endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
by this means being of several Nations Ps 11. different tempers and interests Luk. 24. neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie Which may be reduced to this Syllogism If the Church be composed of men of several Nations different tempers and interests then it 's infallible but it is so composed c. therefore infallible A. To your minor I shall onlie say that if I were not otherwayes perswaded to believe it then by your proofs of it which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey I should doubt of the truth of it Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholiques who you know read not Scripture But what needs all this ado this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men men of several Nations different tempers and interests But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition which is this That society that is framed and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world c. is infallible What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is would assent to this Who knows not that Herod and Pontius Pilate the Jews and Romans men of several Nations of different tempers and interests yet conspired in resisting the Gospel and crucifying of Christ Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations yea more then true Christians possess different tempers and interests yet damnable erroneous What do you think of the 72. Interpreters Oyril Caled 3. pag 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek which they did without any discrepancie eirher in sense or words though kept asunder one from another Do you think they were infallible The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world of different tempers and interests yet most dangerously erroneous Yet further when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose Once more shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications yet damnably err 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests Is it that some are godly some wicked some promoters of Christs interest some advancers of the Devils By your tempers mean you that some are hot others cold and a third sort lukewarm And by your different interests that some promote the Popes interest others the interest of Councils against the Pope This is your Churches composure but proves no infallibilitie 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie which Vane in his late books labours to prove Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world Vane's Lost Sheep p. 16. much more conclude against your infallibility But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient of your Argument and therefore before the end of your Section you flie to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church whereby she becomes infallible But this I have answered before and avoid repetitions CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book and how this Chapter should come in next to the former When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness what rational man but would have thought but that you should have said somthing of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer which you laid down as a second means and not have leapt to the third in such haste I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature the Church of Rome for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error here you free her from sin for if any be free from sin it must be the Roman Church And your next Chapter is about Religion or religious worship But seeing I have begun I will continue to follow you In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web what you say in the first and second Section you clearlie unsay in the third which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions You begin with exceeding confidence wondering that any can make question of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you You urge Scripture examples and arguments The Scriptures you mainly urge are these Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21 1 Deut. 30. They are not above but very neer us in our mouths and in our hearts to do them It s the Argument of your Donatists but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience that which it proves is the perspicuitie of the Law as to the Jews knowledg of it Vatab. Annot in Loc. That word which you render above is by Vatablus rendred Hid non est occultum à te It s not hidden from thee As if he should say to them you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law seeing it s not hid from you but published to you being in your mouths i. e. in ore Levitarum c. in the mouths of the Levites who are of thy people that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good lâ—fe Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note Praeciditur hic c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith Rom. 10.8 i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith Thus Lyranus explains it saying Lyran. Ostenditur c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law Phil. 3.9 Vatablus is verie clear in this point understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith his words at large are these Si de sola lege c. If this were spoken only of the Law his argument were frivolous in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done by being before our eyes then if it were far off Moses therefore in this Chapter as in the fourth doth commend unto the people Gods special good will as appears by that place of Paul Rom. 10 8. in bringing them under his tutorage which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law Nor doth it hinder that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it therefore one is
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
