Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 1 · Chapter 2 (3 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 1 · Chapter 2 (3 of 3)

p. 293Now the Question between T. G. and me is this,§. 17. whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in the Invocation of Saints and Angels be consistent with the acknowledgement of our sole dependence upon God for all our Blessings? The doctrine of their Church is thus delivered by himself, in the words of the Council of Trent, It is good and profitable for Christians humbly to invocate the Saints, T.G. p. 334.and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance, whereby to obtain benefits of God, by his Son our Lord Iesus Christ who is our only Redeemer and Saviour. Where we take notice of the phrase suppliciter invocare, to invocate them after the manner of suppliants, and that not only voce, but mente, with words, but mental prayers as the Council adds, which words seem to be put on purpose to distinguish it from that office of Kindness in one man to another, when he desires him to pray for him; for this is as much as they would use concerning the Saints in Heaven praying to God, that they do suppliciter invocare; this phrase then doth not limit the signification of this invocation p. 294to be no more than praying to the Saints to pray for us. For a man doth, I suppose, answer the signification of that phrase by praying to them to give, rather than by praying to them to pray; for the one imports more the humility of a suppliant, than the other doth. And if there had been apprehended any danger of praying to them as the givers of blessings, is is not to be imagined, but so wary a Council would have expressed it, as it was most easie to have done; and most necessary to avoid that danger, if they had any regard to the good of mens souls. And that man must have an understanding indeed of a very common size, that can apprehend that the Council of Trent disallowed the praying to Saints as the Givers of Blessings, which was known to be practised in their Church, when they commend the humble invocation of Saints without the least censure of that manner of praying to them. Nay farther, which puts the matter out of dispute, with all who do not wilfully blind themselves, the Council of Trent commends the making recourse, not only to the prayers of the Saints, but to their aid and assistance: what doth this aid and assistance signifie, as distinct from prayers, and expressing p. 295somewhat beyond them? (or else those words were very weakly inserted in such a place, where they are so lyable to misconstruction) unless it be that which they pray for to them, viz. that they would help, comfort, strengthen, and protect them. Of which sort of prayers I produced several instances in their most Authentick Offices. And what saith T. G. to this?T.G. p. 399. why truly, these Forms of prayer to Saints cannot be denyed to be in use among them, but yet the sense of them is no more than praying to them to pray for them, and this is only varying the Phrase, to say to the Blessed Virgin Pray for me, or Help me, and comfort me and strengthen me O Blessed Virgin. But I asked him, whence must people take the sense of these prayers, if not from the signification of the words? He answers,p. 407. not meerly from Lilly's Grammar Rules, but from the doctrine of the Church delivered in her Councils and Catechisms, and from the common use of such words and expressions among Christians. I am content with this way of interpreting the sense of these prayers, provided, that a generally received practice, never condemned by their Councils, but rather justified by them, and a doctrine agreeable to that practice, allowed and countenanced in p. 296that Church, be thought a sufficient means to interpret the sense of these prayers. And to make the matter more plain, besides the prayers already mentioned, I shall give only a Tast of some few of those, which are recommended to the Use of the devout Persons of their Church, in the Manuals and Offices which are now allowed them in our own language: in which we may be sure, they would be careful to have nothing they thought scandalous, or repugnant to the doctrine and practise of their Church. In the Manual of Godly Prayers, which hath been often printed, (and once very lately) I find these words under the title of A Most Devout Commendation to our most Blessed Lady, O most singular, most excellent, most beautiful, most glorious, and most worthy Mother of God, most Noble Queen of Heaven, and most entirely beloved, and most sweet Lady, and Virgin Mary; so often from the bottom of my heart I do salute thee, as there be in number Angels in Heaven, drops of water in the Sea, Stars in the Firmament, leaves on the Trees, and grass on the earth. I do salute thee in the union of love, and by the blessed and most sweet heart of thy most dear Son, p. 297and of all that love thee, I do commend and assign my self unto thee, as to my dear Patroness, to be thy proper and loving Child. And farther, I humbly beseech thee O blessed Lady, that thou wilt vouchsafe to entertain and receive me, and obtain of thy dear Son, that I may be wholly thine, and thou next unto God may be wholly mine, that is, my Lady, my Ioy, my Crown, and my most sweet and faithful Mother. Amen.

Lilly's Grammar I confess, will not help us out here; nor the Construing Book neither: I do not think any Rules will do it. It must be a special gift of interpreting, that can make any one think, that no more is meant by all this, but to pray to the Blessed Virgin to pray for them. In the same Manual I find another Recommendation to the Virgin Mary, in these words, O my Lady, Holy Mary, I recommend my self into thy blessed trust, and singular custody, and into the bosome of thy mercy, this night and evermore, and in the hour of my death, as also my Soul and my Body; and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation, all my distress and miseries, my life and the end thereof; that by thy most holy p. 298intercession, and by thy merits, all my works may be directed and disposed, according to thine, and thy Sons Will. Amen.

I confess, intercession is here mentioned; but withal it is plain that is not the only thing relyed upon, for her merits are immediately added; and whatever ground it be upon, it seems, it is not only lawful, but a devout thing to commit Soul and Body to her trust and custody, both in Life and death. What could have been said more to the Eternal Son of God, than is contained in this Commendation to the Blessed Virgin in all the expressions of it? In another prayer to her, which is not only in the Manual, but in the Primer, or Office of the Blessed Virgin, and is too long to repeat, we have this beginning. I beseech thee, O holy Lady Mary, Mother of God most full of pity, the daughter of the Highest King, Mother most glorious, Mother of Orphans, the Consolation of the Desolate, the way of them that go astray, the safety of all that trust in thee, a Virgin before Child-bearing, a Virgin in Child-bearing, and a Virgin after Child-bearing, the fountain of mercy, p. 299the fountain of health and Grace, the fountain of consolation and pardon, the fountain of piety and gladness, the fountain of life and forgiveness.

I am now got from Lilly's Grammar to Aristotles Threshold: and I desire to know of T. G. whether these expressions are true or false? Is the Blessed Virgin all these things, or not? If they be not true, they are horrible blasphemies: if they be true, to what purpose is it to talk of praying to her to pray for us? for why may not I go directly to the Fountain of Mercy, Grace, and Pardon? what needless trouble were it to pray her, to pray for that which is in her on hands to bestow? In another prayer following that, are these expressions to the Blessed Virgin, Bow down thine ears O Mother of pity and mercy, unto my poor prayers, and be to me wretched sinner, a pitious helper in all things. And presently after to our Lady and S. Iohn together. O ye two Heavenly Gemms, Mary and John! O two divine Lamps ever shining before God! drive away with your blessed beams, the dark clouds of my sins.—To you, I p. 300most wretched sinner, commend this day, my Body and Soul, that in every hour and moment inwardly and outwardly, ye would vouchsafe to be my sure keepers and pitiful Intercessors to God for me.

