SIR, You have of late declin'd that familiarity we have formerly maintain'd as Friends and Neighbors; and I now give you the trouble of this visit, to understand the reason.

Not for want of good will and affection (worthy Theophilus) have I sequester'd my self from the sweetness and advantage of your Society: nothing less, I do assure you, then the greatest con­cern in this World, hath for a time confin'd me to my most reserv'd and serious Thoughts and Studies; making me neglect the due Ceremonies of Friendship, whil'st I have been in pursuit after the Ʋnum necessarium, the only true Religion and way of Gods Worship.

Dear Sir, You have in few words given full security to my fears, lest some discontent had made you a Stranger: but now I will easily grant, that all other circumstances and business must give place unto the care of Religion. Are you therefore now at leisure to give your Friend an account of the success? Religious Conferences are more becoming and suitable to our Christian Profession, then the accustomed emtiness and vanity of our Communications.

Your goodness, Theophilus, hath given the opportunity which my heart desired, to declare what the Lord hath done for my Soul, in bringing back the straid Sheep to his Fold, and opening to me a door of entrance into the true Church, out of which there is no salvation, and against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail.

Be pleas'd to be more particular and express, that I may un­derstand you.

With a very good will. I have been long wavering and unset­led, and in the studious search of Truth; and now I have found the Jewel: the wandring Star is fix'd in its proper Sphere, and I am become a Convert to the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems by your acknowledgment, the Church of Rome is the proper Sphere for wandring Stars, for such as waver in the Faith. And herein I approve your Judgment: for I ever thought it impossible, that the thoughts of reasonable Men could be setled on that foundation which Rome hath laid; or find any satisfaction in those Arguments, which her great Champions do produce to confirm those Points wherein we differ from her.

The prejudice, Theophilus, of your Education is great: and doubtless, you have not sufficiently consulted your Adversaries, as you esteem them, otherwise they would have given you sufficient Reasons of their Doctrine and Practice, and remov'd the Scruples and Objections you have entertain'd against them.

The holy Scriptures in this case are the best Oracles to be con­sulted; and withal, our Learned Writers appear to manifest the full consent of Antiquity, Fathers, and Councils, within the first 600 Years of Christianity, against the Innovations of the Church of Rome. But see­ing your self have receiv'd such satisfaction from their Books, and from their Priests, as to become a Proselyte to Rome; I pray be ingenious and free to communicate and impart your new discoveries unto your, Friend.

The rule of Friendship and of Charity obliging, I am much de­voted to this good service, and most willing to lead such a Friend and Neighbor in the way of Truth and Holiness.

You suppose the new way, wherein you have lately chose to walk, to be the right; and it will much concern you to make it plain, and remove those stumbling-blocks and rocks of Scandal which lye therein, before you can expect that I should follow you.

Engage, Theophilus, that you will not stumble at straws, and I will undertake to remove all other Obstacles out of your way.

I shall not design to trifle in a serious Discourse, and therefore will propose only such Objections against your new way, as I judg ma­terial.

Upon this condition I am ready to answer.

I will first give you in such Exceptions which are obvious un­to the meanest Understanding, and wherewith your self was much dis-satisfied, before your new discoveries; viz. 1. With the Latin Service of the Church of Rome. 2. With her half Communion. 3. With her worshipping of Images.

I must confess these things gave great offence unto me, before I was better inform'd; but now I can give a reason of the Churches pra­ctice, and answer your Objections against it.

We will therefore take them in their order into considera­tion. First, The Church of Rome, where she hath Autority, requires the public Offices of Praier and of the Sacraments, to be performed in the Latin Tongue, altho it be unknown and nor understood by the common people: and this is contrary unto the reveled will of God in Holy Scripture, and to the great end of public Praier.

Make your Arguments and Prooss, and I will answer them.

S ^t Paul, in that known passage to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14. speaks expresly to this point, that in the Church and public Assemblies of the Saints, All things should be don to edification, ver. 12. and that he that preacheth or prophesieth, should utter words easie to be understood by the hearers, that it may be known what is spoken; otherwise he speaketh in­to the air: ver. 9. and if I know not the meaning of the voice (saith the A­postle) I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me, ver. 11.

We grant that Homilies and Sermons should be made to the Peo­ple in a known Tongue, that they may understand and receive instru­ction.

The same reason holds for Praiers and Spiritual Hymns and Benedictions: that the People, who are oblig'd to be present, and to hold Communion in the Praiers of the Church, should understand them. For S ^t Paul in the same Chapter saith expresly: He that praieth in an un­known tongue (that is, unknown to himself) his understanding is unfruitful, ver. 14. and therefore, saith he, I will pray and sing with the spirit, and with understanding also, ver. 15. and he immediatly adds, when thou shalt bless with the spirit (that is, with such a Tongue as the Holy Ghost hath by an extraordinary gift enabled thee to speak) how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified, ver. 16, 17. and therefore he declares, That altho he had the gift of Tongues more then they all, yet in the Church he had rather speak five words with his understanding, that by his voice be might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown Tongue.

You are not ignorant how the Learned have sufficiently answer­ed all these Arguments taken out of this Chapter.

That they have not sufficiently answered them, I know full well; and that it is impossible they should. I pray impart that satisfacti­on which they have given you.

Bellarmine, Tom. 1. Lib. 2. De verbo Dei, cap. 16. plainly shews, That the Apostle in this Chapter doth not speak of the common Forms of Praier, and Hymns of praise, but of some particular Praiers and Be­nedictions, which by the gift of the Spirit, by immediate Inspiration, some were enabled to speak in a Tongue unknown to most of the hearers, and somtimes not understood by themselves.

How doth he prove the first part of his Answer, that the [Page 4] Apostle in that Chapter doth not speak of public Praiers and Benedicti­ons, and reading of the Scriptures. For these are his words, Vera sen­tentia est, Apostolum hoc loco non agere de divinis Offici is, nec de publica Scri­pturarum Lectione.

He proves it thus. Because, saith he, out of: doubt the Corin­thians had the Scriptures read in the Church in Greek, and the Divine Service in the same Tongue which they understood. Scripturae sine dubio legebantur Graece, & Divina Officia [...]fiebant graece in Graecia. Ibid de verbo Dei, cap 16.

This we readily grant, and make no more doubt of it then himself. Corinth was an eminent City in Greece, and the Greek was the vulgar Tongue with them, and therefore doubtless all their public Ser­vice was in that Tongue, understood by all. And because the Apostle would alwaies have it so, in this Chapter he forbids everyone to disturb that good edifying way of the Church; That none should pray or bless in public, or speak in an unknown Tongue, because thereby the People, who did not understand the Language, could not be edified. But that which Bellarmine puts out of all doubt, and we easily grant, That the Corinthians had their public offices of Praier and reading of the Scri­ptures in Greek, I pray, observe well how he proves it. Graece in Grae­cia, therefore they had their Service in Greek, because they were Gre­cians. And the Argument concludes alike for every Country, that doubt­less they had their public Service and Worship of God in their own Lan­guage: Graece in Graecia, and Anglice in Anglia; because they were Gre­cians, they had theirs in Greek; and because we are Englishmen, we have ours in English: and so every Country in their own Tongue. For set aside the reason of this Chapter, That S ^t Paul requires the public Ser­vice should be in the vulgar Tongue, to the end that all the People may understand and be edified, and be able to say, Amen, (and Bellarmine could never prove what he takes for granted, That the Corinthians had their Divine Service in Greek:) by his leave, the Chapter shall serve our turn as well as theirs; That, according to the Apostles general rule, in England we should serve God in English.

But you will find how Bellarmine puts a vast difference between the first Age of Christianity, and those which followed. Christians were then few, and in their. Assemblies they sang Hymns together, and had their parts and mutual responds in the Divine Service, and so it was then necessary that all the People should understand the common Service, that they might readily join therein, and make their answers. But when the multitude of Believers encreased, the Offices were divided, and the Common Praiers and Bymns in the Church were left only to the Priest to be perform'd: for so run his Words, Divisa sunt Officia, & solis Cleri­cis relictum est, ut communes preces & laudes in Ecclesia peragant. Ib. dever­bo Dei, c. 16. And therefore it sufficeth, that the Priest understand the public Offices, who presents the public Praiers unto God as the mouth of all the Congregation.

It was no fair division between them, when all was left only to the Priest. But have the People then no partnor share in the Divine Service and public Praier?

Yes, the Priest, as the mouth of the People, praies to God for them, and offereth up the Sacrifice of the Mass on their behalf.

So he doth for such as are absent, and for the dead; and therefore why doth the Church so strictly oblige every one to be present at public Service, more especially at the Mass, upon every Festival, un­der the guilt of Mortal Sin? as we may read in the Casuists, particularly in Martin Aspilqueta, the famous Doctor of Navar, in his Enchiridion or manual of Confession, chap. 21. Farag. 1.

Because the People of God have great advantages by their pre­sence at such public Offices, therefore are they oblig'd by the Precept of the Church to afford their presence: For many do understand the Prai­ers of the Church; and such as do not, may pray with the Spirit, altho not with their understanding.

But Saint Paul saith, He will pray with the Spirit, and with un­derstanding also. And I know not what you understand by your expressi­on of praying with the Spirit, and not with the understanding. The heart cannot pray or sing except it understand: For Intellectus est sonus cordis, the voice or sound of the heart is the understanding, saith S ^t Au­gustin, in the 8 ^th Tome, in his Exposition upon the 99 Psalm. And he quotes a Text out of the 89. Psalm, ver. 15. Beatus populus qui seit jubilationem, Blessed is the people that know the joiful sound, or jubile. O let us run after this blessedness, let us understand what we sing: (as he proceeds in the Ex­hortation) To what purpose is it to sing and not to understand; that our voice should chant, without the heart?

Such as frequent the public Service, may soon learn by obser­vation when to Confess, when to Adore, what to Answer, when to Stand, when to Kneel, when to say, Amen: For the Priest pronounceth the last clause of his Praiers, Per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, Thro Jesus Christ our Lord, with a more audible and solemn Tone, that the People may have warning given to say, Amen. He elevates the Host above his head, when the People must fall down and worship it. And the Responsals are short and easily learn'd. Nay, those secret Praiers, in the Mass, which the Priest is enjoin'd to utter with a silent murmur, they conclude alwaies with this clause, Per omnia saecula saeculorum (throughout all Ages and Generations) which words the Priest must pronounce with a loud voice, that the People present may say, Amen. Sic finiunt omnes Orationes secretas, per omnia saecula saeculorum; quae quidem verba, licet Orationes ipsae tacito quodam silentio fuerint recitatae, altâ voce proferuntur, ut populus astans respondere possit, Amen. Azorius Institutionum moralium, lib. 10. cap. 34.

Alas! these you speak of are Circumstances, nor the sub­stance of Divine Service: when, not, what. I pray tell me what benefit will it be to me, if I know when the Priest makes a Praier of Confession, [Page 6] when I cannot join with him in that Confession, because I understand not what he saith. And for answering Amen to Praiers which we understand not, the Apostle saith, we cannot do it, 1 Cor. 14. 16. How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou saiest? And as the People actually join in the Divine Service with the Priest, in the Responsals, and saying, Amen; so should they intentionally and cordially accompany him in every Praier and Benediction thro-out the Service. And the Priest is enjoin'd often to exhort the People so to do, saying, Oremus, Let us pray. I demand therefore, whether by this Exhortation, Let us pray, the Priest calls up­on the People to join with him in the common Praiers which he then publicly makes to God, or only gives warning to every one present to put up his private Petitions to the Almighty, whil [...]st he himself makes public Praiers for them all?

Doubtless, he exhorts the people to join with him in the com­mon Praiers of the Church, otherwise there would be no Communion in the Service; neither could the people be all ready together to say A­men to the public Praiers, if they were permitted and exhorted every one to make his private Praier unto God, at the same season.

You have said well, and shew'd very good reason, why we should conceive that the Priest, saying, Let us pray, exhorts the people to join with him in the public Praier. But when we shall read the Casu­ists upon this Point, and observe the general practice of the Church of Rome, we may alter our Judgment. Navarrus the famous Casuist before mentioned, determins the case, in the 21. Chapter of his Euchiridion, the 8 ^th Paragraph, Potest quis eodem tempore satisfacere praecepto de Audien­det Missa, & de dicendis horis Canonicis, aut aliis votis juratis, vel in poeni­tentia injunctis, modo non adeo uni rei intendat, ut alteri necessariam inten­tionem adimat. A Man may satisfie the Precept of the Church to hear Mass, and at the same time repete his Canonical hours, or other parts of private duty, whereunto he hath obliged himself by Vow, or hath bin enjoined by his Confessor; if so be the performance of the one, doth not hinder the due execution of the other.

But how conceive you that can be, seeing his private Offices of Praier must needs interrupt his due intention unto the public.

He shews you how. Quia nemo levitur expraecepto audire, & minus intelligere verba Sacerdotis: quia satis est è longinquo Missanti adesse; & actualiter, vel intentionaliter, exoptare ut Sacerdos à Deo audiatur, qui pro omnibus loquitur, orat & sacrificat. By the Precept of hearing Mass (saith he) no Man is oblig'd to hear, much less to understand the words of the Priest: for it sufficeth to be present at a great distance from him that officiates, and actually or virtually, to wish that the Lord would please to encline his ears unto the praiers of the Priest, by reason of his far distance, or because the Priest speaks with a submiss and whispering voice (as he is somtimes enjoin'd) or when himself is deaf, or the like: and he might well have added one cause more, when the public Offices [Page 7] are not understood, being perform'd in an unknown Tongue. I have singled out this great Oracle of his Age, as one for all; who was con­sulted about Casuistical Solutions from all parts of the Western-Church, and set forth this Enchiridion, or Manual of Confessors, after many pre­vious Editions, revised and perfected in the 90 ^th Year of his Life, as himself declares in his Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Gregory the 13 ^th. And herèunto exactly suits the practice of their Church: The people are so­licitous to afford their presence at Mass in their solemn Feasts, but it matters not at what distance from the High Altar they place themselves; for if they hear the Praiers, yet generally they understand them not, and therefore they apply themselves, some to Auricular Confession in corners of the Temple, unto the Priests they have made choice of: o­thers mumble over their bead-role of Praiers which they have bin en­join'd by way of Penance: others, who had not leisure to pay their Morning Devotions at home, recollect them in the Church, only when the Mass-Priest with a loud voice concludes the Praiers, they are ac­custom'd to answer, Amen; and when he elevates the Host, they have warning given them to Adore and Worship.

You may reckon these as personal abuses and corruptions a­gainst the pious intention of the Church in her public Offices.

They are too general, to be accounted personal. And it is evident, the public Service being not understood, the great Doctors of the Church judg it reasonable and charitable to allow the people their private Devotions in the Church; and therefore it is a mockery for the Priest to exhort the people to pray with him, when they understand not his Praiers, and are permitted to pray by themselves.

The opinion of private Doctors, or the corrupt practice of private persons, is insignificant. Shew the Authority of the Church for this permission.

I shew how the Church gives the occasion by performing the Service in an unknown Tongue: for if the people must join in common Praier with the Priest, they must understand it, that they may devoutly and affectionatly discharge the duty together with him.

However, I have shewed you before how the Priest is the mouth of the people, putting up the common Supplications, and offering up the great Sacrifice of Christ unto the Father in the Mass for them.

And so the people are excluded, and in vain invited to join in Praier with the Priest; and there is no communion in the Service, which your self, not long before, acknowledg'd to be an absurdity. And you will find the Primitive Fathers of the Church speaking expresly to this point, Of the peoples joining with the Priest in public Praier, and of the efficacy of such Praiers as more available with God, when the Congregation with one heart and voice did make their common Supplica­tions, and sing Praises to him. Tertullian, in the 39 ^th Chapter of his excellent Apology for Christians, resembles them, when assembled to­gether in common Praier, unto an Army, manu facta, as he speaks, [Page 8] making an assault upon the God of Heaven, and by a Sacred Violence wresting Concessions from him. Haec vis Deo grata, This is an acceptable force to the Almighty. St. Basil compares them unto the rushing of many Waters, in his Hexameron, the 4 ^th Homily. If the Sea (saith he) be beautiful in the sight of God, how much more is such an assembly of the Church as we have here; in which the mingled sound of Men, Women, and Children, making their com­mon Praiers, ascendeth unto our God, as the noise of Waves beating against the Banks. S ^t Ambrose insists upon the same Metaphor, in his Hexameron, the 3 ^d Book and first Chapter. Bene mari comparatur Ecclesia in Oratione totius plebis, &c. Appositly may the Church be compared to the Sea, when all the multitude in their Praiers make a noise like the flowing Waves; and in the Responsals of the Psalms, and in the Hymns of Men, Women, Virgins and Children. S ^t Chrysostom shews, how the people in the public Prai­ers contribute much to such as are possest, and to the Penitents. For the Praiers of the Priest and of the people (saith he) are common. All say the same Praier: [...]. Homil. 18. in secundum Epistolam ad Corinth. With what shew of reason therefore can ye exclude the people from understanding the public Service, and joining with the Priest therein.

This course you have mention'd out of Antiquity, continued not many Ages in the Church.

For 600. Years, as appears by Isidore Hispalensis, Lib. 10, de Ecclesiast. Officiis, cap. 10. Oportet ut quando Psallitur, psallatur ab omni­bus, cum oratur, oretur ab omnibus, &c. It is necessary that this rule should be observed in Church Service, that when they sing, All should sing; when they pray, all should pray; when the Lesson is read, All being silent should hear. And therefore the Deacon with a loud voice commandeth silence; that whether they sing, or the Scriptures be read, unity be preserved, and that which is spoken to all, should be heard of all.

But the general practice of the Church prevails with sober Men against all Testimonies whatever.

What is the general practice of the Church?

In every Nation under Heaven, to have the public Service in one of the three Sacred Languages. In Hebrew, Greek, or Latin.

Is one Language holier then another?

Not in it self, but in the effect; because the Holy Ghost chose to communicate unto the World the Holy Scriptures in these three Lan­guages.

You have made an ill Argument for the Latin Tongue: for I do not find that any part of Gods Word was originally written in Latin.

Yes, Bellarmine asserts it. Bell. Tom. 1. l. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 15. Let us be content (saith he) with those three Tongues which Christ hath honored with the Title of his Cross, and which excel all others in Antiquity, amplitude, and gravity, and wherein the [Page 9] Holy Scriptures were first written by their Authors. Quibus ipsi libri divini ab Autoribus suis initio scripti fuerunt. And he brings a great Autority for the proof, even Hilary in his Preface to his Com­mentary upon the Psalms. His tribus linguis Sacramentum voluntatis dei, & beati Regni expectatio praedi­catur. In these three Tongues the mystery of the will of God, and the expectation of the kingdom, is published.

This Testimony of Hilary comes not home to the point; he saith, In quibus praedicatur, In which three Tongues the Gospel was preached, not in which they were first written. And altho Bellarmine here be positive, yet in the same Chapter afterwards he speaks doubtfully of the Latin Tongue. Ʋt quidam volunt Latine, &c. They did write the Gospels and Epistles only in Hebrew and Greek, and, as some will have it, in Latin. For there are some who con­ceive that Saint Mark did write his Gospel at Rome in Latin, and afterwards translated it into the Greek Tongue. And for the proof, he first sends us to Pope Damasus his Pontifical, his Book of the Lives of all the Popes his Predecessors in the See of Rome: where in the Life of Peter we are told, Hic scripsit duas Epistolas, quae Canenicae nominantur, & Evangel Marel, &c. That Peter wrote two Epistles, and the Gospel of Saint Mark: for Mark was his Disciple, and his adopted S [...]n his Baptism. Now if Peter did write that Gospel, as this Testimony asserts, how is it call'd the Go­spel of S ^t Mark, more then the other two Canonical Epistles? And yet so far we have nothing said concerning the Tongue wherein Mark did write his Gospel: but it immediatly follows, Posi omnem quatuor Evangeliorum [...]ntem, quae ad interrogationem & testimonium Petri firmata sunt, dum alius Grace, alius Hebraice, alius I aliue scribentes consonant, omnia ejus Testi­monio sum firmata. A piece of Latin which I cannot make sense of; only we may guess the meaning. That by Peters Testimony all the four Gospels were confirm'd, and confirm'd (for the greater confirmation of Peter's su­preme Autority, the word firmata is, without sense, twice inserted) while one of the Evangelists writing in Greek, another in Hebrew, another in Latin, they all were consonant. Now by this wise Enumeration there were but three Evangelists, one writing in Greek, another in Hebrew, and another in Latin; in what Tongue the fourth Evangelist did write, must be reserved as a secret in due time to be reveled, when France or Spain, or some other Catholic Prince (as they will have it) hath attain'd an Universal Monarchy, and then the Language of his Country shall be adopted into the Sacred Number.

I must confess, this passage in the life of Peter is set down somthing imperfectly, we may suppose an Error in the Printing.

The whole deserves a deleatur. For how could Peter by his supreme Autority confirm the four Evangelists, when it is generally ac­knowledged that John wrote his Gospel long after Peters Martyrdom un­der Nero, even in the Reign of Nerva Emperor of Rome, who releas'd [Page 10] him of his banishment in Patmos, whither Domitian had condemn'd him. John returning to Ephesus, upon the perswasion of the Asian Bishops, did write his Gospel against Cerinthus, and Ebion, and other Heretics, who de­nied Christs Divinity Aug. Tom. 9. Praefatione in Joannem. Occiso Domitiano, cum permittente Nerva de exilio red [...]sset, compulsus ab Episc. Asiae, &c. But in truth, this Pontifical is by themselves ac­counted spurious, and falsly ascrib'd to Damasus, as Binius asserts in the first Tome of his Edition of the Councils, in a Note before Peter's Life. Hujus libri Pontifex Damasus author non est, quod in unoqu (que) fere Pontifice pu­gnantia contineat. Damasus is not the Author of this Pontifical; for almost in the Life of e­very Pope, it contains thing; repugnant one to another. And he quotes Bar o­nius and Possevinus for his Judgment. Now we may easily believe Bellar­mine was too great a Scholar, not to discover the Imposture and the Contradictions of the Book, yet after his usual course, when a Testimo­ny makes for him, he will take it, altho himself be not ignorant of the forgery.

You find Bellarmine in that place brings other Authors to prove Mark did write his Gospel in Latin, Adrianus Finus, and Antonius Beuter.

Writers so obscure, that I cannot find their Books; and Ti­rinus a Jesuit, ^a in his Index Autorum, shews the first to be a Writer of the last Century, making no mention of the second.

Baronius likewise affirms, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin; and proves it, because he was, as Jerome calls him, Peter's Interpreter, and did write for the use and benefit of the Romans, as Nazianzen af­firms, Nazianzen. in carmin. de 4. Evangeliis. [...], and therefore probably he wrote in the Latin Tongue.

You may urge the same Argument, that Paul did write his Epistle to the Romans in Latin.

But Baronius observes likewise, some Latin words adopted in­to the Greek Copy of S ^t Mark's Gospel [...]. cap. 6. ver. 37. & [...], ver. 27.: which makes it more then pro­bable, that the Greek Copy was translated out of the Latin.

This Criticism will not help him: for we find [...] in all the other Evangelists, Matth. 18. 28. Luk. 17. 41. John 6. 7. We find many other Latin Words in the Greek Test. [...], Act. 19. 12. (and yet S ^t Luke is observ'd, of all the sacred Writers, to write the purest Greek) [...], Matth. 26. 53. And In Comment. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 10. ver. 25. Benedictus Justinianus a Jesuit, de­rides this Argument, instancing in many other Words of the like nature, [...], &c. Leaving therefore these critical and new Discoveries, will you hear what S ^t Jerome and Augustin, ^c Adrianus Finus Ferrariensis edidit flagellum Judaeorum, An. 1537. [Page 11] two Latin Fathers, say to this point? Jer. in Praefati. in 4. Evangelistas. De novo Testam. non lequor, &c. I speak not of the New Testament, which without doubt is all Greek, except the Gospel of Matthew, which be first set forth in Judea in the Hebrew Tongue. Augustin affirm's the same. Aug. Tom. 4. l. 1. De consensis Evangelistarum, cap. 2. Of these four Evangelists, only Matthew is said to write in Hebrew; ce­teri Graeco eloquio, the others in the Greek Tongue. To these accord ma­ny of their own Writers. Biblioth. l. 1. Breve grace sermone scripsit Evangelium. Sixtus Senensis saith expresly, Mark wrote a brief Gospel in the Greek Tongue. And you may observe by this passage, and many others, how Baronius and Bellarmine, two great Pillars of the Roman See, little regard the Testimony of the Fathers when it crosseth their great design, to advance the reputation of the Church of Rome. However, I presume it appears by what you have heard, that no part of the Holy Scripture was written in Latine originally, and therefore the Latine Tongue in that respect is not Sacred, and to have the prehemi­nence above others.

But in the fore-mention'd place, Bellarmine instanceth in o­ther excellencies of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latine, above all others, in antiquity, amplitude, and gravity Bell. l. 2. de verba Dei, cap. 15. Omnium consensis hae al [...]is praestant antiquitate, amplitudine & gravitate..

For the Antiquity of the Roman Language, let the Gramma­rians discourse it. For the amplitude and universality thereof, I ac­knowledg, that it did spread far with the Roman Conquests, especially in the Western Empire, which was call'd, Orbis Latinus; so that it be­came the vulgar Tongue unto many Nations. In Africa we have those Noble Orators, Tertullian and Cyprian, living in Carthage, writing Tracts and Epistles in Latine unto all sorts; unto Men and Women, Lay and Clergy: which shews, that Language was then vulgarly under­stood. Tertullian wrote two Books to his Wife in Latine. A third, De habitu muliebri. A fourth, De cultu seminarum, unto Women. A fifth to Virgins, Develand. Virginibus. Cyprian writes his familiar Epistles to the Martyrs, and divers others; many of them of the common peo­ple. Augustin, Bishop of Hippo in Africa, made all his Homilies and Lectures unto the people of his Congregation in Latine, and therefore that Language was commonly understood: (for your self acknowledged, that we ought to Preach in a known Language to the People) nay, he ex­presly tells us, Lib. 1. Retract. cap. 20. Volens causam Donatistarum ad ipsius humillimi vulgi, & imperitorum at que idiotarum nobitiam pervenire, psalmum qui ab [...]is canttur latinas literas feci. Ipse psalmus habetur, Tom. 1. cap. 1. That being willing the Donatists cause might be understood, even by the unlearned, and vulgar sort of People, be composed a Psalm ac­cording to the Latine Alphabet, to be sung by all the people, wherein the choice Heads of their Schismatical pretentions were contain'd. The Psalm [Page 12] begins thus, Ipse Psalmus habetur, Tom. 7. cap. 1. Omnes qui gaudetis, &c. The Latine Tongue therefore, was become as the vulgar in Africa; and so the Learned shew of many Countries in Europe, by reason of the Roman Conquests and Colonies, which for brevity I omit. But in after Ages, thro the Incursions of the Goths and Vandals, and Lombards, Gauls and Sarazens into the Western Empire, there arose a great change and variety of Languages, insomuch that neither in Italy it self, nor in any other Country, did the people un­derstand the Latine Tongue; and therefore the Argument of Universa­lity for that Tongue now ceaseth. For the Gravity of the Latine Tongue, wherein that consists, I do not understand: and when Kemnitius urg'd (as we do) that the Latine was neither more sacred nor venerable then other Tongues, Non dicimus eam graviorem aut sanctioram si [...]ererba spectemus, sed hoc ipse esse gra­tiorem & magis venerandam quod nonsit vulgaris. Lib. 2. de ver. Dei, cap. 15. ad sinem. Bellarmine acknowledges it to be true, if we consider the words themselves; but the Latine is more grave and venerable, because it is not the vulgar Tongue. Which answer of Bellarmine, if it hath any shew of Truth and Reason, doth as well prove the English Tongue to be more grave and venerable in France and Spain, &c. then their own pro­per Tongues, because unto them it is not the vulgar Tongue. And yet this is one of his special Arguments which he urgeth, why the Majesty of Divine Service and public Offices should be in the Latine Tongue, which is not understood, because it requires a more grave & venerable Language, then are the vulgar Tongues of every Country Ibidem. Videtur omnino majestas divin. offic requirere linguam [...]agis gravem & venerandam, quam sunt illae quibus vnlgo utimur.. We see wise and learned Men, in the defence of palpable Errors, somtimes are put to shifts, and urge Arguments of no weight and consequence, to amuse only Children and Fools. For ought therefore that hath bin offer'd to prove it, the La­tine Tongue appears not to be more grave and venerable then others.

Here hath been a long digression to no purpose.

Confer notes, and you will find it pertinent to the present business, and it will be useful to other purposes hereafter.

I cannot divine what will be your future intendments, neither can you deny the Latine Tongue, to be the common Language in Europe, better understood then any other, at least by the Learned: so that with that Tongue you may travel into all parts, and meet with many who un­derstand it.

It is believed of late, the French Tongue will carry us far­ther then the Latine: but what Inference will you make, if we grant your Postulatum, that the Latine is the most communicating Language un­derstood by the Learned in every Country.

It is most agreeable to the Communion of Saints in all parts of the World, that public Praier should be made, in lingua communissima, as [Page 13] Bellarmine speaks, Ibidem. Alias tolletur communicatio Ecclesiarum, &c. In that Language which will most communicate with o­ther Nations and Churches; that when Strangers and Travellers come among us, some of them may understand our Service, and join with us therein: o­therwise, neither the learned nor unlearned will ever come to Church, but in their own Country.

This is an Argument of great charity towards Foreigners, and of little regard to Natives: that the Service of the Church should be at home in an unknown Language, in Latine, to the end that Stran­gers when they travel in any Country may understand, some of them, the Service, and so be encouraged to come to Church. And in truth this Argument concludes for us, that public Praier should alwaies be in known and vulgar Tongues; for if Foreigners will not come to Church if they understand not the Service, for the same reason our Country-men will not come to Church, if the Service should be perform'd in an unknown Tongue.

However, the Latine Tongue hath had long possession thro-out the Western Church in the Divine Service of every Country, until some new Masters and Reformers in divers places did thrust it out; and the general practice of the Church should much prevail with sober Men. Epistola 118. Si quid herum per [...]rbem frequentat Ecclesia, quin ita sit facien­dum disputare insolentis. insania. S ^t Augustin saith, It is most insolent madness to dispute whether that should be don, which the Church thro-out the whole World doth practice.

I have shew'd you how the Service of God, in an unknown Tongue, is contrary to Gods Word. Si divinae scrip. praescribii autcritas non est disputandum, &c. And Augustin in the same Epi­stle, immediatly before this Quotation of yours, had concluded, That if the Holy Scriptures have prescrib'd what is to be don, it is not to be doubted but we must do as we read and are directed. Again, I have shew'd how the Service in an unknown Tongue is contrary to the great end of public Praier, wherein all the People of God should join with heart, and affe­ction, and understanding, and devotion, putting an acceptable force upon the Almighty, by the fervency and importunity of the whole Con­gregation. I have likewise occasionally shew'd before, how the Latine Tongue was propagated with the Roman Conquests by their Colonies, and in time became even vulgarly known in many parts of the Western Empire: but upon the Inundation of the Goths and Vandals, &c. And upon the decay of the Roman Empire, the Roman Tongue every where gave place to the Conqueror, and now there is no Nation or People in the World who generally understand it. Now then, seeing the Latine Service was in use in divers Countries, because it was vulgarly under­stood; and for that reason only, as we may well suppose, the case be­ing so apparently alter'd, and no common People now understanding the Latine Tongue, it ought in every Country to give place to that Lan­guage [Page 14] which is understood. And it is the insufferable Tyranny of the Pope and Church of Rome, so strictly to keep up the old custom of La­tine Service in several Countries, when the reason of the first possession ceaseth, and the Language is not understood. And therefore in this case Augustin shall give an Answer to himself: De Baptisme contra Donatistas, lib 3. cap. 6. Plane respondeo quis dubitet veri­tati manifestae debere consuetudinem cedere. I answer plainly, saith he, who doubteth, but that custom must yield unto apparent truth?

If any Nation find it a grievance, they may peaceably apply themselves to the Pope and his Cardinals, or to a General Council, and without doubt may have Indulgence and leave granted to have the Ser­vice in their own Tongue. For so I read, how Cyril an Hermit, who was a great Instrument under God, to convert Moravia to the Faith of the Gospel; having first instructed and Baptized Suatocopius their King (who was overcome in a signal Battle by Arnolphus the Emperor, and liv'd an Exile in the Wilderness;) Aen [...]as Sylvius, hist. Bohemica, cap. 13. The History shews how this Cyril went to Rome, and earnestly sollicited the Pope, that in Divine Service he might use the Sclavonian Tongue, which was in Moravia the vulgar, and it was granted.

But why do you concele the most memorable Passage of the Story, namely, That when Cyrils request met with great opposition in the sacred Senate of Cardinals, a voice was heard as from Heaven, say­ing, Omnis spiritus laudet Deum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei. Ib ad finem capitis. Let every one that hath breath praise the Lord, and let every Tongue consess unto him. And so they were in that Senate miraculously convinc'd of the Truth now controverted between us, That every Nation should serve God, and praise him in their own Tongue, even in the public Ser­vice. Now you cannot deny the Story to be credible, seeing your self have made use of the first part; and it was written by a famous Cardi­nal, who was afterwards chosen Pope. But as for Encouragements to ask leave, we shall find very few. For in the next Century, Hildebrand, a furious and turbulent Pope, known by the name of Gregory the 7 ^th, flatly denied the same Request made by the Duke of Bohemia, Vuratislaus, in the behalf of his Subjects. And whereas in most of their Churches the People had before taken the liberty to use their own Language in the public Service, the Pope strictly inhibits it by the Autority of Peter; giving the Duke a charge for the honor of the Omnipotent God, with all his power, to resist such a vain and rash attemt. And the lower we descend in Church History, the more stiff we find the See of Rome to make any Concessions unto the People. The Immunities of the Clergy must be en­larged, and the Laics kept under a blind obedience; and to this end, their little or no understanding of Gods Worship, and of the Mysteries ^d Binius, part. 1 ^ma. 7 Tom. Conc l 6. Epistolarum Greg. Pap [...] 7. Epistola 11. Ne fiat quod à vestris imprud. exposcitur autorit. beati Petri inhibemus, &c. [Page 15] of Religion, and of the Holy Scriptures, is very subservient.

You are proud, and of a Schismatical Spirit, and so pretend great difficulties to excuse good maners.

It is the usual course with Men of your Church to supply their defect of Arguments and Reason with railing: I have all this while won­dred at your patience, but you have not bin long acquainted with their waies. But in answer to your reproof, I will tell you, It is no part of good manners, to ask leave to serve God in that way which he hath pre­scrib'd, with the heart, and with the lips, and with understanding also. Lib. 30. cap. 5. contra Fauseum Manich. neque evim cenceditur secundum Ve­niam, nisi peccatum. S ^t Augustin tells us, Indulgence is given to such things as are not law­ful in themselves. Prove it unlawful to understand our Praiers, and we will ask your leave to do so. And that we do not pretend difficulties, is manifest: for your Church is so far from allowing the public Service in a known Tongue, that it scarce permits any to use their own Language in their private Devotions; training up their Proselytes, Men, Women, and Children, to say their Pater noster, the Creed, the Penitential Psalms, their Ave Maries in Latine; and so like Parrots, they are taught to speak what they understand not in particular; to utter broken Latine, and many Incongruities; the intention of heart and mind all the while being not determin'd to those Petitions which they make with their lips. For altho they have a moral perswasion that they say the Lords Praier, when they mumble out the Pater noster, yet for the distinct Petitions they are altogether to seek, as I have had occasion to make the trial. For when a Female Proselyte of Rome gloried, that she could say her Praiers in Latine, rehearsing her Pater noster; when she came to the fifth Peti­tion, Demitte nobis debita nostra, I interrupted her, and demanded what that Petition was, which the then put up to God; she answered, She could not tell distinctly, but she knew in general that she said the Lords Prayer. Now certainly, it is necessary that the heart should know when the tongue asks forgiveness of Sins, that so it may be smit­ten and deeply affected with a sense and shame of sin in general, and with some particular sins, which lie as a burthen upon the Conscience, and would come into remembrance at that instant when we with understand­ing beg pardon. And the same reason holds for all requests made to God, we ought distinctly to understand them, that we may be suitably affected with a due sense of our wants. Did you never read the com­plaint which the Lord made to his Prophet Isaiah, chap. 29. ver. 13. This People draw near to me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me.

Yes, and Lib. 2. De verbo Dei, cap. 16. Bellarmin shews clearly, the Text is understood of those who profess Religion and the fear of God, but their hearts are full of iniquity; or such as do not heed their Praiers, their thoughts wan­dring [Page 16] about Worldly affairs, whilst they pray to God with their lips.

These Interpretations are good and pertinent, and yet ex­emt not such also from the reproof of the Text, who understanding not their Praiers, cannot possibly mind and follow them with devout and affection­ate hearts: such Petitioners can never be acceptable unto God. And you may observe the Artifice of Bellarmin, and other School-men, to shift off Objections with some nice Distinction, and so to make the World believe, they have sufficiently answer'd them: as tho (for instance) because that fore-mention'd Text was a just reproof in Bellarmine's sense, there­fore it was of no force in our sense, against such as pray with their lips, but understand not with their hearts. To conclude this Point, I desire you seriously to answer this question, Whether your Reason and your Conscience do not tell you, that a Praier which is understood, is more beneficial to him that makes it, and to be prefer'd before a Praier which is not understood?

I do easily grant it, and so doth Lib. 2. De verb. Dei, cap. 16. Bellarmine expresly in his Answer to Calvins Objection. Ex Oratione non intellectâ nulla est utili­ras, quia Apostolus ait, mens sine fructu est. There is no benefit from a Praier not understood: for the Apostle faith, My understanding is unfruitful, 1 Cor. 14. 14. saith Calvin. Whereunto Bellarmine answers, In that place the Apostle doth not condemn a Praier which is not understood, but he prefers before it a Praier which is understood: for, the Apostle doth not say, My Praier is without benefit, but my mind is unfruitful.

This is sufficient for my purpose: For seeing by their own confession, Praiers which are understood, and in a known Tongue, are to be prefer'd before Praiers not understood by the people: Why should the Church of Rome so pertinaciously cleave to that which is worse, and forsake the better part? And you cannot in reason condemn us, who have wisely chosen the better part.

I have given you other Considerations and Reasons to justifie herein the practice of the Church of Rome. I refer you to them.

And I refer you back to my Replies, and must for a Conclusi­on declare, That all you have said hath bin so far from giving me the least satisfaction, that I am almost perswaded, your own Reason and Con­science is not fully reconciled to your pretentions and plea for the Church of Rome.

I abhor such Dissimulation: whether I have fail'd in my Judg­ment and Abilities, I know not; but I am sure the sincerity of mine Af­fection and of my utmost Endeavors, have not bin wanting.

I leave that to God and your own Conscience. And now we are warm in this Discourse, before we dismiss it, if you please, we will take into consideration the reading and hearing of Gods Word: Whe­ther all the People of God are not bound to be conversant in the Holy Scripture? And so by consequence, Whether the Bible should not be Non reprehenditur, &c. [Page 17] translated into the vulgar Tongue of every Nation, that all may read and understand it.

Will you undertake that all who read the Holy Scriptures in their own Tongue, shall understand them?

Better, then if they do not read them; or if they were lock'd up from them in an unknown Language.

S ^t Peter saith, 2 Pet. 16. They who are unlearned and unstable, do wrest S ^t Pauls Epistles; as also the other Scriptures, to their own de­struction.

He speaks there expresly of some things hard to be under­stood in S ^t Pauls Writings, which they that are unstable and unlearned do wrest, &c. but do you find that Peter, upon this consideration, either forbids or discourageth the unlearned to read the Scripture. The Text implies, that the unlearned did read Pauls Epistles, notwithstanding their difficulty to be understood: Doth he there, or any where else, to prevent the danger of wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction, take order they should not read them?

I do not find any such prohibition.

Do you not find he doth encourage and command them in the same Epistle?

There is a passage which your side usually quotes, 2 Pet. 1. 19. We have a more sure word of Prophesie, whereunto ye do well, that ye take [...]eed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. But we may [...], [...]e give heed as well, yea more safely, unto the Word of God Preached and Interpreted by the Church and her Ministers, then when we read it our selves: and therefore this Text doth not infer, that the Peo­ple should read the Scripture, but only give heed unto those things which are Preach'd.

We may give heed to the Holy Scriptures also when we read them, and therefore your Interpretation doth not exclude ours: but it is your usual shift, to shew how a Text may be taken in one sense which you allow of, and so think to exclude all other senses which you do not approve. But in earnest, Would you have the People know no more of the Scripture, then what they hear the Priest Interpret and Preach upon? The Epistles and Gospels, and the Lessons, are publicly read in the Churches, but in an unknown Tongue, in Latine; and little Preach­ing you have, or reading the Holy Scripture to the People in a Tongue they understand: you scarce allow any vulgar Translations of the Bible into the Language of every Country.

You are forward to lay these things to our charge; but Concedi Lectionem ejusmodi Libr. iis qui utiliter, & cum fructa câuti possint, & qui facult. ab Ordin. obtinnerint, l. 2. De verbo Dei, cap. 15. Bel­larmine shews out of the Index Ex purgatorius, set out by Pope Pius quar­tus, in the 4 ^th Rule of the Index, That the reading of Bibles translated into the vulgar Tongue, is granted to such as can read them with bene­fit, [Page 18] and have a faculty from the Ordinary so to do.

Yes, such as pretend to moderation in your Church, would seem to allow Translations of the Holy Scripture into the vulgar Tongue of every Country, and the common People to read them, but with great caution. First, the Translations must be made out of the vulgar Latine, and not out of the Original Hebrew or Greek; so the Rhemish Testament in English, and the Lovain Translation in French. Secondly, None may use or read these Bibles thus Translated, without a License from the Bishop of the Diocess, and he judgeth they may read them with be­nefit.

Would you have a License granted unto them, who would read the Holy Scripture without benefit?

No: but this License granted to some, implies a general re­straint upon all from reading the Scripture without leave in a known Tongue; as tho to read the Scripture were a thing in it self unlawful, and prohibited unto all, and only allowed to some by Indulgence upon special Considerations. You heard before out of S ^t Augustin, Nihil enim conceditur secundam veniam nisi peccatum. Nothing is granted by an Indulgence and after the way of Pardon, but Sin. And withal, to shew that those of your side are no real Friends to vulgar Translations, and to the common Peoples reading the Scripture, you will find that Bellarmine, who pretends to moderation in this Point, yet urgeth his Arguments both against vulgar Translations, and the vulgar reading of the Scripture, as unprofitable and prejudicial; in the same manner, as do the most rigid sort of Papists, who bitterly inveigh against, and openly condemn the common Peoples reading the Scripture, and Translations in their Language to help them, as I will shew hereafter. And upon this account, few there are who take out a License: but the People are altogether strangers to the Word of God, and entertain a prejudice against reading the Scriptures, as being not able to understand them, and being in danger to wrest them to their destruction: and they find they are more in favor with their Priests and Confessors, when they do not desire to look into the Bible, and are perswaded it would hurt them. Nay, the Learned are very ignorant of the Scriptures, and al­together neglect them. Claudius Espencaeus, a Parisian Doctor, in his Comment upon the first Chapter of Titus, about the middle, tells us, that he remembers how a noble Italian Bishop told him, That Conterrances suos quodamnodo abhorrere â studio Theologico, ne sic fiant Haeretici, quasi vero Haereses ex Scripturae studi [...], ac non potius ex neglectu ac ignorantiâ nascantur. his Coun­try-men did abstain from, and abbor to study Divinity (or the Scriptures) least they should become Heretics; as tho (saith Espencaeus) Heresies did spring from the Holy Scriptures, and not rather from the ignorance and neglect of them. And Robertus Stephanus respons. ad Censuram Theolog. Parisiensium, in praesatione pag. 9. Respondebant se illud apud Hierenymum [...]ut in decrelis legisse, quid vero no­vum Testamentum esset, ignorare. Robert. Stephens declares, that in some Conflicts and Dis­course [Page 19] with the Sorbon Doctors, when he asked them, Where, in the New Testament, such a thing was written; they answered, They had read it in Jerome, or in the Decretals; but what the New Testament was they knew not. Again he reports, how one of the Sorbon College was wont to say, I won­der that these young men allege to us the New Testament, Perdiam ego habebam plus quam quinquaginta annos cum nesciebam quid esset no­vum Testamentum. By this Light, I was above 50 years old before I knew what the New Testament was.

When you examine well the Reasons which the Learned give a­gainst the Peoples reading the Scripture, you will not so severely con­demn them.

In due time I will take an account of them: But in the first place I will shew how the Holy Scripture, and the Holy Fathers of the Primative Church, are directly opposite to the practice of your Church, and the Opinions of your Learned Men, in with-holding the Scripture from the People.

You are a Man of great undertaking.

Let the World judg of the performance. First, The Jews were the chosen People of God, unto whom were committed the Di­vine Oracles. Now Moses, in Deuteronomie, giving unto them a brief recapitulation of Gods Law, and of all the Statutes which he had com­manded them, once and again declares unto all the People, Deut. 6. 1. These are the Commandments, the Statutes, and the Judgments, which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them, &c. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittesi in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as frontlets upon thine eies, &c. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. We have like­wise the same charge given in a following Chapter, Deut 11. ver. 18, 19, 20. Therefore ye shall lay up these my words in your heart, and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eies. And ye shall teach them your children, &c.

These Exhortations may seem to relate unto the ten Command­ments which were given in the 5 ^th Chapter of Deuteronomie; and which they were all oblig'd to learn by heart, and to write upon their Frontlets and Phylacteries: but not to the whole Law of Moses.

Observe how the word is varied: These are the Statutes, the Judgments, and Commandments, &c. to shew how it apparently includes the whole Law of God given by Moses, to be kept and observed by the Jews. But to proceed, the Prophet David declareth, Psal. 1. verse 2 The man to be blessed, whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law doth meditate day and night.

Meditation is not reading: we meditate upon those things w ^ch we have heard, and have bin taught, to fix them in our memories.

And so we may meditate upon these things which we do read. This is the old Fallacy, to thew how a Text may be taken in one sense, and so think to exclude all other senses. But the Author of the Com­mentaries usually attributed to S ^t Jerome, shews wherein this Medita­tion consists: In legendis Script. & faciend. iis quae scripia sunt. In reading the Scriptures, and doing them. And Basil sheweth in the same Psalm, how the Duty and the Blessing concern Wo­men as well as Men. [...], &c. Why, doth the Prophet pronounce only the Man bles­sed? Hath he excluded the Women from this Blessedness? God forbid. Their virtue is the same, as their Creation was equal, and the reward shall be alike to both. Again, our Blessed Savior sends the Jews to the Scriptures, which testifie of him, John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they have testified of me.

Relect. controvers. 5. qu. 3. art. 4. Stapleton sheweth, how this direction was given to the Scribes and Pharisees, the Learned of the Jews, and not to the multi­tude: For in the 33 ^d verse of this 5 ^th Chapter, our Savior saith to them, Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth: Now in the first Chapter it appears, that the Scribes and Pharisees sent unto John.

Nothing less: We read 1 John 1. 19. ver. 24. the Jews sent Priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? and that they who were sent were of the Pharisees; not that the Scribes and Pharisees sent them. And [...] 10. [...], &c. Cyril expresly saith, That Christ gave the exhortation to search the Scriptures, unto the People of the Jews: and the 5 ^th Chapter thro-out, sheweth our Saviors discourse was with the People; some opposing, and others believing him.

Stapleton gives another answer to that Text: Christum non constituit generale praeceptum aut necessarium & perpet. quod omnes & semper obliget. That it was no general Precept necessary and perpetual, which should alwaies oblige all men; that it was given by way of indulgence to the Jews now, because of their un­belief. For he had before stated the Grassantibus Haeresibus tetam spript permitendam aliquibus. Question, and granted, That when Heresies did abound, all the Scripture should be allowed to some.

He was so over-seen in his first answer, that he gives the se­cond with very great caution: No general Precept, necessary and per­petual, which should alwaies oblige all Men; so many limitations to help him at a dead lift. But as to the later part of his Answer, if be­cause of their unbelief they were exhorted to search the Scripture, and when Heresies prevail and Errors; then now certainly as much as ever: and they should not envy us the Scripture in our vulgar Tongue, who are so hard to believe their new coin'd Articles, and therefore by them re­puted Heretics: Neither should they with-hold the Scripture from their [Page 21] Laity, seeing Errors so much abound in the World. But leaving these shifts, will you hear what Origin saith to this Text. Homil. 2. in Isaid. Ʋtinam omnes faceremus quod scriptum est. Scrut. Script. I would that all of us would observe, and do that which is written: Search the Scripture. hear also what Basil saith, Lib. 2. de Bapt. cap. 4. [...]; let us bear with our Lord, saying, Search the Scripture. Hear what Augu­stin, Serm. 45. De verb. Dom. Judaeis dicit caput nostrum, quod vobis Corpus, Serut. Script. Christ the Head said to the Jews, what his Pody the Church saith unto the Donatists, Search the Scripture. You see S ^t Augustin urgeth the Enemies of Truth and of the Church to search the Scripture, as the best way to reclaim them. You have heard how the Jews were exhorted by Moses, and David, and by our Blessed Savior, to search and read the Scripture. In the next place we will consider Believers under the Gospel: we shall read Acts 17. 11. how they of Berea were commend­ed, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and search­ed the Scripture daily, whether those things were so, as Paul and Silas taught them. The Holy Ghost saith, These were more worthy then those of Thessalonica, &c.

The Greek word is [...], more noble; Men of better parts and abilities; and to such we allow the reading of the Scripture, as not being so much in danger to be led by the Word of God into Er­ror.

I had thought the Word of God would lead Men into Truth, rather then into Error.

Yes, sober, wise, and learned Men: but the unlearned wrest the Scripture to their destruction, as you have heard.

I have already answered that place of Peter; but for your Criticism upon the Original Word [...], Men of more eminent Parts and Learning; you may observe how the commendation is given to the Synagogue of the Jews at Berea, and their eminency was, That they did mind Paul's Preaching, and compare the Scripture, as in truth, True Piety is the best Nobility, and I may, with better color, invert your Argument, Because they were Men of Eminency and Learning, they did search the Scripture, say you: because they did search the Scri­pture, they were Men of Eminency and Learning, say I. But Chryso­stom In locum. [...]. gives the best Interpretation of the word: They were more noble, that is, more gentle and courteous then those of Thessalonica; who as we read, verse 5. Being moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fel­lows, and set all the City in an uproar; and assaulted the house of Iason, and sought to bring Paul and Silas out to the people, &c. but these of Be­rea were not of such a persecuring turbulent Spirit, and therefore they were more noble. Again, S ^t Paul exhorts the Coloss [...]tns, Col. 3. [Page 22] 16. Let the word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and ad­monishing one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

The Text answers it self: Such as must teach and admonish o­thers, must be well vers'd in the Scripture: but it doth not follow, that such should be so who must learn and hear.

This is a meer shift: the Original Words are, [...]; and your vulgar Translation renders it, vos metipsos, reaching and admonishing your selves: or if the scope of the Words fa­vor our Translation, Teaching and admonishing one another. You see it is mutual, and implies the duty of all Christians within their own Sphere, to instruct others; one Neighbor another in mutual conference; Parents their Children; Masters their Family: And to this end the word of God should dwell in them abundantly. Observe what Chryso­stom In Locum. [...]. &c. saith upon this Text, directly against your Interpretation: Hear all ye who are immerst in the Affairs of the World, and have Wife and Chil­dren to take care of, how you especially are exhorted to read the Scripture with great diligence.

The Word [...], rather signifies Permission, then Exhor­tation.

And so should you permit secular Men to be conversant in the Scripture: but this will not help you, for the Exhortation, or rather Command, runs not by way of permission, but of duty. In the same Homily Hom. 16. In Epistolam ad Coloss. [...], &c. he tells every one of his hearers, That he should not wait for any other Teacher: Thou hast, saith he, the Oracles of God, none can in­strust thee like them. And then it follows, [...], &c. I beseech you, hear ye men of the World: Buy you Bibles, which are the souls physick; if not, purchase the New Testament, or Pauls Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles, or the Go­spels, Masters that will never intermit Instruction. And then he rounds them in the ear, [...]. This is the cause of all evils, not to know the Scripture. And lastly, in order to their instructing one another, he tells them, That they ought to help, and not leave all the burthen upon him: They were sheep, and must be fed; but they were not brute Beasts, but a rational Flock, [...]. and might so learn as in due time even to instruct their neighbors. And so I hope this holy Father hath fully answered you.

Lib. 2. de verb. Dei, c. 16. Chrysost. amplificat, in concionibus utebatur. Bellarmine, and others, observe Chrysostom to have bin a great Orator, and to use Hyperbolies and Amplifications according to the oc­casion: and he gives an instance pertinent to your purpose out of another [Page 23] place, where he saith, ^g It is impossible any one should obtain salvation, un­less he be alwaies conversant in reading Spiritual Books: which you know cannot be true in a strict sense; for many that cannot read, may be saved.

The Father speaks of Men that can read, and by their neglect exclude themselves from a possibility of Salvation; and that others who cannot read, might be diligent to hear others reading the Scripture, in the Church, and in their Families: And if this be your way to answer the Fathers when they fully declare against you, to say, They speak not Doctrinally, but like Orators by way of Amplification, you must needs carry all before you. Put you will find in the Homily upon Lazarus, how Chrysostom makes it his great business to exhort all his Congregation (in the Preface) to study the Scripture: This, saith he, I Preach in public, and this I exhort in private, and will never desist from so doing, [...], &c. That not only in the Church, but also in your houses, ye should diligently read the Scri­pture: [...]. And I hate, saith he, that frigid answer, and worthy all con­demnation, That because ye have Trades, and worldly Business, and Wife, and Children, therefore ye cannot be so well vers'd in the Scri­pture: And that in your Opinion, I should rather give this charge to study the Scripture, unto Men separate from the World; unto Monks, and Hermits, and the Clergy. What saiest thou man? (as the Father goes on) Is it not thy business to attend unto the Scripture, because thou art incumbred with myriads of worldly affairs? I tell thee, for this very reason thou shouldst apply thy self to the Scripture, more then such who are free from cares; for amidst thy multiplicity of business, thou dost want the help and conduct of the Scripture, more then they who are secluded from the world: Thy Wife may vex thee, thy Children grieve thee, thy Servant anger thee, thy Friend envy thee, thy Enemy beset thee with snares, the Judge oppress thee, thy Neighbor curse thee; and against all these and other assaults, how neces­sary will be the Panoply of the Scripture, the only Physic against all the mala­dies of the World. After all this, judge whether Bellarmines shift will serve his turn, touching Chrysostom' s Oratory and Amplifications: No, it was the good Fathers business, and principal part of Doctrine, in many Homilies to recommend the study of the Scripture unto his Congrega­tion.

But you may read another answer Bellarmine gives to these ve­hement Exhortations of Chrysostom, Quoniam dediti erant homines t [...]atris spect. aliisque [...], & script. divinas nunquam legebant. Because the People of that great City, Constantinople, were much given to Plaies and Sights, and other tri­sling Divertisements; and such as were sit and able did not look into the Bible, therefore he was so solicitous to quicken them. ^a Hom. 3. in Lazarum, Tom. 5. &c.

Doth not the same Cause ever inforce the same Exhortation? Are not Men too much addicted to the Vanities, and Lusts, and Cares of the World, and therefore need these sacred Divertisements? But by these whiffling Answers, you may perceive how your great Bellarmin is a Trifler, and so are all his Seconds, who have the confidence, without shew of reason, to shift off Arguments and Texts of Scripture, which are as clear as the Sun against them: But such weak Answers fortifie our Objections, and do in truth manifest, They are so convincing, that Men must be frivolous or silent in their Solutions.

I ascribe this Triumph before the Victory, and this insult­ing over your Adversaries, unto the partiality of your Judgment in your own cause.

To decline this Imputation, I shall choose to submit all to the impartial Reader; and pass from the testimony of Holy Scripture, unto the testimony of the Holy Fathers of the Church, who exhort all Chri­stians to the search and study of the Scripture. And altho we meet with great variety of Testimonies collected by learned Protestants out of the ancient Fathers, yet for brevity sake I will produce only such as I have had the opportunity to read my self, and if occasion serves, will here­after be ready to produce the rest. Lib. de spectaculis, ad finem, Script sacris incumbat Christianus fidelis, ibi in­veniet condigna fidei spectacula Cyprian willing to withdraw Chri­stians from the Roman Theaters and Sports, having condemn'd them for their Idolatry and Impurities, he directs Christians to the contemplation of Gods Works, in the excellent frame, and beauty, and order of the Creation, and more especially to read the Scripture. Let the Believing Christian, saith he, make the holy Scripture his study, where he shall find ex­cellent discoveries agreeable to his pretious Faith.

This Testimony of Cyprian, justifies Bellarmins former Answer, That because the People were much given to frequent the Theaters and Scenes, full of obscenity and vice, therefore for that season Chrysostom did divert them, by a better imploiment, exhorting them to study the Scripture: But this proves not that they should be alwaies read by the common people, but only upon such special Considerations.

When such Motives and Considerations are wanting, let Men and Women lay aside their Bibles; but as long as we live in a wicked World, there will be alwaies need of the light and conduct of Gods Holy Word, to lead us out of the works of Darkness and way of Un­righteousness. But I pray hear others: Homil 9. in Levit. Oplamus ut operam detis non selum in Ecclesia, &c. Origen tells his hearers, We do heartily wish, that ye would labor not only in the Church to hear Gods word, but also in your houses to be exercised in his Law day and night. And he pro­ceeds, In vain do ye complain that the flesh is weak, while ye neglect to nu­rish and fortifie the spirit, by reading the Holy Scripture, and by Praier, and hearing the instruction of the Word. And elsewhere, as you have heard [Page 25] before, he passionatly wisheth, Homil. 2. in Isaia. Would God we all would follow that which is written, Search the Scriptures. Lib. 12. de praepar. Evang. Eusebius Caesariensis assigns the read­ing of the Holy Scriptures both unto Babes in Christ, and unto strong Men, with this difference, The first sort must simply read and believe the Scripture as most true, and the infallible Word of God: But Men of mature Learning and Judgment, should dive into the profound My­stery and meaning of the Scripture: you may read his words in the first Page of that Book. The same Eusebius wrote three Books, as Jerome reports, of the Life of Pamphilus his great Friend, which are not ex­tant. But Lib. 1. Apol. adversus Ruffinum. Script. Sanctas non ad leg. sed ad habendum tribuebat, non solum viris sed & feminis. Jerome cites this Passage out of the third Book, in commen­dation of Pamphilus: Who is vertuous, and not a Friend of Pamphilus, who supplied food and necessaries to the poor, and distributed the Holy Scri­ptures, not only to Men, but Women, who were desirous to read them, for which end he purchased many Bibles? In Psal. 1. [...]. &c. Basil the Great tells us, All Scri­pture is written by Divine Inspiration, and profitable, and therefore given by the Holy Ghost, that every one of us might choose a proper remedy for his disease, as out of a common Apothecaries shop, f r his Soul.

As the Holy Scriptures have Physic for all Diseases, so the Ap­plication should be well made by our Spiritual Physicians, otherwise the Patient may miscarry; and therefore we hold the People should hear and receive the Scripture from the Priests mouth.

This gloss contradicts the Text, for the Father saith, [...]. Eve­ry one should choose his proper remedy out of the common Tresury. Again, Lib. de Parad. c. 12. Gentiles aut, &c. Ambrose directs a Gentile who would believe, or a Catechumen who would receive farther Instruction, unto the living Waters of the Holy Scripture, with­out the corrupt Channels of Interpreters. You see the Holy Scripture ought not to be with-held from Unbelievers, and Unbaptized. But Jerome for the Latine Church, and Chrysostom for the Greek, speak so fully to this Point, that we may supersede all other Testimonies. Jerome writes many Epistles to Virgins, to Women, concerning themselves and the Institution of their Children, the Government of their Families; and above all, commends to them the diligent reading of the Scripture. In his Epistle to Laeta, a Noble Dame, De Instit. filiae. nec alibi reperiant nisi in adyto script. Prophet. Apostolos de spi­ritualibus sciscitantem, &c. He gives in charge to inure her beloved Daughter to the study of the Scripture, That none should find her in the way of the World, amidst the throng and tumult of Play-fellows and Kins-folk, but in the recesses of the Holy Scripture, consulting the Prophets and Apostles about Spiritual concerns. Instead of fine Clothes and Jewels, [Page 26] let her love the Book of God; let her learn the Psalter, and divert her self with those Songs. In the Proverbs of Solomon, let her learn Morals. In the Ecclesiastes, to despise the World. In Job, Patience and Vertue. Let her proceed to the Evangelists, and never lay them out of her hands; & so to the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles: and having enrich'd her heart with these Divine Tresures, let her commit to memory the Prophets, and the Penta­teuch, &c. And at last, without danger, let her learn the Canticles. In another Epistle to a Virgin, Al Demetriadem. de Virg. servandâ. Spendeounum illud tibi, nata deo, praeque dominibus unum praedicam, & repetens, &c. O thou that art born of God, saith he, This one thing above all, I must give in charge, repeating it over and over again, That thou possess thy heart with the love of reading the Holy Scripture. Love the Bible, and wisdom will assuredly love thee. In an Epistle to Salvina, perswading her to keep her self a Widow, he faith, Semper in manibus sit divina Lectio. Let the Bible be always in thy hand to read it. In an Epistle to Celautia concerning the government of her Family, he presseth the same Exhortation, Semper in manibus, & jugiter in mente volvantur. Let the Holy Scripture be always in thy hand, and in thy mind. In Marcella's Epi­taph, Epistola ad Principiam div. Script. ardor erat incredib. semper que cantabat, In [...]rde meo abscondo eloq. tua, ut non peccem, &c. he gives this commendation of her, She had an incredible thirst after the Holy Scripture, and ever sang, I have hid thy word within my heart, that I might not sin against thee, &c. and that she became an Oracle to resolve doubts concerning the Scripture. I might collect many more such passages out of this Author, but I will content my self with one general Exhor­tation, to read the Scripture instead of all. Praefatione in Epistelam ad Ephesies, si quiequam est quod in hac vita, &c. If there be any thing, saith the good Father, which should make a wise man choose to live, and weather out the storms and troubles of our present state, it is the knowledge and medi­tation of the Scripture. For whereas (as he goes on) herein we chiefly dif­fer from other living Creatures, that we are rational and can speak, and all Reason and Language is contain'd in the Holy Scripture, whereby we know God, and are not ignorant wherefore we were created, I marvel any there should be, who either out of sloth and negligence, will not learn themselves these excellent things, or think others worthy reprehension who do study them. And now tell me, Have you not enough of Jerome? Would he not mar­vel, think you, at your new Doctors, who as much discourage the Peo­ple from reading the Scripture, as he with all his excellency of Grace and Eloquence doth excite them?

I must confess. I never look'd to hear so much to this pur­pose.

Have a little patience, and you will find Chrysostom as full and emphatical. Like advice he gives to Gaudentius for the Education of Pacatula his Daughter. ^f Let her learn the Psalter by heart, and before she ^f Discat Psalterium memoriter, &c. [Page 27] comes to maturity of age, let her make the Books of Solomon, the Evange­lists, the Apostles and Prophets, her chief tresure. In his first Tome, he tells his hearers, Hom. 10. in Genesin. [...], &c. We may at home, before and after meals, taking into our hands the Holy Bible, feed our Souls: for as the Body doth want corporal nu­rishment, so doth the Soul spiritual, we being thereby strengthned against the assaults of the flesh, and our restless enemy, who sets upon us to captivate our Souls. And therefore, saith he, the Prophet David calls him Blessed, who meditates in the Law of the Lord day and night. And then he adds, This is our salvation, this our spiritual wealth, this our security. If we arm our selves daily by spiritual bearing and reading, and discourse, we shall never be over come, but frustrate all the devices of the evil Spirit, and obtain the kingdom of Heaven. Again, speaking of the Holy Scriptures, he tells them, [...], &c. They are spiritual food, the nerves and sinews of Ratiocination, making the soul vigorous and in tune, and more Philosophical, not suffering her to be carried away with brutish passions, giving her a swift wing, and trans­lating her (as I may so speak) into Heaven: Wherefore I beseech you, let us not deprive our selves of such advantages, but in our own houses let us give all diligence in reading the Holy Scripture. In his Tom. 2. Hom. 29. [...], &c. He upbraids them of not minding the Scripture, And who is there, saith he, of this great Congregation, that, being requir'd, can say one of Davids Psalms, or any other part of Scripture? Hom. 2. in Matt. ad finem. And what do ye plead for your excuse? I an no Monk, I have a Wife and Children, and the care of a Family, &c.

