages of the Church, speaks no otherwise of the Bishop of Rome, then of another Bishop, and giveth him no preeminence: and because he condemneth images as a Pagan custom, and calls very often the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the figure of Christ's body. But the Father whom he hates above all is Origen, not for the causes, for which he hath been condemned by the ancient Church, but for saying that the thing that we receive in the holy Communion, as for the matter, goeth to the draught, and that it is a symbolical and figurative body. Also because he condemneth images, and rejecteth them from the service of God. Also because in all his writings, which are two great volumes, he never speaks of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but calls Paul the greatest of all the Apostles. And because he fights with so much stoutness against the invocation of Angels and creatures, and teacheth that prayers must be addrest to none but God.

The Cardinal chap. 13. of the 5. Book, labors to defend himself against a testimony of Origen alleged by his Majesty of great Britain in these words, God alone was worshipped, God alone was invocated through his only Son, mediator between God and men, alone, only, most only. To which he could have added these Texts of the fifth Tome against Celsus, That science which represents unto us the nature of Angels, and that for which everyone of them is ordained, will not give us leave to put our trust, or address our prayers to any other, but him who is God over all things, who is sufficient for all things, by the Son of God our Savior, who is the Word, the Wisdom and the Truth. And in the same Book he maintains against Celsus, that the Jews did not adore the Angels of heaven, because (saith he) they that did so, did it against the Law. And shortly after, speaking of the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars, of whom he speaks as of animate creatures, and Angelical Spirits (which was the opinion of many Ancients, of Austin among the rest) We judge (saith he) that we must not pray to those that pray, since they rather would send us to God whom they pray to, then to bring us down unto them, and divide our virtue from God to themselves. And in the same place, We worship not those that worship, nor Moses, nor those that came after him, and prophesied from God: And in the same Book, speaking of Moses and the Prophets, he saith, that they studied to pray to the only Sovereign god. Again, We must rather worship God, who is only announced by the Angels, then his Heralds and Angels.

The eighth and last Tome of Origen against Celsus, is full of such sentences. For he answereth Celsus, who blamed the Christians for adoring none but God alone through Jesus Christ: We serve one only God, and his only Son, his Word, and his image by prayers and honors, according to our power. And there again, We must pray to God alone, who is above all things. We must also pray to his only Son.

This taken out of the same Book will serve for all. We ought to make the only Sovereign God propitious unto us, and pray to him that he be favorable to us, seeking to get his love by piety and by all virtue. If Celsus will make some others propitious unto him after the Sovereign God, let him learn, that as the shadow is moved after the bodies motion, so when one hath made the Sovereign God propitious unto him, hence it follows that he hath all the beloved Angels and the [blessed] souls and spirits propitious unto him.

The Cardinal answereth two things; The one, that Origen's authority is not an authentical Warrant for the decisions of Religion, seeing that in the same Book he destroyeth the Godhead of Christ. The other, that Books written against the Pagans, are not fit to teach the exact belief and practice of antiquity.

I answer, that in this point the authority of Origen is nothing inferior to any of the Fathers. For Origen having in his life time been honored as an incomparable man, and praised by Saint Gregory the maker of miracles (who lived in his time) by an express Book, hath also after his death, won by his writings the admiration of most men. Ambrose and Jerome borrow from him, and imitate his allegories and intepretations of Scripture. Eusebius hath written an Apology for him, and spent most part of the sixth Book of his history about his praise. Ruffinus also, Priest of Aquileia, hath written a Book for his vindication.

But Jerome, in his old age, being fallen out with Ruffinus and John of Jerusalem, great admirers of Origen, that he might have an occasion of invectives against them, began to write against Origen, and to mark his errors: Being angry that Ruffinus said that Jerome was an Origenist as well as he, and that if he was an Origenist, he had learned it of Jerome.

In the same time lived Epiphanius Bishop of Salamin in Cyprus, who also was at odds with John of Jerusalem. That John accused Epiphanius, that he was an Anthropomorphite; and Epiphanius accused John, that he was an Origenist. This was the cause, why Epiphanius leaving out the Anthropomorphites in his Catalogue of Heretics, put Origen's in that list; describing him as a monster and a plague in the Church. And after an exact examination of his errors, he chargeth him to have burnt incense unto idols in his old age; which yet Baronius affirmeth to be a calumny, and cleareth him of that imputation.

The truth is, that Origen had extravagant opinions and many errors, and that by his Allegories he hath altered the purity of Scripture. But it must be acknowledged also, that never was a man more narrowly, and with more animosity, examined by posterity. Which is very considerable. For if there had been a just subject of reproving Origen, because he did absolutely condemn images, and believed that God alone ought to be invocated, and that the bread of the holy Communion, is bread still after the consecration; we may be sure that Epiphanius and Jerome, who have bent all their wits to pick faults in the doctrine of Origen, would not have forgotten to condemn him upon these points. It will not be sound, that any of those ancients that writ against him, found fault with him about the point of images, or about real presence, or about the invocation of creatures. So that the silence of his enemies upon those points, is a manifest approbation of his doctrine. The same I say of Austin, of Theodoret, and of Philastrius, who have made an enumeration of Origen's errors.

To weaken the authority of Origen's Books against Celsus, Cardinal du Perron saith, that in those Books Origen denieth the God-head of Christ. Yet in the first Tome of those Books these words are found, The Mages [or Wise men] presented unto Christ significative gifts, gold as to a King, myrrh as to him that was to die, and Frankincense as to him that was God. And a little after he calls him a God superior to Angels, Savior of mankind. And in the same Book, We believe Jesus himself saying concerning his Godhead, I am the way, the truth and the life. And there again He was properly the Son of God, God, the Word, the Power and the Wisdom of God, he that is called Christ. And in the second Tome, Celsus is silent concerning those things which concern the Godhead of Jesus. And in the third Tome he calleth Christ the Son of God, and God that came with an human soul and body. And in the fourth Tome he calleth Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that is the Word itself, the Wisdom itself, and the Righteousness itself. Titles not proper to any but the Sovereign God. It is true, that in the same Books some places are found, where he makes the Son inferior unto the Father, and that because Christ said, The Father is greater then I. But it must not be found strange, that the Fathers that were before the time of Arius, have spoken of this matter in hard and improper terms, and with less perspicuity and certainty. For before Arius; that question was not well cleared: Neither is there any reason, why Origen should have harder dealing then the other Fathers of the former ages; as Justin Martyr, who affirmeth in his Dialogue against Tryphon, that whensoever it is said in the Old Testament, that God descended or ascended, that cannot be proper to the Father, but must be understood of the Son, because that is repugnant to the nature of the Father, who is everywhere, and is immovable: As if the nature of the Father were another then that of the Son, or as if the Father alone were infinite, and not the Son. So Divines will bear with Epiphanius, who saith that these words; My Father is greater then I, are true even in respect of the divine nature of Christ. The Council of Antioch assembled against Paulus Samosatenus, rejecteth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Consubstantial. Yet we give a favorable interpretation to their sentence.

The same equity we use with Clemens Alexandrinus, who puts in the Godhead a fourth hypostasis. For we consider the time in which he writ. We bear also in Irenaeus that which might be ill taken, his saying that none is called God in Scripture, but the Father and the Son, and such as he hath adopted; making no mention of the Holy Ghost: Of whose Godhead he never speaketh. Thus in the eighth chapter of his fifth book, three times he presseth, that we should believe in the Father and in the Son, saying nothing of the Holy Ghost. Hilary himself, though posterior in time unto Arius, and exercised in the controversies of the Arians, how improperly (to say no more) doth he speak of the nature of Christ? In the Treatise upon Psal. 138. he saith, that in Christ we must no confound the person of the Godhead with that of the body; as though the person of his Godhead were another from that of his manhood. The same Father in many places denieth that Christ suffered any pain in his body, and holds that it was a show of passion and pain, not a real pain. If any spake now as Chrysostom did in the third Homily upon the first chapter to the Hebrews, should be held a Nestorian. The Apostle (saith he) appeaseth the Jews, showing that there are [in Christ] two persons, a God and a man. And in the same place, There are two persons in Christ of different hypostasis.

Truly I dare affirm, that the books of Origen against Celsus are an excellent work, and that all Antiquity affords not a book made for the defense of Christian Religion, comparable to it, whether it be for various learning, or solidity, or elegancy. Neither the Apologeticks of Justin and Tertullian, nor the exhortation of Clemens Alexandrinus to the Gentiles, nor his Paedagogue: Nor even Austin's books of the City of God, are comparable at all to these books of Origen.

The Cardinals second answer to that testimony of Origen is, that it is not out of the books written against the Pagans, that we can or ought to learn the belief or practice of Antiquity; because disputing against the Pagans, they speak not their sense, but what they are constrained to say. And that they discovered as little as they could of the Christian practice: as Jerome saith in his book to Pammachius against Jovinian. If that be true, why do our Adversaries, and Cardinal du Perron among the rest allege frequently testimonies out of the Apologeticks of Justin and Tertullian, and out of Lactantius, and out of Austin of the City of God? For they are books written against the Pagans. But those Fathers (if one may believe our Cardinal) speak against their sense, and dissemble their belief. Then the same (by that reason) may be said of the writings of the Fathers against the Manicheans, the Marcionites, the Arians, and the Donatists; Which writings make up at least two thirds of the works of the Fathers. In effect the Cardinal by that shift revileth the Fathers, and useth them like Atheists, charging them with notorious hypocrisy, by his saying that they speak against their own sense, and disguise their belief, altering their doctrine in the points of faith according to the persons they had to do with, speaking now one thing, now another, so that there is nothing certain in their doctrine.