Here we have intercession again, but that is not all, nor the main thing; for Custody is more than intercession; and that is first begged, and then intercession. So that if ever any prayers were made to creatures for those things, which God alone can give, these were; and so as to imply our dependence on them for the obtaining of them. These may suffice for a taste of their present and allowed devotions among them here at home, in Books of daily use.

And now I beseech T. G. to tell me, what there is in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which makes it necessary for me to put so forced a sense upon all these expressions, that they do mean no more than praying to the Blessed Virgin to pray for them? As Lilly's Grammar will not explain the sense, so no Rhetorick I ever saw, will make me understand the Figure. How often have we been railed at, for understanding words in a figurative sense, which cannot be literally understood, p. 301without overthrowing the plainest evidence of sense and reason; and which by the customary modes of speaking among all Nations, attributing the thing signified to the sign, and by other places of Scripture and Fathers, we prove ought to be no otherwise understood? But here is a strange figure invented against the plain and natural sense of the words, for by praying to bestow must be understood only praying to pray: and that when those titles are at the same time given, which suppose it in their power to give; and when there is no imaginable necessity from any doctrine of their Church to put this sense upon those words. For what article of their Creed, what decree of their Church, what doctrine of their Divines doth it contradict, for any man to pray directly to the Virgin Mary, for the destruction of heresies, support under troubles, Grace to withstand temptations, and reception to Glory? And what can we beg for, more from God himself? Yet I challenge T. G. to shew, which of all these, such prayers are repugnant to? and if to none of them, why should not the words be understood as they properly signifie? nay, it were easie to shew, that such prayers are very agreeable not only to the doctrine of the p. 302Council of Trent, but of their most eminent Divines both before, and after it. But this were to go beyond the bounds of this general Discourse; which is designed only to state the Nature of Divine Worship between us and them. Yet I cannot but take notice of the way T. G. saith,T.G. p. 407. the people are instructed by, to make this to be the sense of praying to give, i. e. praying to pray. 1. He saith, the common doctrine of Christianity, by which they are taught that God alone is the giver of all good things: and doth not the same common doctrine of Christianity, teach men to pray to him alone, for what he only can give? and not to use such bold and absurd figures in prayer, whose plain sense is contrary to this common doctrine of Christianity. But I wonder that T. G. should think this an effectual way to make them understand the prayers in this sense, when himself hath shewed them the way to reconcile this common doctrine to their practice; and the form of the words. For may not giving be distinguished as well as worship? It is true, God alone is the Original Giver of all good things, and this is a Soveraign way of giving peculiar to God; but there is an inferiour and subordinate way of giving by a power derived from p. 303God, and this is all, say they, we attribute to the Saints; and how now doth the common doctrine of Christianity teach people more effectually, that God alone is the Giver of all things, than that God alone is to be worshipped? I am sure the Scripture saith one as often, and in as plain terms, as it can do the other. But, 2. He saith, their Sermons, Catechisms and Explications both by word and writing do it; suppose some persons do it, I ask, by what Authority? their Church having never declared against an inferiour way of giving in the Saints, and having expresly owned the making recourse to them for their help and assistance, as well as their prayers. I desire T. G. in good earnest to tell me, what makes him so concerned, to have all the prayers understood in that sense, of praying to the Saints to pray for them, against the express sense of the words? Is there any harm in the other sense or not? if there be no harm, why may they not be so understood, without so much force and violence offered to them? if there be any harm, what is it? Idolatry or not? if only scandal, why were they not put in other words? if Idolatry, then T. G. himself charges them with Idolatry that understand their prayers by Lilly's Grammar, p. 304unless he thinks it much better for them, not to understand them at all. But I shall beg the Favour of one of their Church-Dictionaries to interpret this late Ode of Rapin to the Lady of Loretto, so as to make me construe it to be only praying to her to pray for them.

Renat. Rapini Odarum liber p. 46. Paris. 1670.Ad Divam Virginem Lauretanam.

Diva, quam rebus trepidis benignam

Rure Piceno veneratur Orbis,

Cui suos sternit facilis moveri

Adria fluctus:

Si qua Pastoris tibi Vaticani

Cura, vel Sacri superest Ovilis,

Italis Thracem procul inquietum

Finibus arce.

Si faves totis trepidabit undis

Bosphorus, rupes Scyticae pavebunt,

Turca pallebit, timidumque cornu

Luna recondet.

Namque te dudum pelagi potentem

Non semel verso tremuere ponto

Mersa Threissi, rate dissipata

Arma Tyranni.

Ne tibi fidam pavor ille gentem

Angat, aut saevis male turbet armis

Quos tuis laeti meditamur aris,

Ponere honores.

p. 305If this be not making a Goddess of her, surely the Heathen Poets never made one of Minerva; and yet I hope Rapin, a Iesuit and a Scholar, did well enough understand what was agreeable to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome.

