departed by enjoyment of the Beatifical Vision look not upon God as Omniscient or Omnipresent but as the chiefest good their happiness is from his infinite Goodness not from his infinite Wisdom or Immensity 3. If upon their admission to their state of Glory they by virtue of the Beatifical Vision know all things which God knoweth then they should know future Contingents which the Romanists will not grant for the Beatifical Vision can capacitate them for this knowledg as well as the knowledg of the Heart and no reason can be assigned to the contrary but that it is the Will of God for which there is no attempt of Proof 4. It is not necessary nor essential to the Beatifical Vision that the participants should know our Prayers for without knowing them they have all the priviledges of the Sons of God and Children of the Resurrection agreeable to their state the Vision makes them eternally happy not Omniscient 5. Those Ancients who denied this supposition knew nothing of this speculation and those of them who proved the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost from their Omniscience might easily have been baffled if this excellency were communicable to any other besides God for if the knowledg of the Heart were not so proper to God that it could not be communicated to the most excellent Creature their argument from thence even in (c) Theol. dogm Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 3. p. 39. the judgment of Petavius Omnino nullum esset Was none at all 2. It is Injurious to God in respect of his Omnipresence For Bellarm. disputing against those of his own side who imagined that the Blessed Spirits were Quodammodo after a certain unintelligible way every where by the wonderful swiftness of their nature resolveth the contrary and asserts that Celerity is not sufficient to capacitate them to hear the Petitions of far reremoved Supplicants who direct their Prayers to them at one and the same time from several distant places and that true (d) Bell. de Sanct. Beat. lib ... c. 20. ubiquity is required which they having not by nature as is generally concluded by all Pontificians they must have it by communicated Grace or be without it But the same Bellar. will not allow this for he disputing against the Vbiquitarians assures us that their Salvo viz. that Christ in his human nature is every where by accident viz. by a real communication of that property is naught for then saith he the argument of the Fathers for the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost grounded upon their Ubiquity plaè concidit is quite abated and falls to nothing from which premises laid to our hands by this great Name the conclusion is irrefragable the Blessed Spirits cannot hear our Prayers and then the Practice is Irrational because by the concession of the chiefest Advocates and Proctors of the Cause to Pray to them who cannot hear or understand our Prayers is an Act Superfluous if not Superstitious and so some of them assign as a reason why they do not pray to the Inhabitants of Purgatory because they cannot hear them though it be most certain that God if he pleased can as easily reveal the Prayers of Mortal men to them as to the Saints in Heaven for his assertion affords us this argument True Vbiquity is required to hear the Prayers of numerous distant Orators but the Blessed Spirits have not true Vbiquity for this is so proper to God that it cannot be affirmed of or attributed to the most excellent Creature by communicated Grace therefore the Blessed Spirits connot hear the vocal Prayers of their numerous distant Orators 4. If the end for which this Practice is pretended behooful and expedient may be attained by a more clear and undoubted way than that purposed right Reason will direct us to leave the indirect and crooked way and follow the direct streight forward road for every prudent man will take and pursue that course which is most effectual for the accomplishments of his intentions and desires and for which he hath so great assurance that greater cannot be had for the event and success Now we have such assurance to come to God by his Son Jesus Christ that will not fail nor disapoint us for we have the sure word of Promise Joh. 16.23 that whatsoever we ask of the Father in the name of his Son it shall be given us and by him we have boldness of access to the Throne of Grace but we have no word nor warranty for the impetration of our requests by the Mediation of Secondary under-Solicitors for us and who will seek that at the second hand which he may have upon easier terms at the first or look for that in Cisterns and in danger to be broken Cisterns which is ready and prepared for him in the Fountain which never faileth None but Phantasticks and Vain-glorious Prodigals will complement or Fee a Courtier for admittance into the Kings presence when by his Proclamation he is aforehand ascertained upon his aproach he shall have entrance present Audience and his Petition if drawn according to Law shall be signed and granted 5. But suppose it were both lawfull and behoosefull to Invocate undoubted Saints now reigning in Heaven as the blessed Virgin and the holy Apostles yet a Prudent Man will be shy and unwilling to exhibite that honour to all whom the Pope hath Canonized or shall Canonize for Saints For some great Romanists have not sticked to Affirm that (e) These were a Knack of late invention contrived by the Pope 800 years after Christ Bellarm. de Sanct. beat lib. 1. c. 7 8. Sect. dices Barth-fumus in his Armilla aurea tit Canonizatio tells us that it is not lawful to Worship any Saint publickly without the Popes License so that before Bellarmin's Period of time it was not lawful publickly to Worship any because till that time none were Canonized yet what he adds is somewhat odds if one believe his departed Friend is in Heaven he may Pray to him secretly c. the Popes Canonizations are doubtful and (f) Summa Rosell Verb. Canonizatio Can. loc lib. 5. c. 5. c. 5. qu. 5. subject to Error Thomas Becket was solemnly Canonized by Alexander the Third who thereupon passed for a good while as a pretious Saint as before hath been related but about 40 years after his Saintship (g) Caesarine a Monk Dial. l. 8. c. 69. Acts and Monuments was questioned for in Ann. 1220. an hot Dispute concerning it was held at Paris be-between Roger a Norman and Peter a Parisian Peter took the more Moderate part of the question and affirmed he was saved because Canonized but Roger was for the more uncharitable part that he was Damned because he was a Rebel to his King This indeed was too high a question altogether unfit to be discussed and therefore our Prelates though stiff Romanists declined it in Henry the Eights time but withall publickly declared
