he had been a Rebel and a Traitor and therefore deserved not the Honour of Martyrdom whereupon they procured the Kings Injunction to blot out his name out of all Publick Prayers Hours and Missals to demolish his Shrine and Picture Erected at Canterbury and strictly forbad any to call him (h) Hist Conc. Trent fol. 87. Saint and Martyr Other Pontificians there be who although they resolve the Pope may err in matters of Fact yet will not endure to hear that he can err in his Canonizations which is very strange because the inerrability of his Canonizations depends wholly or chiefly on matters of Fact but their Reason is remarkable which is this for (i) Particularly Catherinus advers nova dogm Cajet p. 125. say they if any one Saint Canonized by the Pope may be called in question then all the Saints which have been or shall be Canonized by the Pope may be doubted of and then no man can invocate or worship them without peril of Idolatry Then let Cajetan and Canus be taken at their words that the Popes Canonization is subject to Error and thank we Catherinus and Bell for their inference and conclude from both laid together that because many Canonized by the Pope have been doubted of as Tho. Becket St. Francis St. Dominick St. Ignatius Loiola and Father Henry Garnet c. therefore all the Pope hath Canonized may be doubted of and therefore none of them can be Invocated without peril of Idolatry But then how comes the Invocation of a doubted Saint to be Idolatry this cannot be unless the Invocation of all Saints be Latria for Doulia as it is by the Romanists contradistinguished to Latria is not contradictorily opposed to Idolatry Latria is for as Latria imports the Honour proper to God only so Idolatry consists in the exhibition of that Honour to that which is not God but Doulia according to them is not part of Religious Worship due only to God and therefore the erroneous Supplicant who pays this Homage of Doulia to a doubted Saint instead of an undoubted one which doubted Saint he believes a real one may fall under the censure of Folly Rashness or Errour but the well meaning Petitioner in this case who makes his addresses to a mistaken Advocate and with relative Worship only according to their Principles cannot lie under the guilt of Idolatry because in their account the conception and intention abates it and to attribute Doulia or Relative Worship is not Idolatry if it be the Sin lies at their doors who confessedly Practice it To Conclude It is therefore the most prudent and profitable course to follow the advice which the Holy Martyr St. (k) Ep. ad Philadelph Ignatius gave to the Virgins of his time and by consequence to all who profess the name of Christ viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O ye Virgins have Christ alone in your eyes and his Father in your Prayers being enlightned by the Spirit which in effect is an exhortation to all who are Baptized according to the form of the Institution for being enlightned and being Baptized are still Synonyma's both in Scripture and Primitive Antiquity and therefore the advice concerns all Christians as well as those Virgins and so Epiph. 79 Haeres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Glory be to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost three Persons one God For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever AMEN Lact. lib. 4. de Vir. Sap. c. 22. Quanquam apud bonos Judices satis habeant firmitatis vel Testimonia sine Argumentis vel Argumenta sine Testimoniis nos tamen non contenti alterutro sumus cum suppeditet nobis utrumque nè cui perversè ingenioso aut non intelligendi aut contra disserendi locum relinquamus Aug. de Trin. l. 4. c. 6 Contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit THE JESUITS LETTER Hon. c. THere have been many Discourses betwixt us for matter of Religion wherein little profit did accrue in regard of my inabilities having to deal with a person of your Knowledg and Parts so fully accomplished and fraught with Arguments But seeing the true Religion is the sole mark we ought to aim at the disquisition thereof cannot be too much searched and I am confident you wish and desire my eternal good and in the integrity of my heart I wish the same to you wherefore I shall only desire to receive solution to two Questions and I shall totally decline to scruple all others the Questions are these 1. To nominate the Professors of the Protestant Faith successively since the Apostles 2. To evidence that the English Clergy hath a lawful Mission for it is said No man taketh this Honour upon him but he that was called and Faith cometh by hearing The holy Scripture doth fully express that upon the Walls of Jerusalem Watch-men should be day and night for ever that the Word should not depart out of the mouth of his Seed for ever our Blessed Saviour saith Go tell the Church and that he would be with them to the end of the World which is not verified unless there were such persons in the World Answer to the first Question 1. IS it not sufficient Protestants