Yet supposing T. G's sense were all that were understood by the Church of Rome in this matter,§. 18. it doth not acquit them from giving that Religious Worship, which Invocation imports, to something else besides God. For let us suppose that the Arrians only looked on Christ as a powerful intercessor with God, and on that account did in their publick offices of Religion make their solemn Addresses to him to intercede and pray for them to God; were this giving him any part of Divine worship or no? Especially, when performed with all the external acts of adoration which are proper to God. If this were not any part of Divine worship, the Fathers were extreamly out in their proofs that Christ could be no creature, because the external act of adoration was given to him; if it were a part of divine worship, then those in the Church of Rome do give it to a creature, when with all the solemn Acts of Devotion they pray to Saints, which p. 306they use to God himself, although it be only to be intercessors with God for them, especially when they do not only pray thus to them, but rely upon them for their help and assistance, and return thanks to them when they receive the Blessings they prayed for. Would not the Fathers have called this bringing in Polytheism, and reviving the antient Idolatry of the Heathens? Since the great principle of Christianity they said was, the reserving all parts of Religious worship to God alone. Nay, some of the Writers of the Roman Church have been so ingenuous in this matter to confess, that if the modern practice of Invocation of Saints had been introduced in the Apostolical times, it would have looked too like the introducing of Gentilism again. Franciscus Horantius in his Answer to Calvins Institutions, Franc. Horant. Loc. Catholic. l. 3. p. 127. Ed. Ven.confesses, that Invocation of Saints was not expresly commanded under the Gospel, nè gentiles conversi crederent se iterum ad cultum terrigenarum trahi, lest the Gentile Converts should believe that they were again drawn to the worship of Creatures: which words he had borrowed from Eccius, and the same are repeated by Harpsfield. Martinus Peresius Ayala a learned Spanish Bishop assigns this for the reason,Cop. Dialog. 3. Martin. Peres. Ayal. de Tradit. part. 3. p. 105. p. 307why he could meet with no footsteps either of the invocation or intercession of Saints, before the time of Cornelius Bishop of Rome; viz. that the Apostles would have been thought to have made themselves Gods, if they had delivered the doctrine of invocation and intercession of Saints. By which we see, these persons did truly apprehend a great affinity between their practice of Invocation of Saints, and the Heathen Idolatry; or else there was no danger, one should be mistaken for the other. And although T. G. tells us,T.G. p. 399. he never met with any Catholick so ignorant, as not to understand the sense of their prayers to be to desire the Saints to help them with their prayers; yet I meet with some men, who understood Catholicks as well as T. G. and yet do give a quite different account of them. For the same Spanish Bishop, thinks the people had great need to be better instructed in this matter of worship, lest, saith he, they make Gods of the Saints, nam multos inveni in hac parte, non satis Christianè institutos; I have found many not well instructed in this matter: it seems not only the people committed Idolatry, but their Teachers did not instruct them well enough to avoid it. And Ludov. Vives was not so p. 308lucky a man as T. G. for he saith, that many Christians do most times offend in a good thing (i. e. giving honour to Saints) for, Lud. Viv. in Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 27.he saith, they worship them no otherwise than they do God; neither do I find in many things any difference between their opinion of the Saints, and the Heathens of their Gods. T.G. takes notice of this passage of Vives, T.G. p. 436.and blames me for leaving out in re bona, in a thing good in it self; let him make as much of this, as he please, for it only shews that he was a through Papist, although he charged the people with the downright practice of Idolatry: and if it only implyes an error and abuse in practice, yet he shews both these were too common among them, and that the Catholicks in his time were not so wise as those T. G. hath met with. But it may be he means no more, than that if they be asked the Question in their Catechism, they answer it as he saith; which is as good a way to free them from the practice of Idolatry, as if a man should be suspected of Adultery, and T. G. should answer for him, that cannot be, for he understands better than so, for when I asked him the Commandments, he said he ought not to commit Adultery. Polydore Virgil, was not so happy as T. G. for speaking of the solemn p. 309Rite of Supplication when the Images of Saints are carryed in procession, he saith, I fear, Polyd. Virg. de Invent. Rer. l. 6. c. 1 1.I fear we rather please the Heathen Gods than Christ by such practices; which without all question, he saith, was taken from the Heathen customs. And what he saith of the worship of Images, c. 13.is as true of that of Saints, that the people were arrived to that degree of madness, that their worship differed very little from Idolatry. Cassander saith,Cassand. consuit. art. 21. that the people trusted so much to the Patronage and Intercession of the Saints, whom they worshipped with dull, not to say profane Ceremonies, that they hoped for the pardon of their sins, although they did not amend their lives, on the account of their intercession for them; and that they trusted more to them, especially to the Blessed Virgin, than to Christ himself. And that what interpretations soever some men put upon those titles of the Queen of Heaven, Mother of Mercy, &c. the common people did not understand them according to their sense of them. Nay, Erasmus goes farther,Erasm. Eccles. l. 2.Sir 50:2 saying, that their very Preachers worshipped the Blessed Virgin with more Religion, or devotion, than they did Christ himself, or his Holy Spirit, calling her the Mother of Grace. By all which we see, that the p. 310doctrine of Divine worship is not so clearly stated by them, but that the more ingenuous men, who have lived and dyed in the communion of that Church, have thought not only the people, but the Teachers very much to blame in it.

§. 19.2. My business now is, to give an account of the sense of the Fathers in this dispute about the notion of divine worship; not to handle particularly the Testimonies of the Fathers in dispute between us, which belongs to the Question of Invocation of Saints, but to shew, that they went upon the same principles I have here laid down, in the distinction between the Honour and the Worship of them; and while they speak most for the Honour of the Saints, they deny any Religious worship to be performed to them.

Origen in the beginning of his Book against Celsus, Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 10.makes that to be the property of the doctrine of Christ, that God only was to be worshipped, but that other might be foreign, worthy of honour, but not of worship. And in another place he speaks as plainly as words can express his meaning; although, saith he, we should believe that L. 8. p. 416.Angels were set over these things below, p. 311yet we only praise and magnifie them; but all our prayers are only to be made to God, and not to any Angel; and only Iesus Christ is to offer up our prayers to God;L. 5. p. 233. and lest any should imagine he meant only some kind of prayers, he saith expresly foreign all prayer, and supplication, and intercession; P. 238.and saith that we ought not to pray to them who pray for us. But now what saith T. G. to these places, which (excepting the first) I had objected against the practice of invocation of Saints and Angels in my former discourse? Why truly he saith,T.G. p. 361. that Origens meaning is partly, that we are not to pray to them in the same manner that we do to God: but we may pray to them after another manner. But is that inferiour sort of prayer, prayer or not? when we desire them to pray for us, is not that desiring their intercession for us? but Origen denyes, that any prayer is to be made to them, or any one to be prayed to, although it be only to intercede with God for us, but only the Son of God. I remember an answer of a devout servant of the Blessed Virgin much like this of T. G. For when it was objected, that she could not be the Mother of Redemption for mankind, because it is p. 312said, Isa. 63.3. I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the people there was no man with me. True, saith he, there is no man with thee,Ricard. de Laud. Mariae l. 2. p. 2. but there might be a woman for all that. So doth T. G. deal with the testimonies of the Fathers, let them be never so express against all sorts of prayers and Invocations, they hold only of such a sort of prayer, but there may be another and inferiour sort notwithstanding. But is there any sort that is not comprehended under all? And that Origen cannot be understood in these passages of such prayer only as supposeth the supream excellency in God, most evidently appears by the dispute between Celsus and him, which was not about the worship of the Supream God, but of Inferiour Spirits and Ministers to him, as hath been fully proved already.

The Church of Philomelium in that noble Testimony concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 15.Sir 50:4makes the same distinction between honour and worship; for they utterly deny giving any worship to a creature, as inconsistent with Christianity; but at the same time, they confess the honour and esteem they had for the Martyrs, which they expressed by meeting at the places of their Martyrdom, keeping their Anniversary p. 313dayes, and recommending their examples to the imitation of others.