He justly reproves such, who out of supine negligence had learn'd none of Davids Psalms, or other parts of the Scriptures: but our Church recommends the Penitential Psalms, and many others, to be learn'd by heart.

That which follows, expresly mentions reading the Bible: [...], &c. This mars all, saith [...]e, that ye think it belongs only to Monks to read the Word of God, when as ye want the comfort of the Scripture more then they: such as are conversant in secular affairs, and every day receive wounds, do most stand in need of Physic. And he goes on to tell them, [...], &c. That if there be a sin greater then the neglect of reading Gods Word, it is this, To be per­swaded we need not read the Scripture. This is the studied suggestion of the de­vil; whereas Paul tells us, These things were written for our instruction, 1 Cor. 10. 11. I must needs declare to you, Philodoxus, It makes my heart even to bleed, to think how such sa [...]anical suggestions (as Chrysostom just­ly call'd them) should now become the avowed Doctrine of a Christian Church, if I may in Charity be allow'd to call her so.

Your Zeal, Theophilus, transports you beyond all reason. [...], &c.

I would to God I had no reason for this Zeal and Indignation, but I have much more to produce out of this Father. In another Homi­ly he gives advice, that Hom. 5. Matth. [...], &c. They should not immediatly fall upon worldly bu­siness after a Sermon, but call their Wives and Children together, and take the Bible, and make them partake of those things he had heard.

This we approve well, that such as come to Church should heed what is taught them, and carry it with them; and in their Families, re­peat and instruct those that were absent.

But there is somthing more then you allow, [...], &c. That they should have Bibles in their Houses, and take and read to their Wives and Children at home the Text and Proofs, &c. Again, in the same Tome, Hom. 32. in Johan. ad finem. [...], &c. from the ex­ample of the Woman of Samaria, enquiring of our Blessed Savior a­bout the true Worship of God, &c. he condemns his hearers of negli­gence and indifferency in matters of Religion: And then he proposeth the Question, Which of you, being in his house, will take into his band the Book of Christianity, [...]. and search what is contain'd therein? You shall find Dice in every House, but the Bible in few: and such as have the Scriptures, are as tho they had them not: They clasp them up, and lock them in their Chests, and are solicitous for the finest Paper, and the fairest Letter, but not to read them. They boast they have the Bible in Golden Letters, and know nothing of the Contents. But the Scriptures were not given, that we should have them in our Books, but engraven in our hearts. I speak not this, saith he, forbidding you to have Bibles, ( [...]. I exhort and earnestly beg, you would procure them) but I desire also the sense and words of Holy Scripture should be carried in your minds. And if the Devil dares not enter into an house where there is a Bible, much less will he draw near to a soul that is fraught with Sentences of Scripture; neither sin, nor the evil Spirit, will at­temt a mind so well furnish'd. [...], &c. Sanctifie therefore thy Mind, and sanctifie thy Body, having the Holy Scripture alwaies in thy Heart, and in thy Mouth. In his third Tome, [...], &c. in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, he grieves his hearers were not better acquainted with Paul and his Epistles; and tells them, If they would with alacrity give themselves to reading the Scripture, they should want no other thing: or, if I mistake him not, no other Interpreter. For the promise of Christ shall never fail: seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Soon after he tells them, [...], &c. From hence dospring up myriads of evils, even from the ignorance of the Scripture: from hence pernicious Heresies, neglected lives, and labor in vain. For as they who are destitute of the light, cannot make strait paths; so such as [Page 29] do not take along with them the light of Gods Word, in many things necessari­ly do off end and stumble, as walking in utter darkness. But more then all this we may read in his fifth Tome, in the third Homily upon Lazarus, and I have already instanc'd in several passages of that Sermon, where he also tells us, That as Work-men cannot be without their Tools, so neither a Christian without the Holy Scripture. And he concludes the Preface of that Homily (wherein all these passages are to be found) with this assevera­tion, [...], &c. It is impossible, I say it is impossible, that any one who gives himself up to read the Holy Scripture with due observation, should lose his labor. And now after such full and frequent Exhortations of the Holy Scri­pture, and of the Holy Fathers, made unto all sorts and conditions of Men, to search, and hear, and read the Scriptures, and to be conver­sant in them, Would you think it possible a new Generation of Doctors should arise, and discourage, and forbid the People to study the Scri­ptures, urging Arguments to shew the great and many Inconveniencies of so doing; as much as they can restraining the Translations of the Bible in­to the vulgar Tongue of every Country?

What the sad experience of later Times had taught them, they have reason to declare, and to suit their Canons and Prohibitions to the season, as the wisdom of the Church did judg most expedient; and when you examine well their Arguments and Reasons, perhaps you may be constrain'd to allow of them.

There must be a strange transformation of Mens minds and manners, when the Holy Scriptures, which were written for our In­struction, and to make men wise unto Salvation, shall prove pernicious unto their Souls.

As wholefom Food unto sick Stomachs.

But the Holy Scriptures are both Food and Physic to the Soul, and were certainly written for all times, and for all conditions of Men.

I pray have patience to hear their Reasons, before you answer them.

I expect first you should return a sober Answer, unto the Ho­ly Fathers of the Primitive Church, who (as you have heard) do so se­riously recommend the study of the Scripture unto all Men.

I did not expect you should use so many shifts and subterfuges, and I am almost perswaded, that being conscious to your self, of their convincing Evidence, therefore you decline to hear their Arguments.

That will appear in due time and place: but have you in ear­nest no Reply to make, unto those Exhortations of the Fathers to read the Bible?

Your principal Quotations are out of Chrysostom; and Bellar­mine hath told you, He was an Orator, and used to speak Hyperbolies to affect his Auditory.

And I have shew'd, how this good Father, thro-out his [Page 30] Works, so frequently recommends the study of the Scripture, as a sub­stantial point of Doctrine and Duty, which he press'd upon his hearers, not as an embellished flower of his Rhetoric. But I pray, What Answer doth Bellarmine, or any other Champions of your Church, give unto the other Fathers?

I do not find they have taken much notice of the rest; they suppose, perhaps, one Answer will serve them all.

As one Shoe will sit every Mans Foot. And this indeed is very observable, That Bellarmine in his great reading should omit Jerome, and Basil, and Origen, and the rest, and take notice only of Chrysostoms Expressions, and thift them off as Rhetorical Flashes and Hyperbolies, and not serious Exhortations to read the Scripture. His subtilty, with­out doubt, promted him to concele the others for the advantage of his Cause, least the pregnant Testimonies of so many Fathers, should pre­vail with sober Men to search the Scripture, more then all the Prohibi­tions of their Church, and novel Arguments, to restrain them from it. And it is his Artifice, that he might seem Ingenious, to take notice of one Father opposing him, that so the unwary Reader being not well vers'd in the Fathers, might suppose all the others to have been silent, or on his side in the Controversie.

You are pleasant with your own Conceits, but their Arguments will make you work to answer them.

I have great confidence in the merits of the Cause, and do not despair of a ready Answer unto all opposition that shall be made a­gainst such a mesur'd Truth, which we defend.

Bellarmine Lib. 2. De verbo Dei, c. 15. shews, how the Old Testament was publicly read to the Jews in the Hebrew Tongue, when the People did not under­stand it; because in the Captivity the Jews had forgotten their own Lan­guage, and learn'd the Chaldee and the Syriac: And therefore after their return into Judea, it is written, Nehem. 8. 7, 8, 9, 12. how the Priests and Levites caused the People to understand the Law. They did read in the Book distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. Nehemiah, and Ezra, and the Levites, taught the People: and all the People made great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.

Here is not one word to shew the People did not understand the Language wherein the Holy Scriptures were read, but that the Priests and Levites gave the sense, interpreted to them the Law of God, and caused them to understand the meaning of the Words: nay, it is ex­presly said, ver. 2. That Ezra brought the Law before the Congregation, both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding. And again, ver. 3. before those that could understand, and all the People were attentive unto the Book of the Law. Neither may we well suppose that they had forgot their Mother Tongue in the time of their Captivity, but [Page 31] only mix'd, and corrupted it, in some Words. Seventy Years is too short a date to change the Language of a People. Withal, it might be remem­bred that some Learned Men of the Roman Communion, have said, That the Jews were not so long Captives in Babylon; that from the desolation of Jerusalem, when Nebuchadnezzar burn'd the City, and the Temple, until Cyrus his command for the Jews return, there were but 30. Years: And that the term of 70. Years, so much spoken of by the Prophet Jeremiah, did bear date from the 13 ^th Year of King Josiah's Reign, about the time when Ninevy was destroied, and the Assyrian Monarchy was translated to Baby­lon; and those great Neighbors prov'd very terrible, and by the Prophet were pointed out to be the destruction of Jerusalem. And withal, we know the three last Prophets, after the return of the Jews from Baby­lon, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachy, encouraging the People to build the Temple, and the City, spake unto them in the Hebrew Tongue, and therefore doubtless the People understood it. Nay we read expresly, Acts 22. 2. S ^t Paul spake to the Jews, gathered together in a great mul­titude and tumult, in the Hebrew Tongue, and therefore for a while heard him with patience; when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew Tongue to them, they kept the more silence: And it is manifest by that which follows, ver. 21. that they understood him.

Bellarmine brings a Confirmation, that the Jews did not under­stand the Hebrew Tongue, out of the Gospel of S ^t John, Joh. 7. 49. But this people, that know not the Law, is cursed.

Both he and you may blush to own such a simple Proof. The Scribes and Pharisees there pronounced the multitude that followed Christ accursed, not because they know not Hebrew, wherein the Law was written; but because, in their account, they mis-applied the Pro­phesies of the Messiah, to Christ. And if the Hebrew Tongue was for­gotten among the Jews, why did Matthew write his Gospel, as is suppo­sed, in Hebrew, for the better Information of his Country-men?

Bellarmine likewise shews, how even to this day, the Jews in their Synagogues have the Scriptures read in Hebrew, altho most of them understand it not.

Let the Synagogues of the Jews, and the Church of Rome in this regard, lay their heads together, to justifie their unreasonable practice by the Autority of one another.

But what say you to this next Argument, which seems demon­strative: The Apostles and Disciples preach'd the Gospel unto all Peo­ple, Nations and Languages, and yet they did write the Gospels, and their Epistles only in Hebrew and Greek. Nay Paul, you know, wrote his Epistles to the Romans in Greek, which was not their vulgar Tongue.

There is a great difference to be observ'd between Preaching the Gospel, and committing it to Writing. The Apostles were endow­ed ^• See Tirinus his Chronicon [...]actum, c [...]. [...]5. [Page 32] with the gift of Tongues, that whither soever they should come, they might Preach the Gospel of Salvation unto the People in that Tongue which they understood: But being to leave the Records of Holy Scri­pture unto all succeeding Generations, they did write them in that Lan­guage which was then most common in the World; viz. In Greek, that in every Country the Learned who did understand the Greek, might Translate the Holy Scriptures into their own Language, for the better understanding of the People. And without doubt, most of the Saints at Rome, who believed the Gospel, and unto whom Paul did write his Epistle; were not Natives and Italians, but Strangers and Foreigners, either transported by the Conqueror, or choosing to follow him into the great Metropolis of the World. Many Jews were at Rome, when Claudius banish'd them; and we may believe, more Greeks: The names of those Saints, whom in the 16 ^th Chapter he salutes, shew they were not Romans, but only Saints at Rome. And this may be a particular Conside­ration why Paul did write in Greek to the Saints at Rome, for we may pro­bably suppose more of them understood the Greek Tongue, then the Latine; but as need required, Translations were made. For a long season the Jews were the only chosen People of God thro-out the World to know his will, and they had Moses and the Prophets in their own Tongue; but when the time grew nigh, that the Gentiles also should be receiv'd into Covenant with God, be Fellow-heirs with the Jews, and of the same Body, and Partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel; (as the Apostle speaks Epb. 3. 6. to prepare the way for their conversion,) God stirr'd up the Heart of a Mighty Prince, to bring about that fa­mous Translation of the Old Testament into Greek, by the 70. Inter­preters: and other Greek Translations followed: and many more into Latine, both of the Old and New Testament, as Augustine shews, Lib. 2. de Doct. Chris. cap. 11. Qui Script. ex Hebrae [...] in Graecam vorterunt, numerari possunt, Latines autem Interpretes millo modo, &c. We may number those who have Translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek; but the Latine Interpreters are without number.

We do not disapprove Translations in Greek or Latine.

And why do you stick at other Languages, seeing all was don for the better understanding of the Holy Scriptures by the People in every Country; and you have already heard, that one Language is not more grave and venerable then another, notwithstanding Bellarmine would perswade the contrary. And to ballance his great Autority in this case, I will give the ample Testimony of a Pope against him. Bin. Concil. Tom. 7. parte 1. Epist Johan. 8. 247. We find among the multitude of Epistles written by Pope John the 8 ^th, (as he is call'd by the Champions of Rome, who exclude Pope Joan out of the Catalogue of Popes) otherwise Pope John the 9 ^th. One Epistle there is written Stento pulchro glorioso Comiti, To a Prince of Moravia, whose Subjects did speak the Sclavonian Tongue; and be commands they should have [Page 33] the Holy Scripture, and their Service in their own Language. Ʋt in eadem Lin. Christ. Dom. nost. praeconia & opera enarrantur, jubemu neque, &c. Giving his Reasons the same with us, For we are required, saith he, by Sacred Auto­rity to praise God, not only in three Tongues, but in all, Psal. 117. O praise the Lord all ye heathen, praise him all ye nations. And the Apostles in every Tongue did speak the wonderful works of God, Acts 2. 11. Hence Paul, that celestial Trumpet, proclaims, Let every Tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, Phil. 2. 11. of which Tongues he gives his advice manifestly, 1 Cor. 14. That all should be done to edifica­tion. Nor is it any way opposite to Faith or sound Doctrine, if Mass be sung in the Sclavonian Tongue, or the holy Gospel be read, or any other Lessons of the Old or New Testament, being well Translated. For he that made three principal Tongues, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latine, hath created likewise all the rest for his own praise and glory. I have set down this ample Testi­mony at large, because it commands what we practice, and gives the same reasons as we do, to justifie it. And we may wonder Bellarmine, and all other Creatures of the Popes of Rome, should not subscribe there­unto. But altho I mention'd only Translations of the Bible into Greek and Latine, which you approve; we early read of other Lan­guages whereinto the Holy Scriptures were Translated. The Old Testa­ment by Onkelos, and Jonathan the son of Ʋzial, was Translated into the Chaldee. Socrates Ecclesiast. Hist. cap. 27. Ʋlphilas, Bishop of the Goths, found out the Gothic Letters, and translated the Holy Scriptures into that Tongue, that the Barbarians should have the Blessed Word of God. The Septuagint into the Dalma­tie, by Jerome. The whole Bible by Chrysostom, into the Armenian Tongue (as Sixtus Senensis Lib. 4. Bibliothecae Sacrae. cum in Cucuzum, &c. affirms) when he was banish'd into Cucuzum, a City of Armenia, for the benefit of the People, that they might the better understand the Holy Scriptures, he translated the Old and New Testament into the Armenian Tongue. Bellarmin hath the confidence to doubt, whether Jerome translated the Septuagint into the Dalmatic, the vulgar Tongue of his Country: but Ibid. usque in hanc diem utuntur hujus translationis Lectione, summâ cum utilitate. Sixtus Senensis tells us, that unto this day they make use of the Translation with great benefit. And Lib. 1. cap. 13. Contra Haereses. Alphonsus de Castro acknowledgeth it, altho a great Adversary against vulgar Translations. Theodoret, The Learned Bishop of Cyrus, Lib. 5. [...], de curand. Graecorum affectibus, [...], &c. tri­umphs over all the obscure Books of the Heathen Philosophers, in com­parison with the Holy Scriptures, because these were universally receiv'd among all Nations, and translated into their Language. We, saith he, e­vidently demonstrate the efficacy and power of Prophetical and Apostolic Do­ctrine, in that every Nation under the Sun is full of the Divine Oracles. The [Page 34] Hebrew Tongue, (i. e. the Old Testament) being translated not only into the Greek, but into the Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scy­thian, Sauromatian Tongues. and to sum up all, into all the Languages which the Nations thro-out the World do speak.

Theodoret here speaks of the Old Testament translated into all Languages, but not of the New.

If one, we may suppose the other; where the New Testa­ment, being written in Greek, was not understood, doubtless it was translated; seeing Moses, and the Prophets Writings were communica­ted in all Languages unto the World, principally to give testimony unto the Gospel. But not to heap up Quotations in vain, your own Friends acknowledge it. Lib. 6. Biblioth. Annotat. 152. Ad id quod haeretici contendunt, &c. Sixtus Senensis gives a reason why such Transtations useful before, should now be prohibited for their inconvenience. When Heretics urge, that the Holy Scriptures should be translated into the Mother Tongue of every Nation, because heretofore they were so, to the great benefit of the Church, I answer, This is a foolish Argument; for many other things were formerly instituted, which afterwards were abrogated for their incon­venience. So pleads Alphonsus de Castro, loco citato.

I have several times intimated this Plea, That the Church, be­cause of inconveniences discovered, hath as great reason now to with-hold the Scriptures from the Peoples reading, and to forbid vulgar Translations, as the former times had to encourage them.

This is your only Sanctuary to fly unto, in this and many other Controversies between us, That the Wisdom of the Church is the best Judge of times and seasons, and upon due considerations, hath power to alter and change the state of things, even against the Pri­mitive Rule, and the Primitive Practice. And because I will not inter­rupt our present Discourse, I will reserve this Point unto another season, and now expect you should produce your due Considerations and Rea­sons against vulgar Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and the Peoples reading them. I must tell you, they had need be demonstrative, to con­clude against the Testimony of the Holy Scripture, of the Holy Fathers, and against the practice of the Church for nine hundred Years, for that Declaration I produc'd of Pope John the 9 ^th, was in the end of the 9 ^th Century.

When you hear them, you may judge. Lib. 2. De verbo Dei, cap. 15. Ʋt publicus usus Script. sit in lingua commu­niss. Bellarmine shews it necessary unto Church Communion, and Unity thro-out the World, That the public use and reading of the Scripture, should be in the most common Lan­guage in the World, that Churches may communicate one with another. For this cause the Holy Scriptures were first written in Greek, which then was the most universal Language: whereunto the Latine Tongue now succeeds, as being understood by the Learned of every Nation. By this [Page 35] means General Councils are held, wherein generally they understand and speak Latine.

We deny not that the Scripture should be read in Greek or Latine, by those that understand them; mean while, for the benefit of the common People in every Country, they may have the Scripture in their vulgar Tongue, and never obstruct Catholic Communion, or Ge­neral Councils. And withal, we know the Bishops of the Greek and Latine Churches have held many Councils together, their diversity of Tongues not impeding; where they did not mutually understand one another, they had Interpreters. But I grant, in such General Learned Assemblies, the most common Language is most useful.

But Ibid. populus non intelligeret Proph. & Psal. &c. Bellarmin reasons farther, That vulgar Translations for the Peoples reading the Scripture, would not be beneficial to them, because, when translated, the People cannot understand them without Interpreters; for we who understand the Latine, are often forc'd to consult learn'd Expositors, saith he.

This indeed is one Artifice of your Church, whereby she sa­tisfies her Children without the Divine Food of Gods Word, and makes them be content without the Holy Scripture in their own Tongue. You perswade the People, they cannot read the Scriptures and understand them, unless they be min [...]'d and carv'd to them, by the Nursing Fathers of the Church, their Priests and Pastors, As Mothers chew the Bread and Meat they give to little Children, not commiting to them the whole mor­sel Matres dant infant. panem dissect. & praemansum, non integrum & solidum, Lib. 2. de Verb. Dei, cap. 16.. And thus you hold them alwaies in their Infancy, as Children and Babes in Christ, and feed them neither with strong Meat, nor the Milk of Gods Word, except they draw it out of the Churches Breasts: for they must not read the Holy Scriptures, where they are plain and easie to be understood, because of some hard places which they may misun­derstand. Now we approve, that the Word of God should be right­ly divided unto the People by the Ministers of the Gospel; and withal, according to the Tenor of Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Fathers, we exhort the People to search & study the Scriptures themselves, and draw Waters out of the Wells of Salvation: to drink the Waters of Life out of the Fountain, as well as thro the Conduit of Preaching and Inter­pretation. But Tom. 5. Homil. 3. in Lazarum. [...], &c. Chrysostom hath long since answer'd your Objection, To whom are not all things in the Gospel manifest, saith he? Who, when he hears, That blessed are the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the like, needs an Interpreter; and withal, the signs, and miracles, and the hisiories of Holy Scripture, are they not obvious to every understanding? and therefore it is a meer excuse and cloak of your Idleness, to say, You can­not understand, and therefore you do not read the Scriptures. Dost thou not [Page 36] understand what is written? How canst thou, when thou wilt not look into the Bible? Take the Book of God into your hands, and read, and make use of what thou understandest, and that which is obscure will follow: or if thou canst not find out the meaning of any place by the context, and often read­ing; repair to one more Learned, ask thy Teacher, communicate with the Guide of thy Soul about such things: shew much diligence to find the Truth, and God will not despise thy watchfulness and care; and if man should not in­terpret right, God himself would revele the Truth. And so he proceeds in the Exhortation, and gives an instance in the Eunuch, who even in his Journey in his Chariot did read the Prophet, and God sent him an Inter­preter. And now I pray, observe the difference between the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and of yours. They exhort earnestly all sorts and conditions diligently to read the Scripture, that they may get Wis­dom and Understanding; and assure them, That God will Crown their diligence with knowledge. You altogether discourage and forbid the People to read the Scripture, perswading them, that they cannot under­stand and profit themselves thereby.

Do you believe that all things written in the Gospels are plain and easie, as you bring Chrysostom to affirm? By this you may judg of his Hyperbolical Expressions, which I before observ'd out of Bellar­min.

You must not take his Words so strictly, but that for the most part what is written is clear; and when we understand not, he adviseth us to consult. Meanwhile, it is very unjust to with-hold such an in­estimable Tresure, as is Gods Holy Word, from the People, because some passages are obscure and hard to be understood; whereas the far greater part of the Holy Scriptures (being Historical or Moral, or the plain discovery of Divine Mysteries, and fulfilling of Prophesies, mat­ters of Faith, and matters of Practice) is most evident, and condescend­ing to the meanest capacities. If in some difficult and deep places of Holy Scripture the Elephant may swim, i. e. the most Learned may find work enough to fathom them; in other places, the Lamb may wade, i. e. the meanest understanding may apprehend them, as Augustin hath made the Allusion.

Lib. 2. De verb. Dei, cap. 15. Eo sunt obscuriores quo magis in peregrinis Ling. transferuntur. Bellarmin shews, How the Scriptures become more obscure by their Translations, one Language being not able to express the Idioms of an­other.

This Argument proves more then he or you would have it, even against your Darling vulgar Latine Translation. We easily grant the Originals, as the Fountain, to be most clear unto those who can under­stand and consult them. Yet Translations made with Learning, and Judgment, and Fidelity, give the full sense of Holy Scriptures, altho they may come short of some Elegancies and Proprieties of the Origi­nals. [Page 37] And unto the People who understand the Language of the Transla­tion, the Word of God is certainly more manifest, then if it were lock'd up in an unknown Tongue, altho it be the Original.

Ibid. Populus non solum non capit fructum, è Script. sed & detrimentum; occasio­nemsc. errandi tum in doctr. fidei, tum praecept. vitae. Bellarmin in his great Wisdom and Observation looks farther, and discovers, How the People instead of reaping Fruit, usually receive detriment by reading the Scripture, easily taking the occasion of Errors, both in matters of Faith, and Precepts of Life, and moral Conversation. From reading the Holy Scriptures, and not rightly understanding them, spring up Heresies and corruption of Mens manners.

Praefatione in Epistolam ad Rom. Chrysostom in his great Piety and Fidelity, assures us the con­trary. For (as I have cited him before) upbraiding his hearers with their supine negligence in reading and studying the Holy Scripture, he tells them, Hence arise myriads of evils, even from the ignorance of Gods Word. And to cross point-blank Bellarmines division of Corruptions in Doctrine, and in Manners, from reading the Scripture, he tells them, That by the neglect of reading and understanding the Scripture, have pro­ceeded the pest of many Heresies, the neglect of Mens lives, and the corruption of their manners.

We grant, these Evils spring from the ignorance of the Scripture, which are Chrysostoms own words: [...]. and that may be from the misunder­standing of them, and therefore we with-hold them from the People, least they should wrest and prevert them.

But this is the plain way to make them altogether ignorant of the Scripture. And you will find in that place, Chrysostoms complaint was, Not that they did misinterpret, but that they did neglect to read the Scripture: And he had ask'd the Question before with indignation, [...], &c. How canst thou understand, who wilt not vouchsafe to look into the Scri­pture? And in another place, Homil. 8. in Epistolam ad Hebraeos, [...], &c. he sadly complains for the growth of the Manichecs Heresie, and lays it to the charge of his Hearers for negled­ing the Scripture, None of you, saith he, heed the Scripture; for if we did so, we should not only keep our selves out of the snare of Deceit and Er­rors, but free others also, and draw them out of the pit wherein they were taken. Observe, I pray, the direct opposition between your Doctors, and the Primitive Fathers. The Peoples reading of the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue is a great cause of Heresie, and corruption of Manners, say you: The neglect of reading the Scripture is the cause, say they.

'Tis in vain to urge Autority against Experience. Loco cit. supra. Bellarmin shews, how Sects and Heresies have swarmed, where the vulgar sort [Page 38] read and study the Scriptures: He tells you, how David George knew no other Language but the Dutch, and yet could prove himself out of the Scripture to be the Messiah, and the Son of God. And that Aeneas Syl­vius, who wrote the Bohemian History, ascribes the gross Errors of the Thaborites and Orebites, and the other Sects among the Bohemians, unto the common Peoples studying the Scripture: and therefore Lutherus Scrip. Librum Hereticorum vocavit. Luther, saith he, call'd the Scripture, The Book of Heretics.

For David George, that Dutch Monster, altho I do not understand the Language, yet I am perswaded his Mother Tongue never promted him to such horrible Blasphemies; neither did the Holy Scri­pture, which he read in his Dutch, give the occasion; unless by Pro­phesie and Prohibition. Christ had foretold, how Deceivers should come in his Name, and in his Person, Mark 13. 21. That false Christs should arise, and men should say, Lo here is Christ, and there is Christ; but go not after them, and believe them not. You see therefore how the Scri­pture would have fore-warn'd and fore-arm'd him against such a Blasphe­mous attemt, had he not bin given over to reprobate mind. You may as well say, our Saviors converse with Judas made him the Traitor. As for the Bohemian Heretics, (as your Doctors commonly call them) we know the Court of Rome was much perplex'd with their clamor and de­mands, to have the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue, and the Communi­on in both kinds, &c. and so bitter things are written against them: but when you shall instance in any particulars of their damnable Doctrines (as you suppose) I will undertake to clear the knowledg and reading of the Holy Scripture from the imputation, That they did erre, because they knew the Scripture. Ye do therefore greatly erre, because ye know not the Scripture, Mark 12. 24. saith our Blessed Savior to the Sadduces. The Bohemians did therefore erre, because they did read and know the Scripture, say you. As for Luther's calling the Scriptures the Book of Heretics, Bellarmine cites not the place; and if they do not bely him (according to their accustomed dealing with him and others) we do blame him, and think not our selves obliged to justifie the fumes of heat and choler, or the infirmities of good Men. But now what will you say, if I turn the Scales, and shew you how Heresies and damnable Doctrines have bin minted in the Brains of subtle Clerks, and not of the simple Laity, in comparison. Marcion and Arrius were Priests. Nestorius, Ser­gius, Dioscorus, Patriarchs and Prelates. Eutyches, an Abbot; and all these Broachers of Heresie. And such Men of Learning and Reputati­on, are likely to do much more mischief in seducing the People, then some obscure and simple Phanatics. And we have cause to fear, that some Mercurial Wits beyond the Seas have laid the Scenes, and come o­ver Incognito in the mist of our Distractions and Troubles, to act their parts, and give Life and Motion to the Phlegmatic Humors of our Sepa­ratists; who whil'st they dream of Popery, and mightily declaim and [Page 39] fight against it, are led by many of the Principals and Priests of the Church of Rome: upon your account therefore, wise Men should with-hold the Scripture rather from the Learned, who are able to do most mischief, then from the multitude. But we affirm, neither one nor the other, That either Clerks or Pesants should be restrain'd from reading the Bible for their Instruction and Salvation, out of a panic fear they should wrest and pervert them to their own destruction, and others. Every thing that is most useful, may become pernicious. Will you keep no Fire in your Chimney, for fear you should burn your House?

Loco praedict. Bellarmine gives another considerable Argument, That in the Holy Scriptures there are many seeming Contradictions, which if the common People in reading should observe, not knowing how to re­concile them, they may be apt to question the Infallibility and Truth of the Scripture.

These seeming Contradictions do not easily fall within the Observation of the vulgar, but of the Learned; and withal, they ought to read the Holy Scriptures with veneration, and due acknowledgment that they are the infallible Word of God, and dictates of his Holy Spi­rit, who cannot lye nor contradict himself: and upon this ground, when we apprehend any contradiction in Gods Word, we must distrust our own Judgment, and not question the truth of Holy Scripture in any place, but our own apprehension, and apply our selves to the Learned for reconciliation and better satisfaction. But as to the other part of Bellarmines Assertion; Is it possible any should conceive that the Holy Word of God should contribute to the corruption of Mens manners, and debauch the Lives of such as study it?

Yes, of the unwary Reader. For he instanceth in that passage of the Canticles, Cant. 1. 2. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth. And in another place, Cant. 8. 3. His left hand should be under my head, and his right hand should embrace me. He instances in Davids Adultery, and Thamars Incest, in the Patriarchs Concubines. Now the ruder sort may make ill use of such Expressions and Examples.

And so may a carnal Priest, Tit. 1. 15. For unto them that are defiled, saith the Apostle, nothing is pure, but even their mind and consci­ence is defiled. But unto the pure, all things are pure. And therefore in such cases, evil unto him that thinks evil. We ought to give unto Spiri­tual Songs a Spiritual sense, and not a sensual. Psal. 51. Davids Adul­tery is recorded, and his most signal Repentance; the Vices of the Pa­triarchs, together with their Virtues, to shew they were Men of like Passions with us, and subject to Infirmities. And the whole design of Scripture, tends unto our Sanctification and holiness of Life, and there­fore, one would think, may prove a sufficient Antidote against the Infe­ction of such Examples: and withal, many who never read the Scripture may hear these Stories, and not be so well fortified against them. Bel­larmine, [Page 40] I know, made himself mirth with a Story related (as he saith) by a credible Person, Loco cit. supra, audivi ab homine fide digno, &c. That a Calvinistical Minister of the Church of England, reading the 25 ^th Chapter of Ecclesiasticus, in the vulgar Tongue, where much is spoken of the malice and wickedness of a Woman; one of his hearers, a Woman, rose up and said, Is this the word of God? nay rather of the divel. Whereunto I answer, That perhaps the poor Wretch, before the happy Reformation in England, being kept, more Romano, in great ignorance of the Scriptures, thought it strange to hear such passages against her Sex, and was promted to Blaspheme; whereas, had she bin conver­sant in the Word of God, she would have learn'd to Bless and nor Bla­spheme, to govern her Passion, and rule her Tongue, and to keep silence at the Church, the Apostle not permitting her there to speak.

Leo decimus, qui dissolute respondit Cardinali Bembo, Quantum nobis profuit haec fabula Christi, satis est omnibus seculis notum. Job. Balaeus centuriâ 8 ^va illustrium scriptorum Britanniae, pag 636. And withal, the Pope, who call'd the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ a Fable, was the more notorious Blasphemer. As for his taunt of a Calvinisti­cal Minister of the Church of England, he knew well, that our worthy Reformers chose not Calvin for their Master. We are bound to honor him for his great Learning and Labor in the Work of the Lord, but not to subscribe in all Points unto his Doctrine or Discipline: and yet, without doubt, John Calvin compar'd with Ignatius Loiola, the Father of Bellarmines Order, was a Saint.

These are Impertinencies to vent your spleen. But what say you to Bellarmines next Consideration, That if vulgar Translations be permitted, they must be changed every Age with the Language of the Country, and so there would never be an end of Translating; and fit Men to undertake that great Work, may probably be wanting.

I say that Bellarmine wanted Modesty and Consideration to assert that, which the Experience of all Ages contradicts; namely, That the vulgar Tongue of every Country changeth for the most part in the compass of an hundred Years; whereas his most part must be contracted into some few Words and Phrases, every Age refining, but not changing or destroying the Language of a People.

The last Argument of Bellarmine is this, That the Majesty of Divine Service (and we may add, of the Holy Scripture) requires a more grave and venerable Language, then is the vulgar. And this part of his Argument I have already proposd, but that which follows is considerable. Loco citato praesertim cum in Sacris Mysteriis multa sint quae fecreta esse de­beant. Especially seeing, in Holy Mysteries, many things there are which should be concel'd from vulgar apprehensions. And this Pope Gregory the 7 ^th urgeth, as a reason of his denial unto the request of the Duke of Bohemia, that his Subjects might enjoy their public Service ^b Istudne est verbum Dei? imo potius diaboli. [Page 41] in the Sclavonian, i. e. the vulgar Tongue, Ex hoc nempe saepe volventibus liquet non immerito sacram script. omnipotenti Deo placuisse, &c. Bin. con. Tom. 7. part. 1. Ep. Greg. l. 7. Epist. 11. Ʋpon due consideration, saith he, I have observ'd, that Almighty God was pleased that the Holy Scriptures should be obscure in some places, least that being evident to all Men, they should be cheap and contemtible.

This is in truth an occult cause, the usual refuge of such as can give no reason. I may call this the mystery of your Church, if not the mystery of Iniquity: That God design'd some things in his Word and in his Service should be concel'd from the vulgar, least they should breed contemt. I had thought the Word of God, the more it was understood and discovered, the more veneration it would procure; and so all the Mysteries of the Gospel. The Jews indeed had their veils and partiti­ons; and into the inner Tabernacle, only the High Priest did enter once every Year, and into the outward Tabernacle the Priests every day, and the People stood in the outward Courts: The Holy Ghost thus signify­ing, Heb. 9. 8. That the way into the Holiest of all was not yet mado manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing, saith the Apostle. But then speaking of their condition under the Gospel, he adds, Heb. 10. 19, 20. But we, Brethren, have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Je­sus; by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us. When Christ was Crucified, the veil of the Temple rent from top to bottom, that which was hidden was made manifest, Prophesies fulfill'd, and My­steries revel'd: The Gospel is the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Light of the World, whose property is to discover, not to concele; and least the Majesty of such glorious Truths and Mysteries re­vel'd should dazle the Eies of our Understanding, lo, they are clothed in Scripture with humility of speech. And S ^t Augustin Tom. 2. Epistola 3. ad Volusianum. Invital omnes humili sermone, quos non solam manifestâ Pascat, sed & secretâ exerceat veritate. tells us, The Holy Scriptures invite all to read and understand them, by their great condescention to our capacities; feeding all, not only with manifest Truths, but also with hidden verities. Let us therefore never speak of design'd concelements in the Gospel of Christ, wherein the mystery which hath bin hid from ages, and from generations, is now made manifest unto the Saints, as S ^t Paul speaks, Coloss. 1. 26. And the same Apostle expresly tells us, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. In whom the God of this World hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, least the Light of the glorious Gospel of Christ. who is the Image of God, should shine unto them. And now, I pray, tell me, Have you found your Argu­ments unanswerable? never believe the wit of Man can bring Demon­strations against the Truths of God. Your great Champion Bellarmine hath not brought a probable Argument against the Peoples reading and hearing the Holy Scripture, and Divine Service in the vulgar Tongue, which is at present the Controversie between us.

If your self be Judge, the Question is determined. But I have not yet done, until I have propos'd two serious Considerations more a­gainst publishing the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar Tongue, wherewith Peter Sutor, a Carthusian, hath furnish'd me. The first is this, Mulierculae in Lect. Bibl. versantes curam rei domesticae negligent. Idiotae huic negotio dediti non curabant, &c. De tralat. Bib. c. 22. p. 96. It will make Laborers, Men and Women, neglect their business, whil'st they spend the time in reading the Scripture, which they should imploy about their houshold affairs, and necessary occupations.

This is a great Crime, tending to the ruine of many Fami­lies. But alas! too general experience proves the contrary, that Men and Women are not so easily drawn from the cares and business of the World, to mind Heavenly things; from idle Communications, to the Holy Scriptures. You have heard how Chrysostom complains of the con­trary, That such as had Bibles never look'd into them, bound them up in costly Covers, and lock'd them up as hidden Treasures; and they pre­tended the Incumbrances of the World for their excuse. Our Blessed Savior, in the Parable of the Sower, sheweth, Matth. 13. 22. How the cares of the world, like thorns, choke the good seed of Gods word. And your Monks fear is, least reading the Word should hinder the necessary cares and business of Life. It seems of late, the World is much alter'd for the better, that the hearts of Men should be so endear'd unto the Holy Scripture, that if they be not with-held from them, Men would neglect their Callings. But these are fond Imaginations; you know the Holy Scriptures strictly enjoin every one to follow his calling, 1 Cor. 7. 20. Promise the Blessing of God upon the diligent band, Prov. 10. 4. and 12. 24. Command, That such as will not labor, should not eat, 2 Thess. 3. 10. And Solomon, in the last Chapter of his Proverbs, hath set forth a good House­wife so excellently, that it is not possible a wise Woman, minding that Chapter, should neglect her business. But what is your Carthusians se­cond Consideration, against publishing the Holy Scripture in the vulgar Tongue.

It seems you want work, and you do so please your self with your conceited Answers, that I am unwilling any longer to tickle your humor, and to propose any more Objections.

It is high time indeed to draw to a conclusion, and there­fore I did hasten you to that which you reserv'd, and 'tis my request it may be your last Proposal.

If you will needs hear it, it is this: If the common People should be permitted constantly to read the Holy Scripture in the vulgar Tongue, Facile plebs nuomu [...]bit cum sibi tot onera imponi comperiet praeter Scripturam. Pet. Sutor, ib [...]lem. They would murmur against so many Burthens and Impositions of the Church, which they find not required in the Book of God; and so may be­come stubborn and disobedient to the commands of the Church.

This hath hit the nail upon the head. Never any Man spake more to the purpose in this Point. It is a most ingenious confession, That if the Scripture were permitted to be read by all sorts, farewel to all the intolerable Burthens, and superstitious Impositions of Rome. As he that doth evil hateth the light; so your Church requiring many unwar­rantable superstitious things of her Children, wisely keeps them from giving heed unto the Word of God, which soon would discover her Impostures.

I beseech you, Theophilus, do not end a Controversie with a Quarrel. You are my Guest and Friend, and after these heats of Di­sputation, it will concern me to divert you with such Civilities, and slen­der Entertainment, as the House at present will afford. I hope you will resolve to tarry some time with me, and give your self and me the op­portunity to debate the other Points in difference between us. You are as welcome as your Heart can wish.

SIR, I am much obliged to you for your kind and civil En­tertainment, and much more for that freedom of Dis­course which your great Moderation hath allow'd me, when somtimes in the defence of Truth, and through a flaming Zeal that you should recover it, I have neglected the Ceremonies of Friendship, to hold the substance; I have not sought so much to please, as to convince you.

Truth is a Jewel, which all are concern'd to purchase and hold fast; but where this Tresure is to be found, is the great Question: I have bin diligent in the search, and the Providence of God, as I be­lieve, hath not been wanting in conducting me unto the Catholic Church, the great Repository of Divine Truths.

Doubtless, the Holy Catholic Church is so, the Truth it self hath promis'd to be with her unto the end of the World. The Catholic Church will alwaies hold the Catholic Faith; and by this Rule we judg, particular National Churches to be true Members of the Church Catho­lic, as they hold the Catholic Faith.

I mean the Roman Catholic Church, whose Faith, as Peters, cannot fail; and which hath alwaies laid a just claim to be the Catholic Church, wherein the Truths of God, and Eternal Life, are conserv'd as her peculiar Tresure, and none, who do not communicate with her, can share in them.

That which you call a just claim, will in its due place ap­pear a most intolerable Usurpation; and such as make the Catholic Church and the Roman Church to be reciprocal terms of the same am­plitude and extent, have forfeited their Logic and their Reason together. The Church of Rome at best, was a part and Member of the Church Ca­tholic; and now since, thro her manifold Corruptions, she hath well-nigh forfeited that Interest: lo! with an unparallel'd Insolence, she flies [Page 45] at all, and prescribes to the name of Catholic more solicitously, per­haps out of a jealousie the Catholic Church should totally exclude her, and out of a consciousness she hath deserv'd it. But this digression would usher in a large Controversie, besides our present purpose, and I design first to insist upon the manifold Errors of your Church, one af­ter another, as our occasions will permit; and then, if you please, we will dispute the Point, Whether the Church of Rome can be the only true Catholic Church, which has so many ways departed from the Catho­lic Doctrine.

Your confidence, Theophilus, is no proof.

I hope it shall appear to you and to the World, that my Rea­sons and my Proofs have made me confident. You may remember a second obvious Exception, which I propos'd against the practice of the Church of Rome, was her half Communion, in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, Her denying the Cup unto the Laiety. If you please, we will now take it into Consideration.

Most willingly: For I find a great noise and clamor is rais'd a­bout it, and the Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome is proclaim'd out of the Pulpit and the Press; and from some appearances of Truth, your severe Imputations and Calumnies pass for currant with the un­discerning multitude.

These appearances of Truth (as you are pleas'd to call them) are no less then Demonstrations, carrying so much Light and Evidence in them, that even the undiscerning multitude in reading the Holy Scriptures, are able at first sight to discover the incongruity of your Practice with the Rule; how, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men, you evidently transgress the commands of God:

This Artifice of yours, and Industry, to court the People in­to a prejudice against us, is to me a Demonstration, that you put no great confidence in the merits of your Cause. Do not so peremtorily conclude, before you have enter'd upon the Proof:

I will prove your giving the Bread in the Holy Communion, and not the Cup unto the People, to be against the Institution of Christ, the end of the Sacrament, the practice of the Apostles and of the Church Catholic, for twelve-hundred Years.

You have propos'd a good Method of Discourse, and I desire you would follow it.

First, our Blessed Savior, immediatly before his Passion, in­stituted the Sacrament, and gave it to the Disciples present in both kinds, as three Evangelists record, Matth. 26. 26. As they were eating, Jesus took Bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body. ver. 27. He took the Cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for remission of sins. So we read in Mark 14. 22, 23. and he expresly testifieth of the Cup, That he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. Saint Luke after the same manner. And adds [Page 46] moreover, the command of Christ, This do in remembrance of me, Luke 22. 19.

I pray observe how that command is given, only when the Di­sciples receiv'd the Bread, and not when they took the Cup. The Words are these, He took Bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my Body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup is the New Test ament in my Blood which is shed for you, ver. 20. And Tom. 3. Lib. 4. cap. 25. de Sacramento Eucharist [...] ut intelligeremus, &c. Bellarmin observes it as an instance of Gods wonderful Providence to make Heretics unexcusable, And that we may understand it was the command of Christ, that the Sacra­ment should be distributed to all under the species of Bread, but not so under the species of Wine.

S ^t Luke saith, Likewise also the Cup: Intimating the same In­stitution for one and for the other.

We are not much concern'd in your gloss upon the Text.

But you are in S ^t Pauls, who declares, That after the same manner he took the Cup when he had supped, saying, This Cup is the New Te­stament in my Blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. the very Words of S ^t Luke. And then expresly adds the words of command of our Lord Christ, This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Now what say you to the word of command given by Christ, to do this in remembrance of him, as well when he gave the Cup, as when he distributed the Bread unto the Disciplos?

Bellarmin observes a difference, Ibid. Post panis consecrationem absolute penitur, post calicem, cum conditione. This do in remembrance of me, is put absolutely even in S ^t Pauls relation, after the Consecration of the Bread; but after the Cup it is repeated with a Condition, [...]his do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of one: not intimating, that the Cup must of necessity be given or taken; but if it be given or receiv'd, it should be done in remembrance of the Lords Passion.

These are pitiful shifts; the words rather imply. Christians should often drink of the Cup in remembrance of their Savior. And the very next Verse confutes this conceit of Bellarmin, wherein Paul puts the condition, as often, both to eating and drinking, ver. 26. For as oft­en as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come. And withal, while you triumph in S ^t Lukes relation, where the command of, Do this, is expres'd only when our Savior gave the Bread; you do not consider that S ^t Matthew relates our Saviors charge when he gave the Cup, Matth. 26: 27. Drink ye all of this. And S ^t Mark records, Mark 14. 23. He gave the Cup to them, and they all drank of it.

To whom did Christ give this command, Drink ye all of this?

To the Disciples, who did eat the Passover with him, and sup'd with him; and after Supper he Instituted the Holy Sacrament, and gave the command to observe it.

But these Disciples were the twelve Apostles, as is manifest from S ^t. Lukes relation, Luke 21. 14. When the hour was come (to keep the Passover) he sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him. Now we grant, that the Apostles, and the Bishops and Priests their Successors, must re­ceive in both kinds, but not the People. Bellarmin reasons thus, Ibid. Dedit selis Apostolis, eo dixit s [...] Apostolis, bibite ex hoc omnes. He gave the Cup only to the Apostles, and therefore only to them he said, Drink ye all of this.

By this subtilty you altogether exclude the People from be­ing concern'd at all in Christs command to receive the Sacrament: for to whom he said, Take, eat, this is my Body, to them he said, Drink ye all of this [...] that is, as you say, only to the Apostles. Upon what account therefore do ye administer the Lords Body unto the People?

To this you have Ibid. Etsi non dedit, non prohibuit. Bellarmins Answer. Although he did not give the Sacrament unto the People, he did not for bid it should be given to them.

So neither hath he forbidden the Cup should be given to them. But I pray hear what one of your own Benedictine Abbots, P [...]s [...]hafius, in his Book De corpore Christi, c. 15. (as Bellarmin quotes him) saith, as a Comment upon those Words, [...] ex hoc omnes, tam ministri quam reliqui credentes. Drink ye all of this; All, as well Mi­nisters as other Believers, Hear what another of your own side saith up­on the Text, and Bellarmins Comment Gerardus Lori [...]hius, de Missa publica proroganda., There be some false Catholics, that fear not to stop the Reformation of the Church what they can. These spare no Blast he mies, least that other part of the Sacrament should be re­stor'd to the lay People; for, say they, Christ spake, Drink ye all of this only to the Apostles; but the words of the Mass be these, Take and eat you all of this, Here I would know of them, whether this was spoken only to the Apostles; then must Lay-men abstain likewise from the element of Bread, which to say, is an Heresie, yea, a pestilent & detestable Blast hemy. It is therefore consequent, saith he, that both these words (Eat ye, Drink ye) were spoken to the whole Church.

It seems the Doctors vary in their Opinions. But the Truths of God, and the Canons of the Church, depend not upon the humors of Men, and private Interpretation.

You seem all along to take Bellarmin's Words for Truth, his Answers for Oracles: And do you now except against private Interpre­tation? But what say you to that Argument wherein Ibid. De hoc argumento Lutherus triumpha [...]. Bellarmin observes Luther so much to triumph? The Blood of the New Testament was shed for the People, as well as for the Apostles; and our Savior gives the Cup unto all for whom he shed his Blood; nay, and for that very cause, bids them drink all of it, Matth. 26. 27, 28 For this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is s [...]ed for many for remission of sins. If Christs Blood was shed not only for the Apostles, but for many for remission of [Page 48] sins; the Cup ought to be given not only to them, but to many others. Who dares say, saith Luther, [that Christs Blood was not shed for Laiks? and therefore who should dare to with-hold the Blood of the New Testament from them?

As you have taken the Objection out of Bellarmin, so you may his Answer, Ib. Si sanguis Domini dandus esset omnibus pro quibus susus esi, dandus esset Turcis, Judaeis, Ethnicis, &c. That if the Blood of Christ must be given in the Sacra­ment to all those for whom it was shed, then it must be given to all men; Turks, and Jews, and Ethnics. For his Blood was shed for all men, as he proves from the Text, 1 John 2. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

This is a Cavil. The Sacraments are the Seals of the Church, und appertain only to Church-Members; and when Turks, and Jews, and Pagans, shall be converted and receiv'd into the Church of Christ, they shall partake of her Tresures. I am amazed to see your Learned Champion make such irrational Replies, but his baffled Cause will afford no better.

Do not conclude him foil'd, before you have tried his strength.

It is my design thro-out, to examine his Objections and An­swers, and I have hitherto found them so inconsiderable, that I am al­most confident for the future.

Keep your confidence to your self, and produce your Rea­sons.

I have one Argument more to urge for the Communion to be receiv'd by all in both kinds, from our Saviors words, John 6. 53. Ve­rily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. This Text the Bohemians most in­sisted upon in the Council of Basil, when their Delegates there desired the Cup might be allow'd them. And Aeneas Sylvius Hist. Bohem. cap. 35. Literarum doctrinâ & morum praestantiâ juxta cla­rus. relates, how Pe­trus Dresensis, a School-master in Prague, repaired to the Preacher of S ^t Michaels Church, by name Jacoballus, eminent for his Learning and Con­versation, asking him, How interpreting the Holy Scripture to the People, he had not so long taken notice of a grand Error which would ruine the Church, in giving the Sacrament only in one kind; whereas our Savior, in S ^t John, hath said expresly, Ʋnless ye eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, &c. Hereupon, this Learned Preacher search'd the Fathers, and finding the giving of the Cup unto the People approv'd, especially by Dionysius and Cyprian, he earnestly exhorted the People of Prague, no longer to neg­lect or be content without the Communion of the Cup, without which they could not be saved: and so multitudes were promted to receive in both kinds, and importunate with the Council of Basil to have it allow'd. Many Heretics, as he saith, rejoicing that they had found an Article [Page 49] grounded upon Scripture, whereby either the ignorance or impiety of the Church of Rome might be discover'd. I have given in this Story, to shew of how great consequence, in the judgment of the Bohemians this Text was, to prove even the necessity of receiving the Sacrament in both kinds; and therefore let me hear your Answer.

Bellarmin takes notice of all these Circumstances, and gives three Answers to that Text, Except ye eat the flesh, &c. His first An­swer is this, Lib. 4. De Sacram, Euch. c. 25. vim hujus praecepti in re quae sumitur, non in modo sunendi, consistere. Sumuntur tam corpus quam sanguis sub qualibet specie. The weight of this Precept doth lie in the receiving the flesh and blood of Christ, and not in the manner of receiving it. Now the body and blood of Christ are truly receiv'd in either kind; whole Christ being commu­nicated in the bread, as also in the Cup, and therefore the People are not de­priv'd of the vertue of the Sacrament, and shall live by it.

The Text expresly speaks of drinking his Blood, and that you cannot pretend to do by receiving and eating his Flesh only in the Sa­crament, altho his Blood and Soul be there also (according to your Opi­nion) by concomitancy. Of which we shall say more hereafter.

If you stand so much upon the letter of the Text, which seems to imply the receiving of Christs Flesh and Blood distinctly, one by eat­ing, and the other by drinking, then we answer ou another way. That in Holy Scripture many times In Script, conjunctio, &, accipitur pro disjunctiva. the copulative is put for a disjunctive; as when Peter said to the impotent Man at Solomons Porch, Acts 3. 6. Silver and Gold have I none; the meaning is, he had neither Silver nor Gold, for either would have suffic'd for an Alms. And if the Text be so Inter­preted, it will not hurt us, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, or drink his blood, &c.

This is to make of Gods Word a Nose of Wax; to put the Holy Scripture out of Joint, to help a broken Cause. This way would serve a Jesuit in another case of Conscience. Is any one scrupulous of rebelling against his Prince? The Father will satisfie him with that of Solomon, Fear God, or honor the King: if you do one, you may omit the other. But what God hath join'd, let not Man put asunder, saith our Blessed Savior. Never turn a Copulative into a Disjunctive.

Well, If these two Answers do not please, Bellarmin will sit you with a third. There are many Precepts in Holy Scripture, which are given to all, and yet are design'd to be observ'd only by some; as that Blessing upon Mankind at first, Encrease and multiply, and yet all Men are not oblig'd to Marry and get Children. And so this saying of our Savior, If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man, &c. it is spoken to the Church Universal, and yet if observ'd by some, it sufficeth. The Priest taking the Sacrament in both kinds, shall convey Life thro Christ unto his whole Church.

This Answer is not unlike the two former, if twisted toge­ther [Page 50] all are not worth a rush: they only publish to the World the Ob­jection is unanswerable, and so rather then they would be silent, they would put their Ciphers together, without one tittle of sense and rea­son to make them significant.

This is a quick way to answer an Argument or Reply, by saying it is insignificant, and so dismiss it.

If I omit any thing that is material, I desire no favor: I know I shall hear of it with both Ears, for those of your side are used to give no Quarter. Mean while I will follow my intended course, and shew, in the next place, how your half Communion is against the end of Christs Instituting the Sacrament.

Christ instituted these Holy Mysteries to confer Grace to the worthy Receivers; to feed them with the Celestial Food of his pretious Body and Blood, to convey unto their Souls remission of sins. So much the words of Institution imply, Take, eat, This is my Body which is given for you; and drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament which was shed for many for remission of sins. Now all this is communica­ted as well under one kind, as under both: for whole Christ, his Body, and Blood, and his Divinity, is exhibited under the Species of Bread. For Christ expresly saith, It is my Body: and if so, it is his Blood, and Life, and Divine Nature also. For Christ now liveth for ever, and the Union between his Soul and Body is indissoluble; wheresoever one is, the other must be, by a necessary concomitancy. And then for the God-head of Christ, since the great Mystery of his Incarnation, that can never be separated from the humane Soul and Body, which he assumed into one Person and subsistence with Himself. So the Council of Trent hath determin'd. Sess. 13 c. 3. Statim post Consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus, verumque sang. una cum Divinit. existere sub specie panis & vini, &c. Immediatly after the Consecration, the very Body and Blood of our Lord, do exist under the Species of Bread and wine, together with his Soul and Divinity. The Body indeed subsists under the Species of Bread, and the Blood under the Species of Wine, by vertue of the words of Consecration; but by virtue of a Natural Connexion, whereby the parts of Christs humane Nature are, since his Resurrection, for ever inseparably united, under the Species of Bread, there is likewise the Blood of Christ, and under the Species of Wine, his Body, and his Soul under both; as also his Divinity, by reason of the Hypostatical Ʋnion. And therefore the Council concludes, Veriss. est, tantundem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraque contineri, totus & integer Christus. That as much is contain'd under either Species, as under both; even whole Christ intirely.

This is a new Model of Divinity. which was about two hun­dred Years in fashioning and preparing, by their sworn Servants, the School-men, for the Fathers of Trent to make use of, to under-prop the declining State of the Church of Rome. But I pray tell me, Why [Page 51] did our Blessed Savior so distinctly say of the Bread, This is my Body; and of the Cup, This is my Blood, &c. if in either kind, both Body and Blood are included and receiv'd.

The Council, as you have heard before, answers this exactly, Ibid. Corpus existit sub specie panis, & sang. sub specie vini, vi verborum, a [...] vi naturalis connexionis & concomitantiae, &c. By the words of Consecration, the Bread is chang'd only into the Body of Christ, and so the Wine into his Blood; but then by a natural connexion and concomitancy, each kind includes the other. The Body, and Blood, and Soul, and God head of Christ, are inseparable.

But why did Christ Institute the Sacrament in both kinde, if to receive in one kind be as beneficial to the Soul?

The Essence of the Sacrament, Lib. 4. de Euchar. c. 22. Species panis & vini n [...]n tam essentiales quam inte­grales partes sunt. as Bellarmin shews, is commu­nicated in one kind, to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ: but as to the inte­grity, both are necessary.

You shall never find a School-man, without a nice Distinction to salve the matter. However, hereby you acknowledg the Sacrament in one kind to be maim'd and imperfect, wanting one of the integral parts. But I will not intangle the Discourse with such Niceties: You know our Blessed Savior expresseth one end of the Sacrament, That in remembrance of him it should be given and received. And Paul shews, in what regard chiefly Christ is commemorated in the Sacrament, as he was Crucified, For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye shew the Lords death till he come, 1 Cor. 11. 26. Now you all grant, that the representation of Christs death is made by both kinds in the Sacrament. The Bread and Wine apart, represents Christ Blood separated from his Body. Breaking of Bread signifies, how Christs Body was wounded, and bruis'd, and broken. So Paul renders the words of Christs Insti­tution, 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken for you, and there­fore the Sacrament should be given in both kinds, for a sensible repre­sentation of Christs death.

The Church holds the commemoration of Christs death exact­ly in the Sacrifice of the Mass; and this belongs only to the Priest, who of necessity must consecrate Bread and Wine, and receive both; for this very reason, That he may so represent Christs death, and offer up his Body and Blood in Sacrifice; his Body as crucified, and his Blood shed. So a great Doctor of our Church, Lib. 6. Advers. haereses. Mem. Dominicae mortis agit Sacerdes in altari, non pop. quaprop. Sacerd. quoties celebrat non consecrat unam si eciem sine alterâ, &c. Alphonsus de Casiro, The Priest com­memorates Christ death upon the Altar, and not the People receiving the Sacrament. And therefore, saith he, the Priest of necessity must consecrate both kinds, and receive them; because, altho Christ is wholy contain'd in one kind, yet by one he is not signified and represented: for the Species of Bread only signifies and represents his Body; and that of Wine, his Blood, &c.

We will not examine this new Doctrine of Alphonsus and the Schools, touching whole Christ in each Species, &c. but we will take his Concession; That one kind doth not signifie or represent whole Christ, and his Death and Passion; and therefore such as are bound to remember and shew the death of Christ, his Sacrifice upon the Cross, and the Work of our Redemtion by his Blood shedding, they must of necessity receive the Sacrament in both kinds apart.

What will you conclude thence? seeing he hath told you that the Priest is concern'd, and not the People, to hold the remembrance of Christs death in the Sacrament, which he daily performs in the Office of the Mass.

But what care we what Alphonsus hath told us, or any of your New Doctors, seeing S ^t Paul affirms the contrary? For writing to all the Saints of the Church of Corinth, he expresly tells them, As oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye shew the Lords death till he come. And doubtless, as all Christians are concern'd to keep a thankful re­membrance of Christ, and of his Passion, so we must do it as he hath ap­pointed, by receiving the Sacrament in both kinds: for only so as you have heard, his Death and Blood-shedding is represented to the Life. The Elements apart, shewing how his Blood was separated from his Body; breaking of Bread, shewing how his Body was bruis'd and bro­ken. In this respect we may believe S ^t Paul said to the Galathians, That even before their eyes, Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them, Gal. 3. 1.

This suits Bellarmines Observation well, that the People may see Christs Death represented in both kinds upon the Altar, and one se­parate from the other, and so hold the commemoration of his Passion, altho they do not communicate in both kinds: and he observes, the Eye is the quicker sense to affect and raise our Meditation, rather then the Touch or Tast.

Notwithstanding the subtle Observation of your Doctors, you shall give us leave to follow Christs direction, to receive the Sacraments in both kinds in remembrance of him: and we will believe the Apostle, That by eating this Bread, and drinking this Cup, we shew the Lords death; and not by seeing the Wafers, and the Cup upon the Altar. And withal, the Sacrament is call'd the Lords Supper, wherein he Feasts our Souls with his Flesh, that is Meat indeed; and with his Blood, which is Drink indeed. Now to complete a Feast, there must be Meat and Drink, Escu­lenta & Poculenta. And one of your Doctors saith, Franciscus à Victoria, de Euch. qu, 87. Non est perfecta refectio sub unica specie. Ʋnder one kind of the Sacrament, is no perfect refection.

These things hold in Natural Food and Refections, but not in Spiritual. Hunger and thirst in Grace, are not distinct Appetites, but have the same Objects, as, Blessed are they which do bunger and thrist after [Page 53] righteousness, Matth. 5. 6. And we read, how our Blessed Savior enter­tain'd the multitudes in the Wilderness with the Loaves, without Wine or Water.

Those are pretty subtleties for Jesuits; but our Blessed Sa­vior Instituting his Sacraments for all Believers, as well Idiots as Learn­ed, design'd to confirm their Faith in Spiritual Truths by sensible Signs, and therefore chose those two Elements of Bread and Wine, to repre­sent unto us, that as these naturally nurish the Body, so should his Body and Blood exhibited in the Sacrament, in a Spiritual manner nurish the Soul. And therefore you would do well to leave the Signs and the Sa­crament complete, and not deprive your ignorant People of such Helps & Representations. Your own School-men acknowledg the Sacrament to be maim'd and imperfect, as to the Sacramental part, and the significa­tion without both kinds. Part. 3. qu. 80. Art. 12. Exparte Sacramenti convenit quod utrum que sumi [...] in utroque perfectio, &c. Nullo modo debet corpus sumi sine sane. Tho. Aquinus determines, That in regard to the Sacrament, both kinds are necessary; for the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both, and therefore by no means the Priest that consecrates, must receive the Body of Christ without the Blood. Exparte sumentium req. summa rea. & cautela. But in regard to the Re­ceivers, reverence and caution must be had, least any undecencies should hap­pen, whereof the greatest danger is in receiving the Cup, least the Wine be spilt. And so after the like sort Bonaventure.

Ib. ad 3. In persona omnium sang ossert & sumit. Aquinas there tells you, how the Priest offers and takes the Cup in the behalf of the People. And so in the Priests communicating the Sa­crament retains its perfection; in the Peoples communicating in one kind, it retains its reverence and due caution, least any thing should hap­pen irreverently.

We shall hereafter consider your great Reasons why you with-hold the Cup from the Laity. At present I will follow my design, and shew that the practice both of the Apostles and of the Church, for twelve hundred Years, was to administer the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds, as our Savior gave the Cup unto the Apostles. S ^t Mark expresly saith, They all drank of it, Mark 14. 23. so they administred the Cup unto the Saints.

You have been already shew'd that they receiv'd the Sacra­ment at our Saviors hands, as Apostles and Priests, and so they had the Cup.

Not so, for they Communicated then as Receivers, and as the common People; for our Blessed Savior was the Priest in that Ad­ministration. This some of your own Doctors affirm: for as when our Blessed Savior was Baptized by John, he condescended to represent the Person of a Disciple, and John was the Master in that Scene: so when he gave the Sacrament to his Disciples, he was the Priest, and they as the [Page 54] People receiving in both kinds for a standing Rule and Example unto all Posterity.

Vivendum Legibus non exemplis We must live by Laws, and not by Example, as the Lawyers wise­ly determine in all Cases.

I had thought our Blessed Saviors Example had been a Law and Rule to Christians, in such things as fall within the compass of their imitation. Learn of me, saith our Blessed Savior, for I am meek and lowly of heart. But moreover, the Apostles then receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, had express command, hoc facite; so to give the Sacrament unto others, as he had don to them.

When you Comment upon a Text, it shall not fail to speak your sense and do your work: But what will you say if our Savior himself administred the Sacrament in one kind. I hope this Practice and Exam­ple will satisfie you.

Let me hear the Instance, and I will give my Answer.

In Emaus he gave the Sacrament unto those two Disciples, with whom he communed in the way. And S ^t Luke observes, Immediatly their eies were opened, and they knew him, Luke 24. 31. And it follows in that Chapter, ver. 35. He was known of them in breaking of Bread. This won­derful effect shews it was the Sacrament; and yet we read only of one kind which he consecrated and gave unto them. The Text saith, v. 30. He took Bread, and blessed it, and brake and gave unto them; the Ceremo­nies exactly which our Savior usd in his consecration of the Sacra­ment.

This will not prove what you desire, That our Savior now gave the Sacrament to these two Disciples; for these Circumstances of giving Thanks, or Blessing, or breaking of Bread, were usual at ordi­nary Meals: whereof we have a full proof in the Acts of the Apostles. We read there, cap. 27. how in a great Tempest the Soldiers, and Marirers, and Prisoners, in all 276 Souls in the Ship, had fasted fourteen days (we may suppose, so long they had made no setting Meals), and Paul, being assured from God of all their safety, he exhorted them to be comforted, and to take some meat for their health sake: and when he had thus spoken, he took Bread and gave thanks to God, and when he had broken it, he began to eat, ver. 35. Here you have the same Ceremonies of taking of Bread and bles­sing and breaking, and yet doubtless it was a common refection: sure the Apostle did not give the Sacrament to so many Infidels in the thip.