prove their Faith Apostolical from the Monuments and Records of the Apostles were not the Apostles assisted by the HOLY SPIRIT in an higher manner and measure than any of their Successors can pretend to did not they deliver the whole will of GOD by their Preaching while they lived and by their Writings for ever and are not their Writings as clear and comprehensive and more authentical than any of those of the following Pastors and Doctors are not the Decrees of Councils and Works of the Fathers as liable if not more to fraud and forgery to misinterpretations and wrestings as the holy Scriptures Is there any Record or Writing extant which can equally pretend to Apostolical and Original Tradition or hath such an universal and constant attestation as the HOLY BIBLE I conceive the Apostolical Writings are the best evidences of Apostolical Doctrine and in causes of Religion judg them Criminals who decline a Trial by them but since this way of Probation will not please you a shrewd suspition all is not right with you I add further 2. Supposing not granting Protestants were not able to nominate the successive Professors of their Faith since the Apostles would this conclude them Hereticks and their Faith not Apostolical no sure for suppose we one Philosopher to hold all the opinions of Plato another those of Aristotle would you determine the one not to be a Platonist the other not an Aristotelian because neither of them could present you with a list and line of successive Academicks and Peripateticks this among Philosophers would be adjudged irrational But where hath Christ or his Apostles
to be scandalous because he was of that Order To clear this Proposition N. N. thus sets out SECT II. N. N. ANno 1517. Leo the tenth granted Indulgences to such as voluntarily contributed towards the War against the Turk who at that time threatned all Christendom having added Syria and Egypt to the Ottoman Empire The business of divulging these Indulgences in Germany was committed to the Arch-Bishop of Mentz who appointed John Tetizel a Dominican Friar to Preach which Office long time before had been given to the Augustine Friars amongst whom Martin Luther a Famous Preacher expected the place but seeing his hopes frustrated he resolved now to write against Indulgencies and the Pope as he had prepared to Preach in favour of both before The first occasion which offered it self were certain abuses unavoidable in things which pass through many hands in the management of this affair against which or rather Indulgencies he framed certain Libels and Conclusions which were condemned and burnt as heretical by John Titzell his Competitor who then exercised the Office of Inquisitor in Germany This fire did so warm Luther and added such flames to his hot disposition that most part of Europe felt the smart of it for being once engaged and enraged by Titzell's declaration against him he would not recant his first error but added others denying Purgatory the Pope's Authority Merits the necessity of good Works c. SECT II. J. S. 1. THis Narrative concerns not the Church of England they who desire to be informed how the Affairs were managed in Germany may consult Sleidan and Guicciardine It will not be amiss to recite one testimony from him ad An. 1520. where he chargeth N. N's certain not as he suggesteth unavoidable abuses on Leo the tenth affirming he was the cause of what was done in Germany because he after complaint upon complaint that his Indulgencies and Bulls were sold in Shops the Buyers and the Sellers playing the money at Dice did not redress those faults nor attempted to redress them further adding all the World knew the Money was not gathered as was pretended to make War against the Turk but indeed to maintain the Pomp and Lust of the Pope's Sister Magdalen See the Author of the Hist. of the Council of Trent fol. 5. and withal reporting that Adrian the sixth immediate Successor to Leo the tenth intended to reform the abuses fol. 22. c. but first he would reform the corrupt manners of the Court of Rome because he saw all the World desired it earnestly fol. 26. 2. Be it so for once that Luther was engaged and enraged yet this was no bad Argument of the Cause he had undertaken for to satisfy N. N. that which engaged him was the sorry shifting defences the Indulgence-mongers framed for themselves for they finding themselves too weak for Luther in the particular case of Indulgencies which had no other foundation than the Bull of Clement the sixth made for the Jubilee an 1350. betook themselves for shelter to common-places such as the Pope's Authority the Churches Treasury of Merits the Doctrine of Penance and Purgatory (r) Hist Coun. Trent fol. 6. Thus Tetzel and Eckius managed their Plea and would have avoided Luther's objections but Sylvester Prierias (Å¿) Contra Lutherum Jewel def of Apol. fol. 49. Master of the Pope's Palace above all other gave Martin the occasion to pass from Indulgencies to the Authority of the Pope for he having upon a forced-put delivered that Indulgentiae scripturarum