The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. 12. The opinion of the Fathers about invocation of Saints, from the year of the Lord 365. unto the IV. Council.
THis queſtion is ended already, ſince the Cardinal confeſſeth that in Auſtins time, who dyed in the year 430. or thereabout it was a thing yet dubious, and not decided whether the Saints enjoy heavenly glory before the reſurrection; Which doubt maketh (of neceſſity) the invocation of Saints dubious. We have ſeen alſo that Hierom who was a diſciple of Gregory Nazianzen, believed that the Saints hear not what we ſay to them, and have no knowledge of humane things: And that Auſtin ſaith the ſame in many places: Alſo that Gregory Nazianzen, who of all the Fathers is the firſt that called upon the deceaſed Saints, makes a doubt whether thoſe whom he called upon, heard him. For theſe cauſes it is unneceſſary to examine all the teſtimonies of the Fathers of the latter Ages, of which the Cardinal is pouring a thick hail upon us, ſince the former Ages are contrary to that doctrine, and the poſteriour Ages ſpeak of it with ſo much uncertainty.
It is alſo to be noted, that although ſince the year 375. ſome private perſons, eſpecially in Cappadocia, were carried away by that error, yet the invocation of Saints was not therefore received in the publick ſervice.
In the Fathers of the fourth and fifth ages many places are found contrary to the invocation of Saints. Ambroſe in the Oration upon the death of Theodoſius, ſaith,(a)Tu ſolus Domine invocandus es, & tu rogandus. Thou alone O Lord muſt be invocated and prayed to. Which muſt be taken as a correction of that he had ſaid in the firſt Tome in the book of Widows, where he ſaith, that we muſt pray to Angels and Martyrs. For when he writ that book of Widows, he was but a new Chriſtian: It was but three years after his Baptiſm. But his Oration upon Theodoſius was made long after, and a little before his death. For Theodoſius dyed in the year of the Lord 395. Ambroſe having already continued Biſhop of Milan about fifteen years.
Himſelf in the third book of the Holy Ghoſt, chap. 12. ſpeaks thus,(b)Maria erat Templum Dei, non Deus Templi. Ergo Deus ille ſolus adorandus qui operabatur in Templo. Mary was the Temple of God, but ſhe was not God. Wherefore that God alone muſt be adored, who wrought in that Temple. And a little before,(c)Neque adorandum quenquam praeter Deum legimus, quia ſcriptum eſt, Dominum Deum adorabis & ei ſoli ſervies. We read not that any muſt be adored but God. For it is written, Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve. There or no where he ſhould have uſed the diſtinction of dulia and latria, and of ſuperiour and inferiour religious worſhip, that the Virgin Mary ſhould not be excluded from all adoration: But he knew no ſuch diſtinction.
Among the works of Ambroſe there is a Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, of which Comment the Cardinal goeth about to invalid the authority, but with weak proofs. But it is all one to us who is the Author of that Comment, ſince our Adverſaries have put it among Ambroſe his works, and make uſe of it. There the Author, upon the firſt chapter to the Romans, diſputing againſt the Pagans who by the creatures, and by the ſtars eſpecially, pretended to go to God, as they go to the King by his Officers and Governours calls that(d)Solent pudorem paſſi neglecti Dei miſera utì excuſatione, dicentes per iſtos poſſe iri ad Deum ſicut per Comites pervenitur ad Regem. a miſerable excuſe. Then he adds(e)Nam & ideo ad Regem per Tribunos aut Comites itur quia homo utique eſt Rex. & neſcit quibus debeat Remp. credere. Ad Deum autem quem utique nihil latet (omnium enim merita novit) promerendum, ſuſſragatore non opus eſt ſed mente devota. Ubicunque enim talis locutus fuerit ei, reſpondebit illi. For this cauſe they go to the King by his Colonels and Governours, becauſe the King is a man, and knows not to whom he ought to commit the government of the Commonwealth. But to get Gods favour to whom nothing is hidden (for he knows that which all men deſerve) there is no need of any that help you with his ſuffrage, but of a devout ſpirit, for whereſoever ſuch a man ſhall speak to God, God will anſwer him. There is in the Latin, ſuffragatore non opus eſt, to which word the Cardinal giveth an abſurd interpretation, ſaying that it ſignifieth a Counſellor. Every one that hath ſome taſte of the Latin tongue will ſmile at this, knowing that this word was never taken in that ſenſe. The votes of every Roman Citizen in the comitia or City meetings were called ſuffragia; and he who helped or favoured any with his vote, was called his ſuffragatour. Now it is clear, that the Author of this book ſpeaks of Colonels and Governours or Comites, which are uſed as Interceſſors, not as Counſellors.
