Potter may do Neither is this to condemne men the cause being not heard for the whole lumpe being corrupted the particulars could not be cleare neither was any particular to expostulate with God the whole lump being iustly damned more then Moses was to be admitted to plead for himselfe why he should not be cast into the water when it was decreed generally that all male children of the Hebrues should be cast into the water It was sufficient without further arguing the case that Moses was a male childe of the Hebrues so it was sufficient that Esau was the sonne of Adam That God elected but a small remnant and damneth many millions it is no new doctrine our Sauiour saith Many are called but few are chosen Saint Augustine saith God is glorified as well by destroying as by sauing of mankinde else he would not create so many millions whom he knew before should be damned If all saith Augustine which are borne of Adam should be saued lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis Gods mercy to them which are saued which are indeed vnworthy of saluation would not appeare Plures Deus facit damnandos quà m saluandos incomparabili multitudine vt reiectorum multitudine ostenderetur quà m nulli momenti est apud Deum iustū quantalibet numerositas iustissimè damnatorum atque vt hinc quoque intelligant qui ex ipsâ damnatione redimuntur hoc fuisse massae illi vniuersae debitum quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent God ordeined more to condemnation then to saluation without all cōparison first that it might appeare by the maier part of them which are damned how little God which is so iust regardeth the destruction of whole multitudes of sinners which are most iustly punished Secondly they which are redeemed from that damnation may by their owne redemption confesse when they see the maior part damned that that damnation was due to the whole lumpe which was adiudged to the greater part And last of all if he thinke it an hard speech in Caluin to say that God inciteth men to sin that so he might take occasion to punish them let Saint Paul answer it out of whom Caluin did alledge it where he saith God hardened and God stirred vp Pharaoh for this purpose that he might shew his power in him and that his name might be declared through all the earth To conclude whereas he obiecteth 1. Tim. 2. It is the will of God that all men should be saued And Ose 13. Perditio tua ex te salus ex me Israël that thou art damned it proceedeth from thy selfe that thou art saued it is to be ascribed to me ô Israël And therefore inferreth that the cause of predestination is in our selues not in God I answer first to Saint Paul It is his will that all should be saued that is his reuealed but not his secret will and to Hose our destruction is of our selues and yet it is of God that men are predestinated to destruction for as much as there are two causes of damnation one principall which is his will and that is outward and not in men the other subordinate which commeth betweene the decree and the execution of the decree which is damnation and that is sinne matter worthy enough of damnation and that is inherent in man And thus you see the saying of the Apostle verified of this Iesuite Volentes esse Doctores legis non intelligunt quid loquuntur neque de quibus affirmant They would bee Doctors of the law and yet vnderstand not what they speake neither whereof they affirme CHAP. 4. Of inuocation of Saints THe Church of Rome hath bene for many yeares past charged with the crime of idolatry for yeelding that worship to dead mens soules which is due onely to God Being not able to stand any longer vpon the iustification of themselues the matter appearing so fowle they flye frō their first holds and deuise new defences to auoide that grieuous imputation and yet still to retaine their ancient superstition Therefore concerning inuocation of Saints they deliuer this doctrine Non licet à sanctis aliquid petere vt nobis tanquam auctores aliquid concedāt sed vt corū precibus à Deo nobis beneficia concedantur It is not lawfull to pray vnto Saints as authors and giuers of any good thing which they should bestow vpon vs but onely as helpers and mediators vnto God in our behalfe that by their praiers for vs we may more easily obtaine at the hands of God such things as we shall aske Being charged that their practise is contrary to this doctrine that in the practise of their religion throughout their Churches they pray still in as grosse maner as before they did howsoeuer in their Schoole-diuinity they dare not maintaine it to cleare themselues they say Si quis dicat sancte Petre miserere mei quantum ad verba sic licet dicere sed sensus intelligendus est Miserere mei orando pro me da mihi aditum coeli id est precibus impetra It is lawfull to pray in these termes S. Peter haue mercy vpon me open to me the gate of heauen but that praier is not to be vnderstood as it is conceiued in those expresse words but in another sense which is this Pray for me that I may obtaine mercy by thy praiers obtaine for me that the gate of heauen may be opened vnto me To which I reply that the common people among them are no Schoole-men and therefore this euasion doth not make their prayer to bee lesse idolatrous then it was before This is but to hold the people still in darknesse and to rob God of his honour by the fallacy of equiuocation But let vs examine the grounds of this defence They alledge the words of the Apostle I magnifie my office to try if by any meanes I might prouoke them of