c. Indulgencies are not warranted by Authority of Scripture but of the Roman Church and Popes which is greater put Luther upon it to examine and discuss this bold Affirmation That which enraged Luther if it were so oppression maketh a wise man mad was that he knew very well what counsel Friar Hogostrate (t) Hist Counc of Trent fol. 7. had given to Pope Leo not to meddle with him by Argument but to confute him with Chains Fire and Flames and he knew this would be his Fate if he fell into the Pope's Power Neither could he expect to find further favour from Adrian his Successor for the Cardinal of Praenestâ— who had been employed in Civil Affairs in the Papacies of Alex. Julius and Leo and was then Adrian's Confident told him No man ever extinguished Heresies by Reformation the Council of Trent it seems was not convened for that end whatsoever was pretended but by Crusadoes and by exciting Princes and People to vote them out That Innocent the third did by such means a sure evidence of Usurpation by the known measures of Tyranny and that their Religion cannot endure a fair trial happily suppress the Albigenses in the Province of Languedock and the next Popes by the same means in other places rooted the Waldenses Picards poor people of Lions Arnoldists Speronists and Patavines so that now there remaineth no (u) Hist. Coun. Trent fol. 23. more of them but the name only And Adrian himself exhorted the Princes themselves assembled at the Diet of Noremberge 1522. to reduce Martin and his followers into the right way by fair means if they could but if not to proceed to sharp and fiery remedies to cut the dead members from the body as anciently was done to Dathan and Abiram to Ananias and Saphira to Jovinian and Vigilantius and finally as their Predecessors had done to John Huss and Hierom of Prague whose example in case they cannot otherwise do (w) Hist. Counc of Trent fol. 25. they ought to imitate The forementioned Cardinal declared no Reformation could be made that would not totally diminish the Rents of the Church for that if Indulgencies were stopped one quarter of the Revenues of the Church would be cut off there being but four Fountains whereof this was one CHAP. II. SECT I. N. N. HENRY the Eighth among others who writ against Luther composed a Learned Book in defence of the Seven Sacraments the Pope's Authority c. which gained him the Title of Defender of the Faith But being weary of his lawful Wife Q. Katherine despairing to have issue-male by her and enamoured of Ann Bullen cast off all obedience to the Pope because he would not declare his Marriage with Q. Katherine invalid and by Act of Parliament made it Treason to acknowledg any Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Pope in his Dominions himself being proclaimed Spiritual Head of the Church This was the occasion and beginning of the pretended Reformation in England Notwithstanding Henry the Eighth observed the old Religion in all Points except the Pope's Supremacy which he borrowed of the new to marry Ann Bullen and enrich himself by the spoils of the Monasteries and persecuted all other Novelties and Heresies in such degree that though many crept into England in his Reign yet very few durst profess them because as many as did were burnt by his command SECT I. J. S. TO this suggestion it will be seasonable to premise a general Narrative of
the Roman Enclosure and so he fairly begged the Question and what he affirms he proves not for Dr. Harding he was taken with the same beloved fallacy which they always make use of when they are put to a pinch Thus their Argument proceeds they were not Ordained by Romish Bishops nor after the Rite then used in the Romish Church therefore they were not lawful Bishops which is all one with this Dr. Stapleton and Dr. Harding did not Commence Doctors at Oxon. or Cambridg therefore they were not lawful Doctors The Antecedent is granted and for this reason it vvas improper and impertinent to produce the Records for to what purpose is it to produce them in proof of that vvhich is confessed no more than for to produce the Registeries of Oxon. for a Doctor 's taking his Degree at Lovain but the Consequence is denied being impossible to be proved for there have been and there are novv lawful Bishops in the Christian World vvho vvere neither Ordained by Roman Bishops nor according to the Prescript of the Roman Church as confessedly the novv Bishops of the Greek Church are vvhom they all acknovvledg for lawful Bishops 2. Whereas he saith Bishop Jewel answered not a word to the main Point it vvill be found he searched the Point to the quick both in relation to his Priesthood being Ordained Priest the same time Mr. Harding vvas def fol. 125 and 129 and in relation to his Episcopacy saying Our Bishops succeed the Bishops that have been ever before our days being Elected Confirmed and Consecrated c. as they have been Further adding that Mr. Harding himself was one of his Electors none of this Mr. Harding could deny and therefore he fell to the old Game of