In the former Discourse I produced the Testimonies of Iustin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, and mentioned many others to the same purpose, viz. that all Religious worship was due only to God; and with this double caution to prevent cavils, 1. That it was without making any distinctions of absolute and relative worship, which they must have been driven to, in case they had given Religious worship to any besides. 2. That when the Christians refused to give adoration to the Emperour, it could not be understood of the adoration proper to the Supream God, for none can be so sensless to imagine they required that, but such kind of Religious worship as they gave to the Images of their Gods. To all this T. G. replyes,T.G. p. 340. (I.) That these Testimonies are impertinent, because they are to be understood only of that divine worship which is due to God alone; and not of the Inferiour worship which belongs to Saints or Angels. Might he not as well have said, that they prove that no man might be worshipped, but a woman might? For the force of the Testimonies did not lye meerly in this, that they attributed divine worship only to God, but that they p. 314made use of the most general terms which signified worship without any distinction of the nature and kind of that worship, supposing it to be on a Religious account. For no men of common sense would have written as they did, if they had believed that some sort of Religious worship were lawful to be given, and another not. Doth T. G. think that he should ever escape censure in his Church, if he should say peremptorily that it is unlawful to give any kind of Religious worship to a creature, when the very Indices of the Fathers cannot escape the Index Expurgatorius for blabbing so great a Truth? No; we should have T. G. presently out with his distinctions; worship is of two sorts, Supream called Latria, inferiour called Dulia: Religious may be taken in two senses. 1. That which proceeds from the vertue of Religion, and that is proper to God. 2. That which tends to the honour of Religion, and that may be given to creatures. And thus would the Fathers have written, if they had ever looked over Aristotles threshold, and been of T. G's mind; and therefore my argument which proceeded upon the general terms of the Fathers, without intimating any such distinction, doth hold good, that either they did not p. 315write like understanding men, or they knew no such distinctions as these. 2. That although Justin Martyr and Theophilus deny divine worship to be given to Emperours, yet they both imply, T.G. p. 341, 342.that lawful worship and honour is to be given to them; and therefore he cannot but wonder, what I meant by alledging those Testimonies, unless I intend not any worship at all to be due to any besides God; or that I think it not possible to worship a good man. And afterwards he saith,p. 347. he would willingly understand yet farther, whether I allow any honour at all to be due to Princes as Gods Vicegerents; for he doth not remember hitherto any passage in my Book, from whence he could gather that I hold it lawful to give any worship either to Princes Statues or to themselves. Which words have such a venemous insinuation in them, that I could hardly believe they could come from a man of the least common ingenuity. Because I deny Religious worship to be given to any besides God himself; must I therefore be represented as a man that denyes Civil worship to be given to Princes? I cannot tell, whether the folly or malice of such an insinuation be the greater. I pray God help his understanding, and forgive his ill will. I hope all p. 316acts do not go whither they are intended; but that which he designs for my dishonour, may notwithstanding his intention, terminate in his own. I do assure him, I am so much for the utmost civil worship to be given to Princes as Gods Vicegerents, as not to think it in the power of any Bishop in the World to depose them, or absolve their subjects from obedience to them; and I hope T. G. thinks so too, although he may not think it so fit to declare his mind. But what is all this to our present business? The force of my argument lay in this, the Christians denyed giving Religious worship to Princes, although it were an inferiour kind of Religious worship, therefore they did not think an inferiour kind of Religious worship lawful. Was this argument too hot for his fingers, so that assoon as he touched it, he runs away, and frets and fumes, and vents his spight against me for it? However, I will urge it again and again, till I receive a better answer. T. G. saith, the Fathers speak only of the Soveraign worship that is due only to God; and that is the worship they think unlawful to give to any creature. I say it is impossible that should be their sense, for they deny it to be lawful to give Religious worship to Princes, p. 317when they were required to do it; but no men ever took Princes for the Supream God. T. G. tells me, that Tertullian explains Theophilus and Justin, saying, that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps himself within his own Sphere, and abstains from divine honours. Very well! this is that I aim at: and he need not wonder what I brought these testimonies for; for it was for this very thing which Tertullian saith, that the Christians did refuse to give divine honours to Princes: and therefore they thought divine worship comprehended under it all sorts of Religious worship. But saith T. G. it is a thing notoriously known, that many of the Heathen Emperours exacted to be worshipped as Gods, that is with divine worship. I grant all this, and say that it still proves what I intend. For did they mean by worshipping them as Gods, that they would have the people believe them to be the Supream God? that is madness and folly to suppose, for the utmost they required, was to be worshipped with the same worship that Deified men were; or to have the same worship living, which the Senate was wont to decree to them when they were dead. And can T. G. possibly believe, that this was to suppose them to be p. 318the sole Authors of all good to mankind? which is that kind of divine worship, he saith, the Fathers only condemned. I desire T. G. to think again of this matter, and I dare say he will see more cause to wonder at his own answer, than at my argument, which so evidently overthrows all that he brings to evade the Testimonies of the Fathers. But saith T. G. if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents, why may not Saints as the adopted Children of God? Who denyes this, for Gods sake? but I deny, that either Kings or Saints are to have divine worship given to them. And since T. G. is in the humour of asking me Questions, let me propose one to him; if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents, why not with divine honour upon his principles; i. e. with a relative Latria, though not absolute? And if that be lawful, what he thinks of the primitive Christians, who chose to dye, rather than to give divine worship to them upon any account? By this time I hope T. G. is ashamed of what he adds, that on the same principles that I deny any worship to be due to Saints, a Quaker would prove, that it must be denyed to Princes. The worship I deny to Saints, is that which God hath denyed to them, viz. Divine worship; p. 319the worship I say is due to Princes, is that which God hath required to be given them, viz. civil worship. And they that cannot find out a difference between these two, are a fit match for the Quakers. I know not what a Quaker might do in this matter; I am sure T. G. doth nothing but trifle in it. Was there ever a meaner argument came out of the mouth of a Quaker, that what he urges against me, viz. that in such a Book printed in such a place, and just in such a page, T.G. p. 341.I call a Divine of our Nation Reverend and Learned: and what then? therefore Saints are to be worshipped: very extraordinary I confess; and one of T. G's nostrum's! if he please, let it be writ upon his Monument, Hic jacet auctor hujus Argumenti, for I dare say, no body ever used it before him. If we give men titles of respect according to their Age and Calling, or real worth, therefore we are to give Religious worship to Saints: and why not as well to Princes, because we call the Iudges appointed by them, the Reverend Iudges? but surely this will prove not only a dulia, but an hyperdulia: because we not only call the Clergy Reverend, but the Bishops Right Reverend, and Archbishops Most Reverend. I am sorry T. G. did not so well p. 320consider the force of his argument, to have pressed it home upon me, for he now sees how much more advantage might have been made by it: but it is an easie thing to add to rare inventions. But certainly T. G. (to use his own words) must believe his Readers to be all stark blind, who cannot distinguish titles of respect from Religious worship. But is there not a Reverence due to Persons for their Piety, as well as for their Age and Dignity? who doubts it? but that Reverence lyes in the due expressions of honour and esteem towards them, which I hope may be done without encroaching upon the Acts of Religious worship; and I think I have told him plainly enough, what I mean by them, in the foregoing Discourse. But T. G. seems to understand no difference between titles of respect, and acts of worship; between expressions of esteem and devotion; between Religious and Civil worship; for he blunders and confounds all these together, and whatever proves one, he thinks proves all the rest: these are not the best wayes of reasoning, but they are the best the cause would bear. Well, but yet the matter seems not altogether so clear, for the worship we are to give to Princes is as they are Gods Vicegerents, and this is p. 321given on a Religious account, because God commands us to give honour to whom honour is due; the place urged by T. G.,T.G. p. 348. Rom. 13.7. To this a very easie answer will serve. Worship may be said to be Religious two wayes. 1. As it is required by the Rule of Religion: and so the worship given to Magistrates is Religious. 2. In its nature and circumstances; as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his worship; or is attended with those circumstances which make it a Religious performance, and then it is not to be given to Princes, or any Creatures, but only to God himself. This will be made plain by a remarkable instance among the antient Christians; While Divine honours were challenged by the Emperours to themselves, i. e. the honours belonging to consecrated men (for they meant no other) the Christians refused giving to them those external acts of Reverence which might be supposed to have any Religious worship in them; although they expressed the greatest readiness at the same time to obey their Laws, that did not require any thing against Christianity; and to pray for their safety and prosperity. This being known to be the general practice of Christians, Pliny in his Epistle to p. 322Trajan mentions this as one of the wayes of trying Christians, viz. whether they would Imagini Caesaris thure & vino supplicare, give Religious worship to Caesars Image, by burning incense, and pouring out wine before it; which were the Divine honours required. This, Pliny saith,Plin. l. 10. ep. 97. all that were true Christians refused to do; and those who did it presently renounced Christ. Thus, this matter stood as long as the Emperours continued Gentiles, who were presumed to affect Divine honours; but when Constantine had owned Christianity, and thereby declared, that no Religious worship was to be given to him, the Christians not only erected publick Statues to Emperours, but were ready to express before them the highest degrees of Civil worship and respect. This Iulian thought to make his advantage of,Greg. Naz. orat. 1. in Iul. and therefore placed the Images of the Gods among those of the Emperours, that either they might worship the Gods, or by denying Civil Worship to the Emperours Statues, which the custom then was to give, they might be proceeded against as disaffected to the Emperour. And when he sate on the Throne distributing New-years-gifts, he had his Altar of Incense by him, that before they received gifts, they might p. 323cast a little incense into the fire; which all good Christians refused to do, because as Gothofred observes,Iac. Gothofred. Iulian orat. p. 66. the burning of incense was the same tryal of Christians, that eating of Swines flesh was of Iews. But after the suspicion of Religious worship was removed in the succeeding Emperors, the former customs of Civil worship obtained again; till Theodosius observing how these customs of Civil adoration began to extend too far,Cod. Theodos. 15. tit. 4. l. 1. and border too much upon Divine honours, did wholly forbid it in a Constitution extant to that purpose, and that for this reason, that all worship which did exceed the dignity of men, should be entirely reserved to God. By this true account of the behaviour of Christians in this matter, T. G. may a little better understand what that worship was, which the primitive Christians refused to give to Emperours, and what difference they made between the same external acts, when they were to be done on a Civil and on a Religious account; which are easily discerned either by the nature of the acts themselves, as the burning incense, or the circumstances that attend them, as in adoration.