not sinners but if any man be a worshiâ—per of God and doth his will him heareth he John 9.31 The sacrifices of the wickâ—d are an abomination to the Lord but the prayer of the upright is his delight Prov. 15.8 Jam. 5.16 The Scripture asserts the only prevalency of the righteous mens prayers 2. It s a wrong to Christ to attribute this vertue to such men for if they can do it Christs intercession becomes needless or sinfulness being that which brings in the necessity of a Mediatour 4. You propound and answer three Objections which you suppose may be made against you Obj. 1. It will be opposed say you in the vast distance that is betwixt Heaven and Earth Saints and Angels cannot hear Reply Blessed souls in their state of Separation have as Angels Luke 15. an hearing quite other from that of souls immersed and plunged in flesh and blood These hear by means of corporal Organs which limited within a certaine distance cannot receive impression out of the same Those hear with their understandings which are by so much the more open and quick of apprehension by how much the less their dependance is on matter The Saints then being freed of all corporal clogs may hear at any distanc Ans 1. The Knowledge of blessed Souls in their state of Separation though different from that of souls housed in bodies of clay yet is inferiour to that of Angels as Aquinas shews because the nature of the soul is inferiour to the Angelical nature Souls have a common and confused knowledge Aquin. part 1. q. 8 9. Art 3. as he calls it but Angels have an exact and more perfect knowledge 2. The freedom that blessed souls have from corporall clogs doth not invest them with the particular knowledge of things done here upon earth This is also asserted by Aquinas Ibid. Art 8. c. who for confirmation of it brings in Saint Gregory and Augustine the former of them seeming to prove it from the distance of habitation of spirits from that of bodies the latter by Scripture viz. Isai 63. And the gloss upon it and by his mothers not visiting him and by the promise made to good Josiah 2 King 22.3 The Motion of Angels from place to place makes it at least probable that their knowledge is not alike when they are absent as when they are present with us I confess that Aquinas saith their motion from place to place is in order to operation not knowledge Ibid. q. 55. Art 2. ad 3m. But however they are here as Executioners of Gods pleasure in works of judgement or mercy yet it may seeme that they also go about to see the carriages works and dealings of men whereof they are said to make report Zech. 1.10 11. Nor is this for information of God as if he knew not what men did but rather that the Angels beholding by themselves mens actions may justifie God in his punishments of the wicked and rewarding of his people or may acquaint the Saints therewith who being not messengers as Angels have their constant abode in the presence of God This seems to be Augustines conceit if the book be his for he layes down two means whereby the Saints may know what hath been done on earth Lib. de Cura pro Morl. apud Lyarn in Is 63.16 viz. the relation of those who die and so come to them or else the relation of Angels who are present with us in our actions Now if Angels know not humane affairs alike when absent as when they are present what ground have we to think that blessed souls have this priviledge 4. It s false that souls in their state of seperation have an hearing or understanding quite other from that of souls immerced and plunged in flesh and blood For excepting the want of the Ministery of sences the soul hath the same manner of understanding in its seperate estate that it hath whilest in the body though more accurate and less laborious and the reason is clear because understanding follows the nature or essence of the soul which in both estates is one and the same did the soul understand by species whilest in the body p. 1. q. 83. Art 6. so it doth still as Aquinas holds Did the soul understand by discourse So it doth still not onely understanding one thing after another but one thing by another 2. Object You say it will be opposed Be it Saints can hear at what distance soever yet this not possible unless Objects be proposed and what capacity in Prayers sent so farre off as to reach to Heaven Reply Catholicks boast not of any such vertue in their prayers but they believe as is confessed by all that God is every where and that he is the chief and principall Cause of all effects and so of mans prayers Now it being the propertie of every cause to relate to its effects and so to represent the same as looking glasses do faces and other opposed objects The Saints whose happiness consists in a clear vision of God must needs see and behold amongst other effects of his goodness and mercy the Petitions of those who become humble suitors to them Answ 1. They that grant that Saints can hear at any distance are not very wise to object the distance betwixt earth and heaven and I am perswaded none doth so but you travelled to set forth your late invented and unconceivable Looking-glass which like Randolphs Pedler you will not fall to vent amongst other Popish trumperies and indeed you shew your self a pedling Scholar in bringing it in implicitly denying what you had expresly asserted a little before for you told us that Saints could hear at any distance but now as if your conscience had checkt you for that you tell us that its God in whose presence they are that reveals it to them But secondly how doe you prove that God is the Author or Cause of prayers to Saints He did never so much as command them nor the Prophets or Apostles in Scripture give us one example of them Till you prove it a Christian dutie you cannot intitle God to it as the Cause of it any more than to sin which you say he doth onely suffer and permit p. 79. God doth not allow any to give his glory to another much less doth he concur in assisting him therein Thirdly its false that its the property of every Cause to relate to its effects and so to represent the same as Looking-glasses do faces and other opposed objects If this were true then when you see a workman you should in him see all his works and so one man should be a Looking-glass to another which would make good store of Looking-glasses and strange ones too T is true some causes doe represent their effects so there are effects that represent their Causes and that more like glasses representation of the face or other objects So that you might as well prove that every effect doth represent its Cause