Tergiversation turning his back from the main Question and starts a nevv one for a desperate shift having nothing else to say but this they vvere not forsooth Confirmed by the Bishop of Rome which is an implicit confession that all those recited Acts were performed only they wanted the Pope's Confirmation which yet the Bishop with great evidence of Reason and Primitive Authority proved to be unnecessary and is contrary to all Antiquity and the Practice of the Greek Church and withal told Dr. Harding in civil terms he would never give over that idle trade of begging Thus this Bishop Jewel maintained both the Regularity and the Legality both of his Priesthood and Episcopacy though not with express reference to the Records themselves yet implicitly to the Subject-matter thereof particularly Election Confirmation and Consecration to his Episcopal Dignity and Office and also propugned the Validity of both Orders from Scriptures and the perpetual Tradition of the Catholick Church pursuing Dr. Harding in all his shifts from Post to Pen till he drives him to his Non ultra 3. All that N. N. durst conclude from Dr. Harding is only that by his sharp Reply he directly affirmed the Nullity of Dr. Parker 's Consecration but Protestants are not so lame as to take every Affirmation of Mr. Hardings for a proof they expect he should make his bold Affirmation good by good Authority or Reason neither by N. N's good leave did any thing that he affirms affirm a Nullity what he alledged if it were true and home would only have rendred those Ordinations Irregular or Illegal but not Null his no lawful Consecration respected only the manner of the Catholick Church that is theirs in their usual restriction and such as they had used 4. Whether the Records were extant N. N. cannot affirm but in his indifferent judgment if they were then they were forged which in the judgment of all indifferent men will certainly pass for a desperate shift Just such a work Dr. Harding made about the (k) From his counterfeit Athanasius Bishop Jewel's Reply fol. 157. Nicene Canons they were burnt yet falsified they were falsified yet burnt c. Such a Blunder also Baronius made concerning a pretended Edict of the Emperor Justinian it was an Edict and it was not an Edict it was (l) Baron an 564. n. 3. an Edict put out by the Emperor in favour of the Aphthardokites who denied the Body of Christ to be subject to Passions and Death for these two Reasons the (m) Id. an 564. n. 1. Orthodox contemned it and the Emperor persecuted all those (n) Id. ib. n. 3. an 563. n. 12. vid. n. 3.8 9. who did oppose it and it was not an Edict it was only a Cabinet-paper for this Reason the Emperor indeed writ it but never (o) Id. an 565. n. 4. so Evagr. l. 4. Hist Eccl. c. 40. published it if so then no Edict the Popes as bad as they are make a Publication of their Decrees But this is all meer impostures for his Edict oppugned that Heresy of the Aphthardokites Edict Justin p. 492 495. which Pope Agatho witnesseth in his Epistle directed to the Emperor Constant Pogonat as it is to be seen Act. 4. Conc. gen 6th p. 21. which Baron himself confesseth An. 681. n. 21 24. n. 25. to be approved of the whole Roman Synod consisting of 125 Bishops 5. But N. N's Catholicks triumphed c. Did they so that is an old trick of their Men of War to do as Agesilaus commanded his Souldiers still to shout Victoria to brag when they are worsted which they must do to keep up their Credit with their deluded Partisans and Proselytes But who triumphed when his Grave and Learned Divines pitched a Field time place and order of Battel contrary to the rules of all Combatants yet like the Children of Ephraim who being harnessed and carrying Bows as if they would do strange seats of Chivalry who but they turned their backs in the day of Battel For did not your old Friends both challenge and order a Disputation 1 Eliz. upon the Points in Controversy and did not they upon the approach of the Enemy after a Pickeer or two face about and dastardly forsake the field How often have the Protestants triumphed over you with the story of Madam Donna Seamore Pope Joan Bishop Goodwin hath produced thirty several well-known Authors to attest the Story and it is not much above an hundred years since her Picture was standing in the Church of Sienna in Italy where (q) Papir Massin de Episc Vrbis l. 6. in Pio. 3. the Pictures of the Popes were set up which so moved Baronius his patience that he sollicited the Pope and Duke of Florence to take it down which accordingly at his intercession they caused (r) Florimund Fab. Joan. c. 22. n. 2. to be done Such an ancient Picture in confirmation of other reports is as good an evidence that there was such a Madam Pope as Baronius his ancient Coin in contradiction to all former Histories was to prove the determinate time of Maxentius his birth and had N. N. and his Narrators such a proof for their dusty weather-beaten Nags-head they would do wonders with