my flesh to follow them and might saue some of them And in another place I am made all things to all men that I might by all meanes saue some To these words I answer they are sufficient to proue that while Saint Peter liued God stirred him vp as an instrument of his glory to bring men to the kingdome of heauen and to saue their soules but not after he was departed out of this life So Timothy taking heed to learning and continuing therin might both saue himselfe and them which heard him when he liued but not after his death For who knoweth not that verbum Dei est officio seruatrix humani generis the word of God hath a sauing power and that the ministery of the Gospell is the ordinary meane to saue mens soules But what is this to Saints departed whose ministery ceaseth or to proue the lawfulnesse of prayer to the dead which do not heare vs S. Paul spake of sauing men in his life time not after his death by his preaching to them
an interpreter and a spokes man for him with God So then as the Catholike prayeth to the image of the saint that the saint his selfe may heare him and not the image likewise the Gentile prayeth to the idoll not that the idoll but God should heare him Other arguments he produceth weaker then these as namely That the Gentiles thought their idols to be gods because they were so taught by their Priests and the world did so beleeue because the idols did seeme to speake when indeed not they but the diuels spake out of them as also because they had the shape of men they thought they had in theÌ„ life motion To which I answer their Priests did not so teach them neither did the world beleeue that they were gods but analogically as before For the Gentiles held that God was a spirit and not a body the diuels speaking out of them could not make the GeÌ„tiles beleeue they spake no more theÌ„ the friers speaking out of the rood-loft maketh the Catholike thinke that the image in the rood-loft speaketh Again the diuels speaking out of them did imitate God which spake out of the fiery bush wheÌ„ it could not seeme probable that the bush spake but God out of it Lastly that their idols had the shape of men it maketh against him for that should be an inducement rather to make them thinke they were no gods but rather men And to conclude that I may not be tedious concerning the erecting of images in the Church whether it be lawfull or no They alledge for proofe of the lawfulnesse thereof the example of God himselfe which commanded images to be erected in the temple of Salomon and thereupon conclude we may by that warrant erect images in our Churches which is but to deceiue the simple with a fallacy called A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Salomon lawfully erected images in his temple hauing receiued a commandement from God therfore we may erect them in our churches when God hath not giuen any such commandement The Israelites lawfully robbed the Aegyptians when God appointed them so to do but we may not do the like hauing no such dispensation from God He is liberrimum agens a free agent and aboue his law but we are vnder it and may not breake it without warrant from him God saith Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image and yet we may Deo sculptilia facere make grauen images to God that is when he doth so appoint it and so Salomon did CHAP. 3 Of Predestination FOr the better vnderstanding what predestination is it behoueth vs to know first that God hath written three bookes the one of nature to hold vs without excuse in which we may reade there is a God and that is the fabrike of the world The other of Grace to saue our soules which is the holy Bible where he hath manifested himselfe in his Sonne The third of life for our farther assurance which is his secret counsell and it he reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome In it we cannot reade particularly whose names are written because it is not published as the two other are but it is sealed vp with seuen seales and none can open it but the Lambe Christ Iesus Yet out of the booke of Grace we are taught that some few are written in the booke of life and the lambe Christ Iesus hath reuealed to S. Paul his chosen vessell seuen leaues of that booke containing seuen heads or principall chapters to giue vs some small light and taste thereof that we may not be meerly ignorant of so much as in his wisedome he thought fit to impart vnto vs. The Apostle hath these words We know that all things worke together to the best to them that loue God euen to them that are called of his purpose for those whom he knew before he hath predestinated to be made like the image of his Sonne that he might be the first-borne among many brethren Moreouer whom he hath predestinated them he called whom he called them he iustified whom he iustified them also he glorified And in another place He hath chosen vs in him meaning Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blamelesse before him in loue who hath predestinated vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto his selfe according to the good pleasure of his will In which words are deliuered these seuen principall heads to wit Purpose Fore-knowledge Predestination Election Vocation Iustification Glorification which all of them I define after this manner His purpose is his eternall and immutable decree in generall that he will be glorified by his creatures Fore-knowledge is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding meerly from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of