To give some color to his exception, he alledgeth the text of the Mass, where the Priest saith, Command that our sacrifice be carried by the hands of thy Holy Angel to thy Heavenly Altar. Truly, though there were nothing amiss in that prayer, yet it is nothing to the purpose; for it is not a prayer to Angels, but to God, that he command the Angel. But that prayer is most evil and injurious against Christ. For whereas in the Mass by that sacrifice the body of Christ is understood, is it not an evident impiety to beseech God, that his Angel take Christ to carry him up to heaven, and present him unto God? as though Christ had need of the intervention of Angels to be presented to his Father: or as though he caused himself to be carried by Angels, now that he hath attained the height of his glory.

But the superlative absurdity lieth, in that the Priest having prayed that the Angel may carry the consecrated Host to heaven, falls to it bodily, and eats it up immediately after that prayer, to prevent the Angel, as fearing lest the Angel carry the Host away. Having called for the Angel, he should in manners stay a little for him. But perhaps the cause why the Angel never yet carried the host away, is, that the Priest never gives him time enough for it.

The Cardinal also to fence himself against Origen's blows, saith that when Origen denieth, that any but God ought to be invocated and adored, he understands if of the invocation and adoration which Celsus and other Pagans bestowed upon their false God's, that is, the sovereign and absolute invocation and adoration of Latria, not the subaltern and relative adoration and invocation. But the Cardinal is deceived if he think that the Pagans adored all their God's with a sovereign adoration, and that they worshipped Mercury or the Nymphs, or the household God's, and those whom they called Deos minorum gentium, with the like adoration as Jupiter; for they prayed to them as to Servants and Messengers of the Sovereign God. Wherefore Celsus speaking of the adoration of many God's, could not mean the sovereign adoration only. Besides, it is an unreasonable conceit, to imagine an adoration which is not relative. For the sovereign worship is relative to him that is worshipped, even to God. This Prelat hath but an unlucky hand in handling the terms of Philosophy.

As for Origen, it is certain, that he speaks of the sovereign adoration, for he knew none other. And as for invocation, he saith absolutely and without exception, that none must be prayed to, but God alone: Of relative, or inferior adoration and invocation, he speaks neither there nor anywhere else. For as for that clause which is found in the version of the Homilies upon Ezekiel; Receive, O Angel, the man converted from his ancient error, (if these Homilies be of Origen ) that clause is but a rhetorical Apostrophe, whereby Orators in their Homilies or Orations use to address their speech unto absent persons, as if they were present, and to the dead, as if they were yet alive. Note, that the place which the Cardinal alledgeth out of Origen speaks only of Angels, not of deceased Saints, of whom it is a question, especially in this controversy. And that the words which he takes out of the eighth book against Celsus speak not of the invocation of Angels, but of their intercession. Now our difference is only about the invocation. That place deserveth a chapter apart, because the Cardinal doth strangely falsify it.

CHAP. 9. A place of Origen's eighth book against Celsus falsified by Cardinal du Perron.

TO prove by Origen that Angels ought to be invocated (for as for the invocation of Saints, he brings nothing at all for it) He makes a flourish with a place of Origen in book 8. against Celsus, which he alledgeth in these words, When a man hath God propitious, thence it results that he hath also all the Angels, Souls and Spirits belonging to God for his friends. For they acknowledge those, that are worthy of the heavenly favor and Godhead; yea and labor to get God's good will for those that will serve him, and jointly pray with us: So that we all that serve him make bold to say, that unto men of good will, infinite thousands of holy Angels freely join themselves, and interced • for our mortal kind. The Reader may observe, that the question being, whether Angels and Saints ought to be prayed to? The Cardinal to prove that, brings a text which saith that the Angels intercede for us; a thing about which we dispute not. That is not the question. Observe also, that the Cardinal hath clipt that place of Origen, and cut off the head of it by a notorious malice. Origen saith, We must make the Sovereign God alone propitious, and beseech him to be favorable unto us, making him propitious by piety and by all virtue. But if [Celsus] will make others after God propitious unto him, let him learn, that as the shadow is moved after the bodies motion, likewise when one hath obtained the favor▪ of the Sovereign God, thence it followeth, that one hath also the favor of all the beloved Angels, and of the souls and Spirits that are his. Out of all that discourse the Cardinal makes use only of the two last lines, intending thereby to prove the invocation or intercession of the Angels and Saints. But the lines that go next before, show that by these very words which he alledgeth, Origen intends to prove that to pray to Angels is a superfluous thing, since by praying to God alone, and getting his favor, we have by consequent all the Angels favorable unto us.

To that clipping, he adds a depravation of that place full of falsehood and foul dealing. This is the true place translated word by word, For they know them that are worthy of God's favor, and are not only propitious to them that are worthy, but even help those that will serve the God who is above all things, and make him propitious, and pray with them, and petition with them. So that we dare say that to the men who with choice propound to themselves that which is best, and pray to God, millions of sacred powers join with their prayers, not called upon. Besides many corruptions of the Greek words, which show that this Prelat had little skill in the Greek tongue, there is this notable falsification, that he hath left out these words, that the Angels pray for us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non invocati, not being invocated or called upon for help. For these words resisted the Cardinals purpose, which was to prove the invocation of Saints out of Origen. And whether out of malice or ignorance, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he put in the Margin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth nothing. But in his French he hath left it out quite, putting instead of not being called upon, the word volontairement, that is, voluntarily or freely. The other faults, as translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , men of good will, are faults of petty Grammar-scholars, and proceed out of ignorance in Greek: But in the omission of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the fraud is evident.

CHAP. 10. Reasons why Jerome said that the Fathers writing against the Pagans, often writ against their own sense.

HIerom among many virtues, had this defect, that when he writ against one that displeased him, the vehemency of choller would often carry him away beyond limits, and made him come out with things that got him blame, which afterwards he sought to mollify and daub with some interpretation. This Doctor who in some places confesseth that he had not kept his virginity, and freely acknowledgeth that in the midst of his fasts and austerities, he burnt with incontinence, yet hath been so excessive in commending virginity, as to blame marriage as an evil thing, displeasing unto God, and a hindrance to salvation. Upon such discourses the most part of the two books against Jovinian is spent. These are some of his expressions, in the first book, It is good for a man (saith St. Paul) not to touch a woman; If it be good not to touch a woman, it is then evil to touch a woman; For nothing is contrary to good but evil. Now St. Paul speaks of marriage. And a little after The Apostle will have us to pray continually: If we must pray continually, we must never serve marriage. In the same book he personates Christ speaking that to his Apostles, You do well to believe that it is not expedient for a man tending towards the kingdom of heaven, to marry. In the same place, by them that made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, he understands those that abstain from marriage. Then he addeth, If they that made themselves Eunuchs, have the salary of the kingdom of heaven, they that made not themselves Eunuchs, cannot take place among the Eunuchs. Again Marriage replenisheth the earth, Virginity replenisheth Paradise. In the same place he observeth, that upon every day of the creation God saw that all that he had done was very good, but only upon the second day, because that number of two represented marriage. And that all the unclean beasts entered into the Ark by couples. And that Moses before he drew near God, untied his shoe-strings, that is, the bond of marriage. And that when Joshua came to Jordan, the waters of marriage, which had been flowing under the Law, were drained. And that the Angel, Prince of the Militia, came to meet Joshua, holding a sword to cut the bond of marriage. And that Moses who was married, was buried near Phegor, which signifies ignominy: But that Joshua who was not married, was buried in the mountain of Ephraim: Whence he concludes thus against marriage, We despise Phegor and all his ignominy, knowing that they that are in the flesh cannot please God. He addeth, that Moses was lamented in his death: But Joshua was not lamented, as he that was to attain unto life: For (saith he) marriage endeth in death, but virginity begins to be crowned after death. If one believeth him, Moses, because he was married, could not attain unto life. He saith that the Apostle John was a Virgin, and therefore that his Gospel goeth far above other Gospels, and that he flieth aloft like an Eagle: Virginity (saith he) hath expounded that which married persons could not know: acknowledging by the way, that St. Matthew, Saint Mark, and St. Luke were married, and therefore he hath a lower esteem of them. He adds, that St. Paul saith indeed, that a woman shall be saved by bearing of children, yet upon condition that her children shall persevere in virginity: But Paul saith, If she abide in the faith, and in charity, and sanctification, with modesty, not if her children abide in virginity. Thus that Father playeth with Scripture, and corrupts it with great licentiousness. And a little after he saith, that The fruit of matrimony is death, but the fruit of sanctification which belongeth to virginity, or continence, is rewarded with eternal life. In the same place, he turneth these sentences of Scripture against Matrimony, Walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, And the carnal mind is enmity against God. And they that are in the flesh cannot please God. For (saith he) I believe that they that serve to the duty of marriage, love the carnal mind, and that they are in the flesh. Wherefore also he calls married persons Vasa in contumeliam, Vessels to dishonor or shame. And saith, that a woman that marrieth the second time, must have no part in the alms of the Church, and must be deprived of the Communion of the body of Christ.

These books being published, were but ill received by many, as made to the disgrace of marriage instituted by God, and in so many places commended in his word. Of which being advertised by Pammachius, he directed an Apology to him to mollify the hardness of those expressions, saying that he never intended to disgrace marriage nor married persons, which nevertheless in that very Apology he continueth to call vessels to dishonor, and maintains that it is ill done to touch a woman.