time by (e) Marsil Petav. def part 2. c. 18. the Nicene Council But because N. N. stands so much upon his points of Prudence it may be neither an imprudent nor impertient digression to compare the Romish Principles and Practices with the Protestant and by discussing one of them more largely to judg of the rest more clearly It is universally acknowledged that the Doctrine of all Apostolical Churches disseminated over the whole Christian World is Infallibly certain because attested by Vniversal Tradition which in it self is so but it is generally confessed that the Tradition of an Apostolical Church of one denomination may prudently be traversed because often found certainly False Now Protestants rely upon Vniversal Tradition truly such for Time Place and Persons and the Authority of all Apostolical Churches Papists content themselves and sit down in security with the Tradition and Authority of the Roman Church and which is worse of the present Romish Church of this age Protestants prescribe for Sixteen hundred years there is no Law nor Custom to destroy or over-rule a Prescription of so long standing Papists plead as N. N. doth the acknowledgment of the sixteenth Century over-leaping all the rest and that but in our parts of the World Protestants believe the Scripture to be the adequate Rule of Faith as to the essentials thereof Papists hold unwritten Traditions are to be received with the same reverence and respect Protestants esteem those Books to be Canonical Scripture which the Catholick Church hath so adjudged Papists singularly superadd others to the Canon Protestants believe the Truths they profess to be Divine Revelation because God by his Son Jesus Christ hath delivered and promulgated them to Mankind Papists believe their supernumerary Articles which they assume to themselves because defined by an Infallible Pope with the advice and consent of a presumed General Council Protestants assert the Pope is not Infallible for Pope Honorius was a Convicted Heretick as before hath been proved The Catholick Church hath always resolved against his Infallibility and the Doctors of that Church cannot agree about it and some of them oppose it neither was that Council General say the Protestants because no Southern nor Eastern Bishops was there nor any Northern but one titular only Olaus magnus the Goth who for that time passed as an Arch-Bishop of Sweethland no English Bishops nor Irish save another blind Sir Robert the Scot who for that time being was reputed the Primate of Ireland only two French Bishops six Spanish the rest were Italians who when they came to be arrayed were mustered but to Forty three in all This was a Plot of the Pope to keep what his Predecessor Leo the tenth had got by the Lateran Assemblers and after him others still maintained but he was for all this contrivance possessed with fears and jealousies the Council would be tampering with his Jurisdiction as other Councils had done and therefore was very careful to have fresh supplies in readiness for a reserve and according as the Pope suspected it hapned for the Council began to form Canons for the redress and reformation of several abuses and to abridg the Popes unlimited Power in granting Dispensations of which design he received early intelligence from his Legates and thereupon moved the Council to desist from any further progress therein for six weeks which being accepted and condescended to he dispatched his new recruits of Auxiliaries forty Italian and Sicilian Bishops who within the time limited ariving at Trent over-voted the reformers in the Council and quite quashed their attempts which made the Apulean Bishops cry out in open Council O we are the Popes Creatures we are the Popes (f) Carol. Malin l. de ton Frid. n. 21. Slaves Protestants rely only upon the Mercy of God and Merits of Christ for their Salvation This Bellarm. saith is the safest way and therefore it is the most Prudential Papists will join in their own Merits of Works done by Grace which Bellarm. confesseth is a more uncertain way and therefore less Prudential Protestants ascribe all Religious Worship to God and to God only Papists give it to Images and the Consecrated Host Protestants know it is an indispensable duty to Pray to God for all things necessary both for Soul and Body and direct their Prayers only to God the Father through and for the Merits and Mediation of Jesus Christ alone Papists Pray to God by Jesus Christ for which Duty Zanchee entertains a charitable opinion of them but withall they invocate Angels and Saints departed as Conductors secondary and subordinate Mediators for which Practice Protestants aver there is no warranty in Scripture no Authority from Primitive Antiquity nor any rule in Reason to approve it either a necessary lawful or an expedient Duty But because some eminent Protestants have declared that Papists have more to say for this particular than in any of their other eleven additional new forged Articles if this Principle and Practice of theirs be cogently proved unscriptural unpractical and irrational the same may be concluded of the rest CHAP. VI. SECT I. IT is Vnscriptural