In the ſame Father in the eighty fifth Epiſtle, which is the laſt, it is ſpoken of the bodies of St. Gernaſius, and St. Protaſius which were found. Of theſe the Author of the book ſpeaks, as of the Patrons of the Church and City where they reſted. But beſides that in that Epiſtle there is not a word of invocation of Saints, it is evident that this Epiſtle is ſuppoſititious, and written long after Ambroſe's time. For it is ſaid in the ſame place, that theſe bodies were tranſported in Baſilicam Ambroſianam, that is, as they ſpeak in our dayes, into the Church of St. Ambroſe. (f)Du Perron p. 1022.Or if by Baſilica Ambroſiana ſome Church built by Ambroſe is underſtood, it is certain that Ambroſe would never have called it ſo. In Ambroſe his life, and a long time after, there was no Church bearing the name of St. Ambroſe. The ninty firſt Sermon is of the ſame Author that writ that Epiſtle, and no leſs ſuppoſititious, as many other Sermons and Books attributed to Saint Ambroſe, for that holy mans works are ſtrangely falſified.
We have brought before ſome places of Chryſoſtome, in which he ſaith that the ſouls of the deceaſed Saints do not yet enjoy the heavenly felicity, and ſhall not receive the crown before the reſurrection. A certain proof that he did not call upon the Saints, ſince he doubted of their happy ſtate.
The ſame Father in the fourth Sermon of penitence ſpeaks thus, When we have a ſuit to a man, we muſt addreſs our ſelves firſt to the Porters, and ſollicite the Paraſites, (f)foreign, &c.and flatterers, and take a long way about. But with God there is no ſuch thing; For he is intreated without an interceſſor, without money, and without expenſe, he enclineth to the petition: It is ſufficient to pray to him with the heart, and to offer tears to him, &c.
The ſame(g)foreign: God is alwayes near hand. If thou wilt petition to a man, Thou askeſt what he doth? They ſay unto thee, he is aſleep, he is buſie. A ſervant anſwereth thee nothing. With God there is no ſuch thing. Whereſoever you go and call, he hears. There is neither buſineſs, nor interceſſor, nor ſervant that ſtop thy way. Say only Have mercy upon me, and preſently God comes near.
In the ſame place(h)foreign. Homil. de dimiſſ. Chanan. Tom. 5. edit. Savil. p. 195. See the Philoſophy of that woman, She prayeth not to James, ſhe is not a ſupplicant to John, ſhe applyeth not her ſelf to Peter, but ſhe breaks thorough the crowd. I need no interceſſor (ſaith ſhe) but taking penitence for mine advocate, I come to the very spring, becauſe for that is he come down, for that hath he taken fleſh, that I alſo may ſpeak with him, &c. I need no interceſſor, have mercy upon me.
The ſame upon the firſt chapter of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Hom. 3,(i)foreign. Why do you gape after Angels? They are ſervants to the ſon of God, and are ſent to divers places for our ſakes.
The ſame Chryſoſtome upon Gen. 19. Hom. 44. ſpeaking of the Canaanitiſh woman, to which the interceſſion of the Apoſtles availed nothing, and which made her addreſs unto Chriſt himſelf. We were conſtrained (ſaith he) to bring this whole ſtory, (k)foreign.that we might learn that we speed not ſo well praying by others, as when we pray our ſelves; ſo that we aproach with zeal, and with an erected mind. Behold how this woman having the Diſciples interceding for her, ſped not the better for that, untill her own ſelf perſevering with patience, drew the benignity of the Maſter. Thoſe Saints of whoſe interceſſion he ſpeaks are the living, not the dead Saints.
Himſelf upon Matth. 15. Hom. 52. Conſider how the Apoſtles being turned back, and having not prevailed, ſhe obtained it, ſo powerfull is obſtinacy in prayer. For God delights more to be prayed to for our neceſſities by our ſelves that are guilty, then by others that pray for us.
But he is moſt expreſs eſpecially in the eighteenth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, (l)foreign, &c.Ʋnto whom ſhalt thou flye? Whom wilt thou call upon to fight for thy cauſe, and help thee? Shall it be to Abraham? But he ſhall not hear thee: Shall it be to theſe Virgins? But they alſo ſhall impart none of their oyl unto thee. Shalt thou call upon thy Father or thy Grand-father? But none of them, how holy ſoever, hath the power to alter that judgement. Theſe things being conſidered, worſhip and pray to him alone, who hath the power to blot out thine obligation, and quench that flame.
And in another place(m)Chryſoſt. ſerm in Phil. 18. de profectu Evang. Tom. 5. Edit. Savil. pag. 416. foreign. Thou haſt no need of interceſſors with God, nor of much running about, nor of flattering others. But though thou be alone and without a Patron, by praying to God by thy ſelf, thou ſhalt obtain [thy requeſt] altogether. He uſeth not to grant ſo, being called upon for us by others, as being intreated by our ſelves, though we be filled with a thouſand adverſities. And the ſame words he repeats ſix or ſeven times in that Homily.
I will add one teſtimony again of that Father in the ninth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, where he ſaith that the Devil envying the honour we have to addreſs our ſelves, hath brought in the ſervice of the Angels.(n)foreign; For this cauſe (ſaith he) the Devil envying us hath brought in Angels. Such are the inchantments [of Devils:] Though it were an Angel, though it were an Arch-angel, though they were Cherubims, Do not ſuffer it. For neither will thoſe powers receive [that honour:] but will reject it, when they ſee their Maſter diſhonoured thereby. I have honoured thee (ſaith God) and have ſaid call, upon me, and doſt thou diſhonour him?