Among the excuses which he brings for the harsh language which he had given to matrimony, he saith there are two ways of writing, the one gymnastical the other dogmatical; that is, the one that is done for exercise only, the other doctrinal, and plainly setting forth the true doctrine, without contestation. He saith that he had written against Jovinian in the first way; and that such a manner of disputing is loose, acknowledging that his custom is to say one thing and do another, to show bread and hold a stone, that is, to use sly tricks and dissembling. Then he adds the words alleged by the Cardinal, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, have written many thousands of lines against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider what their arguments are, and how slippery the questions, whereby they go about to overthrow that which the spirit of the Devil hath woven. And because sometimes they are forced to say, not what they believe, but that which is necessary; they contradict that which the Gentiles say. By these words Cardinal du Perron would persuade us that Origen when he said so many times that none but God ought to be invocated, spake against his own sense.

But all that we have said before of Jerome, and what shift he was put to when he said this, showeth, that he is not to be believed, and that he doth unjustly put that disgrace upon the Ancients, that they spake against their belief. Jerome having reviled matrimony, and wrested Scripture by a licentiousness hardly to be paralleled, and seeing himself justly blamed for it, he saith for excuse, that he used legerdemain, and dissembling in his words. Then to hide himself in the crowd, he covereth himself with the examples of Origen and others, who (saith he) in their books against the Pagans are constrained to disguise their belief, and speak against their sense. A thing which a good man should never do, choosing rather to die, then to use hypocrisy in such a sacred thing, and to defend the truth with lying. As Job was saying chap. 13. v. 7. Will you speak wickedly for God, and talk deceitfully for him? God having no need of our true words to maintain his glory, should he stand in need of our lies to defend his cause? Must the heavenly truth borrow the Devils weapons? Must we lie to please the God of truth?

But here is worse, for Jerome did not content himself to involve the Fathers more ancient then himself in his fault, but he draweth the Apostle Paul into the same crime, speaking of him as of a crafty companion, and a dissembler. I will bring (saith he) the Apostle Paul for an example, whom whensoever I hear, it seems to me, that I hear not words, but thunders. Read his Epistles, especially those that are written to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in which he is altogether employed in disputing; and you shall see how artificial he is, how crafty in the texts which he brings out of the Old Testament: how prudent, how dissembling of those things which he tends to. They seem to be plain words, and of an innocent and rude man, that knows neither how to lay wiles, nor how to avoid them. But which way soever you look, they are thunderbolts. He stands stiff to the cause: He layeth hold of all that he toucheth. He turns his back to overcome. He maketh a show to fly, that he may kill. Can a godly admirer of this holy Apostle, that excellent organ of God's spirit, hear him so foully abused, and not be moved with a just anger? Was it not enough for Jerome to profess openly, that in his books against Jovinian he had spoken otherwise then he thought, and to cover himself with the example of other Fathers, whom he makes fellows of his disembling, without inwraping Paul also in the same guilt? Must he under a shadow of praises, charge him with craft and dissembling, saying that he is a counterfeit, that turns his back that he may overcome, and flieth that he may kill? Shall we wonder now if the Cardinal who defends himself with such examples, and covers himself with Jerome's authority, makes no conscience to use fraud, and speak against his sense? Austin before us complained of Jerome about this. For in his Epistles to Jerome he reproveth him, because in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Galatians he undertook the defense of untruth, and would make the Apostle Paul a liar, as if the Apostle had used dissembling and officious lies in that Epistle. I have read (saith he) some writings which go for yours, upon the Epistles of the Apostles. When I would have expounded one of them, which is to the Galatians, that place came to my hands, where you say that the Apostle St. Peter was converted [by St. Paul] from his pernicious dissembling. I confess unto you that I am very sorry that such a man as yourself, or any other (if another hath writ it) should undertake the defense of untruth, till the reasons that move me, be confuted, if yet they may be confuted. For this seems to me a most pernicious belief, that any untruth can be found in the holy Scriptures; That is, that those men by whom that Scripture was delivered and written unto us, spake lies in their writings, &c. For if in a book of such eminent authority, an officious lie be acknowledged, no part of those books shall remain, that may not be turned which way soever every man will, &c. Jerome was offended at this, and taking Austin's reprehension in ill part, answered him, that he [Austin] would take upon him to be wise; and that being younger, he ought not to provoke an old man, as Dares did Entellus: And that bos lassus fortiùs figit pedem, that is, a weary Ox sets his foot more steadily. Austin's mildness put an end to that difference, neither of them altering his opinion. Yet Austin had the truth on his side. I wonder why he did not call upon Jerome about many other expressions of his, that speak of the Apostle with contempt, and blame him openly. As in the Epistle to Salvina, where he saith, that the Apostle giving leave to wanton Widows to marry, had given them, praecepta non bona & justificationes pessimas, Ill precepts and most wicked justifications. And in the questions to Algasia, qu. 10. where expounding the ninth chapter to the Romans, in which it is spoken of election and reprobation, he saith, that St. Paul going about to clear that matter, had rather entangled it. Is it with modesty, that in the first book against Jovinian he asketh the Apostle, O Paul cur veretrum gestas? How falsely and unjustly doth he rebuke Paul, as if he had made a false relation, Act. 17. of the Inscription to the unknown God: saying in his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus, that the inscription of the Altar was not such as Paul affirmeth, to the unknown God, but to the God's of Asia, Africa, and Europe, God's unknown and strangers. And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, This man that speaks incongruities, and cannot clear an entangled speech. And upon the Epistle to Titus, It was not humbly, but truly that St. Paul said, that he was ignorant in words. The same he saith in the fore-alleged question to Algasia. And upon the Epistle to the Galatians, Apostolus Galatis, quos stultos dixerat, factus est stultus. The Apostle having called the Galatians, fools, himself was made a fool unto them.

All this will show that the Cardinal is like those flies that sit only upon scabs and ulcers, for he seeks that which is vicious in the Fathers, and adorneth himself with their ordure.

CHAP. 11. Of the opinion of those that condemn not invocation of Saints, but think it unnecessary.

THere are some who seeing that God in his word commands not the invocation of Saints, and that under the Old Testament, and many Ages after the Apostles, neither example nor trace is found of any adoration or invocation of religious service deferred unto the creatures, take a middle way; saying, that one may content himself to pray to God alone by Jesus Christ, and let the invocation of Saints alone, so that he condemn not them that call upon them, but join with the public order of the Church meekly, and without contestation, everyone doing in private what seemeth him good.

They that speak thus, forge to themselves a religion apart, and directly oppose the Roman Church, which obligeth every particular person to call upon Saints. It is the decision of Pope Innocent the third in the ninth chapter of the third book of the mysteries of the Mass, The suffrage of Saints is necessary to us while we are in the way, that by their merits and prayers we may be fenced with the divine protection.

We have shown before how that after the Pope hath canonized a Saint, he gives a command to all people to invocate him, and address their prayers unto him. From which command, who so will exempt himself, disobeyeth him that calls himself Head of the Church, and boasteth that he cannot err in the faith. Besides, the invocation of Saints is inserted in the public service of the Roman Church, and makes a part of the most solemn Masses, as the Mass of Easter Eve where the Litanies of Saints are said; Which prayers oblige the people to say Amen, either with the mouth or with the heart, unto all that the Priest saith.

Should the Priests or Bishops be obliged to pray to the Saints, and the people exempted from that obligation? Or should the people be obliged to pray to the Saints in public, not in private?

Truly if it be lawful for one to dispense himself from joining with the Priest when he prayeth to the Saints in the Mass, it will be lawful for him also to reject that prayer in the Canon of the Mass, whereby the Priest asketh the grace of God by the merits of the Saints, and to despise the satisfactions of the Saints, which the Pope distributeth by his Indulgences.

And whereas the first ground of the Roman Church is not the Holy Scripture, but the authority of the Roman Church; who so professeth the Roman Religion, and yet dispenseth himself in a point ruled and established by the Roman Church; believeth that the Roman Church can err, and makes himself Judge of that Church, and having no more the authority of the Church for a foundation, and for an infallible rule, and together not grounding himself upon Scripture, he hath no more ground for his religion but his fancy and his own will.

CHAP. 12. The opinion of the Fathers about invocation of Saints, from the year of the Lord 365. unto the IV. Council.

THis question is ended already, since the Cardinal confesseth that in Austin's time, who died in the year 430. or thereabout it was a thing yet dubious, and not decided whether the Saints enjoy heavenly glory before the resurrection; Which doubt maketh (of necessity) the invocation of Saints dubious. We have seen also that Jerome who was a disciple of Gregory Nazianzen, believed that the Saints hear not what we say to them, and have no knowledge of human things: And that Austin saith the same in many places: Also that Gregory Nazianzen, who of all the Fathers is the first that called upon the deceased Saints, makes a doubt whether those whom he called upon, heard him. For these causes it is unnecessary to examine all the testimonies of the Fathers of the latter Ages, of which the Cardinal is pouring a thick hail upon us, since the former Ages are contrary to that doctrine, and the posterior Ages speak of it with so much uncertainty.

It is also to be noted, that although since the year 375. some private persons, especially in Cappadocia, were carried away by that error, yet the invocation of Saints was not therefore received in the public service.

In the Fathers of the fourth and fifth ages many places are found contrary to the invocation of Saints. Ambrose in the Oration upon the death of Theodosius, saith, Thou alone O Lord must be invocated and prayed to. Which must be taken as a correction of that he had said in the first Tome in the book of Widows, where he saith, that we must pray to Angels and Martyrs. For when he writ that book of Widows, he was but a new Christian: It was but three years after his Baptism. But his Oration upon Theodosius was made long after, and a little before his death. For Theodosius died in the year of the Lord 395. Ambrose having already continued Bishop of Milan about fifteen years.

Himself in the third book of the Holy Ghost, chap. 12. speaks thus, Mary was the Temple of God, but she was not God. Wherefore that God alone must be adored, who wrought in that Temple. And a little before, We read not that any must be adored but God. For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. There or nowhere he should have used the distinction of dulia and latria, and of superior and inferior religious worship, that the Virgin Mary should not be excluded from all adoration: But he knew no such distinction.