The Case is not the same, neither the Expressions. For in Luke the word is, [...], He blessed, the same which our Savior usd in the Institution of the Sacrament. But in your Instance it is, [...], He gave thanks: only said Grace before a Meal.

Your Criticisin will help you little. You know the Sacrament is call'd the Eucharist, [...], the very word which Paul used.

But those two at Emaus were Disciples, and such a notable Mi­racle ensuing, that their eies were open to know Christ at that instant in breaking of Bread, this proves it was the Sacrament they receiv'd.

That was an accidental Dispensation. Our Blessed Savior, upon their importunity, turned with them into the Inn, sat down to eat, and immediatly before he vanish'd out of their sight, he was pleas'd to discover himself unto them.

L 3. de cons. Evangelist. c. 15. Facta est permissio usque ad Sacramentum pa­nis, ut unitate corp. ejus participatâ removeri intellig. impedimentum inimici, ut Chri­stus possit agnosci. S ^t Augustin affirms it was the Sacrament, and tells us, That thro the power of the divel their eies were holden not to know Christ, who was pleas'd to permit it until they came to the Sacrament of Bread, that we should understand all impediments of the enemy against knowing of Christ shall be remov'd, when we are united to his Body.

In this Passage Augustin doth not clearly assert what you would have him, but according to his usual Expressions elsewhere, calling any mystical thing by the name of Sacrament: he calls this, Sacramentum panis, because it had a mystical signification, being accompanied with that notable Circumstance of the Disciples eies being open'd to know him: And the allegorical or mystical signification is this, That such as in the Church receive the Sacrament devoutly, shall have their understand­ings open'd to know the Lord Christ more perfectly. But I can demon­strate to the Doctors of your Church, from their own Principles, That our Blessed Savior did not give the Sacrament to his two Disciples at E­maus, because he did not pronounce those words which make the Sa­crament, and change the Bread into his Body, viz. This is my Body, which you maintain to be the essential words of Consecration. The others, of blessing and breaking Bread, and giving to them, being but circumstances in comparison. Again, he did not consecrate in both kinds, which your Doctors also account necessary to the Sacrament, That the Priest should consecrate Bread and Wine, and receive them.

A negative Argument out of Scripture holds not good, because it is not express'd in the Relation that our Savior said, This is my Body, and that our Savior did consecrate the Cup, as well as bless the Bread, Because these things are not express'd, you cannot therefore conclude they were not don.

Now I have brought you where I desired: you say a nega­tive Argument out of Scripture is not of force. If I should grant it was the Sacrament which our Savior gave to the Disciples at Emaus, How would you prove they receiv'd it only in one kind, the Bread which he gave them? How will you prove he did not bless and give the Cup to them? Only by your negative Argument, because the Holy Scriptures speak nothing of it: which way soever you turn the wind, this Knot will hold you fast. By this way which you have first shew'd, we answer [Page 56] several Arguments of your Doctors out of Scripture; and in many places of Scripture, say they, the Sacrament is describ'd by this character of breaking Bread; as in this passage of S ^t Luke, and some others in the Acts of the Apostles. Now from this denomination they would infer, that they receiv'd the Sacrament in one kind. We say no, but that one part is put for the whole, by the Figure Synecdoche, breaking of Bread is ex­press'd, and drinking of the Cup is implied and understood.

By such Figures, when it shall serve your turn, you may make a strange supplement to the Holy Scriptures; if they do not express what you would have them, it shall be understood however.

You shew'd the way. Neither had I enter'd upon this digres­sion, but that you excepted against a negative Argument out of Scripture, when I did prove that Christ gave not the Sacrament unto the two Disci­ples, because he did not say, This is my Body, and did not bless the Cup; both which, your Doctors account necessary to the Sacrament. Your answer was, That we must not conclude these things were omitted by our Savior, altho they are not recorded by the Evangelist: but what­ever you think of it, we are sure many of your own Doctors are of our Opinion, That breaking of Bread, &c. at Emaus, was no Sacramental action, but blessing and giving common Bread at that Meat to the Disci­ples. So Lyra upon the place, Sicut consueverat ante passionem. He bless'd the Meat before they eat, as be usually did before he suffered. Dionysius Carthusianus, Accepit panem & benedixit, nan autem in corpus conv. sicut in coenâ, &c. He to [...]k Bread and blessed it, and gave to them; but he did not change it into his Body, as in the Lords Supper, but after the custom of blessing the Meat: instructing us be­fore Meals to say Grace. So Pro more sibi familiari, &c. Jansenius Concord. c. 146. He blessed the Bread after his usual manner. And afterwards he tells us, That some were of the opinion, that our Savior, under the Species of Bread, did give unto them his Body; Ea sent. non est certa, nec multum verisimilis. but that Opinion is not certain, nor very probable.

We are not concern'd in the Opinion of some Doctors; S ^t Au­gustin's Testimony will out-weigh them all.

You have heard, That S ^t Augustin came not home to your purpose; he speaks mystically, and by his side you would walk in a mist. But I proceed to shew the practice of the Church in the Apostles time. It is manifest, That the Saints at Corinth received in both kinds, according to S ^t Pauls direction, 1 Cor. 11. 23. He first declares, Christs Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds; and adds, his command even for the Cup (which you observ'd was not in S ^t Lukes relation) Do this as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. S ^t Paul after gives a general Rule for all Christians, Let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat of the Bread and drink of the Cup, ver. 28. And afterwards declares the danger of unworthy recei­ving, But he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh [Page 57] damnation to himself, ver. 29. You see there is no evasion, he speaks to all the Saints, and enjoins eating and drinking together: And who are you, that you should separate them?

Lib. 4. de Eucha. c. 25. Fcclesia Cor. utobatur utrâque speie. Bellarmin doth acknowledg, that the Church of Corinth did receive the Sacrament in both kinds; because Paul, either from Christs Example, or for some other Reasons, had declared it lawful for them so to do, but he never taught them it was necessary: Neither did he urge the Precept of Christ, which you so much insist upon, Drink you all of this.

But he added another Precept to the Cup, which S ^t Luke o­mitted, This do as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. But you are put to this pitiful shift, when we prove the practice of the Apo­stles, and of the primitive Times, to give the Cup in the Sacrament to the People, to answer, That it is lawful and may be allowed, but it is not necessary to give the Cup: whereas our Lord Christ his Example in the first Institution of the Sacrament, delivering it in both kinds, his command, Drink ye all of this, S ^t Pauls relation of another Precept, This do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, And the significa­tion of Christs death in the Sacrament, whereunto you confess both kinds are necessary to be receiv'd asunder: all these do imply a necessity and command in the judgment of all who are not blinded with prejudice and interest. However, my business at present is to shew the practice of the Church in the Apostles time, to receive the Sacrament in both kinds; and Bellarmin acknowledgeth it so in the Church of Corinth, and Annotatione 27. in 6. Johannis. Antiqua consuetudo tempore Apostolorum sub u­traque spei, &c. in hac assertione nulla controversia. Cardinal Tolet in other Churches. It was the antient custom in the Apo­stles daies, in the Church, to take the Communion in both kinds. And he adds, in this Assertion there is no Controversie, and his Proofs for it are many.

But Tolet's Non minus antiqua Ecclesiae consuetudo sub unâ solâ specie, modo sub una, modo sub utraque. second Assertion comes home to our purpose, It was no less antient custom of the Church to communicate under one kind, even in the Apostles time; somtimes under one, and somtimes under both, and his proofs you will find very considerable.

We value not his confident Assertion, wherein he exceeds all his Fellows: But what are his Proofs?

He shews how our Savior himself gave the Sacrament in one kind, unto the two Disciples at Emaus.

A baffled proof, as I believe your self will acknowledg see­ing many of your own party have done so.

But his second Argument is very considerable out of the Acts of the Apostles, cap. 2. ver. 42 They continued stedfasily in the Apostles Do­ctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayer. Here saith [Page 58] he, by breaking of Bread is meant receiving the Sacrament, Nemo ratione utens negare potest, panem hoc loco esse Eucharistiam, &c. every one that hath reason must acknowledg it; Si cibus esset communis non jungeretur medio loco cum doctrina & oratione. otherwise, had it bin common bread and refection, it would not have bin put between the Apostles Doctrine and Praier.

Altho I do not fear the Cardinals censure, if I should deny it, neither can he or any other make it more then probable, that in that place by breaking of Bread is understood a Sacramental Action; yet be­cause it is probable both in this Text, and in the 20 ^th Chapter of the Acts, ver. 7. Ʋpon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came toge­ther to break Bread, Paul preached. Therefore some of our Divines do allow your Interpretation: yet your Doctors conclusion will not hold, That they received the Sacrament only in one kind, altho the Bread only is express'd, for here a part is put for the whole action of Communica­ting: for mark you, breaking of Bread was the Apostles or Priests act, so to distribute it to the People: and many other actions must concur to make up the Sacrament, as Blessing, and Consecrating, and the like; and you sind these are not express'd, but implied: and so also must conse­crating the Cup be implied also; for otherwise, if the Apostles did Con­secrate the Bread and not the Cup, the Sacrament was null by the ac­knowledgment of your own Doctors. They conclude, the Consecrati­on of both kinds necessary, insomuch that Part. 3. q. 74. art. 1. ad 2. Nec propter desectum alterius est unum sine altere consecrandum. Aquinas holds, If one part of the Sacrament cannot be procur'd (suppose it Wine) the other part ought not to be Consecrated. And he gives the reason, Because the Sacrament would be imperfect. And Dispui. 123. c. 30. Necessarium jure divinout ex disp. Pentif. &c. Vasquez holds it necessary, jure divino, so that by the Popes Dispensation the Sacrament cannot be consecrated in one kind, both in respect of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament. We conclude there­fore, that the Apostles, who did break Bread in these Texts to the Peo­ple, did before Bless and Consecrate it, and after Consecrate the Cup; and you cannot say they did not, altho these things are not express'd.

I grant all this: But how will you prove they gave the Cup to the People.

It is your part to shew they did not, otherwise you do not make good that the Sacrament was given only in one kind: Now all your proof is, because the Cup is not express'd, as the breaking of Bread is. And you know, that it is a weak negative Argument, and if allow'd, it would over-throw your first Postulatum, that by breaking of Bread is understood the Sacrament; seeing many necessary actions to complete a Sacrament, as you have heard, are not express'd but only implied: al­tho it is not express'd, yet you take it for granted, That when the Bread was broken, it was bless'd and distributed, and that the Cup likewise [Page 59] was consecrated: And why will you not give me leave to take it likewise for granted, that the Cup was given to them, altho it be not express'd? Doth the Expression of breaking the Bread exclude giving the Cup?

No: but being express'd, and the other not, we may suppose the one without the other.

What you may suppose I know not; but this I am sure, nei­ther the Cardinal nor you can prove any thing against us out of these Texts. And before I leave this passage, I cannot but observe a contra­diction of your practice unto this Expression of breaking of Bread, which you make very much of, as the denomination of the whole Sa­cramental Action (and in some places we do not gain-say it) and yet when you administer the Sacrament, you do not break Bread; you omit that significant Action which is express'd in our Blessed Saviors Institution, and you give unto the People Wafers whole and single, which cannot re­present Christs Body bruisd and broken, or the Peoples Communion of the same Loaf, which S ^t Paul insists upon, 1 Cor. 10. 17. We being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we all are partakers of that one Bread. If you had not studied to go against Christs Institution, you could not have omitted breaking of Bread, and giving the Cup unto the People in the Sacrament.

You have an Art to amplifie and aggravate, and to lay heavy things to our charge.

I am solicirous for your sake, that you may recover out of the snare, and be timely sensible of your Error. Tolet hath other Ar­guments as weak as Water, to make good his impudent Assertion, That in the Apostolic and Primitive Times, the Church administred the Sacra­ment indifferently either in one or both kinds, as she thought fit. I shall meet with them in due place. For I now proceed, as I propos'd, to shew the practice of the Church for many Ages, both from the restimony of the Fathers, and the Learn'd in every Age; and from the acknowledg­ment of your own Doctors, to give the Communion in both kinds unto the People, according to the Institution of Christ, and the Tradition of the Apostles.

You love to take that for granted, which is the Question: Whe­ther Christs Institution and Apostolical Tradition be on your side? For altho our Savior gave the Sacrament in both kinds to the Apostles, it doth not appear he appointed them to administer it so unto the People, as a rule unto succeeding Generations.

The practice of the Church, will best interpret the com­mands of Christ, and duty of Christians: If the Church Catholic for 1200 Years gave the Communion in both kinds, thereby they declare the mind of Christ, and our obligation to follow them.

We reverence the Autority of the Church, and desire nothing more then your submission thereunto.

I speak of Church Practice, and you divert unto Church Au­tority: As tho the Holy Fathers, who gave the Sacrament in both kinds [Page 60] unto their Congregations, did therein follow the Canons of the Church, and not rather the Institutions and Command of Christ.

The Essential parts of the Sacrament we remit to Christ and his Institution, but do believe the Church alwaies had power to appoint and alter Circumstances.

Where Christ hath left them undetermin'd. But more-over, we account the Elements of Bread and Wine, to be material and sub­stantial parts of the Sacrament, Instituted by Christ, and therefore not to be accounted Circumstances, and left to the determination of the Church. But I perceive, while you contend so much for the Autority of the Church, you are not willing in this point to hear the constant Te­stimony of the Church.

Not so; but we most cordially embrace it, knowing that we de­rive full confirmation of our practice in one kind (whatsoever you think of it) from the usage and testimony of the Primitive Times.

I will first shew you what they say for us, and then do you produce your Evidences for your selves. In the first Century, we read divers Liturgies ascribed to some of the Apostles and Evangelists. The Liturgy of S ^t James, of S ^t Peter, of S ^t Mark; in them we find the Priests and Deacons, and all the People, give Thanks to God and the Lord Je­sus Christ, [...], &c. That he hath vouchsaf'd unto them, the favor to partake of his Body and Blood. We read, they speak of the Mysteries altogether in the plural, Partaking of the pure Celestial life-giving and dreadful Mysie­ries. We read, how the Deacons after Consecration take the Patin and the Chalice, to distribute the Bread and Wine unto the People.

You account those Liturgies spurious, and not made by the A­postles; and you take them for proofs against us.

'Tis truth, we cannot believe they were compil'd by the A­postles, for then it would have bin presumption for after Ages not to conform to them, but unto Liturgies of their own framing. Your Ordo Romanus should have been exactly conform unto Peters Liturgy. How­ever, they were set forth not many Ages after, and pretend to the Apo­stolical Times and Practice; and where they agree, give some light to Posterity of their Customs: and against you their Testimony holds good, because you account them Legitimate.

It is sport for Children to fight with wooden Daggers.

They are sharp enough to foil your pretentions unto Antiqui­ty. But this is but fencing about, I will close with you instantly, and pro­duce unquestionable Testimonies of the Sacrament given unto the People in both kinds. [...], &c. Ignatius, S ^t Johns Disciple, in his Epistle to the Phila [...] delphians, tells us, It is one and the same Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the same Blood which was shed for us. One Bread broken for all, and one [Page 61] Cup distributed to the whole Congregation. Apol 2. prope finem. [...], &c. Justin Martyr, in the next Cen­tury, giving account of the Rites of their Christian Service and Commu­nion, he tells the Heathen Emperors, to whom he makes his Apology for Christians, The President of the Assembly, or Priest, giving thanks, and all the People congratulating; they who are called Deacons, give to everyone present to partake of the Bread and Wine, with Water bless'd; and carry those Elements abroad to such as are not present. And this nurishment is call'd the Eucharist. In the end of the same Century, 2 ^do Lib. ad Ʋxorem, c. 4. De cibo & poculo invadere, &c. Tertullian exhorting his Wife after his death, if at all, only to marry in the Lord, i. e. a Christian, Otherwise, saith he, how will thy Husband, if a Heathen, suf­fer thee to go to that Feast which is so much defam'd, to take the Bread and the Cup. And afterwards, Libro de lapsis, De cujus manu desiderabit; de cujus peculo particip. Of whose hand wilt thou receive the Bread, of whose Cup wilt thou drink. Now Pamelius and de la Cerda, in their Notes upon Tertullian, acknowledg both these places to be spoken of the Eu­charist; and both kinds are expresly mention'd and receiv'd. Praesente ac teste meipso. Cyprian follows his Master Tertullian, and hath many passages to our purpose. He gives an account of a strange accident, whereof he was an Eye-witness, That a yong Maid being at the Sacrament, when the Deacon brought the Cup to her, she turn'd away her face; shutting her mouth, and refusing to drink: Reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis infudit. Sequitur singultu & vomitus, &c. but the Deacon forced her to take down some of the Wine, and presently she vomited. The Holy Eucharist could not stay in her Mouth and Stomach which was defiled. For we read before, That when she was an Infant, the Heathen took her from her Mother, and by force put into her mouth Panem mero mixtum de immolatione perceptum. Bread mingled with Wine, taken from the Idol Sacrifice. And because of this Pollution; thro a Divine dispensation in these severe Times, followed that abhorrency of the Sacrament. Now here is mention made of the Sacramental Cup, but not of Bread, delivered to the Damsel, tho un­willing. And from this, and such like places, we may as well prove they administred the Cup without the Bread, as they from other places conclude the Bread was given without the Cup. Another notable Passage we have Epistola 54. Cornelio papae fratri, ques hertamur ad praelium non inermes, &c. in his Epistle to Cornelius the Pope, his Brother in the Lord: He writes his mind to him, That in those difficult times of Persecution, it was expedient to reconcile Penitents lapst, the sooner to Church Communion, and with more Indulgence: That by the Blood of Christ receiv'd in the Sacra­ment, they may be fortified against assaults, and be encouraged to shed their Blood for the Testimony of the Gospel. And immediatly after he saith, Quo modo prevocamus eos in confess nominis sang. suum effundere, &c. How [Page 62] shall we exhort them to shed their Blood in the Confession of his Name, if we deny them to partake of his Blood. He adds immediatly after, Quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idences facimus, si non eos prius ad bib. in Eccle­sia pocul Domini jure communicationis admittimus. How shall we fit them to drink the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not before admit them to take the Cup of the Lord in the Church, by right of Communication. Observe the right of Communicating.

Lib. 4. de Euch. c. 26. Jus Laic [...]r. ad communicandum à Sacerdot. &c. Bellarmin shews, how this Epistle of Cyprian, is a full confu­tation of your Opinion, That the Church cannot with-hold part of the Sa­crament from the People, seeing she hath power to exclude from the whole Sa­crament. For Cyprian writes to Cornelius, for some Indulgence for those who were excluded.

Do you believe his first Position, That the Peoples right to the Sacrament, is given by the Priest to them, and by him may be taken from them?

Yes, when they are Criminals, it may be with-held from them by the power of the Priest; and upon their repentance, again be restored.

So it is with the offending Clergy, as well as with the People: upon some great offence, they may be suspended from the Sacrament; and therefore why doth he say, the right of the People to the Sacrament, &c. and your answer supposeth an offence, whereupon the right may be taken away. But Bellarmin speaks absolutly, Jus Laicorum, &c. The right the People have to the Sacrament, is from the Priests concession, I thought it had bin from Christs Institution and command. And Bellarmins Inference is insufferable, that as the Church and the [...]ishops have power to keep Offenders from the Sacrament altogether, so can they dispose of, and give the Sacrament under one kind, or both, as they think fit: And the absurdity appears herein, Christ hath given power to his Church to Ex­communicate Offenders, but not to alter his Institution of the Sacrament. If we had not found it written, we could not believe a Man of Learn­ing should make such Inferences, absurd and irreligious.

If you like not this Answer, you may his second Thoughts Ib. Habuissent certe ex censuet. illius temp. ergo cum sit contr. consuet. introducta non habent amplius jus illud. That if in Cyprians time the people had a right to demand the Cup, they had it certainly from the custom of that time: and therefore seeing now an­other Custom is introduc'd, and a Law made for the Sacrament in one kind, they have no claim or right to the other.

'Tis horrible insolence in Bellarmin to assert, That if the People had a right to claim the Cup, certainly they deriv'd it from Cu­stom, and to take no notice at all of Christs Institution, and the Apostles Tradition and Practice. And that he should presume to ballance the custom of so many former Ages of the Church, with a custom not many Ages introduc'd; and withal, not to allow one grain unto all we read of both kinds in the Holy Scripture, to turn the Scale: And why doth [Page 63] he take so great pains to answer the Testimonies which we bring out of the Fathers, for the giving of the Sacrament in both kinds, seeing he might cut all off with this stupendious Solution? It was the custom of so many Ages to receive the Communion in both kinds; it is our custom to receive the Communion in one kind. But notwithstanding this compen­dious answer of your Doctor, I will go on to prove the practice of the Church to give the Cup, and then I will make the Inference. Hom. 6. in Numeros. dicam vobis quis sit Pop. qui in usu habet sang. bibere, non solum Sacr. ritu, &c. Origen gives a full Testimony on our side, I will shew you who are the People who are accustomed to drink Blood, not only in the Sacrament, but in hearing the word of God.

Ib. In usu habet non praecepto. Bellarmines answer to this Testimony, is short and full. They are accustomed, but not commanded.

De Caena Domini. Lex prohibet ejus sang. Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur. Cyprian shews the Precept as well as the use: The Law, saith he, forbids to eat with the Blood; but the Gospel commands that we should drink it.

Praecipit ut bibatur, at non ab omnibus. Bellarmin answers, The Gospel commands that the Blood of Christ should be drank, but not by all.

Christs words are, Drink ye all of this. And Qu. 17. in Levit. ad bibendum sang. omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam. Augustin saith, All are exhorted to drink this Blood who will have life. In the fourth Cen­tury, the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church are all for us. Epist. 289. ad Patriciam Caesariam. [...], &c. Basil the Great, writing to a great Lady, tells her, It is good to Communicate e­very day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood. Regul [...] 80. c. 28. [...], &c. Again elsewhere he puts the Quest: What is proper for a Christian? And he gives the Answer, To cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit, and perfect Holi­ness in the fear of the Lord, and so to eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood. Oratione 42. [...], &c. Greg. Nazianzen gives advice, Without doubting, eat the Body, and drink the Blood, if thou desirest Life. Homil. 18. in 2. ad Cornith. [...], &c. Chrysostom hath a memorable Passage to our purpose, I can shew you, saith he, where the Priest differs not from the People, when we enjoy the dreadful Mysteries; for we are all a­like vouchsaf'd them: One Body and one Cup, propos'd to all.

^k Bellarmin shews, how Chrysostom understands the thing that is Communicated, and not the Signs: and so all receive whole Christ, altho under the Species of Bread.

Seeing there is express mention made of one Cup offered to all, you cannot understand thereby, receiving Christs Blood only by Ib. Rom Sacramenti, &c. [Page 64] concomitancy with the Body of Christ, under the Species of Bread. And whereas Bellarmin faith, Both the Priest and People did eat of the same Sacrifice under the Law, and therefore the difference between us under the Gospel, and them, could not herein consist; That as well the People, as the Priest, equally share in the Sacrament. I answer, that in the Peace-offering, he that brought it had his part, as the Priest his; but they were different heterogenial parts, the wave-breast and heave­shoulder were the Priests share, Lev. 7. 34. whereof he that brought the Offering did not eat. And so the Shew-bread belong'd to the Priest to eat, and not to the People. Now at the Lords Table there is a clear parity between Priest and People, alike partaking of homogenial things, eating the same Bread, and drinking the same Cup. And this was Chry­sostoms design to shew, in these words, Ib. [...], &c. Not as under the Law the Priest eat some things, and the People other; and it was not lawful for the People to partake of those things which were assign'd to the Priest.

Ib. Manifeste patet, &c. Bellarmin shews plainly the custom in Chrysostoms time to re­ceive in one kind, by a miraculous. Instance related out of Sozomens Hi­story, Lib. 8. Of an heretical Woman, who would dissemble Catholic Com­munion, and received the Bread in Chrysostoms Church, but kept it by her and eat common Bread, which her Maid brought with her; and it became a stone in her mouth. Now saith Bellarmin, If she must also have receiv'd the Cup, How could her first jugling about the Bread concele her?

Such Legends as these prove little: If truth, she might think in the throng to escape the Cup; or else set her lips to the Cup, and drink nothing: and so Bellarmins manifeste patet, is manifeste latet; in a sink­ing Cause, he laieth hold of every Reed to support it. Other Testimo­nies we have out of Chrysostom, Hom. 23. in I ad Cor. [...], &c. comparing the Jews Sacraments and Mysteries with ours, he saith. As thou eatest the Lords Body, so did the Jews eat Manna: as thou drinkest the Blood of Christ, so they water out of the Rock. Another out of the 32 ^d Homily upon S ^t Matthew, near the end, exciting to love, he saith, We have all one Table spread before us, we all drink of the same Liquor; and not only so, but out of the same Cup. Am­brose saith, Mi [...] [...], &c. If as often as Christs Blood is poured out in the Sacrament, it is shed for remission of sins: I must alwaies receive it, that my sins may be al­ways forgiven. He seems to imply, that if we stand in need of remission of sins, we must take the Cup of Salvation. De Sacramentis, l. 4. c. 6. Debeo illum semper accipere, ut sensperper mihi pecc. di­mittantur. Again, speaking mysti­cally of the Priests of the Gospel, he saith, The Priest, by the word of God, toucheth the rock, and the waters flow, and the Lords people drink ^f Ib. l 5. c. 1. Verbo Dei tangit petram & fluit aqua, & bibit populus Dei. [Page 65] thereof. Theodoreti hist. lib 5. c. 18. Quâ audaciâ poculum sang pretiosi ere tuo partici­pabis? &c. Again, his Speech to Theodosius the Emperor, when he came to receive the Sacrament after that great slaughter of many thousands, committed by his command at Thessalonica, proves our Point, With what confidence canst thou receive with thy mouth the Cup of Christs pretious Blood, with such blood-guiltiness, &c.

Lib. 4. c. 26. Fatemur datam utramque speciem in aliq. locis; sed non Jure Di­vino. Bellarmin answers to these Testimonies of the Fathers, That in some places the Sacrament was administred to the People in both kinds, but not by any Divineright.

'Tis enough for us at present to prove the practice of the Church, and that he confesseth. In Malach. c. 2. Sacerdotes Euch. conficiunt, & sang Domini populo distrib. Jerome saith, The Priests consecrate the Eucharist, and distribute the Blood of Christ unto the People. And to this Bellarmin confidently answers, Nihil novi. This is no news: It is in truth no news, to hear the Fathers witnessing, that the Cup was given to the People: Where do they say, the Bread was given without the Cup?

You shall find we have sufficient proofs of that out of Anti­quity.

Such manifest Proofs as Bellarmin brought but now: Le­gends, and reservations, and half proofs, but I will suspend my judg­ment till you offer them, and I go on to shew the Testimonies of every Age in this Point, altho I may weary your patience and mine own. Decret. part. 2. causa 33. q. 3. c. 37. Dum frangitur hostia, dum sang. de calice in or a fidelium funditur. Ib. c 36. Ibi vos estis in mensa, &c. Gra­tian hath collected several Passages out of S ^t Augustin, and the Sentences of Prosper, While the Host is broken, and the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the mouths of the Faithful. Again, Ye are together with us at the Table, and in the Cup; we drink together, because we live together. This evidently shews both kinds distinctly and apart, distributed to all the Communicants, the Priest and People eating and drinking together at the Lords Table, as all were partakers of the same Spiritual Life. In the fifth Century, we have a full proof before the fourth General Council, of the Communion given in both kinds. Samuel, and other Pri [...]sts, put in Articles into the Council of Calcedon, against Ibas Bishop of Edessa: the 9 ^th Article was this, That upon complaint he had neglected to punish some Officers, Bin. Tom. 3. Concil. part. 2. Conc. Chalced. Actione 10, [...], &c. who upon a great Festival had provided but little Wine, and that not good, for the Sacrament to be distributed unto the People; so that at the time of administring the Cup, they were constrain'd to send for more to the Tavern: and when that sufficed not, the Bishop gave a nod to those that ad­ministred the Bread, to come up to the Altar, and for bear giving the Body of [Page 66] Christ, because there was not Wine enough to come after. This ample Testi­mony, proves the Cup was of necessity given to the People, and that the Bread could not be given without the Cup: for they who delivered the Bread, were commanded to cease, because for want of Wine others could not follow them with the Cup. And this the whole Council ap­prov'd, admitting the Charge against the Bishop; never answering, more Romano, That the People might receive the Body without the Cup. This agrees well with that saying ascrib'd to S ^t Augustin, Al [...]erus l. 2. c. 8. De Sacramente, nec car [...] sine sang. nec sang sine carne jure com­municatur. by Algerus a Bene­dictine Monk, Neither can the Flesh be of right distributed without the Blood, nor the Blood without the Flesh.

Lib. 4. c. 26. Ea sent. non est Aug. at Paschasii. Bellarmin saith, It is not the saying of Augustin, but of Pas­chasius.

We will not dispute that: But what saith he to the words themselves? For Bellarmin acknowledgeth the Testimony of either to be good.

He saith, They speak not of the signs, but of the thing signified, The Body and Blood of Christ, and they are alwaies communicated to­gether by a concomitancy.

This is the usual shift, but it helps him nothing: For in this sense, one cannot be given without the other: But the words say, Non jure communicatur. One without the other cannot of right be communicated, implying, that injuriously it might be.

Bellarmin applies those words (non jure communicatur) to the Persons receiving, not to the things received. Non jure commun. qui sentit unum accipi sine al [...]. They ought not of right to communicate, who think they can receive the Body of Christ with­out his Blood.

This is an Application at random, against the scope and the express construction of the words, but you shall never find him without an Answer; somthing he will say to amaze the People. But I proceed: About this time Pope Leo the first makes a Decree, That some Manichees should be observed strictly, who dissembling Church-Communion with Catho­lics, would come to the Sacrament, and receive the Bread but not the Wine; because they esteemed Wine a Creature of the Devil. Ʋt vobis hujusmodi homines ex his manifest [...]tur indiciis. Now by this mark, he would have them discovered, if they refused to receive the Cup, and so cast out of the Church. Not long after, Bin. Tom. 3. In not is advitam Gelasii. Aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, &c. Divisie uninus & ejusdem myst. &c. Pope Gelasius seconds the Decree: We have heard, saith he, That some receiving the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, forbear the Cup, I know not upon what superstitious ground, but let those either take the Sacrament intirely, i. e. in both kinds, or let [Page 67] them be excluded altogether. And he gives a reason most observable, The division of one and the same Sacrament, cannot be without grand Sacrilege

Bellarmin shews out of Gratian, That this Order was made on­ly for the Priests, who are oblig'd to receive in both kinds.

He might with more reason say, It was made for the Turks, who with the Manichees, abhor Wine: Can it be supposed, That Mani­chees could be Priests of the Catholic Church, and so be command­ed to communicate in both kinds? no, it was made for their discove­ries, when they thrust in among the People, and would appear as Ca­tholics?

It appears by this Passage, that the Church then gave the Sacra­ment without the Cup, otherwise how could the Manichees hope to counterfeit Church Communion, because refusing the Cup must needs betray them.

By this we prove the contrary: For how could they be dis­covered by refusing the Cup, if it were not given to the People?

Those two Popes decree, the Cup should be given at that time on purpose to discover these Heretics.

No such thing: The Decrees were made for stricter prohi­bition and observation; perhaps some negligent Priests before might let them pass without the Cup, or they might take down none of the Wine when the Cup was brought to them, only put it to their Lips, or the like: But how do you answer Pope Gelasius his reason of the Decree, and free your selves from grand Sacrilege? One and the same Sacrament cannot be divided without grand Sacrilege.

I must confess, in that place Bellarmin takes not any notice of that considerable passage of the Decree.

Because it was unanswerable. This is the first time I have found him silent, and so I may the better proceed without interruption. In the Year 589. in the third Council of Toledo, we read how the pious King Reccaerdus, held a Council of all the Bishops of Spain and Gallicia, when Pelagius the second was Pope, principally that the Goths in his Do­minions might abjure the Arrian Heresie: Among other things, the King gives direction to the Bishops, That after the Oriental Custom, all the People should reherse the Articles of their Belief, Bin. Tom. 4. Pag. 501. Ei sic corda fide purif. ad Christi corp. & sang. percip. exhibeant. That so their hearts purified by Faith, might receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

If they received in one kind, they received the Body and Blood of Christ.

Alas, your Doctrine of concomitancy was never heard or thought of, in those Pious Times. In the next Council of Toledo, Anno 633. when Honorius was Pope, Sisimundus being King, it is ordered in the 18 ^th Canon, Bin. p. 587. Conjunctio panis & Calicis. That after the Lords Prayer, and the Bread and Cup join'd, [Page 68] a blessing shall be pronounc'd upon the People, and then the Sacrament re­ceived by all in their several places: first, the Priest and Deacon at the Al­tar, the other Clergy in the Quire, the People without the Quire. You see therefore the Sacrament was given in both kinds to all the People, by the Decree of these Councils in all the Dominions of Spain. And because the Consecration of the Bread and Wine (as we may conceive) is call'd in the Canon, Conjunctio panis & calicis, The conjunction of the Bread and the Cup. I might observe from this Expression, they should not be separa­ted. In the Year 736. Bin. Tom. 5. pag. 511. Epistola 2. ad Leonem. [...], &c. Pope Gregory the second, writing to Leo Isaurus the Emperor, who was called Iconomachus, for his zeal against Images; he thews the Emperor the Church discipline towards Offenders, such as had given scandal to the Church. First, we prescribe Watching and Fast­ing; and when they are chastised with hunger and severe exercises, the Priests give unto them the venerable Body of our Lord, and make them to drink of his holy Blood. This is a Testimony without Exception, because of a Pope: and it prevents the usual Answer of Concomitancy, for it mentions the Body and Blood given asunder, and it shews the practice of the Western Church. This also is manifest by the Roman Order of the Mass: there we read, Vid. Cassandri Liturgica. When the Pope gives the Body, the Arch-deacon confirms, i. e. gives the Cup; and when the Bishops or Priests communicate, the Deacons fol­low and confirm. And there is express mention made of the Sacrament Descendet pontifex & commun. principes, & matres familias eorum, &c. given to Princes and their Ladies, and to all the People. The same we find, and more in another Ritual, call'd Ordo Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiae Ro­manae. In Epistolam 1 ad Cor. c. 10. Calix dicitur Communicatio sang. quia omnes ex illo uno participant. Haymo Bishop of Halberstate, saies, The Cup is call'd the Com­munication of his Blood, because all do partake of that one Cup. In 1 Epist. ad Cor. c. 11. Theophy­lact Arch-Bishop of Balgaria, saith, This dreadful Cup is equally commu­nicated to all. [...], &c. Oecumenius, upon the same Chapter, The Lord exhibits equally to thee, and to the poor man, the Table and the Chalice of Christs pre­tious Body and Blood. These in the 11 ^th Century. In the next, Algerus a Monk, when Berengarius was question'd for his Opinion against the Real Presence, Ʋt panis dum dentibus teritur carnem Christi in pass, attritam: & dum vinum in ora fidelium funditur, sang. de Christi latere fusum signaret. and recanted. This Learned Monk wrote three Books of the Sacrament; and in the second Book, cap. 8. he shews, how the cu­stom of communicating in both kinds, held in the Church from Christ, That the Bread being macerated with the Teeth, might represent his Flesh torn in his Passion; and the Wine pour'd into the mouths of the Faithful, signifie his Blood-shedding, &c. with many such passages in that Chapter; and so by good Autorities, out of the several Ages of Christianity, I have shew'd [Page 69] the practice of the Church, to give the Communion in both kinds to the People.

Altho Bellarmin and other Doctors, except against some, and answer others of your Testimonies, yet I have not interrupted you in most, because those Answers unto some which I have brought already, will suit the rest.

You have an excellent Art to make one Almanack serve for every Meridian under Heaven. You have one or two Catholic Distincti­ons to help at a dead lift. Concomitancy is a great Pillar of your Church, wheresoever the Holy Scripture, or Fathers, speak of receiving Christs pretious Body and Blood, for remission of Sins, and the nurishment of our Souls; you answer, In one kind whole Christ is received, and all his Benefits by a Concomitancy. If we go further, and prove the Ele­ments were receiv'd distinctly by the People in the Apostles time, and for so many Ages after. You answer, Ʋsu non praecepto, they receiv'd it so by Custom, and not by Precept.

Yes: And upon this account we are not troubled with all your proofs of both kinds administred to the People so many Ages of the Church, seeing afterwards that Custom generally ceas'd in the Western Church, and the contrary Custom was introduc'd and confirm'd by three General Councils, Constance, Basil, and Trent.

'Tis truth, in the 13 ^th Century, giving the Cup unto the Lai­ty began to grow out of use. Part. 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 12. Ex parte Sacramenti convenit, ut utrumque su­mutur, &c. Aquinas moves the Question, Whether it be lawful to receive Christs Body without the Blood. And concludes, That in regard unto the Sacrament it self, it was convenient, that both kinds should be received, because the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both: but in regard unto the Receivers, reverence and caution was required; and that therefore in some Churches, it was well observ'd, not to give the Cup unto the People. And yet before, the same Aquinas had determin'd, Quaest. 74. Art. 1. Quantum ad effect, in unoquoque sumentium, Sae [...]mentum hoc vales ad tuicionem, &c. As to the effect of every Receiver, the Sacrament secures both Body and Soul; and there­fore, the Body of Christ is offer'd for the salvation of the Body, and the Blood, under the Species of Wine for the Soul.

He saith, 'tis offer'd, to wit, by the Priest, but not communi­cated to the People.

Put the Proposition together, it is this, Bread and Wine are the Materials of the Sacrament, requir'd in regard of the benefit and effect in every Communicate for the preservation of his Body and Soul, by the Body and Blood of Christ. Well, Aquinas he starts the Question, Whether it was lawful to receive in one kind? and determins the Point very tenderly. But after this Angelical Doctor (as they call him) the School-men follow the Cry with full Mouth, That there is no Precept to re­ceive [Page 70] in both, and no prohibition to receive in one kind: That upon many Con­siderations, it is expedient to with-hold the Cup from the Laity: That the Church hath power to order things of this nature: and, That after the express determination of the Church in some General Councils, it is even become necessa­ry to with-hold the Cup, and an Heresie to dispute against it. Now to prepare the World for this new practice of receiving only in one kind, that so it might be entertain'd in some places, and get ground, and afford some plea of a Custom in the Church, the School-men started some prelimi­nary Questions, and concluded, That whole Christ was received under each kind; and he that received only the Body of Christ, received likewise his Blood and Soul, and Divinity by a concomitancy. 2 ^sy, That the whole intent of the Sacrament, as to the People, all the Essentials thereof, were commu­nicated under the Species of Bread, with the Body of Christ. 3 ^sy, That he who received in both kinds, had no advantage of those who receiv'd only in one kind. Altho we find this last Thesis not so generally admitted among themselves, yet such as oppose must not be peremtory, least the People should be sensible of some injury don them, in being depriv'd of that benefit which should be exhibited more in both kinds, then in one.

By your own relation you give us opportunity to observe, how they proceeded upon good grounds, and in a rational way to make good their Thesis, and their practice of the Communion in one kind.

It was necessary they should say somthing to endere the Peo­ple unto a compliance; designing to cheat them of one half of the Sa­crament, they would impose upon their credulity, and tell them, the other half which they receiv'd, was as beneficial as the whole.

You are not ignorant how they shew many good Causes and Considerations for their with-holding the Cup; and notwithstanding your pretensions and claim to the practice of the Church for so many A­ges on your side, our Doctors shew it was always free to communicate in one kind or in both, and shew the early practice of the Church for this half Communion, as you call it; and I hope you will now give me leave to put in their Plea.

Content: And if you can ballance those Autorities which I have brought, I will yield the Cause.

I am glad to see in you some hopes of Moderation, and that you will be rul'd by Reason and Autority.

Taking Christs Institution, and the Holy Scripture along with us.

'Tis suppos'd, there is no express Precept of Christ, to deter­mine the Church in all Ages to give the Communion in both kinds; and where the Church is left free, she may use her liberty, and determin as occasion serves.

You beg the Question: and we have urg'd Christs Instituti­on, and Example, in giving the Sacrament in both kinds, and his Com­mand [Page 71] to them to do likewise. We have urg'd the Traditions of St. Paul; the practice of the Apostolical Tunes.

You have urged, and we have answered, and let the impartial Reader judg between us; but besides these Instances of the Sacrament in one kind out of the Holy Scripture, Luke 24. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. we have also Testimonies of the Primitive Church, which speak on our side.

We have prov'd our way abundantly by the practice of so many Ages, do you so yours; and then I will grant we are left free in this case, every one to do as seemeth good in his eyes.

Not so neither, when the Church hath restrain'd this liberty, and forbid the Cup.

Whether your Church hath done better in the restraint, then the Church for so many Ages before in allowing that Christian Liberty, which you pretend for, to receive in one or both kinds, let the World judg: but we deny any such liberty taken by the Church, or allow'd by Christ to communicate in one or both kinds, as the Church should please; and we desire your proof.

First, Bellarmin proves it lawful to communicate in one kind, because the Church never condemn'd it.

You should prove that they allow'd it: But how should they condemn that which was not practic'd? Could they divine a new Gene­ration of Monks and Fryars should arise, and perswade the People by subtlety and craft to lose their Spiritual Birth-right, half the Legacy of Christ, or rather the whole, in a maim'd and undue Administration? And moreover, you have heard when the Manichees, and other Here­tics, would have brought up this custom, two Popes, Leo and Gelasius, were wroth, and determin'd positively against them.

I will not interrupt the Series of my Discourse, by reflecting upon by-past Passages, but proceed to shew, how the Communion in one kind was in use in the Primitive Times, and not condemn'd; and so by consequence allow'd. Many Customs of the Primitive Times, infer, the Body of our Lord was delivered to the People without the Cup. In the days of Persecution, when they could not assemble often to commu­nicate in public Assemblies, it was usual to carry with them part of the consecrated Bread, wrapping it up in clean Linnen, and keeping it in their Houses, until such time as they thought sit to eat it. Of this Custom Lib. 2. ad uxorem, c. 5. Non s [...] maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gastes, & si sciverit, non illum credet, qui dicitur. Tertullian gives a notable proof, writing to his Wife, That if she in­clin'd to Marry after his death, she should be careful to Marry a Christian, not an Heathen; otherwise, he will not know what thou eatest in secret, before all refection; and if he know it to be Bread, he will not believe it to be that which we call it, viz. The Body of Christ. Lib. de Oratiene, c. ult. Aecepto c [...] Domini, & re [...]. And in another place, The [Page 72] Body of the Lord being receiv'd and reserv'd. So Quaedam arcam, in qua Domini sanctum fuit indign. manibus, aperire tentavit, & igne inde assurg. deterrita est. Cyprian, in his Book De Lapsis, relates, How a Woman endeavoring with wicked hands to open a Chest, wherein the Holy Body of our Lord was lock'd up, she was terrified with Fire issuing out of the Chest. Qui festinas ad spect. Eucharistiam inter obscoena corp. meretr. tulit. And in his Book, De Spectaculis, he speaks of one with indignation, Who made such haste to the Heathenish Plaies and Sights, that he carried about him the Holy Eucharist, amidst the throng of whorish and obscene Persons. Lib. de Obitu frat. Satyri, c. 7. Ne vacuus mysterii, &c. Ambrose, shewing the Piety of his Brother Satyrus, tells us, That being at Sea in a Storm, ready to suffer ship-wrack, he earnestly begg'd the Sacrament of one that was with him, and wrap'd it up in a linnen Cloth, and hang'd it about his neck; and being cast away, he was the first who escap'd alive to the shore.

What would you prove from these Passages.

That they carried, and kept by them the Body of the Lord, and when occasion serv'd, did eat it fasting at home; and in all these Pas­sages no mention is made of the Cup, or of the Blood of Christ.

But I can give several express instances of both kinds, which the Faithful carried from Church with them to their Houses. You have heard above, how Apol. 2. Prope finem. Justin Martyr told you, The Deacons give the Sa­crament of Bread and Wine, mingled with Water, to those who are present, and carry it unto such as were absent. Oratione 11. [...], &c. So Gregory Nazianzen shews of his Sister Gorgonia, If any where, saith he, her hand had tresured up any of the Antitypes of the Holy Body and Blood. In Epistolâ ad Rusticum de Exuperio. Nihil illo ditius, &c. And Jerome most distinctly, speaking of one Exuperius, saith, No man can be richer then he, who car­ries the Body of our Lord in a wicker Basket, and the Blood in a Viol Glass.

But in most Instances, mention is made only of Christs Body reserv'd; and Ligari fecit in Orario. Satyrus in S ^t Ambrose, caused it to be wrapt up in a Lin­nen Cloth, and bound it about his Neck. Orarium, was a Linnen Cloth on purpose, wherein to wrap up the Sacrament, as Vice Comes shews, Lib. 2. de app. missae, c. 19. Orarium, pannus quo caelestis Euch. involvebatur. I hope you will not say he did wrap up Christs Blood in a Cloth.

Yes, he might wrap up the Holy Mysteries, the Bread, and the Wine put in a Vial-glass, together. And Ambrose his Expressions look towards the Wine of the Sacrament, when he saith, Ib. Caeleste mysterium, haustum arcano pectoris, & fusum in viscera. He received the Heavenly Mystery, swallowed up, as in a draught, in the secret Repository of his Heart, and diffus'd into his Bowels.

Flesh, when digested, may be said properly to be diffus'd into the Bowels.

But you know your Doctors allow not Christs Flesh to be di­gested, and turned into Chyle and Nutriment.

These are Niceties; I pray let me proceed without disturb­ance. You know the Sacrament was usually sent unto the Sick, to be received upon their Beds, Tanquam viaticum morientium, as Food for a long Journey, given unto those who were passing from Earth to Hea­ven. And this was only in one kind, viz. The Lords Body.

I reckon the sick Principly among such who being absent had the Sacrament sent to them, and have shew'd out of Justin Martyr, they had the Mysteries in both kinds. What the Faithful receiv'd in the Church, the same the Deacon carried to the Faithful in their Houses, when by reason of Sickness, or any other justifiable occasion, they could not be present at the publick Solemnity. However, your Instances are only of the Communion in private Houses, and the Mysteries reserv'd; and if one kind only be express'd, the other may be understood. But have you any Testimony of the Church, which expresly shews the Sacra­ment was given in the Church in one kind only; whereas we have brought a cloud of Witnesses, for the public Communicating in both kinds.

Yes, many ancient Canons make express mention of the Laick Communion, as distinct from that of the Clergy: So that Priests and Deacons, Criminals, were censur'd to Communicate only as the People, not as the Priests, that is in one kind, not in both. So the Eliberitan Council, Anno 305. in the 76. Canon, speaking of any Deacon who shall receive Holy Orders, being conscious of a great Sin he had before com­mitted, Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 237. Si quis Diaconus, &c. Post quinquennium actâ poenit. accipiat Laicam Communionem. If he discovers not himself after five Years penance, Let him be admitted to the Communion of Laicks. So the Council of Sardica, Can. 2 ^do. concerning Bishops highly criminal, Decrees, They shall not be ad­mitted unto the Communion of Laicks, even on their Death-beds. And so in many other Councils, mention is made of the Communion of Lay­people.

Yes, we do acknowledg it: But how do you prove that which you and Bellarmin design thereby, That [...], was to re­ceive in one kind. We know the Canons by that expression imply. That Men in Holy Orders, committing scandalous Offences, should be de­graded, and lie under the severities of Church Discipline and Penance, proportionable to their demerrit; and if at all they are restored to the Communion of the Church, they should be as Lay-men, and not restored to the Priests Office; they should receive the Sacrament without the Quire, with the common People. ^b [...], &c.

Lib. 4. c. 24. de Sacramento Euch. Nulla distinctio notari potest, &c. Bellarmin makes sport at this ridiculous Answer. Saith he, This punishment was somtimes so inflicted, that persons offending should not be reconcil'd and admitted to this Laic Communion, but in peril of Death; nay not then neither, as you have heard in the second Canon of the Council of Sardica: Now to sick Men upon their Death-bed, what distinction can there be of place, or what preheminence can a Priest have more then a Lay-man? and so Communio Laica, no punishment.

This is Wrangling, not Disputing: We say, as Epistola 52. Communicet ut Laicus & non usurpet locum Sacerdotis. Cyprian, A Priest so offending, let him become a Lay-man, and in that quality admitted after repentance, unto the Communion, whether in the Church or in his House, but let him not return unto the Priests Office. One of your French Bishops, Gabriel Albaspinus, hath sufficiently confuted Bellarmin, and all his Disciples in this Point; shewing, this Communio Laica, implied the condition of a Lay-person, and not any difference from a Priest in receiving the Sacrament only in one kind. Lib. 1. Observat. c. 4. de Communione Laicâ. Tempore Concil. quibus de Laica Commun. fit mentio, &c. For, saith he, in Cyprian' s time, and when these Canons fore-mentioned were made, the Communion was given to the People in both kinds. He brings many Instances to prove it.

Ibid. constat. ab annis plus octingentis usum in quibusd. Ecclestis communiionis sub una specie in publico coetu fidelium. Et constat Graecos, nunquam hoc Latinis ob­jecisse. Bellarmin brings another Argument, drawn from the consent and testimony of the later Ages of the Church, That it is evident for more then 800 Years, That in some Churches, in the public Assemblies, the use was to give the Sacrament in one kind. And the Greek Church, saith he, never ob­jected this as an Error to the Latin Church; which is an Argument they ac­counted it lawful; for otherwise they were willing and quick-sighted to discover all our faults.

This shews Bellarmins confidence, To assert stoutly, and prove faintly: How doth he make good the use of 800. Years

The Councils of Constance and Basil say, It had been in use for some long time, as you have heard before. And so Th. of Aquin. before this Council, tells us, That in some Churches it was well observed to with-hold the Cup from the People, for the greater reverence and caution.

These proofs fall short by more then half of 800 years. Aqui­nas liv'd in the 13 ^th Century, and then the Communion in one kind had got but little footing, only in some Churches, as he acknowledgeth. the Councils followed in the 14 ^th Century. We acknowledg the with-holding of the Cup from the People, began after 1200 Years after Chri­stianity, in the Western Church, but never in the Eastern Church. Bel­larmin offers at another proof of a longer date in Bernards time, related in the History of his Life; written by one of his Contemporaries, one [Page 75] William an Abbot: but those Books of his Life are so full of Legends, that I would not choose to rake in such a Dung-hill. They make Bernard to work as many Miracles as our Blessed Savior.

It is your securest way of answering our Autorities, by slight­ing them. But I have one considerable Argument more out of Bellarmin, to prove the Antiquity of giving the Sacrament in one kind, in the pub­lic Administration thereof, out of the Ordo Romanus. Roman Ritual, which is conceiv'd to have bin compos'd by Alcquine, Tutor to Charles the Great, above 800 years since.

Out of which Ritual we have expresly proved the contrary already.

Hereby you may judg how slightly you examine things, and Books; for in the Ordo Romanus you will find, That the Wine is conse­crated in a little Chalice, and the Pope drinks of it: and afterwards, the Arch-Deacon pours out some of the Consecrated Wine into a great Flagon, or Cup of other Wine and Water, and so it is Sanctified for the Peoples drinking, but not Consecrated.

This Passage proves the People did drink of the Cup, but the Pope it seems must have some preheminence above them: and for the distinction of the Wine Sanctified but not Consecrated, I understand it not. Ordo Rom. vinum etiam non consecratum sed sang. Domini commixtum, &c. The Ritual saith enough for the Cup which was given to the Peo­ple: The Wine not Consecrated, but mix'd with the Blood of Christ (out of the first Chalice) is Sanctified to all effects. And Bellarmin acknowledgeth it was call'd, The Cup of the Lords Blood.

I come now to shew the Motives which induc'd the Church to with-hold the Cup.

I wish'd long since you would come to this Chapter, for I did suppose your Proofs and Testimonies out of Antiquity, would be in­significant; but if there be sufficient reason for the practice, it might excuse in part, altho, in truth, no human Reason should prevail against Christs Institution, in such things, as are the Sacraments meerly of In­stituted Worship.

Gerson, the Famous Chancellor of Paris, eminent for his Books full of Piety and Learning, was present at the Council of Constance, and hath written in defence thereof, and of their Act in prohibiting the Cup unto the Clergy; and he gives the reason of the prohibition. First, Cas [...]aliquo profundi potuit, circumgestari sine periculo nequit. out of great Reverence to Christs pretious Blood, which if communi­cated to many, might be easily spilt upon the Earth by the Deacons stum­bling, who should carry it to the People. Aliqui Latcorum barbas habent. Aliqui Paralytici sunt. It might stick upon their Beards; and a Palsie hand might shake and spill it.

These Inconveniencies are accidental, and if involuntary, [Page 76] God will not impure Sin to them. As for the Lay-mens Beards, the Priests are not such Shavelings, but that they may be liable unto the same Obje­ction. And the Disciples of Christ at Supper with him, are pictur'd with very grave Beards. And withal, these Inconveniencies may follow the Bread Consecrated: It may stick in their Teeth, and the crumbs may fall to the ground; and you know your Doctors teach, that whole Christ, Divinity, Soul and Body, are contain'd in every minute Particle of the Host. Out of such pretended Reverence, me thinks, you might be as solicitous, That the Pretious Body and Blood of Christ should not be receiv'd into the fuming Caldron of the Stomach, and so keep the Sa­crament from us all, in your Patins and Chalices of pure Gold.

Another consideration is, Hyeme cito acescet Aestate putrescet. That Wine will sooner grow sower, and breed Worms, if it be long kept; as the Eucharist of Christs Body will not.

Yes, it will grow mouldy and vinew'd; and besides, the Mice may, without care, devour it. But what needs this reservation of the Sacrament, either in the Church, or in our Houses? Blessed be God, we have Tranquility and Peace, and if our Hearts did not draw back, may Communicate often in the Church. However, you do not hold, that Christs Blood, under the Species of Wine, can putrifie, and what need you be so solicitous for the simple accidents of the Element of Wine.

Another thing is considerable: Fastidium bibentibus afferet. Some persons may nauseate Wine, and the common People are not us'd to drink Wine; and so it may cause vomiting.

Such an Instance seldom happening, cannot prescribe against a general Rule of practice: If the Stomach, thro an occult quality, should loath either Bread or Wine, God would dispense with such a Man, and likewise the Church. And altho the common People do not drink Wine usually, yet Experience shews, that little Wine they take in the Sa­crament never disturbs them. Suppose I should tell them, as you do, It is Christs Flesh, and Christs Blood really, materially, this would cause an abhorrency and loathing. Men have not such Ganibal Stomachs, easily to digest such Doctrines.

I pray forbear your Drollery, and let me proceed. In some remote In quibusd. [...]ile [...] Countries near the Pole, Wine cannot be had without great difficulty: And shall they therefore forbear the Sacrament?

Unto these Countries the Seas are open, and Merchants Trade, and Men should take care, and be at some charge, to fulfil an Or­dinance of Christ, for the great benefit of their Souls. So in many Countries, there is no Corn to make Bread, but what convei'd from o­ther places. And now tell me seriously, Are not these pitiful Shifts, and [Page 77] shallow Considerations? Reasons flowing from a Mans Invention, rather then Judgment: Shall these things ballance the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practice, and of the Church for so many Ages? the end and signification of the Sacrament, as we have manifested at large. If ye had weightier Motives, most of your Doctors would not produce such as these: and herein you do ingeniously declare, That the wit of Man, with all the advantages of Human Learning, cannot speak a word of sense to justifie your unreasonable Practice against the Ordinance of Christ.

You make too much haste: I have reserv'd the best Arguments to the last. Is there not reason the Clergy should have some prehemi­nence above the People in these great Mysteries: Alias dignitas Sacerdot. & I [...]um pa [...] esset. The dignity of the Clergy requires this difference.

Their dignity appears in those things which Christ hath left to their Ministration: in teaching and ruling the People, distributing unto Christs Flock the Divine Food of his Word and Sacraments But the Lords Supper is common to all Gods children, who are invited to feed at their Fathers table upon the same Provisions: they all want spiritual Food and Nurishment for their Souls and Bodies, and are all Invited to come and take the Waters of Life freely; and they are Inhuman and Ac­cursed who would forbid the Lords People to draw Water out of the Well of Salvation, to cheer their Hearts with this Wine of Consolation. Besides, it hath bin declared before unto you, out of Chrysostom and Theophilact, That in the Sacraments of the Church under the Gospel, the Priests and People are equally concern'd.

The last and weightiest Consideration is this. That seeing the Church representative, in three General Councils, hath forbid the Cup unto the People: It proceeds in them from a turbulent and Schismatical Spirit, to be so clamorous and importunate to have it restor'd, against the Canons of the Church. I will produce the Canon of the Council of Constance, which first determin'd the Sacrament unto one kind. Cana Koirn. The Sacred General Council of Constance, lawfully Assembled in the Power of the Holy Ghost, Declares, Determins, and Defines, That altho Christ Instituted the Sacrament after Supper, and gave it to his Disciples in both kinds, not­withstanding this, the Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper, nor be received by the Faithful not Fasting. And likewise, altho in the Primi­tive Church the Sacrament was received in both kinds, yet to avoid some Perils and Scandals, the Custom is rationally introduc'd, That the Priest Consecra­ting should receive in both kinds, but the People only in the Species of Bread. You see the Council fully approves the custom and confirms it, and there­fore past the severe Censure following: That no Priest, under pain of Ex­communication, Bin. part. 2. Tom. 7. Sessione 1 [...]. Concil. Constant. Concil. Sacrum generale Con­stans. in Spiritu sancto legit. congregattum declarat, &c. [Page 78] shall Communicate the People under both kinds. And de­clares, That such as pertinaciously affirm it to be unlawful, or sacrilegious, to give the Sacrament in one kind, shall be proceeded against as Heretics. You consider not therefore what danger you incur by arguing so peremtori­ly against this Point.

We are not solicitous for the danger, in the cause of Christ and defence of Truth; and we know, where your Church wants reason to justifie her practice, she hath the argument of the Club, with severity above mesure to maintain it. But let us reason calmly in the Point. What Motive induc'd the Council to make such a Decree, notwithstand­ing the Institution of Christ, and the practice of the Primitive Church.

Your Party generally design to load the Council with the envy of that Expression, Non obstante; but you may observe, the Council there­in only had respect unto our Saviors giving the Sacrament after Supper, notwithstanding which, the Church appoints it to be receiv'd in the Morning, and fasting.

This was not the matter then in question, and needed no con­firmation; for in the Primitive Times, the Sacrament was given in the Morning, and to such as were able to forbear, it was given fasting. But the great concern, was the Communion in both kinds, acknowledged to be Christs Institution, and that he gave it to his Disciples in both kinds; and then immediatl [...] follows, Hoc non obstante, &c. And therefore shift it off as well as you can, the words of the Council decrees for the Com­munion in one kind, notwithstanding Christs Institution and Example, and the practice of the Primitive Church. But however, answer my que­stion: What induc'd the Council to decree it?

The Motive is express'd, Cum firmissime sit credendum & nullatenus dubitandum, &c. Because we must not doubt, but sted­fastly believe, That whole Christ, his Body and Blood, is contain'd under ei­ther Species of the Sacrament: And therefore such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind, introduc'd by the Church, and the Holy Fathers, and observ'd for a most long time, let it be taken for a Law.

The first part is warily penn'd: Tam sub Specie panis, quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri. We must stedfastly believe, that whole Christ is verily contain'd, as well under one Species as the other. So it may be, if it be in neither: and so we hold, Christ is contain'd in neither singly, but he is signified and Sacramentally represented, and re­ally and spiritually exhibited by the Sacrament in both kinds unto the Faithful Receiver. His Body that was broken for us, is signified by breaking of Bread; and his Blood shed, by the Wine poured out of the Cup, and separated from the Bread in the Sacrament: and therefore at present, we will dismiss this School nicety, and, by the Councils leave, not take it for granted, That whole Christ, Body and Soul, is in either Species. Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena Excommunicat. communicet Populum sub utraque Specie. [Page 79] But the principal motive follows. Seeing such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind, hath been introduc'd and most long observ'd by the Church and Fathers; we Decree it shall be taken for a Law, which shall not be changed or reprobated without the Autority of the Church. Bin. Tom. 8. Concil. Basil. Sess. 30. Sub qualibet Specie est integer & totus Christus landab. quoque consuet. commun. Laices, &c. The Council of Basil makes and confirms the same Decree upon the same Motives: Whole and intire Christ is under either kind, and the laud­able custom of Communicating the Laity under one kind, induc'd by Church and Fathers, and hither to most long observ'd, and approv'd by Doctors skilful in Gods Law, and in the Holy Scripture, and in Church Canons, long since. Let it be a Law, &c.

Yes: The Custom and Practice of the Church should prevail with sober Men, not given to Faction; especially when confirm'd by Ge­neral Conncils.

Why should not then the Custom and Practice of the Church, which we have prov'd for so many Ages, prevail for administring the Sa­crament in both kinds, especially being exactly conformable unto Christs Institution and Command, and Apostolical Tradition.

Stay there: We absolutely deny any command of Christ, or of his Apostles, or of the Church representative in a General Council, to administer the Sacrament in both kinds, and we shew two Councils for­bidding it.

You deny, but the Scriptures affirm: And the reason why no General Council determin'd the Sacrament to be in both kinds, was, because the Institution of Christ, and the Tradition of the Apostles, and the practice of the whole Church, was so full and express for it. It was never put to the Question, as I can find, until the 13 ^th Century: and from that time, when the School-men began to swarm, most of them being sworn Champions of the See of Rome: The laudable Custom, as the Council speaks, approv'd by Holy Fathers, (viz. Monks and Friers) crept insensibly into the Church. And this must be made a ground of Ca­nons, to establish the Communion in one kind, and forbid the Cup, and declare a Curse upon all those that shall dispute it. And now, when I shall declare the reason, I hope your goodness will excuse that great trou­ble to my self and you, in those numerous Quotations and Testimonies I have brought to prove the practice of the Church for 1200 Years, in giving the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds. It was chiefly upon this design, to manifest the gross absurdity of those two Councils, Con­stance and Basil, who (as you have heard) do ground their Decree for one kind, upon the laudable custom of the Church, taken up not above 100 Years before, against the Institution of Christ, and the conform­able practice of the Church for 1200 Years. And withal, to manifest their impudence in calling that a custom rationally introduc'd, when such ^a Diutissime obs. [Page 80] trifling Motives are brought to establish it. And in saying, it was diutissi­me observata, for a long time observ'd, when they cannot shew one clear Instance, save in the Age immediatly before, That the Sacrament was administred in public in one kind in any Christian Church.

It doth not become your Prudence and Moderation so to under­value General Councils.

Alass, Those two pitiful Councils of Constance and Easil, you may call them Oecumenical, but you give no more Autority to them, then you think fit: As far as their Decrees suit the Genius of the Court of Rome, they are confirm'd, and no farther. Part. 2. Tom. 7. pag. 1134. Exparte Approbatum. in iis quae consra Wiccle­sum, &c. Binius, in his Notes upon the Council of Constance, tells us, It was approv'd in part, in those De­crees against Wicliff, Husse, and Jerome of Prague.: But in the determina­tion of the Autority of a General Council above the Pope, it was abrogated by two General Councils, of Florence, and the Lateran. Bin. Tom. 8. S [...]ss. 34. C [...]n [...]. Basil. Tan suum Sim [...]niacum, & perjurum, incorig, Scismaticum, fide devium, injurium & bonarum Ecclesi [...]e p [...]ditor [...]m So the Council of Basil deposing Eugenius the 4 ^th from his Papacy, As a Simoniacal and per [...] jur'd Man, an incorrigible Schismatic, erring from the Faith, injurious, and betraying the Goods of the Church; And choosing Amadeus Duke of Sa­voy, Pope, called Felix the fifth, and Declaring, That a Council is above the Pope, and hath its Power immediatly from Christ: Alas, for these things, this poor Council is hist off the Stage of the World. Sess. 11. Bin in notis in Concil. [...]asil. p. 526. Conciliabulum Schismat. &c. And in the Lateran General Council, under Leo the 10 ^th, It is call'd a Schismati­cal and Seditious Conventicle, and altogether of no Autority. And yet these are the Councils upon whose Aurority you so much depend to establish your half Communion; and pronounce us all Heretical and Contumaci­ous, for not submitting our Reason and our Consciences thereunto, even against the Scripture and against the Fathers of the Church.