The Scripture teacheth us and commands us to ask the Father in the name of his Son Jesus Christ it prescribeth no rule to ask in any other name but declareth against it For it proposeth Christ to us as our only Mediator and Intercessor there is one God to whom we are to make our requests known by Prayer and Supplication and there is one Mediator between God and Man 1 Tim. 2.5 the God-man Jesus Christ by whom we have boldness of access to the Throne of Grace The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is emphatical importing thus much as there is one God only and no more even so there is one Mediator betwixt God and Man in reference to our Prayers Supplications Intercessions and Thanksgivings ver 2. one God and no other besides him even so one Mediator and none but he who is our Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 Joh. 2.1 who as he performed all Righteousness for us so the virtue and value thereof qualifies and capacitates him for the Office of being Advocate for us viz. to recommend open and plead our Cause for us and procure our Prayers to be granted none can effectually Mediate for us but he who did Redeem us he only can be our Advocate who is the Propitiation for our Sins which was Jesus only who for the more effectual execution of his Office of Advocate after he had offered himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for our Sins was advanced to sit on the right hand of God the Father Rom. 8.34 where it may be observed that it is the same Person that died for us and therefore as Jesus alone died for our Sins and rose again for our Justisication so for the application of these Benefits and Priviledges to us he only sits at God's Right-hand and makes Intercession for us this Office being as proper and
confessed Explicite non est c. Invocation of Saints departed is not expresly delivered in Scripture for which he assigns his Reasons such as they are Not in the Old Testament because the Jews were inclined to Idolotry therefore there is danger of Idolatry in the Practice and the Fathers were in Limbo not then in Heaven Bellarm. (b) De Sanct. beatit c. 19. Sect. Item c. 20. Sect. atque ex his herein is of his mind Not in the New Testament for two reasons First Lest the Gentiles should upon their Conversion think themselves therefore the Practice may be justly suspected and is scandalous which the prudent and charitable Romanists should avoid obliged to Worship the Inferiour Godlings or Demons as formerly they have done or which is all out as bad a new set of petty Vnder-Gods in exchange of the old ones The second is Because if the Apostles had delivered this Doctrine or which is all one had ordained and observed the Practice they might be concluded ambitious and vainglorious self-seekers who designed and after death expected the honour of Religious Invocation This reason beside other inconveniences it is liable to thwarts the Trent determination that the Practice was Apostolical for if in their time it was currant then they did institute an observation and usage for their own Honour and Worship Cope (c) Dial. 3. in Script Nov. Test alias Harpsfield is of the same Opinion But Bannes (d) Bannes 22. qu. 1. ant 10. speaks the whole truth without mincing the matter Invocation of Saints is neque expresse nec involute Neither clearly nor covertly declared in Scripture which is also (e) Which is also affirmed to be unknown in the Old Testament Pigh contr Ratisb l. 13. Suar. m. 3. Th. q. 52. disp 41 42. Sect. 1. p. 514. Not in the New Salmer m. 1. Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremo Not in the Gospel Horantius loc Cath. l. 3. c 1.31 Not used in the Apostles days Peres de Trad. p. de cult Sanctor S. Clara expos Paraphr Divines of Collen Censur p. 250. antid p. 34. affirmed by Pighius Suarez Peres de Aiala Sanct. Clara and the Divines of Colen 2. From the Judgment of their Learned Interpreters who expound those Texts of Scripture which the bolder sort presume not without the guilt of Perjury to wrest and corrupt to their own sense as the ancient Doctors of the Church have done and as Protestants do now which will appear by viewing the most considerable produced by them The first is fetched from Gen. 32.24 c. but Bonfrer confesseth many of the ancient Fathers understood this Text of Jacob's wrestling with God and so did the ancient Rabbins which is confirmed by the following words and by Hosea 12.3 4 5 in the opinion of Vatab. and Ar. Mout to this they add Gen. 48.16 insisting first on that clause The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads But (f) Com. in Gen. 23. Piega Com. in Apoc. 8. Sect. 2. p. 343. Pererius acknowledgeth that many of the ancient Fathers interpreted this of Christ though he thinks otherwise and is resolved without any respect to his Oath binding him to follow their Interpretations to understand it of an Angel properly so called because saith he Christ is never precisely stiled an Angel but always with an additament as the Angel of the Covenant But other Romish