Among the works of Ambrose there is a Comment upon the Epistle to the Romans, of which Comment the Cardinal goeth about to invalid the authority, but with weak proofs. But it is all one to us who is the Author of that Comment, since our Adversaries have put it among Ambrose his works, and make use of it. There the Author, upon the first chapter to the Romans, disputing against the Pagans who by the creatures, and by the stars especially, pretended to go to God, as they go to the King by his Officers and Governors calls that a miserable excuse. Then he adds For this cause they go to the King by his Colonels and Governors, because the King is a man, and knows not to whom he ought to commit the government of the Commonwealth. But to get God's favor to whom nothing is hidden (for he knows that which all men deserve) there is no need of any that help you with his suffrage, but of a devout spirit, for wheresoever such a man shall speak to God, God will answer him. There is in the Latin, suffragatore non opus est, to which word the Cardinal giveth an absurd interpretation, saying that it signifieth a Counselor. Everyone that hath some taste of the Latin tongue will smile at this, knowing that this word was never taken in that sense. The votes of every Roman Citizen in the comitia or City meetings were called suffragia; and he who helped or favored any with his vote, was called his suffragatour. Now it is clear, that the Author of this book speaks of Colonels and Governors or Comites, which are used as Intercessors, not as Counselors.

In the same Father in the eighty fifth Epistle, which is the last, it is spoken of the bodies of St. Gernasius, and St. Protasius which were found. Of these the Author of the book speaks, as of the Patrons of the Church and City where they rested. But besides that in that Epistle there is not a word of invocation of Saints, it is evident that this Epistle is supposititious, and written long after Ambrose's time. For it is said in the same place, that these bodies were transported in Basilicam Ambrosianam, that is, as they speak in our days, into the Church of St. Ambrose. Or if by Basilica Ambrosiana some Church built by Ambrose is understood, it is certain that Ambrose would never have called it so. In Ambrose his life, and a long time after, there was no Church bearing the name of St. Ambrose. The ninety first Sermon is of the same Author that writ that Epistle, and no less supposititious, as many other Sermons and Books attributed to Saint Ambrose, for that holy man's works are strangely falsified.

We have brought before some places of Chrysostom, in which he saith that the souls of the deceased Saints do not yet enjoy the heavenly felicity, and shall not receive the crown before the resurrection. A certain proof that he did not call upon the Saints, since he doubted of their happy state.

The same Father in the fourth Sermon of penitence speaks thus, When we have a suit to a man, we must address ourselves first to the Porters, and solicit the Parasites, and flatterers, and take a long way about. But with God there is no such thing; For he is entreated without an intercessor, without money, and without expense, he inclineth to the petition: It is sufficient to pray to him with the heart, and to offer tears to him, &c.

The same God is always near hand. If thou wilt petition to a man, Thou askest what he doth? They say unto thee, he is asleep, he is busy. A servant answereth thee nothing. With God there is no such thing. Wheresoever you go and call, he hears. There is neither business, nor intercessor, nor servant that stop thy way. Say only Have mercy upon me, and presently God comes near.

In the same place See the Philosophy of that woman, She prayeth not to James, she is not a supplicant to John, she applieth not herself to Peter, but she breaks thorough the crowd. I need no intercessor (saith she) but taking penitence for mine advocate, I come to the very spring, because for that is he come down, for that hath he taken flesh, that I also may speak with him, &c. I need no intercessor, have mercy upon me.

The same upon the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hom. 3, Why do you gape after Angels? They are servants to the son of God, and are sent to divers places for our sakes.

The same Chrysostom upon Gen. 19. Hom. 44. speaking of the Canaanitish woman, to which the intercession of the Apostles availed nothing, and which made her address unto Christ himself. We were constrained (saith he) to bring this whole story, that we might learn that we speed not so well praying by others, as when we pray ourselves; so that we aproach with zeal, and with an erected mind. Behold how this woman having the Disciples interceding for her, sped not the better for that, until her own self persevering with patience, drew the benignity of the Master. Those Saints of whose intercession he speaks are the living, not the dead Saints.

Himself upon Matth. 15. Hom. 52. Consider how the Apostles being turned back, and having not prevailed, she obtained it, so powerful is obstinacy in prayer. For God delights more to be prayed to for our necessities by ourselves that are guilty, then by others that pray for us.

But he is most express especially in the eighteenth Homily upon the Epistle to the Romans, Unto whom shalt thou fly? Whom wilt thou call upon to fight for thy cause, and help thee? Shall it be to Abraham? But he shall not hear thee: Shall it be to these Virgins? But they also shall impart none of their oil unto thee. Shalt thou call upon thy Father or thy Grand-father? But none of them, how holy soever, hath the power to alter that judgment. These things being considered, worship and pray to him alone, who hath the power to blot out thine obligation, and quench that flame.

And in another place Thou hast no need of intercessors with God, nor of much running about, nor of flattering others. But though thou be alone and without a Patron, by praying to God by thyself, thou shalt obtain [thy request] altogether. He useth not to grant so, being called upon for us by others, as being entreated by ourselves, though we be filled with a thousand adversities. And the same words he repeats six or seven times in that Homily.

I will add one testimony again of that Father in the ninth Homily upon the Epistle to the Colossians, where he saith that the Devil envying the honor we have to address ourselves, hath brought in the service of the Angels. For this cause (saith he) the Devil envying us hath brought in Angels. Such are the enchantments [of Devils:] Though it were an Angel, though it were an Arch-angel, though they were Cherubims, Do not suffer it. For neither will those powers receive [that honor:] but will reject it, when they see their Master dishonored thereby. I have honored thee (saith God) and have said call, upon me, and dost thou dishonor him?

After so many express declarations, it is hard to believe that this holy man called upon Saints and Angels: seeing that he showeth in other places his not believing that the deceased do yet enjoy the glory of God. But some Organ of Satan the Father of lying hath thrust in some false writings that commend the invocation of Saints among this Fathers works. Such is Chrysostom's Liturgy; a piece so evidently false, that in it there is mention of Chrysostom among the deceased Saints. There also another prayer is found ill suiting with that, set down in these words, We offer unto thee this reasonable sacrifice for our Ancestors, who are resting in the faith, for the Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, &c. and even for the Virgin Mary: for all which, our Adversaries hold that one ought not to pray. I easily believe that Chrysostom framed a Liturgy. But it is of that as of Calepins Dictionary, which suffers a perpetual addition, and yet retaineth still its first name.

In the same Fathers works, there is one false piece inserted, of such gross and evident falsehood, that it can hardly deceive. It is in the end of the twenty sixth Homily upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where it is said, that the Emperor himself comes to the sepulchers of the Saints, and kisseth them, and laying down pride, beseecheth them to be his helpers before God: So that he that weareth the crown prayeth to a tentmaker and to a fisherman, both of them dead, that they would be his Advocates towards God. If the curious Reader will take the pains to consult the book, and to read the three last pages of that Homily, he shall find that besides the diversity of the style, and the doctrine (contrary to that of Chrysostom ) full of absurdity and ignorance, there is no connection at all with the precedent discourse, and nothing common with the matter in hand, like stones thrown at random, which stuck there by chance. That place which I affirm to be false, begins at the top of the nine hundred twenty eighth page of Commelins Edition, with these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. And in the Latin Sic enim etiam idolorum cultus. In the lines before Chrysostom exhorteth the godly to suffer for Christ, saying that God will by sufferings bring us to heavenly glory. Then begins this absurd discourse abruptly. For thus Idolatry got strength, by too much admiring men, as when the Roman Senate decreed that Alexander should be the thirteenth God. For they had the power to make God's by their suffrage, and to put them in the list of the God's. For when all the things done by Christ, were announced at Rome, he that governed the Nation of the Jews, sent to Rome to ask counsel, whether it pleased them to make Christ God also. Which they refused, being angry and incensed, because without expecting their decree, the power of the crucifix shining everywhere, had drawn all the world to the veneration of the same. Hath any man so little freedom of judgment left, as not to see the silliness of that discourse, which hangs not upon that which went before, and is stuffed with absurdities unworthy of so great a man? For whoever heard that by the decree of the Roman Senate King Alexander was put among the God's? or that he had a Temple at Rome, and religious service deferred unto him? or that a Grecian scarce known at Rome, but by hear-say in his life time, should be put among the God's by the Romans many ages after his death? But what can be more absurd, then to say that Alexander was made the thirteenth God by the Senate? As though the Senate did keep a set number of God's, and each God in his order. But who is that Prince or Governor of the Jewish Nation, who informed the Senate of the virtues of Jesus Christ, and required that he should be put among the God's? It could not be Pilate, for in that place it is said, that the power of Christ had in that time drawn all the earth to his obedience. And it could be none else but Pilate, for when the Gospel began to spread over the world, the Nation of the Jews had neither Governor nor Prince, seeing that they were fugitive and scattered over all the earth; And the Emperor and Senate were so far from deliberating whether they should make Christ a God, that they persecuted the Christians with all their power. The rest of the discourse is filled with the like absurdities: As when the Author proveth the resurrection of the dead, because Alexander never thought of it: And his affirming that none can show Alexanders sepulcher, and that nobody knoweth where he lieth: seeing that it is a common thing in the books of Historiographers, that the body and tomb of Alexander were in Alexandria of Egypt. By that Quintus Curtius ended his History, and Suetonius in the life of Octavius Augustus saith the same.