But the General Council of Trent hath no Exception, being held 18 years, and confirm'd by Pope Pius the fourth, and subscrib'd by his Cardinals, as appears by the Bull of Confirmation. See the Coun­cil of Trent, set forth in Latin by John Gallemart, D. D. and Professor at Douey.

Of the Council of Trent, read the History of Father Paul, a Frier at Venice, a Man of Learning, Judgment, and Piety, beyond compare; and there you will find what just cause the World [...]ath to de­cline the Autority and Decrees of that Cabal: That great Ecclesiastical Body, whose Soul and Spirit was at Rome, receiving day by day Orders, and Directions, and Determinations, from thence in a Portmantle. The Bishops and Fathers of the Council, were acted more by Reasons of State and Principles of Policy, then of Piety; and consulted the Pope and the Conclave at Rome, more then the Holy Scripture and the Fathers [Page 81] of the Church: And withal, you have no reason to urge us of England with the Autority of the Trent Council, when none of our Bishops were there, except only one fugitive. And as I take it, our Potent Neighbors of France have not yet accepted that Council: and withal, the Council is of too late an Edition to bear up its Autority against the consent and pra­ctice of so many Ages of the Church. And therefore, being now grown weary of the Controversie, be pleas'd to answer this Question, and we will conclude. Why doth the Church persist so stifly to maintain the Communion in one kind, against so many advantages we have shew'd, and you must acknowledg on the other side? especially, seeing in the Council of Trent it was so much desir'd by the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and by the Princes and People of Germany, well affected (so to make up the breach, and keep many from falling away from the Church of Rome) that the Council of Trent would allow the Communion in both kinds: yet we find it was not granted, but referr'd wholly to the Popes determination, who never had leisure to take his infallible Chair, and determine that Controversie.

To speak freely, The Fathers of that Council, and the Pope with his Cardinals at Rome, in their Wisdom did well perceive, that such as moved for the Communion in both kinds, were dis-affected to the Church, and made this a specious bait to catch the People. They saw their Concessions in this plausible case, would but make way for many complaints more, and grievances to be redress'd: You know, not long before, the Germans publish'd in Print their first Centum gravamina. Century of Grievances, every Article being as a Libel against the Church. Hereupon they thought it the wisest course to justifie the former Councils, and stand upon their Autority, and require subjection from the true Sons of the Church; and as for Heretics and Schismatics, either to subdue them by subtlety and force, or else to slight them.

This Observation of yours, confirms many Passages we read of Bishops Joannes Baptistà Hosius, Episcopus Rbeatinus, Lib. 4. Gonc. Trid. Sess. 2. Ec­clesia nunquam consueverit vel minimum indulg. heriticis, &c. in that Council, giving their Vote upon the Question, who mightily oppos'd the allowance of the Cup, and urg'd, That the Church was never observed to give the least Indulgence unto Heretics, but to establish that which was diametrically opposite to their Positions. Andreas Cu [...]sta. Episcopus Legionensis Another Bishop seconds this Opinion with the Example of the first General Council of Nice, wherein those 318. Holy Fathers would not yield one tittle to the Arrians, altho Constantine desired moderation; and the Controversie had well nigh set in a flame the whole World. A verbis commoda interpretatione molliendis ex composito abstinuerunt. Nay, saith he, they studiously rejected many Words and Expressions of the Arrians, which were ca­pable of a convenient Interpretation. And thus you see with what intolerable [Page 82] Impudence they accounted their Christian Brethren as Heretics, for fol­lowing the plain Institution of Christ. The Arrians found no favor in the Council of Nice from those Orthodox and Godly Fathers, nor the least degree of complyance; neither must the Protestants in Germany from the Council of Trent. But there was somthing more in the Wind that hindred the Reformation of the See of Rome; namely this, That if upon the complaint of Nations and People, the Pope should reform a­buses, especially such as had been Decreed in Councils: It would be a tacite acknowledgment, that the Church of Rome had solemnly erred in making such unjustifiable Decrees; and so the jealous People would be­gin to suspect and examine all her Determinations, and be easily perswa­ded by their Schismatical Guides that in many things the Church had mis­carried, and Bills of exceptions and complaint would be put up one after another, as the interest and malice of her Adversaries should con­trive them: and therefore, the safest way was ever found for the Church of Rome to stand upon her Justification against the clamors of the whole World, and to put Princes in mind of their Obedience to the Church, and the Obligation that lies upon them by force of Arms to subdue their contumacious Subject's, and make them submit unto Rules and Disciplines of the Churches. This was the sum of that smart Council which Cardi­nal Soderine gave unto Pope Adrian, when the good old Man was much perplex'd with the Complaints and Demands of the German Princes and their People, against the corruptions chiefly of the Court of Rome; His Piety, and Simpllcity, and good Nature, being not well vers'd in the Politics of Rome, promted him to endeavor satisfaction, and reform all such Abuses as might give just occasion of offence and grievance to their Adversaries. About this great Work of Reforming, he consults the Conclave, and the necessity of the Times, and the public Scandal of A­buses, induc'd many of the Cardinals to advise a Reformation of many things which were in question. But at last, the subtle and experienc'd Cardinal Soderinus, who had been vers'd in the Affairs of Christendom under three active Po [...]ds, Alexander and Julius, and Leo the 10 ^th, turns the Scale of their Votes, and absolutly disswades any appearance or at­temt of a Reformation. He rolls them, That ne [...]er any Pope with his Cardinals before, thought that a co [...]enient way; but rather by the Interest of Princes, and the power of the Sword, to suppress and extirpate unquiet and schismatical Spirits. That no Pope cut off Heresies by a Reformation, Sed cruciatis quas vocant; excitatis contra [...] Princibus & Populis Crucis sim­bolo in signitis. but by the [...]rucrats, as they are call'd, the Princes and People being stirr'd up against them, wearing the badge of the Cross upon their Coat of Arms.

I must confess, Experience hath found this way the surest; for so Pope Innocent the 3 ^d supprest the Albigenses in France; and Charles the fifth, the German Protestant Princes.

But thro the Providence of God, you find the Lutherans are [Page 83] yet alive in Germany; and several Princes, together with their Subjects, reform'd themselves in spight of all opposition, protesting against those Errors, which the Church of Rome intends to justifie only by the Sword, and by the Inquisition: and the lower you draw your Observation, the more success you will find God hath given unto many Kingdoms and Peo­ple, against the Tyranny and Innovations of Rome.

The Judgments of God are a great deep; and you may not en­ter into his Secrets, and judg of Truths, by the Success.

No, my design only was to confute that politic Cardinals Ob­servation, and yours, viz. 1. That the Peace of the Church is better maintain'd by the Sword, then by a Reformation of Errors and Corru­ptions. 2. That to acknowledg no Errors, but to stand upon the In­fallibility of the Church of Rome, is the compendious way to cut off all Complaints and Objections against her. But whil'st your Doctors say, Your Church of Rome cannot err, we know she doth err, and that da­mnably. And hereof we shall make a Demonstration from the effect, and overthrow her pretensions to Infallibility, by thewing, how in many particulars of Doctrine and Practice she hath miscarried, which is the design of this present Conference; and by Gods help, and your permis­sion, I will proceed to other Articles and Points of difference between our Church and yours, and let the World judg, upon which side the Word and Truths of God determine.

You carve out work more then sufficient: However, at pre­sent, it is high time to intermit these Severities of Discourse, and think of taking some Recreation. A pleasant walk into the Grove will refresh us: And then to make amends for your poor Entertainment, after we have past the Evening in Familiarity and Friendship, you shall take your rest; and, if you please, to Morrow we will enter again the Lists of Disputation.

SIR, I have found so much courtesie within Doors, that now we are come abroad to continue a Discourse of Controversie, methinks it is not Manners and Civility to oppose your choice and Judgment, and try your Pa­tience, who have given such Demonstrations of your goodness. But when all proceeds from a Zeal to Truth, and from a cordial Affection to so worthy a Friend, and you have charity to believe it, I am encouraged to proceed. Having therefore discuss'd already two Points, I propose the third to Consideration. The great scandal that is given by your Church of Rome unto sober Men and good Christians, from Images and their Worship, so much pleaded for and defended by your Doctors.

This was indeed a third Objection, which in the beginning of this Conference you propos'd against the Doctrine and Practice of our Church, which you suppose hath given occasion of Scandal both to the Learned and unlearned, as being obvious (as you said) unto every understanding: But where lie the apparent Exceptions against this Point?

The second Commandment appears at first sight to forbid worshipping of Images, and you allow it.

So you make your deluded People to believe, designing to cre­ate a prejudice and odium against our Church, that so you might keep them firm to your heady separation from us: But your Learned know in their Consciences, that we do not transgress this Commandment, nei­ther in the thing forbidden, or in the manner of Worshipping our I­mages; which are not included in the prohibition of Gods Law.

You appeal to the Learned of our side, as tho you would al­low them to decide the Controversie if they would speak the dictates of their Consciences. But this is a sleight and Artifice, to wipe off your own guilt, and lay the charge of Dissimulation to our Doctors: But their Grounds and Reasons, when produc'd, will manifest to the World, that the charge they lay against them of transgressing the rule of Gods Word in this Point, proceeds out of Conscience and not Design: you give a great scandal and offence to God and Man, and would not have us zealous to reprove it.

Zeal without knowledg and discretion, hath set the World in a Flame, and you are forward to blow the Coals.

We read, Isa. 6. 7. how a Seraphim took a Coal from the Altar, and laid it upon the Prophets mouth, and so gave him commission and command to speak. Now the word of God is this coal from the Al­tar, enkindling Holy Fires in the Heart, and opening the Mouth of his Servants to adjust his will reveal'd, against the Transgressors thereof.

You will in short time pretend to Euthusiasm; when we have beaten you off from your strong hold, your supposed sanctuary in the Scriptures, that must be your last refuge.

Your Fathers and Founders of the several Orders, have shew'd the way, and acted the Phanatic part so well, that you presume we must needs be taken with it, and herein become their Disciples: but if it be Enthusiasm to follow the rule of Holy Scripture, and shew how palpably you do swerve from it; we shall be ambitious of that reproach.

It is an ill Omen to engage in Quarrels and bitter Reproaches, before one Argument hath past between us. If you have any thing to ob­ject against our Doctrine, or our practice concerning Images and their Worship, let us hear it.

God, in the second Commandment, hath forbid us to make and worship Images; and your Church hath mightily advanc'd the Trade of Painting, and Carving, and Graving Images, and require veneration and worship to be given to them.

Let us proceed by degrees to answer your Objection, which con­sists of many parts: Do you condemn us for allowing and countenancing the Art of Imagery?

If we did, we should not want the Autority of some Anti­ents, so severely did they adhere to the Letter of the second Com­mandment.

You know, God himself commanded Moses to make two Cheru­bins for the Ark, and to erect a brazen Serpent in the Wilderness, Exod. 25. 18.

And you may know, That this was objected to Tertullian; and I pray observe how he answers it, Lib. de Idolol. cap. 5. Bene quod idem Deus extraordinario [...]. The same Lord who forbad Images, by an extraordinary Precept may command them. And he concludes excel­lently to our present purpose. Si eundem Deum observas, habes legem ejus ne feceris simili [...] postea factie, &c. If you observe the same God, you have his Law, not to make any likeness. If you urge his command afterwards, that Moses should make an Image (of the Cherubins and the brazen Serpent) do then follow Moses example, make no Image against the Commandment of God, unless the Lord expresly command thee. And here, by the way, you may observe how in this place Tertullian, (and I could shew the like of [Page 86] many of the Fathers) makes no such distinction (as your Doctors do) of Idols, which represent false Gods, and so are nothing in the world, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 8. 4. and whereunto you precisely restrain the prohibition of the Commandment, or of Images, which represent re­al Things or Persons, God, Angels, or Men; for you see in Tertullians Opinion, even the Cherubins, and the Brazen Serpent were included in the Commandment; and had not God afterwards expresly commanded them to be made, it had not been lawful for Moses to have made them. And I must confess, I have purposely wav'd that Controversie about the words and sense of the Commandment, because your Doctors have so perplex'd it with Notions and Distinctions, not intelligible to the Hearer or Reader.

You will find, the same Tertullian shews, Lib. 2. Contra Marcionem, c. 22. Tanquam simplex ornamentum, &c. The end of the se­cond Commandment was to prevent Idolatrous Worship of Images; as it follows in the Commandment, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. And that God commanding the Cherubins to be made for Orna­ment and Furniture of the Tabernacle, it was no contradiction to his Law, having not in them the causes of Idolatry, for which the making of Images were prohibited. Such an answer he likewise gives for the brazen Serpent: It was made for cure, to heal the People who were stung with Fiery Serpents in the Wilderness, and for a Type of Christ, healing the Nations (as our Savior himself hath applied it) and a Type likewise of the Old Serpent the Devil, hang'd and crucified upon Christs Cross. These things therefore were not against the Commandment, be­cause they were not made to be ador'd and worshipp'd.

You have led me whether I desir'd: We do not conceive all Images, or the making of them, to be forbidden by the second Com­ment, but only such as are made for Religious Worship. Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus. Let not the wor­ship of things made with hands become any part of our Religion. And again, saith St. Augustin, Aug De vera Rel, c. 5 [...]. Tom. [...]. non sit nobis Rel. cultus hominum mortuorum: Let it be no part of our Religion to worship Men that are dead; for if they liv'd godly, saith he, they will never desire or seek after such honors. Honorandi sont propter Imitationem, non Adorandi propter Religionem. They are to be honor'd for our imitation, not adored as to Re­ligion. But alas! your Doctors have left the old innocent Plea for Ima­ges, whether in Churches or other places; That they may be useful for Ornament, for Instruction, for an honorable Commemoration of holy Persons, and for Imitation. All this will not suffice, but you will have Veneration and Adoration, and what not, be given unto them: and so you have given occasion of Scandal to the Godly, and of great Supersti­tion and Idolatry to the more ignorant sort among your selves, who can­not perplex themselves with such nice Distinctions, wherewith your Leaders think to fence themselves against the charge of Idolatry: But [Page 87] we shall proceed to shew this by degrees: Mean while, least you should make too much use of my Concession concerning Images made for such innocent uses as have been mention'd, That they are not against the se­cond Commandment; I must here put in a solemn caveat against your I­mages of God, which against all Reason and Religion you make and adore.

Bell. Tom. 2. l. 2. de Ecclesiâ triumph. c. 8. Non esse tam cereum in Ecclesiâ an sunt fuciendae Imag. Dei, &c. Bellarmin doth acknowledge, That it is not so certain in the Church, whether the Image of God and of the Trinity should be made, as whe­ther the Image of Christ and of the Saints.

And yet in the same Paragraph he asserts positively, Licere pi [...]ere etiam Imag Dei Fatris in ferm. [...]is senis, & Spiritum San­ctum inf. columbae. That it is lawful to picture God the Father in the shape of an old Man, and God the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove, and cites many of your Doctors to con­firm his Opinion; and so your general practice doth maintain it. Now I will first urge the Holy Scripture against this Doctrine and Practice of your Church, and then leave you to defend it. Moses gives a great charge unto the People of Israel, Deut. 4 15, 16, &c. Take good heed unto your selves, least ye corrupt and make you a graven Image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast or winged soul, the likeness of any creeping thing upon the ground, or of any fish in the waters; and least thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou [...] the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them and serve them.

This charge is level'd against the Idolatry of the Gentiles, and those Nations whom God cast out of Canaan, who did worship graven Images of Men, and Women, and Beasts, and creeping, things, for Gods.

The Clause and Parenthesis in the first Verse of this charge: For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, I say this Clause manifests, That God gave the charge, lest by any thing after mention'd, they should attemt to represent him. It is truth, that the Heathen did represent their false Gods in and by such Shapes and Images, and did worship them. And the Almighty God, by a full enumeration of Creatures, forbids any similitude to be made to represent and to worship him under it: And to this effect, the Propher Isaiah expostulates with an Idolatrous People: To whom will ye liken Gods or what likeness will ye compare unto him? Isa. 40. 18. The best Image of God; is Man; an Image of the Lords own making, that this likeness and similitude of God consists in the Soul of Man, with her noble Fa­culties of Free-will and Understanding, and dominion over the Crea­tures, in that original rectitude and holiness where with he was created but these things cannot be represented by the linea [...] of a P [...] or an Image, which only represent the dimensions and features of a Body; [Page 88] and therefore by the Image of a Man, God cannot be represented, and much less by any inferior Creature. God is Infinite, and Invisible, and Spiritual; and all Images are finite and material, and terminated by visible dimensions, and therefore one cannot resemble another.

To this Bellarmin answers, Ʋbi supra, Tribus modis potest aliquid pingi, &c. That God cannot be represented es­sentially by an Image, but Historically and Analogically he may.

Your Doctors have vented new and dangerous Doctrines; and you may observe what a fine Web they spin of nice and subtle Distin­ctions, to catch the unwary People in the Snare: What a rumbling noise this makes in a Country-mans ear, enough to put him in a Sound. God cannot be represented by an Image Essentially, yet Historically and Ana­logically he may.

Our Church takes care, that the Priests should instruct the igno­rant People, and explain these and the like distinctions to them: and so doth Bellarmin explain himself in this Chapter.

It were the nearer, and far easier way of Instruction, to leave the People to keep the Commandment without any worship of I­mages, and without the labyrinth of your perplex'd Distinctions: But I pray shew what Bellarmin means by the Historical and Analogical Pictures of God.

You know, Gregory the Great call'd Pictures, The Books of Lay-men: Such as could not read or study the Scriptures, might behold many Historical passages of Scripture, carv'd, and limn'd, and repre­sented to the Eye. As to see in a Picture our Blessed Savior wrap'd in Swadling-clothes, and lying in a Manger, and the Wise-men worshipping and presenting Gifts. So his Circumcision, his Baptism, his Scourging and Crucifixion, effectually represented in Pictures, may more sensibly affect the Heart, then bare reading the Histories in the Gospel.

But what is this to the Historical Image of God? Christs Pi­cture is taken as he is Man.

Bellarmin explains himself as to that, In that Historical passage of Gods appearing to Adam and Eve in the midst of the Garden, Gen. 3. after they had eaten of the forbidden Fruit, to paint a Man walking in amidst the Trees of Paradice; and our first Parents hiding from his pre­sence, is to represent God Historically.

Or rather falsly and unwarrantably: For the Text saith not, that God did appear in an humane Shape; but only, That Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, and bid themselves, ver. 8. How God was pleased to manifest himself to them, is not express'd: they must draw the Image of a voice, to repre­sent aright that History.

But there is another instance more opposite, of those three Men who appeared to Abraham at his Tent door in the plain of Mambre, Gen. 18. It is expresly said in the first verse, The Lord appeared to Abraham [Page 89] as he sat at the Tent door. God therefore was represented by one of these three Men, who afterwards (as we read, ver. 17.) staid and communed with Abraham, when the other two went to Sodom. Now to draw three waifering Men turning in to Abraham's Tent, and entertain'd by him, whereof two departed towards Sodom, and the third communed with Abraham, would be Historically to represent God under the Image of a Man.

We deny not, that three Men may be drawn coming towards Abraham, and all the sequel of the Story: but we deny, that either of these thus pictur'd would be the Image of God, representing him. God afterwards manifested himself to Abraham, in communication, in means unknown to us; whereas under the similitude of a Man, he was alto­gether unknown to the Blessed Patriarch. You may as well say, a Cloud is Gods Image, because he appeared to Moses and the Israelites in a thick Cloud upon Mount Sinai, Exod. 19. 9. The same reason holds, for the Ho­ly Ghost descending upon Christ in the shape of a Dove: the Dove was no Image of the Holy Ghost, had no similitude or representation of the third Person of the Blessed Trinity, who is the Eternal Spirit, and can­not be represented by Picture. If you saw the Picture of a Dove, you would not say, This is the similitude or Image of the Holy Ghost.

The whole Scene of Christs Baptism being represented in a Ta­ble, and among the rest, a Dove descending upon Christ, it would put us in mind of the Holy Ghosts descent upon him.

So the Rain-bow in the Clouds, puts us in mind of Gods gracious Promise, never to drown the World a second time. These are Signs, but not Similitudes or Images. Answer me this Question: Would you worship one of them as God? If we saw the Baptism of Christ re­presented in Images, would you worship the Dove pictur'd therein? or would you worship the shape of fiery Tongues in Picture descending up­on the Apostles?

I am not concern'd to give an Answer to such Impertinencies.

Well, if you will not be put out of your road, proceed: and shew what Bellarmin means by an Analogical Picture of God.

He tells us, Ʋt supra. Potest aliquid pingi ad explicand. &c. That things may be represented and painted, and their nature explicated, not by an immediate and proper similitude, but by A­nalogy, or a Metaphorical and Mystical representation.

Alas! with how much difficulty doth your great Doctor ex­press himself: Fain he would say somwhat to the purpose, but knows not what: and therefore he involves himself in a cloud of mystical terms and notions, very well suited, doubtless, to the capacity, and for the Instruction of the People. I must needs acknowledg, I comprehend him not, and much doubt whether he understood himself.

Your doubts and no understanding must be no rule to us. Bel­larmine well explains himself by following Instances: As we picture An­gels, [Page 90] saith he, with youthful and fair Countenances, and with wings, to shew their speed in Gods service, and their flourishing state alwaies in the spring of youth; as Christ is pictur'd in the form of a Lamb to represent innocency and meekness: after this Analogical way, Man is the Image of God, even extra historiam; and we may picture God under an humane shape.

Your Doctor deriv'd this deep Theology from the Pythago­reans, or rather from the old Idolatrous Egyptian Priests, who were much taken with Hieroglyphics. But I pray observe, how his Instance in Man as the Analogical Image of God, is the worst chosen of all the rest: For all Lambs are meek and patient, and so may Hieroglyphically represent the patience and meekness of Christ. But most Men are evil, like the Beasts that perish, as Lions, and Tigers, and Wolves, devouring one another; as Swine and Goats for Lust, and so are become rather Images of the Devil. And notwithstanding all this, must the single I­mage and Figure of a Man, without any other thing to determin it, re­present God, and become his Analogical Picture? and let me observe to you, how they deal worse with God, then with the Angels; for these they picture fair and youthful, to represent their florid incorruptible state: but they picture God, as the ancient of days, whom we read of in the Prophet, Dan. 7. 9. with a grey Beard, and antique Countenance, as if he had one foot in the Grave.

That form sitly represents Gods Eternity.

Any thing that shall please the fancy, where there is no ground in Reason or Religion to determine it. The Heathen Poets made prodi­gious Deities; and so do Christian Painters. But what Analogy can there be between the Divine Nature and an Image? the one is Infinite, the o­ther finite; the one a Spirit, the other altogether material. An Hiero­glyphic, or Image, which represents God in one respect, must be infi­nitely defective in many other. The Egyptians Analogically represent­ed the great Deity of the World, by the Hieroglyphic of an Eye, to signifie his All-seeing Providence. But alas! the Eye seeth, but doth not fore-see. It is the Mind that is provident, not the Eye: And then where is the Power, and Justice, and Mercy of God represented by that Emblem? If all were an Eye, where is the Body? saith the Apostle: And if an Eye shall be the Image of God, where is the Hand of Power, and the Scepter of Government, and the Scale of Justice, and Thunder­bolt of his Wrath? Put all the Emblems in the World together, and they shall represent God, as a shadow doth the Sun. God hath clearly reveal'd himself to us in his Holy Word, and you have drawn a veil up­on him by your Dysanalogical Images, and Pictures: you take from the People the Holy Scriptures, and teach them by Pictures, according to that memorable Saying of a Pope, Pictures are Lay-mens Books. But God is a Spirit, saith our Blessed Savior, and Men must worship him in Spirit and in Truth, Joh. 4. 24. And [...]o! by your Pictures of God, you deter­mine the Worship and the Imagination of deluded People, to the shadow and representation of a Body: And because Man is the most excellent [Page 91] of all bodily and visible Creatures, you have favor'd God with an hu­man shape; whereas the Heathen, vile wretches! worship him under the shape of an Ox that eateth grass.

If God was pleased to manifest himself in an human shape (as you have heard:) Why may not we represent him so to the Peo­ple.

First, there is a great mistake in those Apparitions of God in the Old Testament: you make use of them to represent God the Fa­ther in a human shape, whereas the Fathers generally hold, that God the Son assumed those appearances, and therefore they call'd them, Praeludia Incarnationis, the Prologues of his future Incarnation; and so they can­not warrant your Picturing of God the Father. But to come more close to our present purpose, such Visions of God which we read of, were transient, cited only to the present purpose: as in that of Daniel, con­cerning the ancient of days, it represented Gods dreadful coming to Judgment; as you may read at large the 9 ^th Chapter. Now you would make a standing Representation of God thereby, to all ends and pur­poses whatsoever. And again, when the Prophet had his Vision, it was also revealed to him what it signified; otherwise, an old Man with white garments, and the hair of his head like wool, could not have represented God to the Prophet. It was no Image that did bear any Analogy or Re­semblance of the Divine Nature, or of any Person of the Trinity, and therefore cannot be made use of by it self to represent God. 3. Dist. 9. Qu. 2. Durandus, a great School-man, tells us, Such Forms wherein God appeared in the Old Testament, were not assumed into one Person with the Divine Nature, as was the Humane Nature of Christ; and when the present design was over, they were laid aside, as we put off our clothes. And you may as well make a suit of Clothes the Image of a Man, as these Forms the Image of God. Suppose any Man should converse with you a day or an hour under a Vi­zar, would he like it, if you should take his Picture, and the standing copy of his countenance from the Vizar? When the Holy Scriptures mention the Eye of the Lord, and the Mouth of the Lord, his right Hand, and his Holy Arm; will you take these parts, and set them toge­ther, and make the Image of a Man to represent God, and bring these Autorities of Scripture for your warrant? This is a ready way to make our People Anthropomorphites; to create in them an Imagination, that God consists of Parts and Members as a Man; and that his Image, after which God made Man, was imprinted in the Body. In the Gatechizing of Youth, we find it an hard work to take their minds off from such conceits, notwithstanding all the help of Holy Scriptures, which ex­presly declare, That God is a Spirit, and not flesh; invisible, and not a Body. When we tell them, that in such Expressions of Gods Eye, and Hand, and Mouth, &c. the Holy Ghost descends to our capacity, and speaks of God after the manner of Men: That he seeth all things with­out [Page 92] Eyes, he maketh all things without hands; for he spake the word, and all things were made: and yet the Heavens are call'd his handy­work, and so the whole Creation, because Man performeth several O­perations by several Organs of the body, therefore, for our better ap­prehension, these Members figuratively, and by a Trope, are ascribed to God, altho he worketh all things by himself, by the Almighty Power of his will and pleasure. Now when we labor to explain these things unto the People, they hardly sink into their hearts, to take them off from terrene Cogitations of God; and much more would they be confirm'd in such low conceits of the Divine Nature, if they should constantly be­hold God pictur'd, and worship him under an humane shape.

For no other end do we represent God under an humane shape, but to descend unto vulgar capacities; and our Priests can instruct them, as well as you, that God is an invisible Spirit.

Such Images which you make of God, are not Tropes and Figures to represent him to the minds of Men, but real Representati­ons to the Eye; and so are apt, in undiscerning Persons, to improve the imagination, that God is like unto us in our Earthly Members: and for this cause, among others, he hath forbid such Images, and you trans­gress the Commandment of God, and endanger the Souls of deluded People, in making and expressing such Pictures unto public view and a­doration. And it is worthy Observation, That altho God would borrow a visible shape to appear unto a discerning Patriarch and a Prophet, yet he would not do so when he would manifest his prefence to the whole Con­gregation of Israel, he descended upon Mount Sinai in a Cloud, in the voice of Thunder: and he expresly makes the Observation to the People, when he prohibited any likeness of God to be made, Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves, for ye saw no manner of similitude, on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the Fire, Deut. 4. 15.

Your worthy Observations must not think to carry the cause a­gainst the Traditions and Determinations of the Church.

I do not expect they should, when the Commands of God do little move you: However, to keep others out of the snare, we will not spare to represent the ill effects of your picturing God, when you u­sually draw the Image of the Trinity after this manner, An old reverend Man, with a little Youth, and a Dove to represent the Holy Ghost: here you conceive you have given us the three Persons, but where is the one Substance? the one only true God? These Images necessarily represent a diversity of Natures and of Substance, as well as a distinction of Per­sons. And when you make God the Father ancient, and God the Son as an youth, you sensibly confirm the Doctrine of [...]. Arrius, who maintain'd, That Christ the Son of God was yonger then his Father, and that there was a [Page 93] time when the Son of God was net. And therefore Abulensis Cap. 4. Deut. qu 5. Erroris inductivae sunt, cum periculo Idolatriae & Here­fis, &c. peremtorily de­termins against making Images of God, or of the Holy Trinity, as being Inducements of Error, and with the danger of Idolatry and Heresie of at­tributing unto God corporeity, and an essential distinction of Persons in the God-head: And altho, saith he, the Church hath received such Images, or dissembled them, yet they do not signifie aright. And suitably hereunto, we read how Pope John the 22 ^d. declar'd some for Heretics and Anthro­pomorphites, and burn'd others in the confines of Bohemia and Austria, because they made use of such Tables to represent the Holy Trinity un­der the Pictures of an old Man, a Youth, and a Dove. And now I will bring the approved Testimony of the Antients against representing God by any Picture. Defid & symbolo, cap. 7. Credimus quod sedet ad dextrum Dei patris, &c. Augustin saith, We believe Christ sets at the right hand of his Father; not that God is circumscrib'd with an humane form, or sits with his knees bended, &c. least we should fall under that Sacriledge for which the Apostle accursed those who chang'd the Glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of a corruptible Man. It is wickedness to set up such an Image in a Christian Temple. Clemens Alexand. Pro treptico ad Gentes. [...], &c. Another Father tells us, We have no visible I­mage of a visible Matter, but an intellectual of a spiritual Substance: God is no sensible Spectacle. [...], Lib. 5. [...], &c. Again, Moses put no Statue or Image of God in the Tabernacle, intimating, that God is a Majesty invisible and incircumscrib'd. [...], &c. In the same Book he shews, how Moses was expresly commanded not to make any graven Images, or likeness of God; that we might not look on things visible, but intelligible, for the easiness of beholding him, vilifies the Majesty of God; and to worship the intelligible Substance by a material Object, is to dishonor God by our sight. It was the general great design of the Holy Fathers, to take Men off from material and sensible Cogitations, when they apply their hearts to God, to know him, and to worship him. 2 ^a. Therapeut. [...], &c. Theo­doret shews, how God doth manifestly teach us that nothing visible can be liken'd to him: And he forbids all Men, saith he, to make any Image of things visible, so as to conceive it may become an Image or Statue of the invi­sible God. Nay, the second Council of Nice, which first establish'd the honor and worship of Images of Christ and of the Saints, yet expresly declares against any Image of God. Act. 5. [...], &c. John, Bishop of Thessalonica, saith, We make the Image of Christ as Man, not as we believe him to be God by na­ture: for what likeness or Figure can there be of him, who is incorporeal and interminable. Bin. [...]om. 5. [...], &c. Gregory, the second Pope of that name, in his first Epi­stle Aventinus Annalium Priorum, lib. 7 pag. 601. [Page 94] to Leo Isaurus the Emperor, saith, Why do we not make the Father vi­sible in Picture? because we know him not: and it is impossible to represent in Picture the nature of God. Crth. fidei lib. 4. c. 17. [...], &c. And Damascen, a great favorer of Images, speaks full to this point, What representation can be made of God, who is incorporeal, uncircumscrib'd, invisible, and interminable. And he con­cludes, It is extream folly and impiety to figure God. You see how positive they are against any Picture of God.

Bellarmine takes notice of many of these Autorities and Argu­ments, and shews how they are spoken of an Image of God, which should represent his Essence; and he grants that to be impossible.

In every Controversie he hath a Catholic Distinction to help him at a loss; as I have observ'd before: We cannot picture God essen­tially, saith he; no nor Man, nor any thing in the World, say I. A Pi­cture gives only the outward Lineaments and Features: but these Auto­rities which I have urg'd, say, There can be no Image, not of his Essence, but of an invisible God; no Lineaments of him who is Infinite: It is extreme folly and madness to attemt it. Nay, Bellarmin himself acknow­ledgeth, that divers School-men are against making an Image of God; but he will be of the right side: He resolv'd to be a Cardinal against the rule of his Order, and so he will maintain Opinions to please his Party, against the rule of Scripture: and we may believe, of his own Consci­ence, what the Court of Rome doth countenance, he must defend; o­therwise, against such evidence of Scripture and Reason, and the Te­stimony of the Fathers, he would never have asserted the lawfulness of making a visible Image of the invisible God, so to instruct the unwary People to become Idolaters and Heretics, as one of his own Doctors hath sufficiently observ'd Abulensis, ut supra. And so I leave this detestable Point of ma­king a Picture and Image of God.

You observe this is not so generally defended by our Doctors, and therefore you ought not so severely to lay it to our charge.

Why doth not your Church forbid it, but rather dissemble it, as Abuhensis expresseth it? If we must not say she doth with full appro­bation receive this abominable practice, yet in most Cathedral Churches we shall find such Representations of the Holy Trinity, and Pictures of God the Father in an human shape, and of the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove: We call for a Reformation of these gross Errors, but you lend a deaf Ear, being given over unto strong Delusions; and have found doubty Doctors, and sworn Champions of your Church to defend the practice.

You should not be so severe in a disputable Case.

Who made it disputable, when the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers condemn it? In process of time, an Antichristian Generation may put it to the Vote and Question, whether there be a God; and we, forsooth, must use moderation in a disputable case.

All this hath been a kind of digression, to load us with the greater envy. Have you any thing to ob [...]ect against the Images of Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints to be receiv'd with honor and due veneration? there lies the knor and difficulty between us: Councils and Popes have avowed that practice, and your Doctors, with great impudence, declaim against it.

I can produce an ancient Bin. Tom. 1. Concilii Eliberat. c. 36. Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non do­bere, ne id quod colitur & Adoratur, in partete depingatur. Canon of the Eliberitan Council in Spain, forbidding Images in Churches, It pleaseth us, That Pictures should not be in Churches, least that which is Worship'd and Ador'd, be painted on the wall.

This Canon may respect the Pictures of God, and not of the Saints, and you have dismist that Point.

Your Church, however, is to blame to transgress this Ca­non, in admitting Images of God and of the Trinity: But seeing you al­low Worship and Adoration to the Images of Christ and of the Saints, the reason given in the Canon reacheth them also. The Fathers would not have that which is worship'd, pictur'd on the Wall.

You will find other Answers given to that Canon, That it pro­hibited Images in the Church, because then the People were newly wean [...]d from Idolatry, and might be apt to return: For the Council was held under Pope Marcellus, Anno 305. and withal the Heathen, among whom they liv'd, might suppose Christians did worship Idols, like them­selves, whilst they condemn'd them; and there was danger least the Gentiles should break in upon them, and do despite unto the Images of Christ and the Saints.

The Reason given in the Canon, confutes these Answers, and manifests them to be but shifts: That which is worship'd must not be pictur'd.

De Im. l. 2. c. 9. Bellarmin having reckon'd others, chiefly approves this An­swer: The Canon forbids Images upon the Walls, least they should be defil'd and stain'd with the moistness and mouldring of the Wall: but Pi­ctures in Arrasor Tables are not forbid, as not being so liable to such Inconveniencies.

He will say somwhat, tho to little purpose; such a ridicu­lous Answer deserves no Consideration.

But withal, he shews how the Eliberitan Council consisted but of 19 Bishops: And what are they, if compar'd with such General Coun­cils which afterwards establish'd Images?

This is like himself, when any thing makes against him, to slight it: But this Council was alwaies held in great esteem, for the An­tiquity and Piety thereof. Hosius presided therein, and the other Bi­shops were most of them Confessors, and at that time assembled, with [Page 96] the hazard of their lives, to give Rules and Directions to the People of God. And in those days Bishops were not so numerous; the World being not subdued to Christianity. And lastly, Binius acknowledgeth there were six and thirty Presbyters in the Council, besides the Bi­shops.

Once more: Bellarmin shews, That Council did incline to No­vatianism, denying Reconciliation unto the Church, even at their deaths, unto some Offenders, as appears in the three first Canons of that Coun­cil; whereas about 20 years after, the great Council of Nice, in the 13 ^th Canon, Decreed the contrary: Bin. Tom. 1. [...], &c. We determin in general, That any one departing this life, and desiring to receive the Eucharist, the Bishop, upon ex­amination, shall give it him.

Bellarmin doubtless was not ignorant, That Pope Innocent the first had vindicated the Eliberitan Council from this imputation of Novatianism, and reconcil'd the difference of the Canons, by the times wherein they were made. Innocent. Epist. 1. c. 2. Cum illis temporibus crebrae essent persecut. &c. In those persecuting Times, the Fathers of the Eliberitan Council were more severe, least the easiness of Reconciliation to the Church should encourage some to Apostatize; they Decreed, That such as did fall off, should not be admitted to the Eucharist, even at their deaths. But when Constantine restored Peace to the Church, and Persecution ceas'd, the Council of Nice releas'd the former Canon, and Decreed, The Communion should be given to such as desired it upon their death beds. Now Bellarmin's brother Cardinal, Annal Tom Anno 305. Fatetur se paulo liberius de hoc Concil. loquutum, &c. Baronius, taking into consideration this Justificati­on of the Eliberitan Council by Pope Innocent, makes acknowledgment, That he spoken too freely against this Council in his Annals before; and De­clares, That there could be no suspicion of Novatianism in that Council.

Baron. Tom. 1. Anno Christi, 57. Baronius suspects this Canon against Pictures, may be supposi­titious put in among the rest by some, who had ill will to Images, in after times: Because, saith he, the Image-breakers take no notice of this Canon in their defence.

This is their constant practice, to suspect all that makes against them: They have accustomed themselves much of late, to the corrupt­ing of Fathers and Councils, and would have us believe, they have learn'd that Art from the Primitive Times. And withal, you may observe Baronius's cheat upon his Reader. In the year 570. he much labors to undermine the Autority of this Council, as being but a particular Coun­cil, of few Bishops, given to Novatianism; and for this Canons sake, a­gainst Images all this indignation, and therefore the Canon must be thought supposititious. Now when he hath prepossest his Reader with these prejudices against this Council, long after, in the year 305. as you have heard, he recants, acknowledging he had spoke too freely against it, [Page 97] and that Pope Innocent had acquitted the Council of Novatianism, &c. Do you not believe the Learned Cardinal knew as much of this Concern when he wrote his first censure of the Council, as when he cries peccavi; only he was willing to undervalue the Council in the first place, and might presume many of his Readers might never go so far as to read this his Recantation. But to proceed in Church History, concerning Pictures of the Saints in Churches, we have a notable passage of Epiphaninus, a Learned Bishop in Cyprus, who going towards Bethel with John Bishop of Jerusalem, in the way he turn'd into a Church, in a Village call'd Ana­blatha, to Pray: And seeing there a piece of hanging before the door of the Church, painted, and having the Image of Christ in it, or some Saint, (for afterwards, in his Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem, he saith, That he did not well remember whose Picture it was) he cut the hang­ing and Picture into pieces, and wish'd the Keeper of the Church to wrap some dead Body in it, and bury it: When some of the Village standing by, expostulated with him for the Fact, and said, That how­ever he should buy another piece of hanging before the door; he pro­mis'd to do so, and sent it afterwards to the Bishop of Jerusalem, to be put up instead of the other. Now in this Letter to the Bishop, who had Jurisdiction in that place, he gives a reason of his action: Hierom. Tom 2. Epist. Epiphan. ad Jeannem Episc. Hiros. cum vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra Script. Autorit. hominis, &c. When I saw in the Church of Christ, against the Autority of Holy Scripture, the Image of a Man set up, I cut it in pieces. And in the close of his Letter, he ad­viseth the Bishop, to command, That such hangings should not be admitted into the Church, which are against our Religion, that so he might take away all scandal, and scruple, &c.

Many Answers you will find given to this memorable Pas­sage.

Yes, it hath troubled all your Doctors; and they mightily labor to undermine the Testimony: but if you have any thing consider­able to say, let us hear it.

[...], &c. Damascen answers thus, That which is rare and single, gives no Law to the Church, and one Swallow makes no Summer; nor is one Mans judgment able to overthrow the Tradition of the Catholic Church thro-out the World: Where you may take notice, how he declares the Tradition of the Church thro-out the World for Images.

Damascen was a great Proctor for Image worship; for which Zeal, Leo Isaurus put out his Eyes; and we shall hereafter try how his Catholic Tradition can be made good. However, you find he ac­knowledgeth the Fact of Epiphanius, who was a Learned Orthodox Bishop of the Primitive Church; and his Zeal was so great against Pictures in Churches, That in anothers Diocess he took upon him to reform.

Some conceive it was no Picture of Christ, or any Saint, but of an Heathen, for Epiphanius speaks doubtfully; a Picture, Quasi Christi, aut Sancti cujusdam. as suppose of Christ or some Saint.

You catch at every Reed in a sinking cause. Epiphanius, in his Letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem, saith, Hee had forgot whose Picture it was; but it may be of Christ, or some other Saint: which he could not say, had it bin the Image of some prophane Person, and that had bin the reason of his zeal and indignation against the Picture.

Many others, with Bellarmin, suspect this relation to be ad­ded to Epiphanius his Epistle in the close (for there it is a Postscript) by some ill affected to Images; and urge Reasons, first, out of the second Council of Nice, the sixth Session, where Epiphanius a Deacon and Re­presentative, or Vicar of the Arch-Bishop of Sardinia, in that Council undertakes to answer and confute the Definition of the Council of Con­stantinople against Images; and shews, that other Passages were falsly in­titled to Epiphanius, even an whole Book against Images. That Epipha­nius, in his 80 Heresies which he publish'd, includes not the Heresie of making and worshipping Images; which doubtless he would have done, [...], &c. if he had thought it contrary to the rule of Christ. That Epiphanius his Disciples, after his decease, erected a Temple in honor to him, and set up his Image therein; which they would not have done, had they known his judgment to be against Images.

This is the usual knack, to suspect what doth not please; but most of your Doctors acknowledg the Fact, as you have heard of Da­mascen; and Alphonsus de Castro reckons Epiphanius among the Image-breakers. As for the Deacons asserting many passages of Epiphanius to be suppositious, we have no reason to take his word, unless his Reasons carry it, and they are too weak to bear the burthen of his charge; for Epiphanius, in 79 ^th Heresie, doth expresly speak against the Image of the Virgin Mary, as against her worship. And in truth, he speaks against Images in general: [...], &c The Divel creeping into the minds of Men, under a righteous pretence, sets before their eyes the Image of Men, whom being dead, they worship; and their Images had never life, and yet are worship'd likewise by adulterate minds, withdrawn from the one-only true God. If the Story be true, that Epiphanius his Disciples did set up his Image in a Temple, which they built and dedicated to his honor; we answer, It is no new thing for Disciples to swerve from their Masters Principles and Practice: The Deacons Arguments therefore do not prove this, and the other passa­ges of Epiphanius against Images to be forg'd.

Bellarmin hath one or two Observations more, to make this passage of Epiphanius suspected of cutting the Picture: Because, saith he, the Adversaries of Images do not mention it.

I suppose he means the Bishops in the Constantinople Council against Images: Now they having cited other passages against Images out of Epipharius, Con [...]. Nic. 2. Act. 6. [...], &c. declare expresly, That they had not brought all his Te­stimonies, but left them to the diligent inquiry of the Learned.

Bellarmin cites Epistolarum l. 9. Epistola nona. Nullum Episcoporumante Serenum fregisse I­mag. Christi aut Sanctorum. Gregory the Great, asserting, That Serenus was the first Bishop who brake the Images of Christ and the Saints: and there­fore Epiphanius did not so before him.

The Pope was not Infallible, and perhaps might not read this passage of Epiphanius. As this Orthodox Bishop shewed his zeal against Pi­ctures, so about the same time a pious Emperor, Theodosius, by an Edict, did forbid even the Image of Christ, Petrus Crinitus, de honestâ disciplinâ, lib. 9. cap. 9. Cum sit nobis cura dill­gens in rebus omnibus supremi numinis religionem tueri, signum salvatoris nostri Chri­sti nemini concedimus pingere, sed quodcunque reperitur tolli jubemus. Having a studious care in all things to desend the Religion of the most high God, we permit none to carve or paint any Image of our Savior Christ in colours, stone, or any other matter, and com­mand such Pictures to be taken away wheresoever they are found, resolving se­verely to punish all such as do contrary to our command. And so we are led unto another Instance of Serenus Bishop of Marseils, who brake down all the Images and Pictures in Churches thro-out his Diocess, about the year 600. when Gregory the Great was Pope; who writes an Epistle to Serenus, reprehending the Fact, as proceeding from inconsiderat zeal: Epistolarum l. 9. Epist. nona. Quid inconsiderato zelo succensus Sanctorum Ima­gines confregeris. And whereas the Bishop made his Plea, That he remov'd them out of Churches, and brake the Images, because the People were prone to wor­ship them: That he forbid the worship of them, the Pope approves, for it is written, saith he, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And at length he gives this advice, Si quis Imag. facere voluerit, minime probibe, &c. If any destres to make, or to have an Image, forbid him not: But by all means take care that no man worship them.

This Testimony of Gregory, approves the Images of the Saints for History and Ornament, altho he forbids the worship of them; and we are not yet come to that point. Your Instances from the Eliberitan Canon from Epiphanius and Serenus, are against the Images themselves, not their worship.

Those Holy Bishops were offended with Pictures in Churches, because they might be occasion of Idolatry, the People inclining to give Religious worship to them; as Serenus made his Plea.

Notwithstanding such panic fears, you know, as Bellarmin shews, God placed the Cherubins in the Ark.

In the inward Tabernacle, over the Mercy-seat, where they were not expos'd to public view.

Lib. de Pudicitia, c. 7. 10. Procedant ipsae Picturae Calicum vestrarum. Ib. Pa­ [...]tor quem in Calice depingis. Tertullian shews, they had Pictures in the Church early: Let the Pictures, saith he, engraven in your Chalices be produc'd. Again, The good Shepheard whom you Picture in your Chalice. He relates to the good Shepheard, bringing back the lost Sheep upon his shoulders, which Para­ble was engraven upon the Eucharistical Cup.

These are pitiful proofs for Images in Churches, and their Worship, a Parable engraven upon a Goblet, not visible, at any distance, unto the People, so as to become the object of Adoration.

There is an account given by Nicephorus, Simeon Metaphrastes, and others, how our Blessed Savior sent the Picture of his Face in a Linnen cloth, to Agabarus King of Edessa; who, hearing of our Savior and his Miracles, sent a Painter to take his Picture; but his Eyes were dazzled with the Glory of our Saviors Countenance, and his Art fail'd him: Whereupon, our Savior calls for a Napkin, and wip'd his Face, and left his Picture therein, to be convey'd to the King; and thereby Miracles were wrought.

We may conclude this to be a Fable, as from the Fabulous Authors: so likewise, because Euseb. l. 1. Hist. Ecclesiast. Prope finem. Eusebius makes no mention thereof; and yet gives an account, how this King of Edessa did send a Letter to our Savior, intreating him to come and heal him of his Disease: and that our Savior return'd an Answer.

But the same Eusebius, lib. 7. c. 18. speaking of the City Pa­neas of Caesarea Philippi, mentions a report, That the Woman of the Gospel who was cured of her Bloody Issue, was honorable and rich in that City; and in memory of that Cure, caus'd her own Image to be made in Brass, kneeling towards another Statue of a Man in Brass, stretching forth his hand to touch her: And at the pedestal of the Statue there did spring up an Herb, which arising unto the hem of the Coat engraven, had virtue to heal Diseases; and this Image was, by all the Inhabitants, reported to be the Statue of Christ. And Eusebius gives credit to the Relation, shewing, it was the Custom of the Heathen People, to honor with Statues those whom they accounted Saviors: and tells us, himself had seen the Pictures of Christ, and of Peter, and Paul.

You may observe, he saith, It was the custom of the Hea­then to honor so their Benefactors: and therefore Christians derive this practice from the Heathen.

But Divine Providence hath set his Seal unto it, in those mira­culous Cures which the Herb wrought, that grew at the foot of Christs Statue. And Sozomen relates farther, lib. 5. c. 20. That the Apostate Ju­lian [Page 101] in scorn took down this Statue, and in the place set up his own, which was struck with Lightning from Heaven, and broke into many pieces.

These things came to pass by a special Providence; not to justifie the making of Christs Statue, but in the sight of the Heathen to attest the Truth of those great Things, which Fame had delivered of Christ whom they knew that Statue represented: And to vin­dicate that Affront the Apostate Julian design'd to put upon our Sa­vior.

We find, they had the Pictures of Christ and the Apostles very frequent in S ^t Augustins time: For some Enemies of the Gospel entitled Magic Books unto our Savior, as by him written to his principal Disci­ples, Peter and Paul. Now Augustin observes, how Paul was no Disci­ple of Christ in the days of his Flesh, and so the Imposture was easily discover'd: But because, saith he, they had often seen the Picture of Christ, and of these two chief Apostles drawn together, they con­cluded them to have bin his most beloved Disciples, and so were induc'd to bring in Christ as communicating his Secrets and Mysteries of the Art of Magic to them.

Bellarmin should have given you S ^t Augustins observation up­on this passage: Lib. 1. c. 10. De cons. Evangelist. sic omnino errare meruerunt qui Christum & Apostolos non in Sacris Codicibus, &c. So altogether they deserv'd to be mistaken and err, who look upon Christ and his Apostles on painted Walls, and not in the Holy Scri­ptures; and it is no wonder to see such as are Forgers to be deceived by Paint­ers.

The second Council of Nice, as Bellarmin shews, brings ma­ny other Testimonies of the Fathers occasionally in their Books, ma­king mention of the Pictures of Christ, and of the Saints usual in their times.

In the series of Discourse you have led us unto that Coun­cil, and I shall chuse to accept your Appeal, and thither we will go. But first, I will prepare the way, and let you know, That we do not declare against Images in themselves, but as they are occasions of Super­stitious Worship. Men prize ancient Pieces, representing Famous Men: Suppose Julius Caesar, or Tully, or the Ancestors of their Family; and much more should we value Pictures of Holy Men and Women, or of our Blessed Savior: But you must then shew they be true Resemblances and Copies, of their Countenance, Pictures very like them whom they represent; whereas now in the Images of the Saints there is no regard had to their likeness, but only to set up an Image that shall signifie, and not represent. An old Man with a Sword, stands for Paul; with Keys, for Peter; with a Cross decussat, for Andrew: so in our Saviors Pictures you shall observe as many Forms as there are Faces or Fancies of Men. If a Painter, designing to draw our Ladies Picture, should take a Beau­tiful Courtizan for his pattern, it would serve. Now such Pictures, [Page 102] which have no likeness to the persons represented, deserve no regard, neither are they useful for Commemoration. Should any one send you your Grand-fathers Picture, much unlike him, and drawn at all adven­tures, you would not honor it so much, as to hang it up in your Hall or Parlor. But you and I both have been led out of the way, by those who write upon this subject of Images; instancing in some who have al­together rejected them, and in others who have approved them, where­as our chief Design is, to shew the unlawfulness of Image Worship, to allow no other use of Pictures, then to put us in mind either of Things or Persons, or for ornament of places: If you are content herewith, the dispute shall end between us, always excepting against any Image of God, whether Historical or Analogical, or by what term soever you may distinguish.

If you see the Picture of Christ, will you not worship him?

When by occasion of his PIcture I am put in mind of my Sa­vior, my heart must honor and worship him, as at any other time when I apply my self unto him in Meditation, without a Picture to help the memory: But we allow no Worship or Adoration due unto the Image it self, putting us in mind of our Savior: you have high reason to yield all civil honor and obeisance to your Prinoe; but will you bow the Knee, or put of your Hat unto his Image in your Coin, or to his Picture in your Closet?

Let me ask you also one Question: If any should stab the Image of the King, or of your Ancestors, and shew great indignation against them, would you not be higtly offended?

If the Circumstances declare that he did it out of despight and malice to the person represented by the Picture, there is reason to take it as an high affront.

By insensible degrees, I shall bring you to acknowledge as much as we desire: If you should see any Man give honor and respect unto the Princes Picture for his sake, would you not approve it?

Yes, giving such regard as a pious Prince expects from us; not to put a studied affront upon it; not to set it up in a contemtible place: we likewise shew a dutiful affection in highly valuing the Picture that resembles the King.

Why should you except against honor and respect given to an I­mage of your Savior, or of his blessed Mother and the Saints?

We do not; set aside the Religious Worship of an Image which may lawfully be made; and we will not except against any respect you will give to it, for his sake whom it represents: you must prove it lawful to worship Images.

To a Prince civil Worship and Honor is due; and so much you give likewise to his Picture: by the same rule, seeing unto Christ as Man, in union with the Divine Nature, is due Religious Worship and Adorati­on, you must give Religious Worship to his Image.

We never said, the same honor is due to the Picture of a Prince, as to his Person: Do you all stand bare in the Parlor, because your Princes Picture hangs there, or the Pictures of any of his Prede­cessors? And secondly, from a civil Worship given unto a Creature, to a Religious Worship given unto a Creature, there is no consequence to be drawn; and the reason is this, God hath forbid one, and not the o­ther. Now the Pictures of Christ, and of his Cross, and of the Saints, are Creatures, even the work of Mens hands, and therefore to them no Religious Worship to be given.

There is a receiv'd Maxim in the Church, first taken from Ba­sil the Great, Vid. Damascen. Orthod. Fid. lib. 4. c. 17. 11 [...], &c. The honor done to the Image, passeth unto him whom it re­presents: and therefore honoring their Images, you honor Christ and his Saints.

'Tis truth, what respect is given to a Picture, is only with regard unto the thing or person represented by it, and therefore it is call'd relative Honor: We prize the Picture of a Friend, and much more of our Blessed Savior, and his Saints, if they be drawn to the Life: but however, to the Picture itself, no adoration can in reason be given, and honor, because it is far inferior to the meanest Man, who is the living Image of God; and a Picture (suppose of Christ) but an inani­mate Image. Honor est agnitio praecell [...]ntis. Now Honor is given to things more excellent: Will you say the Picture of a King excels in dignity the person of a Subject? or that a liveless Picture of our Blessed Savior, is more honorable then a living Disciple of our Blessed Savior?

Not in itself, but as it is the Image of Christ.

I speak of it as his Image; and yet I do suppose, you dare not maintain, That the Picture of Christ in the consideration, as his Pi­cture, is more to be esteemed then a Disciple of Christ: for suppose one of them were to be destroi'd, Would you save the Picture, and leave the Man to perish? Again, for worshipping the Images of Saints, it may be of S ^t Peter; Is more honor to be given to his Image now, then was to his person in the days of his Flesh? When Cornelius fell at his Feet, and worship'd him, he receiv'd it not, but said, Stand up, I my self also am a Man, Acts 10 26, instructing him, that no such worship was due to a Man.

He would not receive such adoration as was due to God.

Who told you, good Cornelius, a devout Man, intended such worship as was due to God? Dare you say Cornelius in that act committed I dolatry, giving the worship due only to God, unto his Servant Peter? he only design'd to give to him such high expressions of Honor and Wor­ship, as to a Saint and Servant of God upon Earth; and yet Peter would not accept of it, and intimates, because he was a Man he ought not. So we read, S ^t John fell down to Worship before the Feet of the Angel. [Page 104] and the Angel said, See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy Brethren the Prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this Book: worship God. Now it is to be conceiv'd, John design'd not to commit I­dolarry, and give Divine Worship to the Angel, but only some inferior Religious Worship, as your Doctors use to speak; and yet the Angel would not receive it, being jealous of his Creators Honor, and directs the Apostle to worship God. Now if we must not worship Saints in their own Persons, much less in their Images: If Angels will not accept wor­ship from us, neither will the Saints Triumphant; both instruct us to worship God, and not them, altho we should intend to give them only inferior worship.

The second Council of Nice, being the seventh Oecumenical Council, hath well stated this Point, and establish'd the Worship proper to God, call'd Latria, to be incommunicable to a Creature. But a se­cond sort of inferior Worship and Adoration, they determin must be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints.

I wish they had first satisfied you or me, why they should de­termine inferior Worship and Adoration to be given to the Saints in Hea­ven, and to their Images on Earth, seeing the Angel expresly forbids it, and directs us only to worship God: But seeing you have appeal'd to that Council of Nice, thither we will go, as being indeed the first Foundation of Image worship; and if you please, I will give you a preliminary ac­count and history of that Council.

I pray do so: for it will suit with our present Discourse, and shew the rashness of those Enemies of Christ and his Saints, who brake down their Images, and cast them out of Churches, as Heathen Idols, unto the Dung-hill; whil'st the holy Popes of Rome successively wrote Epistles, and sent Legats, and gave warning to the Emperors, whose Zeal without knowledge, gave countenance and autority to such Sacrilegious Outrages.

About the year of Christ, 720. Leo Isaurus, the 69 ^th Emperor of Rome from Augustus, observing the growth of Superstition and Ido­latry among the vulgar sort of People, in worshipping the Images of our Blessed Savior, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints, which were ere­cted in their Temples and in the Streets; he took a severe course, and brake down the Images, and commanded all that had such Images and Pictures, under great penalties, to bring them forth, and burn'd them in the Market-place. He sent likewise to Gregory the second, Pope of Rome, to desire his concurrence for a General Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops, about this work of Reformation: and in a sacred E­pistle to the Pope, he urg'd Arguments to justifie his course in taking a­way Images. Whereunto the Pope returns an Answer, Bin. Edit. Concil. Tom. 5. pag. 501. [...], &c. That whereas he had received frem him many sacred Letters, within the first ten years of his Reign, full of Piety and Wisdom; together with an Orthodox [Page 105] Confession of his Faith, denouncing a Curse upon those that should re­move the Boundaries of Religion which the Fathers had set: and for this cause, he tells the Emperor, That he had given ample Thanks to God for committing the Empire of the World unto so noble a Prince. But now alas! from his Epistle, and from his practice, he sadly perceiv'd how he was taken from the Truth, and had given great scandal to the World. And so he sets himself to give satisfaction unto some Particulars which the Emperor had mention'd in his Letter; telling him before­hand, ‘That he would write to him dull and illiterate Things, because thou thy self (saith he) art such.’ And in truth, the Pope is as good as his word; for his Letter which he writes to the Emperor, is blunt and desultory, without any reason or consequence, or good manners. He saith, ‘That God did forbid Graven Images, such as the Canaanites made’ and worship'd; but he commanded Moses to make two Cherubins, a Ta­ble and an Ark; and these were similitudes made with hands for the glory of God. He tells him, That Moses prai'd and desired to see an Image of God, that he might not err; and the Lord answer'd, That he could not see his face and live, but his back parts he should see: but under the Gospel he hath shew'd himself back and face. That the Truth is made visible, and Christ hath appear'd and dwel'd among us, and where the carcass was, that is, Christ in the Body, thither the Eagles came: True Believers resorted to him, and took his Picture, and the Pictures of James the Brother of the Lord, and of Stephen the first Martyr; and so of all the Martyrs, and forsaking the worship of Idols, the whole World did worship these Images: not with the worship due only to God, but relatively; a Distinction form'd to puzzle, not to inform. After this, he tells him, how our Blessed Savior sent a Copy of his Counte­nance in a Napkin to the King of Edessa. 'Tis truth, saith he, we do not Picture God, because we know him not; but if we had beheld him, as we do his Son, we would have made his Picture also, and try whe­ther you would call it an Idol. The love of Christ knows, saith he. That when I go into the Temple of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and look upon his Image, I am brought to compunction; and as Rain out of the Clouds, so do my Tears flow down. Then he tells the Emperor, how Christ restored sight to the blind; but you put out the Eies of the Peo­ple by removing Images. You say, we worship Stones and Tables: not so, but our memories must be rubb'd up, and our dull, and foolish, and illiterate mind rais'd. When we see the Picture of Christ, we say, Thou Son of God, save us: so when we see the Picture of the Holy Mother, we say, O holy Mother of God, Mother of the Lord, mediate unto thy Son to save our Souls: and so to the other Saints and Martyrs. He bids the Emperor go into the Grammar-Schools, and tell the Boies, I am he a [...], &c. b Epist. 1. Greg. secund. ad Leonem Isaurum, Bin. Tom. 5. [...], &c. [Page 106] who persecute and pull down Images, and see saith he, whether they will not hurl their Books at thy head. When the Emperor reflected up­on that passage of Hezekiah, breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent, be­cause the People did burn Incense to it, 2 Kings 18. 4. How do you think he answers it?

I must confess, it was very apposite to his purpose, who plead­ed the Peoples Superstition in worshipping Images, as the cause of his removing them: and therefore I desire to hear what satisfaction his Ho­liness the Pope gave unto that Objection.

He tells the Emperor, Ib. [...], &c. Verily Ozias was thy Brother of like perswasions as thy self, and he plaid the Tyrant among his People as thou dost. Where you also observe, how the Pope was so ignorant of the Holy Scri­ptures, that he ascribes that memorable passage of breaking the Brazen Serpent, to Ʋzziah, and not to Hezekiah the King: and in resembling the Emperor to Hezekiah, in the fact of breaking Images, he by a ne­cessary consequence approves the one, as the Holy Ghost in Scripture doth the other, for his zeal for Reformation, and Gods Honor.

I did not expect such a precipitate Answer to so considerable an Argument.

Give me leave to proceed: He tells the Emperor, and calls Christ to witness, ‘How mightily affected he was with sight of the glori­ous Images, and Historical Pictures of the Holy Scriptures in the Churches;’ and that it had been much better if the Emperor had bin an Heretic (denying some fundamental Truth of the Gospel) then a Per­secuter of Images: And gives his Reason, Because Heretics err'd through ignorance, and about things hard to be understood, whereas thou errest in such things as are as clear as the Sun, and therefore their Condemnation is not so great as thine. It appears in his Sacred Epistle, that the Emperor did write to the Pope concerning a General Council to determin the Controversie concerning Images.

That was the most likely way to settle the Truth, and the minds of Men.

But the Pope answers, No: You did write to me for a General Council, but it seems to me unprofitable.

I pray what reason did he give of his denial.

He tells the Emperor, He consults his Honor, and that it were better for him not to have his crimepublish'd: he was a desircier of Ima­ges, if he would give over and be quiet, the scandal would be taken away, and there would be no need of a Council. He calls God to witness, how he had communicated the Emperors former sacred Epistles to the Princes of the West, and had much commended him for his Piety; and they all had him in great Honor: but as soon as they heard of this Fact of Image-breaking, they trampled his Lawrels under foot, and invaded some of his Territories in the West; had seis'd upon Ravenna, and threatned [Page 107] Rome it self, the Emperor being unable to protect them: Ib. [...], &c. and all this through his own folly. Nay, saith he, you threaten to fend to Rome, and break down the Image of St. Peter, and carry away the Pope in Bonds: but if you thus look big and threaten, I will not contend, but I will remove my self but 25 miles, and then I shall be out of your reach, and you may go and persecute the winds.

'Tis much he had the courage to write so boldly to the Empe­ror, who had Dominions and Forces near in Italy.

The subtle Pope knew his own strength: The Lombards kept their Interest in Campania, and other parts of Italy, in despight of the Emperors Forces; and altho they were many times very troublesom Neighbors to Rome, yet thither, upon case of necessity, he would flie. After the same manner he writes a second Letter unto the Emperor, among o­ther things telling him: Altho thou dost persecute us with a Military hand of Flesh, yet we being destitute of carnal Weapons, do invoke the chief Captain of the Creation, Christ, sitting in the Heavens over all Power and Dominion, to send the Divel into thee, as the Apostle speaks, To give such an one unto Satan: and afterwards, he thundred out against him the Bull of Excommunication. And whereas the Em­peror had demanded how it came to pass, That none of the six general Councils had Decreed any thing for the worship of Images, &c. what Answer, think you, gave the Pope to that demand?

I cannot guess; but it was a material Proposal.