men Which fore-knowledge called in Latine praescientia is not deriued of the verbe scio which signifieth barely to know but of sâ—isco which is antè decernere to know with a certaine decree or determination that he will haue it to be so as where it is written This foundation remaineth sure God knoweth who are his And againe where our Sauiour saith in the gospell to the false apostles I know you not For otherwise though the foreknowledge of God be immutable it cannot be the cause that any thing should come to passe for nothing cometh to passe because he knew it would be so but because he ordained that it should be so Predestination is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding onely from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of some particular men aboue the rest as where it is written I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau Election is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding from his will and pleasure that the whole lumpe being a lumpe or masse of iniquity they which are predestinated to be vessels of honour should be separated from the other clay which serueth to make vessels of wrath and destruction And all these foure go before the conception of man the other three follow after not in Gods secret determination but onely in his execution two of them in this life and the other in the life to come Vocation is an action of especiall grace in this life in which by the holy Ghost inwardly working the Minister of the word outwardly preaching and the will of man vnfainedly consenting man is effectually conuerted to the faith and piety of life Iustification is a sentence of grace in this life out of which they which are effectually called are by him through Christ absolued from sin and consequently from the sentence and decree of death Glorification is an action of glory in the life to come by which corruption being cast off he doth cloath them with immortality after the similitude of the resurrection of Iesus Christ These are subordinate one to the other the first foure being
was only in God that he would condemne Esau But if he meane that the affirmatiue part is to be referred to the condemnation which is the execution of reprobation which is temporall and not to the decree it selfe which is eternall as needs he must and it appeareth plainely by his words following that so he meaneth we hold with him and his defence is all one with ours For how doth he proue the affirmatiue part That God will condemne them it is in themselues but by this sentence of Scripture Math. 25. Go ye cursed into eternall fire the cause being shewed to be in themselues I was hungry and ye fed me not These words are a finall sentence to be pronounced at the end of the world and not the decree it selfe which was before the beginning of the world these words put the decree in execution and are a sentence published to the world by the mouth of our Sauiour Christ whereas reprobation is a secret which God reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome And whereas he calleth this finall sentence of the Iudge reprobation it cannot properly be so called but onely by the figure called metonimia effectus pro causa where the effect is vsed for the cause for this is condemnation and not reprobation an effect of reprobation but not reprobation it selfe And where for proofe of the affirmatiue part he sayth out of Saint Augustine Condemnare sine culpâ ost punire sine causâ quod iniustum est To condemne without fault is to punish without cause and that is against iustice I hold with him God cannot in his iustice punish or condemne any man which hath not deserued condemnation or punishment but what is this to reprobation Peter Martyr acknowledged so much long before Bellarmine his workes came forth where he sayd Peccata sunt causa cur condemnantur non tamen cur à Deo reprobantur Sinnes are the cause why men are damned and yet no cause why men are reprobates So where he saith that God doth make vessels of dishonour the cause is in himselfe but that he doth deputare ad contumeliam appoint them to wrath and dishonour It is in the men themselues we consent with him in as much as this deputation is an action which is temporall but that making of vessels of wrath is a decree which is eternall Peter Martyr saith Peccata sunt causa damnationis quae fit in tempore sed non reprobationis quae fuit ab aeterno Sinne is the cause of damnation which is in time but not of reprobation which was before time sinne is an effect of reprobation and therefore it cannot be a cause of reprobation As the Apostle Saint Paul and Bellarmine his selfe do shew that good workes are no cause but an effect of election so the argument followeth sinne is not a cause but an effect of reprobation The sinne of Pharaoh was hardnesse of heart he would not let the people go this could not be the cause why God eternally did reiect him but God reiected him eternally and therefore in time he hardned his heart that he should not let the people go Last of all there are two sorts of causes one the highest an other subordinate which go betweene the decree the execution thereof So that albeit Gods will was the first and highest cause that he ordained some to damnation which cause was onely in himselfe yet there are found other causes inferiour and subordinate sufficient to stand with the rule of iustice that his decree should be put in execution as hardnesse of heart infidelity and other sins which causes are inherent in the men themselues Becanus