After ſo many expreſs declarations, it is hard to believe that this holy man called upon Saints and Angels: ſeeing that he ſheweth in other places his not believing that the deceaſed do yet enjoy the glory of God. But ſome Organ of Satan the Father of lying hath thruſt in ſome falſe writings that commend the invocation of Saints among this Fathers works. Such is Chryſoſtoms Liturgie; a piece ſo evidently falſe, that in it there is(o)foreign, &c. mention of Chryſoſtom among the deceaſed Saints. There alſo another prayer is found ill ſuiting with that, ſet down in theſe words, We offer unto thee this reaſonable ſacrifice for our Anceſtors, who are reſting in the faith, for the Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apoſtles, &c. and even for the Virgin Mary: for all which, our Adverſaries hold that one ought not to pray. I eaſily believe that Chryſoſtom framed a Liturgy. But it is of that as of Calepins Dictionary, which ſuffers a perpetual addition, and yet retaineth ſtill its firſt name.
In the ſame Fathers works, there is one falſe piece inſerted, of ſuch groſs and evident falſhood, that it can hardly deceive. It is in the end of the twenty ſixth Homily upon the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, where it is ſaid, that the Emperour himſelf comes to the ſepulchers of the Saints, and kiſſeth them, and laying down pride, beſeecheth them to be his helpers before God: So that he that weareth the crown prayeth to a tentmaker and to a fiſherman, both of them dead, that they would be his Advocates towards God. If the curious Reader will take the pains to conſult the book, and to read the three laſt pages of that Homily, he ſhall find that beſides the diverſity of the ſtyle, and the doctrine (contrary to that of Chryſoſtom) full of abſurdity and ignorance, there is no connexion at all with the precedent diſcourſe, and nothing common with the matter in hand, like ſtones thrown at randome, which ſtuck there by chance. That place which I affirm to be falſe, begins at the top of the nine hundred twenty eighth page of Commelins Edition, with theſe words, foreign, &c. And in the Latin Sic enim etiam idolorum cultus. In the lines before Chryſoſtom exhorteth the godly to ſuffer for Chriſt, ſaying that God will by ſufferings bring us to heavenly glory. Then begins this abſurd diſcourſe abruptly. For thus Idolatry got ſtrength, by too much admiring men, as when the Roman Senat decreed that Alexander ſhould be the thirteenth God. For they had the power to make Gods by their ſuffrage, and to put them in the liſt of the Gods. For when all the things done by Chriſt, were announced at Rome, he that governed the Nation of the Jews, ſent to Rome to ask counſell, whether it pleaſed them to make Chriſt God alſo. Which they refuſed, being angry and incenſed, becauſe without expecting their decree, the power of the crucifix ſhining every where, had drawn all the world to the veneration of the ſame. Hath any man ſo little freedom of judgement left, as not to ſee the ſillineſs of that diſcourſe, which hangs not upon that which went before, and is ſtuft with abſurdities unworthy of ſo great a man? For who ever heard that by the decree of the Roman Senat King Alexander was put among the Gods? or that he had a Temple at Rome, and religious ſervice deferred unto him? or that a Grecian ſcarce known at Rome, but by hear-ſay in his life time, ſhould be put among the Gods by the Romans many ages after his death? But what can be more abſurd, then to ſay that Alexander was made the thirteenth God by the Senat? As though the Senat did keep a ſet number of Gods, and each God in his order. But who is that Prince or Governour of the Jewiſh Nation, who informed the Senate of the vertues of Jeſus Chriſt, and required that he ſhould be put among the Gods? It could not be Pilate, for in that place it is ſaid, that the power of Chriſt had in that time drawn all the earth to his obedience. And it could be none elſe but Pilate, for when the Goſpel began to ſpread over the world, the Nation of the Jews had neither Governour nor Prince, ſeeing that they were fugitive and ſcattered over all the earth; And the Emperour and Senat were ſo far from deliberating whether they ſhould make Chriſt a God, that they perſecuted the Chriſtians with all their power. The reſt of the diſcourſe is filled with the like abſurdities: As when the Author proveth the reſurrection of the dead, becauſe Alexander never thought of it: And his affirming that none can ſhew Alexanders ſepulchre, and that no body knoweth where he lyeth: ſeeing that it is a common thing in the books of Hiſtoriographers, that the body and tomb of Alexander were in Alexandria of Aegypt. By that Quintus Curtius ended his Hiſtory, and Suetonius in the life of Octavius Auguſtus ſaith the ſame.
Of the like ſtuff is that which he addeth, that the Emperour Conſtantine after his death, is a porter of the Fiſher-mens Temple. Whence he inferreth, that the enemies of Chriſtian Religion, muſt learn that Fiſher-men ſhall have a greater dignity then Emperours in the day of the reſurrection, ſeeing that Emperours in their ſepulchres are in the place of ſervants, and Fiſher-men in the place of Maſters. Can any thing be more remote from the wit and learning of Chryſoſtom, then that ridiculous piece of work, which is contrary to ſo many true works of that holy man? Who doubts but that many the like pieces of baſe mettal were put among the writings of the Fathers, and go for true mettall, becauſe the falſhood is not easie to be known? For we have the moſ part of their books from the hands of our Adverſaries, out of the manuſcripts of Fryers, and out of their Libraries.