He answers it thus, True, O King! neither did any of those Councils make Decrees of eating Bread, and drinking Water, intima­ting, That it was as evidently necessary to worship Images, as to eat and drink, and therefore no matter for a Canon of a general Council. And withal he tells him, That the Patriarchs and Bishops carried Images be­fore them, when they went into the Council; and none that did love Jesus Christ, would take a Journey without some Images of the Saints, as their Fellow-Travellers. Now these things, and many others, are ur­ged by him without any offer of proof; and being not in his Pontifical Chair, it seems he was not infallible: neither was it likely such blind Stories, and fond Assertions, and foolish Letters, should prevail with a Prince of great Power and Reason; and therefore he continued his course of preventing Idolatry, by taking Images and Pictures out of the way, and so he had the Sir-name given him of [...], one that did make war against Images. His Son Consiantin follows him in the same se­verity, and the Monckish Historians of that time, had a nick-name also for him, Constantinus Copronymus: Because, say they, when being an In­fant he was Baptized, he defiled the Sacred Font with his dung; and so gave an Omen of his future contemt and villanies against the Saints and the Church. But that was not the reason of the Appellative and Name, but rather because he much delighted in the smell of Horse-dung; the [Page 108] compound name being deriv'd from [...], which signifies dung, and [...], which is Interpreted, I am pleas'd; whereas perhaps the dull Monks thought it was deriv'd from [...] and [...], which signifies, a Name. Now because they had in vain sought the concurrence of the Pope and the Western Bishops, in a general Council, Constantinus the Em­peror summons a Council at Constantinople, Anno 754. where 318. Bishops assembled, and declared against Images and their worship, and stiled themselves, Sancta magna unversalis Synedus, &c. The holy and great general Council of Constantinople, But we have no Record of the Actions of this Council, otherwise then we find the definition thereof mangled and confuted by parcels, in the Council of Nice succeeding. This being the unjust and partial dealing of the Roman Faction, through whose hands (since the desolation of the Eastern Church by the Turks) all Church History is transmitted, to de­liver nothing to Posterity (as far as possibly they can stifle it) which makes against them. After Constantine, did succeed Leo his Son in the Empire, who Reigned five years, and left his Son Constantine, being ten years old, together with his Mother Irene, to rule the Empire. Anno 773. the Monkish Writers of those times highly extol the Queen, Hierene piissima una cum Const. glorioso divinitus cepit Imperium. [...], &c. stiling her, Most Pious, because Pope Adrian, by his Instruments, brought her over to restore Images; and then the Pope promotes a general Council, which was first summon'd at Constantinople, but by reason of Tumults, (the People of Constantinople making Insurrection against the Council, which should restore Image-worship) it was prorogu'd for a year, and after­wards translated to Nice: whether the Pope sends his Legats, and all is carried as he would. Now here you may observe a Scene of Popish sub­tlety: When the Emperor Leo Isaurus did not concur in Judgment with Gregory the second, altho a Council was desired. yet the Pope would not consent, because he well knew, that the Countenance and Autority of the Emperor, would carry all things against the Popes Judgment. But when Irene the Empress, together with her Son Constantine, were made for the interest of the Pope and for Images, Then Adrian mightily pro­motes the Council, condemns the former general Council of Constanti­nople, which Decreed against Images, as a meer Heretical Conventicle, and sets up this at Nice in its stead. And he laid his design sure enough: for in the entrance of the Council he writes by his Legats, both to the Emperor, and to Tarasius the Patriarch of Constantinople That ^c he was made Patriarch against the Canons of the Church of Christ, as being im­mediatly taken from a Courtier, and a Lay-man, to the See of Constanti­nople; but because he was satisfied of his zeal for Images, therefore he would not except against his Consecration. And in the close of his Epistle to Tarasius, he tells him plainly, If the Emperor and the Coun­cil shall not restore Images, I cannot by any means admit of your Conse­cration. [Page 109] And this Patriarch, in truth, was fit for the Popes turn, being liable to the exception you have heard, and not learned, he would be rul'd by the Popes Legats, and some busie Monks in the Council, the sooner; and withal, many of the Bishops of Asia and Greece had bin guilty of voting against Images in the former Council of Constantinople; and none of them must be admitted into this Council, but such as would submit, acknowledging their Error, and begging pardon, and declaring strenuously against what they had establish'd; and condemning the Coun­cil against Images unto the pit of Hell. And with these preparations you may easily judge, what would be the issue of the second Council of Nice, the first that ever declared for Images and their worship.

These are your politic preliminary Observations, if possible, to blast the reputation of the general Council: But have you any thing to except against the Council it self? altho indeed general Councils should not be liable unto the insolent Exceptions of private Men.

Hear and judg. In the first Session or Action of that Council, divers antient Bishops are brought in as Criminals, for declaring against Images in the former Council; and they acknowledg themselves mise­rable sinners, saying, Ibid. [...], &c. We have sinned and don wickedly, and have trans­gressed the Commandment, and we beg pardon. One of those Bishops, Theo­dosius Bishop of Ammonium, makes an Apostrophe to the Saints in Heaven, saying, I have sinned against Heaven, and against you, I beseech you to re­ceive me, as God receiv'd the Prodigal, the Harlot, and the Thief. Then he pronounceth Anathema's against all those who do not diligently teach the People that love God, to adore the sacred venerable Images of all the Saints that have pleased God since the Creation. All the criminal Bi­shops acknowledg worshipping of Images to be an Apostolical Tradi­tion, and that they had no manner of excuse to plead for themselves in what they had formerly done, but all was through ignorance and fool­ishness.

This strange palinody and recognition of their former Errors, shews, they were not Men of Conscience and Judgment, that voted a­gainst Images in the former Council.

It manifests rather the Tyranny of this Council, who would admit them to reconciliation upon no other tearms. One John, a Monk, Representative and Vicar of the Oriental Bishops (who by reason of the Saracens possessing their Country, durst not come to the Council) declares publicly, That this Heresie was greater then any other Heresie whatsoever: Wo to those who fight against Images! And when they enter'd into Consul­tation about the degree and heinousness of this Crime, Tarasius the Pa­triarch answers wisely, It is all one in matters of Doctrine, whether you of­fend in great or small; for by either the Law of God is abrogated. And so they examin'd former Canons of receiving Heretics, whether Arrians, or Nestorians, or Macedonians; and in like manner determin'd of these [Page 110] Bishops, as highly guilty and criminal, as the worst of all Heretics. In­somuch, That Basilius, Bishop of Ancyra, declares in the Council, being one of those Criminals, [...], &c. I do from my heart and soul anathematize that Council of Constantinople against Images, as being assembled out of meer folly and madness. Another of them denounceth an Anathema against all such who were of doubtful mind, and did not from their Soul confess that Images were to be worshipped. This was fair for the first Scene and Action of that famous Council. In the second Action, Pope Adrians Letter to the Emperor, and to the Patriarch Tarasius, are publish'd and approv'd by the particular Testimony of every Bishop. In his Epistle to the Emperor Constantine, and Irene his Mother, he congratulates their embracing the Faith of the chiefest Apostles, Peter and Paul, promising That these Saints shall be the Protectors of their Imperial Glory and Ma­jesty, and bring the barbarous Nations under their feet. He brings in a Fable of Constantine the first Christian Emperor, how in a dream he saw Peter and Paul come to him, and directing him to send for Sylvester, Pope of Rome, (who liv'd in Banishment upon the Mountain Soracle, fly­ing from the Persecution of Constantine; and that good Pope should guide him to a Pool, wherein he might wash and be healed of his Lepro­sie: whereupon Constantine awaking, sends some of his Officers to the Pope, who alas! thought of nothing, but that by these Messengers he was called forth to suffer Martyrdom. But the Emperor when he came, entertain'd him with great courtesie, acquainted him with his Dream, and ask'd who those Gods were, Peter and Paul, which appeared to him. Syl­vesier answered, That they were Servants of the most high God, great Instruments of the Worlds Conversion to Christ. The Emperor de­manded, whether he had their Pictures, that he might know them; and a Deacon is presently dispatch'd to fetch their Pictures: and as soon as Constantine saw them, he cryed [...]out, These are the Men I saw in my dream; and so he was Baptized by Sylvester, and cleansed of his Le­prosie. Now it is strange, That a Pope should write such a Fable, and that a whole Council should believe it, against the Evidence of all Histo­ry. For Constantine never persecuted Christians, never had a Leprosie; was not Baptized by Sylvester at Rome, but by Eusebius Bishop of Nico­media: for the Emperor designed to be Baptized in Jordan, where our Savior receiv'd the Baptism of John, and in his Journey towards Pale­stine, fell sick at Nicomedia, and was Baptized by the Bishop of the place. This, when need requires, shall be made good, by many authentic Te­stimonies: and withal, it is most certain, That Constantine was a sound Christian, and Defender of the Faith, in Miltiades his Popedom, who was Predecessor in the See of Rome to Sylvester. It appears, he com­mitted that endless Controversie between the Catholics and the Dona­tists, concerning Cecilianus Bishop of Alexandria, unto the hearing of Miltiades; and how he should be a Persecutor of the Church in Sylvesiers [Page 111] Popedom, is a Riddle. I must confess, Baronius would resolve it: He tells us, That after Constantine was Christian, he sell away, and committed great Cruelties, and persecuted the Church, insomuch, that Sylvester fled to Soracle; and that God smote him with a Leprosie. And so the Story of his Dream fore-mentioned, proceeded. But this is an horrible Forgery, purposely design'd to maintain Constantines Baptism at Rome, and that large donation to the Church Territories in Italy, which they pretend to hold from the great Charter of Constantine. But we have read, That Julian was an Apostate; but never before, that Constantine was so: And withal, the Fable confures it self; for if Constantine was a good Chri­stian, as all confess, in Miltiades days, how comes it to pass, that in Sylvesters time the Emperor had never heard of Peter and Paul, who ap­pear'd in a Dream to him, but ask'd the Pope, What Gods they were? It seems he had drunk of the River Lethe, or rather that great Annalist was drunk with the Cup of Romes Fornications, so as to forget the Truth, and vent, in this particular, nothing but Imposture; against the rule of Piety, and Charity, and common Gratitude, to stigmatize the first great Champion of Christian Religion, who brought Peace and Tranquility to the Catholic Church, with the Brand of Apostacy and Persecution of the Saints: What will not a Cardinal say, for the advan­tage of the Court of Rome? I have bin, in the Series of this Discourse, reduc'd to a necessity of this digression. But I return, Hadrian, after many impertinent Passages in his Epistle to the Emperor, he urges the thread-bare Argument of Moses, being by God himself commanded to make two Cherubins, and the Brazen Serpent: And he most Ibid. [...], &c. Logically in­fers, If the looking upon a Brazen Serpent could heal the Israelites, much more shall such as behold and worship the Pictures of Christ and of the Saints, be saved. Whereas he should have taken notice, how the Serpent was erected by Gods especial command, and endowed with such an healing vertue, whereas they can produce no such command to wor­ship Images, or any promise of Salvation by looking upon them. He cites from Jerome one strange passage, but refers to no place, and I pre­sume, it is no where to be found: It is this, That as God permitted the Gentiles to adore things made with hands, and was well pleas'd with the Is­raelites, who did adore the two Tables which Moses hew'd out, and the two golden Cherubins; so unto us Christians, he hath given the Cross, and the Hi­story, and Images of good Works, to picture and adore them. Now such For­geries and Fooleries past for Gospel among the Bishops of that Council, who never examin'd any thing that was said, if it had any tendence unto their great design to establish the worship of Images. Only there is one memorable passage in his Epistle, which if well observ'd by all, might help to end the Controversie for asking the Question: What honor of wor­ship do we give to the Images of Christ and the Saints? He Answers, Such as we sinners give to one another in love and honor. We would not much [Page 112] contend about this civil respect, if they had not train'd the People to give Religious Worship and Adoration to Images; altho (as some will have it) of an inferior degree to that Worship we give to God. The third Action of that Council, consists in hearing and approving some Sy­nodical Epistles, and contains nothing of moment to our present busi­ness. In the fourth Action, they bring the Testimony of Holy Scripture for Images: That the Lord commanded Moses to make two Cherubins, &c. And then some passages of Fathers, who spake of Images which they beheld, and were much affected with them: they bring in divers Le­gends of Miracles effected by Images. I will, for brevity sake, give an account of one for all. Peter, Bishop of Nicomedia, brings out a Book of the Passion of Christ, ascrib'd falsly to Athanasius the Great; out of the Book he reads this Story. In the City Berytus, in Syria, dwelt many of the Jews; and near unto their Synagogue, a Christian hired an House, and dwell'd some time in it; and over against his Bed he set up, at full length, the Picture of our Savior, drawn in a Table: when he chang'd his dwelling, and took another House, it fortun'd that he forgat to take away the picture, with his other goods, but left it in the Chamber. A Jew succeeding in the House for some time, never discover'd the Picture, until another Jew being invited to dine with him, cast his eye upon it, and immediatly expostulated with his Friend for keeping in his House the Picture of Christ, and began to curse our Savior: but leaving the House, be goes to the High Priest, and the Council of the Jews, and accuseth his Neighbor for harboring this Image: They take com­pany with them, and came to the Jews House, and find this Picture, and imme­diatly cast him out of the Synagogue. Then they spit it on the Face, and con­clude to act over again all the Indignities upon the Picture, which their impi­ous Fore-fathers had upon the Person of Christ; they pierce the Hands and Feet with Nails, put gaul to his Lips, and smite the Head with a reed At last, they said, We have heard that our Fore-fathers did pierce his side with a spear, and let not us omit that considerable able Circumstance: forthwith, one fetching a spear, pierc'd the side, and immediatly issued out a seream of Blood and Water: at which sight, they were all amazed and terrified; but recol­lecting themselves, they said, We have heard Christians boast of many Mi­racles of their Savior, Let us make the Experiment, and send for the lame and blind, and among the rest, for one who was a [...]aralytic from the womb; and lo, all of them, being annointed with the Blood, were [...]ealed; and such as were possessed with the Divel among them. By this Miracle, the Jews of the City, Princes and People, were converted to the Faith of Christ, and came to the Bishop of the place, professing their Faith, and desiring Ba­ptism, and their Synagogue was consecrated into a Temple of the Lord, and great joy was over all the City. Now this Legend was received in the Council with great acclamation, and glory was given to God who had brought to pass such mighty things for the Conversion of the Jews, and for the confirmation of the Saints in Image-worship. But Tarasius the Patriarch put to the Council a seasonable Question: How cometh it to pass that our Images do no such Miracles? and he Answers, Because Mi­racles [Page 113] are signs to Unbelievers, and not to Christians: and yet to see the luck of it, this very Miracle is at length brought home to their own Times. Bellarmin acknowledgeth the Book of Christs Passion, out of which they did take the Story, was wrongfully ascrib'd to Athanasius Bi­shop of Alexandria, the great Champion of the Faith against Arius. And so doth Baronius, and gives his reason; for in the space of 400 Years between that Athanasius and this Council of Nice, some notice would have been taken of this notable Miracle, which yet was never heard of, but in that Book. And withal, Baron. Tom. 9. Anno 738. numero 31. Baronius tells us, That in the Roman Martyrology, or Calender, there is appointed an Holy-day to be kept in commemoration of this Miracle, upon the fifth of the Ides of September, and that the relation thereof was devoutly read in the Churches; and recorded to have happened in the Reign of Constantine and Irene, the punctual time when the Council was assembled. And thus you see, when they are brought to the Touch-stone, Fables and Legends will appear what they are, counterfeit Coin; and such as relate them, their Testimonies will not agree: and yet the Council easily swallowed this, and many other Cheats and Impostures, serving to erect their I­mages with their worship. Baronius gives us one Note more upon the Passage, That the effusion of Blood from the Picture was so great, that many Viols were fill'd therewith, and sent to the Churches of Christ, East and West, to be kept as Sacred Relies. Now any one, that had his Wits about him, might easily conceive the Story did confute it self: For it is not probable, the Christian, removing Houshold-stuff, should leave behind him unre­garded and undiscover'd the Picture of Christ at full length; and that the Jew succeeding, likewise should not see it, until his Neighbor comes into the discovery. In the fifth Action of this Council, they bring in many other Stories and Fables, whereof the Reader may give himself an account in reading the History of that Council, given by Binius in his 5 ^th Tome; and there they pretend to shew how the former Council of Constantinople did impose upon many of the Bishops then present, by cor­rupting Books and Testimonies, and forcing their Votes to concur with them; and this by the confession, forsooth, of those who had recant­ed, and now sate in this Council to condemn and pronounce the other Accursed. In the sixth Session they come close to the Point, and exa­mine the definition of that Conventicle (as they are pleased to call it) a­gainst Images: but not in the usual way of Councils by debating particu­lars among them, but referring all to a malapert Deacon, one Epipha­nius, The Representative of the Arch-Bishop of Sardinia, and he answers every Paragraph with Exclamation and Railing, as the impartial Reader may observe. To give one Instance, the Council of Constantinople, in­stead of the Picture of Christ, sends us to the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in commemoration of Christ and his Passion; and calls the Eucharist Christ Image, wherein he was best represented to his [Page 114] Church. Here the Deacon wonderfully insults and triumphs over them, and calls this fancy of theirs, [...]. An extreme apoplectical Madness He de­clares unto all the World, That never any of the Apostles, or Fathers of the Church before them, call'd the Holy Sacrament an Image. Now when we shall consider, that the use of Images and Pictures is chiefly for representation, and that in the Sacrament Christs death is represent­ed, and himself commemorated, this Assertion of the former Council might have well pass'd without such an outragious Censure: and yet withal, to see how confident men will soon be over-taken in their pre­sumtions; we read in Baronius (that great Darling of the Church of Rome) an account given of one Stephanus, a Confessor and Martyr for I­mages, who expostulating with Leo Isaurus for his Image-breaking, Bar. Tom. 9. Anno 765. num. 9. Audi corp. & sang. Christi Antitypa proscrib. ab Ecclesiâ, ut quae Imag. & veram fig. tenent, quae & adoramus, &c. bids, him likewise if he thought good, proscribe the Antitypes of Christs Body and Blood, which contain'd the true Image and Figure of Christ, and were also worshipped. That which was memorable in Stephanus, to call the Eucharist The Image of Christ, in the Council of Constantinople was abominable; so partial are Men who swerve from Truth, they have Mens Persons and Arguments in admiration or contemt, meerly for the advantage of their Cause: however, the insolent Deacon was no tell­troth, in saying, The Council had no president for their Assertion, when Stephanus, one of his Martyrs for Images, had before asserted the same. Now the Council of Constantinople, which this Deacon under the Patron­age of the Council of Nice fain would baffle into a Conventicle, as far as we can discern by their Definition, which their Adversaries have set forth only to be confuted (we given them thanks for it) this Council, I say, designs in the Definition, to lead Men from sensible things unto Spiritual, shewing, that in this World we must walk by Faith, not by sight; and if we have known Christ after the Flesh, from henceforth to know him so no more: That Christians thoughts should not be drawn outward, and distracted with visible representations from Spiritual intendments. They quote a saying of Gregory Nazianzen, [...], &c. It is an injury to have our Faith in colours, not in the Heart. And he adds, That Picture which is engraven in the depth of the Heart, is amiable to me: Pictures made in colours will wash away. They quote Chrysostom, saying, [...], &c. We enjoy the presence of the Saints in glory by their Writings, having the Images not of their Bodies, but of their Souls: for those things which were done by them, are the repre­sentations of their noble mind. They quote a saying of Amphilochius Bishop of Ieonium, ^e We take no care to represent in Tables the fleshly visage of the Saints by colours, but to imitate their virtuous conversation. We [...], &c. [Page 115] have no need of Pictures. They shew how Eusebius Pamphilus, when Con­siantia Augusta desired him to send an Image of Christ to her, disswaded her from it: What Image, saith he, would you have? of his God-bead? that's impossible; no man hath seen God at any time: of his Man-hood? We believe the humane Nature of Christ to be glorified, and mortality swallowed up in life: and how shall we express his Glorious Body with liveless colours and shadows? The Disciples being in the Mount, could not behold his transfigur'd Body whilst he was in the Flesh, much less can we now represent or beh [...]ld him after his Ascension into the highest Heavens. Other Testimonies they bring, but the Deacon excepts against them as spurious; but these he allows as legitimate, and sets himself to answer them, but with very little satisfa­ction to the Reader. Now I pray judg, whether these are not more si­gnificant Testimonies against Images, then the Council of Nice, or any others yet have produc'd for them. Now the determination of the Council of Constantinople, after their confession of Faith, upon the whole matter, is this: [...], &c. We unanimously determin, That every Image, of what­soever matter or colour, made by the wicked Art of Painters or Carvers, be cast out of Christian Churches as alien and abominable. And in the next words, they condemn the Art of Carving or Painting, as an ungodly and wicked Profession; and forbid every one to keep a Picture in his House. The Definition of the Council of Nice follows in the seventh Action. After profession of the Faith of the six general Councils before them, and Anathema's denounc'd against Heresies and Heretics, they declare, to hold uncorrupt all Traditions of the Church written and unwritten, [...], &c. whereof they say, One Tradition is the making of Images suited to the Hi­story of the Gospel, for confirmation of the Faith of Christs taking flesh: and therefore, say they, With all diligence and exactness, we define, That I­mages of the Life-giving Cross, and of Christ, and of the Virgin Mary, and of the blessed Angels, and all the Saints, shall be set up in Churches, and Houses, and High-ways, and wrought in Copes and Vestments; because the oftner these Images are seen, the more they bring into remembrance and imi­tation such as are represented by them. [...], &c. We also Decree, To give Honor, Salvation, and Adoration, to these Images; not that true worship of Latria, which belongs only to the Divine Nature; but as to the Image of the Cross, and to the Holy Gospels, and that the Oblations of Incense and Tapers should be made for their honor. And in the Close they give the Reason: The honor of the Image redounds to the Prototype, and he that worships the Image therein, deth worship the Person of him that is represented by it.

You have put your self to great trouble to give this large ac­count of both Councils; yet I observe you have been partial, laboring to represent the one rational and serious, the other light and supersti­tious: yet when you shall observe the definition of the Constantinople [Page 116] Council, condemning all Pictures, and the Art of making them, as a wicked and ungodly Occupation, I cannot think you do fully assent to the determination.

You must allow somthing to the heats and passions of Men, and to the present juncture of Affairs. The People, it seems, were given to the Superstitious Worship of Images; and to promote the hu­mor, Idle Monks made Stories and Legends of miraculous Effects from Images and Relics; and the Emperors, with the advice of their Bishops, being much set upon a thorow Reformation, as to this particular, they altogether take away the occasion of Idolatry, both out of Churches and Houses, and public Places, breaking down and burning Images and Pictures, as Hezekiah used the Brazen Serpent, because the Israelites burnt Incense to it, and forbidding every one to keep Images, and any Artist to make them.

You make a Plea for them, which afterwards in the Council of Nice many of their Bishops did not for themselves: That they were so se­vere against Images, because of the Peoples Superstition and proneness to honor them with Religious Worship.

You heard, the Emperor Leo Isaurus made that Plea in his Sacred Epistle to Gregory the second. As for the Bishops, those who came to the Council of Nice, and recanted their former Actions, they stood not at all upon their defence and justification; they saw the Stream too great for them to bear up against it, and therefore confessing, aggra­vating, condemning their former proceedings, and begging pardon, they found that the securest way to be receiv'd into the Council, and to retain their Bishopricks.

On the other side, your self have observed how the Fathers of the Council of Nice declared against giving to an Image the Worship call'd Latria, which they acknowledged due onely to God, but only such Honor and Adoration which we give to Men superior unto us, or to the Holy Gospels: and it is usual with you (the Law of the Land command­ing it) when you take an Oath to kiss the Bible; and [...], which is rendred Adoration, signifies no more then salutation, as the Patriarch Tarasius declared in the Council.

This is somthing you say to justifie that Council: but you must observe withal, that charge of their Definition of offering Incense, and burning Tapers at these Images; and Invocating the Saints whom they represent for their mediation and assistance, praying to them, as well as falling down before them: this exceeds all civil worship and respect, and can hardly be distinguish'd from Religious worship due to God alone, especially in the apprehension of vulgar minds, who have not subtlety to understand between supreme and inferior worship, or in their practice to make any difference: and withal, that Axiome upon which they ground­ed the Doctrine of Image worship, That the honor don to the Image, re­dounds to the Prototype, would make Men emulous to honor the Image in the same degree, as that which is represented by it, and so the Image of [Page 117] Christ, with Divine Worship, as many School-men afterwards expresly maintain'd. And withal, we read, Stauratius Bishop of Chalcedon, de­clar'd publicly in the Council, [...]. That he did receive and adore Images, as the pledge of his salvation. And the last Clause I urg'd of the definition of the Council of Nice, That he who adores the Image, adores him whom the Image represents, seems to determin the same Adoration to one and to the other. For such Reasons as these the Council of Francford, soon after, assembled by Charles the Great, consisting of about 300 Bishops, did reject the Council of Nice, as setting up Religious Worship unto I­mages, altho likewise they did not receive the Council of Constantinople, because they brake down Images, and altogether forbad them. And when Pope Adrian had sent to Charles the Emperor a Copy of the second general Council of Nice, he, together with the Council of Francford, set forth four Books, under the Name of Libri Carolini, in Answer un­to, and in confuration of the Nicene Council, concerning Image wor­ship.

I presume, you know many of our Doctors flatly deny, that the Council of Francford did condemn the seventh General Council of Nice for Images, but that they condemn'd the Council of Constantinople against Images. So Gregory de Valentia, lib. 2. de Idol. c. 7. and Alphonsus de Ca­stro, shews out of Platina, That one Felix who was an Arian, was also an Image breaker, and the Council of Francford was summon'd to con­demn the Heresie of Felix.

All this is said, but not prov'd. Felix his Heresie was con­demn'd, because he held, That Christ, as Man, was the Son of God by adoption, and no other thing was laid to his charge. And likewise, the Council of Constantinople, for breaking Images, was condemn'd in short, but the Council of Nice at large, for decreeing the worshipping of Ima­ges. And Baronius expresly saith, he was so far from denying, that he did absolutly maintain, that the Council of Francford did condemn the Council of Nice, Tom. 9. Anno 794. And he brings many undeniable Testimonies of those times to confirm it; only in some Historians and Wri­ters of those times, there was a mistake in calling it the Synod of Con­stantinople, instead of the Synod of Nice: but they name the Emperor, Constantine and Irene, under whom the Council was held; and they ex­presly say, The Council of Francford condemn'd the Council which e­stablish'd worshipping of Images; and the four Caroline Books made by that Council, and own'd by Charles the Great, which were sent to Pope Adrian, wholly determin against the worshipping of Images. Hinema­rus Bishop of Rhemes, tells us, He saw that Book when he was a Youth in the Kings Palace, and did read it: and that when Suarum puparum cultum vehementer pr [...]m, veret. Hadrian did still persist in promoting the worship of Images, Ludovicus the Son of Charles. [Page 118] together with the Council of Paris, did write more severely against I­mages, and plainly reprehend the Indiscrete noscitur fecisse in eo quod superstitiose cos adorari jussit. Pope for establishing and defending their worship.

Concili abulum Parisiense. Bellarmin calls this Council of Paris a Conventicle, because it durst reprove the Pope.

Alas! The new Doctrine of the Popes Infallibility, did not pass for currant Coin in those daies.

But Baronius shews, how the Council of Francford proceeded upon a mistake, and great scandal in their condemnation of the Council of Nice, being made believe, That Council had determin'd Latriam, or that worship due to the Blessed Trinity should be given to Images; and they likewise did suppose the Pope had not confirm'd that Coun­cil.

Any thing to bear up the reputation and Grandeur of the Pope of Rome. But I pray judg how incredible this is, that the Council of Francford should mistake the Council of Nice, when Adrian had sent a true Copy of that Council by his Legats, Theophilus and Stephanus, who were present in the Council of Francford, and could rectifie any such mistakes. Vid. Bin. Tom. 6. in Notis in Concil. Francford, pag. 185. And upon these Motives, Binius, tho unwillingly, declares his dissent from Baronius and Bellarmine, and professeth himself to be of the Opinion, That the Council of Francford never rejected the Council of Nice, or declared against Image worship, and labor in vain to shift off the numerous Testimonies of Writers of those Times, and of that Council. And so you may observe, how much the Doctors of your Church are put to shifts, and fencing about, to ward the blow given in the Western Churches unto Image worship by the Councils of Francford and Paris.

How do you then believe the Council of Francford could pro­ceed upon a mistake, That the Council of Nice had establish'd the same worship to be given to Images, as to the Holy Trinity, seeing it hath de­clared so expresly against it?

I have observ'd many passages in the Council, which fairly tend to that Doctrine, notwithstanding sometime they mince the matter.

For the other supposal likewise, That the Council of Francford should conceive that Pope Hadvian did not confirm the Nicene Council, it is improbable, seeing his Legats were present in that Council, and could easily have inform'd them better.

I am not concern'd to vindicate and reconcile your Doctors. But the Popes Legats, perhaps, seeing the stream and zeal of the Coun­cil of Francford, consisting of 300 Bishops, against the establishment of [Page 119] Image worship by the Council of Nice, prudently conceal'd, and were willing to let them believe, That the Pope did not confirm that Council, least upon that account they should fall fowl upon the Pope; as after­wards the Council of Paris, under Ludovicus, did. And so I am wil­ling to conclude this matter, and toil no longer in the Labyrinth of these Councils, either for Images or against them.

I am willing you should take notice of one Consideration more of Bellarmin, Lib. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Argument. 9. & 10. That the Emperors who were against Images were desperatly wicked, and had signal Evidences of Divine Wrath and Vengeance in the times wherein they liv'd. The first Founders of the Heresie being Jews, and Samaritans, and Mahumetans, and Necromancers, as he proves out of Historians. And then he shews, how in the Reign of Leo Isaurus, the great Image breaker, there was a great Pestilence in Constantinople, where­of died near three hundred thousand persons.

Leo reigned 24 Years, and in those parts great Plagues are frequent, and therefore no evident demonstration of Wrath in such a fatal Concurrence.

Bellarmin observes, how Leo and his Successors, upon this oc­casion, lost the Empire of Italy, and the West, and it was never re­covered.

He may thank Pope Gregory the second for it, who finding the Emperors Power in Italy inconsiderable, applied himself to the Kings of France, and made use of their Power, both against the Lombards, and against the Emperor; upon this account he Excommunicated the Em­peror, and forbad his usual Revenues out of Italy to be paid unto him. And this was an Art of high Injustice, and Usurpation, and Rebel­lion; for the Pope of Rome was the Emperors Subject.

Bellarmin proceeds to observe, how in the Reign of Constan­tinus Copronymus, there were great Plagues and Earth-quakes, and an hor­rid Frost, wherewith Pontus was congel'd 100 Miles: and likewise, such great Droughts, that many Rivers, and Fountains, and Wells, were dri­ed up; by which Judgments, God did restifie against them, for their detestable Sacrilege; and in one Prodigy most visibly, because the Sign of the Cross, upon a time, was miraculously imprinted upon Mens gar­ments, either in their Houses, or walking in the Streets, and upon the Vestments of Priests; as tho God Almighty would in spight of Image-breakers restore the Cross.

If you rely so much with Bellarmin, upon this Argument of Providence, I may refer you to the several Apologies made for Christians for an Answer. In the Primitive times, the Heathen imputed all public Calamities to the growth of Christianity among them; that for the sake of Christians, the Gods did plague the World. As Tertullian shews in his most excellent Apology: ^b If Tiber sxells, and flows even to the Walls Cap' 40. Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arv [...] &c. [Page 120] of Rome: if the River Nile do not over-flow the Fields: if the Heavens stand and give no Rain, or the Earth move: if there be any Famine, or any Pestilence, they cry out presently, Bring forth the Christians to the Lions. Methinks Bellarmin should be asham'd to make use of the old Heathen Argument: and withal, the intelligent Reader will find, That Bellar­min fail'd much in his Observation, because the Emperors, who abolish'd Images and their Worship, prosper'd in the World, and setled the Em­pire for some time upon their Posterity; whereas before and after them, we read of slaughters of Emperors, and sudden changes. He that had the greatest influence upon the Armies rebelling against his Prince, and assuming the Empire. But Leo Isaurus, having cast Theodosius out of the Empire, and caus'd him and his Son to become Priests, possest the Em­pire in great security 24 years, died in Peace, and left the Government to his Son Constantinus Copronymus, who Reigned 34 years in a flourishing State; insomuch that Baronius, shewing, how in the 28 year of his Em­pire, in great Triumph and Solemnity he Crown'd his Wife Eudoxia Em­press, and his two Sons Christophorus and Nicephorus, Caesars; breaks out into admiration, saying, Quis consid. de foel. scelestiss. principis, Anno 768. Who, considering the Felicity of this most wic­ked Prince, would not stand amaz'd? To Constantine Leo his Son was Suc­cessor in the Empire, and Reigning five years, deceas'd, leaving his Son Constantine ten years old, who, with his Mother Irene ruling the Empire, call'd the Council of Nice, and restor'd Images. You see therefore how long these Image breakers hold the Empire, but Constantine the Restorer of Images soon lost it: His Mother Irene put out her Sons Eyes, and he died, and she rul'd alone for a season, until she was thrust into a Mona­stary by Nicephorus, who succeeded her in the Empire of Constantinople. But Pope Leo the third took from her the Empire of Rome before, well rewarding her for her good Service in restoring Images. For we read, Abbas Ʋspergensis, Anno 801. Carol [...] Augusto à Deo coronato, magno & pacif. Imperatori Romanorum, Vita & Victoria. That Charles the Great, King of France, coming into Italy with a great Army to desend the Pope against the Lombards; being at Rome on Christ­mass day at High Mass, the Pope arose and put the Crown upon his Head, who thought nothing of it, and declar'd him Emperor of the Romans, all the People making Acclamation, and wishing, Long Life and Victory to Charles Augustus, Crown'd by God, the great and pacific Emperor of the Romans.

Upon this Historical Account which you have given, the Argu­ment from Providence and Success seems to hold for the Emperors who were against Images. But in the second place, there is great notice taken of that Impiety of their Persons: Leo Isaurus, and his Son Constantinus Copronymus, being cruel Tyrants, Abbas Ʋst ergensis calls the Son, Antichristi percursor perniciosissimus, serus & Agrestis, &c. The fore-runner of Antichrist, most pernicious, fierce, and barbarous, and tryan­nical, [Page 121] delighting in Witchcraft, and all Luxury and [...] Sacrifices, and Invocation of Divels, &c. Of his Father Isaurus the same Historian saith, In Christianes & Ecclesias Dei, ac religionem sanctorum impius fuit. He was impious against Christians, and the Churches of God, and the wor­ship of Saints.

The Historians of those Times were exceeding partial; most of them superstitious Monks, who had great indignation against the Em­perors who brake down Images, hinc illae lachrymae: and this Abbot of Ʋs [...] erg follows his Leaders. But you have heard how Pope Gregory the second, writing to Leo Isaurus, acknowledg'd, he had given in the first ten years of his Reign, great Evidences of his Piety and Prudence be­fore he fell into the Heresie against Images; and therefore all these black Characters of Tyranny, and Luxury, and Necromancy, were drawn upon the Emperors chiefly for their Zeal against the Idolatrous worship of Images, through the blind superstition of the vulgar. On the other side, they were all Saints who protected Images. The Abbot of Ʋsperg, Irene piissima, una cum Constantino glorioso divinitus acceptat Imperium. stiles Irene, Most Pious; who with Constantine the Glorious, from Heaven receiv'd the Empire And yet the same Historian shews after­wards, how this most godly Woman made her Son, much against his will, break a Contract of Marriage made with the Daughter of Charles the Great, whom he intirely loved, and to Marry another. Afterwards, dissention arising between her and her Son, she laid a Scene to take him, and put out his Eyes, wherewith he soon died, and she Reign'd alone five years; until one Nicephorus serv'd her in her kind, usurping the Em­pire, and confining her unto a Monastery which her self had built. Lo! this was the Saint that restored Images.

You must not judg of Truths by the Persons that defend them, God can bring much good to his Church by evil Instruments.

Had Bellarmine taken your good advice, he had saved all this trouble to answer his Heathen Arguments taken from Providence; espe­cially, seeing in this case (as you have heard) he had no reason to make the Observation: but he will say any thing, true or false, to advance the Cause, presuming his Readers, most of them, would take up all upon the credit of his Autority and Learning; and for his Adversaries, he scorns and defies them as Heretics, not worthy consideration. But to proceed, from the countenance of this famous Council of Nice, and of the Pope and his Followers, the worship of Images is superstitiously en­tertain'd in most parts of the Christian World: the Clergy going too far in their bold Assertions, and giving pernitious example, and yet suppo­sing to salve themselves with subtle and nice Distinctions: and the com­mon People following them in the plain way of Idolatr [...], being not able to understand the subtleties of their Leaders, or to discern between degrees of Religious worship, they kneel, and pray, and adore the I­mage, Solutâ pace nuptialis Foederis cum Francis. [Page 122] as much as the Ignorant among the Heathen their Idol; especially to the Blessed Virgin and her Image such Devotion and Adorations are paid, as tho she were advanc'd into the highest Orb, endowed with Power to command her Son: Visits and Pilgrimages are made from all places to her Chappel at Loretto, and other eminent places: all sorts of Trea­sure and Ornaments are presented to adorn her Chappels and her Ima­ges, to array her as tho she were the Queen of Sheba, or of the Indies: the Marble steps of ascent unto her Image, in some places, are worn a­way by Votaries, creeping upon their Knees to present their Offerings; and we have Legends of miraculous effects of her Image. The School-men, to keep up this profitable honor of Pilgrimages, and Visits, and Oblations, justifie the practice, make Psalters and Offices of our Lady, and bring her Worship and Invocation in such request, that the Honor and Invocation of Christ, and of the Father, can hardly compare there­with: and so was there let in upon the World an Inundation of Supersti­tion and Idolatry, the People, in simplicity of heart, following their Leaders into the snare.

You cannot deny, but that in this point of the Worship and In­vocation of Saints, and so much more in the Veneration of their Images, the Learned declare a vast difference between the fear, and honor, and adoration, they ascribe to God and to Christ, and what they give to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints.

In general terms they do; but I do not find them forward to descend unto particulars, which shews they would appear to say som­thing to amuze the World, but nothing to the purpose.

You know, they have made the worship of God, and of the Saints, and of their Images, two opposite Members of that notorious distinction of [...] and [...]; the one supreme and peculiar to God and to Christ, the other infinitly inferior, appertaining to the Saints and their Images.

'Tis true, S ^t De Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 1. Augustin affirms, That the Learned appropri­ate the Greek word Latria (which signifies and imports generally, any service due from an Inferior to a Superior) unto the special Service we owe to God, perhaps from that appropriation of our Blessed Savior, Matth. 4. Him only shalt thou serve. The Original Words are, [...]. But there is another word, saith he, which signifies the ser­vice we owe to Men, as when the Apostle saith, Col. 3. Servants, obey in all things your own Masters. Now because in that Text servants are call'd [...], therefore the Schools call that service Dulia. But I pray observe, Ea servitus quae debetur hominibus. Augustin saith, It is that service which is due to Men, to Masters from their Servants: But now by the School-men it is Translated to import, The Ser­vice, and Worship, and Adoration, given to the Saints departed, and to their Images. And I do not find in the second Council of Nice, the term of [Page 123] Dulia, opposite to Latria; but Salutation and Adoration, [...]. However at present we dispute not the terms, but desire to know the importance of the known distinction, That God only is worship'd with the worship call'd Latria; and the Saints with the wor­ship call'd Dulia. In the first place therefore, What is Latria? Lib. 9. Instit. Moralium, c. 5. Cultus soli Deo, &c. Azorius a Jesuit and Casuist, tells us, It is Service or Worship due to God alone, where­by we subject our selves to him as to the supreme Lord, putting our trust and confidence in him. In the second place: What is Dulia? Veneratio quae civibus Coeli tribuitur. That Veneration, saith he, which is given unto the Citizens of Heaven. This sheweth to whom it is given: but why doth he not tell us what that Worship is, and wherein it differeth from Latria? And withal, seeing Dulia signifieth servitude, in the judgment of Tom. 1. l. de vera Relig. c. 55. Honoramus eos charitate, non servitate. Augustin, we ought not to give it to the Saints in Heaven: We honor them, saith he, with love, and not with servitude. No distinct peculiar Service or Worship is due to the Saints in Glory: for herein lies the difference between the Fathers and the School-men. These appropriate a Service and Worship to the Saints in Heaven, and call it Dulia; to the Blessed Virgin, and call it Hyperdulia. But Au­gustin makes no difference between the Service and Worship due to the Saints in Heaven, and the Saints on Earth: Lib. 20. Contra Faust. Manich. c. 21. Colimus Martyres eo cultu delect. &c. We honor Martyrs with that worship of love and friendship, wherewith we honor holy Men of God in this life; and we worship God alone with Latria. When the Manichees object­ed, That Christians made Idols of their Martyrs, honoring their Tombs, and erecting Altars before them, Quos etiam votis similibus colitis. and making Vows unto them. Altaria erigimus Deo Martyrum, & quod offertur, Deo offertur, &c. Au­gustin answers, We erect the Altars to the God of those Martyrs, and the Ob­lations are given to God who crowned the Martyrs: A Christian, with Religi­ous Solemnity celebrates the memories of Martyrs, to excite Imitation, and that he may share in their merits, and be assisted by their Praiers.

This passage of S ^t Augustin, shews a Religious Solemnity to be kept in honor of the Saints departed; and that the living may share in their Merits, and be assisted by their Praiers: these are Truths which you will not freely acknowledg.

We do acknowledg them: for by a Religious Solemnity, we understand the Festivals which the Holy Church observes in commemora­tion of the Saints and Martyrs. By the society of their Merits, we un­derstand, that by imitation of the Saints, we have a Fellowship in their Labors, and in their Crowns. And for the last Clause, the assistance of their Prayers, we doubt not, but that the Saints in Heaven do pray for the Church of God, and his Servants here on Earth; but as for any knowledge of particulars, when we come to that Point, I can shew, how [Page 124] S ^t Augustin doubts, Lib. de cura pro Mort. c. 15. Fatendum, nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur. Whether the Blessed Saints and Martyrs do hear the Prayers which are offered up at their Shrines; nay, he confesseth, that they do not know what is done here below; and that when by the power of God, and Ministry of Angels, Miracles were done at their Shrines, themselves might not know it, no not when they did appear to some up­on Earth; as Saul saw in a Vision one Ananias coming to him, and put­ting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight; but Ananias himself knew nothing of that appearance to Saul, until the Lord decla­red it to him, Acts 9, 12 God might please to act great things at the Mo­numents of Martyrs, Cap. 17. Illis in summa quiete positis. whil'st themselves were in perfect rest, as he speaks. But this by the way, it belongs to another Controversie, in due time to be assum'd. However, you have heard Augustin, after all that he had said, concluding, We honor Martyrs with that worship of Love and Friend­ship, wherewith we honor Holy Men of God in this Life; and if you will re­quire no more Veneration to be given to them, we will grant it: But then you must remember, That Paul, when living, did forbid Cornelius to worship him; and so did the Angel prohibit the Apostle John; and so would all the glorious Saints in Heaven prohibit your Adoration be­fore their Images, if they could communicate in speech, or any other way with you: Religious Worship we deny to the Saints and their Images; civil honor and respect we give.

Because the Saints and Angels of God are like him in their na­tural Powers and Qualities, moral and civil honor is due to them; for honor is the acknowledgment of some Excellency. But then in regard unto their supernatural Gifts, and Spiritual and Religious Qualities, we must allow them Religious and Spiritual Honor and Veneration.

De vera Relig. c. 55. Ʋni Deo religamus animas nostras, unde Religio dicta cre­ditur. S ^t Augustin observes, how the very name of Religion strictly binds us to God: and therefore all Religious Acts and Services are due only to him. Had not Peter, and Paul, and the other Saints in bliss, while they were living in the Flesh, supernatural Gifts and Excellencies? and would you have worship'd them with Religious Worship? Cornelius attemted it, and was forbidden.

There is a great disproportion between the Saints in Glory, and the Saints militant here on Earth.

In regard of their Happiness and Fruition, they are excel­lent beyond compare; but this is their reward: the Honor we give them, is in commemoration of their Works and Excellencies in this Life, for our example and imitation. And withal, Cornelius worshipping Peter in the Flesh, was sure Peter was sensible of that Honor then given; and you know the Apostle refus'd it: but if you worship him now, being in Heaven, you may rationally doubt, as S ^t Augustin did of the Saints in gene­neral, [Page 125] whether he is sensible of that Honor more then his Image before which you fall down and worship.

However, God accepts the Honor done to his Saints, as to himself.

Yes, when done according to his rule: But where hath God given any command or direction to worship them? you bring no proofs of your Practice out of Holy Scripture: we urge many Texts a­gainst it. Your Arguments run altogether upon Analogy and Propor­tion; that much more honor is due to the Saints now in Heaven, then when they liv'd in the Flesh, because they are much more excellent, con­firm'd in Grace and Glory; the great Favorites of the King of Heaven. So proceed your Arguments for the worshipping of their Images; we give unto them, say ye, a relative, inferior, dependent honor, accord­ing to the Analogy of Reason; he that loves the Person, will love his Image: But where is the Autority of Holy Scripture? God cannot be offended, you will say, that the Images of his Saints and Servants should be had in honor; and what is done to the Image, redounds to the ho­nor of the Saint represented by it; and of God, who hath highly ho­nored him. But still you must keep within your Bounds: God is jealous of his Honor, and will not permit any degree thereof to be communi­cated to any other, whether Saint or Angel, much less to their Images. For instance, Adoration, falling down and worshipping: the Angel re­fus'd it, and sends the Apostle, to give that to God: Peter refus'd it: the Divel desir'd it upon great promises, If thou wilt fall down and worship me (or before me) Luke 4. ver. 7. [...]. all these things will I give Thee: but our Blessed Savior repli'd, It appertains only to God: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. The word is, [...]: and yet this Adoration and Worship ye give to Images, ye bow down and worship before them.

But this Adoration we give, is infinitely inferior to the Worship of God.

This you say; but many of your Doctors say otherwise: Part. 3. q. 25. Art. 3. Imag. Christi cultu Latr. coli deberi, &c. A­quinas, the great Oracle of the Schools, expresly holds, That the Image of Christ is to be ador'd with that Worship, call'd Latria: and he gives the reason, because the honor of the Image redounds to the Prototype; and ac­cording to Aristotle, saith he, the same motion of the mind tends to the I­mage as an Image; and to the thing represented by it: and therefore, seeing Christ is worship'd with Divine Adoration, so likewise his Image. Art. 4. Crux Christi adoranda est adoration, Latriae. Quia in ca ponimus, &c. In the next Article, he declares the same for the Crucifix: It is to be worship'd with the worship due to God; and proves it thus, Because in the Cross we put our hope of Salvation: For upon the Passion-day, saith he, the Church hath taught us to say, All hail, O Cross! our only hope: Increase to the Godly salvation, and give pardon to the guilty.

One Doctors Opinion signifies but little.

If your Church do not approve it, why after so long a time do they not censure it? But what do you speak of one Doctor? Lib. 9. Inst. Mor. c. 6. Azorius, a Jesuit and Casuist, shews it is the common Opinion of the Doctors, and quotes Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alexander Hales, Richardus, Albertus, Paludanus, Almaine, Marsilius, Capreolus, Cajetan, & caeteros juniores; many others after them. And whereas the second Council of Nice hath determin'd, That the Image of Christ and the Cross is not to be worship'd La­tria, with that worship due to God, but with such Veneration as is due to the Holy Bible, and to Holy Vessels &c. It is plain, saith he, that Council speaks of the Image and the Cross as in themselves they are sacred things, and so to be honored as holy Vessels, &c. but if we consider them as Images repre­senting Christ and his death, so we must worship them as we do Christ, with the same honor as the thing represented is worship'd. And he brings the Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. Honos qui iis exhibetur refertur ad prot. &c. Council of Trent to confirm his Opinion, saving, The honor given to the Image is refer'd to the Prototype, so that by the Images which we salute, and before which we uncover the head, and fall down, we do worship Christ and the Saints. And because I am not willing to multiply Quotations, I will refer you to Naclantus Episcopus Clugiensis, in Comment. in 1 cap. ad Rom. propefinem. Re­presentatum est in Imag. sicut in speculo in quo cernitur & honoratur, &c. one of your great Doctors, whose Works are dedi­cated to Pope Pius the fifth: He tells us, The Prototype is in the Image, as in a Looking—glass, wherein it is both seen and honored; and therefore, seeing the Image contains the exemplar, and doth not only represent it, when we speak of the Adoration of an Image, as an Image, referring unto and containg the thing represented; we, without any scruple affirm that we ought to worship, not only before the Image (as some would seem to speak cautiously) but to wor­ship the Image it self, with the same worship as we do the Prototype. In the same place he supposeth the Respiciebat populus serpentem religiose, & forte obtulit, &c. Israelites in the Wilderness did worship the Brazen Serpent, and perhaps offer Incense to it, and yet without fear of Idolatry, because it was a Type of Christ; and therefore Moses and the seniors among them, who knew the Mystery, might fall down and wor­ship it Religiously, and be no Idolaters: and the People also, who knew not the Mystery, believing as the Elders believed, and resolving their Faith into the Faith of the Elders, might without sin worship the Ser­pent, altho they did not understand it to be the Type of Christ.

These are School-subtleties, arguing from the Image to the Exemplar, and from a notion of Aristotle; and Naclantus going farther then the rest, is but a single Testimony, fancying an Image to be a Look­ing-glass, and the thing represented by it to be presentially contain'd in it. But you have heard the plain determination of the Nicene Council b Loquitur de Cruce prout est res quaedam sacra, non ut refertur ad exemplar. [Page 127] was, That the Image of Christ, and the Cross, and so any other Image was not to be worship'd with that worship due to God, but with a wor­ship far inferior.

You may perceive, by this, how much your School-men va­lue Fathers and Councils, when they speak not for them: But why doth your Church and after Councils permit them to pass without censure, and an Index expurgatorius? Naclantus dedicates his Book to the Pope, and therefore did presume upon his allowance and protection.

Baronius excuses the School-men and our Doctors, in maintain­ing the Image of Christ, and of the Cross, are to be worship'd with the worship call'd Latria, because, saith he, they were mistaken, and did suppose, with the Council of Francford, that the Nicene Council had de­termin'd Divine Honor to be given to them.

If this were so, it manifests your Doctors and School-men to have been grosly ignorant of the Councils. And secondly, That they are resolv'd to assert whatsoever they believe a Council hath determin'd, right or wrong; yea, altho it be against the dictate of their Conscience, and rule of Gods Word. But leaving the Cardinals Excuses and Guesses to himself, Aquinas, and the rest, give their own Reasons for their Opi­nions: the Church hath taught us to put our hope in the Cross, and therefore we worship it with Divine Worship; the honor of his Image tends to Christ. The thing represented is in the Image as in a Looking­glass, and therefore we adore it. Nay, Azorius takes notice of the Nicene determination, and shews how in one sense it is true; in another, not: take the Image of Christ materially, as a Consecrated thing, so it is not wor­ship'd with Divine Worship: but formally as an Image representing Christ, so Divine Worship is given to it. Now such allowed Distinctions as these, and Doctrines, have prevail'd upon the unwary People to give the same worship to the Image and the Exemplar; nay, to give Religious Worship to all Images. In the Schools they tell us of divers kinds of Worship, whereas in their Churches there is no sensible difference; what Wor­ship the People give to God, the same they give to the Saints; they Pray, they fall down and Worship. And to our purpose, In Psalm. 113. Quis adorat vel orat intuens simulachrum, qui non sic afficitur, ut ab eo se exaudiri putet, & ab eo sibi praestari, quod desiderat, speret? Augustin proposeth a serious Question: Who Praies or Adores, beholding an Image, and is not so affected, that he believes the Image bears him, and hopes to re­ceive from it, that which he desires and praies for?

S ^t Augustin speaks of the Heathen, and their Idols.

And it is very applicable unto your deluded People and their Images: for let us no longer hover in the Clouds, and in the general No­tion of a Divine Worship call'd Latria, due only to God; and of an in­ferior Worship, call'd Dulia, given unto the Saints in Heaven and to their Images. You know the saying, Dolus in universalibus, Much deceit [Page 128] usually lurks in general terms. We will descend therefore to some par­ticulars, what are precisely the Acts of Divine Worship. ^a Azorius tells us, To put our trust and confidence in him, is one special act of La­tria, the peculiar Worship due to God. And yet Aquinas hath shew'd how your Church teacheth us to put our only hope in the Cross, Ave Crux spes Ʋnica.

This we must conceive to be a Prosopopoea, or Speech, made to Christ upon the Cross, in the day of his Passion.

The common People, doubtless, understands your Figure of Prosopopoea singularly well: And why doth your Church choose to speak to the Cross after that manner, and not rather to Christ upon the Cross? And how comes it to pass that Aquinas understood not this Fi­gure? but supposeth it to be spoken to the Cross directly, and so frames his proof of Divine Worship due to the Cross, because we put our trust in it? Again, for Churches and Temples built and dedicated to the Saints, Tom. 6. lib. 10. contra Maximinum. Nonne si templum alicui Sancto Angelo ex­cellentiss. de ligno & lapide faceremus, Anathematizeremur à veritate, & Ecclesia Dei, quonium Creat. exhiberemus eam servitutem, quae soli Deo debetur? Augustin saith expresly, If we should make a Temple to any Ho­ly and most excellent Angel, either of Wood or Stone, Should we not be separated and accursed from the Truth, and from the Church of God, because we exhibit to a Creature that service which is due only to God? Hoc nunc fit quibuslibet Divis. And Erasmus his Marginal Note upon this Passage of Augustin, is, This now is every where done unto the Saints. Lib. 1. De vera Rel. c. 55. Honoramus cos charitate non servitute, nec iis tem­pla construimus. Again, Augustin in an­other place speaking of the Saints, saith, We honor them with love, not with service; neither do we build Temples to them. Horae Virg. Mariae secundum usum sacrum, Sancti Dei in quorum honore & com­memoratione haec Sancta est dedicata Ecclesia, & haec altaria consecrata, &c. So at the entrance into the Church, Men are taught to direct their Praiers unto the Saints to whom the Churches are dedicated, saying, O ye Saints of God, in the honor and remembrance of whom this Church is dedicated, and this Altar consecrated, &c. Now the Temple is call'd, The House of Prayer, and the House of God, because to him only, who heareth Praier, we sheuld send up our Supplications. Again, Altars, as well as Images, are frequently erected unto Saints: and yet Saint Augu­stin saith, An Altar implies a Deity; the Altar shews they take the Sta­tue for a God; and the Altars of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, are common, upon which their Votaries offer Gold, and Jewels, and Pearl, and embroidered Garments, &c.

Bellarmin shews how the Altars are erected, and Churches Sermone 6. de Verb. Domini, secundum Matth. Quod pro Numine accip. illam siatuam Altare testatur. [Page 129] dedicated to God; and so the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and of Praier, and Praises, are offer'd up to God in honor to the Saints, and they are call'd upon in the public Prayers of the Church, &c.

Bell. Tom. 2. lib. de Beat. Sanctorum, c. 7. Invocantur Sancti in publicis Ec­clesiae precibus, &c. Bellarmin acknowledgeth enough to condemn the practice of your Church, in ascribing more honor to the Saints, then the Holy Scri­ptures allow them. Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me. And Bellarmin saith, The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered to God in remem­brance and honor of the Saints. And withal, you should do well to con­sider, That if these Religious Acts are perform'd to God in honor of the Saints, they are terminated in them, as the finis ultimus, the chief end. As when you say, The honor and worship of the Image redounds to the honor of him whom it represents; and the honor done to the Servant, redounds unto the Master: so the several acts of worship per­form'd to God in honor of the Saints, redound more to their glory, then to the glory of God; they are the chief end, and his service but subordinate unto their honor. And so you run in a Circle, and intangle your selves in a Labyrinth, to maintain a gross and palpable Error of gi­ving a Religious Worship to the Saints and to their Images; calling the Cross, Our only hope; the Images of the Saints, Pledges of our Salvation: lighting Tapers, and burning Incense to them, and such like: and after all, you wash your hands of Idolatry, and tell the World, That ye give inferior petty honor to the Saints and their Images, and to the Cross; even such, as to sacred Utensils of the Church, or to the Holy Book of Scriptures, or to the Chair of State in the Kings Palace, or to the Kings Image, or to the name of Jesus, or to the Communion Table. Now if all that I have said implies no more, I yield the Cause.

Lib. 2. de Idol. c. 1. Idololatriae genuina Ratio est Creaturae, &c. Gregory de Valentia, seems to reconcile all the difference with this Distinction: Formal Idolatry, is to give Divine Honor to a Creature, as to God: If therefore I give Divine Honor to the Saints, or their Images, as Creatures, not as God, I am not guilty of Idolatry.

He was driven to this shift, to justifie the practice of your Church, and free it from Idolatry; but it will not serve, for Divine Worship is due only to God, and therefore should not be communicated to a Creature upon any account.

You will have the last word, and I yield to you, because the Night comes on, and I suppose both of us are sufficiently tired with the length of this Controversie; and you are almost fallen upon another Controversie, of the Honor and Adoration of Saints, which will re­quire another season to determin it.

The honor of Saints and of their Images, having near affi­nity, have bin some time taken into consideration together; but my chief design was against Image worship, as giving great occasion of Idolatry [Page 130] and Scandal in the Church. And what I have said, I leave to your seri­ous consideration, giving you many thanks for this opportunity and free­dom of Discourse, and for my noble Entertainmentall this time I have been your studious Opponent. There are many differences between our Church and yours remaining; whereupon, when our occasions shall allow us other. Meetings, if you are willing, we will treat, with Gods Blessing, in Charity and Love.

DEar Sir, Since our last Meeting I have been tumultuous in my thoughts, and dis-satisfied with my self, That I could not give such full satisfaction to your Arguments, as I at first suppos'd: However, I have learn'd of the Apo­stle, Tit. 1. 9. To hold fast the faithful word, as I have been taught; and not permit the Truth to be wrested from me by subtle, and perhaps, so­phistical Objections. I may go to Heaven in the plain way wherein Christ and his Holy Church doth lead me, without perplexing my self with e­mergent Difficulties and Controversies: reserving them to be resolv'd until Elias (as the Jews speak) or rather until our Blessed Savior shall come again.

It seems you are resolv'd to hold to the Conclusion strongly, be the Premises never so infirm: and hereunto, no doubt, your Doctors and your Priests advise you, To yield an Implicit Faith to the Decrees of your Church, and not dispute them. But upon the same Motive, you should always have subscrib'd and kept stedfast unto the Articles of our Church (which was likewise yours) and not have forsaken her Commu­nion, for Scruples and Imaginations of your own, and false Suggestions of others; I mean, Those creeping Emissaries of Rome, who swarm among us, and buz into Mens Ears uncertain sounds, to unsettle their minds, and take them off from sound Principles, and then infuse their bewitching Sorceries and Delusions, making them drunk with the Cup of Fornications; and then, forsooth, their besotted Reason must be charm'd against all attemts to awaken and to recover them. If Reason and Ar­gumentation could induce you to leave our Church, whilist you gave an easie belief unto our Adversaries, give us leave by the same method to undeceive and to reduce you; and do not brutishly resolve to hold fast those pretended Truths, which you cannot defend against our Opposi­tions.

Your Church allowing her Disciples a liberty of judging, I suit­ably made use of her Indulgence: but being now converted to the [Page 132] Church of Rome, I am taught the obedience of an Implicit Faith, and not encourag'd to dispute her Articles.

A rare Artifice and Policy to keep Men hood-wink'd and in Error, by forbidding them to open their Eies, and make use of their Reason and Judgment to discover the Truth. Our Church may easily impose the like Credulity upon her Children; but she dares not use Stra­tagems against the Truths of God, to do evil upon pretensions of good; to keep her Sons and Daughters in ignorance, that they may be obedient. The Holy Scriptures enjoin a search, and examination, and trial. Prove all things, saith St. Paul, and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5. 21. But you would have Men tenacious of their Opinions, without Judg­ment; hold to the Point, without the proof. S ^t Peter exhorts the Saints, 1 Pet. 3. 15. alwaies to be ready to give an answer unto every one that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them: but you are against this rendring of Reasons, the Autority of your Church must suffice.

Not so neither: The Church commands, and gives sufficient proof for her prescriptions, and we submit to her account.

Do you take the liberty, for your own satisfaction, to examine and judge of the account?

Yes doubtless, the more to convince and settle us upon that good foundation.

But suppose upon the search and enquiry you do not find sa­tisfaction to your reason? Suppose your Heart and Conscience may sug­gest Exceptions against the Doctrine and the practice of your Church, what then?

We may have recourse unto our Priests and Doctors for solution of doubts.

Taking the Holy Oracles of Scripture along with you, that is not amiss: but withal, you should do well to consider, That they will surely resolve the Question on their own side, and your Church gives no liberty to hear the adverse Party; and so Truths are not weigh'd in an equal ballance, and differences are determin'd, only one side being heard.

Good Theophilus, trouble not your self with the non-permissi­ons of our Church; it will appear at present you have no cause to com­plain, for I am purposely come to requite your former visit, and to con­tinue the debate in a Friendly manner, concerning some other Points wherein we differ: and whereas the last time you made choice of such Particulars to insist on, which you thought most liable unto popular Ex­ception; you shall give me leave now to propose the subject of our Discourse.

Sir, besides the equity of your Demand, the rule of Hospi­tality requires, That in my own House I should design to observe you; and therefore be pleas'd to make your Friendly Challenge, and appoint the Field and Weapons, and I will answer you.

Upon this fair Concession, I will try your skill in one great Point, concerning the Invocation of Saints: and because you shall not complain of a surprizal, I will principally urge Eellarmins proofs, in whose Works you appear'd the last time to be so conversant.

Our Church piously with-holding none of our Adversaries Writings from us, that upon due Examination we may judg of Truth; I have, I must confess, propos'd chiefly to my self the perusal of that great Cardinals Defence, because I was assur'd of his great Abilities, and of his Zeal for your Church, and that in him I should meet with all which rationally can be suggested to uphold his Cause: Let us therefore hear how he hath managed these Controversies.

Concerning the Point, Invocation of Saints departed: After some preliminary Discourses, Tom. 2. Controvers. 4. de Eccl. Triumph. c. 18, 19. Bellarmin undertakes to prove two things, one in order unto the other. 1. That the Saints in Heaven do pray for us. 2. That we must pray to them.

One of these doth not necessarily follow upon the other. That if the Saints Triumphant are sollicitous for, and do pray for the Church Militant in general (for the triumph of their Faith, and their consum­mation in Bliss, who being Fellow-members of Christs mystical Body the Church, are yet within the Lists, wrestling with great opposition and many tryals) I say, it doth not follow, That if the Saints in Glory do pray for the Church Militant, that therefore we should call upon them so to do: They are perfect in Grace, and never wanting to their duty, or unmindful of their concerns. Upon this account, methinks out of a Zeal to the glory of God, you ought as frequently to call upon the Saints in Heaven, to laud and magnifie the God of Heaven; as out of a sense of your own wants to pray unto them to intercede for you. But with­al, you can never give us any infallible assurance, that they do hear our Prayers, that so in Faith and with confidence we may call upon them. The Members of the Church-Catholic thro-out the World do pray for one another, and yet one National Church doth not Invocate another, except it be by enter course of communicatory Epistles. Direct me how to send a Letter to Saint Peter, and I will not fail to put in my humble request, That he would help me with his Praiers.

This great Point, concerning the assurance that the Saints do hear our Praiers, will fall into consideration hereafter: mean while, it becomes you not to mock and play the Droll in a serious con­cern.

You may excuse me the rather, seeing you shall find in Tom. 5. pag. 513. Bi­nius his Edition of the Councils, a large Letter sent to Pepin King of France, and Charls and Carlemain his Sons, from S ^t Peter, by Pope Ste­phen the 3 ^d, imploring and requiring their speedy assistance against the Lombards, in the behalf of Rome, his Episcopal See, and of his Sepul­cher [Page 134] and Temple therein. And you may suppose, Pope Stephen could as easily have returned an Answer from these Princes to the Apostle. I shall have occasion to produce that hereafter.

These are strange divertisements from our business: Are you seriously afraid to enter into the Controversie, that you interrupt my Dis­course with such impertinencies?

If I should answer your Question, you would complain of more delaies: Take your course therefore, and I will follow you.

Ib. Cap. 18. Bellarmin proves, the Saints do pray for us from that passage of Holy Scripture, Tho Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet could not my mind be towards this People: Therefore (saith he) Moses and Samuel being dead, did usually pray for the People of the Jews.