Interpreters conceive this to be a groundless conjecture Viegathus censures it Some saith he of our Writers affirm that Christ is never called an an Angel Absolutely and simply in the Scripture but this is a mistake in them it is sufficient that it be collected and inferred from the consequents and therefore he is confident the Angel mentioned Rev. 8.4 was Christ and Pintus (g) Pintus Conc. in loc Riber com in Hebr. 7. n. 81. that the Angel spoken of Dan. 3.28 was Christ and Ribera that the Angel spoken of Zech. 1.12 was Christ hereby then it is manifest the Protestants follow the ancient Catholick Doctors in their Interpretation of this clause and Perer. with the other Râ—manists who urge these words in defence of their practice of Angel Invocation desert and reject them and most certainly side with the Arrian Hereticks But they go on to the next Period of the Verse Let my name be named on them and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac But Protestants expound these words by Vers 5 6 and so do Learned Romanists Ar. (h) Arias Mont. in loc Riber com in Amos 9. n. 42. Cajet c. in loc Mont. Riber Fonsec Cajet Lyra. Hucard Pintus Esthius Then Luk. 15.7 and 10 is alleadged in the Roman Catechism Par. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 5. p. 297. Ann. 1606. to prove the Practice for thus it is argued They the Angels rejoyce at the conversion of a Sinner therefore Rogati being supplicated they can obtain pardon for our Sins and procure Gods grace for us this is a strange inconsequence for from hence it would follow because Protestants rejoyce at the Conversion of a Papist therefore the Papists should Religiously Invocate them as coadjutors and being thus Invocated can purchase those Benefits for them but our late Apostates urge them to another purpose viz. to prove thereby that Angels know the Secrets of mens Heart this no way follows because they know the Repentance of a Sinner by its Signs and Fruits and so rejoyce at his Conversion therefore they have the intuitive knowledg of the Heart But in the judgment of many ancient Fathers this Rejoycing of theirs is not for the Conversion of a Particular Sinner but for the Redemption of all mankind which is the lost Sheep for all that sinned in Adam and so lost both their Innocency and Felicity and they rejoyced that God had discovered a means equivalent to Innocency viz. Repentance in order to their recovery and future happiness and with them concurs (i) Titus Sostr Cajet in loc Tit. Bostr and Cajet And lastly supposing it were to be understood of individual Sinners yet is this Rejoycing not to be ascribed to Angels but to God who confessedly is the Shepheard looking for the stray Sheep and the Woman seeking the lost Groat Next they produce Matth. 22.30 Luk. 20.36 but first it was incumbent on them to prove the Angels are to be Invocated before they can conclude from hence viz. from the Saints departed equality with Angels they are to be Invocated and so the whole may be granted and yet it appears not from the Text that they receive this equality with the Angels at their first admission to the Beatifical Vision but only that they shall receive this similitude of condition at the Resurection of the just and so their now Reigning in Heaven doth not qualify them for this Duty nor will do till the day of Judgment and even then they shall be equal to Angels not in every respect for as they differ in
distance that he would pray for him because he knows it is impossible he should hear him nor can it be supposed that any man though standing by can know the Heart of men when they utter nothing with their Tongue to interpret it In sum no man ever directed his mental Prayers to another nor his vocal to another as far distant from him as London is from Rome But to return then to acknowledg such an excellency in the Celestial Creatures as to apprehend the mental Prayers of mortal men or the sincerity of their vocal either by their original Power or by any derivative as it is an Irrational conceit in it self there being no reason to warrant it nor ground of reason to countenance it so it is injurious to God 1. It is Injurious to God in respect of his Omniscience for he even he only knoweth all the hearts of the Children of men 1 Reg. 3.39 and this both collectively and distributively and this also with reference to their Prayers and Supplications v. 38. both their publick and private Prayers both mental the cries of the Heart and vocal expressed in Words to which the truth of the Heart for God requireth truth in the inward Parts and will be Worshiped in Spirit and truth with activity and sincerity must be adjoyned to make it an holy acceptable reasonable service of God and then both kinds are only to be presented to him because he only knoweth the Heart when the mind is secretly elevated to God and the truth of the Heart when it is notified by Words because he only knoweth whether there be an Act of Conformity betwixt the Words and the Heart I the Lord search the Heart I try the Reins Jer. 17.10 