Of the like stuff is that which he addeth, that the Emperor Constantine after his death, is a porter of the Fisher-men's Temple. Whence he inferreth, that the enemies of Christian Religion, must learn that Fisher-men shall have a greater dignity then Emperors in the day of the resurrection, seeing that Emperors in their sepulchers are in the place of servants, and Fisher-men in the place of Masters. Can anything be more remote from the wit and learning of Chrysostom, then that ridiculous piece of work, which is contrary to so many true works of that holy man? Who doubts but that many the like pieces of base metal were put among the writings of the Fathers, and go for true metal, because the falsehood is not easy to be known? For we have the mos part of their books from the hands of our Adversaries, out of the manuscripts of Friars, and out of their Libraries.

In the sixth Homily upon the first chapter of Matthew, he saith, that we are much sooner heard by our prayers, then by the intercession of others: And he proveth it by the example of the Canaanitish woman, and of the repenting Thief crucified with Christ, and of the Adulteress, who made their address unto Christ without any man's intercession. Then he adds, And this we say, not because we ought not to call upon the Saints. But there it is clear that he speaks of the living Saints, not of the deceased, for he commendeth the Canaanitish woman for not imploring the intercession of the Apostles, who were living. But as for the deceased Saints, Chrysostom in Hom. 18. upon the Epistle to the Romans saith, that they hear not our prayers.

Bellarmine in the fourth chapter of the book of Relicks falsely allegeth Chrysostom's Homily upon Juventius and Maximus, making him say Tumulos martyrum adoremus. Let us adore the sepulchers of the Martyrs. There is in the Greek Let us touch their tomb, and embrace their relics with confidence. Of Adoration he speaks not at all: and the confidence that he speaks of, is confidence • n God.

I deny not but that in the same time that error of the invocation of Saints began to creep into some Churches, in Cappadocia especially, where that superstition seemeth to have sprung first. That is seen in Basils writings, who about the year 375. in the Homily of the forty Martyrs, saith, that the people had their recourse unto them: Which is a place falsified in all the versions of our Adversaries; for they say ad hos confugiat & hos or •• , instead of ad hos confugit & hos orat. For Basil saith only that which was done in some place of Cappadocia, not that which ought to be done.

At the same time, and in the same Country Gregory Nazianzen was writing. In whose books prayers are extant to St. Basil, and St. Athanasius. But we have seen also that he speaks to deceased Saints, doubting whether they hear what he saith to them, and whether they have any knowledge of things done here below. But the same Athanasius whom he prayeth to, had powerfully impugned the invocation of Saints, as we have proved it by many of his expressions. To which these must be added, which are found in the fourth Oration against the Arians, where he condemneth those who in their prayers join the Angels, or some other creature with God. There is none (saith he) that would ask by prayers to receive something of the Father, and of the Angels, or of any other creature. None would say, God and the Angel give thee. But he shall ask of the Father and the Son, because they are but one. And a little after, David did not call for his deliverance upon any other but God. In our days we hear nothing else among the Romanists but praying to God, and his Mother, asking of God and St. Rock: Such speeches would have been very odious among the Ancients.

Some places in St. Austin seem to assert the invocation of Saints. In the book of the Spirit and of the Soul, there is a prayer to the Saints. But that book is supposititious. For in it Boetius is alleged, who was not born when Austin died. The book of heremitical life speaks of the service of the Virgin Mary, and calls her the Queen of heaven. But that book also is not of Austin, for it speaks of the rule of St. Benedict, which was made about fourscore years after Austin's death.

In chap. 24. of the book of Meditations, which is in the ninth Tome of Austin, there is a prayer to the Saints. But that book is spurious. Posidonius who writ Austin's life, hath made a Catalogue of his works, where that book is not found. The style of it is far more concise then that of Austin, and hath many barbarisms, as chap. 4. Deus praestabilis super malitiam: and chap. 12. Honorifico te pro scire & posse. And in the prayer to the Saints, he calls the Saints festivos, that is, pleasant and merry. Wherefore Bellarmine in the book of Ecclesiastical Writers, put these Meditations among the uncertain books, and dares not father them upon Austin. These visibly false pieces make us doubt of the truth of some others. For if these marks of falsehood were not found in these books, they would go for good and lawful.

The Cardinal begins his Treatise of • nvocation of Saints by a text of Austin, which he sets in the front of his book as most pregnant. The Christian people (saith Austin in book 20. against Faustus Manichean, chap. 21.) celebrate by a religious solemnity the memory of Martyrs, to be associated to their merits.

That place may be employed for the commemoration of Martyrs, to show that they pray for us, but not at all to show that they must be prayed to. He speaks of the memory of Martyrs, and of their imitation, and of the intercession whereby they pray for us, but not at all of the invocacion, which is or should be deferred unto them. So much is evident in the following words, which the Cardinal according to his custom, to clip the tongue of the Fathers, would not allege. For Austin having said, that no offering was made to Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian, he adds, Colimus Martyrs eo cultu dilectionis & societatis quo & in hac vita coluntur homines sancti Dei. We honor the Martyrs with the same service of love and society as the Saints of God are honored in this life. This must be observed. For none calls upon a Saint, or deferreth a religious service unto him while he is in this life. Austin saith indeed, that this service of love and society is yielded unto Martyrs with more certainty and affection. But he saith that it is the same kind of honor and reverence.

We have brought many testimonies out of Austin's books, some showing that he held that the Saints see not our actions, some that he believed not that they enjoy as yet the heavenly glory.

In the twenty second book of th • City of God, chap. 10. after he hath said that no Temples are built unto Martyrs, that no Altars are erected unto them, and that no sacrifices are offered unto them; he adds that in the public service, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat invocantur. They are named in their place and rank, yet the Priest that sacrificeth doth not invocate them. The Roman Church doth the contrary; for in some Masses the Litany is said, in which a long list of Saints is invocated, especially the Mass of the Saturday before Easter. Also Temples are edified and consecrated unto Saints. In great Cities you shall see a multitude of Churches, that bear the name of the Saints, in whose honor they were built, as that of St. Nicasius, St. Anthony, St. Gervas, &c. Altars likewise are dedicated and consecrated unto Saints, whose relics are under the table of the Altar. That is expressly set down in the Roman Pontifical, in the chapter of the dedication or consecration of Churches, where it is constituted, that on the day of the dedication, the Bishop shall put the relics under the Altar with three grains of frankincense, and put in a note, with these words. In the year 1611. upon such a day of the month. I N. Bishop of N, have consecrated thi • Church and Altar to the honor of such or such a Saint, and have enclosed in it the relics of such or such Martyrs, and have this day given a year of true Indulgence unto all the faithful [servants] of Christ, and upon the anniversary day of the consecration, forty days of indulgence unto all that visit the same. These are new coined fopperies, of which no trace is found in all Antiquity. The Antient Church was so far from invocating the Sains at the Altar, that they did not suffer that Christ should be expressly invocated there. The twenty third Canon of the third Council of Carthage, held in the year 399. is express upon that, When one stands by the Altar, let his prayer be always directed to the Father.

The same Austin in the one hundred and fourteenth chapter of his Manual, We must ask of none but God alone, the good which we hope to do, or that which we hope to attain unto by our good works.

The same in the book of the quantity of the soul, God alone must be served by the soul, for he alone is the Creator of the same. But every man, how wise and perfect soever he be, and generally every glorified rational creature must be only loved and imitated. Mark these words must be only loved and imitated, for to yield unto the Saints a religious service, which they now call dulia, and to invocate them, is more then loving and imitating them.

The same in the last chapter of the book of true Religion, Let us not apply our Religion, to yield service unto the dead. For if they have led a holy life, we have no such opinion of them, that they seek such an honor. But they will have us to serve him, by whose illumination they rejoice that we are fellows of their merit. They must then be honored for imitation, not worshipped for Religion.

Himself in the book of heresies, ad Quod vult Deum, puts the Angelicks among the heretics: And the heresy that he chargeth them with, is, that they were addicted to the service of Angels.

And in chap. 10. of the confessions, chap. 42. He speaks thus unto God, Whom could I find that should make my peace with thee? Should I have gone to the Angels? By what prayers? By what Sacraments? Many endeavoring to return unto thee, and not being able to do it of themselves, have (as I hear) tried those ways, and are fallen into a desire of curious visions, and were thought worthy to be deceived with illusions.

In chap. 5. & 6. he showeth that the true sacrifices are the inward, even those of a contrite and humbled heart, also praises and prayers; and so defineth the sacrifice, That it is every kind of good work whereby we adhere unto God, and tend unto blessedness. Whence he inferreth in the seventh chapter that we must not offer sacrifices unto Angels, and that themselves will have no such service as a sacrifice: for hence it followeth, that they will not be invocated, since invocation is a sacrifice. And in the sixteenth chapter, The Angels say, that all that service is due to one God only. And in chap. 17. In the Law it is commanded to serve the only God of God's with a religious service. And in the twenty sixth chapter, Is it credible that the Angels whose ministry it is to declare the will of the Father, will have us to subject ourselves to any but to him, whose will they announce?