p. 324§. 20.It were needless to produce any more Testimonies of Antiquity to prove that Divine worship is proper only to God, since T. G. confesses it; but gives quite another sense of Divine worship than they did, for under this, they comprehended all acts of Religious worship, as appears by the worship they denyed to Emperours. It remains therefore to shew, that those who spake most for the honour of the Saints, did not by that mean any Religious acts of worship, but expressions barely of honour and esteem.

Iulian objected this against the Christians (as it was common with the Heathens to object many false and unreasonable things) that instead of the Heathen Gods, they worshipped not one but many miserable men. To this S. Cyrill answers,S. Cyrill. c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 203. that as to Christ, he confesses they worshipped him, but they did not make a God of a man in him, but he was essentially God, and therefore fit to be worshipped; but for the Martyrs, they neither believed them to be Gods, nor gave them the worship which belongs to Gods. Which is unquestionably S. Cyrill's meaning, or he doth not answer to the purpose: For Iulian never charged the Christians with giving that worship to p. 325Martyrs, which is proper to the Supream God considered as such, but that they gave to them that Religious worship which Iulian pleaded to be due to the inferiour Gods, as appears by the State of the Question between them. This therefore S. Cyrill denyes that they gave to Saints and Martyrs, which he calls foreign, i. e. to give them the worship which the Heathens gave to their inferiour Deities; what they gave to the Martyrs was upon another account, it was only foreign, respectively and by way of honour. And lest any should suspect he meant any kind of Religious worship by this, he presently explains himself, that what he said was only to be understood of those honours they gave to them for their generous suffering for the faith, despising all dangers, and thereby making themselves great examples to other Christians; and after he let us understand what these honours were, when he brings the instance of the Athenians meeting together at the sepulchres of those who were slain at the Battel of Marathon for the liberty of Greece, and there making Panegyricks upon them, and therefore he wonders why Julian should exclaim so much against these honours done to the Martyrs, since p. 326this was all the reward they could give them. c. Iul. l. 10.And elsewhere he saith, these honours consisted in preserving their Memories, and praising their vertues; and brings the very same instance of the Athenians again:p. 336. but for any matter of worship towards them he utterly denyes it; because they were bound to give it to none but God. p. 338.And that we might fully understand what he means when he saith, that Christians do not give to Saints the worship the Heathens gave to their inferiour Gods, in another place, he tells us, what that worship did consist in,L. 4. p. 124. which he there calls foreign (by which we are certain what he meant by foreign before) and so he reckons up foreign in the first place, their prayers, or supplications, and then vows, hymns, oblations and sacrifices: the giving of any of these to Saints were to worship them foreign; and not as the ignorant or wilfully blind Writers of the Roman Church when they meet with this word, they cry out presently, mark that, not with Latria, and presently imagine that what sense a word hath obtained among them, if they meet with it in the Fathers, it must needs signifie the same thing; when the sense of words hath been so p. 327strangely perverted by them; as will more particularly appear by this very distinction of Latria and Dulia, which they make S. Augustine the Author of, but have carried it far beyond his meaning.