challenging thereby this priviledg as a peculiar to himfelf neither will their futerfuge any way clear them viz. that God only naturally knoweth the Heart of the Petitioner but Angels and Saints departed by a derivative Power having it communicated to them either by way of Revelation from God looking upon him as a voluntary Glass who makes the Prayers of Supplicants known to them when he pleaseth or by the Vision of God looking upon him as a Natural Glass that reveals all that God knows without any choice or act of his Will for these are frivolous suggestions having neither Reason nor Revelation to support them for it without all ground limits a proposition which in the Scripture is delivered in universal terms and to admit such limitations of universal propositions without great evidence that the nature of the subject requires them or that such from other places of the Scripture may be deduced and inferred is Irrational because the proposition would not be absolutely true but true only with a restriction but the vanity of these speculations vvill further appear by these Considerations 1. The Romanists themselves cannot agree which of these ways they propose are to be taken and dispute them by multiplicity of Questions as whether God immediately by himself give the Blessed Spirits the knowledg of our Prayers or by the Ministry of others if by others then whether by the Angels that attend us or the Spirits of just men that go from hence and inform the Saints in Heaven what our Prayers are if immediately by himself then whether directly and formally seeing in him what is in the Creature and if so then whether instantly upon their Glorification and admission into Heaven or successively seeing by virtue of his Vision one thing after another in the Creature or only accidentally that is God lets them know our Prayers so far forth as it pleaseth him by his peculiar will to notify unto them because God is a free Agent respectu omnis actionis ad extra In respect of every external action And further they which pitch upon any of these ways take them only for the more probable and it is somewhat odd to found an Article of Faith and a Catholick profitable Duty upon such unprovable speculations and it is very hard to believe that the seeming Opinions of men brought in with Ifs and And 's and Metaphysical niceties can be of sufficient strength to support an Article of Faith or commend a Catholick profitable Practice 2. This is certain the one way destroys the other If by Vision then not by Revelation if By Revelation then not by Vision if the Natural Glass will serve the Voluntary is needless if the Voluntary be required then the Natural doth not do the work for God in their opinion doth not multiply forms without necessity nor doth any thing frustraneously but God doth not impart the knowledg of our Prayers either the one great way or the other 1. Not by Revelation for confessedly there is no Revelation unless a Legendary will pass currant or some ostensions as they call them may be allowed for this conceit that the Blessed Spirits know our Prayers and Hearts by Revelation 2. The poor Petitioner must be at a loss and stand if this way be supposed because he cannot be assured that God is pleased to reveal his Prayers to them and he is sure if God do not they can take no notice or cognisance of them and so their Prayers become fruitless and unprofitable because he knoweth not whether God will reveal his Prayers and if he do how far 3. How can they be proper Mediators for men who cannot know what men desire of them without the Mediation and interposition of another viz. God and why should we be perswaded to go thus about when we may go streight forward to God and his Son Jesus who needs no Mediator to inform him 4. What a strange circular motion must be observed in following this way first the Petitioner must make his suit to Angels and Saints then God must reveal them and their contents to the Angels or Saints if he please or else they are for ever ignorant of them then the Angels and Saints must back again and present them to God but if the Petitioner mistake his Angel Guardian or Tutelar Saint as very likely he may then it is to be doubted whether the Angel or Saint will own the Client though God should reveal his Prayer 2. Not by virtue of the Beatifical-Vision the other supposed way For 1. The Scripture saith No man knoweth the things of God the purposes and thoughts but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.11 which the Apostle inferreth from this reason and ground the secrets of the Heart of man no man knows but the Spirit of of man which is in him upon which he concludes therefore none knows the things of God but the Spirit of God and therefore neither Angels nor Saints though they enjoy the Beatifical Vision which doth not confer on them the knowledg of the things of God for this we know that the Angels did not know the Mysteries of the Gospel those great things of God till made known to them by the Church Eph. 2.10 1 Pet. 1.12 2. The Angels and Saints