Epiphanius in the heresy of the Collyridians, which is the seventy ninth, doth severely rebuke some women that offered Cakes unto the Virgin Mary calling her Queen of heaven, the same title which the idolatrous Jews gave to an Idol (as we read Jer. 44.) and which the Roman Church giveth to the Virgin Mary. The Cardinal, page 1017. saith that those women worshipped the Virgin Mary with the adoration of latria, which is the honor due to God alone, and offered her sacrifices, which the Roman Church doth not. Although it be not like, that Christians ever believed that a woman whom they knew to have been both born and dead, was the sovereign God, or equal unto God. Nevertheless supposing a thing so unlike to be true, yet Epiphanius chiding those women, takes thence occasion to say such things as evidently condemn that which is done in these days in the Roman Church: for by teaching how, and how far it is lawful to honor the holy Virgin, he condemneth all them that transgress those limits. These are his words, Certainly the body of Mary was holy, but she was not God: Certainly the Virgin was a Virgin, and honorable; but she was not given to be worshipped, but she worshippeth him that was begotten of her flesh. And a little after, Let Mary be honored, but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be worshipped. Let nobody adore Mary, I say not a woman, but not a man neither. Unto God that mystery is due, the Angels themselves are not capable of that honor; placing the Angels above the holy Virgin. Yea, he goeth so far, that to repress that abuse, he speaks of the holy Virgin in terms which border upon contempt. If (saith he) God permitteth not the very Angels to be worshipped, h • w much less should he have permitted, that such an honor should have been deferred to Anne's daughter, which was given by Joakim to Anne, but was not otherwise begotten, but after the nature of men? He doth especially condemn that title o • Queen of heaven. Let Jeremiah (saith he) repress those simple women. Let them trouble the earth no more, Let them say no more, We honor the Queen of heaven.

As for Jerome, we have brought many very express testimonies out of his books, whereby he declareth his opinion, that the Saints, neither hear nor see human things.

In his fourth book upon the Prophet Ezekiel, chap. 14. he speaks thus, If there be confidence [to be put] in any▪ let us put our confidence in God, for cursed is the man that puts his trust in man, though they be Saints, though they be Prophets. And in the Comment upon the Proverbs, which is put among his works, lib. 1. cap. 2. We ought not to invocate, that is, call any towards us by prayers but God alone.

Vigilantius accused some superstitious persons, who in his time worshipped the Martyrs and their relics. Against him Jerome writes thus, according to his wonted meekness, Thou mad-headed fellow, whoever worshipped the Martyrs? whoever believed that a man was God? And in his Epistle to Riparius, As for us, we neither serve nor worship, I say not the relics of the Martyrs, but not the Sun himself, nor the Moon, nor the Angels, and Archangels, nor the Cherubims and Seraphims, nor any name which is named in this present age, and in that which is to come. For fear that we should rather serve the creature then the Creator, who is blessed for evermore. It is observable, that according to Jerome's opinion, if the Martyrs and their relics were to be adored, the Sun much rather ought to be adored, which nevertheless the Roman Church worshippeth not, but adoreth the bones and relics of the Saints, with a furious devotion.

There is a place of Jerome towards the end of the Epitaph of Paula, which the Cardinal hath never done alleging. Where he speaks thus to Paula, Fare well Paula! help with thy prayers the extreme old age of thine honourer. Thy faith and thy works associate thee with Christ. Being present thou shalt more easily obtain what thou askest. But it is easy to see that it is a rhetorical Apostrophe, whereby he speaks to Paula, and commends himself to her, as if she were living still, and near death, for we bid not them farewell that are already in Paradise, but them that are near their departure, and these words in the future, thou shalt obtain what thou askest, show that he speaks of the prayer which Paula was not yet in case to make, but which she should make afterwards.

M. du Perron in chap. 4. of the Treatise of the invocation of Saints, falsifies a place of Gregory Nazianzen in the funeral Oration upon Basil, and he makes Gregory to speak thus to Basil. But thou, O divine head, look upon us yet from heaven, and command that Satan's sting which was given us to afflict us may be removed. There is in the Greek Stop by thine intercession that thorn in the flesh, which was given us by God. He giveth not to Basil the power of commanding, as the Cardinal translateth.

We must also remember, that this Gregory was the first of the Fathers, in whose writings some prayers to the Saints are found, yet mingled with doubting whether the Saints hear them, as we shown before. Now he writ about the year of the Lord 380.

The Cardinal musters up with great noise, testimonies out of Theodoret in the book of the affections of the Grecians, and out of Gregory of Nyssa in the Oration upon the Martyr Theodorus, and out of Cyrillus in his mystagogical Catecheses, and some verses of Prudentius and Paulinus. I might answer, that it is doubtful whether that book be Theodorets, seeing that Photios in his Library, and Nicephorus in the Ecclesiastical history, book 14. chap. 54. making the enumeration of the works of Theodoret, speak not of that book.

I might say also, that the loose and lank style of the Oration upon the Martyr Theodorus, differs very much from that of Gregory of Nyssa, which is nervous and elaborate; and that the narrative of the martyrdom of Theodorus is manifestly fabulous. There it is said, that this Theodorus was Jobs country-man, that is, an Arabian, or Idumean, and was a common soldier in Dioclesians time. Being accused of being a Christian, he answereth with words of contempt, comparing the Goddess which the Judges worshipped, to a Hare or a Sowe. That was enough to send him to the execution, in a time when whole Cities were extermined for religion, and thousands of people were massacred without any form of justice. Yet the Judges flatter him, and send him back, and allow him time to think upon it. He instead of withdrawing himself, sets the Temple of the mother of God's on fire. Being brought back to the judgment seat, The Judges instead of punishing him for a crime, among the Pagans unpardonable, give him fair words, and promise that common soldier to make him an High Priest. He upon that, falls to loud laughter, and begins to abuse the Emperors, who took upon them the title and the purple of High Priests. The Angels sing melodiously with him in prison, and make processions with torches over all the Town. All that looks like a fable, and hath much of the style of Legends.

I could say also that the five mystagogical Catecheses, ascribed to Cyrillus of Jerusalem, are none of his. Their style is far more concise then that of the eighteen other Catecheses. In the first Catechesis the Author dissuadeth the people from frequenting the Hippodrom; but there was no Hippodrom in Jerusalem. In the whole Roman Empire there was none but in the capital Cities of the Empire, as Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and some few Towns where the Roman Legions wintered. In the same place he dehorteth the people from beholding the hunting and killing of beasts in the Amphitheatre. But there was no Amphitheatre at Jerusalem.

I could say also that Poets are no good Judges in points of faith, that they allow much license to themselves, and that if they were not liars, they should not be Poets. But let us grant that all these books are true and none spurious, and that these Poets have used no fiction. Yet these Authors were men subject to fail, and though we had no word of God, which is the only rule of our faith, yet the Fathers of the three first Ages, and of the greatest part of the fourth, are of contrary opinion, and those Fathers that came since contradict one another, and speak doubtfully, and will unsay what they have said, as we have fully proved.

I will add to that I said before, an observation upon a place of Epiphanius, haeres. 75. which the Cardinal corrupteth with a notorious depravation. He makes Epiphanius to say, that in the commemoration which we make of the dead, we mention the just, to distinguish them from Christ. And these just he will have to be those Saints that are invocated and desired to pray for us; Which is not done unto Christ, for the Roman Church prayeth not to Christ to pray for us; Their Litany of the Saints saith, Sancte Petre ora pro nobis, Sancte Gregori ora pro nobis: But to Christ it saith, Christ audi nos. Fili Redemptor miserere nobis, as devesting him of the Office of intercessor making request for us. The Jesuit Salmeron saith this plainly in the eighth Dispute upon the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, The Catholics say not, Christ pray for us, lest they should seem to put two persons in Christ, as Nestorius doth. Again, We invocate Christ as God, not as man: that is, as Judge, not as Mediator. For the Roman Church holds that he is not Mediator, as he is man.

But to return to the Cardinal, I say that he is mistaken, if he think that by those just, Epiphanius understands the Saints, that are invocated, for he speaks of the just and faithful which are prayed for, as it appears by these words which follow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the prayer made for them doth them good. And that which M. du Perron presupposeth in this place is false, that in the time of Epiphanius the Saints were invocated in the public service.

I will conclude by the confessions of our Adversaries. Martin Perez, a famous Doctor among them, speaks thus, That before the Martyr Cornelius no mention is found of the invocation and intercession of Saints (at least for anything that I could see) perhaps the humility and modesty of the Apostles hath been the cause of it. For what might have been the conceit of those that heard them say so much, (namely that the Saints must be invocated) but that they did promise great things of themselves, and made almost God's of themselves? Then he addeth, They were diligently employed about the preaching of the Gospel, and about other things which concern more the substance of salvation. This Cornelius died the 250. year of the Lord. Wherefore this Doctor might have added 125. or 130. years more. For we have shown that before the year of the Lord 375. no trace of the invocation of Saints is found in the Fathers. Which M. du Perron hath freely acknowledged.

The Jesuit Salmeron in the seventh Dispute upon 1 Tim. 2. finding no abettors in Scripture for the invocation of Saints, defends himself thus, Seeing that before Christ's coming, the entry into heaven was not yet open, and the godly were detained in the Limbus, and were not perfect in holiness or felicity; hence it comes that few testimonies of just truth are found. The Gospels also describe the life and passion of Christ, and because in that time they were not yet happy, therefore nothing express to that purpose is found, as also nothing about that is found in Paul's Epistles, nor in the Canonical Epistles, which have been written for other ends. Only he goeth about to prove by the Revelation, that the Saints pray for us: A thing which we do not deny.

In the same place, In the Old Law, and in the New Testament no command is found of calling upon the Saints.

The Jesuit Peter Cotton in the first book of the Catholic institution, chap. 16. As for a command of praying and invocating the Saints, the Church never taught that there was any, but as far as we are all commanded to obey the Church. He acknowledgeth that God did not command the invocation of Saints, but that the Roman Church commands it, which must be obeyed. But God hath not commanded us to obey the Roman Church more then the Greek or Syrian. And these words, Tell it unto the Church, &c. Matthew 18. speak not of the judgment of the Universal Church about the doctrine: but of the authority of the Pastors of a particular Church, to compound quarrels between two brothers.

CHAP. 13. What honor is due to Angels and deceased Saints, and of the worship of dulia and latria.

