this be true, then on that very account they are likewise idolators; because the worship, which God the Father wishes to be given to his Son, is that of latria, or divine adoration. For it is the will of the Father, "that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." (John v, 23.) But subordination is removed, and collaterality is introduced, (1.) Universally, when all these saints are said, by their own merits, to intercede for and to obtain blessings, and to dispense the blessings thus obtained, which are two tokens of the eversion of subordination and of the introduction of collaterality. (2.) Specially, this collaterality exists [from their own showing] between Christ and the virgin Mary; as is evident, (i.) From the names under which they invoke her, when they denominate her "the queen of heaven," "the mistress of the world," "our salvation, harbor, defence, refuge and solace," who is able to command our Redeemer in virtue of her authority as his mother. These expressions place Christ in subordination to her. (i.) But this is likewise evident, from the cause on account of which they say she ought to be invoked. As a FEMALE ADVOCATE, because, since Christ is not only a man and an advocate, but likewise God and a Judge, "who will suffer nothing to pass unpunished; the virgin Mary, as having in her nothing that is harsh and unpleasant, but being all mildness and suavity," (Thesis XII,) ought [intercedere] to act as intercessor between him and sinners. And as a FEMALE DISPENSER OF BLESSINGS; because "God the Father has given half of his kingdom to her, (that is, to administer his mercy while he reserves the exercise of justice to himself,") and has conferred upon her a plenitude of all grace, that out of her fullness all men may receive. This is nothing less than to hurl Christ from his throne, and to exalt the virgin Mary in his place.

XX. The FOURTH subterfuge is the distinction between an image and an idol. The papists say, an image is the likeness of something real; an idol, that of something false. When Bellarmine explains this definition, he commits a fallacy; for, in interpreting "something false," he says, since it is a being, it is not that which it is feigned to be, that is, God. But that the difference which he here makes is a false one, many pas

sages of Scripture prove. The image which Rachael purloined from her father, is called "an idol;" but it was the image of a man. (Gen. xxxi, 34.) Stephen calls the molten calf "an idol," and it was made to represent the true God. (Acts. vii, 41.) The calves of Jeroboam were representations or images of Jehovah, yet they are called "idols" by the Greek and Latin translators. (1 Kings xii, 28.) Micah's image is also called "an idol," and yet it was "set up" to Jehovah. (Judges xvii, 4; xviii, 31.) Among the "dumb idols" unto which, the apostle says, the Corinthians "were carried away," (1 Cor. xii, 2,) were statues of men, and probably images of "four-footed beasts, of creeping things, and of birds." (Rom. i, 23.) Yet Bellarmine would with difficulty prove that these are things which have no existence. Wherefore if an idol be that which is nothing, that is, a sound without reality and meaning, this very distinction, which is purely an invention of the human brain, is itself the vainest idol, nay one of the veriest of idols. Such likewise are those distinctions and intentions which have been invented, for the establishment of idols and of the impious and unlawful adoration of idols, by the church of the malig nants, by the mother of fornications, who resembles the "adulterous woman" mentioned in Proverbs xxx, 20: "She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no harm,” or “I have not wrought iniquity."

COROLLARY.

It can be proved by strong arguments from the Scriptures, that the Roman pontiff is himself an idol; and that they who esteem him as the personage that he and his followers boastingly depict him to be, and who present to him the honor which he demands, by those very acts shew themselves to be idolaters.

DISPUTATION XXIV.

ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

Respondent, JAMES A. PORT.

I. FROM the hypothesis of the papists, we denominate those persons "saints," whom the Roman pontiff has by his canonization transferred into the [album] book of saints. (Bellarm. de Beat. Sanct. lib. i, c. 8.) From the truth of the matter, we also call those persons "saints," who, being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter i, 2,) and [signati] sealed with the characters of the Holy Spirit, the sacred fountain of all holiness, have been illustrious in this world by the sanctity of their lives, which flows from their spiritual union with Christ; but who, as it regards the body, being now dead, still live in heaven with Christ as it regards the soul. (Rev. xiv, 13.) Of this description were the patriarchs of old, the prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, and others like them. The invocation of saints is that by which men have recourse to their [suffragium] intercessions, interest, patronage and assistance, for the sake of imploring, entreating, and obtaining their aid.