writeth in this manner The doctrine of predestination saith he is vnderstood two manner of wayes either according to the Catholike defence that God did post praeuisionem originalis peccati quum vniuersae esset massa perdita aliquos aligere ex suâ misericordia ad gloriam alios in massâ perditionis relinquere vt essent vasa in contumeliam After he foresaw originall sinne in the whole lumpe being corrupted of his mercy choose some to be vessels of honour and leaue others in the lumpe of perdition to be vessels of dishonour Or according to Caluin that God before he fore saw originall sinne Ex massâ integrâ Out of the lumpe being sound ordained some to life others to death without any offence of theirs or their parents And as it is taken in that second sense he argueth against Caluin and out of this diuision so made by himselfe he frameth his disputation By the way before we come to his arguments First it is superfluous and idle to suppose that God did predestinate antè aut post praeuisionem peccati before or after the foresight of originall sinne because he did both praeuidere praedestinare ab aeterno foresee and predestinate from euerlasting with him there is nihil prius aut posterius nothing before or after because he is before all time Againe this were to impute ignorance vnto God as if some thing had bene to come to passe which once he did not foresee Thirdly our question is not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate I confesse with Bellarmine these termes Post praeuisionem operum expraeuisis operibus After the foresight of workes and out of a foresight of workes making this foresight to be the cause are all one so that he disputeth not of the time when but of the cause why God did predestinate But with this Iesuite it is otherwise as it appeareth by the sequele of his disputation and therefore he commeth not neere the question which he proposeth As also massaintegra corrupta the state of innocency and of sinne though in time they succeeded one another yet in Gods foresight they were both at once But let vs come to his argument That God did not predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him he taketh vpon him to confirme by two reasons the first is this If God did so then the decree of predestination was before the decree of Christ his incarnation but that decree of predestination was not before the decree of Christs incarnation Therefore God did not predestinate man to life out of the lumpe being sound before he foresaw originall sinne in him He proueth the sequele of the Maior because the foresight of sinne is more ancient then the decree of incarnation for had not Adam sinned Christ had neuer bene incarnate He proueth the Minor because else our election had not bene grounded vpon the merits of our Sauiour Christ For Saint Paul saith Elegit nos in Christo he hath chosen vs in Christ c. To which I answere This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a skirmish with his owne shadow but no combat with Caluin because he obtrudeth that to Caluin which is not his doctrine Caluin doth not hold
that God did predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound for the lumpe being sound men were in state of life iure creationis by the right of their first creation and if the lumpe had continued sound there had bene no vse of predestination for that is grounded vpon Christ his merits which were to take place massâ perditâ corruptâ the lumpe being corrupted And much lesse did Caluin hold that God did predestinate or ordeine to death ex massâ integrâ out of the lumpe being sound For besides that it was impossible that man should dye the whole lump 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uing in the first integrity it could not stand with Gods iustice But Caluins doctrine is that God did ab aeterno ante 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creatam multò magis antè massam integram aut corruptam eternally before the lumpe was created and therfore before the integrity or corruption of it predestinate out of it by his decree some to life some to death foreseeing that it should be corrupted For in his predestination he had a generall respect to the whole lumpe which hee foresaw should be corrupted though not to the corruption of euery particular vessell which was to be framed out of that lumpe so his predestination which was decreed from eternity was executed in time after the lumpe had receiued corruption for so long as it cōtinued sound there could be no vse of predestination nor possibility of death And so euen as they which are saued are the children of God before they are borne by eternall predestination but not by actuall adoption vntill they be sanctified likewise they which are damned be eternally by reprobation before they are born but not actually before they be infected with sin the children of Belial and vessels of destruction Secondly how could there be praeuisio peccati in massâ integrâ aforesight of sinne in the lumpe being sound when integritas massae originale peccatum the soundnesse of the lumpe and originall sinne cannot stand together God did foresoe that the sound lumpe should be infected but not so long as it continued in integrity The lumpe so long as it was found consisted but of two persons Adam and Eue both which are saued by all mens confession how then did God predestinate any to damnation out of the lumpe being in integrity I confesse that in respect of the corruption of the whole lumpe which God did foresee there was first afore-sight