THE ordinary distinctions of our Adversaries in this point are, that the Saints are Mediators of intercession, not of redemption; and that unto them we must not defer the worship of latria, which they affirm to belong unto God alone; but that they must be worshipped with the worship of dulia, which is an inferior worship, and a relative religion, as the Cardinal calls it. In all his Treatise of the Invocation of Saints, he deferreth no other service of religion to the Saints, but to beseech them that they would pray for us; Wherein he seems to be ashamed of the belief of his Church, which goes far beyond that: For they ask salvation of God, not only by the intercession of the Saints, but also by their merits. It is the ordinary prayer in the Mass, where the Priest asketh God's help and protection by the prayers and merits of the Saints, as if the Saints by their good works had merited salvation for us. And which is more, the Roman Church believeth that the sufferings of the Saints are satisfactory for others, and that the Pope layeth up the overplus of their satisfactions and labors unto the Churches Treasure (whereof himself keeps the keys,) and distributes it into others by his Indulgences. Being thus made to pay for us, they are made in some sort our Redeemers, as Bellarmine doth acknowledge it in the fourth chapter of the first book of Indulgences. Wherefore they that pray to the Saints, content not themselves to beseech them to pray for us, but they ask of them to be healed from sicknesses. Vows and offerings are made unto them, to obtain of them the success of some voyage, or important business. The Hymn of the Virgin Mary which is commonly and publicly used, hath these words, Mary Mother of grace, Mother of mercy, be thou our protection against the enemy, and receive us in the hour of death. That is not praying, that she pray for us.

The Offices attributed to the Saints testify the same. For one that believeth that the Saints do us no other good, but to pray for us, will not address himself to St. Nicholas, rather then to another Saint, to have a good wind upon the Sea, seeing that any other Saint might ask that of God as well as he. But they believe that St. Nicholas can appease the Sea, and give a happy navigation. And the title of Queen of heaven, attributed to the Virgin Mary, ascribes to her the power of commanding which is much more then praying for us▪ The Ancients recommended the reading of the Psalms unto the people. And Jerome in the Epistle to Laeta, adviseth her to make her daughter Paula to read them. But now instead of the Psalms, they give to simple women the Hours of the Virgin Mary, of which no mention is made in Antiquity. Then the adoration of the relics of the Saints is performed with so much fervor by the people, that the service done to God, is cold in comparison. Of which Ludovicus Vives complaineth in his Annotations upon book 8. of the City of God, chap. 27. Many Christians do often sin in a good thing, venerating Saints of both sexes, no otherwise then they serve God himself. Neither do I see in many of them, what difference there is between their opinion concerning the Saints, and that which the Pagans held of their God's. It is clear, that they that vow themselves unto Saints, or make unto them vows and promises to make pilgrimages to their shrines, or to pay them offerings, do more then to pray to the Saints, that they would pray to God for them.

Then to come to that title of Mediators of intercession, which is given to the Saints, the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 2.5. acknowledgeth but one Mediator between God and men, There is one God, and one Meditour between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. If upon the word Mediator it is lawful to make distinctions between one Mediator of Redemption, and the other of Intercession, one may use the same license upon the name of God, and so make many God's. But that distinction of two sorts of Mediator, ought to be found in the word of God, not forged in ones brains: And it is forged without reason: For we call him a Mediator of intercession, that receiveth our requests, and presents them unto God. To do so much, he must hear our prayers, and know our heart: Which we have shown to be impossible unto the deceased Saints.

Some petty Sophists will have it translated, there is one God, not there is one only God, as the French Geneva Bible hath it; and there is one Mediator, not there is one only Mediator. But that man is deeply ignorant, that knows not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek and unus in Latin signify unicus, one only, and not many. The French version of the Doctors of Lovain, approved by the Jesuits, expound it so, 1 Tim. 3.2. there is in the vulgar version Oportet Episcopum esse unius uxoris virum: The Lovain Doctors expound, Il faut que l' Euesque soit mari dune seule femme, The Bishop must be the husband of one only wife. And 1 Cor. 12.11. There is in the vulgar version, Haec omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus, where the same Doctors translate One only and the same spirit doth all these things. And Eph. 4.5. these words unum corpus, unus Spiritus, unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma, are thus translated in the same version. There is but one body, and one Spirit, There is but one Lord, one faith, one Baptism: We may then translate here in the same manner, There is but one God, and but one Mediator.

The words of the Apostle are very considerable, for he saith, there is one only God, and one only Mediator betwteen God and men. This word between showeth evidently that he speaks of a Mediator of intercession. For it would be improperly spoken to say, that Christ is Redeemer between God and men. Yet that one might not think that Christ intercedeth only by prayer for us towards his Father, the Apostle addeth, that he gave himself a ransom for all.

Which two sorts of being a Mediator towards God, who so will seriously consider, shall find that in Christ they are one and the same thing: For even in this Christ intercedes for us that he satisfieth for us, and that God in consideration of his death receiveth us to mercy, and accepteth our prayers. So much we learn of St. John, 1 John 2.1. & 2. We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, This word Advocate is as good as a Mediator of intercession. But that one may know wherein that intercession consisteth, he addeth, And he is the propitiation for our sins: Then his mediation of intercession consisteth in his being the propitiation for our sins, which is the mediation of redemption.

The Mosaiel Law brings us to that; For under the Law the High Priest, a figure of Christ, was typically a Mediator both of intercession and redemption, and there was no other ordinary Mediator of intercession.

The whole Gospel brings us to that; Christ saith John 14. I am the way, the truth and the life; None cometh to the Father, but by me. And Rom. 5.17. They shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. It is the privilege of children, that they need no Mediator to speak to their Father. Having the Son of God for our Mediator of intercession (for St. Paul saith, Rom. 8.34. that he makes intercession for us ) we have no need of any other recommendation with God. Though thou shouldst be the unworthiest man of the world, yet when God calleth thee, thou must go straight to him: Now God calls us, saying, Come unto me all that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matth. 11.28. Call upon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver thee, Psal. 50.15.

It will not serve to say, that God in his word, will have the living to pray for one another, and that God sends Jobs friends to his intercession to obtain their pardon: For the prayer of the living for us, hath nothing common with the invocation of the deceased Saints. When we commend ourselves to the prayers of our friends, we yield no religious service to them, and bow not the knee before them in the Church: We acknowledge them not as searchers of hearts, or Mediators between God and men; And that prayer is a mutual and reciprocal office between us, which is not between us and the Saints. In a word God commanded us to pray for one another, but commanded us not to pray to the Saints. To them who instead of addressing themselves to the living, call upon the dead, the reprehension of Isaiah belongeth; whereby▪ he rebuketh those that go for the living to the dead.

Some texts are found in Scripture, where God declareth that he bestoweth some grace upon his Church, or upon some private persons in consideration of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, &c. But the Church did not therefore call upon Abraham, or Isaac, &c. Neither must we believe, that God granted these graces by reason of Abraham's merits, but in consideration of his promise, and of his Covenant contracted with Abraham or David, as it is said, 2 Chron. 21.7. The Lord because of the Covenant which he had made with David, would not destroy the house of David. See Luke 1.55. & 72, & 73. and Deut. 7.8 So Austin in the book of questions upon Exod. in the one hundred and fifty question. God said that he accomplished that which he had sworn unto their Fathers; Thereby showing that he doth it, because he promist it to those righteous Fathers; not because these were worthy of it.

That Father is very pregnant upon that matter in the twenty second Treatise upon John. It is that which thy Savior saith, Thou knowest not whither to go but to me, thou canst not go but by me. We must then neither go to the Saints, nor by the Saints: And in the last chapter of the ninth book of the City of God, Knowing that these immortal and blessed persons, who yet are made and created, are not means to bring mortal men to immortality and blessedness. And in the eighth chapter of the second book against the Epistle of Parmenian, All Christians recommend themselves mutually unto God by their prayers, but he for whom nobody prayeth, but who prayeth for all, he is the only and true Mediator. And a little after, If Paul were Mediator, so should also the other Apostles be. And St. Paul himself had been mistaken when he said, that there was but one God, and one Mediator. Note, that he speaks formally of a Mediator of intercession, without speaking of redemption, for he is disputing against Parmenian, who had called the Bishop the Mediator between God and men. And upon Psal. 108. The prayer which is not made by Jesus Christ, not only cannot blot out sin, but itself also is sin. See also Austin's first Treatise upon the first Epistle of St. John.

It remains that we say something of that distinction of dulia and latria. The Cardinal saith, that latria belongs to God alone. He leaveth then dulia to the Saints. They are Greek words which the people understand not. And that distinction is used by Austin in book 20. against Faustus Manichean, ch. 21. and in the questions upon Genesis, book 1. ch. 61.

But now they take that distinction in another sense then that of Austin. For these two words both latria and dulia are sometimes taken in a religious sense, and signify a religious service: sometimes in a civil sense, and signify that civil service, honor and obedience which we owe to our superiors on earth, to which God's ordinance hath subjected us. The word latria is taken in a civil sense, Deut. 28.48. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou shalt serve [or do latria] to thine enemies. And so in Phocylides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth serving the time. Whence also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth a maid-servant. On the contrary dulia signifieth often the service that is due to God alone. As 1 Sam. 7.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him [or render dulia to him] only. And Judge. 2.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the people yielded dulia unto the Lord, that is, they served the Lord. And Rom. 12.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; yielding dulia to the Lord, that is, serving the Lord. And Matth. 6.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , You cannot do dulia, or service unto God, and unto Mammon. See Acts 20.19. Rom. 7.25. Eph. 6.7. Col. 3.14. 1 Thess. 1.9. By all these it appears, that the word Dulia which our Adversaries reserve for the service, which is done to the Saints, is the word used in Scripture, for the service and adoration which is due unto God.