We have a rule in Logic, Suppositio nihil point: This Supposi­tion, If they should pray, doth not imply, They did pray. The Text on­ly designs to shew, Gods great indignation against his People the Jews at that time; insomuch, that if those two Holy Persons, and greatly be­lov'd, were alive, and should interpose for them, they should not pre­vail. Tom. 4. Homil. 1. in primum Thess. [...]. Hence S ^t Chrysostom upon this Text, [...]. If Moses, the first Law-giver, who often delivered the Jews by his Intercession from Divine Vengeance; if he were now in being, he should not prevail. The like passage we have, Ezek 14. 13, 14. Son of Man, when the Land sinneth against me, by trespassing grievously, &c. tho these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness. And so in divers passages following in that Chapter: Tho Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, &c. now as this Supposition cannot infer these three Men were in the Land; for Noah and Job were dead more then a thousand Years before, altho Daniel was then living: So neither doth the former Supposition prove, That Moses and Samuel did pray for the Jews after their decease. That place of S ^t Paul, Gal. 10. ver. 8. Tho we, or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel to you, &c. in Bellarmins Logic must imply, They did preach an­other Gospel. Let the Reader pity us, to see unto what a drudgery we are put to answer such futile Arguments.

I well see, nothing will prevail against your prejudices, but express and positive Texts, and therefore in the next Argument Bellar­mine complies with your humor. In the second Book of Maccabees, and the last Chapter, we read expresly, How Onias (formerly their High Priest, and a vertuous and good Man) prai'd for the whole Body of the Jews, ver. 12. And that Jeremiah, the Prophet of the Lord, did pray much for the People, and for the holy City, when Judas Maccabaeus was ingaging in Battel with Nicanor; unto whom, we read the Prophet Jeremiah gave a Sword of Gold, as a Gift from God, wherewith to wound and subdue his Enemies.

This is out of an Apocryphal Book, and therefore no infal­lible proof from Canonical Scripture: Now touching the Canon of Ho­ly Scripture, we may have, by Divine permission, another occasion to dis­course. And altho Bellarmin pleaseth himself, that Calvin had no other refuge but to deny the Autority of the Text; yet we will reflect upon o­ther Particulars which appear to weaken the Testimony. For it was but a Dream of Judas Maccabeus, which he told unto his Soldiers to encou­rage them before the Fight; a Dream worthy to be believed, as if it had been so indeed, saith the Author, ver. 11. It seems therefore indeed it was not so, and so the whole Testimony is from a Dream that had no re­ality. In the 12 ^th verse, it is call'd, A Vision, you may suppose a waking Dream; and therein there was so much reality, that Jeremiah gave a golden Sword to Judas to wound his Adversaries: but a golden Sword is no fit Instrument of War for execution, and it is much, we never read it was laid up in the Temple for a Sacred Relic: and much more cause we have to wonder, it is not at all mention'd in the first Book of Maccabees, which is the more perfect History of those Wars; and wherein the Bat­tel with Nicanor is punctually related, 1 Macc. 7. 41. and Judas his Praier to God before the Fight: but of the Dream or Vision, ne gry quidem. And now I pray observe, how your Doctors in those Instances are inconstant to their own Principles: for they generally hold, That the Souls of the Faithful departed, before Christs Resurrection, did not enter into Heaven, neither see the Face of God, nor know the State of things here above them; and therefore it was not usual in the Church to call upon them, and say, Holy Abraham, pray for us. Your Doctors hold, Bell. ib. c. 19. Notandum ante adventum Christi, qui moriebantur, non intrabant in Coelum, non Deum videbant, nec ordinarie, poterant cognese, preces sapplicantium. That the Spirits of the Patriarchs, and Prophets, and People of God, were shut up in Limbo Patrum (as they call it) in a subterraneous place, the upper­most verge of Hell, beneath us: without pain, and without joy in the Vision of God: waiting for their redemtion out of that Prison by the coming of Christ, who descended into Hell to set them at liberty, and to conduct them triumphant­ly into Heaven. When we urge that Text, Isa. 63. ver. 16. Doubtless thou art our Father, tho Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledgeth us not; to shew how the Saints departed know not the Affairs and Trans­actions here below, You answer, So it was before Christs Ascension: the Saints departed were not in Heaven, until Christ opened the Kingdom to them; but they were shut up from the Vision of God, and from all knowledge of the concerns of this World: and yet, contrary to this their own Hypothesis, you see how they give Instances of Moses, and Sa­muel, and Onias, and Jeremiah, praying for their People the Jews, and sollicitous for them in their distress.

You may therefore observe the limitation of Bellarmine: Non poterant ordinarie preces cognoscere, &c. In that state they understood not ordinarily the Affairs upon Earth, nor heard the Prayers of the People: [Page 136] but God might reveal them, and so excite them to pray for the People: upon which account some of our Doctors hold, Azorius Instit. Moral. lib. 9. c. 9. Medina de Orat. Quaest. 4. That Prayers might be made to the Fathers in Lymbo, yea even to the Souls in Purgatory; because they are in a state of Grace and Charity, and by the gift of God, or by the Ministery of Angels, they may hear our Praiers.

Upon the same ground we may daily implore the Assistance and Prayers of our Friends that are absent, living at a great distance from us, for God may reveal our Desires and Petitions to them: but alas! these are weak props and suppositions to uphold a feeble cause, and hitherto your Learned Cardinal hath not bin demonstrative in the point.

Before we conclude, I do not doubt but you shall change your note. In the New Testament, we read, Rev. 5. 8. How the 24 Elders fall down before the Lamb, having golden Viols full of Odors, which are the Prai­ers of the Saints.

What Argument can Bellarmin or you frame out of this Text? I understand not his design.

Bellarmin shews, how Interpreters understand, by the Praiers of the Saints, Intercessions made by the Saints in Heaven, for the con­firmation and support of their weak Brethren upon Earth.

It seems then, even the Saints in Glory make use of Media­tors, of the four Beasts, and the twenty four Elders, to present their Prayers to the Lamb. The more general Interpretation of that place is, That these Odors, filling the golden Vials, are the Praiers of the Faithful upon Earth, which are represented in the Psalm, To ascend like the Incense, Psal. 141. ver. 2.

This gives as full testimony to our purpose as the other: for thereby it appears, the Praiers of the Saints on Earth are presented un­to God, and to the Lamb, by the Saints and Angels in Heaven. And to this effect we read, Rev. 8. ver. 3, 4. how an Angel came and stood at the Al­tar, having a golden Censer: and there was given unto him much Incense, that he should offer it with the Praiers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the Throne. And the smoke of the Incense which came with the Praiers of the Saints, ascended up before God out of the Angels hand. Now this Incense offered up, with the Praiers of the Saints on Earth, we may suppose are the Merits and Intercession of the Saints in Glory.

And we may suppose, they are the Merits and Intercession of Christ, whom Primasius understands by the Angel in this place: we know it is said expresly, Heb. 9. 24. That Christ is entred into the Holiest of all, into Heaven it self, to appear in the presence of God for us: and that by him we offer up to God continually our Sacrifices of Praise, Heb. 13. 15. and without all peradventure, he is most properly said to add Incense and sweet Odours to our Praiers and Praises, because for his sake only they are acceptable to the Father. However, I cannot but observe what a [Page 137] leap your Cardinal hath taken over all the New Testament to produce his first and cheifest Arguments out of the Revelations of S ^t John, for the Saints hearing and presenting our Prayers unto God, purposely to involve himself and others in mysteries and visions, which can admit no clear In­terpretation, neither become useful to lay the Foundation of a Doctrine which takes up the greatest part of the peoples devotions in the Church, viz. of the Invocation of Saints. In a like case S ^t Augustine cried out to the Donatists, A Ferte aliquid quod non egeat Interpret. Bring forth such proofs as want no Interpretation. Suppose I should undertake to prove That the Souls of the just departed are not in Heaven, neither do enjoy a perfect state in bliss, Rev. 6. vers. 9. &c. ‘because when the fift seal was opened, S ^t John saw under the Altar the Souls of the Mar­tyrs, of them that were slain for the word of God and for the Testimony which they held, and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long O Lord Holy and true dost thou not judg and avenge our blood upon them that dwell on the earth, and white robes were given unto every one of them that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants and their Brethren that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.’ Suppose I should from the same Text urge, that the Martyrs do expressly pray for Divine vengeance upon their enemies; but no mention is made of any intercession for their Freinds, you would not well approve Argu­ments drawn from such mysterious visions and Revelations; and therefore do not your self make use of them. Tom. 30. in Epistolis ad Paulinum, & ad Marcellam. S ^t Jerom tells us, ‘That the book of the Revelations hath as many mysteries as words, and that the whole is to be understood in a spiritual sense, and not literal.’

These things were certainly written for our Instruction, and Bel­larmine very well argues, That if the Saints in Heaven and Martyrs do pray for jugdment upon their Persecutors, much more for mercy and fa­vor unto their friends and brethren, for they are more inflam'd with cha­rity, then with an eager thirst after revenge.

I perceive most of the Arguments are probable diductions from Analogie and proportion, but we expect divine Autority to establish such a principle part of Worship which you make the Invocation of Saints.

We are not yet arriv'd at that point, but preparing the way unto it, shewing the Saints in Heaven do understand our affairs and pray for us, and with your patience I will give other Texts to prove it.

More pertinent I beseech you.

That passage of S ^t Peter is full to the point. 2 ^d of Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavor after my decease that ye may be able to have these things alwaies in re­membrance. Where the Apostle shews that after his departure he will en­deavor for them.

This feat Argument is Bellarmines, and not S ^t Peters, he hath chang'd the order of the words, and so by consequence their meaning. The Original Text manifests how the words should be read, not as you trans­port them. I will endeavor after my decease that you may be able to keep in re­membrance, [Page 138] &c. But Thus [...], &c. I will endeavor that every one of you may be able after my decease to have those things alwaies in remembrance. And this endea­vor he did use in the daies of his flesh, in preaching the Gospel until his death, and leaving these Epistles as remembrancers. Bellarmine indeed hath the confidence to add to the Text his Paraphrase that it might serve his turn. Dabo operam habere vos commendatos, sive in Animo post obitum. I will endeavor to have you recommended, or in mind after my death. And yet it is observeable how he concludes this Text, after all his patch­ing, Quam vis non sit evidens, est tamen probabile argumentum. to be no evident, but a probable Argument. Whereas, as he hath shapt it, it is cleer and demonstrative to his purpose, but his conscience checkt him for his additions and transmutations, and so he would not lay any great stress upon it.

You will never leave your sinister Construction of his fair deal­ing, but I hope his next Argument has evidence enough, That if Dives in Hell was solicitous for his Brethren upon earth, and pray'd Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them least they should come into the same place of Condemnation, much more are the Saints in Heaven sollicitous for their Brethren, the Church Militant, and pray for their protection and assi­stance.

Your Arguments a majori will not hold without some Autority to support them. This of the rich glutton is but a feeble Crutch, Justin. Eucherius, Cyril. Chrysost. ma­ny Intepreters take the whole passage to be a parable not an History, and [...], &c. Theophylact upon the place reckons the other, (that it is an Histo­ry) a foolish conceit. Now you know the maxim, Parabolae non sunt argumentativae. parables are no Ar­gumentative Topick, neither are they Narratives of things done, but simili­tudinary representations to fix some Doctrines more sensibly and effectually in mens minds. Again, if it were an Historical relation of matter of fact, it would not prove the point; That Dives beindead and in Torment knew the affairs of this world. Only he was sensible that he had given an example of voluptuousness and uncharitableness unto his brethren, and that their sins would contribute unto his Torment; and therefore he was solicitous to have them reclaim'd. When he shall urge his example for the Invocation of Saints, I will answer, That you bring an ill president to confirm a Do­ctrine of the Church; and withal when Abraham or any of the Saints in Heaven shall undoubtedly appear and commune with you, you may desire their assistance.

Bellarmine hath one material proof that the Saints in Heaven do pray for the faithful upon earth; because the Church militant and triumphant do make one mystical body whereof Christ is the head. And so there Ibid. Communio illa exigit necessario, ut membra pro invicem sint sollicita & mutuo se juvent. must be [Page 139] a Communion between the members, making them solicitous mutually to help one another.

He might have spar'd to urge the necessary mutual assistance; for we do not pray for the Saints in Heaven, neither are we solicitous for them who are immutably blessed, and of their affection towards us, their fellow members, militant upon earth, we do not doubt; neither of their praiers for the Church in general, That she may be victorious over all her Enemies, as also for the filling up the number of the Elect, and their Con­summation in bliss, but this will not infer their distinct knowledg of things here below, or make for your Doctrine of Invocation. For you know the Saints militant over all the world are fellow members, and mutually so­licitous for one another, and yet one National Church doth not invocate another in her public offices.

I pray give me leave to make the Inference when I have sufficient­ly fortified the premises, you run away with the argument before it is per­fect, and so conclude it is invalid. For you shall find that our Doctors do not only prove how the Saints in Heaven pray in general for the Church militant, and for the Saints on earth; but that they pray particularly for them, for that is Betlarmines next position. Ibid. Sancti qui regnant in coele crant pro nobis etiam in particulari. The Saints in Heaven pray for us in particular.

Be pleas'd to let us here his Arguments.

He proves the Angels, have a special charge over us in particular, and pray for us; and therefore much more the Saints in Heaven do so.

How doth he prove his much more, I doubt it will prove at length much less, and the whole Argument a non sequitur.

His reasons seem demonstrative, our Saviour saith, the Saints in Heavin are as the Angels. Luk. 20. vers. 36. They alwaies stand in the pre­sence of God, and most affectionately love us; and therefore want neither understanding or will to be assistant unto their brethren upon earth. And in one regard they may surpass the Angels in a promtitude to succor us, in that they have a nearer relation to us as their flesh and blood, and have had experience of our dangers and sorrows, and so are the rather qualified to compassionate our infirmities.

Our blessed Savior shews how the Saints in Glory are like unto the Angels, and equal to them in respect of their Immortality, (for they can dy no more) and in that they neither marry nor are given in Marriage, as you may observe the place, but there is no demonstration the compari­son should hold in all things: and doubtless before the Resurrection, and the joyful union between the Spirits of just Men and their glorified bo­dies; they are in some state of imperfection; their appetite of Union be­ing not fulfill'd, and therefore you may observe our Savior spake of the Saints in the Resurrection expressly, as to their likeness and Equality with the Angels, and concludes not any thing before. They which shall be ac­counted worthy to obtain that world and the Resurrection from the Dead, neither Marry nor are given in Marriage; Neitheir can they dy any more, for they are [Page 140] equall unto the Angels. Luk. 20. vers. 35. 36. That they want neither know­ledg nor affection to assist us and take a charge of us, altho we should grant (to avoid disputes) yet we do not read they have such a Commission from God to attend us, as have the Angels. It is written Ps. 34. 7. The Angel of the Lord tarries round about them that fear him and delivereth them. Again. Ps. 39. 11 He has given his Angels charge over thee. It is written. Matt. 18. 10. In Heaven their Angels do alwaies behold the face of my Father which is in Hea­ven. Again Heb. 1. 14. Are they not all Ministring Spirits sent forth to Mini­ster for them who shall be heirs of Salvation? Produce such Autorities for the glorious Saints ministery and assistance, and we will yield your conse­quence, that because the Angels of Heaven have charge over the people of God upon earth, the Saints have likewise. It is written 1 Thes. 4. 16. That at the voice of the Archangel and the sound of the trump, the dead shall rise. That the Son of Man shall send his Angels at the last day to gather the elect, and sever the wicked from the just, the chaff from the corne. Matt. 13. Dare you ascribe this office likewise unto the Saints in glory? And there­fore your Argument from the Angels to the Saints is groundless, a meer in­vention of man, without any warrant from Gods word. Wherein it ap­pears that the Angels are Gods messengers, and Ministers between Heaven and earth; but not so the Saints departed. Now as God Almighty im­ploies the Angels, so he imparts unto them the knowledg and understand­ing of affaires below, so far as concerns their business; and as they attend the Saints upon earth, so they know much of their condition. And so they rejoice at the conversion of a sinner. But we read not a syllable of the Saints in Heaven, of their knowledg, or their Joy, and therefore you can draw no good consequence from one to the other.

You conclude well upon your own suppositions, but take our Do­ctors along with you, and you will find That God hath committed the charge of the Church militant, and the Saints upon earth as well to the Saints as to the Angels of Heaven, Bell. Ibid. A spiritibus beatorum regi & gubernard fideles, &c. and that the faithful are govern'd and conducted by the Spirits of the Blessed.

Shew their substantial proofs, and not their confident asserti­ons.

You read how the Son of God makes a faithful promise. Revel 2. vers. 26. 27. He that overcometh and keepeth my words unto the end, to him will I give power over the Nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of Iron, as the vessel of a potter shall they be broken in peices. Again Rev. 3. 12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the Temple of God (to uphold his Church) and I will grant to him to sit with me on my throne (to rule and govern, with Christ his Church, and to preside over the world) now Bellarmine proceeds to shew how these promises are made to the Saints after this life; because they are made to him that overcometh all the Temptations of life, and keepeth Christs word until death. And that this government belongs to them before the general Resurrection appears from that expression. He shall cule them with a rod of Iron, and shall brake them as a potters vessel. These [Page 141] words imply a pastoral regiment; the original is, [...] he shall feed them as a Shepherd his sheep, and it is call'd an Iron rod, because in­flexible from the rule of justice, and therewith the refractory shall be bro­ken in pieces, the same expressions are given of Christ. Rev. 12. 5. She brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with a rod of Iron.

Methinks your Doctors in there deep Theologie fetch their proofs most from the Revelations of S ^t John. Your Doctrine of the Saints in Heaven governing the World and the faithful upon earth, knowing our state, and hearing our praiers, is a great mysterie, (I had almost said) of Iniquity, and you cheifly confirm it from some mysterious passages in the Revelation, an Argument you want plain and positive proofs, and there­fore fly unto obscure and figurative and mystical expressions. All these pro­mises, you have mention'd, made to the Saints persevering unto the end serve to shew their state of transcendent blessedness and glory above their fellows, who in this life were inferior to them in their sufferings, and in their graces. Like those in the parable who according to the improvement of their Talents had autority given them over many Cities. Luk. 19. Or like the blessed servant, whom the Lord at his coming shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. Mat. 24. 47. He shall place him in great honor saith Euthimius upon the place; and he gives a caution that we should not enquire too far and with too much curiosity into these things: nor collect any thing from such parabolical expressions, but what they necessarily imply. After the like manner Theophylact upon the place, He [...], &c. shall share in the more Honourable recompences, to wit, in the Kingdom of Heaven: for the Saints are Heirs of all that appertain to God. And so run the general Interpretations upon the ten Cities, &c. Among the Ancients we find no mention of this conceit, That Christ communicates the charge of his Church and people, and the government of the world before the day of judgment unto the Saints in glory.

However his proofs out of scripture may sail him, Bellarmine abun­dantly shews from the Testimony of the Fathers, that the Saints in Hea­ven do govern and take charge of the Saints on earth; and are therefore in this regard likewise equal with the Angels.

I will take the Testimony of the Antient in due season, but I first desire to hear all the Arguments together out of the Holy Scripture proving That the Saints do particularly pray for us, and that we must pray to Them, for I suppose the foundation of this Doctrine must be sure laid in the word of God, or else all will fall to the ground.

The Doctrines of our Church are very consonant unto the Scrip­ture, and out of them you will find sufficient proof of our duty to call upon the Saints in Heaven.

Make that good, and I shall undoubtedly become your convert.

Remember this when we draw towards a conclusion: mean while I will not spare to give the premises and proofs. Bellarmine undertakes to [Page 142] prove expressly Quod Sancti, sive Angeli sive homines piè ac utiliter à viventibus invocantur. That the Saints in Heaven, whether Angels or men are pi­ously and profitably call'd upon by us who are Living.

Can you tell the reason why he puts his proposition in such un­usual terms, the common distinction is of the Angels and Saints in Heaven, but he calls them Angels and men, and both by the name of Saints.

You cannot deny but that Angels are Holy Persons, and by conse­quence that they are Saints.

It is not material what they are by consequence, but you know the Angels are not commonly call'd Saints, when you propose to speak of the Saints in Heaven, none will understand you of the Angels, and then for the other member of the distinction Sive Angeli sive homines. Men, the Souls of just Men de­parted, are not men. The man is dead, his immortal Spirit lives, and up­on this Account when you call upon Peter and Paul to pray for you, alas, Peter is dead, and Paul is dead, their blessed Spirits are with God, but not their Persons, before the general Resurrection.

These are but frivolous exceptions, do not betray your fears by di­verting me from the Cardinals proofs. First he alledgeth that plain Text for the Invocation of Angels: Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads. You see the Holy Patriarch Jacob invocates the Angels blessing upon Josephs two Sons Ephraim and Manasseh.

It is Jacobs Option, not a formal Invocation: his desire, not his praier, we may suppose rather that Jacob sends up his hearts desire to God, that the Angel which did alwaies deliver him might be a Guardian to these Lads, when Isaac blessing Jacob said, Gen. 27. vers. 29. Let the people serve Thee and Nations bow down to Thee: doth he therefore invocate Nations and People, or rather pray to God that he would bring it to pass? This answer sufficeth, if Jacob by the Angel understood a created Spirit; but the context makes it evident That the Angel stands for Christ the second person of the Sacred Trinity, because he is join'd in this Benedicton with the God of Abraham. ‘God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God that fed me all my life long until this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the Lads.’ Observe I pray what great Oratione quarta contra Arrianos. Athanasius saith to this place, having prov'd the unity of the Fa­ther and the Son because they are join'd in the same prayer. 1 Thess. 3. 11. Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you. He proceeds to declare, ‘That no man can pray to receive any thing from the Father and from an Angel or any other creature, no man will say let God and the Angels give Thee, and then directly answers this Bene­diction of the Patriarch. That he did not joine a created Angel, with God that made him, in the blessing; neither forsaking him that nu­risht him, doth he seek for an Angels blessing upon the children, but stiling him the Angel that deliver'd him out of all his troubles, he mani­fests that he did not understand any created spirit, but Christ the word, [Page 143] whom he joines with God the Father in the blessing, knowing that he is called The Angel of his great Councel.’ [...], ac­cording to the Septuagint. Herunto agrees Thes. l. 30. cap. 10. Cyrill of Alexandria. ‘The Patriarch of God, means the Father, and by the Angel, the word of the Father whose name is the Angel of his councel.’ Hemil. 66. in Gen. [...], &c. Chrysostom makes God and the Angel to be the same, whose benediction Jacob implores. ‘A grace­ful Soul to God, saith He, how doth he retain the memory of his favors fixt in his heart? He that nurisht me from my youth hitherto, he that de­liver'd me out of all evil, bless these Lads.’ 'Tis much the Learned Car­dinalshould take no notice of these signal Autorities; but bring a Text, in two regards, impertinent to his purpose as you have heard, to prove the Invocation of Angels, which would not however infer the Invocation of Saints departed. Because Angels are Gods ministring Spirits, and more constant in the affaires here below, then are the Saints in Heaven, of whose Ministerie upon earth we have no account given in the Holy Scripture, only that they sing and Bless God and worship him incessantly in Heaven.

Give me leave to proceed and shew how our Doctors prove the Invocation of Angels, and then I will manifest likewise how it confirms the Invocation of Saints, Bellarmine brings three Texts out of the book of Job, to shew the early usage of praying to the Angels. ‘ Job. 5. 1. Call now if there be any to answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn.’ ‘ Job. 19. 21. Have pity upon me have pity upon me O my freinds, for the Hand of the Lord hath touched me.’ ‘ Job. 33. 23. If there be a Messenger with him, an Interpreter one of a thousand to shew unto man his uprightness, Then he is gratious unto him and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, for I have found a ransom.’

If these be proofs, nothing can miss the mark, if calling be in­vocating, and Saints be Angels, then the first Text may stand the Cardinal in some stead, and Eliphaz his Autority must uphold it. But the context shews the meaning of the words, Eliphaz would have Job enquire and call any one that fears God to witness whether any perished, being Innocent. Chap. 4. vers. 7. or whether a man can be more pure then his Maker. Vers. 17. Job had complain'd sadly of his affliction; and his friends design'd to put him upon the search, whether these severe Judgments did not fall upon him for some secret sins. The second proof is as wide from the mark, as Heaven from the earth, his three friends did persecute his Innocency with their grand error and mistake, That God never afflicts but for sin; and Job in­treateth them to spare and pity him. ‘For why do ye persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?’ as it follows in the next. vers. 22.

Bellarmine shews how S ^t Augustin in his Commentary upon Job re­fers both these Texts unto the Angels.

Read S ^t Augustin in his second book of Retract. c. 13. and you will find him doubtful whether he should call it his book (Liber, cui titulus Annotationes in Job, utrum meus habendus est haud facile dixerim.) Or rather [Page 144] his who collected his imperfect notes, he tells us his own copy was so faulty, ut emendare non possim, nec editum à me dici vellem. And withal he as­serts nothing, but only saith, here Job seems to call upon the Angels, or the Saints that they would pray for him being penitent. Angelos postulare videtur, aut certè Sanctos, ut pro paenitente orent. Now Bellarmine himself will not grant the Saints deceased in those daies should be invocated, besides the literal sense which I have given is cleer, and therefore we look not fur­ther to the Allusions of Interpretors. The third proof is a Text full of ob­scurity: fit for the Cardinall to amuze his reader with out of the Original we read. ‘A Messenger or Interpreter one among a thousand; who should shew unto Man his Duty, and bring him to repentance, and pray for him, that the Lord, may spare him.’ As Isaiah praied for Hezekiah being sick saith Jerom. Gregorie the Great found no advantage or proof out of this Text for the Invocation of Saints or Angels altho he favour'd the opinion, but interprets that of Christs Intercession. The Septuagint mention a thou­sand Angels but not to your Cardinalls purpose, but against it, [...], &c. ‘If there were a thousand destroying Angels, yet not one of them shall wound him, if he seriously purposeth in heart to return unto the Lord.’ And thus you see what blind arguments your Doctors urge to maintain their delusions; if you are not better provided to prove the Invocation of Saints, then you have been of Angels, I could wish you to study our case, and the reputation of your Doctors, by conceling them.

You are very pleasant, but I shall make you change your note, you read how Moses did beseech God to spare his people for the sake and merits of their forefathers. ‘Remember Abraham and Isaac and Israel thy Ser­vants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiplie your seed as the Stars of Heaven, &c.’

In this Text Moses praies to God, not to Patriarchs, and there­fore it doth not confirm your Doctrine of Saints Invocation.

It shews that they did allege the merits of the Saints departed as an help and advantage unto their prayers, as Theodoret upon the place, when Moses thought himself insufficient to appease the wrath of God, he takes in the patronage of the Holy Patriarchs. Therefore if they had not the be­nefit of their praiers (as not being in the presence of God) they did reap the fruits of their merits.

There is a great mistake in this argument, Moses doth not urge the merits of their forefathers: but the Covenant God was pleas'd to make with them, that he would multiply their seed, and give them possession of the promised Land. Of this promise he puts the Lord in remembrance that he would please to spare his people, and perform the promise made to their forefathers. So God promiseth unto the righteous, that he will bless their seed unto many Generations, Exod. 20. 6. Yet their children do not urge their Fathers merits, but the gracious covenant of God. As for the Testimony of Theodoret, Bellarmine hath made it to his purpose, by inter­posing Patrocinium Faciens Patriarcharum mentionem. Patriarcharum the patronage of the Patriachs, instead [Page 145] of making mention of the Patriarchs, and of the Covenant with them made, beseeching God not to break the Covenant: for these are Theo­dorets words.

The Cardinal shews this general answer touching Gods Cove­nant with the Patriarchs to be insufficient, Pactum Dei, & justitia Sanctorum simul commemorantur. because we shall find express mention made of their righteousness, together with the Covenant, Lord remember David, and all his meekness, Psal. 132. 1. and ver. 10. For thy servant Davids sake, turn not away the presence of thine Anointed, saith Solomon: For Davids sake, and not only for the Covenant made with David.

Express mention of that Covenant immediatly follows: The Lord hath made a faithful oath unto David; Of the Fruit of thy Body shall I set upon thy seat: As tho he should have said, Lord, seeing thou were graciously pleased to make a Covenant with my Father David, be pleased, upon the same Motives, to make good that Promise. As for the first part, Remember David, and all his mansuetude and virtue; so your vulgar Trans­lation reads it: But according to the Original it is thus rendred, Remem­ber David and all his troubles. And then immediatly follows, Davids vow to build an House unto the Lord; and Gods Promise, That one of his Sons should build him an House: in remembrance whereof, Solomon puts up his Supplication. And after all, you may consider how these Texts are im­pertinently urg'd, making nothing for the Invocation of Saints: the consideration of their Merits, may fall in more seasonably hereafter.

Ib. c. 19. Hoc. Argumentum Adversarii nunquam solvere potuerunt. Bellarmin hath one Argument more for the Invocation of Saints, grounded upon the Word of God, which he accounts unanswer­able: It is this, We read, the Faithful have requested the Praiers of the Saints living. God himself sends Jobs three Friends to him, to intercede for them, Job 42. St. Paul beseecheth the Saints at Rome to help him with their Praiers, Rom. 15. 30. and the like in many of his Epistles: Therefore, saith the Learned Cardinal, it is lawful, even now, to call upon the same Saints reigning with Christ: For if it be not as lawful to call upon them for the assistance of their Praiers now they are with God in Heaven, as when they were living upon Earth, It is either because, First they are not willing; or 2 ^ly, are not able to pray for us; or that because 3 ^dly, They cannot hear and receive our Praiers: or 4 ^thly, Because their Intercession would be injurious to the Intercession of Christ. The two first cannot be suppos'd, because their Cha­rity in Heaven is intended and enlarged, and their Praiers more effectual: neither the third, Because as the Angels in Heaven know our state, and can hear our Praiers, so likewise the Blessed Saints: nor the fourth, Because as the Intercession and Praiers of the living for their Brethren, and for all men, are not injurious unto Christs Intercession, so neither are the Praiers of the Saints departed.

Alas! This Achilles will prove a very Dwarf: Your Cardi­nals unanswerable Argument is of no force. First, To answer it in ge­neral, we must tell you, That we have no warrant in Holy Scripture, either of President or Precept, to recommend our selves unto the Prai­ers of the dead, as we have of the living; and therefore the conse­quence holds not good from one to the other. Bellarmine knew this well, and was so wise to take no notice of it; yet it is the main hinge whereupon our regular Devotions must turn, even the rule of Holy Scri­pture, wherein God hath reveal'd how, and to whom we must direct our Praiers. His Argument of four horns hath little strength; but could he have added to them this fifth Horn, That the Word of God approveth the Invocation of the dead as of the living, we must have fled before it. But alas! all the attemts to confirm this Doctrine of your Church out of Holy Writ, have prov'd so unsuccessful, that some of your own Doctors have had so much Ingenuity, as to acknowledg. That it is not expresly delivered in Holy Scripture. So Invocatio Sanctorum non expresse traditur in Script. Eccius, in his Enchiridion of Catholic Confession, and therefore it must pass for an unwritten Tradition, where­of Martin Peresius confesseth, we have De Trad. p. 3. consid. 7. Ne vestigium ante divum Cyprianum. no footsteps before Cyprian.

Peresius gives a rational account (together with others) why the Holy Apostles did not lay the foundation of this Doctrine: It was, say they, Causa erat humilitas & mod. Apostolorum, nese Deos facerent. out of their great humility and modesty, least they should appear to establish in the Church their own Apotheosis, make themselves as Gods, by directing the People of God to put up their Supplications, after their decease, to them.

Methinks, That which prevail'd with the Apostles not to de­liver this Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, should likewise have prevail'd with the Church never to have establish'd it: and without doubt, had it bin according to the will of God, and profitable to the Church, the Holy Apostles would never have concel'd it out of mode­sty and humility. S ^t Paul declares expresly to the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 19, 20. That serving God with all humility of mind, he had kept back nothing that was profitable unto them. And doubtless, it was pre­sumtion and pride which introduc'd this Error, tho under shew of vo­luntary humility: for if the Apostles were afraid to recommend them­selves as Gods unto the People, by giving them directions to pray to them after their decease; the Pope, who undertakes to Canonize Saints, and to encourage the People of God to pray to them, in spight of the Apostles humility and fear, takes the boldness upon him to make them as God.

You make so many Excursions, that you come not to the Point: How do you answer the four Particulars of Bellarmins Argument?

I have already cut off the four Horns with one blow: He [Page 147] saith, That if we may not pray to the Saints departed, as well as desire their Praiers when living, it must be for one of those four causes fore-mentioned; either they are not willing, or are not able to pray for us, or they cannot hear our Praiers; or their Intercession would be injuri­ous unto Christs Intercession: but I say is enumeration is lame and im­perfect, for I have shew'd a fifth reason why not, because the Word of God obligeth not to one, as to the other: It requires, that we should desire the mutual assistance of one anothers Praiers living, but not after our decease; all civil commerce being intercepted, by the will of God, between the living and the dead.

Do you reckon our Invocation of the Saints departed, a part of civil commerce: I thought it had bin a Religious act and duty.

I grant Praier to be such, and therefore a part of Divine Worship to be given only to God: But that Invocation of Holy Men li­ving (as you call it) or as I term it, That pious desire and request which one Christian makes unto another, that he may enjoy the benefit of his Praiers (from whence you draw an Argument for Invocation after their decease) that, doubtless, is a civil Request, wherewith Christians mutually call upon and oblige one another to remember them in their Praiers. So likewise the honor which Subjects yield unto their Prince, presenting their Petitions with bended knees, is civil. And so Children, begging the Blessing of their Parents: these are formally Civil, not Re­ligious Acts. A good Christian indeed gives honor to his Prince, and to his Parents, not only upon a civil account, but also Religious, it be­ing a duty requir'd in the Word of God; yet the honor it self is civil; the motive unto us wherefore we give it, is Religious, the will and command of God.

You are willing to involve the Discourse with subtle Notions and nice Distinctions: Such honor as you give to Princes and Parents, vouchsafe to the Saints in Glory, begging the assistance of their Praiers upon your knees, and it shall suffice.

Your self caus'd this Digression: You suppos'd the Invoca­tion of Saints departed, to be a Religious act; and so in truth you ge­nerally make it, a great part of your Religion. I have shewed how the desire and request which Christians make to one another, whilst they are in the Flesh, mutually to be remembred in their Praiers, is a civil re­quest, and therefore no sufficient ground for your Religious Invocation of the Saints in glory. But at length, you are content we should make the same civil Requests to the Saints in Heaven for their Praiers, as to the Faithful who are living: You may observe it generally, such as are in the wrong, will accept of any composition: But we cannot grant it for this reason, because Death intercepts all civil Obligations and Com­merce between Persons. Parents, when they are dead, cease to be provident for their deer Children, and these expect it not from them: The rich Man departed, cannot relieve the poor, nor lend him Money at his need. You formerly did urge, there was a communion between [Page 148] the Church Militant and Triumphant; but that is mystical, as Fellow-members of Christs Body: But the civil communion between Brethren and Neighbors, and the relation of Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, Princes and Subjects, Husband and Wife, is interrupted al­together by death; and so by consequence, all those acts which depend upon, or flow from that communion: That Children should ask their Fathers Blessing after his decease, I never yet did read your Doctors have asserted.

I am well confirm'd by these your Digressions, That notwith­standing you would appear to slight Bellarmins Argument, and pretend to cut off all the four Horns at one blow, by giving a general answer; yet in truth, you do warily decline the force of it, and are not willing to come to the four Particulars whereupon he hath insisted, That seeing the Saints departed are as willing and as able to help us now with their Praiers, as when they were living amongst us; and seeing they know our state, and can hear and receive our Addresses to them, and seeing their Intercession now for us is not injurious to the Intercession of Christ, therefore we have as much and more reason to Invocate them now in Heaven, then when they were conversant with us upon Earth.

Not excluding the confutation already given, I will now take these four Particulars into consideration: The two first may easily be granted (if there could be mutual communion between them and us) That the Saints departed have as much charity to pray for us, and that their Praiers are as prevalent with God: But alas! Death hath inter­cepted former commerce. And his third Particular must be well prov'd, or all will fall to the ground, namely, That the Saints in Heaven do hear our Praiers, and know our particular needs; otherwise, it will be in vain to call for their assistance. And this main Point, your Cardi­nal doth but slightly touch, and gives a short and fallible proof of it: That because the Angels know the conversion of a sinner, and rejoice thereat, according to the saying of our Blessed Savior, therefore likewise the blessed Saints do know our state, and all our concerns. Now we have already shew'd, how the Consequence is weakly drawn, from the know­ledg of the Angels to the knowledg of the Saints in Heaven; because the Angels are Gods Messengers, ministring unto the heirs of Salva­tion; they are imploi'd about us, and know much of our concerns: but of the Saints departed, no such things are recorded. And moreover, doubtless the Angels themselves know not all the affairs of particular persons, only of those about whom they are emploied, and so far as God shall impart to them in their Embassage and Emploi­ments.

As they know the Conversion of every Sinner that repenteth, and rejoice; so do they know and hear the Praiers of all the Faithful, especially such as do concern them, and are particularly directed to them.

We are much in the dark as to the measure and extent of their knowledg, and must not in these things so much above us, set one foot forward, without the light, and conduct, and revelation of Gods Word. Now we read in Holy Writ, That the Angels have charge over us, according as God has committed us unto them, but how far, and in what particulars, is not revel'd. We read, They rejoice at the Conver­sion of a Sinner; which way soever, or whensoever, for the improve­ment of their joy, God is pleased to manifest it unto them, perhaps, by the relation of those Angels who were instrumental in the Conversion. But from those Promises, we cannot infer their universal Knowledg of Affairs here below, and much less the universal Knowledg of the Saints in Heaven. Methinks the Learned Cardinal should not so peremtorily have handled this grand Point, upon which depends the Invocation of Saints; for if they hear us not, in vain certainly do we make our Praiers to them: If they understand not our condition, they cannot recommend it unto God. If S ^t Peter knows not of any such Person as Philodoxus in being, to no effect shall we beg his assistance.

Not so neither: Ibid. c. 20. Non frustra Sanctos à nobis Invocari etiamsi nec audiant, nec agno­s [...]ant preces nostras, aliquis alius eorum vice fungitur. Bellarmin expresly affirms, That we do not pray for them in vain, altho we shall grant they know not, neither hear our Praiers: for, saith he, some other may perform their office, and we obtain the favor. For many miraculous Instances are given in Church Records, of many that have obtained their Requests, whil'st they have applied themselves unto the Intercession of some Saint; and therefore, so we obtain our desires whil'st we pray unto them, it is not material whether they hear, or not, it will concern us to call upon them.

He had done well to point out this Aliquis alius: Who is this Delegate of the Saints in Heaven, to do their work, whil'st themselves hear not our Prayers? Whil'st we Invocate the Saints, do the Angels help us? The surest way then, would be to apply our selves to them: Doth God help us, when we pray to the Saints? (altho it is high presum­tion to make God the Saints Delegate, qui eorum vice fungitur) however, if God helps such as pray to the Saints, the most compendious course would be to call directly upon him: and so did Christians in the Primi­tive and purest Times, Ad memorias Martyrum, at the Shrines and Mo­numents of Martyrs they did pray to God, who was pleas'd to work many miraculous Cures at their Tombs, in Testimony of the Faith which those Martyrs sealed with their Blood. And this is the just account of the Miracles wrought by the Saints and Martyrs in Heaven, at their Shrines here on Earth. The Miracles were wrought by Almighty God, before the Monuments of the Saints, themselves not knowing of it; as we shall shew hereafter out of S ^t Augustine his Book, De cura pro Mor­tuis. And yet from this Assertion of Bellarmin (wherein I suppose he stands single) That we pray not to the Saints in vain, altho they do not [Page 150] hear us. From this Assertion we must conclude him very inconsiderable and forgetful, when immediatly after he approves this Consequence, Sancti recte in vocantur, ergo sciunt quod petimus. The Saints are immediatly call'd upon, therefore they know what we ask. One Supposition destroies the other: If we may prudently and success­fully pray to them, altho they hear us not; it cannot follow, That if we rightly call upon them, they do hear us.

The first Assertion of Bellarmin was by way of supposition not granted, altho they hear us not, yet we may profitably pray to them: but he positively maintains, That the Saints know humane affairs, and do hear our Praiers, Quae solo cordis assectu proferuntur. even such as are made only in the Heart; altho there may be some dispute how they know and hear, &c. and he gives you the several Opinions of the Doctors.

His former Supposition, as we call it, was ill put, because it directly overthrows the Consequence which he immediatly after ap­proves: That because the Saints in Heaven are rightly Invocated, there­fore they do hear us. But I pray proceed to shew, how the Saints at­tain unto the knowledg of things beneath, and even of our mental Praiers.

Ibid. c. 20. Bellarmin proposeth four Opinions of the Doctors, about the manner how the Saints in Heaven know Affairs beneath, and hear the Praiers that are made unto them. The first, That they know them by the relation of Angels, who are Messengers between Heaven and Earth. The second, That both Angels and Saints are in a sort every where present by the celerity and agility of their natures, and so they understand the Affairs of the world, and hear our Prayers. And he cites S ^t Augustin for the first O­pinion, and Jerome for the second.

He cites them very faintly, Innuit Augustinus, saith he, S ^t Augustin intimates so much in his Book, De cura pro Mortuis: and there indeed the Father tells us, The dead may hear of Affairs on Earth, by the relation of Angels; but he affirms not they do so: and then they may hear some things related Non quidem omnia sed quae sinuntur indicare. but not all things. And afterwards he declares, Fatendum est, &c. We must acknowledg that the dead do not know the things that are don upon Earth. I shall give you a full account of this Book here­after. Next for S ^t Jerome, Bellarmin saith, he seems to say as much in his Book against Vigilantius, where in truth the Father doth assert of the evil Angels, That they wander far and wide thro-out the World, and by their celerity are every where present. But we must of necessity understand him only in a comparative sense; their agility and swiftness makes them in­stantly to pass from place to place, whereas gross Bodies required a slow, and successive motion; but Ubiquity and Omnipresence is an At­tribute of God, Incommunicable to a Creature. Again, These evil [Page 151] Angels may be conceiv'd present in all places by their numbers and mul­titude, not by their individual persons.

But Si Agnus est ubique, ergo & hi qui cum to sunt, ubique sunt. S ^t Jerome in that Book argues fully for the ubiquity of the Saints in Heaven, because it is written of them, That they follow the Lamb whither soever be goeth, Rev. 14. 4. And if the Lamb be every where pre­sent, therefore they that are with him.

This Argument cannot hold; for then much more the hu­man Nature and Body of Christ, united unto the Divine Nature, should be omnipresent, which I know none to assert, and therefore S ^t Augu­stins Interpretation of that place, is this, Lib. de Sancta Virginit. c. 27. Quid est eum sequi, nisi imitari? To follow him, is to imitate him; not as he is the only Son of God, by whom all things were made, but as he is the Son of Man, giving us an example of all things necessary to be sol­lowed. Bellarmin knew well the Invalidity of S ^t Jeromes consequence, and therefore did not urge it for an Argument.

But that you love to contradict and spin out your Discourse, you need not have perplex'd your self and me with these Answers: For you know Bellarmine approves of neither of these two ways of the Saints knowledg in Heaven, Because, saith he, celerity cannot suffice, but true ubiquity is requir'd to hear all the Praiers that shall be made to a Saint, perhaps in all places of the World at the same time. And again, he saith, That neither Angels nor Saints in Heaven, altho they were present with us, can naturally know our mental Praiers.

We account these to be substantial Arguments against the In­vocation of Saints and Angels, because they cannot be every where pre­sent to hear Praiers made from all parts, and because they know not our thoughts and mental Praiers.

But these are answer'd by the the two next ways he proposeth and approveth of the Saints comprehension and knowledg: One is, Sanctos in Deo omnia videre, quae ad ipsos aliquo modo tertinent. That the Saints do sec all things in God that concerns them, even from the first instant of their blessedness.

I pray tell me, why doth the Cardinal (following Aquinas and other School-men) put in that tearm of Limitation, In the Face of God they see and know all things that concern them. We know, all things are in God, and in him represented as in a Glass and Mirror: and therefore Pope Gregory the Great asks the Question: Quid est, quod ibi nesciant ubi scientem omnia sciunt? What can they be ignorant of, who know him that knoweth all things? And therefore, In spe­culo Trinitatis (as the Schools speak) in the Beatifical Vision, one would think all things should be manifest to the Saints and Angels, and not only such things as concern them.

The reason is plain: God is Speculum voluntarium, such a Glass as represents according to his good pleasure, and what he thinks meet, [Page 152] unto those who have the happiness to see his Face: And therefore the Angels, who alwaies behold the Face of God, yet know not all things; not the day of Judgment; not the Mystery of Christs Incarnation, and Mans Redemtion; not the calling of the Gentiles, &c. until they learn'd these things by the Preaching of the Gospel amidst the Congregation of the Faithful: so saith S ^t Paul, Ephes. 3. 10. To the end that now unto Prin­cipalities and Powers in Heavenly places, might be known by the Church, the manifold Wisdom of God.

Your Answer is rational, and excellently serves my purpose: Such as see the Face of God, do not, in that Beatifical Vision see and know all things, but only such things as pleaseth him to revele unto them. And therefore the fourth Opinion which Bellarmin mentions, was, That God doth revele unto the Saints, in every instant, such Particulars as concern them; and so, when Praiers are made unto them, the Lord makes the Blessed Saints to know and hear their Praiers, by particular Revelation. Hereupon, I demand how this is prov'd, That it is the good pleasure of God, con­stantly to revele unto the Saints whatsoever doth concern them; or all the Praiers that are made unto them.

I do not find the Cardinal attemts to prove this; because he had reason to take it for granted.

Or rather because he had no proof to offer: and in truth, he doth not so well approve this way of particular Revelation from God to the Saints, because, as he argues well, Si indigerent Sancti novâ revelatione, Ecclesia non diceret omnibus Sanctis, Orate pro nobis, sed peteret aliquando à Deo ut eis revelaret preces nostras. If the Saints know our Praiers which we make to them, by Revelation from God, we should not so constantly say to them, Pray for us; but rather somtimes beseech Almighty God, that he would please to revele our Praiers to those Saints we Invocate.

He prefers that Opinion as most profitable, That the Saints in Glory, alwaies standing in the presence of God, and beholding his Face, do in that Beatificall Vision behold all things which rela [...]e unto them; and need no particular Revelation, and therefore, in the Vision of God, they know and hear the Praiers that are made unto them, even from the first instant of their Beatitude.

And so three waies Bellarmin doth not approve whereby the Saints and Angels are concern'd to know our state and hear our Praiers. Now the fourth which he sticks too, That from the first instant of their happiness, all things which concern them, are manifest and revel'd unto them. This cannot be true, for then the Saints must know when they shall reassume their Bodies (which certainly concerns them) and so by consequence, They must know the Day of the general Resurrection, and of Judgment, which we deny: They must also know all the Praiers that shall be made to them unto the Worlds end, and so, by consequence, the end of the World. So must the Angels, from the beginning, know the Praiers that shall be made to them, the laps'd state of Man, and his re­demtion [Page 153] by Christ, and other Mysteries, which were made known un­to them, saith the Apostle, in the Churches, by the Ministery of the Gospel. See Estius in 4. Sent. dist. 46. Paragr. 19. p. 294. And so while your Doctors, without any warrant of Scripture, generally lay this for a Foundation, That the Saints in Heaven do know our state, and bear our Praiers: when they come to the proof and confirmation, every one abounds in his own sense, and they easily confute one anothers Reasons and Opinions, and manifest unto their Readers, upon due con­sideration, that they are full of uncertainties in the Point, which they take for granted, and can urge only fallible Arguments to confirm that which they would have receiv'd by all Men as a mesur'd Truth, but we have not learn'd to subscribe to Mens Dictates. And you acknowledg, your Doctor makes not proof of his Assertion, which is a great defect, this being the main Hinge whereupon the Controversie turns. We con­clude therefore, there is no reason we should call upon the Saints when they do not hear us; as a Child doth not ask his Fathers Blessing when he is out of hearing. Now you assert with Bellarmin, That the Saints in Heaven out of doubt do hear us, but you know not how. It is pro­bable, say you, that in the Face of God they see and know all things that concern them, but give no reason of that probability: and is it fit that a Doctrine of your Church, which takes up in that part the Devotion of all Gods People, should be grounded only upon such a probability, whereof you can give no reason: How can I call upon the Saints with Faith and Comfort, when I have no assurance that they can hear me? I may, with as much reason, daily beg the Praiers of pious Friends, who live far from me, and say, It is probable God will revele to them that I desire the assistance of their Praiers.

Your Instance runs not parallel: Our condition here is a state of ignorance; their's a state of comprehension: They can see the Face of God, and live for ever: they certainly know all things which tend to their consummation in Bliss, for they are arriv'd at the state of Perfection, and perfect Knowledge is the foundation of their Hap­piness.

The perfect knowledg of God is so: Here we know in part, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13. ver. 12. but there we shall know as we are known; i. e. fully, perfectly: and this knowledg and Vision of God is Beatifical: But how doth this prove their knowledg of the necessities and Praiers of us poor Mortals here on Earth, whom they have le [...]t be­hind them in the vale of Misery; we may rather suppose, the wisdom of God hath excluded them from the knowledg of their Friends and Rela­tions, and of miserable Man here beneath, least it should prove a dimi­nution of their Joy and Bliss. Your Angelical Doctor holds, Aqu. part. 1. qu. 12. Art. 8. ad 4. Cognoscere singularia cogitata aut facta, &c. non est de perfect. It belongs not unto the perfection of a created Intellect to know particulars, the thoughts or [Page 154] actions of Men. If God only be seen, it sufficeth to make men happy. As S ^t Augustin, ^• He is happy who knoweth Thee, altho he have nothing else. In a word, Cardinals Cajetane was a Learned Advocate of your Church, and had studied the Point in hand much, and he concludes at last, That we have no assurance that the Saints know when we pray to them, altho we piously believe it.

I well perceive you have a Spirit of contradiction, and please your self, much in eluding such Arguments which our Doctors urge from Scripture, and reason, to prove the Doctrine of our Church touching the Invocation of Saints. I will therefore take a more convincing way unto such refractory persons, and plainly shew, by matter of Fact, and ex­press. Testimony of the Antients, That this Doctrine hath bin receiv'd in the Church Catholic from the beginning.

I presume you mean not from the beginning of Christianity: you have heard how the attemt of your Doctors to prove it out of Gods Word, hath been altogether unsuccessful: and some of your Doctors have confes'd, that it is delivered in Holy Scripture very obscurely; and others have shew'd the reason, even the humility and modesty of the Apostles, which with-held them from publishing this Doctrine, least they should appear to make themselves as Gods after their decease, by requiring the People of God to make their Praiers and Supplications to them. Seeing therefore your Doctrine is not sounded in the Holy Scri­pture, I could give a short Answer unto your pretended usage of the Church, and Testimony of the Ancient: That which S ^t Augustin gave to Cresconius, urging the Autority of Cyprian, ^r I am not bound to the Au­tority of this Epistle, for I do not hold the Writings of Cyprian as Canonical, but judg of them by the Canonical Scripture; and whatsoever is consonant to the Holy Scripture, I receive with praise; what agrees not, with his leave, [...]eject. If you could prove what you have urg'd, out of the Canonical Books of the Apostles and Prophets, I would not contradict: but seeing what you haue is not Canonical, with that liberty, whereunto God hath called us, I do not receive his Testimony, whose due Praise I can never equal, with whose Writings I dare not compare mine own; whose Learning I embrace, whose [...]y I admire; whose Martyrdom is venerable. Again, S ^t Augustin to the same effect elsewhere: It is not sufficient unto the Autority of Faith, and of the Dostrines of the Church, to say. Thus Esay, or thou faist, or he saith; [...], Thus saith the Lord. So the Blessed Martyr, Gyprian himself: We must not been what any one hath done before us, but what He, who is before all Ages, hath taught or communded to be don. Once more I could answer you out of Gratian, ^t A Custom, without the Word of God to back it, is not ^• B [...] qu [...] T [...]scit. etiamsi alia n [...]t. [...] sec [...] secundie [...]hem. qn. 88. Art. 5. Certaratione nescimus, an Sancti vota [...]se. [...] 2. contr, Cresconium. c. 32. Ego hujus Epistolae, &c. [...]do sine verbo Lei, non esse veritatem sed vetustatem erroris. [Page 155] Truth, but the Antiquity of Error. The Council of Cartbage resolved thus, ^• The Lord said in the Gospel, I am Truth; He said not, I am Ca­stom.

Can you so easily trample upon the Autority of the Fathers: You have formerly pretended much honor to the venerable Testimony of Antiquity, where you conceiv'd it consonant unto your Principles, and now you would decline that Touch-stone, because you know full well it is against you in this Point of the Invocation of Saints.

These Sentences I have produc'd are of the Fathers; and seeing the Word of God doth not establish your Doctrine and Practice, the Autority of Man and Custom will prove too feeble to support it: And where I formerly produc'd the Autority of the Ancients in any Point, I first had laid the sure Foundation in the Word of God. How­ever, it is not my purpose to interrupt your course, fortifie your Do­ctrine as well you can, and I will attac it.

I believe so, you have resolv'd right or worng: But I shall star­tle you and your Reader, when you shall find the general Current of An­tiquity allowing and practicing the Invocation of Saints; and therefore it cannot be a damnable Doctrine

Hitherto I have not so called it: but when I shall descend to a more particular consideration of those horrible Blasphemies we shall discover in the practice of this Doctrine, you wall give me leave to say, it hath prov'd distructive unto millions of Souls: mean while, let it pass for a Doctrine full of Superstition and Will-worship.

How easily do you make Councils and Fathers criminals, who have avowed the Doctrine. For Bellarmin first shews; how in the fourth General Council, that of Calcedon, the Holy Fathers unanimously cried out, Flavianus post mortem vivit. Martyr pro nobis oret. Flavian lives after death. I et the blessed Martyr pray for us.

This Council was held above 400 Years after Christ, and yet I did not expect to find so early a Testimony of the Bishops in such a Ge­neral Council for your purpose: Give me leave therefore to search the 11 ^th Session of that Council from whence Bellarmin brings the Testimo­ny. In the third Tome of Tinius his Edition we shall find it, and now I pray let your own Eyes be Judges. In the Original Greek Copy there are no such words, only general Acclamations of the Council, unto the pious memory of Flavian: [...], &c. Let his memory be eternal; the memory of Flavian the Orthodox, &c. But the words which Bellarmin quotes, are by a Parenthesis inserted in the Latin, and nothing answers them in the Greek. This is a detestable Forgery, and I cannot conceive the Learned Cardinal was not aware of it: however, you see what need there is we should examin your Doctors Quotations, and here you find he is ex­treamly ^• Bin. Tom. 1. Concil. Carth. 3. p. 182. deficient.

It seems the Latin Translator deceived him; and it is strange such a Clause should be put in, when there was nothing answerable in the Greek.

Such leger de main is usual with some Zealots of your Church to uphold her Innovations.

Upon the least occasion given, you are very severe and uncha­ritable in your Censures: But what say you to his next Quotation of the Bishops of Europe to the Emperor Leo: We have rank'd most holy Prote­rius in the Order and Quire of the Holy Martyrs, and we desire God, by his Intercession, to be merciful and propitious unto us. ^a Now you may under­stand, that Proterius was Patriarch of Alexandria, and injuriously thrust out by Timotheus; and afterwards, murthered by his Accomplices, whil'st he did himself in the sacred Font of the Temple. Complaint was made hereof by the Egyptian Bishops, and the Clergy of Alexandria, to the Emperor, who communicated their Letters to the Bishops thro-out his Empire, desiring them to give their Judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, against which Timotheus and his Faction had protested; and of the matter of Fact concerning Proterius his death, and Timotheus his In­trusion into the See of Alexandria: and among other things, the Euro­pean Bishops in their Answer to the Emperor, give this account of Pro­terius, That his death was Martyrdom, and they desired the assistance of his Praiers.

After this ingenious account given, your Testimony comes not home to your purpose. Observe the words, They import no Invo­cation of the Martyr Proterius, but a desire, That God would be mer­ciful unto them, for his sake and Intercession.

They suppos'd therefore, That the Saints in Heaven do make Intercession, and pray for us.

But why do you hereupon suppose, That we must pray to them? we deny not, That they generally pray for the Saints militant on Earth, for their Victory over all their Adversaries, Heretics, and Infi­dels, and Persecutors; and that every true Believer, thro the good­ness of God, may reap the benefit of their Praiers: but that we should pray to them, when we cannot be assur'd that they hear us, and when we have no warrant out of Gods Word to do so, we dare not consent. And withal, in this Quotation, I pray observe another Artifice of your Doctor: he would have us believe, this was an Epistle to the Em­peror, of all the European Bishops, whereas it was only of four Bishops, whose Subscription we find in Binius thus, John Bishop of Heraclea, Theo­phronius of Aphrodiasis, Theotecnus Episcopus Cyclensis, and Babulas Bishop of Theodosipolis. The other Bishops of Europe give their account to the Emperor in other Epistles: and so this Testimony which Bellarmin pre­tends to be of a Council, and entitles it to the European Bishops, sinks into a private Testimony of four Bishops of inconsiderable Diocesses, joining Bin. Tem. 3. part. 3. Concilin Calcedon. [Page 157] in one Epistle to the Emperor, and comes not up to the Point neither, of Saints Invocation, as you have heard.

You lie at catch for some exception or other: But in the next place, Bellarmin brings an express Canon of the sixth general Council, Can. 7. Solo Deo Creat. adorato, &c. Requiring us to call upon the Saints, that they would vouchsase to intercede for us with the Divine Majesty.

It is evident, That the fifth and sixth general Councils made no Canons, and the Learned generally acknowledg it: and therefore some Years after, the sixth general Council at Constantinople was held and concluded under the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, and Pope A­gatho, against the Heresie of the Monothelites. Jusinian the yonger, sum­mons a Council in the Registery of his Sacred Palace (which because of its famous, capacious Arch, was called Trullus; and the Council, Con­cilium Trullanum, the Council of Trullo) in the time of Pope Sergius, Anno Dom. 692. consisting of four Patriarchs, and 215 Bishops, where­in were made 104 Canons, as a Supplement unto the former Councils which made none: and the Council was called, [...], Bin. Tom 5. p. 419. In notis ad consilium Ouini-sextum. the fifth-sixth Synod, because it supplied what was wanting to them both.

This was indeed generally receiv'd, but some time after there were found nine Canons ascrib'd unto the sixth general Council, whereof this which Bellarmin quotes, is the seventh.

Yes: Surius tells us, They were found in an old Manuscript of a Monastery in Gaunt: but he also declares, That they are falsly a­scrib'd to the sixth general Council, as Binius shews, Tom 5. pag. 360. And here we may justly stand amaz'd, to find your Learned Cardinal cite this Canon as of the sixth general Council, when he could not be igno­rant how that Council made no Canons; only he was willing to found the Doctrine of Saints Invocation upon the Autority of general Councils, and you see how shamefully he hath pretended to them: If this be the way to uphold their Church, Let not my soul enter into their Councils. Your Doctor cites likewise the next general Council, the second Council of Nice, of which I have given you formerly an Historical large account. It instituted the worship of Images, and did allow the Invocation of Saints; but this was held 800 Years after Christ, about which time this Superstitious Worship of the Saints was publicly avowed. From the ge­neral, Bellarmin proceeds to the Testimony of six Provincial Councils, which speak not to his purpose. They appoint the Litanies of their Churches to be solemnly used in the times allotted for them: now be­cause the Saints are praied to in their new Litanies, therefore your Cardinal supposeth, they were so in the old; and wheresoever he finds a command for the use of Litanies, there he infers Invocation of Saints commanded. And the Council of Bin. Tom 6. Concil. Moguntinum. c. 32. Adrogandum Deum, &c. Mentz is one of them which your [Page 158] Cardinal quotes; and that Council held under Charles the Great, Anno 813. tells us, That Litanies or Rogations are solemnly appointed to beseech the Lord, and implore his mercy; viz. when some diresul Calamities are eminent, not one word of calling upon the Saints.

Bellarmin in this place shews, how Walfridus Strabo, in the 8 ^th Book of Ecclesiastical Affairs, chap. 28. declaring what these Litanies were, mention'd in these Councils, saith, Litaniam, de qua agitur in bis Conciliis esse Sanctorum Invocationem. They were the Invocation of Saints.

Turn to the place, and you will not find it so: First, Strabo gives an account of the original and use of Litanies; and then for their matter, he saith, They are not only Invocations of Saints for help, In adiutorium [...]um. infirmitatis cuncta quae fiunt Orationibus. but any Supplications to God are Litanies. He adds farther, That the Invocation of Saints was brought into the Litany after S ^t Jeromes days: but how soon after, he asserts not, neither that those Councils which Bellarmin quo­ted, did include the Invocation of Saints: you have heard, how the Council of Mentz did rather exclude them. And therefore I pray now judg, upon a sober recollection, of the Cardinals proofs from Councils: they are in part false, in part impertinent. It is almost incredible, that in less then one page he should manifest unto as many as shall examin him, so much deceit and imprudence; but we impute all to his desperate cause, which can be no otherwise maintain'd, then by imposing upon the un­wary Reader. Farewel therefore unto the Testimony of Holy Scri­pture, and the Testimony of any Council for more then 700 Years after Christianity, unto your Doctrine of Saints Invocation.

I presume Bellarmin relied not much upon these Councils, as you observe, he hudled them up in few lines: but his Testimony from the Fathers, are numerous and significant.

I presume, he well knew there was little in those Councils for his purpose; yet he was willing to make his credulous Reader be­lieve, he had the Autority of all these Councils on his side: and I am much satisfied for my great trouble and pains, in the full discovery of the contrary, being destitute of any proof from Scripture and Councils, be pleas'd to produce his Allegations from the Fathers of the Church, for the Invocation of Saints departed.

He cites a full Testimony of Dionysius the Areopagyte, who lived in the Apostles daies, Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 7. That as he who puts out his eyes in vain, desires the light of the Sun; Sic qui Sanctorum preces flagitat, &c. so in vain do we desire the Praiers of the Saints, whilst we live and act contrary to their purity.

The passage refers rather to the Praiers of the Saints living, then of the Saints deceas'd: such as neglect holiness of Life, shall not be benefited by others Praiers. And he instanceth in Samuels Praying for [Page 159] Saul; and the design of that Chapter principally concerns the Rites of Burial in the Church, to shew how our Praiers for the living, or for the dead at their Burial, avail nothing, except the Persons for whom we pray are worthy. And for a second answer, I must tell you this Book is falsly ascrib'd to Dionysius: it discovers it self to be written after the Nicene Council, as I may have occasion to prove hereafter.

However, Bellarmin takes his next Argument to be most evi­dent. It is taken from the early Testimony of Ireneus: Lih. 4. c. 19. ut Virginis Evae, Virgo Marin fieret Alvocata. As Eve was temted to turn from God, so Mary was well perswaded to obey him: That the Virgin Mary might prove the Advocate of the Virgin Eve, Quidclarius. What is more evident to the Point then this? saith the Cardinal.

It is his Artifice to set out a weak Argument, with the great­est confidence, for this place doth not prove the Point: He should prove the Invocation of the blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, and he attemts to shew her Advocation.

If she be our Advocate, we ought to implore her Inter­cession.

Not so neither; as you have bin often told, the Saints in Hea­ven may pray for the Church in general; the Blessed Virgin for the Gene­rations of Adam and Eve, and yet not hear our Praiers in particular, or be sensible of our condition. However, this Passage out of Ireneus proves not so much, That the Virgin Mary is the Advocate of the Virgin Eve, as the Fathers words seem to declare: for the Blessed Virgin was not in being, until thousands of Years after Eve was a Virgin. Neither can you conceive, that now she makes Intercession for the Mother of all living. None of your Doctors can be so cruel, as to keep our Mother Eve so long in Purgatory. Ireneus his plain meaning is this, That as by the prevarication of the Virgin Eve, all her Posterity did suffer; so by the o­bedience of the Blessed Virgin to the Angels Message, and by the Blessed Fruit of her Womb, all Man kind is comforted and relieved. We have not Ire­neus his Works in Greek, as they were first written. Suppose his word, he made use of, was [...], you know that signifies as well a Com­forter as an Advocate. The Virgin Mary hath made amends for the transgression of her Sex in our Mother Eve. This is the sense of that comparison in the Father.