of sinne then a decree that Christ should be incarnate and then the decree of predestination founded vpon the merits of Iesus Christ which were in order as we do apprehend them one before the other yet in eternity with God they were altogether but in respect of massa integra the lumpe being sound there were none of these so that this syllogisme confuteth not Caluin His second argument is this Infants sath he dying without baptisme according to Caluins doctrine are saued by the faith of their parents therefore God hauing a respect to their faith predestinated them non sine intuitu operum not without a foresight and relation to somewhat which was in the persons of those men To which I answer That in the state of innocency Baptisme was not instituted neither was Faith preached and therefore he disputeteth idlely Againe if he had brought this argument to proue predestination after the lumpe was corrupted to proceed from any thing that God respected in man It were but a Fallacie non causa pro causà For faith which God foresaw in any man is not the cause why hee did predestinate him to saluation but contrarily his predestination is the cause why man is comprehended vnder the couenant of Grace and why hee giueth him faith that hee may bee saued For whomsoeuer he vouchsafeth the end them also he vouchsafeth the meanes whereby they may attaine to that end Gods predestination consisteth with good workes as it doth with faith though he predestinateth freely without the merit of good workes the workes being an effect and end of Gods election and not the cause that moued him to elect vs for the Apostle saith He chose vs that we might be holy and not because we were holy or because he did foresee that we should be holy And his election is made sure to vs by good works which are the effects and fruits thereof Against reprobation or predestination to death ante praeuisionem originalis peccati ex massà integrâ before the foresight of originall sinne out of the lumpe being sound he argueth in this manner First God decreed to create man to perpetuall happinesse where it is said Faciamus hominem let vs make man according to our owne image Secondly he decreed not that man should dye vnlesse he were disobedient Quacunque die what day soeuer thou shalt eate of the middle tree thou shalt dye Thirdly he decreed to shew mercy to all mankinde rather then cruelty vniuersae vie eius misericordia all his waies are mercie Yea God was mercifull euen to the reprobates because he gaue his Sonne to be the Redeemer of mankinde And there digressing from his argument he exclaimeth against Caluin as if Caluin should say that God did execute cruelty vpon mankinde elect but a few and damne a great multitude condemne man before his cause is heard stirre man vp to commit sinne that thereupon he might take occasion to punish him My answer is as before First that he did not foresee any originall sinne that could be in man so long as man was to continue in the state of innocency and therefore he doth but beate the aire as before to proue that against Caluin which Caluin neuer meant that God should predestinate any man to death the lumpe being pure for reprobation and the state of innocency could not stand together As he created man to euerlasting happinesse so he decreed not that man should continue in that happinesse As his decree of death was but conditionall if man were disobedient so he gaue not man constancy to perseuer in obedience As all the wayes of the Lord are mercy so his mercy belongeth onely to the faithfull but he gaue not to all the gift of faith As he was mercifull euen to the reprobates in that he gaue his Sonne to be a redeemer of the whole world so this benefite did not extend any way to the reprobates but onely to the elect Hee gaue him to bee a sufficient Redeemer of the whole world if the whole world would haue receiued him but he was an effectuall redeemer onely to the beleeuers He offered his grace through Christ to all men euen to the reprobates but he sealed and confirmed it onely to the elect So these arguments refute not Caluin And that I may answer his exclamations This cannot be cruelty in God but as the Apostle saith It is iustice Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet May not God do as much as the
can neither be effectuall nor yet made with a good conscience That they cannot be effectuall it is the doctrine of Saint Iames Euery thing which we aske must be asked in faith and not with doubting c. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience and are sinne it is the doctrine of Saint Paul He that doubteth is condemned because hee doth it not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Let euery man bee fully perswaded in his minde But we cannot be assured that they heare vs seeing there is no ground nor proofe thereof in the holy Scriptures neither can the classicall Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine yeeld any plaine or firme reason to satisfie either vs or their owne selues how it may be so that we should beleeue it and subscribe vnto it He alledgeth many arguments in defence of inuocation of Saints as mediators to pray for vs which arguments haue bene alledged long before his time by Eckius and other Catholicke Doctors And they haue bene long since ansered by Peter Martyr Caluin Kemnitius other Protestant writers before his booke came forth Now it was to be expected for the Catholike credit of Bellarmine so great a Doctor that he should not haue produced these old arguments againe