The Apostle Gal. 4.8. representing to the Galatians their condition, before they were converted unto God, tells them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ye did dulia, or service to them, which by nature are no God's. Where although he speaks of the God's of the Pagans, yet by speaking thus, he gives it for a rule, that dulia must be yielded to none but God.

Soudas an excellent Greek Grammarian expounds thus the word Latria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , latria is a dulia or service for wages, making latria to be a kind of dulia.

The Arians worshipping Christ, whom yet they said to be a created God, were called Idolaters by the Orthodox Christians. They might have used that shift to say, We worship Christ with the service of dulia only, but as for latria we reserve it to the sovereign God. But that distinction in matter of divine service and adoration was not yet invented. For as the ancient Church had but one sort of religion, they had also but one sort of adoration and religious service.

Austin from whom that distinction is borrowed, is clear on our side: For he calls dulia, the service done to God. In the book of questions upon Exodus, qu. 94. Dulia (saith he) is due unto God, as to our Master, and latria is due unto God, as to our God. But when dulia is taken for a civil service, or for a reverence or subjection of a servant to his Master without a religious service, then Austin holds that dulia is deferred unto living men, and to Masters to whom we owe honor, as also to the deceased Saints whose memory we honor. But he saith not, that this dulia consisteth in the invocation of the Saints, or in deferring any religious service unto them. Besides, if that distinction must have place, it must be taken from the Greek Authors, not from Austin, who in many places confesseth his little knowledge of the Greek tongue: As in the second book against the letters of Petilianus, chap. 38. I have (saith he) got very little skill in the Greek tongue, and almost none at all.

Theodoret in the Epitome of the divine doctrines in the chapter of the Holy Ghost, proveth that the Holy Ghost is not a creature, because dulia is deferred unto him. Christ (saith he) having abolished the adoration of the creature, did not command again that a created nature should be adored. For it would be one of the most absurd things of the world, to draw men away from them that are no God's, and to bring them to yield dulia to the creature.

Yea whosoever hath some reasonable measure of knowledge in the Greek tongue, knoweth that dulia is a greater service then latria; For latria is a service of reverence and obedience, but dulia imports a subjection of slaves.

As for that relative religion which is deferred unto the Saints by the Cardinal, besides the impiety of forging two Religions in the Christian Religion, the one absolute, the other relative; there is want of common sense in it, for the religion towards God is also relative, and relates unto God. Let any equitable person judge whether the people worshipping the Virgin Mary, and the Saints, and their relics, understand these distinctions of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, which are dust cast into the eyes of the ignorant multitude to blind them. For what's the reason that those Gentlemen will not speak to the people in their mothers tongue.

CHAP. 14. Of the Legends of Saints.

THE ancient Church made an anniversary commemoration of the sufferings of Martyrs. That laudable custom gave occasion to the compiling of the Legends of Saints, which is stuffed with ridiculous fables. Of which when his Majesty of Great Britain complaineth, M. du Perron instead of excusing these Legends, doth expatiate his eloquence upon the praise of the ancient Lessons of the Martyrs, which lessons were in nothing like to the Legends of the Roman Church. He was not bold enough to excuse those Legends so superlative in absurdity. Only he saith that the Roman Church believeth not those lessons with a Theological faith, like the Scripture. For who can bear with the Legends that say, that St. Macarius did penance six months together, for killing a gnat? That St. Mary the Egyptian having no money to pay the Watermens fare, offered to pay it with her body? That St. Francis preached unto the Birds, took up Lice fallen from his garment, and made to himself a wife of snow? That an Ass worshipped the Host presented to him by St. Anthony of Padua? And that Bees built a Chapel of wax to that Host? And a thousand of the like course fables wherewith the windows and walls of Churches are painted all over, and which have been for many ages, and are still the subject of Sermons. These tales are so unsavory, that Melchior Cano, a Spanish Bishop saith, that the lives of Philosophers were written with more gravity by Diogenes Laertius, then the lives of Saints by the Christians.

The Cardinal slideth smoothly upon this foul matter, and chooseth rather not to answer, then to undertake the defense of suh a gross abuse.

But that it may appear that we are not they only that complain of this abuse, let us hear how Cassander a famous Doctor among our Adversaries, expostulates about it. Some men of great note have affirmed that the promise of Ahasuerus to Hester to give her the half of his kingdom was fulfilled in Mary, to which God (say they) hath transferred the half of his kingdom, which is made up of justice and mercy, having retained the one half for himself. Hence come these titles commonly given to the Virgin, of Queen of heaven, Mother of mercy, our life, our hope, &c. What shall I say, that a whole Psalter is found, from which the name of God was put out, and the Virgins name put in the place? Yea, they are come so far, that Christ who now reigneth in heaven, is subjected unto his Mother, as it is sung in some Churches.

Observe by the way the language of this Cardinal, who will have us to believe those Legends with a faith not theological. He gave us above an absolute faith, and a relative faith: Now he coyneth a Theological faith, and a faith not Theological, whereby one believeth without Theology, that is without religion, and without thinking of God. But the Apostle tells us, that there is but one faith. Eph. 4.5.

CHAP. 15. Of the Psalter attributed to Saint Bonaventure.

HIS Majesty of Great Britain could not dissemble the injury done unto God by a Psalter made at the imitation of David's Psalms, where the name of God is taken away, and the name of the Virgin put in his place. The 131. Psalm begins thus, O our Lady remember David, and all that call upon thy name. As if David had called upon the Virgin Mary. In Psal. 109. The Lord said unto our Lady, sit thou at my right hand, &c. In Psal. 90. (which with us is the 91.) instead of the first words, He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most high, they have put, He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Mother of God, &c. And in the one hundred twenty ninth Psalm, Out of the depths I have cried unto thee our Lady, Lady hear my voice.

M. du Perron answereth three things; first that St. Bonaventure is not the Author of that Psalter: Yet Bellarmine in his Apology against his Majesty, acknowledgeth that Psalter to be of Bonaventure, as indeed it never had any other title: Of late it was printed at Paris with that name, and translated into French, with approbation of the Sorbon.

In the seond place he saith, that the Church is not obliged to answer for all that private persons do. But because he seeth this Psalter to be universally received and approved in the Roman Church, and that Cardinal Bellarmine hath written in the defense of the same, he excuseth it, and saith, that the transporting of the Psalms to the Virgin, may have a sense conformable to many places of Scripture, where God ascribeth unto his Saints, that which is said of him.

I answer, that Scripture expounds itself whensoever it speaks so, either in the same place, or somewhere else, so that one cannot be deceived in it. Christ's disciples are called by himself the light of the world, Matth. 5. But he teacheth us why they are so called, saying of John the Baptist, He was not the light, but he was come to bear witness unto the light, John 1. David, Psal. 82. saith unto the Judges and Magistrates, I have said you are God's: But in the same place he saith, but you shall die like men. Such expositions are not found in that Psalter of Bonaventure. Besides, God speaks as it pleaseth him, and we may speak after him. But hence it followeth not, that by our own authority without any warrant from the word of God, we may transport unto the creature the prayers which are addressed unto God in his word. And our Adversaries acknowledge that David's Psalms are a service of Latria, and a sovereign adoration, which David presented unto God, and which by consequent is incommunicable unto the creature. Who could abide him that would transport the Lord's Prayer unto the creature: saying, Our Lady which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name, &c.

The like Psalter divided into fifteen Questions was printed at Paris, with approbation of the Faculty of Divinity, in the year 1601. and many times since, sold by Nicholas du Fosse in St. James street at the sign of the golden plate. There the Virgin is called the inventrix of grace, the first cause of our salvation, who hath made the King of heaven in love with her, and she that must in the day of judgment moderate the sentence of the Judge. She is called in the Hours, Rosaries, and Litanies, the Mother of mercy, the Lady of the world, the gate of Paradise. And a Hymn, which is sung upon All-Saints day, saith that she appeaseth the wrath of Christ.

How abominable are the words of Gabriel Biel in the eight lesson upon the Canon of the Mass, where he saith that God hath divided his Kingdom equally with the Virgin Mary, having reserved justice to himself, and left mercy unto her. And those of the Jesuit Barradius who (after Anselmus ) makes this question unto Christ, why, when he went up to heaven, he did not carry up his Mother with him? And he frameth this answer for Christ; Perhaps, Lord, thou didst fear, lest the Court of heaven should doubt which of the two they should first meet, either thee as their Lord, or her as their Lady.

Such also are the words of Martinus Perezius, that the Blessed Virgin being ascended up on high, gave gifts unto men.

And those of the Jesuit Salmeron, who in the seventh disputation upon the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, upon the question, whether it b • better done to pray to God by Christ alone, or to pray to him by the Saints! answereth, Oratio fusa per sanctos melior est. The prayer made by the Saints is the best.

In the same place he approveth, saying, Our Father which art in heaven, in the honor of the Saints: As also the Council of Trent, in the chapter of prayer approveth those that say before the image of St. Barbara, Our Father which art in heaven.

The ordinary excuse is, that the Virgin Mary is called the Mother of mercy, she that hath bruised the Serpents head, the gate of Paradise, and the like expressions, because she bore him in her womb who is the cause of our salvation, who hath bruised the Serpents head, and who hath opened unto us the gate of Paradise. If that excuse be good, by the same reason one may say, that the Holy Virgin is dead for our redemption, because she hath born him who is dead for our demption. By the same reason Sara may be called Isaac, because she bore Isaac: and Eve may be called Abel, because she bore Abel.

These men play with religion, and believe not what themselves say.

Second Controversy, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. OF IMAGES.