In the ſixth Homily upon the firſt chapter of Matthew, he ſaith, that we are much ſooner heard by our prayers, then by the interceſſion of others: And he proveth it by the example of the Canaanitiſh woman, and of the repenting Thief crucified with Chriſt, and of the Adultereſs, who made their addreſs unto Chriſt without any mans interceſſion. Then he adds, And this we ſay, not becauſe we ought not to call upon the Saints. But there it is clear that he ſpeaks of the living Saints, not of the deceaſed, for he commendeth the Canaanitiſh woman for not imploring the interceſſion of the Apoſtles, who were living. But as for the deceaſed Saints, Chryſoſtom in Hom. 18. upon the Epiſtle to the Romans ſaith, that they hear not our prayers.
Bellarmin in the fourth chapter of the book of Relicks falſly alleadgeth Chryſoſtoms Homily upon Juventius and Maximus, making him ſay Tumulos martyrum adoremus. Let us adore the ſepulchres of the Martyrs. There is in the Greek(p)foreign. Let us touch their tomb, and embrace their relicks with confidence. Of Adoration he ſpeaks not at all: and the confidence that he ſpeaks of, is confidence …n God.
I deny not but that in the ſame time that errour of the invocation of Saints began to creep into ſome Churches, in Cappadocia eſpecially, where that ſuperſtition ſeemeth to have ſprung firſt. That is ſeen in Baſils writings, who about the year 375. in the Homily of the forty Martyrs, ſaith, that the people had their recourſe unto them: Which is a place falſified in all the verſions of our Adverſaries; for they ſay ad hos confugiat & hos or…, inſtead of ad hos confugit & hos orat. For Baſil ſaith only that which was done in ſome place of Cappadocia, not that which ought to be done.
At the ſame time, and in the ſame Countrey Gregory Nazianzen was writing. In whoſe books prayers are extant to St. Baſil, and St. Athanaſius. But we have ſeen alſo that he ſpeaks to deceaſed Saints, doubting whether they hear what he ſaith to them, and whether they have any knowledge of things done here below. But the ſame Athanaſius whom(q)In the Oration to Athanaſius he ſpeaks dubiouſly, ſaying foreign ut puto. he prayeth to, had powerfully impugned the invocation of Saints, as we have proved it by many of his expreſſions. To which theſe muſt be added, which are found in the fourth Oration againſt the Arrians, where he condemneth thoſe who in their prayers join the Angels, or ſome other creature with God.(r)Pag. 259. foreign. &c. foreign. There is none (ſaith he) that would ask by prayers to receive ſomething of the Father, and of the Angels, or of any other creature. None would ſay, God and the Angel give thee. But he ſhall ask of the Father and the Son, becauſe they are but one. And a little after, David did not call for his deliverance upon any other but God. In our dayes we hear nothing elſe among the Romaniſts but praying to God, and his Mother, asking of God and St. Rock: Such ſpeeches would have been very odious among the Antients.
Some places in St. Auſtin ſeem to aſſert the invocation of Saints. In the book of the Spirit and of the Soul, there is a prayer to the Saints. But that book is ſuppoſititious. For in it Boetius is alleadged, who was not born when Auſtin dyed. The book of heremitical life ſpeaks of the ſervice of the Virgin Mary, and calls her the Queen of heaven. But that book alſo is not of Auſtin, for it ſpeaks of the rule of St. Benedict, which was made about fourſcore years after Auſtins death.
In chap. 24. of the book of Meditations, which is in the ninth Tome of Auſtin, there is a prayer to the Saints. But that book is ſpurious. Poſidonius who writ Auſtins life, hath made a Catalogue of his works, where that book is not found. The ſtyle of it is far more conciſe then that of Auſtin, and hath many barbariſms, as chap. 4. Deus praeſtabilis ſuper malitiam: and chap. 12. Honorifico te pro ſcire & poſſe. And in the prayer to the Saints, he calls the Saints feſtivos, that is, pleaſant and merry. Wherefore Bellarmin in the book of Eccleſiaſtical Writers, put theſe Meditations among the uncertain books, and dares not father them upon Auſtin. Theſe viſibly falſe pieces make us doubt of the truth of ſome others. For if theſe marks of falſhood were not found in theſe books, they would go for good and lawfull.
The Cardinal begins his Treatiſe of …nvocation of Saints by a text of Auſtin, which he ſets in the front of his book as moſt pregnant. The Chriſtian people (ſaith Auſtin in book 20. againſt Fauſtus Manichean, chap. 21.) celebrate by a religious ſolemnity the memory of Martyrs, to be aſſociated to their merits.