whose answers were published in print so long since for that is no cunning but he should haue bene furnished with new stuffe or at the least haue replyed vpon the answers hic labor hoc opus est which he hath not done The answers therefore being so sufficient that hee doth not reply vpon them as his proofes are but the same which were before so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before and so to satisfie old arguments with old answers Saints saith Bellarmine do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in generall and for such men in particular as do pray vnto them and we ought to pray vnto them that they would particularly pray for vs. And that I may speake to these three propositions although I deny not the first that Saints do pray for vs in generall yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he alledgeth for proofe thereof to shew how weake the grounds are which they build vpon and so I will in order descend to the rest only to set downe his arguments and Kemnitius his answers to those arguments published in print long before for the satisfaction of others by whom they were before obiected as followeth That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church BEll Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me though Moses and Samuel should stand before me yet my affection could not be towards this people Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead both then could and vsually at other times did pray for the people alioqui inepta esset Dei loquutio otherwise God had spoken these words impertinently as if a man had said If my Oxe pray for thee he shall not preuaile meaning that Oxen cannot pray Kemnitius We deny not but Saints departed do pray for the whole Church but it cannot be proued by this text First a conditionall proposition proueth nothing vnlesse the condition were performed but Moses and Samuel did not thē stand before God therfore they made no intercession for the people Secondly by the confession of the Church of Rome they were then in Limbus as all other Saints departed vntill the death of our Sauiour Christ therefore they could make no intercession Thirdly the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God that if Moses and Samuel had bene aliue to make intercession for the people as in their life time they did yet God would not heare them Fourthly this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being aliue and not after their death To which I adde my owne answer this argument is a fallacy called the ignorance of the Elenche Bellarm. 2. Maccab. 15. Iudas in a vision saw Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet pray for the people but that booke of Maccabes is held for Canonicall Concil 3. Carthag cap. 47. Kemnitius First that is but a dreame and not a story is related to animate the Souldiers to fight valiantly Secondly notwithstanding the relation of this dreame neither Iudas Maccabeus nor yet his army did inuocate Onias or Ieremy but onely God Thirdly that booke is vnderstood to be Canonicall for examples of life but not for ' points of doctrine and therefore maketh not for this purpose Bellarm. Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the throne hauing their phials full of odours which were the praiers of Saints Kemnitius These praiers as they were their owne and not of other men which were made vnto them so they were onely a thankesgiuing to God for their owne redemption for the redemption of the whole Church but no intercession Bellarm. 2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeuour therefore alwaies that ye may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departure Kemnitius Saint Peter did this endeuour by his epistle while he liued not by his praiers after he was dead Bellarm. Luk. 16. The glutton in hell praied for his kindred much more do the iust in heauen pray for the whole Church Kemnit First we must not forsake the Scriptures to receiue instruction from them which are damned in hell which being forsaken of God seeke for comfort any where rather then at the hands of God Secondly this is but a parable and not a story Thirdly if it were a story yet this prayer is not heard Fourthly he saw Abram whom he prayed vnto and receiued answer from him what is this to Saints departed whom we see not neither heare them make any answer Fifthly the glutton remembred in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed but they might haue repented after his departure for any thing that hee knew This proueth not that the dead know the state of them which are aliue neither yet that they pray for the Church in generall That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them BEllarm The Saints do not onely pray forvs but also take charge ouer men and whole Countries and Prouinces as the Angels do Concerning the Angels we haue proofe Toby 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal 19. Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed which are as the Angels Luk. 20. and haue a prerogatiue aboue Angels because they are members of the body of Christ and are neerer vnto vs and better able to haue a feeling of mens infirmities being men themselues Kemnit The booke of Toby is not Canonicall to proue any point of faith but onely for examples of good life That Angell in Zachary is our Sauiour Christ which maketh intercession for his Church and his praier is his owne which is there mentioned and not the praier of the Church The Angel in the Apocalips which offereth the praiers