and every thing in it and consequently that the creature doth fully represent the divine Essence and yet the Scripture tells us that none can see God and live 2. It s untrue that in seeing the divine Essence you see all its effects Aquin. 1. part 7.12 Art 8. per tot cajet ibid. Aquinas demonstrates the contrary by the example of the Angels who see the divine Essence yet are ignorant of future contingencies and the thoughts of the hearts and he further shewes that it s not necessary that he that sees a glass should see all things in the glass unless he perfectly comprehend the glass in his sight Now there is no creature that doth perfectly comprehend God Cyril excellently sets this forth of the Angels speaking of God Cyril Hieros Catech. 7. p. 169. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whose face the Angels do perpetually see in heaven but they see every one according to the measure of his own degree but the sublime splendor of the fatherly vision its lawfull onely for the Son and the Holy Ghost to behold Doe you think that the Saints see in God the thoughts of mens hearts yet many prayers are no more but the inward groans of the heart if you say they doe then according to Aquinas they arrogate that which is proper to God if not then they see not all the efects in God and you have not given us any distinction of effects visible or not visible 3. Object You say it will be opposed If Saints and Angels have not mens prayers before God proposeth them he knoweth them beforehand whence may be inferd that their intercession is needless Answ 1. Gods foresight of mens prayers maks not the intercession of Saints and Angels any way unprofitable and fruitless inasmuch as the effect intended thereby is not to better Gods understanding but to obtain from his blessed Will mercy and compassion c. Reply 1. The Objection doth not refer to Gods foresight meerly which may be from all eternitie He foreseeing all things before they were but to Gods actuall receiving of them from us and so proposing them to the Saints Now I assert that this doth make the intercession of Saints and Angels unprofitable yea no intercession For first according to Papists the reason why we look for an Intercessor is this we dare not come to God immediately hence is that Court-like instance and frequently urged of a subject who not daring to come into the presence of the King immediately presents his Petitions to some of his Courtiers and by him to the King But here forgetting your instance you first present your Petitions to the King making him your Letter carrier to his Courtiers and this say you for this end that his Courtiers may move his goodness which how rationall it is let the simplest of your Synagogue judge 2. According to your Rhemists the property of a Mediator or Intercessor is to offer up our Prayers to God Now he that offers up any thing to another doth not immediately receive his offering from him to whom he offers but from him for whom he offers To say Saints receive Prayers from God that they may offer them to God is very harsh and unscripturall language Reply 2. If our Prayers go immediately to God and then to Saints and they immediately obtain from Gods blessed Will mercy and compassion from us What room hath Christ for his intercession or how are Saints Mediatores ad Mediatorem It s difficult to set up Saints as Intercessors and not to nullifie the intercession of Christ Jesus But you urge Princes have often notice of subjects imprisonment and condemnation yet seldom give reprives of inlargements but at the intreaty of some friend or favorite Reply 1 Princes do not usually receive and deliver Petitions directed to their Favourites that thereby their favourites may move them to compassion 2. Princes often give reprieves or inlargements at the entreaty of the imprisoned or condemned 3. The Apostle tells us clearly who is that favourite that receiving our Petitions doth procure reprieves or enlargements for guiltie sinners viz. Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2.1 2. You answer Men are wished yea warranted to pray for one another 1 Tim. 2. notwithstanding God hath the foresight of their wants and necessities Reply 1. For shame do not thus fight with your own shadow what Protestant doubts of Gods foresight of Prayers or who asserts that Prayers are for the bettering of Gods understanding 2. When men pray one for another they have not the sight of your supercelestiall Vtopian looking-glass but being by their friends acquainted with their wants they are intreated to joyn with them in seeking Gods mercy through Jesus Christ 3. You answer Davids adulterie and guilt of blood were in the sight of God unpardoned till after a low humiliation and an hearty acknowledgement of his fault 1 King 12. Reply This being nothing to purpose shall pass unanswered till you can make it appear more materiall 5. Objection THe fifth Objection is The Roman Church entertaineth divisions and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans maintaining a Physicall predetermination the Jesuits a Morall those that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin these that she was prevented by Grace and conceived in the same And if this be not enough to infer contrarietie in Religion several Councells have contradicted each other Answ 1. Not every difference but a difference in point of Faith makes division and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans and Jesuits onely quarrell about Opinions it being not matter of belief that Gods Predestination is Physicall or Morall or that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Originall sin or grace These are meer School nicities and not at all destructive to that Vnity which Catholicks so much reverence in Religion Reply 1. You deal deceitfully with your followers and us in making your many divisions to seem few and your great ones small Are the differences in the Roman Church only two viz. about Predetermination and the Virgin Mary Whosoever reads Azorius's Moralls but especially Bellarmines Controversies shall find scarce one point of divinity wherein there is not difference amongst Papists Some have numbered 300. different Opinions of Papists out of Bellarmines Controversies and those about Points controverted between them and us Now if the differences between them and us be about Points of Faith as it seems they are else we could not be accounted Heretical and not meer Opinions their is no question but theirs are of the same nature there being no Opinion of the Church but hath some one or more Papists joyning with us in opposing it 2. You might have done well to have informed us what are Points of Faith and what Opinions for these Points you mention seem to be points of Faith For first those things that constitute a point of Faith with you agree to them As first its authority from the Word of God which you branch into Scriptrre and