That place may be employed for the commemoration of Martyrs, to ſhew that they pray for us, but not at all to ſhew that they muſt be prayed to. He ſpeaks of the memory of Martyrs, and of their imitation, and of the interceſſion whereby they pray for us, but not at all of the invocacion, which is or ſhould be deferred unto them. So much is evident in the following words, which the Cardinal according to his cuſtom, to clip the tongue of the Fathers, would not alleadge. For Auſtin having ſaid, that no offering was made to Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian, he adds, Colimus Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & ſocietatis quo & in hac vita coluntur homines ſancti Dei. We honour the Martyrs with the ſame ſervice of love and ſociety as the Saints of God are honoured in this life. This muſt be obſerved. For none calls upon a Saint, or deferreth a religious ſervice unto him while he is in this life. Auſtin ſaith indeed, that this ſervice of love and ſociety is yielded unto Martyrs with more certainty and affection. But he ſaith that it is the ſame kind of honour and reverence.
We have brought many teſtimonies out of Auſtins books, ſome ſhewing that he held that the Saints ſee not our actions, ſome that he believed not that they enjoy as yet the heavenly glory.
In the twenty ſecond book of th… City of God, chap. 10. after he hath ſaid that no Temples are built unto Martyrs, that no Altars are erected unto them, and that no ſacrifices are offered unto them; he adds that in the publike ſervice, ſuo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à ſacerdote qui ſacrificat invocantur. They are named in their place and rank, yet the Prieſt that ſacrificeth doth not invocate them. The Roman Church doth the contrary; for in ſome Maſſes the Letany is ſaid, in which a long liſt of Saints is invocated, eſpecially the Maſs of the Saturday before Eaſter. Alſo Temples are edified and conſecrated unto Saints. In great Cities you ſhall ſee a multitude of Churches, that bear the name of the Saints, in whoſe honour they were built, as that of St. Nicaſius, St. Anthony, St. Gervas, &c. Altars likewiſe are dedicated and conſecrated unto Saints, whoſe relicks are under the table of the Altar. That is expreſly ſet down in the Roman Pontifical, in the chapter of the dedication or conſecration of Churches, where it is conſtituted, that on the day of the dedication, the Biſhop ſhall put the relicks under the Altar with three grains of frankincenſe, and put in a note, with theſe words.(ſ)MDCXI die N. menſis N. Ego N. Epiſcopus N. conſecravi Eccleſiam & Altare hoc in honorem ſancti N. & reliquias ſanctorum▪ Martyrum N. & N. in eo incluſi, &c. In the year 1611. upon ſuch a day of the monethmonth. I N. Biſhop of N, have conſecrated thi… Church and Altar to the honour of ſuch or ſuch a Saint, and have incloſed in it the relicks of ſuch or ſuch Martyrs, and have this day given a year of true Indulgence unto all the faithfull [ſervants] of Chriſt, and upon the anniverſary day of the conſecration, forty dayes of indulgence unto all that viſit the ſame. Theſe are new coined fopperies, of which no trace is found in all Antiquity. The Antient Church was ſo far from invocating the Sains at the Altar, that they did not ſuffer that Chriſt ſhould be expreſly invocated there. The twenty third Canon of the third Council of Carthage, held in the year 399. is expreſs upon that,(t)Cùm ad Altare aſſiſtitur, ſemper ad Patrem dirigatur Oratio. When one ſtands by the Altar, let his prayer be alwayes directed to the Father.
The ſame Auſtin in the one hundred and fourteenth chapter of his Manual,(u)Non niſi à Domino deo petere d…bemus quicquid ſperamus nos vel benè operaturos vel probonis operibus adepturos. We muſt ask of none but God alone, the good which we hope to do, or that which we hope to attain unto by our good works.
The ſame in the book of the quantity of the ſoul,(x)Deus ſolus ei colendus eſt qui ſolus ejus eſt Author. Homo autem quiſlibet alius quanquam ſapientiſſimus & perfectiſſimus, &c. God alone muſt be ſerved by the ſoul, for he alone is the Creator of the ſame. But every man, how wiſe and perfect ſoever he be, and generally every glorified rational creature (y)Amanda tantummodo & imitanda eſt.muſt be only loved and imitated. Mark theſe words muſt be only loved and imitated, for to yield unto the Saints a religious ſervice, which they now call dulia, and to invocate them, is more then loving and imitating them.
The ſame in the laſt chapter of the book of true Religion, Let us not apply our Religion, to yield ſervice unto the dead. For if they have led a holy life, we have no ſuch opinion of them, that they ſeek ſuch an honour. But they will have us to ſerve him, by whoſe illumination they rejoyce that we are fellows of their merit. (z)Honorandi ſunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter religionem.They muſt then be honoured for imitation, not worſhipped for Religion.
Himſelf in the book of hereſies, ad Quod vult Deum, puts the Angelicks among the hereticks: And the hereſie that he chargeth them with, is, that they were addicted to the ſervice of Angels.
And in chap. 10. of the confeſſions, chap. 42. He ſpeaks thus unto God,(a)Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? An eundum mihi fuit ad Angelos? qua prece? quibus ſacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per ſeipſos valentes, ſicut audio, tentaverunt haec, & incidereunt in deſiderium curioſarum viſionum & digni habiti ſunt illuſionibus. Whom could I find that ſhould make my peace with thee? Should I have gone to the Angels? By what prayers? By what Sacraments? Many endeavouring to return unto thee, and not being able to do it of themſelves, have (as I hear) tryed thoſe wayes, and are fallen into a deſire of curious viſions, and were thought worthy to be deceived with illuſions.