I come therefore to consider S. Austins mind in this matter,§. 21. which I am the more obliged to do, since T. G. so unreasonably triumphs in S. Austins opinion in this matter; and is not only content to drag me at his Chariot wheels, but he makes a shew of me, and calls people to see by my example, to what miserable shifts and disingenuous arts they are put, T.G. p. 431.who will shut their eyes, and fight against the light of a noon-day truth: when I first read these words, I began to rub my eyes, and to look about me, and to wonder what the matter was; and I find my self as willing to see light as another, and my conscience never yet accused me of using disingenuous arts in dealing with them; if T. G. can clear himself as well, it is the better for him; I am sure by standers have not thought so, as appears at large by Dr. Whitby, especially in his last Chapter against him. But it is not my business to recriminate; hopeing sufficiently to clear my self in this matter. It seems, I had said that S. Augustine p. 328denyes, that any Religious worship was performed to the Martyrs; this T. G. again saith, I could not affirm without shutting my eyes: and yet I thank God, by the help of my eyes, I find S. Augustin saying the same thing still. For is it not S. Augustin that saith, non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum, Aug. de ver. Rel. c. 55.let not the worship of dead men, be any part of our Religion: for if they have lived piously, they do not desire such honours from us; but they would have us to worship him, by whom we may become partakers of their happiness: honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter Religionem. Is it possible for any man to speak plainer than S. Austin doth, that they are not to have Religious worship given to them, but such honour as may excite us to an imitation of them? And this not by chance, or in some incoherent passage, but in a set discourse on purpose, where he argues with strong reason against the Religious worship of Angels, as well as Saints, to the end of that Book. And saith, the utmost they expect from us, is the honour of our love, and not of our service; (and therefore S. Augustin did not by foreign understand the service of Saints and Angels) which he there disputes against, from our p. 329happiness coming only from God, our being the Temples of God, the Angels prohibiting S. John to worship him, and bidding him to worship God; and that the very name of Religion, is from tying our Souls to God alone. Whosoever of the Angels loves God, saith he, loves me for worshipping him, and he that hath Gods favour, hath the favour of all that are good. Therefore let our Religion bind us faster to one omnipotent God, between whom and us there is no creature interposed: with much more to the same purpose. Is it not the same S. Austin that saith,Tract. 23. in Evang. Ioh. Haec est Religio Christiana ut colatur unus Deus; this is the Christian Religion, to worship one God; and that for this reason, because God only can make the Soul happy: for, saith he, it is made happy only by the participation of God, and not of a blessed Soul, or Angel. Not, as though this were intended only against the expectation of our blessedness wholly from Saints or Angels; but he makes use of this as an argument to prove, that we ought to worship God alone, who only is able to make us happy. Is it not the same S. Austin, that saith, this is the character of the true Religion, De quantit. an. c. 34.that it unites us only to one God, without giving worship to any other Being how excellent p. 330soever? and he looks on this as a divine and singular part of the Christian doctrine, nullam creaturam colendam esse animae, that no creature have the worship of our Soul; what did he then think of praying to creatures not only with our voyce, but our mind too, as the Council of Trent saith, it is profitable for us to do, and not only for their prayers, but for their help and assistance; but saith good S. Austin, the most wise and perfect man, the most accomplished and happy soul is only to be loved and imitated, and honour given to it according to its desert and order: for thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Could any man speak more plainly and fully against giving any Religious worship to creatures, than he doth? Is it not the same S. Austin that tells Maximus Madaurensis, Aug. ep. 45.that in the Christian Church, none that were dead were worshipped, and nothing adored as God, that is made by God; but only one God, who created all things? Here T. G. smiles, and thinks to avoid this presently; for S. Austin speaks of any thing being adored as God; which they abhor to do: but his smiling will be soon over, if he considers, what being adored as God there means: for no one ever suspected, p. 331that the Christians believed the Martyrs to be the Supream God; but only that they worshipped them as Gods of a lower rank by participation from the Supream. And is not the very same thing said and defended in the Roman Church, that the Saints are Gods by participation, and they have the care and government of the Church committed to them; and on that account are worshipped? and if this be not being adored as Gods in S. Austins sense, I know not what is. Is it not the same S. Austin, that undertakes to prove against the Platonists, De Civ. Dei l. 9.23.that good Spirits are not to be worshipped per tale Religionis obsequium, by such Religious worship? very right, saith T. G., not by the worship of Sacrifices; but S. Austin saith, neither Sacris, nor Sacrificiis, which two comprehend all the Rites of Religious worship which were then used. For he makes use of several phrases to express the acts of Religious worship, sometimes by joyning those two together, sacris & sacrificiis; sometimes Religione & Sacris; L. 10. c. 1.sometimes Religionis ritibus; sometimes Religionis obsequio;c. 4. by all which he understands the same thing, viz. the acts of Religious worship, which for distinction sake he calls Latria; as that service or worship that p. 332men owe to one another, he saith is called by another name: and I confess I cannot find S. Austin applying the term of Dulia to any service we owe to Saints or Angels in Heaven;De ver. Rel. c. 55. but he avoids the term of Service and denyes it be due to them, and only calls it by the name of Love and Fellowship with them; and therefore Martinus Peresius had good reason to quarrel with the use of the word dulia, Mart. Peres. de trad. p. 3. cons. 7.because we are only fellow servants with them; and Bellarmin gives him no sufficient answer, by bringing that place, Gal. 5. serving one another in love, for that only relates to persons in equal conditions, where the mutual offices may be alike, which cannot be supposed in this case. And therefore I had reason to say,Q. in Exod. 61. that Dulia is used by S. Austin, as a term expressing the service we owe to God as our Lord; but T. G. thinks he hath run me down,T.G. p. 386. by producing the foregoing place, which, he saith, I purposely concealed from the Reader, for fear he might infer, that if some degree of the service called Dulia might be given by servants to their Masters, surely a high degree of it may be given to Holy Angels. Very finely argued! and as much against S. Austins sense as is possible. For, he saith, in plain terms, p. 333those Angels that require service from us are Devils: for this he makes the character of them, that they do invite us, ut sibi serviamus; but, saith he, we honour good Angels by love, and not by service. But T. G. is not more mistaken in S. Austins sense of Dulia, than he is about Latria; for, he saith, that he understands it of sacrifices, and that when he saith blessed Spirits are not willing we should sacra facere, it ought not be rendered equivocally, as it is by me, to perform any sacred offices, but to dedicate and sacrifice to them, or consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by the Rites of Religion; by which, he saith, it is evident, that he speaks of the worship which is due to God alone, that is, of such dedications and consecrations, as were performed by the Heathens to their Daemons as Gods. To this I answer, that I grant that S. Austin speaks of the worship due to God alone, and of those rites of Religious worship which were performed by the Heathens to their Gods: but the Question is, what he understands by those Religious rites, whether only dedications, and sacrifices, and consecrations, or other acts of Religious worship? For T. G. cannot be so ignorant, as not to know, that adorations and prayers were as constant, p. 334as solemn, as proper acts of Religious worship both by the Law of God, and the Heathen customs, as those he mentions: thence orandi causa fanum adire, in Cicero;Cicer. Verr. 6. Deos immortales precari, venerari, atque implorare debetis, ut urbem defendant; In Catil.and scarce any Greek or Latin Writer that mentions their Religious rites, but under them they take notice of adoration, and prayers; and not only so, but some of them give an account of the Forms of them, and the manner and order of Invocation in their Litanies (for the word is as old as Homer) wherein they invocated their Gods in order, that they would be favourable and propitious to them; and Pliny saith in general, Plin. hist. nat. l. 28. c. 2.that no sacrifice was offered without prayers; and Macrobius,Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 9. Servius, Serv. in Aeneid. 7.and Arnobius say,Arnob. c. gent. l. 3. they began their invocations with Janus, not because they looked on him as chief, but as a Mediator who was to carry up their prayers to the superiour powers; and they ended in Vesta for the same reason: and that these were comprehended under the Sacra, is not only manifest from their conjunction with sacrifices; but from the old form of obsecration, in which they used ob vos sacro for obsecro. I would now understand from T. G. why he thinks that p. 335S. Austin should purposely leave out in these words Adoration and Invocation, which were by all Nations looked on as some of the proper acts of Religious worship, especially when he mentions both these before and after? For the occasion of the dispute, was about the intercession of created Spirits, and mens addresses to them; and afterwards he joyns adoration together with sacrifice as a thing peculiar to God: De Civ. Dei, l. 19.putaverunt quidam deferendum Angelis honorem vel adorando vel sacrificando, &c. in a place already cited. If this be not shutting ones eyes against noonday light; it is a drawing a curtain before it, lest it grow too hot.