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
peculiar to him as to be the first-born of the Dead For as the honour of sitting on the Right-hand of God followeth his Resurrection from the dead so the Office of Intercession followeth the Honour of sitting on the Right-hand of God and is inseparably united and annexed to it and therefore none can assume or exercise that Office for us but he who was honoured which is Jesus only to sit on God's Right-hand and none can be entituled or admitted to this Honour but he who humbled himself to death even the death of the Cross and thereby merited this Exaltation that at his name every knee should bow and every c. Phil. 4.8 c. for this Office of Intercession is the consequent effect and ultimate end of his Exaltation as the Apostle proveth Heb. 7.25 Wherefore because he is our eternal High-Priest he is able to save them to the uttermost to the full that come to God by him seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for us Whene it followeth we are to come to God by his Son Jesus Christ our High-Priest and for our encouragement that we may come with Confidence and a full assurance we have this strong Consolation He is able to save us to the uttermost and this he is able to do for that He our High-Priest ever liveth to make Intercession for us which the same Apostle hath repeated and further expressed Heb. 24. He hath entred into Heaven it self now viz. to this end and on this errand to appear in the presence of God for us viz as our Intercessor and Advocate from all which premises we may be bold to argue in the Apostolical Form used by the same Apostle upon another but not unlike occasion Heb. 1.19 To which of the Angels or Saints departed said God at any time Sit thou on my Right-hand to make Intercession for man or Sit thou on my Right-hand to appear in my presence for him or be thou Advocate with the Father for him Or said God at any time Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in the name of Angels or Saints departed it shall be given you certainly God never employed any the most excellent Creature in any Office betwixt himself and man but he first signed a Commission for it but neither God nor his Son Jesus Christ did ever make any Grant Substitution or Deputation of this Honour and Power to any either Angel or Saint departed It is true the Blessed Spirits are affirmed to stand about the Throne of God and the Holy Angels to behold his face but it is never said they sit at Gods Right-hand or live for ever to make Intercession for us The Holy Angels are Gods Ministring Spirits and the Spirits of just men departed are his Glorified Saints but God hath made Jesus only to be Lord and Christ to whom all things in heaven and earth must bow and let all the Angels honour him and all the Saints fall down before and all men Honour the Son even as they honour the Father Joh. 5.23 because to set up any subservient subordinate Lords in this Office of Intercession is such a piece of Heathenish Idolatry that the Apostle St. Paul thought it fit to caution the Corinthians against it and instruct them in the pure Worship and Service of God as becometh Christians 1 Cor. 8.5 Though there be many that are called Gods as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ in which words there is a direct opposition betwixt the Heathen Form of Application to their Supreme fictions Gods and the Christians way of Supplication to the only true God The Heathens address themselves to their Sovereign Gods by their under Gods or Godlings which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demons the Scriptures of the Old Testament Baalims or Lords who were reputed Agents and Mediators betwixt their chief Gods and them Their Sovereign Gods they stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lords in of or from Heaven betwixt whom and men they supposed there was no immediate intercourse their mean Inferiour Lords were accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus phraseth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lords on or from the Earth whom they honoured with a relative subaltern Worship as their Mediators and Advocates thinking thereby they more highly honoured their Supreme Gods But Christians know and profess there is but one God the Maker of all things in Heaven and Earth to whom they are to make their Prayers and Supplications and they have but one Lord Advocate and Mediator by whom they present and offer their Petitions to the Almighty Father For the opposition lies in the Heathenish plurality both of their Supreme Gods and Subordinate Mediators viz. Heathens have many Gods and many Lords Mediators and in the singularity of the Christians God and Lord Mediator viz. they have but one God and one Lord Mediator even Jesus whom God hath made both Lord and Christ Act. 2.36 Thus Origen understood this Text for to it sure he refers * Orig. Ceis lib. 8.381 when he tells Celsus The Scripture indeed doth call God the God of Gods and Lord of Lords but withal saith to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him which the Apostle speaks of himself and all other whose minds are raised up to him do Worship him inseparably and indivisibly in his Son Therefore there being many Gods and many Lords we endeavour by all means not only to carry our minds above those things on Earth which are Worshiped by the Heathen for Gods but above those whom the Scriptures call Gods viz. Angels For these reasons and many more deducible from Holy Writ Protestants have often urged and pressed the Papists to produce one positive Precept clear Example or plain Promise from the Scripture for their Saint or Angel Mediatorship but hitherto they have not been very forward to accept the challenge only some of them who were resolved to say something for themselves have pitched upon some places of Scripture for proof of their Principle and Practice which yet others of them being more judicious and ingenious have not conceived Argumentative and satisfactory nor indeed that any thing can be evinced or deduced thence that is cogent and convincing which will appear by these particulars 1. From the Testimony of their Grave and Learned Polemick Divines who have acknowledged they have no express Scripture for this Doctrine and usage and if so it was too much confidence to form the Doctrine into an Article of Faith and to impose and exact the Practice as a profitable duty yea so profitable that the omission was Sin Implications and remote deductions were never before thought sufficient Mediums for the superstructing of an Article of Faith and an Essential to Salvation Eckius (a) Enchir. de ven Sanct. c. 15. sub finem hath freely