In chap. 5. & 6. he ſheweth that the true ſacrifices are the inward, even thoſe of a contrite and humbled heart, alſo praiſes and prayers; and ſo defineth the ſacrifice, That it is every kind of good work whereby we adhere unto God, and tend unto bleſſedneſs. Whence he inferreth in the ſeventh chapter(b)Nolunt nos ſibi ſacrificare ſed ei cujus & ipſi nobiſcum ſacrificium eſſe noverunt. that we muſt not offer ſacrifices unto Angels, and that themſelves will have no ſuch ſervice as a ſacrifice: for hence it followeth, that they will not be invocated, ſince invocation is a ſacrifice. And in the ſixteenth chapter,(c)Angeli hunc omnem cultum uni Deo creatori omnium deberi dicunt. The Angels ſay, that all that ſervice is due to one God only. And in chap. 17.(d)In Lege unus Deus Deorum religione ſacrorum juſſus eſt coli. In the Law it is commanded to ſerve the only God of Gods with a religious ſervice. And in the twenty ſixth chapter,(e)Num igitur Angelos, quorum miniſterium eſt declarare voluntatem Patris, credendum eſt velle nos ſubjici niſi ei cujus nobis enunciant voluntatem. Is it credible that the Angels whoſe miniſtery it is to declare the will of the Father, will have us to ſubject our ſelves to any but to him, whoſe will they announce?
Epiphanius in the hereſie of the Collyridians, which is the ſeventy ninth, doth ſeverely rebuke ſome women that offered Cakes unto the Virgin Mary calling her Queen of heaven, the ſame title which the idolatrous Jews gave to an Idol (as we read Jer. 44.) and which the Roman Church giveth to the Virgin Mary. The Cardinal, page 1017. ſaith that thoſe women worſhipped the Virgin Mary with the adoration of latria, which is the honour due to God alone, and offered her ſacrifices, which the Roman Church doth not. Although it be not like, that Chriſtians ever believed that a woman whom they knew to have been both born and dead, was the ſoveraign God, or equal unto God. Nevertheleſs ſuppoſing a thing ſo unlike to be true, yet Epiphanius chiding thoſe women, takes thence occaſion to ſay ſuch things as evidently condemn that which is done in theſe dayes in the Roman Church: for by teaching how, and how far it is lawful to honour the holy Virgin, he condemneth all them that tranſgreſs thoſe limits. Theſe are his words,(f)foreign, &c. foreign. &c. Certainly the body of Mary was holy, but ſhe was not God: Certainly the Virgin was a Virgin, and honourable; but ſhe was not given to be worſhipped, but ſhe worſhippeth him that was begotten of her fleſh. And a little after, Let Mary be honoured, but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt be worſhipped. Let no body adore Mary, I ſay not a woman, but not a man neither. Ʋnto God that myſterie is due, the Angels themſelves are not capable of that honour; placing the Angels above the holy Virgin. Yea, he goeth ſo far, that to repreſs that abuſe, he ſpeaks of the holy Virgin in terms which border upon contempt.(g)foreign; &c. foreign. If (ſaith he) God permitteth not the very Angels to be worſhipped, h…w much leſs ſhould he have permitted, that ſuch an honour ſhould have been deferred to Anne's daughter, which was given by Joakim to Anne, but was not otherwiſe begotten, but after the nature of men? He doth eſpecially condemn that title o… Queen of heaven.(h)foreign. Let Jeremiah (ſaith he) repreſs thoſe ſimple women. Let them trouble the earth no more, Let them ſay no more, We honour the Queen of heaven.
As for Hierom, we have brought many very expreſs teſtimonies out of his books, whereby he declareth his opinion, that the Saints, neither hear nor ſee humane things.
In his fourth book upon the Prophet Ezekiel, chap. 14. he ſpeaks thus,*Quod ſi in aliquo fiducia eſt, in ſolo Deo confidamus: Maledictus enim homo qui ſpem habet in homine, quamvis ſancti ſint, quamvis Prophetae. If there be confidence [to be put] in any▪ let us put our confidence in God, for curſed is the man that puts his truſt in man, though they be Saints, though they be Prophets. And in the Comment upon the Proverbs, which is put among his works, lib. 1. cap. 2.(i)Nullum invocare id eſt in nos orando vocare, niſi unum Deū debemus. We ought not to invocate, that is, call any towards us by prayers but God alone.