What sense you will fix upon his Words, I see must pass for cur­rant. Bellarmin brings the Testimony of Pope Cornelius, in the third Century, between whom and S ^t Cyprian there past many Letters. In the first Epistle, concerning the Translation of the Bodies of Peter and Paul, à Catatumbis, unto the places where they now lie interr'd, (one in the Vatican, the other in vlâ Ostens [...]) he hath this passage, Praying unto God and our Lord Jesus Christ, that by the Intercession of his two Holy Apostles, he would purge you from the stains and pollution of your sins.

You see the Praier is directed to God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and proves not the Invocation of these Apostles, but only their Intercession. But alas! this Epistle manifests it self to be counterfeit, one of your Roman Forgeries: the Argument of it, to wit, the translation of these Apostles Bodies to their place of Burial, is a meer Fiction, Tom. 1. In Notis ad hanc Epistolam, & in Not. ad vitam Cornelii. as Binius doth acknowledg, That it crept into the Epi­stle from the Lies and Errors of Damasus his Pontifical Book. And they are constrain'd to confess the Forgery, because the Apostles Corps were re­mov'd to the places where they now lie, 200 Years before, as appears by the ample Testimony of Epistolarum lib. 3. Epistola 30. ad Constantiam Augusiam. Gregory the Great, who gives a full account of their translation, unto the Princess Constantia, After these Blessed A­postles were Martyr'd in Rome, some of the Eastern Christians came over to carry with them the Sacred Bodies of these Martyrs into their own Country; and having born them two miles from Rome, they rested at a place called Ca­tatumbae: and when they attemted to take them up thence, and proceed in their Journey, they were so affrighted with dreadful Thundrings and Light­ning, and forc'd to desist from their enterprize, and leave the Corps behind them; which the Faithful at Rome soon brought back, and honorably inter'd in the Tombs wherein they now rest. Anno Christi 221. num. 3, 4, 5, 6. Baronius takes notice of all these Pas­sages, and concludes, That the Epistle of Pope Cornelius is not so credit­able, as the Epistle of Pope Gregory. And now I pray, what think you of this Fable of their translation in the time of Cornelius, and of the Epistle which relates it: Your Cardinal could not be ignorant of those things: but the Epistle, altho grosly forg'd, must serve to fill up the small number of his early Testimonies.

Bellarmins next Argument is taken out of Eusebius Caesari­ensis.

I pray make not such hast, but take me along with you: Me-thinks you have soon past over 300 Years of Christianity (for Eusebius liv'd in the fourth Century) and produc'd but three Witnesses, Dionysius, Ireneus, and Cornelius, and all falsified or insignificant: and therefore we will now take it for granted by the Cardinal, That in the three first Cen­turies, the Doctrine of Saints Invocation was not delivered by any good Autority. And now to keep even paces with you, we shall find out of Authentic Records of the three first Centuries, account given of the Christian Practice in the public Offices, without any Invocation of the Saints departed, by Justin Martyr, and by Tertullian, and other Apolo­gists for Christians. And ^e Ignatius, a Disciple of S ^t John, directs Ho­ly Virgins to have Christ alone, and the Father before their eyes in their Prai­ers, being enlightned by the Spirit. Again, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 4. c. 15. sets down at large the Epistle of the Church at ^d Epistola 6. ad Philadelph. [...], &c. [Page 161] Smyrna, to the Churches of Pontus, wherein account is given of Poly­carpus their Holy Bishops Martyrdom, and of his Praier at the Stake: O Father of thy well-beloved and Blessed Son Jesus Christ, thro whom we have known thee. O God of the Angels, and Powers, and of all sorts of just Men which live in thy presence: I thank thee, that thou hast gratiously vouchsaf [...]d this day and hour, to allot me a portion among the Blessed Martyrs, &c. You see here he acknowledgeth the Angels and Just Men to stand in the pre­sence of God, yet offers up no Supplications to them. In the same E­pistle there follows a notable passage, that the malicious Jews, and o­thers of his Persecuters, desir'd the Pro-consul, not to deliver his Bones to the Christians, least they, leaving Christ, should worship them. But the Church answers, We can never forsake Christ, who died for the Sal­vation of the World, and we can worship none other. The Martyrs we love, as Disciples and Followers of the Lord; we gather up his Bones after his Body is burnt, more pretious then Pearls, and bury them in a fitting place, where God-willing, we being assembled, the Lord will grant that with joy and glad­ness we may celebrate the [...]. Birth-day of his Martyr, (the day of his death, being his Birth-day unto Glory) both for the remembrance of such as have been crowned before, as also to the preparation and stirring up of such as shall strive. And this early practice continued long in the Church, to assem­ble at the Monuments of the Martyrs, and hold a thankful commemora­tion of their sufferings to the Glory of God, and for the encouragement and imitation of the Faithful, both to live and die in the Lord. Here are no tidings of the Invocation of Martyrs.

Seeing you will so exactly canvass the three first Centuries: I will also follow you out of my road, and shew how Origin, in the third Century, acknowledgeth the Intercession of the Saints, and calling up­on them for assistance; and therefore the Doctrine was early receiv'd. altho Bellarmin urgeth not the Testimony of Origen, perhaps because in many things he is Erroneous, and was condemn'd by the fifth General Council, Justinian the Elder being Emperor.

If his Works were condemn'd by a General Council, you cannot then say, His Doctrin and his Opinion was receiv'd in the Church: but however, take your course, and shew where Origin teacheth the In­vocation of Saints.

In that notable Lamentation of his, and repentance after he had, thro fear, offer'd Incense to an Idol: wherein we have these Ex­pressions, I will prostrate my self, and beseech all the Saints, That they would succor me, who dare not pray to God. Sancti Dei vos deprecor, &c. O ye Saints of God, I beseech you, &c. And least you should pretend he call'd upon the Faithful in the Church, who were then living Members upon Earth, he proceeds, We unto me, Father Abraham, intreat for me, that I be not banish'd from thy bosom, A­gain, [Page 162] in his second Book of his Commentaries upon Job, he Praies, O blessed Job, pray for us.

'Tis much your great Champion should let pass these notable Testimonies: But he well knew, as Origens Testimony would not be of any great Autority, so that these likewise are none of his. Pope Gela­sius declares Origens Lamentation to be Apocryphal, and the Commen­tary upon Job appears to be written by some Arrian long after Origen's death. And for a farther Confutation, we shall find in his Works un­doubtedly belonging to him, that altho in some places he dubiously al­lows the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven for us Mortals, yet he no where approves their Invocation, but rather the contrary: Hom. 3. In Cantieum Sol. The Saints departed this life, saith he, having a great love for those who are in the World; it will be no inconvenience, if we say they have a care of our well­fare, and do assist us with their Praiers and Intercession with God. Again, In cap. 13. Josue, Ego sic arbitror, &c. I am of the Opinion, That all the Fathers who are asleep before us, are helpful to us by their Praiers. And yet afterwards he accounts this Opi­nion of his Apocryphal Lib. 2. In Epistolam ad Rom. Non procul à principio., (as being not manifest by good Autority) If such as are without the Body, and now with Christ, do any thing for us after the manner of Angels who are ministering Spirits, Habeatur inter occultanda mysteria nec chartulx committenda. let this, as a Mystery, be concel'd, and not publish'd and committed to Paper.

Ibid. c. 20. Bellarmin takes notice of this Passage out of Origen, and an­swers, That he speaks of their daily and constant converse with us, which is not so certain, as that they know our state, and Pray for us: whereof Origen asks the Question, Homil. 26. in Numb. Quis dubitet? &c. Who doubts of it? That the Saints do help us with their Praiers. and confirm and encourage us by the exam­ple of their good Works.

By degrees he proceeded from doubting to affirming: and yet the Assertion only maintains, That the Saints do pray for us in com­mon, which we have not denied, but himself rejects the Consequence: That because the Saints do pray for us, therefore we should pray to them. L. 8. Contra Celsum. For when Celsus had objected, That it could not displease the Supreme Deity, if inferior Demons, as Friends of God, should be worship'd and implor'd to become the Advocates of poor Mortals with him. Origen answers, That Christians acknowledg no such Demons, but know that the Angels are Gods Ministers, and the Blessed Saints his Friends. And then he proceeds to shew the practice of Christians in Invocation: We humbly present our Petitions to the most high God, thro his only begotten Son; [Page 163] to whom also we make our Supplications, as being the propitiation for our Sins, and as being our High Priest, to offer up our Praiers to God. For God only, saith he, is to be worship'd, and God the Word our High Priest to be call'd up­on, that those Requests which come to him, he would please to present unto the Father. If we desire (as he goes on) the favor and assistance of the An­gels, they assuredly are Friends to such who imitate their Holiness, and call upon God with devout hearts, and worship him, whom they adore and worship. And therefore he sheweth the most compendious way is to commit our selves to the great Ruler of the Creation, thro Christ who hath taught us so to do; and from him to expect that help and protection, which by the ministery of Angels, and by the Spirits of Just Men, is communica­ted to us. And whereas Celsus had objected, (as your Doctors, many of them do unto this day) that as in the Courts of Princes we make our Ap­plications first to his Nobles and Favorites, to appease his Displeasure and obtain his Favor; so in our Address to the most High God, we should make our way by the Intercession of his choisest Friends and Ser­vants. Origen answers, ‘Altho in the Courts of Princes so it be, yet to us, one only God is to be appeas'd with Piety and Virtue, and his Favor to be desired: as for the blessed Saints and Angels, their favor and assistance follows, [...], &c. as the shadow the Body. They love and serve those who are in the favor of God. This I do assure you, saith he, when we have propos'd to our selves great things and made our Re­quest known to God by Prayer and Supplication, All the Heavenly [...], &c. Powers, of their own accord, without our Invocation, do pray with us and for us.’ Nothing could more be said against the Invocation of Saints and Angels, and the Heavenly Powers: and this I am perswaded, was the principal reason why your Learned Cardinal brought not the Testimony of Origen to confirm your Praiers to the Saints departed; as others of your unadvised Doctors have done.

To proceed: We find in the same Century, how Cyprian, a Blessed Martyr, was so far perswaded of the Saints Intercession in Hea­ven, that as he desired, in his Epistles to him, the Praiers of Cornelius the Pope living. So farther, ‘That he would please to enter with him into a serious Engagement, That whether of them, by Divine dignation, should first leave the World, he should be mindful to persevere with God in servent Praier for his Brethren, the Faithful, left behind him. Tom. 2. l. de disc. Ethabitis Virginum ad finem. Again, in his Book to the Virgins, he exhorts them, To hold out cou­ragiously, to proceed Spiritually, and to obtain Happily: and then, saith he, Remember us when your Virginity shall receive the Crown.’

This is an Instance of Praier to the living, for their assistance, when they should be translated into Heaven; but nothing to the Point, of the Invocation of Saints departed. It was his private Opinion, That [Page 164] the Saints in Heaven might retain the remembrance and affection to­wards their Friends and Relations whom they left behind, and com­mend them particularly in their Praiers; but not distinctly know their condition, or hear their Praiers if they should call upon them: this mu­tual stipulation before their decease, rather implies, that they conceiv'd they should not have opportunity after ones decease, for the other to call upon him. And now good Friend, having conferr'd notes toge­ther about the Testimony of the three first Centuries of Christianity, there appears none for the Invocation of the Saints departed, not so much as any foot-steps of this Doctrine before Cyprians Martinussius Pere. Ne vestigium quidem unte Cypriutum. say some of your Doctors; and we have not found a word in Cyprian that doth confirm it. For a close therefore, we may answer all your Pretensions with our Blessed Saviors words, Matth. 18. 8. but from the beginning it was not so. And taking in Tertullians Rule, Id verum quodcunque primum, id Adulterum quad posterius. That is truth which is first, what comes after is adulterate. We may conclude your Doctrine to be innovate, and a fruit of Spiritual Fornication.

You must not so soon condemn so many of the Primitive Fa­thers, who have deliver'd this Doctrine, and therefore I pray give your patience to hear their ample Testimony. Bellarmin gives this notable Instance out of Lib. 3 praepar. Evang c. 7, Votaque ipsiç facimus, &c. Eusebius, in the fourth Century: Honoring the Champi­ons of the true Religion as Friends of God; we come to their Tombs, and make Praiers to them as to Holy Men, by whose Intercession we may be much ad­vantag'd.

A notable Instance indeed, to manifest the corruption of Translators, and such as follow them for the advantage of the Cause. Bellarmin might have consulted the Greek Copy of the Council of Cal­cedon, and then he would not have bin deceiv'd by the Parenchesis in the Latin Translation, forg'd for the advantage of the Cause, as you have heard before. And so now the Greek Copy of Eusebius would have spar'd this proof of Cardinal Bellarmin: for Eusebius in that Book, ha­ving shew'd out of Plato, That Men eminent for Virtue should be honor­ed after death, he declares the practice of Christians to be agreeable, To honor the Champions of Piety and Religion, as Friends of God after their decease: [...], &c. Whence, saith he, it is our use to frequent their Monuments,, and make our Praiers there. We repair to their Tombs, and there make our Prai­ers, saith Eusebius. And so the Christians did frequent Memorias Marty­rum, and call upon God in those places. But the Translator, with Bel­larmin, reads it, We repair to their Tombs, and pray to them as to Holy Men. Again, Eusebius saith, [...], &c. We honor these Blessed Souls, and conceive we ra­tionally do so. But the cousening Translator leaves this passage quite out, [Page 165] and puts in a Clause of his own: By whose Intercession, we declare our selves to be much assisted with God. It seems George Trapezuntius, a wretch­ed Translator, suited better Bellarmins turn, then the Original Text of Eusebius, and therefore he chose to consult one rather then the other. We see what reason we have to examine Bellarmins Quotations; many times they pretend much, but prove nothing but Imposture.

Methinks you might satisfie your self with your pretended Con­futations, and leave out your uncharitable Censures. I proceed to the Cardinals next Quotation out of the great Sermene de Annuntiatione ad finem. Athanasius, who, with the People of God, puts up these Supplications to the Mother of God: Incline thine ear unto our Praiers, and forget not thy People. O blessed Vir­gin, we cry unto thee, Be mindful of us, O our Lady and Mistress, the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, Intercede for us.

I must confess this is an ample Testimony: But your Cardi­nal knew very well this Oration was a forgery, falsly ascrib'd to that Holy Father. It discovers it self to have bin written after the opposite Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, for it directly confutes them. And Cardinal Baronius Anno Christi 48. N. 19, 20. acknowledgeth what I say, and Numb. 23. concludes like an Oracle, giving a just reproof to Bellarmin, and the other Doctors who make use of Lies to uphold supposed Truths: Existimamus Cathel. veritatem labre factari potius, &c. We believe Catholic Truths rather to be weakned by such false Allegations, then supported. And withal, holy Oratione 2. centra Arrianos, [...], &c. Athanasius urgeth this Argument against the Arrians, to prove Christs Divinity, because we call upon him: and tells us, That the Saints do not call upon any Created Being to be their help and succor. And so I hope you apprehend the severity of my Censures to be due, being put to such an intollerable Drudgery to search among the Rubbish of your falsified Records and Quotations; it is the only satisfaction I have, to discover your Impostures, and expose them to censure and undeceive the World.

Well, now you must take your farewel: These Autorities that follow are without Exception. S ^t Basil Oratione in 40 Martyres. hath this Passage: He that is streightned with any necessity, let him fly to them: He that hath occasion to rejoice, let him call upon them; the one that he may be delivered, the other that be may continue in prosperity.

I wish you would make good your words, and bring Quota­tions fair, and without Exception: For this of Basil is ill Translated, meerly for your advantage: [...]. The oppressed flies to these 40 Martyrs: 'Tis in the Indicative and not in the Imparative Mood, shewing the Peoples practice, not his precept. But that which follows, shews your Doctors [Page 166] cheat: [...]. He that rejoiceth, comes to these, saith Basil: and you say, Let him pray to these. Now you have heard, it was usual for Men in every condition, to come to the Monuments of the Martyrs, and there call upon God for help, and there offer up their Sacrifices of Praise to him, not to the Martyrs.

What shift have you for In Psalmum 35. Basils next Testimony: Of the Spiritual Powers, some are call'd Eyes, because they watch over us; some are call'd Ears, because they ^c hear and receive our Praiers.

What Praiers? those which are made to them? that doth not appear; rather those Praiers which are made to God, which some of the Antient, from some passages out of the Revelation of S ^t John, did con­ceive the Angels did present to God: How doth this prove the Invoca­tion of Saints?

The next Testimony Bellarmin urgeth, is o. Quia nostras excip. preces. Gregory Nazianzen, The [...], Oratione in Cyprianum. Eminent Divine, as he is generally called: He relates how Saint Cyprian, before his Conversion, was a Magician, and falling desperatly in Love with a Christian Virgin, and not being able to obtain her Affecti­on, he made use of Art-Magic, and Enchantments to compass his design: But, saith he, [...], &c. The Virgin made her Supplication to the Blessed Virgin, to help a Virgin in distress, and so was delivered from the Enchanting Powers.

Nazianzen took this Fable out of a Book call'd, Cyprians Re­pentance and Conversion, where 'tis related: and that Book is declared spurious by Pope Dist. 15. cap. Sancta Rom. Ecclesia. Gelasius. In Catal. Script. Ecclesiast. [...]. S ^t Jerome gives another account of Cypri­ans Conversion, shewing how he was Rhetoric Professor in Carthage, and Converted by the acquaintance and perswasion of Cecilius, from whom he took the Sir-name, Coecilianus Cyprianus. And Pamelius, and many o­thers, who have written Cyprians Life, acquit him of this Infamous pas­sage, and Nazianzen was strangely credulous to assert it.

You are alwaies severe against such as do not please you: But Bellarmin shews farther, how that Holy Farther calls upon Cyprian in the end of this Oration; upon Basil, in the close of his Panegyrie; and upon Athanasius, in these words, Oratione in Athanasium. Do thou graciously look down upon us out of Heaven, and direct this Holy People, and feed and cherish us in peace, and in our conflicts guide and supportus, and bring us unto the same state of Glory, with thy Self, and such Blessed Spirits as are like Thee.

Nazianzen was a great Orator, and makes such Apostrophe's severally to the Saints upon whom he made his Panegyrics; and yet this [Page 167] will not infer, That he did believe they heard him; or that he made this Application to them by way of Invocation, no more then he did to Ju­lian the Apostate after his decease, unto whom he directs his Speech for a whole Leaf together, in the close of his second Invective. Nay, you shall find this Orator somtimes to correct himself by an Epanor thosis in the midst of his Rhetorical Apostrophes, in his first Invective against Ju­lian, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, he calls upon the Heaven and Earth to hear him: Ibid. [...], &c. Hear, O Heaven; and give ear, O Earth. And then it follows, Hear O Soul of Constantius the Great, if there be any sense in thee of these inferior things. In his Fathers Funeral Oration he saith, Now he advantages the Church of God more by his Praiers, then before by his Doctrine and Preaching, if it be not presumtion to say so. And in the Fu­neral Oration of his Sister Gorgonia, he is more expresly doubtful, Whe­ther this honor is given to the Saints departed, as to be sensible of those things that are spoken of them.

Illudsi, non est dubitantis, sed affirmant. Bellarmin takes notice of such Passages, and saith, Those ifs, are not of one doubting but asserting; as when S ^t Paul said to Philemon: If thou count me a Partner, receive him as my self, ver. 17. he did not doubt of Philemons affection.

The Circumstances shew the contrary, and Bellarmin of­fers no proof of his consident Assertion, but only because It may be so taken in one place, it must be in these. If your Doctors groundless Shifts and Answers must go for Oracles, you may carry all before you. For instance in the first, If of Nazianzen in his Apostrophe to Constan­tius after his decease: Hear, O thou Blessed Soul of great Constantius, If thou hast any knowledg of these things I speak, &c. Dares Bellarmin suppose that Constantius did hear Nazianzen? Or that he was a Blessed Soul in Heaven, who was so great a Persecuter of the Orthodox Chri­stians in his life time, and Protector of the Arrians? and upon this ac­count, I much wonder how this Holy Father could make such honorable mention of an Arrian Emperor, as to stile him, ^c The most famous of Prin­ces that ever were, encreasing the heritage of Christ to his power. For his zeal of the Orthodox Faith, he is generally stiled, Gregory the Divine. But here we must reckon him to be a vehement Orator, and many of his Sentences must be made good only by some Figures of Rhetoric, Hyper­bolies, Apostrophes, and the like.

Is this your way to answer the Fathers: You formerly severe­ly censur'd this way in Bellarmin, when he said, Chrysostom in many places spoke like an Orator: and do you now fall under the same con­demnations?

I have given an answer unto Bellarmins Arguments out of Na­zianzen, and now I make this necessary Observation to the Reader, for greater caution.

S ^t Hilary liv'd in this fourth Century, an eminent Bishop in France, who in his Commentary upon the 129 Psalm, tells us, That the Angels are Presidents of Churches.

He brings a strange proof of the Assertion, Rev. 2. 3. from the Angels of the Churches of Asia; which are generally taken by In­terpretors, for the Bishops of those Churches: and they cannot possibly stand for the Heavenly Powers and Spirits, because some Infirmities are imputed to them, Rev. 2, ver. 4. That the Angel of the Church of Ephe­sus, had left his first love, that he should repent and do his first works. That the Angel of the Church of Laodicea was luke-warm, cap. 3. 16.

I pray give me leave to urge the whole Testimony of this Fa­ther; he saith, We may in a probable sense call the Angels, The Eyes of the Lord, and his Ears, his Hands, and his Feet; for they are his Ministring Spirits. And altho the Divine Nature, who knoweth all things, need not their information; yet our infirmity in Praing to God, and deserving his sa­vor, needs their Spiritual Intercession.

I pray, How doth the Ministery and Intercession of Angels, prove the Invocation of Saints? Such impertinent Quotations are only brought to fill up the number, and weary the Reader.

Bellarmin shews how the same Holy Father, in Psal. 124. speaks alike of the Intercession of the Holy Apostles and Prophets.

True, he doth Allegorize the Mountains which stand round about. Jerusalem, Nec leve praesidium in Apostolis vel Patriarchis & Prophetis, vel potius in Ang. to be The guard of Saints; or rather, saith he, of Angels about Gods People. But leaving S ^t Hilaries Allegories, I pray ob­serve what the Prophet David adds immediatly: As the Mountains stand about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about his People from hence-forth even for ever. And Hilary thereupon declares, Benum quidem praesidium Angeli, sed melius Dei. The safe-guard of the Angels is good; but of God, much better. Mean while, here is not one syllable of our Invocation of Saints or Angels, but only of their Intercession and Protection. And by the way, you may take this note along with you, That Hilary was as bitter in his Invectives, and had as great an In­dignation against the Emperor Constantius, as you but now heard Gregory Nazianzen did extol him.

It is not my work to commit the Fathers: I proceed in Bellar­mins proofs; his next, out of S ^t Ambrose, is full and without Exception: ‘We must pray unto the Angels, who are our Guards; and to the Saints and Martyrs, whose Patronage we may challenge, as being of our own Substance: they can intreat for our sins, who have washt away their own (if any they had) with their Blood. These are Gods Mar­tyrs and our Bishops, Over-seers of our Life and Actions: let us not ^c Lib. de Viduis ultra medium. Obsecrandi sunt Ang. &c. Obs. sunt Martyres Cor­poris pignora. [Page 179] blush to admit these as Intercessors for our infirmities because They, when they did overcome, were yet sensible of the infirmity of the body.’

Saint Ambrose was but a young Divine, a novice and Cathe­chumen when he was chosen Bishop of Millam: he was train'd up in Civill affairs, pleading Causes, & as a Deputy of the Country admini­string justice; & therfore we have no teason to ground our Faith upon his dictates. He speaks often piously, but not alwaies Orthodoxly: do you allow that passage of his in this very proof? Qui proprio sanguine laverunt, si qua habuerunt peccata. ‘The Martyrs, if they had any sins, have washt them away with their own Blood.’ The Blessed Apostle tells us, 1 Joh. 1. The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all unrighteousness. Immediatly before these words which Bellarmin quotes, S. Ambrose hath this passage. Infirma est caro, mens aegra, & ad Medici sedem non potest debile explicare vestigium. ‘The flesh is weak, the mind sick, and feter'd with the chains of sin; and so we cannot creep to the Physician, but must call upon the Angels and Martyrs, &c.’ Where do you read in H. Scripture, that the sick, to wit, the sinner cannot come to Christ the Physitian? did he not come to call sinners, to invite the weary and heavy laden to come to him, and find rest? you shall hear other Fathers generally contradicting this Doctrine of Ambrose, and the Holy Scripture much more; yet this is the usual pretence for Saints Invoca­tion and Intercession, That we are unworthy of our selves to draw neer to an Holy God, & to put up our supplications to him: of which more hereafter, & herein S. Ambrose contradicts what he hath piously com­mented upon the first chap. of the Epistle to the Rom. in the 4 chap. of his Commentary. Solent miserâ uti excusatione, per istos posse ire ad Deum, ut per Comites ad Reg. ‘This is the miserable excuse, saith he, that by Angels and Saints, we may have access to God, being unworthy of our selves to come unto him, as we go to the King by his Courtiers.’ For which he answers, Ideo per Tribunos & Comites, itur ad Regem, quia homo est, &c. Ad Deum a. promerendum, qui omnium novit merita, suffragatore opus non est, sed mente devotâ. ‘Therefore we come to the King by his Tri­bunes and Officers, because the King is a man, and must receive in­formation from others: but to obtain the favor of God; who knoweth all mens deserts, we need no suffragants but a devout mind: whenso­ever such a one calls upon Him, he will answer him.’ Nothing could be more directly oppos'd to your usuall plea for the Invocation of Saints. The same Father in his book de Isaac. & Anima cap. 5 tells us from the third chap. of Canticles, and the third vers. Anima quae Deum quaerit transit custodes, enim sunt mysteria quae etiam Ang. concupiscunt videre. ‘That a Soul seeking God passeth by the keepers, for there are mysteries which the Angels them selves desire to looke into.’

Do you then follow S. Ambrose's direction in one place, and I [Page 180] will take his advise in the other. Bellarmin brings the testimony of many other Fathers of the later Ages of the Church; and I must confess I am almost tired in following him, especially seeing you so dextriously shift him off. Gregory Nyssen speaks home to the point in the latter end of his Oration opon Theodorus a Martyr, thus: ‘We want many benefits, doe thou become our Legat with the King of Heaven. Thou art not ignorant of humane necessities, procure peace for us. That we have bin safe and sound hitherto we ascribe it to thee. If you want more assistance take in the quire of your Brethren the Martyrs. The praiers of many Saints wash away the sins of Nations and People.’ In the like manner he speaks in his Panegyricks of another Martyr.

This is sufficient to your purpose; you need look no further. But I pray tell me, do you take him for an Orator or Divine in these passages? Is it possible he should in earnest ascribe the preservation of the Faithfull all along unto this Martyr, & hope for security from him for the future? and never take into consideration the divine protection? Is it good Divinity to say, That the praiers of the Just wash away the guilt of Nations and People, and never mention the Blood of Christ, and his effectuall Intercession?

That is to be suppos'd as the principall; the Blessed Saints may be instrumentall in these Blessings.

What you suppose is one thing, and what he expresseth an­other. But it is neither good Philosophie nor Divinity, to intitle the ef­fect unto the Instruments, and leave out the principall Agent. Should I make such an harangue to an Artists Tooles, & give them all the honor of the excellent work, he would reckon me besides my wits, and him­self put besides his due commendation & praise.

You ask Questions instead of giving Answers. But I have now concluded to favor you, and not overlade you with innumerable testi­monies. The Authority of the later Fathers perhaps you will except against in this point. Such as Bede, and Anselme, & Bernard & Damascene; & the Elder I have hitherto produc'd, and yet there remaine two of the Greek Church, and two of the Latin Church whose Authorities I will urge out of Bellarmin in confirmation of this point, & then I shall give you respite. The Greek Fathers are Chrysostome and Theodoret; the Latin Je­rom, and Augustin.

You have made a noble choise, & herein you much oblige me: (whilst your wisdom and your zeal do prompt you to urge the most ef­fectuall testimonies on your side) that you determine to let the others passe, which cheifly serve to fill up a number.

Bellarmin quotes an eminent passage out of Homil. 66 ad pop. Antioch. Chrysostom, but we easier find it in his 26 Homilie upon the second Epistle to the Co­rinthians, from whence we suppose the Homilie was collected; it is in the [...] of that Homilie. The words out of Chrysostom are these. ‘He that weareth purple goes and salutes the sacred bodies, and laying aside his state [...]. &c. stands praying unto the Saints, that they would appear [Page 181] before God in his behalf. He that weareth the Diadem beesecheth the Tent-maker and Fisherman being dead, to become his Advocates.’

This is [...], a passage whereunto we find not a se­cond like it in all the works of Chrysostom. Bellarmine refers to other p [...] ­ces of this Father: but (according to his accoustum'd manner) without truth and reason. It is strange therefore if he were of the opinion, & the practice in his daies was usual to pray to the Saints before their shrines that any where else he should not speak of it.; and therefore I must tell you that the originall Greek doth not altogether warrant Bellarmin's translation, but equally admits another, which will fall short of his proof. For [...], as well signifies standing in need of the Saints Inter­cession, as praying for it; and so [...], He wants their prote­ction. Now we may stand in need, and may reap the benefit of the Saints supplications in Heaven for the people of God here on earth, & yet have no warrant to call upon them, except we could be better as­sur'd that they do hear us. This therefore is a fallible and ambiguous proof, unless ratified by some other passages out of Chrysostom.

The Cardinal refers to other places in that Father for the same proof.

He doth so to his great shame and disadvantage; to the de­monstration of his supiness, not of the point. He sends us to Chryso­stoms fift Homilie upon S ^t Matthew; where the Holy Father in his [...], in the application or Moral upon the text, presseth much upon us the duty of being sober and watchfull in praier to God for our selves, and not depend upon the praiers of others. ‘For no man may deliver his Brother, nor make agreement to God for him. Ps. 49. 7.’ He in­stanceth in Moses that could not prevail for Miriam, nor Samuel for Saul, nor Jeremy for his People. [...], &c, ‘If we our selves be negligent, others can­not help us: if we be watchfull we may prevail for our selves more then by others Intercession. For God chooseth rather to give his blessings to us for our selves, then for others praying for us. For so, saies he, he had compassion upon the Canaanitish woman, & saved the harlot & Theif, [...]. none mediating or playing the Advocate to God for them.’ Would any sober man believe Bellarmin should direct us unto this Ho­milie for the proof and encouragment unto the Invocation of Saints departed?

Perhaps he reflected upon Chrysostom's next word in that Homi­lie. [...]. ‘I speak these things, not that we should not desire the praiers of the Saints, but that our selves should not be slothfull.’ He would not discourage men from suing to the Saints.

To the Saints living, not the deceased. All his instances in the Homilie shew this, in Samuel's praying for Saul, and Moses for Mi­riam, [Page 182] and their praiers were unsuccessfull, because the persons for whom they prai'd were not worthy. In the next place your Cardinal sends us to the eight Homilie, where there is not a syllable for his purpose. There in his [...] he shews, ‘That neither the iniquity of our Fathers, nor of the place wherein we live shall hinder us in the course of Vertue, if we will take heed unto our selves. As Joseph lived vertuously in Egypt, and the three Children in Babylon, and Hezekiah was a good Son of wicked Ahaz, and Abraham of Terah an Idolater.’ If this proves the Invocation of Saints, let it be so. In the next place we follow him unto Chrysostoms 43 Homilie upon Genesis, where we have the former Text. ‘No man may deliver his brother, &c. if we neglect our selves, neither Father nor Kinsman can stead us, no not the Saints & righteous men who have great confidence with God.’ Only a Jesuit's chymical brain can extract the Invocation of Saints out of these passages of Chrysostom. Come we now to the next place of Chrysostom whether Bellarmin refers us, to his first Homilie upon the first Epistle to the Thessalonians: There the good Father exhorteth us in his [...] to be watchfull and sollicitous for our selves, and then others praiers also may benefit us. [...], &c. ‘Tis good, saith he, to enjoy the prayes of the Saints, but when we are co­workers with them.’ Where he evidently speaks of the praiers of the living for us, instancing in Peters deliverance out of prison, thro the servent praiers of the Church, Act. 12. and in Pauls desire the Saints should contend in praier for him, Phil. 1. 19. And now tell me, is not this a great deceit & cheat upon the Reader, when the good Father speaks of the praiers of the Saints living which we should desire, for Bellarmin to transfer it un­to the praiers of the Saints departed? In the last place your Cardinal sends us unto Chrysostoms Panegyrick upon two Martyrs, Jubentius and Maximinus, tom. 5. And I suppose he had an eye unto that passage of the Father. ‘As Souldiers shewing their wounds receiv'd in warr, appear with great confidence before the General or their Prince, so these Blessed Martyrs presenting their heads, which were cut off, in their hands, may easily obtain what they shall desire of the King of Heaven.’ Now from hence what would you infer?

That as they can prevail much with God, we should the more importunatly beg the favour of their Intercession.

Why did not the Holy Father make that inference himself? or make his Application to them in praier? we say, because he did not approve the doctrine of praiers to the Saints in Heaven. All that he exhorts his hearers unto in the close of his Panegyrick is this: ‘To go unto the Monuments of these Martyrs with faith and joy, that by the sight of their shrines, and remembrance of their glorious sufferings they may reap much fruit, and so live, That they may share in their hap­piness.’ Would he not have encouraged the people of God to pray unto these Martyrs, if he had thought it beneficial or duty? And now I begin to understand, That when your subtle Cardinal refers to a place [Page 183] by figures, & quotes not the words at length; he well knew they would not serve his turn: only to impose upon the credulous Reader, either to be­lieve him, or to be put to an endless trouble in the search & discovery. But I have bin content to devour this trouble, & have with great in­dignation found him a deceiver: and and yet before I leave S ^t Chrysostom, I will refer you to one of Tom. 5. Hom. 60. his Homilies; where in the [...] from the history of the Canaanitish woman, he shews, [...], &c. ‘That we prevail most with God by our own praiers, rather then others Intercessions. The Apostles, saith he, interpos'd for that woman; but our Saviours answer was a deniall: I am not sent but unto the lost Sheep of Israel, but her own importunity prevail'd for her daughters recovery, which was the sum of her desire. There Chrysostom expresly tells us, Thou hast no need of Mediators with God, to fawn upon others to pray for thee: but if thou art destitute of all Protectors, thy self by thy self, calling upon God shalt thou obtain all canst desire.’ He will not grant unto us, upon the request of others, so as upon our own. He puts the objection which your Doctors usually propose, That we are not worthy to appear in the Lords presence. [...]. ‘What saist thou? art thou unworthy? become worthy by thy perseverance in praier to God. Our Blessed Saviour, saith he, compar'd the woman of Canaan to a Dog, unto whom the Childrens bread must not be given; and yet soon after he cry'd out, O woman, great is thy faith.’

You may as well urge these like passages of Chrysostom against the Mediation and Intercession of Christ, and against any desire, That the Faithfull living should assist us with their praiers.

You should not join together the Mediation & Intercession of Christ, and of the Saints whether in Heaven or Earth. And you may observe the Father speaks of [...]. Intercessors in the plural, as of many. Implying That one is our Mediator between God and men, even the Man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2. 5. And withall the Testimony is sufficient against that fond conceit, That we are unworthy to draw neer to God in our own persons, but by others Intercession.

You will draw out your discourse in infinitum by your rejoinders and remarks, but I hast to an end. The second Greek Father I pro­pos'd was Theodoret, a Learned Bishop of Cyprus, who in his History of the Lives of Holy Fathers, concludes each Life after this manner: ‘ Huic narrationi finem imponens, rogo ut per horum intercess. div. cons. cuxil. I, putting a period to this relation and history, do pray and beseech, that by the Intercession of these Saints, I may obtaine Divine assi­stance.’

It is not here exprest that he did pray unto these Saints, but we rather suppose to God, upon the opinion of their Intercession, That he might reap the benefit therof; & withall he was infected with the here [...]y [Page 184] of Nestorius, and wrote bitterly against Cyrill of Alexanria his twelve Theses: and that work of his was condemn'd in the fift general Coun­cil; and himself thro the violence of oppositions, was compell'd against his judgment to pronounce Nestorius accurs'd: yet we honor his great Learning, and let his memory be precious.

I am glad to discover your moderation, for there is another most considerable testimony out of him, full to the point of Saints In­vocation. Libro 8. De curandis Graec, affectibus. ‘The Temples of the Martyrs are magnificent & beauti­full, in them we often keep festivals; & such as enjoy health, pray to the Martyrs to preserve it; such as are sick desire health of them: Men and Women who are unfruitfull, ask of them Children: Such as go a journey desire their conduct, and after their safe return they pay their thanks to them, owing their security to their favour. Now, saies he, they do not pray to these Martyrs as to God, but as unto Holy men whose Intercession they desire, and that they often obtain'd their requests; the numerous gifts devoted to these Martyrs do testify, hanging up in the Martyrs Temples the pictures of theirs eyes and hands and legs, in gold, which their votaries recover'd by their merits, and praiers, and Intercession.’

These are high things, and great assignments unto the Mar­tyrs. Methinks there should of right have bin som reflexions upon God in these deliverances and cures, & sure there was somthing in the wind that Bellarmin only refers to this passage, and doth not set it down in full length; being so full to his purpose. (in the 18 ^th chap. he hath part of this quotations, but not the whole.) Perhaps the Cardinal was not fully satisfied with the person of Theodoret: or rather with the book it self, which Niceph. l. 44 c. 54. Nicephorus doth not reckon up among Theodoret's Works, when he gives an account of all his books; these 8 books De curandis Graecorum affectibus, are not mentioned. [...], &c. Those which he wrote are these, &c. And withall your Learned Cardinal knew well, That what Theodoret (if this book were his) did build with one hand, he pull'd down with another, as to this point of Invocation of Saints or Angels: For in his Commentary upon the 2 ^d chap. of S ^t Paul to the Colossians, vers. 18, Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels. I say, Theodoret in his Commentary upon this place, cuts off the sinews and foundation of Saints and Angels Invocation. He shews how some Jewish Christians in Phrygia and Pisidia being zelous of the Laws, did worship Angels, by whom the Law was given, and build Temples to S ^t Michael and others; and that this course continued long among them. Bin. Concil. Lacd. Tom. 1. can. 35. [...], &c. And therfore that in the 4 ^th Century, a Council of Bishops in Laodicea the Metropolis of Phrygia, neer neighbor to [Page 185] Colosse, did expresly forbid the worship of Angels, calling it Idolatrie. ‘That Christians ought not to leave the Church of God, and depart and call upon the Angels, and make assemblies, and if any be found to be conversant in this hidden Idolatrie, let him be accursed.’ Now this voluntary humility which S ^t Paul mentions, refers to that humble pre­tence, That sinners are not worthy to draw neer to God themselves, but by the Intercession of Saints & Angels. Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puft up in his fleshly mind, saith the Apostle. That is, saith Theodoret, Propriis utens rationibus & cogitationibus. using his own reason and imaginations, &c. now (saith he) the Synodus volens veteri illi morbo mederi, cavit ne precarentur Angelos. Synod of Laodicea desiring to cure this old dicease forbids them to pray unto Angels. And you will grant if we must not pray to An­gels, neither to the Saints. For you have deriv'd cheifly the Invocation of Saints from that of Angels.

Ibid. cap. 20. Bellarmin hath answer'd this passage of Theodoret, and of the Council of Laodicea, and the Text of the Apostle together. Namely Apostolum damnare haeresin Simenis Magi, qui decuit Angelos quasi minres, &c. That the Apostle condemns the heresie of Simon Magus, who taught, like Plato, that the Angels should be worships as lesser Deities, and that none could please the invisible God but by the Angels. And he tells us That the Council Concilium non damnat quamvis venerationem Ang. sed quae Deo propria. did not condemn all worship of Angels, but only such veneration as is proper to God.

Observe the incongruity of this Answer, as to several parti­culars. He saith the Council condemns not all Veneration of Angels, but only such as is proper to God the supreme Deity: and yet accord­ing to his own relation, Simon Magas, and the Jewish Christians that worshipt Angels, did not worship them as the Supreme Deity, but only as subordinate Intercessors. And S ^t Paul and the Councel of Laoduea condemns this: That in voluntary humility they should deprive them selves of that priviledg to come to God themselves, and so make way unto him by the Intercession of Angels. The Apostle therefore and the Council sorbid this inferior worship, as Theodoret observes, Ne precarentur Angelos. That they should not pray to the Angels to make way for them unto the Great God. And in the next chap. of S. Paul to the Colossians, vers. 17. the Apostle commanding as Whatsoever we do either in word or deed to do all in the name of our Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, and the Father by him. Theodorets Com­ment is, Deo & Patri gratiarum actionem emittite, per ipsum, non per Angelos. Offer up to God your sacrifice of praise by Him, not by the Angels. Again we find not one syllable either in Theodoret, or the Council of Laodicea concerning Simon Magus or his heresie, but only those Christians which did worship and pray to Angels. To conclude this Answer, It is the miserable device of the Schools to shift off evident & unanswerable ar­guments, [Page 186] with obscure and srivolous distinctions, giving no reall satisfa­ction either to them selves or others. So in the point of Image worship, They did not give to them the worship of [...] which apparteins on­ly to God: but an inferior worship call'd [...]: or if any were so bold to maintaine, That [...] is due to the Cross, or the Image of Christ, yet it is in a relative and inferior manner. So here the Council condemns not all Veneration of Angels, but only such as is due to God. Whereas the circumstances you have heard prove the contrary. ‘The Councel forbids Invocation of Angels, as Intercessors for us to the supreme Deity.’

You will never I see receive any satisfaction from us. I proceed unto the two Eminent Fathers of the Latin Church. Bellarmin urgeth That prayer of S. Jerom in the end of his Epitaph or Panegyrick upon Paula. Vale ô Paula, & Cultoris tui ultimam senectutem orationibus juva. Farewell ô Paula, and assist with thy praiers the extream old age of thy worshipper.

From other evident passages of that Father, we conclude This to be a Rhetorical Apostrophe, and not the judgment & practise of S. Jerom to pray unto the Saints departed. For in his book against Vigi­lantius, he first asserts, That Martyrs are not to be worshipt. Quis aliquando Martyres adoravit? Whoever worshipt them?

Althou they are not worshipt as God, yet we may pray unto them.

Praier is a part of religious worship due to God, if you mean only civil requests, such as one Christian makes to another to remem­ber him in his praiers, we would not deny it to the Saints in Heaven, could we be assur'd that they do hear us. But to proceed, Jerom doth not bring one syllable to assert the Invocation of Saints; altho, if his jugdment had inclin'd the ballance that way, he had occasion given by Vigilantius, whose Assertion was, That while we live we may pray one for another, Post mortem nullus audet pro aliis deprecari. but none praies for other after death. Against this Jerom riseth with great indignatien: If the blessed Apostles and Martyrs while in the flesh could pray for others, how much more after they are crown'd? Postquam cum Christo esse cepermt minus valebunt? shall they prevail less with Christ now they are with him? This is somewhat for their Intercession, but not for their Invocation. Nay, in his funeral O­ration upon Nepotian dedicated to Heliodorus, Jerom saith expresly: Quicquid dixero, quia ille non audit, mutum videtur. What­soever I say of him tis but silence, seeing he heareth not. And in the close of the Oration, he saith: Cum quo loqui non possumus, de eo loqui nunquam desinamus. Seeing we cannot speak to him or with him, let us never cease to speak of him; now making praiers to the deceased is speaking to them, and not of them.

If I should multiply Replies to your answers we should never conclude. I hast unto the testimony of S. Augustin. Bellarmin quotes 3 [Page 187] places out of this Holy Father, to prove the Invocation of Saints: Tract. 84. in Joannem. Non sic Mart. ad Mensam commemoramus, &c. We do not so commemorate Martyrs, at the Holy Table, as we do others who rest in peace, so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us.. And the second place is like unto it, De verbis Apostolorum, Serm. 17. Injuria est pro Mart. orare, cujus nos debemus Orat. commendari. It is an injury to pray for a Martyr, unto whose Praiers we should be commended.

In these two parallel passages, S ^t Augustin shews, That the Commemoration of the Martyrs at the Altar in the time of Divine Ser­vice, must not be construed a Praier for them (for that would be an in­jury to them) but rather a tacite recommendation of the Congregation, unto their Praiers and Intercession. Here is no Invocation exprest, but only a recommendation implied, and so they are dubious and imperfect proofs: and in the first he speaks only comparatively, That Martyrs should rather pray for us, then we for them. And yet withal I must ac­quaint you, That Epiphanius a Primitive Bishop (who did much oppose the growing Superstition of Worshipping Saints and Images, both by his Writings and Actions) Heresi 75. [...], &c. be expresly tells us, We pray for Martyrs, and for the whole Order of Blessed Saints, &c. That so we may distinguish the Lord Christ from all generations of Men.

Make what use of your Observations you please. I pass to the third Testimony, which Bellarmin brings from S ^t Lib. de cura pro Mortuis, c. 4. Nisi ad hoc, ut dum recolunt ubi sunt, &c. Augustin, I do not see what advantage to the dead is the care of their Friends to bury them near the Tomb of some Martyr; unless herein, That whilst they remember where the Bodies of their Friends do lie, they may commend them unto those Saints as Pa­trons, to be assisted by their Praiers.

Notwithstanding this Testimony, we shall willingly be tried by this Book, concerning S ^t Augustins Judgment in the point of Praying to the Saints: And I will therefore give you a short account of the whole Book. In the beginning, S ^t Augustin shews how he was consulted by Paulinus a Bishop, whether it was any advantage to the Dead, to be bu­ried in the Temple, or near the Monument of a Saint or Martyr: The occasion was given by a Pious Matron, Flora, who was very importu­nate to have her Son Cynegius buried in the Temple of S ^t. Felix. Here­unto S ^t Augustin answers, That it is no part of our Misery, if our Bo­dies should not be Interr'd, but expos'd, by the Tyranny of Persecu­tors, unto the Fouls of the Air, or to the Beasts of the Field: For, saith he, our Blessed Savior saith expresly, That after Man hath kill'd the Body, he can do no more, not hurt the person after death. And when the Bodies of Martyrs were not permitted Burial, it was no part of their Infelicity, but only shew'd the cruelty of Tyrants, That so Christians, who contemn'd death, might learn much more to contemn their Burial. He [Page 188] shews, That Funeral Solemnities, are Magis sunt vivorum solatiaquam subsidia Mortuorum. rather comforts to the living, then assistances to the dead. And then coming near unto the Question, touch­ing the advantage of being buried in a Martyrs Temple: He answers in those words which Bellarmin cites, I see not how such a provision can be­nefit the Person deceas'd, unless herein, That whil'st his Friends re­member where his Body lies Interr'd, they may be apt to commend him to the Patronage of that Saint for assistance with God.

This plainly proves the particular Invocation of Saints de­parted.

Have patience, and S ^t Augustin in the next Chapter, will shew what he meant by this recommendation. The pious Mother, saith he, did desire her Son should be buried in the Martyrs Temple, belie­ving that so his Soul should reap some benefit from the Martyrs merits: And then he immediatly adds. Hoc quod ita credidit suppli catio, &c. This belief of hens was a kind of Praier, and if any thing did profit her Son, This, was it. You plainly see how doubtfully the good Father speaks concerning the benefit of burial near a Martyr; and how he expresly interprets praying to the Saint, to be, our believing that by his Merits we shall reap some advantage to our Souls. He proceeds in that Book to shew, That altho there have bin appearances of Ghosts, complaining, That their Bodies did lie unburi­ed; yet these things may come to pass by Divine permission, thro the Ministry of good or evil Angels: the Spirit departed knowing nothing of the Apparition. He gives an Instance of an Executor, who after his Fathers decease, was much distressed with the demand of a great Debt, which was supposd to have bin paid; but having no Discharge to shew, it was like to lie upon him: Mean-while, his Father appears to him, and directs him to the place where he should find the Acquittance, and a full discharge of the Debt. Now by this Apparition, Men may be apt to con­clude, That the deceas'd Father understood and compassionated his Sons condition, and came to his relief; and yet, saith S ^t Augustin, All this might come to pass by Divine Providence, without his deceased Fathers know­ledge: And gives an Instance of himself, appearing to a Friend of his in his Dream, whilist himself knew nothing of it. Eulogius was to read a solemn Lecture before a great Auditory in Carthage, upon Tullies Rhe­toric; and one obscure passage there was which he did not well under­stand, and was very solicitous how to interpret it: And lo! the night be­fore, saith S ^t Augustine, as Eulogius declares, I appeared to him in his Dream, and shew'd him an apposite sense of the Words. This is in the 11 ^th Chapter of the Book. In the 13 ^th Chap. he concludes, That of such Ap­paritions, whether of Persons living or defunct, are made to others, themselves being altogether ignorant thereof. And he concludes far­ther, That there is no commerce between the living and the dead, for other­wise, saith he, my most deer Mother would have often appear'd to me, and [Page 189] manifested her care and love; for God forbid, That I should think she is be­come cruel by her state of Happiness. And if our Parents and nearest Friends have no communion with us after death, How should others thay are Strangers. S ^t Augustin goes on to tell us. That the Children of A­braham expresly say to God, Isaiah 63. 16. Surely thou art our Father, al­tho Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not. That Josiah was gathered to his Fathers, that his eyes might not see the evil which should be brought upon Jerusalem, 2 Kings 22. 20. implying, That after death he should not know it. Therefore, saith he, Ibi sunt spiritus defuncti ubi non vident quae hic aguntur, &c. The Souls of dead Men are where they do not see what things are done here below; And how then can they see their own Tombs? And whereas Abraham did know Moses, and the Prophets, and their Writings, when he directed Dives his Brethren unto them, He might know them, saith he, by their own Relation after their decease. In the 15 ^th Chapter he concludes fully, Fatendum est Nescire Mortuos, quid hic agatur. We must confess that the dead do not know what is here done, unless somthing may be made known to them by the relation of Angels, or persons lately deceas'd, And whereas, saith he, at the Shrines and Monuments of Martyrs, Miracles have bin wrought, and Martyrs themselves have appear'd to the living, yet they might not themselves know that they did appear; as we read, That A­nanias appear'd to Saul in Damascus, himself knowing not of it, until the Lord acquainted him therewith, ‘The Lord said unto Ananias, Acts 9. 11, 12. Arise, and go into the street which is called, Strait; and enquire in the House of Judas, for one called Saul of Tarsus: for be­hold he Praieth, and hath seen in a Vision a Man named Ana [...]ias, com­ing in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.’ At length he concludes, An ista fiant Dei nutu per Angelicas potestates, in honorem, &c. ‘Such Miracles at the Shrines of Martyrs may be done, by Gods permission, thro the Ministry of Angels and Holy Powers, in honor of the Saints, and for the benefit of Men; the Saints themselves being enter'd into the highest rest, and attending un­to more excellent things, being sequestred from us, and praying for us.’

S ^t Augustin acknowledgeth, you see, that the Saints and Mar­tyrs do pray for us.

Yes in general, as he expresseth it in the 16 ^th Chap. Ipsis in loco suis meritis congruo ab omni mortalium conversatiens remotis, &c. ‘They being remov'd from the society of Mortals, in a place suitable to their merits; and yet in general, praying for the indigency of poor Sup­plicants: As we pray for the dead, with whom we are not present, neither know we where they are, or what they do.’ Thus have I given an account of S ^t Augustins Judgment out of this Book, to shew, That he did not believe the Saints departed knew our conditions, or that Praiers were to be made to them. That which he mentions concerning the Prai­ers [Page 190] of the living for the dead, that will fall into consideration hereafter. Now as this excellent Father is voluminous, so are there scattered in his Works many other Passages to take us off from the Invocation of Saints, That even at their Shrines we ought not to pray to them, but to God. Lib. 8. De civit. Dei, cap. ult. He tells us, ‘That whatsoever Religious Obsequies are used in the Temples and Places of the Martyrs, they are Ornaments of their Me­mory: That we may give thanks to God for their Triumph, and may encourage others to their Imitation, from the renewing of their Me­mories, Eodem Deo invocato in auxilium.’ The same Lord being call'd upon for our assistance. Mark it: God being call'd upon for his assistance, that we may imitate the Mar­tyrs Virtues. Lib. 20. Centra faustum Manich. c. 21. Quod offertur, Deo offertur, &c. Again he tells us, That which is offer'd at the Shrines and Memories of the Martyrs, is offered to God.

This is true, as to Sacrifices, which belong only to God; but not as to our Praiers

Our Praiers are Christian Sacrifices, ascending up like the In­cense, and the Evening Sacrifice, Psal. 142. 2. Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy Vows unto the most highest, and call upon me in the time of trou­ble, saith the Prophet David, Psal. 50. 14, 15. So Tertullian Phraseth it, Lib. Ad Scapulam. Sacrificamus Deo pro salute Imperat. sed prece pura. We sacrifice unto God for the health of the Emperor, but with pure Praier. And in his Apology for Christians, Chap. 30. Offero opimam & majorem Hostiam orationem de carne pudica, &c. I offer to God, saith he, a more excellent Sacrifice, even Praier, proceeding out of pure lips and an in­nocent heart, and from the Holy Ghost. So Clemens Alexandrinus, Lib. 7. Stromatum, [...], &c. We honor God by Praier, and send up this best and most holy Sa­crifice. Our Praiers therefore, are the most acceptable Sacrifices from us to God. (Of your transcendent Sacrifice of the Mass, we may, God willing, treat hereafter.) Again in his first Tom. Lib. De ver a Relig cap. ult. he tells us. ‘That the service of the Body may be due to Princes; the service of the Soul, to God. He tells us farther, Ecce unum Deum colo, quisquis Angel. diligit. hunc Deum certus sum, &c. Behold I worship one God, the Fountain of all things, and the Angels that love God, I am sure they love me: Whosoever abides in him, and can hear the Praiers of Men, in him he heareth me, and in him he helps me. Religat ergo nos Religio uni Omnipotenti Deo.’ Religion therefore binds me to one Omnipotent God. The good Father often tells us, That the Blessed Saints and Angels expect no such service from us, but expresly, saith he, they direct us to pray to God. ‘ Psal 96. Tom. 8. Omnes Sancti & Angeli, &c. Ad ejus cultum, &c. All the Saints and Angels seek his glory whom they love, and they study to draw all whom they love to his Worship, and to his Contem­plation, [Page 191] and to pray to him. To this effect elsewhere he tells us, Lib. de Pastoribus, c. 8. Sunt montes boni, sc. autores divin script. The Authors of Holy Scripture are good hills, and when we look unto them, they will send you back to God, in whom standeth your help. Si in iis spem posueris contristabuntur. If you put confidence in them, they will grieve: The Angel, saith he, that related many Mysteries to John, being worship'd by him, he calls him back to God, Tanquam levantem oculos ad Montem, revocat ad Deum. as one that did lift up his eyes to the hills, saying, See thou do it not; worship God: I am thy Fellow-servant.’ Enar. upon Psal. 64. 3. Solus ibi, ex his qui carnem, &c. Again he sheweth, ‘How Christ is our High Priest enter'd within the veil, who only, of all that lived in the flesh, there doth make Inter­cession for us: And this, saith he, was shadowed under the Law, for in the first Temple, only the High Priest enter'd into the Holiest of all, and offer'd Sacrifice for the People, standing without.’ Once more, in the 10 ^th Book of his Confessions, chap. 42. S ^t Augustin speaks fully against Invocation of Angels, Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret Tibi? Whom may I find, saith he, to re­concile me to thee, O God! Shall I go to the Angels? With what Praier, with what Sacraments? Many desirous to return to Thee, and distrusting them­selves, as I hear, have tried this way, and have fallen into the curiosity of Visions, and became meet for Delusions. And now, after all that you have heard out of S ^t Augustin, I pray judg whether Bellarmin had reason to appeal to him, for the confirmation of the Invocation of Saints.

Notwithstanding all your insulting Triumphs, what hath bin brought by Bellarmin out of S ^t Augustin, hath not bin impertinent. But you forget one notable passage which Bellarmin quotes out of S ^t Augustin, in his 18 ^th Chapter of this Book and Controversie (you promis'd to take these Testimonies into consideration in your own season, but you have forgotten it) Aljuvet nos Cypr. Orationibus suis. Lib. 7. de Baptism. Contra Donatist. c. 10. It is a formal Invocation: Let Cyprian help us with his Praiers.

'Tis no Invocation of Cyprian, but S ^t Augustins desire put up to God, That the Blessed Martyr Cyprians Praiers might benefit him. It implies the Supplication of the Saints in Heaven, for the People of God in general, and his Praier to God, That he, with others, might reap the fruit of their Praiers.

I will conclude with Bellarmins last Argument; the Miracles that have attested this Doctrine, whereby the Saints and Martyrs have demonstrated, That they do hear our Praiers, and can help us.

For a general Answer hereunto, we have already shew'd out of S ^t Augustin, That Miracles may be done at the Monuments of the Saints, and themselves may appear unto Votaries in their Temples, and yet know nothing neither of the Miracle or the Apparition. God, by [Page 192] the ministery of Angels, working Miracles and Cures at their Shrines, for a Testimony unto the Faith for which these Martyrs died.

This general Answer will not serve: For the Learned Cardi­nal proves, out of the 3 ^d Book of S ^t Bernard's Life, That the Holy Fa­ther, Preaching at Tholouse, against such who denied the Invocation of Saints, before all the Congregation blessed Loaves of Bread with the Sign of the Cross, and offer'd this trial of his Doctrine, That if it were true, all who had Diseases in the great City, eating of these Loaves, should be healed: And so multitudes were healed of their Infirmities. Here you see, God did attest the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints by Mi­racle.

Bernard liv'd in the 12 ^th Century, and so the Testimony runs low: But withal, the Abbot who wrote those four Books, as a Legend of Bernards Life, suited the fabulous, credulous humors of these Times; he makes him a Wonder-worker thro-out. I well remember, That a­bove 30 Years since, being a Novice in the University, and reading this account of S ^t Bernards Life, I could not choose but abhor the notorious Forgeries of the Writer I pray read and judg.

I see you will not be convinc'd, and therefore I will proceed no farther in vain.

I give you thanks for your release. It hath bin no small trou­ble to search your Autorities, and discover in most of them either Im­pertinency or Forgery. And withal, I pray observe, That as your Pre­tensions unto the Testimony of Holy Scripture, of General and Provin­cial Councils for 700 years after Christ; of Fathers for the three first Cen­turies, have bin altogether ineffectual to prove your Doctrine of the In­vocation of Saints: That as your pretensions unto the Testimony of Fa­thers for the three next Centuries, many of them have bin impertinent, others forg'd; and the rest contradicted, either by themselves, or others in their time: So you have not attemted to shew for the practice of this Doctrine, That it was receiv'd by any Church in her public Offices: and therefore, at most, it must pass for the privat Opinion of some Doctors, not the consent of the Church, until your Church did introduce it, a­mong other Innovations: You do not shew how early, because you can­not within 600 years of Christ, and afterwards the Superstition crept in upon the World slowly, and by insensible degrees; one National Church following the example of another. Niceph. lib. 15. c. 28. [...], &c. We read indeed in the Greek Church, of one Peter Gnapheus, or Fullo (as the Latins interpret) who in the latter end of the fifth Century, was by craft Patriarch of An­tioch; he was an Heretic and Theopaschite, maintaining, That the God-head suffered upon the Cross: and he added to that Trisagium (Holy is the Lord, Holy is the Strong, Holy is the Immortal) who was Crucified for us. And for this cause he was condemn'd for an Hereseic in a Council at Rome, Felix the third being Pope, Anno Christi 483. This Peter Fullo, ^b E [...]n. Tom. 3. p. 600. [Page 193] as Nicephorus likewise shews, appointed, [...], &c. That in their Praiers Men should call upon the Mother of God, and Invoke her Divine Name. Now it is ob­servable, That Baronius speaks much of this P. Fullo, and of his Here­sie, and quotes Nicephorus; and yet takes no notice of his introducing the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, but tells us another blind Story, How this Fullo consecrated one Xenaias a Persian Bishop of Hierapolis, be­fore he was Baptized, and said, Dixit, sufficere pro Bapt. Consecrationem, Anno Christi, 483. That his Consecration might suffice instead of Baptism. He farther observes, how this Bishop Xenaias proved a great Eiconoclast, and destroier of Images, and so glories, that the Enemies of Image worship had such a president, as a barbarous Persian Unbaptized; mean while, never considering how it may be retorted upon him and his Church, That an arch Heretic, Petrus Fullo, first introduc'd the Invocation of Saints into some parts of the Church Catholic, in the public Office of Praiers, That Simon Magus, and some Jewish Christians, first Invocated Angels: That the Heathen Philosophy brought in the In­tercession of middle Deities. Will you now be pleas'd to hear some of our Arguments against this Doctrine?

Willingly: For I expect they should be like your Answers, of no great moment, and so put off with the less difficulty.

You may please your self with your own conceits; but I am confident, that upon serious consideration, they will perplex even the refractory, and convince the Ingenious Reader.

Their goodness depends not upon your Testimony: Let me hear them.

Our Blessed Savior taught his Disciples to Pray: He gave them a Praier, which should be a Form and Pattern to all succeeding Ge­nerations: and therefore he said, After this manner pray ye, Matth. 6. And Tertullian in his Book De Oratione, calls the Lords Praier, Legem O­rationis, The Law and Rule of Praier. Now in that Praier we have no Invocation of Saints, but rather Direction given when we Pray, to call upon God the Father which is in Heaven.

Ibid. c. 20. Non de eo qui Orandus, sed de rebus quae petendie sunt, admonuit Discipulos. Bellarmin answers this Argument, saying, That our Blessed Savior here taught his Disciples. not to whom they should make their Praiers, but what they should ask in Praier.

Bellarmin saith, but he doth not prove. The Disciples re­quest to Christ, was, concerning the matter and manner of Praier both, Lord, teach us to Pray, Matth. 69. And our Savior answers both, After this manner therefore pray ye: and when ye pray, say, Our Father, &c. Luke 11. 2.

Yours, at best, is but a Negative Argument: That because our Blessed Savior did not in this place teach us to desire the Praiers of the [Page 194] Saints in Heaven, therefore we ought not so to do: Wherefore do you desire your Friends that are living to pray for you?

Because we have warrant so to do from other places of Holy Scripture; But neither here, nor elsewhere, have our Savior or the A­postles taught us to call upon the Saints in Heaven for the assistance of their Praiers.

By this Argument, as Bellarmin shews, we ought not to pray to God the Son. or God the Holy Ghost, because our Savior hath here taught us to say only, Our Father.

The Father is not in the Lords Praier taken Personally, but as God. The Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit, is our Father by Creation, and Redemption, and Adoption. Hence your Learned Jesuit Maldonate upon the place, Magis illorum probo sententiam, qui totam hic Trinit. &c. I approve rather their Opinion, who hold, That the whole Trinity is here call'd, Our Father. And it is near unto Blasphemy to say with Bellarmin, That the Exclusive or Negative Argument from this Praier, holds as well against Christ and the Holy Ghost, as against the Saints. The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, are essentially one Creator and Father of all Men. The Saints are Creatures, and no com­parison between them, or consequence from one to the other.

You have used your self so much to bitterness of Speech, That it is become even natural to you, to impute unto our Doctors Blasphemy, and Forgery, and Impertinency, and Folly [...]; and what not? I pray pro­duce your Arguments, and forbear your Censures.

As the Apostle spake in another sense, so I, for an Apology, must say, You have constrained me; but I forbear. The next Argument against Invocation of Saints, is that of S ^t Paul, Rom. 10. 14. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Seeing we must believe only in God and in Christ, not in the Saints, therefore we must not call upon them: We may believe the Saints, but not believe in the Saints. Now the words of the Apostle are, How shall they call upon him, [...]. in whom they have not believ'd.

Bellarmin answers this Argument, by shewing, That the Apostle speaks of calling upon God. Now we must believe on him, before we can call upon him.

Must we not believe also in the Saints, before we call upon them?

Yes, Non posse eum Sanctos invocare qui non suo modo credit in Sanctos. Bellarmin tells you immediatly after, That he cannot call upon the Saints, who doth not in some sort believe in them.

Bellarmin saith this, Suo more, to pervert the Holy Scripture with his corrupt Glosses and Interpretations: The Fathers are positive, That to believe in him, refers only to God. [...], &c. Gregory Nazianzen tells us, [Page 195] It is not the same to believe in any one, and to believe any thing of him; the one belongs to God, the other to any Creature. So Ruffinus upon the Creed, By the syllable of this Preposition, In, the Creator is distinguish'd from the Creature; and Divine, from humane things. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: We believe the Holy Church. These were the antient Rules of Faith, until your Doctors gave us new. And yet Aqui­nas here leaves you: Catena aurea. In Joannem, c. 14. for upon Job. 14. 1. he observes, That Christ say­ing, Believe also in me, testifies unto his Disciples, That he is their God: for altho we may believe another, we must believe in God only.