But for all this T. G. is very confident,T.G. p. 431. that S. Austin was for the performing Religious worship to Martyrs, because he saith expresly, that it was the custome of the Christian people in his time, to celebrate with Religious solemnity the Memories of the Martyrs; and very kindly after his mode, he charges me with corrupting the words of S. Austin, by translating them thus, that it was the custome of the Christians in his time to have their Religious Assemblies at the Sepulchres or Memories of the Martyrs: I did not pretend to translate, as T. G. knew well enough by p. 336the character; but ill will never speaks well; but I still say, and stand to it, that this is his sense; as will appear by considering the design of his words. Faustus the Manichean had charged the African Christians with Idolatry in the honour they gave to the Memories of the Martyrs. C. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21.S. Austin answers, that they did so celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs; that they erected no Altars to any Martyr, but to the God of Martyrs, although it was for their memories. For who of the Bishops or Priests that officiates at the Altar, in the places of their Sepulchres, ever said, We offer to thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian; but that which is offered, is offered to God who crowned the Martyrs, but it is done at their Sepulchres, whom he hath crowned, that by the very places our affections may be raised, and our love quickned, both to those whom we may imitate, and to him by whom we are enabled to do it. Now I desire to know, what part of Religious worship was here performed to the Martyrs? If the Christian Sacrifice, that were Idolatry according to T. G. and would have justified Faustus to purpose; but S. Austin utterly denyes this to be performed to them. All that the Martyrs are concerned in as to the Religious p. 337Solemnity, was no more than that the offices of Religion were performed at their Sepulchres: this was an Honour to them I grant, but no part of Religious worship. And although the design of the worship was only to honour God, yet the place of doing it was out of honour to the Martyrs. But S. Austin saith afterwards, we worship therefore the Saints with that worship of love and society, &c. What means this &c. here? let us have all or nothing: with which holy men in this life are worshipped, whose heart is prepared to suffer as much for the truth of the Gospel: he that hath but an eye open, saith T. G. must see that S. Austin speaks here of the worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves. And he that hath but one corner open cannot but see, that he doth not speak of Religious worship, which Faustus objected; but having denyed that to be given to Martyrs, he now shews what they did give them, viz. such a kind of worship as we give to holy men alive: and is that the Religious worship either Faustus or S. Austin meant? S. Austin calls it worship, but he means no more by it, than when he said before, that they are to be loved for their goodness, and honoured for their examples; p. 338but what is all this to Religious worship or Invocation of them, when S. Austin in another place expresly denyes, that the Saints are invocated by him that offers the sacrifices at the Altar; De Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 10.nay, although that Altar were in the place of their sufferings? And here, saith T. G. I think I have done their work for them; and he is not mistaken; whatever he cites from Bishop Forbs, that S. Austin was only to be understood of Invocation at the Altar; I shall make it appear that the argument holds good, and that those who speak against it, it is because they do not understand the strength of it. Bishop Forbs in this place,Forbs considerat. Mod. p. 317. and several others, takes occasion without reason to find fault with Bishop Andrews, a man of far greater Learning than himself, and of better judgement in these matters; and it is he, and not Bishop Montague (as T.G. mistakes) whom Bishop Forbs introduces Iohn Barclay charging with leading King James aside. But I still say the argument clearly proves, that S. Austin denyed Invocation of Saints; and I am sorry to see Bishop Forbs so weakly led aside by Bellarmin and others upon this ground, because in the Canon of the Mass the Saints are not directly prayed to in the Roman Church; but they are in the Missa p. 339Catechumenorum, and in the Litanies; therefore thus it was in the African Church in S. Austins time. Who knows not what great alterations have been in the Liturgies of the Church since that time? Yet thus wisely doth T. G. speak upon this subject:T.G. p. 448. if I speak of that part of the Mass, which was antiently called the Mass of the Catechumeni, the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the Blessed Virgin, and the rest of the Saints, &c. to pray for him: but in the Missa Fidelium there is no Invocation of them. If there had been none any where else, there had been a far greater conformity between the Church of Rome, and the Church in S. Austins time: we plainly prove, there was no Invocation at the Altar, let T. G. shew any other part of publick worship at that time, wherein they were invocated. But all these mistakes arise from not considering the mighty difference of the Liturgy in S. Austins time, in the African Church, from what hath since obtained in the Roman Church. But to give T. G. some better light in this matter, and withal to shew the invincible strength of this argument, I shall prove these two things. 1. That the Prayers of the Church did not begin in S. Austins p. 340time till the Catechumens were dismissed: 2. That the prayers after their dismission were performed at the Altar.