II. But the papists assert, that the saints are invoked for three reasons (1.) That they may vouchsafe to intercede by their prayers and their suffrages. (2.) That, through their merits, and on account of them, they may obtain by their petitions the things which are asked of them. (3.) That they may themselves bestow the benefits which are required. For the papists have invested departed saints with these three [respectus] qualities; that, being nearer to God, they have greater freedom of access to him and to Christ, than the faithful who are yet their survivors in the present life; that, by works of supererogation performed in this life, they have obtained by their merits [the privilege] that God shall hear and grant their prayers; and that they have been constituted by God the administrators of those blessings which are asked

42

VOL. I.

of them: And thus are they appointed mediators, both by merit and efficacy, between God, nay between Christ and living believers.

III. Yet upon all these things the papists have not had the hardihood to erect, as a superstructure, the necessity of invo king the saints: They only say that "It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them ;" and that "those persons hold an impious opinion who deny that the saints ought to be invoked." (Can. and Dec. Coun. of Trent, Sess. xxv, c. 2.) But perhaps by these last words, which have an ambiguous meaning, they wished to intimate the existence of this necessity. For not only does he deny that saints ought to be invoked, who says that it is not necessary to invoke them, but likewise he who says that it is not lawful: The words, when strictly taken, bear the former signification, that invocation is not necessary; but the latter meaning of its unlawfulness, when they are understood as opposed to the words which preceded. Even Bellarmine, when he had affixed this title, "The saints ought to be invoked," immediately subjoined the following thesis: "The saints are piously and usefully invoked by the living." (De Beat. Sanct. lib. 1, c. 19.) But that most subtile and evasive council often trifled with ambiguous expressions, being either compelled into such a course on account of the dissensions among its chief members, or else being perversely ingenious on account of its adversaries, whose blows it would not otherwise have been able, with any degree of speciousness, to avoid. We will, therefore, inquire concerning the invocation of saints, Is it necessary? Is it lawful and useful?

IV. With regard to the FIRST of these questions, we say, (whether the papists assent to our affirmation or dissent from it,) that it is not necessary for believers in the present state of existence to invoke the saints who [conversantur] vre engaged with Christ in heaven. And since this necessity is either according to the duty which surviving believers are bound to perform to the saints who have departed out of this life, and who are living with Christ; or according to the end for the sake of obtaining which, invocation is laid down as a necessary

means; we affirm that, by neither of these methods is the invocation of saints necessary.

V. (1.) It is not necessary in reference to duty; because the invocation of saints has neither been commanded by God, nor is it sanctioned with any promise or threatening, which it would of necessity have been if it had to be performed as a duty by the faithful during their continuance in the world. (2.) It is not necessary in reference to the means; because neither the merits nor the intervening administration of the saints is necessary to solicit and to obtain the blessings which the faithful in the present life make the subject of their prayers; for otherwise, the mediation and administration of Christ either are not sufficient, or they cannot be obtained except through the intercession of departed saints, both of which are false; and that man who was the first of the saints to enter heaven, neither required nor employed any saint as a previous intercessor.

VI. Since, therefore, it is not necessary, that believers now living upon earth should invoke the saints who reign with Christ, if the papists take any pleasure in the approval of a good conscience, they ought to employ the utmost circumspection in ascertaining, whether it is not the better course to omit this invocation than to perform it, even though it might be made a subject of disputation whether or not it be lawful, about which we shall afterwards inquire. We affirm that it is preferable to omit all such invocation, and we support this assertion by two arguments, (1.) Since "whatever is not of faith," that is, whatsoever does not proceed from a conscience which is [certo] fully persuaded that the thing performed is pleasing to God, "is sin;" and since that may, therefore, be omitted without sin, about which even the smallest doubt may be entertained respecting its lawfulness, since it is found that it is not necessary; it follows from these premises, that it is better to omit than to perform invocation. (2.) Since the papists themselves confess, "that the difference between the worship of latria and that of dulia, or between divine and human adoration, is so great, that the man who presents that of latria to any object to which no more than dulia is due, is