You multiply Quotations in vain: For you heard that Bellar­min did not say absolutly, but that suo modo, We may believe in the Saints.

'Tis suo modo in truth: For the Ancients allow no such Qua­lification.

You may excuse the Expression, because he shews out of Holy Scripture, that we may believe in the Saints. In S ^t Pauls Epistle to Phi­lemon, ver. 5. Hearing of thy Love and Faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus, and towards all Saints. The Griginal is, Thy Love and Faith [...]. in all the Saints

He hath found one place, and none like it, to justifie his con­fident Assertions: But you must understand that Text right, by a fit tran­sposition of the terms: Hearing of thy Faith in Christ; and of thy Love towards the Saints: So Calvin reads it, and Firinus a Learned Jesuit, in their Commentaries upon the place.

You will turn and wind every Text to your own purpose: But Bellarmin explains himself concerning this believing in the Saints: Credere esse Sanctos in iis, ut in patronis sperare, eosque ut tales diligere. To believe that they are Saints, to hope in them as Patrons; and as such, to love them.

It seems by your Cardinals Interpretation of himself, these three Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope. and Love, contrary to their Nature, must be referr'd objectively to the Saints; and so Adoration, Invocation, acts of Religious and Divine Worship, must have the Saints for their object, according to your Doctors, who invert and pervert the frame and order of the ancient Theology by their new Models, and modern Inventions. By this rule, in our Ladies Psalter, as you call it, many Versicles of the 150 Psalms of David, are Blasphemously pervert­ed: The Name of God the Lord put out, and the name of our Lady put in. O Lady, How are they multiplied that trouble me, Psal. 3. ver. 1. Pon­der my words, O Lady, and consider my Meditations, Psal. 5. 1. O Lady, re­buke me not in thine Indignation, Psal. 6 10. Ʋnto thee, O Lady, lift I up my Soul, &c. Psal. 25. 1. Have mercy upon me, O Lady, who art call'd the Mother of mothers, according to the tender Bowels of thy Compassions, cleanse me from all mine Iniquities, Psal. 51. 1. And so it is carried on [Page 196] throughout the whole book of Psalms, until you come to the close, Praise our Lady in her Holiness, Laud her in her Miracles, and Ver­tues. Psalm. 150. 1. This is the new mode more Romano. This is the new Devotion of your Church.

Shew where our Church doth own or countenance such extravagancies.

This Psalter is of Cardinal Bonaventures making; a Fran­ciscan Frier, zealous for the Virgin Mari's superlative honor, (as ever was the while order of Franciscan's.) It is at larg printed in the fourth tome of his works, under publick Licence, Jussu Sixti quin ti permissu superiorum. by the command of Pope Sixtus the fifth, and the license of his superiors, and for this and other his Seraphical piety; he was afterward Canoniz'd for a Saint.

It cannot be of that Learned Schoolman's Composure, 3. Sent. dist. 3. qu. 2. dâ. Cavendum, ne dum Matris Exoel. ampliatus. &c. for he writes against such trancendencies ascrib'd unto the Blessed Vir­gin. And gives this pious caution. We must beware least whilst the Fxcellency of the Mother is amplified, the glory of the son be Eclipst; and so in Him she also be provok't to anger; who desires more the honor of her Son, then of her selfe. And he further answers that Objection, That the honor of the Mother Redownds to the Son. No saith He. Non omnis honor qui filio acbetur Maeri tribuendus. All the Honor due to the Son must not be given to the Mother.

He that saieth, all Honor due to Christ is not to be given to his Mother, supposeth that some Honor due to Christ is to be given to her. And that must be divine Honor: and withal because he was not of the Opinion of other Doctors, that she was Conceiv'd with­out Original sin; he spake these words, but he concludes, She was bo [...]n without sin, Sanctified immediately after her Conception in her Mo­thers Womb. That She never sined actually; and could not sin after her Conception by the holy Ghost, because She was confirm'd in Good as the blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven. However it is evident, such a Blasphemous Psalter there is, and (if ye will have it so) [...]oisted in­to his works, to procure the greater Reputation thereunto. And so you confess your own Authors are corrupted for the advantage of your cause. Mean while, your Index Expurgatorius, your high Com­mission Court of the Inquisition serves not, it seems, to Expunge out of Authors Blasphemous Spurious Writings, if they any way agree with the Genius of your Church; but to Expunge sound and Ortho­dox Divinity, which sui es not with your new Principle and doctrines, but of such Extravagancies hereafter. I pray tell me, can you Ima­gine so larg a Psalter consisting of an 150. Psalms, together with o­ther Blasphemous Hymns and Additions, could be permitted to come abroad into the world under his Name, and in his works, with so much Licence and Authority, if it were not well pleasing to those [Page 197] in the greatest Authority in your Church. Now I have instanced in this Psalter to shew how ye do believe and hope in the Saints, and so Rationally conclude that you ought to call upon them. But we have not so learned Christ to believe and trust in man, least the curse of God should light upon us. To proceed therefore in our Argu­ments against your Doctrine. We have already shew'd that your Doctors can make no proof, or give any assurance that the Saints in Heaven do hear our Praiers, and therefore that we should call up­on them in vain. But yet further as to our thoughts and mental Prai­ers, the Saints cannot discerne them, and therefore are not meet Objects of our Invocation,

Yes in the glass of the Trinity, even mens thoughts may be represented to them.

Never tell me what may be; but do you believe they do discerne our though's? you know in Scripture, to search the hearts, and know the thoughts of men, is made an incommunicable property of the divine Nature. Thou even thou only knowest the hearts of men, saith Solomon 1 Kings 8. 39.

To this Bellarmin answers, that God only naturally, and by hiw own vertue know's mens thoughts; but the Saints by Revelation, and the beatific Vision.

These are meer Dictates without proof. Devices to shift of unanswerable Arguments. How can your great Doctor prove that God reveles the thoughts of Men, and Women, and Children, and their mental Praiers to the Saints in Heaven, or that they behold them in the Beatifical Vision: whereas he is foret to acknowledg, that other things are conceled from them? for instance, neither An­gels, nor Saints, know the day of Judgment.

This wise discourse signifies but little. For if the Saints in glory cannot difcern nor hear mental Praier, let us put up vocal Supplications, unto them.

If you cry aloud, and they cannot hear you, what then? however there is more in this consideration, then so. Would you have the blessed Virgin as soon interceed for Hypocrites. as for sin­cere Christians? shall Peter admit you all promiscuously into Heaven? such Mediators, as you make the Saints, ought to be qualified for their high office, with a discerning faculty of the sincerity of men's hearts, who call upon them, and withal when men are speechless up­on their death-beds, and most need the help of their Fraiers, by your last supposition, they must go without them.

Why is this Argument, of not discerning the thoughts of mens hearts; of force against the Saints Intercession in Heaven, more then against the Intercession, and praiers of Saints upon Earth for one another;

Your selves make the wide difference between the Inter­cession of the Saints in heaven, and of the faithful here upon Earth. [Page 198] And that shall be the ground of our next Argument, against your Invocation of Saints and their Intercession, because you make their Mediation much to derogate from the Meditation and Intercession of Christ.

That indeed is a material Objection, but how do ye prove it? Ibid. Cap. 20. Bellarmin saith expresly. We do not call upon the Saints to per­form the Offioe of Christ; but only that they would assist us with their Praiers, the more easily for us to obtain our requests from God thro Christ. He acknowledges Christ to be the one only Mediator between God and man, by way of Redemption and satisfying the debt: and by Nature as being God and man: and because he only stands in need of no other Me­diator: whatsoever others obtain of God either for themselves, or others, they obtain it thro Christ. Now altho the Saints and Angels do not satisfie for our sins, and pay the debt, yet they may beseech God for Christs fake to forgive them.

If this were all, we would not much contend with them about the Saints Intercession, as prejudiciall to the Mediation and Intercession of Christ. But the Doctrine of your Schools goes fur­ther. That the Saints intercede for us, not only by their Praiers, but also by their merits; Sent. l. 4. dist. 45. ad finem. so Peter Lombard the Mr. of the Sentences Interprets the Act of Intercession. We pray to the Saints to Intercede for us. i. e. That their merits may become our assistance, and Immedi­ately before he saith, Intercedunt merito. & affectu. The Saints interceed with God for us by their Merits, whilst their Merits plead for us, and by their Love, desiring to have our requests granted. Bonaventure explains him. Altho, first he, the Saints in glory, Non sunt in statu merendi, are not in a state of Meriting and are sufficiently recompenc'd for their Merits in this life, In 4. Sent. dist. 45. yet because they did supererogate much, They have obtain'd such honor by there Merits, not only to deserve beatitude, and glory for themselves, but also to prove suffragans for others, so that he who was before unworthy; by Praying to the Saints, thro their Patronage becomes worthy. Now we say that thro the Merits of Christ, we who are otherwise altogether unworthy, have access, with boldness unto the Father, and there­fore we implore his Patronage, and Advocation, and Intercession, and take him as the only Mediator between God and man: and for all this we have the full and express Authority of Gods word. Thro Him, we have access by one Spirit unto the Father; In whom we have boldness, and access with confidence thro faith in Him. Ephe: 2. 18. and 3. 12. Again. If any Man Sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righte­ous, ^e Quia multa supererog. suis meritis adepti sunt locum, &c. [Page 199] and he is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 1. 2. Again. There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Man,, the Man Christ Jesus who gave him­selfe a Ransom for us. 1 Tim. 2. v. 5. 6.

I have shew'd above how Bellarmin acknowledgeth Christ, to be the one only Mediator, by way of Redemtion, and solution of the debt, but the Saints may be Mediators by way of Inter­cession.

If you meant only the Intercession of Praiers, it were to­lerable but your Doctors bring in the intercession of their Merits; and that implies, satisfaction of the debt, at least in some part their Superogation supplying our defect.

This refers unto another Point to be discust hereafter, touch­ing the Saints Merits, and Superogation; and therefore we will not now determine it.

Mean while upon your own grosse suppositions you make the Saints so to Interpose with God for us, as to Intrench upon the Intercession of Christ, who is therefore represented to be our Advo­cate, because, He is a propitiation for Sin. 1 John 2. 1, 2. As our Mediator, because, He gave himself a Ransom for all. 1 Tim. 2. 6.

You may take our Blessed Saviour as the principal in In­tercession, and satisfaction; and the Blessed Saints may come in as Inferiour Advocates, and Patrons.

This is the Rock, against which your Schole-men gene­rally Ship-wrack Concience. First, They take all things taught or practis'd in the Church of Rome as infallibly true, and then when any thing is objected out of Gods word, or the Testimony, of the Ancients against them, they salve themselves by a distinction So you have in Saints worship, and Image worship, [...]; a Supreme and inferior religious worship, composeth the difference. So Christ is the Invi­sible head of the Church Catholick, and the Pope the visible and Ministerial. So the works of the Law do not justify together with faith, but good works do. So you may hold two principles with the Manichees. For altho God be the only Author and Creator of good things; there may be any other first principle of evil things. And thus we can have no standing rule and measure of Truth, and Re­ligion, as long as the wit of Man, shal adventure to delude them by the subtlety of a distinction.

How can you attain to any true knowledg of things; if you take away the use of distinguishing.

Not the use but the abuse of distinguishing is our grei­vance; when subtle men elude the most evident Testimonies of the Scripture, and the Fathers against them, which distinctions minted in their own brains; and only serving, to their present purpose.

Our Doctors excellently distinguish in this work of Medi­ation. Namely,, That Christ is the Mediator between God and Man; [Page 200] and the blessed Saints, are Mediators between us and Christ, 3 Sent. Dist. 3. qu. 2. So Bo­naventure of the Blessed Virgin. She is the Mediatrix between us and Christ, as Christ is Mediator between us and God. l. 9. Moral. Just. c. 10. Sancti. apud Christum. &c. And so Azorius asserts of all the blessed Saints. The Saints are our Advocates and Pa­trons, with Christ, and Christ with God. And some of our Doctors give an excellent reason, of this distinction They say, Christ is not only an Advocate, but also a judge, examining the Merit of the suppli­cant; and how shall a poor Sinner come unto him without an In­tercessor to find Acceptance? so the Antonius 4. sum. titulo 15. Deus providet nobis. &c. Arch-Bishop of Florence, and therefore, saith he, God hath furnish'd us with an Advocatrix, who is gentle, and sweet, without any mixture of sharpness, according to that notable saying, of S ^t Bernard, (which Antonius cites) O man thou hast a secure access to God, where the Mother stands before the son, and the son before the father, the Mother shewing her Breast, and Paps, and the son his Side, and the Wounds unto his Father.

This is a new Model of Divinity to the purpose, we had thought the Love of Christ towards poor Sinners, could find no pa­ralel. That the good Shep-heard needed no solicitation, and medi­ation of others, to bring home the lost sheep; he came down from Heaven to save it. We find he has gratiously invited the weary and heavy laden to come unto him; do ye find where he puts them from him, since the work of our Redemption is perfected? The Apostle tells us, he can have compassion of our infirmities, and be touched with a fellow feeling, being in all points Tempted like as we are, yet without Sin. And therefore we may come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain Mercy. Feb. 4 15. 16. That we have a Mer­ciful and Faithful High Priest, to make Reconciliation for the Sins of the People. Heb. 2. 17. That he is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him; seeing he ever liveth to make Interce­ssion for them. Heb. 7. 25 All this and much more we Read to our unspeakable Comfort, but nothing of his severe Inquisition, and Judg­ing them that come to him, before his second coming unto Judgment. And yet I must tell you, you have bin too favouroble in the disco­very,; this Mystery of Iniquity works higher then you have Repre­sented. The blessed Virgin must not only intreat, but command her Son. It is a Notorious form of Praier among you O Felix Puerpera Jure Matris impera. O happy Mo­ther, upon a Mothers autority command thy Son. And altho Ibin. c. 16 Qui [...] nostrum hoc dicit. Bellarmin [Page 201] askt who used that Form, as tho he were ignorant thereof: yet as being conscious, he immediately after Exenses and justifies the Prai­er. Si Josh. 10. dicitur obedire. &c. For, saith he, if it be said Joshua the 10. The Lord obe [...]'d the voice of a Man, why may not, after some sort, the Son of God be said to obey his Mother.

Aliquo modo, Your Doctors can make any thing good, but in the first place, it is not there said. That the Lord obei'd the voice of Man. So indeed your vulgar Translation renders it, but according to the Original, we read it thus. ^b That the Lord hearken­ed unto the voice of a Man. Josh. 10. 14. And so the septuagint, and if God did obey the voice of a Man, yet we do not read that Joshua did command the Lord; but only the Sun, and Moon, Sun stand thou still in Gibeon, and Thou Moon in the vally uf Asalon, and there­fore, Jure Matris impera. vpon the authority of a Mother command thy Son; it was Into­lerable to say so, when Christ was in the Flesh, and subject to his Parents; much more now he being ascended into Glory. You do not read that the Blessed Virgin laid any command upon her Son on Earth.

You may take these as high Expressions of a devout Soul, manifesting her confidence in the blessed Mother, to obtain any thing of her Son, and Saviour.

Such extatic devotion hath led many of your Church beyond all reason, and Religion, in their superstitious addresses to the Saints; and upon this occasion given, I will insist more upon your Extravagancies, in the Invocation, and worship of our Lady. You salute Her the Queen of Heaven, and Mother of Mercies: and so your Doctors have assigned unto Her more then half the Kingdom with the Father. As the great King Abassuerus promist unto Queen Ester. Gabriel Biel, Supra Canon. Missae lect. 80. &c. One of your Schoolmen tells us, That God reserving the ex­ecution of Justice to himself, hath granted to the Virgin Mother, the dispensation of Grace, and Mercy. Bernardinus in suo Mariali. &c. By another we are taught, to ap­peal from the Bar of Gods Justice, unto the Throne of Mercy, of the Bless­ed Virgin. And whereas the Apostle exhorts, to come boldly unto the Throne of Grace, that we may obtain Mercy. The Arch-Bishop of Florence tels us, That Mariah est thronus Christi. &c. Mary is this throne wherein Christ rested, and that it is necessary all such should be Justified and saved, unto whom she turnsher favorable coun­tenance, and for whom she, proves an advocate and Bernardinus further ^• [...]. [Page 202] assures us, ‘That In Christo tanquam in capite influente, in Mariâ tanquam, &c. as Grace is in Christ, as in the head and fountain, so is it in Mary as in the neck transmitting;’ So that no Grace can descend from Heaven upon the sons of men, but thro the hands and conveyance of the Blessed Virgin. Lay all this together, and you will soon perceive how by a strange emulation of her Votaries the supersti­tion is improv'd, even into the highest degree of blasphemy.

Our Church is not concern'd in these follies of private persons and superstitious Votaries.

You have past a just Censure upon them, yet you will find they deriv'd their imaginations from others before them of great Au­tority in your Church. You may turn Canisius the Jesuits Catechism, set forth in a large Folio, under the licence of Pope Pius the fift. In his second chap. of the Lords Praier, and the Angel Gabriel's Salutation: quaest. 18 among others he cites out of Damascen, Bernard, and Anselm, these passages. Domina peccatoris orationem accipe, To solum gaudii spem habentis, &c. ‘O Lady receive the praier of a sinner, who doth fer­vently love and worship thee as his only hope and joy, and pledg of Salvation. Shake off the burden of my sins, and subdue temptations, and guide me in holiness, that by thy conduct I may obtain eternal bliss. Invituperabilem Deipara spem tuam, &c. Omnipotens auxtlium tuum. I shall be sav'd under thine irreprovable hope; having your pro­tection as a brestplate, and your omnipotent assistance. Blessed Mother of God open unto us the Gate of mercy, that trusting in thee we may not err and may be freed from all evil: Tu enimes salus generis humani. For thou art the Salvation of Mankind. Omnem spem meam in Te repono Mater luminis. I put my whole trust in thee, ô Mother of Light.’ This he cites out of Damascen. Out of Bernard he brings these passages. Praecessit nos Regina nostra, praecessit, ut fiducialiter sequantur Dominam, &c. ‘Our Quen is gon before, receiv'd into her glory, that we her servants may call after her. Draw us that we may run after Thee, be­cause of the savour of thine Ointments. Cant. 1. The Blessed Virgin ascending up on high, even she will give gifts unto men. For what should hinder, seeing neither power nor a will is wanting? She is the mercifull Queen of Heaven, and the Mother of Gods only Son. Let him forbear to magnify thy mercy, who hath found thee wanting, when he call'd upon thee. O thou Blessed, who can take the length and breadth and height and depth of thy mercy? Out of Anselm this. Peripsam gratiam quâ Te De us omnipotens exaltavit, & omnia Tibi, &c. We beseech thee ô Lady by that grace whereby almighty God hath highly exalted thee, and given to thee together with himself all things possible, that Thou wouldst obtaine for us such fulness of grace which thou hast deserv'd to bring us to Glory. Do thou only will our Salvation, and we shall be sav'd, help us therefore most benigne Lady, and not remembring the multitude of our sins incline thy heart to [Page 203] pity us.’ Again, if your Church doth not approve, how come your Superiors to licence such books? why does your Sacred Colledg of In­quisitors strein at Gnats in other'd mens writings, & swallow these Ca­mels? If your Doctors did abhor such blasphemies, they would expunge them, they would bend their interests and their studies against them. But the naked truth is, That the Orders of the Franciscan's, and the Je­suits most of them, have so vehemently espous'd the honor of our Lady, that nothing comes amiss to advance it; and these having the greatest influence upon the Court of Rome, have in a manner silenc'd all such as among your selves would have contradicted. For Instance, in that great Question about the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in her Mothers womb, the Dominicans were Orthodox, and in the negative, maintaining well, That all who descended from the loins of Adam by natural generation were conceiv'd in sin, infected with original cor­ruption. That only Christ was without sin; and therefore his Blessed Mother was not free at least from original sin. That if Christ was her God and Sa­viour, (as she acknowledges in the first verse of her Magnificat,) therefore she was a sinner. For he was therefore call'd Jesus, or Saviour, because he should save his People from their sins. But the other party effected that by power and interest, which they could not make good by Argu­ment: & by plurality of votes they prevail'd in the Concil. Trid. sess. 5. Declarat tum haec sancta Synodus, non esse suae, &c. Council of Trent, That the Virgin Mother should not be included within the Canon of original sin; but the Constitutions of Sixtus 4 ^tus the Pope should be observed. The same faction had before prevail'd upon the Pope and Court to establish a Solemn Feast in memory of her Immaculate Conception; they procur'd the Edict of Pope Xystus quartus, that none should write or dispute against it: and so the opinion of the Immaculate Conception is fairly made a Doctrine of the Church, seeing the Feast is solemniz'd by the Autho­rity of the Pope. For Pope Sixtus an ^o 1476 publisheth his Bull Vid. Bin. tom. 8. pag. 1051, 1052. to establish the Feast with great Indulgences to all such as should devoutly keep the Feast, and be present at the solemn Offices and Services of it: and seven years after he sets forth another Bull, severely forbidding any one to speak or write against the Immaculate Conception, and the Council of Trent Confirms that Decree of Xystus. You see therefore how matters are carried by favour and affection, under shew of piety, & devotion, & honour towards the Mother of God; they have introduc'd heretical opinions and presumtious blasphemies, whereof I have given some instances.

I pray forbear your railing, & keep close to the point of Saints Invocation, and bring your exceptions against the public practise of the Church, if any you have, and trouble not your self and me with per­sonal extravagancies and phancies.

I thought a Popes Bull for the Celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and the confirmation thereof by your darling [Page 204] Synod, the famous Council of Trent, had bin no personal extra­vagance.

What is that to the Invocation of Saints & the Virgin Mother? speak to the point, or else conclude.

Yes, the Bull of Sixtus the fourth confirms much such extra­vagancies. For in that Decree the Virgin Mary is stiled Bin tom. 8. p. 1051. Kegina Coeli, Stella matutina, via misericord. &c. Queen of Heaven; the morning Star, the way of mercy, Mother of grace, and the com­forter of Mankind.

Leave these digressions, & speak to the point of Saints Invocation.

I am perswaded, as you do not approve, so you cannot justify such passages and expressions, and therefore you have not patience to hear of them; but I will follow your direction and contract my obser­vations within the public Offices and Breviaries. Ibid. c. 17. Maria Matergratiae, Mater misericordiae, tu nos ab hoste, &c. Bellarmin tells us the Church Catholic in her Hymn to the Virgin Mary, praies thus; ‘O Mary Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, Do thou defend us from the enimy; and and receive us in the hour of death.’ If we may judg of words by their signification, doubtless this praier imports more then barely a desire of her assistance by her praiers.

Bellarmin in the same place gives you a general rule against such sinister constructions: Nos non agere de verbis, at sensis verborum. We dispute not of the words, but of their sense Now the sense of our Church in all such petitions, is, that the Blessed Virgin and the Saints by their praiers and by their merits would procure these things for us.

Altho this may be the sense of your Church; yet it is not the signification of the words; and methinks to avoid the just occasion of scandal given to your adversaries by them, & the occasion of errour and delusion given to your undiscerning votaries, your Church should have exprest her self in more inoffensive and justifiable termes. Bellar­mine gives a 2 ^d instance in the Hymn of the Apostles, he saith, the Church praies thus: Quorum praecepto subditur, salus & languor omvium, sanent aegros, &c. ‘Let the Holy Apostles unto whose command both the welfare and languishings of all men are submited; let them heal us who are morally sick, and restore us unto a life of vertues.’ If Command here must signify Intercession and supplication: your Church would do well and wisely to set forth a new Dictionary, to interpret words and sen­tences, not after the common sense and signification of them, but after the Roman glosse. Mean while an impartial Judg must needs conclude these interpretations to be forc'd, only to salve the inconveniencies and absurdities of such praiers: and if your Church had design'd only to invocate the Saints in Heaven for their Intercession with God by their praiers, she would have made use of more humble and suitable expressions; but making the Intercession of Saints to consist as well in their merits as in their praiers; calling upon them as well for their patronage, as their Intercession. This, I say, hath prepar'd the way for all those [Page 205] foremention'd presumtions and blasphemies in your addresses to them, and Invocation of them. If God be the Father of grace and mercy, and Mary the Mother, who would imagine otherwise, but that these heaven­ly blessings flow originally and immediatly from them both.

It is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is call'd the Mother of mercy, because she is the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the fountain of Grace and mercy.

Your Doctors do not teach you so to understand it, seeing they represent Christ as a severe Judge towards a poor sinner, and Mary their Advocate for mercy. You have heard how in the distribution of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Province of Justice is allott'd to the Son, and of Mercy to the Virgin Mother. Your Florentin Archbishop tells us; That upon the Assumtion of the Blessed Virgin into Heaven, (as your Doctors have carefully imprinted that belief in the hearts of the credulous people, the whole person of the Virgin Mary, both Body and Soul, is taken up into Heaven.) I say we are told that when she was translated into Heaven, the Seraphims attended upon her, and earnestly sollicited her stay and society with their sublime Order. But she deliberatly answer'd; Non est honum hominem esse solum. It is not good the Man should be alone, meaning her Son, and that She must assist him in the Re­demtion of Gods people by her Compassion, and in their Glorification by her In­tercession. That when for the Iniquity of the world her Son should be ready to destory the Earth a second time with a floud, she may appeare as the bow in the clouds, to oppose his fury, and mind him of his Covenant and promise. These are the luxuriant fancies of your Archbishop: suitable hereunto I read of Vide Chemnit, exam. Trid. Concil p. 3. de Invoc. Sanct. Pictures in your Temples representing Christ in his indigna­tion, casting darts and thunderbolts, and the Blessed Virgin standing between his wrath and sinfull men, and receiving the darts into her bosom.

Still you return to the fancies of private Doctors and Painters, your promis'd more authentick proofs.

What think you of that great promise made to uphold man immediatly after his fall, concerning Christ the seed of the woman; who should break the serpents head, that is overcome the Devil and all infernal powers? Your vulgar Translation (which must be more authentick then the Original) reads the Pronoun in the feminine, Ipsa conteret caput. serpentis. Gen. 3. She shall bruise his head: instead of, He shall bruise, as the Hebrew and the Septuagint read it: And hereupon your Doctors refer the promise unto the Virgin Mary, as tho in all things she must have the preheminence.

Bellarmin shews, how the vulgar Translation varies. Tom. 1. lib. 2. de Verbo Dei c. 12. He hath seen a Copy which reads it likewise in the masculine.

What he hath searcht and found we know not; but your Translation generally runs in the feminine. And he acknowledgeth the Latin Fathers, being misled by the vulgar Translation, take it in the [Page 206] feminine. And upon that same account your Doctors refer the Prophecy­to the Virgin.

Bellarmin shews in the second place, that he saw an Hebrew Copy which had the feminine [...] not [...].

This observation is like the former, upon some corrupt Copy, against the general reading of the Hebrew Text. And he would leave the Scriptures altogether upon uncertainties, that their Translation might not be lyable to reprehension.

He refers to Chrysostom a Father of the Greek Church, who, he saith, reads it in the feminine.

He doth so after his accustum'd manner to deceive his Reader. For it is manifest the Homil. 17. in Gen. [...]. Father reads it in the masculine, perhaps here also the Cardinal consulted some Latin Translation of Chrysostom which might serve his turn. He makes some other inconsiderable pleas to justify the vulgar reading, chiefly because of this modern reference unto Our Lady. Whereas some Fathers of the Latin Church being ignorant of the He­brew and the Greek, follow the vulgar translation, and yet, as I can find, never reflected upon the Virgin Mary in that promise; only your new Doctors, who, many of them, have knowledg of the Tongues sufficient to discern the error of the translation, yet please them selves much therewith, and make their advantage of the error, to improve the honor of the Lady, and make her the prime subject of that grand Prophecy. By this way they may justify the petition of your Churches praier to Her: Tunos ab hoste protege. That She would defend ut from our ghostly Enemy. Because as Eve was overcome by him, so Mary should be victorious and bruise his head: and so the recompence should be made unto mankind, by the same Sex which had transgress'd.

I still must mind you of leaving these excursions, and shew wherein the Church of Rome offends in this point of the Invocation of Saints.

I shew you how she offends in owning the vulgar translation, and giving occasion unto those usual blasphemies concerning the Virgin Mary. However I will proceed and shew how in her general Coun­cils (as she esteem, them) in her Popes, in her Liturgies, she hath given great Offence and scandal unto the Israel of God. In that great Lateran Council begun an ^o 1512, Julius the second being Pope, and end­ed 5 years after under Pope Leo the tenth consisting of 114 Bishops: we shall read in Bin. Tom. 9. in Conc. Lateran. Binius his Edition of the Councils the 9 ^th tome, how in the opening of the several sessions of that Council, for the greater solemnity, Homilies were made by men of great fame and Learning among them. Caietanus begins the 2 ^d session with his Oration or Ser­mon, and premiseth this address to the Virgin Mary. Quoniam nihil est quod homo sine divino quxilio possit pollicori, ad gloriasam ipsant Vi [...]ginem Dei Matrem, primo convertam Orationem meam. A [...]t Maria. Because man can [Page 207] promisse to himself nothing without divine assistance, therefore in the first place I will address my praier unto the glorious Virgin Mother of God. Hail Mary, &c. So Balthasar Del Rio, in the opening of the seventh session, begins his Sermon. Ʋt non inprata audire atque audita exequi possitis, Deiparae Virg. Maria prae­sidium imploremus. Ave Maria, &c. That ye may hear acceptable things spoken, and perform them, let us implore the protection of the Virgin Mary Mother of God. Hail Mary full of grace, &c.

These are instances of no direful consequence. In the Solemn performance of those holy exercises they implore the assistance of the Blessed Virgin; you may suppose, the assistance of her praiers.

We in our Homilies and Sermons apply our selves to the blessing of Gods assistance; and you in the first place seek to the divine assistance of the Blessed Virgin. (for so Caietanus appears to call it) how­ever you see it is the mode and form, even in the presence of so great Council, That the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, should justle out all supplication to God in their Sermons: for otherwise they would not alwaies have kept to this way. For so in the ninth session Antonius Puccius, a Bishop and Clerk of the Apostolical Chamber, having pro­pos'd great things to speak of. Antequàm haec aggredior, per Angelicam salutat. beatiss. Virg. opem suppliciter implorabo. Ave Maria, &c. ‘Before I enter, saith he, upon these things I will humbly implore help from the most Blessed Virgin in the Angelical Salutation, Hail Mary, &c.’ But the last instance I will give in the tenth session is observable; the Homily was made by a Ve­nerable Archbishop named Stephen, 70 years old; and having design'd to insist upon considerable points out of the 48 Psalme, he praies in these words. Ipsa Virgo beata, Angelorum. Domina, fens omnium gratiarum: quae omnes haereses interemit, cujus eperá magna Reform. Principum concord. & ve [...]t centra Infid. expe­ditie feri debet. ‘May the Blessed Virgin, Lady of Angels, the fountain of all graces, afford her help, who hath slain all heresies, and by whose assistance the great reformation in hand, the unity of Princes, the expedition against Infidels, must be carried on.’ And because this was not enough, the good old man improves his youthful Muse to compose an Ode unto the Virgin, to implore her assistance, as well in Meeter as in Prose. He goes on in this mode of supplication.

You see the Authentick practise of your Church, before so solemn an Assembly. These Applications made to the Blessed Virgin in solemn forms of Praier, and in such Terms, are inconsistent with the rules of Piety, and Religion.

You may let this pass upon the score of a Poetical Licence.

In our Praiers we should be devout, and modest, not licentious and bold; but alas if you look back upon his supplica­tion in Prose, you will find it more extravagant, his Luxuriant Fan­cy was not there confin'd to measures. But from these instances you may take the measures of their Licenc'd, and most authentic impiety. such Hymnes made the best Melody, and were most accep­table unto your Fathers of the Church, and all her Children in the Antichristian times.

Your indiscreet Zeal transports you beyond the rule of Charity, which might instruct you to put a fair gloss upon some harsh Expressions.

I dare not call evil good, neither have I learn'd the Art of your Doctors, to undertake the defence of great Impieties, and Blasphemies, and make them plausible by a distinction. The next general Council (as you reckon) was that of Trent: where we have the Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints establisht, and all those de­clared Impious who think otherwise. And altho the Council pen'd the decree in most cautious terms, (being awakened with the exceptions of reformed Churches,) Concil. Trid. sess. 25. yet we may plainly there discover, That it is not their Praiers only which we must sue for, but also the help, and succor of the Saints in Heaven. It is good and profitable humbly to call upon them, and to fly to their Praiers, and aid, and help. If the coun­cil had intended only the Assistance of their Praiers, they would not have multiplied terms without cause in their decree. But in these words they have left open a Gap, for the Saints votaries to justify their Praiers to the Saints for their aid, and protection, to expect effectual favours from them, not only by their Praiers, but also by their Active powers. These things will easily fall under this clause of the Decree, Ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque, confugere.

I have no reason to admit sinister constructions, any farther then the words will necessarily force me. Now the later terms may be Exegetical of the former, and well transpos'd thus, To fly to the aid and assistance of their Praiers. And then tell me what have you gotten by this decree.

Your practise will best interpret your Rule. If the pub­lic praiers of your Church request more of the Saints in Heaven, then the assistance only of their Praiers, you may suppose your Church intended, and understood, and exprest more in her decree. You shall find your Church often to supplicate, That as well by the Merits, as by the Intercession of the Saints, God would be favourable unto them. In the Hymnes above mentioned, to the Virgin Mary, she is call'd the Mo­ther of Grace, and mercy, and Protection from our Ghostly Enemy is sought from her, and reception into Glory. So likewise in the hymne of the Apostles, Grace, and Vertue is desired of the Saints for such as languish in their Vices. And that by the command of the A­postles, as it is exprest, and not by their Praiers. And yet Bellarmin hath the confidence to interpret all these things, according to the sense of the Church, as he speaks, That all these things are expected from their Praiers, not from any other assistance. You shall find several Popes in the Names of Peter, and Paul, promising great things unto Princes, who shall engage in the defence, and cause of the Church, and threatning dreadfull Judgments from them upon such as are dis­obedient. Pope Hadrian writing to the Emperor Constantine and Irene his Mother, Congratulates their embracing the Faith of Peter, and Paul, Princes of the Apostles, and promiseth, Binius Teme 5. p. 554. [...], &c. They shall protect the Empire, make them Victorious, and bring the Barbarous Nations under their feet. On the contrary we find direful threats from these two Apostles. Pope Pius the 4 ^th concludes his Bulls after this sort, Nulli hominum liceat bane. &c vid. Concil. Trid. edit. per Joan. Gallema [...]t, ad finem. Let none presume to infringe this our Declaration. If any shall attemt to do so, let him know he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty, and of his two blessed Apostles Peter, and Paul. These things are Obvious, and I will not heap Quotations to prove them, I will only give you an Account of one notable Letter to this effect, which I mention'd in the beginning of this Conference, and will now transcribe much of it for your sake, and the Readers, that ye may judge, what your Popes opinion was of the power, and Parronage of the Apostles, and so by consequence of the other Saints. Bin. Tom. 5. p. 55. Pope Stephen the 3. being grievously streightened by Aystulphus King of Lombardy, who with a Potent Army besieged Rome; sends a Letter in the name of S ^t Peter, unto Pipin, and his two sons, Charles, and Carloman Kings of France. It begins thus, Petrus Apost. vecatus à Jesu Christo dei filio, &c. Peter call'd to be an Apostle, by Jesus Christ the Son of God, &c. Grace, Peace, and Power, &c. To you most excellent men, Pipin, Charles, and Carloman 3 Kings, &c. After the [Page 210] salutation he proceeds. Ego Petrus Apost. dietus a Christo &c. I Peter an Apostle being call'd by Christ, and the good pleasure of the Divine Clemency, and ordain'd by his power to enlighten the whole world. ‘ Quamobrem omnes, &c. Therefore all Men who fulfil my Preaching, and command, must believe, That their sins by Gods precept are forgiven in this World, and shall go into life Eternal without Blemish, &c. Therefore I Peter, &c, Who have Adopt­ed you for my Sons, do exhort you to defend the City of Rome, and my Sepulcher, and Temple there, against the Incursion of my Ene­mies. Pro certo confidite memet ipsum, &c. And know ye for certain that I my self will be present with you, to assist you as tho I were present and visible in the Flesh, for altho I am absent in the Flesh, I am present in the Spirit. Now our Lady the Mother of God, the Thrones, and Dominions, and all the Host of Heaven, with the Martyrs, and confessors of Christ, with all obligations possible do adjure you, to assist my City, and People of Rome, with your utmost power, and speed. Et ego Petrus in hac Vita. &c. And I Peter by way of recompence, will become your Brother in this life, and in the day of Gods strict Judgment, prepare Mansions for you in the glorious Kingdom of God, the reward of eternal recompence, and the Infinite joies of Paradice, Nay whatsoever Protections and assistance you will ask, I will give you. I therefore Conjure you by the most beloved living God, that ye permit not my City to be sackt by the Lombards, least your Souls and Bodies be likewise torn and tormented in everlasting Fire, with the Devil and all his Pestilent Angels. Firmiss. tenete quod ego, &c. Ye must firmly be­lieve that heretofore when you Prai'd unto me, I did help, and give you Victory over your Enemies, by the power of God, when you were few in number, in comparison of the Enemies of the Church. Ecce chariss. fili, &c. He concludes. Behold my dear sons, I have warned you, if you obey with speed, it shall be your great reward, and my suffrage shall help you in this life, ye shall overcome your Ene­mies, and live long, and eat good things, and afterwards ye shall inherit Eternal life But if ye make any delay: know ye that by the authority of the holy, and individual Trinity, and by the Apostolical grace given unto me, ye shall be alienated, for the trans­gression of this my Exhortation, from the Kingdom of God, and from life Eternal.’

I have had the Patience to hear you, I pray let me now un­derstand your design in these Instances.

Your Popes are public Persons, and you would have them thought to be guided by an infallible Spirit; especially in their [Page 211] Buls & Epistles and serious agitations, not to err. And you see what power they ascribe to the Saints departed, not only of Interceding, but Acting for us, and against our enmies. And partly from thence your Doctors have taken occasion to instruct the people to invoke them as Patrons, and Protectors, and Saviours out of trouble. Now you have a rare art of Reduction, if you can bring all this under the single head of Intercession; that they effect these things only by their praiers to God, and not by a delegacy of his power to them.

It comes all to one, if by their praiers they obtain such power to save and to destroy.

Take your suppositions for granted, and the case is clear. Mean while you put the poor ministring Angels out of Office, delegating their ministery and powers unto the Saints triumphant: and yet I cannot let pass without a just indignation and censure these forementioned Threats in the Popes Bulls and Letters, ‘That the indignation of our great God, and of his two Apostles Peter and Paul,’ should be threatned together, as tho one were as much to be fear'd as the other: and so likewise for the conferring of blessing, and the return of thanks, they are directed to God and to the Saints. It is Bellarmin's close in every Tome, Laus Deo & beatae Virgini. Praise be given to God, and to the Blessed Virgin: and so all the Jesuits conclude. Nay, Gregory de Valentia puts the Virgin before our Saviour in the close of many of his Books, Laus Deo & beatae Virgini Mariae, & Domino Jesu Christo. Nay, we read how Pope Pius the fift ascrib'd that famous Victory over the Turks in the Battel of Lepanto to the Virgin Mary, and appointed a Solemn Festum S. Mariae à Victoriâ, Octobr. 7. Feast in memory thereof. We shall find likewise in Epistolarum lib. 12. Epist. 22. Speramus in c [...]nip. Dei virt. & in beati Petri Apost. Principis adjutorio. Gregory the Great, such expressions as these: ‘We trust in the power of the most high God, and in the help of blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles.’ Now the holy Fathers taught us another lesson, (as I have intimated partly before) not to join to­gether almighty God and the Angels or any other Creature in our sup­plications or benedictions, or threats or confidences. Oratione 4. contra Apr. Great Athana­sius proves the unity of God the Father and of Christ, because the Apostle hath join'd them in one praier. ‘God him self and our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you. 1. Thess. 3. 11.’ And he proceeds, ‘No man must pray to receive any thing from the Father and from the Angels or any other Creature, [...]. neither may any one say, God and the Angel give thee this.’ Upon this ground, as you have heard, he concluded in Jacobs blessings upon the sons of Joseph, that the An­gel stands for the Son of God, the Angel of his Counsel, as the Septua­gint, [Page 212] read Is. 9. 6. So Thes. l. 3. c. 1. Cyril of Alexandria, ‘No man would endure to hear any one say, Would God and some Angel would direct your course to us, &c.’ But alas in your Church your ears are accustom'd to such blasphemous conjunctions. Jesu Maria, is an usual oath among you, and God help you and the Blessed Virgin, you wish: if a beggar ask you Alms you say, God relieve and S. Peter. And so you have heard the imprecations of your Popes, The indignation of God Almighty and of Peter and Paul light upon you. Now, saith holy Athanasius, Loco citat: [...], &c. It sufficeth these things should come from the Father alone, no Creature communicating. So ye make solemn vowes unto God and some particular Saint in trou­ble, and after deliverance pay to the Saint your vows. Nay, Cardinal In 2. secundae q. 88. Art. 5. Eâdem ratione votum sit D [...]o & Sanctis, nec obstat quod sit actus relig. quia ejusdem virtutis est vovere & [...]rare. Cajetan maintains, That a vow is made to God and to the Saint in the same manner, altho a vow be a religious Act; for we may as well make vows to them, as praiers. And therefore notwithstanding all your qualifying distinctions, and [...], there appears little difference in the Invocation of God and of the Saints: especially when you come to the practice of this Doctrine. These Instances which we have already given are authority sufficient unto the undiscerning people, to ask all blessings from the Saints, and to hope from them to receive blessings as confi­dently as from Almighty God.

No, they are taught to expect blessings from God, for the sake and Intercession of the Saints.

And they are taught and accustom'd to ask blessings of the Saints without any such limitations, but in an absolute manner.

If the limitation be not exprest, it must be implied.

It seems the ground of your peoples error is expressed, when the Hymns and prayers of your Church ask grace and protection of the Saints, without the reserve, that they should procure them by their Inter­cession. But that which should undeceive them is supprest, or (as you will have it) implied, that what they ask absolutly of the Saints, they must under­stand it only in reference to their praiers and Intercession. And so the ignorant people, who understand only the plain words of the petition, and not the sense of the Church (which is understood) are induc'd to hope in the Saints for their succours, and to fly to them in trouble as to their cheif Sanctuary, and to return their thanks and their vows to them for their deliverance. [...]omm in lib. 8. Aug. de C [...]v. Dei. Multi Christiam divos divasque non ali­ter venerantur quam Deum, &c. Ludovicus Vives complains that the common people highly offend in not discerning between the worship of God and of the Saints; nor doth their opinion, saith he, of the Saints want much of what the Heathen do believe of their Deities or Idols.

What value we Ludovicus Vives? come to the point. What are [Page 213] these praiers to the Saints, which you say our Church owns and pre­scribes, and are so offensive to your tender ears, and such a snare unto the people of God among us?

Such as have the opportunity to search into your Breviaries and Missals have collected their gross absurdities: and your Doctors, as I can find, have not bin sollicitous to answer them. I shall give you some instances which I have taken out of one of your service books stiled Ordinarium secundum usum Sarum. The Ordinary after the use of Sarum, printed at Paris by William Merlyn. In the Office of the Virgin we have these passages, Tuum nobis impende solatium, per te mereamur habere praemium, & cum electis Dei reenum. Impart to us thy comfort, by thee may we deserve the reward, and the Kingdom of Heaven with the Elect. Again, Tuo pio interventu, &c. ut per te redemti, sedem gloriae, &c. ‘By thy pious intervention wash away our sins, that being redeemed by thee we may climb the Seat of eternal glory. O holy Virgin thou alone hast slain the heresies of the World: Accipe quod offerimus, redona quod rogamus, &c. accept what we offer, give what we ask, and excuse what we fear.’ Then follows a Formal praier or Collect: O Regina Mundi, Scala Coeli, Thronus Dei, Janua Parad. &c. ‘O Queen of the world, the ladder of Heaven, the Throne of God, and Gate of Paradise, hear the praiers of the poor, and despise not the sighs of the miserable: Let our groans and our desires be brought by thee into the sight of our Redeemer; which by our misdeservings are cast out. Dele peccata, relaxa facinera, erige lapsos, solve compeditos. Blot out our transgressions, release our sins, raise the faln, and loose such as are bound: Let the branches of vices be cut off, and the flowers of ver­tue planted. Placa precibus Judicem, quem puerp. genuisti Redemt. &c. Appease the Judg by thy praiers, whom thou hast brought forth a Redeemer. That as by thee he was made partaker of the humane nature, so by thee he may make us partakers of the Divine Nature.’ One passage more neer the close of the service I will produce. The Ca­tholic Church celebrates the holy memory of Mary Mother of God, who stands in need for her salutary help without ceasing. Quoniam reverent. quae Matri exhibetur Christo dofertur, ideo totis desideriis, &c. Ʋt Matrem sentiamus piissimam, et felium ejus Judicemisereniss. ‘And be­cause the reverence towards the Mother redounds to Christ; therefore with all the desire of our hert we will insist on her praises; that the Mother may be favorable to us, and the Son a serene Judg.’

You see most of these passages do proceed upon her praiers and intercession, that she would interpose for us and present our supplica­tions and sighs unto our Redeemer.

But you shut your eies, and not observe these absolute petitions, which are put up to her: and where any reference is made to Christ, even there it much derogates from his mediation and intercession; be­cause [Page 214] it represents Christ as a Judg by her praiers and mediation to be appeas'd, the blessed Virgin becoming our Intercessor unto Christ. And so by the stamp of public Authority, you see these extravagancies confirm'd, which above you would not justify, as being the fancies, as you call'd them, of private persons. Now in confutation of such blasphemies the Holy Scriptures shew Christ to be our Advocate until the day of judg­ment, not a juige: ‘A merciful and faithful High-Priest in things per­taining to God, Hebr. 2. 17. Hebr. 4. 15. 16. For we have not High Priest, which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points temted like as we are, yet without sin: Let us therefore come boldly, saith the Apostle, unto the Throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy.’ It is the design of Holy Scripture, to make poor sinners come with confidence and comfort to Christ and to the Father. It is the designe of your Church to discourage them with a sense of their unworthiness, and to teach them to look upon Christ as a severe Judge, that so they may fly to the Virgin Mother, and to the Saints to be their Mediators and Intercessors. Nothing is more opposite to the Covenant of Grace, to the Love of God, towards such as are reconcil'd in Christ, to the tender compassion of our blessed Saviour, and to the gracious pro­mises and Invitations of the Gospel. And upon this account I may pro­nounce your Doctrine of the Saints Invocation and Intercession, to be a damnable doctrine, destructive to the Souls of men.

Satis pro imperio. Doubtless you think your self as infallible, as we the Pope; and you design to put Christs Vicar besides the Chair, to place your self therein, and magisterially declare against the doctrines of our Church.

If our Declarations, like the Pope's many times, be against the Tenor of Holy Scriptures, regard them not; but if the word of God condems your practise, that which your Church teacheth in her public Offices; Wo unto them by whom offences come. I have follow'd your pre­scription, and have kept close to such instances as are approv'd among you by Councils, and Popes, and Missals of your Church; and when you cannot refute the objection, you scoff at the opponent. But because this Conference hath bin spun out into a great length, I will favor you and my self with the omission of many things: and give you only one Instance more out of the same Ordinary and Missal, according to the use of the Church of Sarum. In the Office of S. Thomas the Martyr, as you call him, Archibishop of Canterbury, Chancellor of England. He was indeed a Martyr for the Pope, standing so highly for his Authority in the justification of Appeals to Rome, and not submitting the Clergy to the Laws of the Realm, that he betrai'd his Native Cuntry to a sor­reign Jurisdiction, and became a rebel to the King and Kingdom. Here­upon he was banish'd divers years, and by the interest of his great Patron the Pope in neigboring Princes, he created great vexation & trouble unto his lawfull Prince, King Henry the II ^d. After 7. years a reconciliation was made by the mediation of the Pope and other Princes between the King and him, and he return'd into England, the King abiding in his Territories [Page 215] in France. Upon his return, by the Popes Bull, he Excommunicates the Arch-Bishop of York, and those other Bishops, who in his Ba­nishment officiated in the Coronation of the Kings son Henry, ac­cording to his Fathers command; alleading that the priviledg of Coronation of Kings of England, belong'd to him as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. This and other insolencies being soon related to King Henry in France, he spake passionately against the proud Prelate; and immediately four Commanders in his Camp went over into England, entred the Bishops Palice, and purfu'd him into the Chappel, and there Inhumanly, and Sacrilegiously murder'd him. See Gulielmus Nubrigenses, his Hist. of England. l. 2. c. 16. p. 25. &c. Hereupon by the Pope he was Canoniz'd for a glorious Saint, and Martyr, and an Baro. Martyr Rom. in 29. Decembris. Annual feast was Instituted afterwards in memory of his Martyrdom, upon the 29 ^th of December, a solemn office and service there is appointed for the day, as we find it in the missal; wherein the Account is given that the first Solemnity of his Trans­lation was kept in the Cathedral of Canterbury, Henry the third be­ing present, and the Popes Legat Pandulphus; the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, all the Prelates, and Nobles, in the Year 1220, Fifty Years after his Passion, and that the Martyr Thomas of Becket honor'd his Translation with many Miracles, Caecis ad visum, surdis ad Audit. &c. Restoring sight to the Blind, Hearing to the Deaf, Speech to the Dumb, and Life to the Dead. In the Office we have these Praiers. O Jesus Christ by the Merits of Tho­mas Forgive us our Trespasses. Again, Tis per Thomae sanguin. &c. By the blood of Thomas shed upon thy score, make us to follow where he's gon before. Another Peti­tion there is to the Martyr himself in that Office. ^e O Thomas give us help. Strengthen those that stand, raise them that fall, Correct our Manners, Actions, and Life, and guide us in the way of peace. In their Hymne for that day, they declare Wonders.

[Page 216] There is a farther account, how a Country Man going to visit the Mar­tyrs Tomb, was just led into the River by a Waggon on the Bridge. And rising, and sinking five times, he was at last cast upon the Shore safe. For having call'd upon the Martyr for his aid, and that he would not suffer his [...] Pilgrim to perish; a grave Bishop a [...]pear'd, upholding and conducting him to land. This is the Legend of S ^t Thomas of Becket, which your Church hath adopted into the Service and Office for the Feast. And I have bin the more particular, that you may observe well the gross Fables and Absurdities therein, that your Church should im­pose such Stories of Miracles upon the credulous People: And is it pos­sible you should be reduc'd to such a low esteem of the pretious Blood of Christ, that you must Petition our Blessed Savior to bring you to Heaven by the Blood of his Martyr Thomas? And for a Conclusion, I pray seri­ously consider this pretended Martyr: He died in the defence of the Popes Usurpations among us, and the Pope hath requited him with a Saintship; whereas he had great success to go to Heaven so immediatly; with such Qualifications of a turbulent and haughty Spirit. And this us [...]ers in another grievance and just Exception we take against your In­vocation of Saints, because you pray to some Saints of whom you have no assurance that they are in Heaven; nay, of whom you cannot prove that ever they were in being: what think you of the Beggars Saint, S ^t Lazarus? Part. 3. Tom. 4. Tract. 2. Salmeron assures us, That he is every where esteemed a Saint, and Protector of the poor; Canoniz'd by the Church, Baronius Tom. 1. Anno 33. N. 44. Multis locis in memoriam Lazari, &c. worship'd with Altars and, Images, and Praiers made unto him. And I have read an Argument, some of your Doctors have urg'd, to prove it an History of Dives and Lazarus in the Gospel, and not a Parable, because Lazarus is a Cano­niz'd Saint, and therefore doubtless such a Person there was, of whom our Savior in the Gospel gives an Historical account. But I have shewed above, from the judgment of divers Fathers, that it is a Parable: Theo­philact calls him fool who thinks otherwise, and that by Dives and Lazarus only were represented the Rich and Poor, by a Fiction of Persons suited to a Parable: and so your Jesuit Maldonate affirms. Now for your Church to make a real Saint of this Parabolical Representation, to whom you make your Addresses in Praier, somthing resembles your other kind of Devotion, Praying unto, or worshipping the Image instead of the Saint. Your Church might as well have made the Prodigal Son returning, a Saint. So for S ^t George, you cannot make any Historical Demonstration, that such a Holy Person and Martyr there was. George of Cap [...]adox was a fierce Arrian, mightily opposing Athanasius, but he was slain for be­ing a Christian b [...]an [...]eathen Prince; and so by his Heretical Faction esteemed a Martyr, whom they represented for a great Champion and Captain under Christ, fighting against the great Magician of Alexandria, as they impiously stiled Holy Athanasius; otherwise, we rather account [Page 217] Saint George, as he is constantly represented in his Image, flaying a Dra­gon in rescue of a Virgin, to be an Emblem of our Blessed Savior, over­coming the Red Dragon, our great Enemy the Devil, and rescuing his Church as a chast Virgin from his temtations and force. Martyrol Rom. Apr. 23. Symboli potius quam Historiae alicujus, &c. Baronius ac­knowledgeth the Picture of S ^t George on Horse-back, armed cap-a-pe, and flaying a Dragon, to be a Symbolical Image rather then a true History. And that Jacobus de Voragine, He that made the Golden Legend, made it an History. An Emblem, saith Hyperius de [...] Stud. Theol. l. 3. c. 7. Hyperius of Christian Magistrates, Who de­fend the Church of Christ as a pure Virgin from the snare of the Devil, and his accursed Instruments: interposing their power against the pernicious at­temts of Heretics: and so by the Blessing of God, S ^t George shall be the Emblem of our most Noble Order of the Garter, even unto the end of the World. What shall I say of the Gyant S ^t Christopher, from the Ety­mology of whose name, you have deriv'd a Fable, That being of a vast height, at least 12 Cubits in length, he carried our Blessed Savior over a deep and dangerous River; guiding himself by a Staff like a Weavers beam. Hyperius citate. Vil­lavincent us makes him an Emblem of a Preacher of the Gospel, who holding forth Christ in his word visible unto the People, is encompass'd with Waves, and Tempests, and Waters of Affliction and Persecution, but sup­ports himself, and wades thro with the staff of his Christian hope, the expecta­tion of the exceeding recompence of reward. After this sort, to fill up your Kalendar of Saints, your Doctors might do well to go down into E­gypt, and bring their ancient Hieroglyphics to be Canonized and Wor­ship'd.

You may do better to forbare scossing, and study the Defence which our Doctors make against all the Exceptions your side have pro­duc'd concerning these and other Saints.

I have search'd, and find them so impertinent, that I lost my labor, and shall not (until I be urg'd farther to it) trouble you and the Reader with the discovery.

I thank you for sparing your self and your Friend together, for I begin to be weary of this Discourse, which hath bin drawn out beyond expectation, and me-thinks, gives but little satisfaction.

My serious endeavors to open your Eyes unto a discovery of the Errors of your Church, are abundantly satisfactory unto my Con­science, altho the success should fail, and you still stop your Ears against the voice of the Charmer. And yet I must trespass upon your patience in one more consideration, touching the Canonizing of Saints: If an Er­ror should be committed therein, it would be diffusive, and spread all over your Church. Praiers may be made as to a Saint in Heaven, whil'st the Person himself who is invok'd is miserably tormented in Hell; ex­cluded by a more infullible Judgment from the Beatifical Vision for ever. [Page 218] For instance: Suppose Almighty God hath not approv'd the Contentions of Thomas of Becket with his Prince, but hath past against him the Sen­tence of Damnation for resisting the Powers, whilist the Pope hath Saint­ed him: What will become of all his Pilgrims and Votaries? how many Praiers would be made in vain, to the shame and mockery of Religion? Altho in truth all your Praiers, even unto the undubitable Saints in Hea­ven, upon the supposition that they hear you not, are altogether in vain; and so the greatest part of your Religion is vain, and a sad account you must give of your Lip-labor and Will-worship. I pray seriously study an Answer to that severe Question: Who hath required these things at your bands?

We are not sollicitous to answer that Question, because we proceed upon a better Supposition, That the Saints do know our State and Condition, and hear our Praiers to them, and do make Intercession for us. But in answer to your conceit, of an Error that may be in the act of Canonizing. Eellarmin shews, how that solem Act appertains to the Pope, who proceeds therein with great Deliberation, and mature Judgment, upon all Relations and Circumstances; and ordinarily with­out the ample Testimony of Miracles effected by him a Saint is not Ca­noniz'd, and so there is no fear of Mistake and Error: and withal, great preparation is made unto that solemn Act, by public Praier and Fasting; and it is not credible God should be wanting to his Church so well di­sposed in her Devotions in a matter of so great concern.

If they are Credibilities, however they are not Certainties, and so your Praiers to many Saints must be without the assurance of Faith that they are such. We may certainly call upon God th [...] the Me­ditation of Christ, and have our Praiers heard, and Supplications grant­ed; but you can have no such assurance of your Martyr S ^t Thomas. Bell. ibid. c. 7. Inebrietate occisum pro Martyre Venerantes. Bel­larmine acknowledgeth, Time was, when the People of a City worship'd one for a Saint, after his death; of whom holy Martin, who lived among them, was suspitious, and earnestly praied to God to discover to him the condition of the person deceas'd: and behold, his Soul appear'd and inform'd St. Martin, That he had bin a Thief and a Robber, and was justly executed as a Malefa­ctor, and now tormented in Hell: And so, saith he, Pope Innocent the third reprehends some who honor'd one for a Martyr, that was slain when he was druak. And I will give you one Instance more to this purpose out of our English Histories: ^b We read how one William a Londoner, a factious and turbulent Person, of a smooth and volutile Tongue, sets up himself to be a King and Savior of the poor People from the Oppression of the No­bles, in the absence of King Richard: and so gathers a multitude of Se­ditious Persons, and became a Preacher and a Captain among them: but the tumult being soon supprest by the Wisdom of the Kings Council, and William, with other of his Accomplices, being Executed; a Priest, that Gulielmus Neubrigens. lib. 5. c. 18. [Page 219] was his Kinsman, takes the Chain wherewith he was bound, and pre­tends to work Miracles, and divers cures thereby. The unwary Peo­ple entertain the Delusion, and cut the Gibbet whereupon he suffered in pieces, keeping them as Sacred Relics; and also the Earth which was sprinkled with his blood. They honor him for a Saint, and make their Praiers to him, with great pretensions of success; until time, and the Magistrates care and wisdom did undeceive them.

To prevent such horrible mistakes, two Popes, Alexander the third, and Innocent the third, absolutly forbid any Saint to be worship'd, and Invocated, without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome: where­as before, as Bellarmin sheweth, any Bishop might Canonize a Saint within his own Diocess.

Now it is reduc'd unto the Pope: what assurance have you of his infallible Judgment? For it is observ'd, he hath proceeded much by favor and affection in this Affair, gratifying Princes in their Requests for their Relations and Country-men. And it hath bin said, That if Henry the 7 ^th had not bin too renacious and sparing of his Tresure, when he made his Request, that Henry the 6 ^th might be Canoniz'd for a Saint, he had not fail'd of his desire.

We know, the lying Tongue of Calumny and Slander hath bin alwaies sharpned against his Holiness: but God will not be wanting to his Church in matters of such moment and concern, and therefore we do not trouble our Consciences with your Scruples.

The Infallibility of the Pope in his Determinations, è Cathe­dra, which you most unreasonably maintain, and whereupon you lay the Foundation of your new-coin'd Articles of Faith, may fall into con­sideration (if God permit) hereafter; mean-while, the Objection turns not altogether upon that hinge: for altho the Pope were infallible in his Canonization, that is, for a general Reception and Veneration; no Saint without the Popes allowance must be publicly and generally call'd upon in Praier: Yet Bellarmin grants the Invocation of other Saints by privat Persons, and saith, It is the common Opinion of the Doctors. Now I pray observe the Inconveniencies from hence: A Wife who hath lost a deer Husband, or Children their Parents, they usually follow them with passionate Affection, and prize them higher, being bereft of them, then when they had the happiness of their Society. Now as other civil com­merce is intercepted by death, if communion with them by Invocation and Praier may be allowed, what will be the excess of their Superstiti­ous Devotion in this case. Affection and Charity, will conclude their Friends deceas'd are undoubted Saints in Heaven, and their Piety will alwaies promt them to call upon them for assistance and protection, as being most assur'd of their readiness to help them, even to the uttermost. And so when Men and Women should be instant in Praier to God Al­mighty, the stream of their Devotion will be carried on towards their Relations who are gon to God before them: and so the highest act of Religion, Praier, with all its Pervors and Devotion, will evaporate in [Page 220] emty Supplications made to those, of whose happiness Men have no as­surance, but from their fond and fallible Estimations: and so between the Invocation of Saints that are, and of others supposed to be in Hea­ven, the God of Heaven is almost forgotten in your Praiers, according to that proverbial Speech grounded upon your intolerable Excesses in this Point, Non cognoscitur Deus inter Sanctos. God is not known among the Saints. You have heard, how in the Virgins Psalter ascrib'd to Bonaventure, the Names of God and Lord are expung'd, and in their place the name of our Lady is inserted. In the Virgins Rosary, after ten Ave Maries, or Angelical Salurations, Ave Maria grarid plenae, &c. Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among Wo­men: and Blessed is Jesus the Fruit of thy Womb. Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen. I say, after ten Ave Maries, follows one Pater noster, or the Lords Praier: and fifty Ave Maries, and five Pater nosters, make a Rosary; so called, be­cause it is interwoven with Praiers and Salutations, Pater noster's and Ave Maries, as a Garland with Flowers. Now out of great Devotion some will treble the Rosary, and so make 150 Salutations, which they call'd the Ladies Psalter, until Bonaventure was so bold, out of Davids Psalter to compose another. and many Fraternities and Companies were erected in several Chaunteries to celebrate and rehearse those treble Ro­saries, saying 150 Ave Maries, and 15 Pater Noster's in one Service; and so they became highly guilty of the Heathenish Battology, which our Blessed Savior forbad, Matth. 6. And to make this great Devotion gene­ral and public, Pope Gregory the 13 ^th appoints a Solemn Festum Rosari Beatae Virg. Sub 2. majori officio ab omnibus, &c. Feast of the Ro­sary of the blessed Virgin, to be celebrated by all in general, and by every single person, with the double greater Office and Solemnity. You see the grand Superstition of this Office, and the proportion ten to one, between their rehearsing the Lords Praier, and the Angels Salutation, or the Ave Mary. So are likewise your Letanies now stufft with the Names of all the Saints you can imagin to be in Heaven, and with the Orders of Angels, and the Name of God and of Christ hath scarce any room among them: whereas we read the antient Letanies were [...], Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us, Lord have mercy upon us. The People of God in great Extremities of Earthquakes, and Tem­pests, and Plagues, and calling earnestly upon God in these Forms: un­til in the fifth Century was added the Trisagion, Holy is the Lord, holy is the strong, holy is the Sanctus Deus, Sanctus Fortis, Sanctus Immortalis. Immortal: Bin. Tom. 3. Episi. 3. Felitis Papae ad Petrum, Fullonem, p. 801. which Form, (whil'st the Church of God in Constantinople, upon a great Earthquake, running forth into the field, called upon God for mercy) was taught them from Heaven by a yong Child, who was carried up out of their sight (the Patriarch Proclus, of Con­stantinople, [Page 221] and all the People being Eye-witnesses) and after an hour, was let down into the midst of them, and declared, That he had heard the Angels sing that Hymn, and that he was commanded to bring it down to them.

If all be Gospel that you say, it sufficeth, there needs no more Additions.

Those things are well known, and may be easily confirm'd by Testimonies: But I am willing to give you respite, and not multiply Ar­guments and Testimonies, seeing you have acknowledged what hath bin said to be sufficient (as I suppose) to prove what I first design'd, The Error of your Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, and the great Su­perstition and Idolatry in the practice. And now, good Sir, give me your hand in assurance, that you will pardon my Incivility, to hold you so long in an unacceptable Discourse abroad, mean while, forgetting that respect and entertainment which is due to a worthy Friend, who hath most courteously given me a Visit. Will you please therefore to walk in and recreate yourself with other Divertisements, and better Company; and with such slender Provisions as we can make at present. I hope you will be so kind to stay longer with us, and give the Opportunity to make amends.