1. That the prayers of the Church in S. Austins time did not begin till the Catechumens were dismissed. For which we have a plain Testimony from S. Austin, Ecce post sermonem fit Missa Catechumenis, Aug. serm. de Temp. 237.manebunt fideles, venietur ad locum orationis; whereby he shews not only, that prayers did not begin, till the dismission of the Catechumens; but that the Altar was then accounted the proper place of prayer: De divers. serm. 48.and elsewhere he saith, that Invocation did begin after the Creed; ideo non accepistis prius orationem, postea symbolum; sed prius symbolum, ubi sciretis quid crederetis; & postea orationem, ubi nossetis quem invocaretis: which words could have no sense, if any solemn invocation were then made before the Creed. So S. Ambrose describes the service of the Church of Millan in his time,Ambr. l. 5. epist. 33. Post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis, Symbolum aliquibus Competentibus in baptisteriis tradebam Basilicae: by which it seems, the Service began with the Lessons, then followed the Sermon, after that the Creed, and then when the Catechumens were dismissed, the prayers of the Church begun: p. 341so S. Ambrose presently after saith, when he had instructed the Competentes, Missam facere coepi, i. e. the Missa Fidelium, or the Prayers of the Church, when the Missa Catechumenorum was dispatched, or they sent out of the Congregation. So Iustin Martyr describes the Service of the first Christians, Iust. Apol. 2. p. 98.that it began with the Lessons of the Prophets and Apostles, then followed the Sermon; and after that the Prayers began: and then followed the Eucharist: which was then constantly received in the publick Service. The Council of Laodicea mentions prayers beginning after the Sermon:Concil. Laodic. c. 19. (i. e. the publick prayers of the Church) of which that Council mentions, the prayers for the Catechumens before their dismission (which in the Greek Church were performed by the Deacon in the Ambo making the foreign to the people, to which they joyned their foreign) after these, followed the prayers for the Penitents, and then the Prayers of the Faithful, or the proper Liturgy of the Church began. The Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical, Constit. Apost. l. 2. c. 57.appoints the Service to begin with the Lessons of the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles and Gospel, after which the Sermon was to follow, then the Catechumens and Penitents p. 342being dismissed, they must all rise and go to their prayers for the Catholick Church; as it is there described: in the eighth Book he mentions the occasional prayers that were made for the Catechumens and Penitents, before their dismission, and then follow the forms of Solemn Invocation, L. 8. c. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.which were not to be used till the other were dismissed the Assembly. To the same purpose the counterfeit Dionysius describes the practice of the Church, Dionys. Hierarch. c. 3. Sect. 6.that the Catechumens and Penitents were admitted to the Lessons and Psalms, and then were excluded the Congregation. And none were allowed to be present at the Prayers of the Faithful, but such as were allowed to be present at the Eucharist, as the fourth degree of Penitents, which is called communicating in Prayers, by the Council of Nice; Concil. Nicen. c. 11, 12, 13.by which we may see T. G.'s skill in Antiquity, T.G. p. 442.when he puts the forms of invocation used by those who were to partake of the Eucharist, into the Missa Catechumenorum; whereas they were allowed to be present at no prayers of the Church, but only that which was made for them; and Cardinal Bona could inform him,Bona de rebus Liturg. l. 1. c. 16. that the Catechumens were not allowed to joyn so much as in the Lords Prayer, nor in any solemn invocation of p. 343God in behalf of others, as he proves from S. Chrysostom, and others.Chrys. hom. 79. ad pop. Antioch.

2. That the prayers that were made after the dismission of the Catechumens were said at the Altar. For which we are to consider that in S. Austins time, the custom of communicating every day was still observed in the African Church, as is evident from his own express Testimony, where he saith, that some understand our daily Bread of the Sacrament of Christs body, quod quotidie sumimus, Aug. de ser. Dominî in Monte l. 2. c. 12.which we receive every day; and finds fault with those in the Greek Church who had begun to discontinue that custom; accipe quotidie, saith he, quod quotidie tibi profit. De verb. Dom. in Evang. secundum Luc. ser. 28.So that assoon as the Catechumens were dismissed, they immediately began the Communion Service, which was all the Service I can find in the Use of that Church in those times. Nay, the very prayer for the Catechumens was said at the Altar in the African Church, which in the Greek Church was indicted by the Deacon in the Ambo, or Piew for that purpose in the Body of the Church: Et quando audis sacerdotem Dei ad altare exhortantem populum Dei, orare pro incredulis, Aug. ep. 107.ut eos Deus convertat ad Fidem, & pro Catechumenis p. 344menis ut eis desiderium regenerationis inspiret, & pro fidelibus ut in eo quod esse coeperunt ejus munere perseverent. Where we see the prayers for the Catechumens, as well as the other prayers of the Church were performed at the Altar. And it appears by a passage in his retractations, Aug. Retract. l. 2. c. 11.that the very Hymns out of the Psalms which were sung either before the oblation, or in time of distribution were sung at the Altar; which custom being found fault with at Carthage by one Hilarius, it gave him an occasion to write in vindication of it. And in another place he reduces all the prayers of the Church to the Communion Service; and interprets the Apostles words of prayers, supplications, Ep. 59.intercessions and giving of thanks, of what was done at the celebration of the Eucharist. And that which very much confirms this, is, that when the African Fathers made a Decree, that no prayers should be used in the publick service, Codex Eccles. Afric. c. 106.but such as were first seen and approved; the Title of it is, Of Prayers to be made at the Altar. And the African Writers make praying and going to the Altar to have the same sense;Tertull. de orat. c. 10. c. 14. de exhort. cast. c. 11. so Tertullian calls it ascendere ad altare; and ad p. 345aram Dei stare; and orationem deducere ad altare. All which put together, make it very clear, that if there was no invocation of Saints at the Altar in S. Austins time, there was none at all in the Service of the Church; which I have the more insisted upon, because it is so pregnant a Testimony against Invocation of Saints, and the force of it hath not been fully understood by any I have seen, from the not considering the Liturgy of the Church in S. Austins time. Which men have fancied to have been according to the practice of following Ages, when the laying aside the Discipline of the Primitive Church, made a great alteration in the publick Offices, (as might be easily discovered, were this a proper place for it,) both in the Greek and Latin Churches. But that is not my present business. But this ought farther to be considered, the most proper season for invocation of Saints was at the Altar, for then the commemoration of Saints was made out of the Diptychs of the Church, as appears by multitudes of places in S. Austin; and the Martyrs were then put in a rank by themselves; and whereas they prayed for all others, they did not for them; p. 346but they rather believed they received benefit by their prayers for them. For, saith S. Austin, In Evang. Ioh. tract. 84.We do not commemorate the 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 this was all the Office of the Church then towards Martyrs, viz. commemoration of them at the Altar, although S. Austin believed that the Martyrs at such times, especially when the commemorations were made at their own Sepulchres, did joyn their prayers together with the Churches, in behalf of those who there put up their supplications to God, and not to them. And this is the meaning of that place, which T. G. objects to prove Invocation, viz. that when Christians are met at the Religious Solemnity at their Sepulchres, they become partakers of their merits, and obtain help by their prayers: yet he wonders I could not find Invocation here, and imagines I shut my eyes again; but surely T. G. fancies I play at Blindmansbuff with him, for he thinks I never have my eyes open.

I should now come to examine the p. 347distinction of an absolute and relative Latria, but of that I shall have occasion to speak so largely in the following Dispute about the worship of Images, that I here put an end to this General Discourse.