Vigilantius accuſed ſome ſuperſtitious perſons, who in his time worſhipped the Martyrs and their relicks. Againſt him Hierom writes thus, according to his wonted meekneſs, Thou mad-headed fellow, who ever worſhipped the Martyrs? who ever believed that a man was God? And in his Epiſtle to Riparius, (k)Nos autem non dico Martyrum reliquias, ſed ne Solem quidem & Lunam, non Angelos & Archangelos, &c. omne nomen quod nominatur in praeſenti ſaeculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus.As for us, we neither ſerve nor worſhip, I ſay not the relicks of the Martyrs, but not the Sun himſelf, nor the Moon, nor the Angels, and Archangels, nor the Cherubims and Seraphims, nor any name which is named in this preſent age, and in that which is to come. For fear that we ſhould rather ſerve the creature then the Creator, who is bleſſed for evermore. It is obſervable, that according to Hieroms opinion, if the Martyrs and their relicks were to be adored, the Sun much rather ought to be adored, which nevertheleſs the Roman Church worſhippeth not, but adoreth the bones and relicks of the Saints, with a furious devotion.
There is a place of Hierom towards the end of the Epitaph of Paula, which the Cardinal hath never done alleadging. Where he ſpeaks thus to Paula, (l)Vale O Paula, & cultoris tui extremam ſenectutem orationibus juva. Fides & opera tua te Chriſto conſociant. Praeſens facilius quod poſtulas impetrabis.Fare well Paula! help with thy prayers the extream old age of thine honourer. Thy faith and thy works aſſociate thee with Chriſt. Being preſent thou ſhalt more eaſily obtain what thou askeſt. But it is eaſie to ſee that it is a rhetorical Apoſtrophe, whereby he ſpeaks to Paula, and commends himſelf to her, as if ſhe were living ſtill, and near death, for we bid not them farewell that are already in Paradiſe, but them that are near their departure, and theſe words in the future, thou ſhalt obtain what thou askeſt, ſhew that he ſpeaks of the prayer which Paula was not yet in caſe to make, but which ſhe ſhould make afterwards.
M. du Perron in chap. 4. of the Treatiſe of the invocation of Saints, falſifies a place of Gregory Nazianzen in the funeral Oration upon Baſil, and he makes Gregory to ſpeak thus to Baſil. But thou, O divine head, look upon us yet from heaven, and command that Satans ſting which was given us to afflict us may be removed. There is in the Greek(m)foreign, &c. Stop by thine interceſſion that thorn in the fleſh, which was given us by God. He giveth not to Baſil the power of commanding, as the Cardinal tranſlateth.
We muſt alſo remember, that this Gregory was the firſt of the Fathers, in whoſe writings ſome prayers to the Saints are found, yet mingled with doubting whether the Saints hear them, as we ſhewed before. Now he writ about the year of the Lord 380.
The Cardinal muſters up with great noiſe, teſtimonies out of Theodoret in the book of the affections of the Grecians, and out of Gregory of Nyſſa in the Oration upon the Martyr Theodorus, and out of Cyrillus in his myſtagogical Catecheſes, and ſome verſes of Prudentius and Paulinus. I might anſwer, that it is doubtfull whether that book be Theodorets, ſeeing that Photius in his Library, and Nicephorus in the Eccleſiaſtical hiſtory, book 14. chap. 54. making the enumeration of the works of Theodoret, ſpeak not of that book.
I might ſay alſo, that the looſe and lank ſtyle of the Oration upon the Martyr Theodorus, differs very much from that of Gregory of Nyſſa, which is nervous and elaborate; and that the narrative of the martyrdom of Theodorus is manifeſtly fabulous. There it is ſaid, that this Theodorus was Jobs countrey-man, that is, an Arabian, or Idumean, and was a common ſouldier in Diocleſians time. Being accuſed of being a Chriſtian, he anſwereth with words of contempt, comparing the Goddeſs which the Judges worſhipped, to a Hare or a Sowe. That was enough to ſend him to the execution, in a time when whole Cities were extermined for religion, and thouſands of people were maſſacred without any form of juſtice. Yet the Judges flatter him, and ſend him back, and allow him time to think upon it. He inſtead of withdrawing himſelf, ſets the Temple of the mother of Gods on fire. Being brought back to the judgement ſeat, The Judges inſtead of puniſhing him for a crime, among the Pagans unpardonable, give him fair words, and promiſe that common ſouldier to make him an High Prieſt. He upon that, falls to loud laughter, and begins to abuſe the Emperours, who took upon them the title and the purple of High Prieſts. The Angels ſing melodiouſly with him in priſon, and make proceſſions with torches over all the Town. All that looks like a fable, and hath much of the ſtyle of Legends.
I could ſay alſo that the five myſtagogical Catecheſes, aſcribed to Cyrillus of Jeruſalem, are none of his. Their ſtyle is far more conciſe then that of the eighteen other Catecheſes. In the firſt Catecheſis the Author diſſwadeth the people from frequenting the Hippodrom; but there was no Hippodrom in Jeruſalem. In the whole Roman Empire there was none but in the capital Cities of the Empire, as Rome, Conſtantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and ſome few Towns where the Roman Legions wintered. In the ſame place he dehorteth the people from beholding the hunting and killing of beaſts in the Amphitheatre. But there was no Amphitheatre at Jeruſalem.
I could ſay alſo that Poets are no good Judges in points of faith, that they allow much licenſe to themſelves, and that if they were not lyars, they ſhould not be Poets. But let us grant that all theſe books are true and none ſpurious, and that theſe Poets have uſed no fiction. Yet theſe Authors were men ſubject to fail, and though we had no word of God, which is the only rule of our faith, yet the Fathers of the three firſt Ages, and of the greateſt part of the fourth, are of contrary opinion, and thoſe Fathers that came ſince contradict one another, and ſpeak doubtfully, and will unſay what they have ſaid, as we have fully proved.
I will add to that I ſaid before, an obſervation upon a place of Epiphanius, haereſ. 75. which the Cardinal corrupteth with a notorious depravation. He makes Epiphanius to ſay, that in the commemoration which we make of the dead, we mention the juſt, to diſtinguiſh them from Chriſt. And theſe juſt he will have to be thoſe Saints that are invocated and deſired to pray for us; Which is not done unto Chriſt, for the Roman Church prayeth not to Chriſt to pray for us; Their Letany of the Saints ſaith, Sancte Petre ora pro nobis, Sancte Gregori ora pro nobis: But to Chriſt it ſaith, Chriſte audi nos. Fili Redemptor miſerere nobis, as deveſting him of the Office of interceſſor making requeſt for us. The Jeſuite Salmeron ſaith this plainly in the eighth Diſpute upon the ſecond chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to Timothy, (n)§. deinde non dicunt Chriſte ora pro nobis, ne videantur cum Neſtorio duas in Chriſto conſtituere perſonas.The Catholicks ſay not, Chriſt pray for us, leſt they ſhould ſeem to put two perſons in Chriſt, as Neſtorius doth. Again,(o)Invocamus eum ut Deum & non ut hominem. We invocate Chriſt as God, not as man: that is, as Judge, not as Mediatour. For the Roman Church holds that he is not Mediator, as he is man.
But to return to the Cardinal, I ſay that he is miſtaken, if he think that by thoſe juſt, Epiphanius underſtands the Saints, that are invocated, for he ſpeaks of the juſt and faithfull which are prayed for, as it appears by theſe words which follow, foreign, the prayer made for them doth them good. And that which M. du Perron preſuppoſeth in this place is falſe, that in the time of Epiphanius the Saints were invocated in the publike ſervice.
I will conclude by the confeſſions of our Adverſaries. Martin Perez, a famous Doctor among them, ſpeaks thus,(p)Martin. Perez. part. 3. Conſid. 7. de cultu Sanctorum. Quod ante Cornelium Martyrem nulla extat mentio (quod ego viderim) invocationis & interceſſionis ſanctorum in cauſa fortè fuit modeſtia & humilitas Apoſtolica. Quid enim dicerent qui eos haec dicentes audirent niſi quod de ſe magna pollicerentur, & ſe quaſi Deos facerent. That before the Martyr Cornelius no mention is found of the invocation and interceſſion of Saints (at leaſt for any thing that I could ſee) perhaps the humility and modeſty of the Apoſtles hath been the cauſe of it. For what might have been the conceit of thoſe that heard them ſay ſo much, (namely that the Saints muſt be invocated) but that they did promiſe great things of themſelves, and made almoſt Gods of themſelves? Then he addeth,(q)Ibid. Eos intentos fuiſſe praedicationi Evangelii & aliarum rerum quae magis ad ſubſtantiam ſalutis attinebant. They were diligently imployed about the preaching of the Goſpel, and about other things which concern more the ſubſtance of ſalvation. This Cornelius dyed the 250. year of the Lord. Wherefore this Doctor might have added 125. or 130. years more. For we have ſhewed that before the year of the Lord 375. no trace of the invocation of Saints is found in the Fathers. Which M. du Perron hath freely acknowledged.
The Jeſuite Salmeron in the ſeventh Diſpute upon 1 Tim. 2.(r)Sect. Sed cum. finding no abettours in Scripture for the invocation of Saints, defends himſelf thus, Seeing that before Chriſts coming, the entry into heaven was not yet open, and the godly were detained in the Limbus, and were not perfect in holineſs or felicity; hence it comes that few teſtimonies of juſt truth are found. The Gospels alſo deſcribe the life and paſſion of Chriſt, and becauſe in that time they were not yet happy, therefore nothing expreſs to that purpoſe is found, as alſo nothing about that is found in Pauls Epiſtles, nor in the Canonical Epiſtles, which have been written for other ends. Only he goeth about to prove by the Revelation, that the Saints pray for us: A thing which we do not deny.
In the ſame place,(ſ)Sect. Nec obſtat. In the Old Law, and in the New Teſtament no command is found of calling upon the Saints.
The Jeſuite Peter Cotton in the firſt book of the Catholick inſtitution, chap. 16. As for a command of praying and invocating the Saints, the Church never taught that there was any, but as far as we are all commanded to obey the Church. He acknowledgeth that God did not command the invocation of Saints, but that the Roman Church commands it, which muſt be obeyed. But God hath not commanded us to obey the Roman Church more then the Greek or Syrian. And theſe words, Tell it unto the Church, &c. Matthew 18. ſpeak not of the judgement of the Univerſal Church about the doctrine: but of the authority of the Paſtors of a particular Church, to compound quarrels between two brothers.